GA is priceless

[Gene Seibel]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> > The most important thing is to =stay= in the roundabout until you
> > =know=, with sufficient lead time, where you get out.
>
> No, the most important thing is for taxpayers (AKA: "Users") to lynch
> traffic "engineers" who insist on foisting such silliness as
> "roundabouts", "left turn only" arrows, and other "traffic calming
> devices" on the rest of us.
>
> A couple of years ago, right here in Iowa City, a bunch of these
> so-called "engineers" installed (without warning or local input)
> "chicanes" on a straight length of residential street, in an effort to
> slow traffic. (Apparently one of the neighbors had repeatedly
> complained about speeders.)
>
Was down in southern Mexico last fall. Along the highways out into the
rural areas were small settlements of a few houses. In these areas
citizens get together and construct their own speed bumps. Did a great
job of speed control without a policeman in sight. Quite cost
effective. ;)
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Flying Machine - http://pad39a.com/gene/
Because we fly, we envy no one.

[bdl]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> These chicanes were asphalt blockades, essentially, put in every couple
> of hundred yards, forcing traffic to make a sharp swerve to the left or
> right, in an effort to slow people down.

I just purchased a newly built house, and while it was being finalized,
asked the builder why they made the road a one lane road right in front
of my house (not in front of the driveway portion, but the house
portion). His reply was the same, the city made him put it in to slow
traffic down the street. (This is in the middle of a long dead-end
street).

It give my house a nice sweeping curve for the front lawn, but I know
I'll be replacing mailboxes, when someone coming home late at night
doesnt decide to slow down and runs over my mailbox.

So far (7 months) no issues. But I know its only a matter of time.
The chicanes would have just been nuts though. I can imagine someone
plowing into one at high speed and that would be all she wrote.

Brian

[Larry Dighera]

On 3 Jan 2007 05:04:43 -0800, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in om>:

>> I used to play with the PC based flight simulator before taking lessons
>> and found it to be a very poor representation of the reality of flying.
>> There are far too many ways to fudge things in the simulator that just
>> don't work in real life.
>
>Doug, you need to come fly the Kiwi before you can make a blanket
>statement like that.

You're not a commercial pilot nor instrument rated, and you disagree
with one who holds an ATP? Please.

[...]

>
>The 747 pilot had similar remarks. The B-26 check-pilot before him
>pronounced it superior to the Link trainers that were used to train
>WWII pilots. The accolades continue to pile up.

Have you ever seen a Link Trainer
<http://www.starksravings.com/linktrainer/linktrainer.htm>? It's a
wholly mechanical device like a player piano or pinball machine. I
would hope 21st century technology would be superior.

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> You're not a commercial pilot nor instrument rated, and you disagree
> with one who holds an ATP? Please.

He has already had IR commercial pilots say the same thing after
trying the simulator, so his disagreement has a sound basis.

> Have you ever seen a Link Trainer
> <http://www.starksravings.com/linktrainer/linktrainer.htm>? It's a
> wholly mechanical device like a player piano or pinball machine. I
> would hope 21st century technology would be superior.

It is, more so than many people here seem to believe.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> Totally different. An ultralight is stick & rudder (real flying). A hang glider
> is controlled by wieght shifting.

Neither incorporates dual FMCs or autopilots, weather radar, or TCAS.

> Because I can!

It's not very realistic.

> Maybe the only noticable difference would be the fireball, torn metal,
> and a few dead bodies scattered around.

Or a flawless autoland and a taxi to the gate.

> Not at all. It's kind of a Zen thing with me. There's me, there's an opponent
> (sometimes several opponents), and everything else starts to disappear.

That doesn't sound very Zen. Sharks are like that, too.

> I'd bet that if you measured my heart rate and blood pressure in the heat of
> battle, it would be lower than normal.

Just like Hannibal Lecter.

> Sensations are a much larger factor in real flying that you seem to
> think.

I think they are being overrated here in order to rationalize the
claim that time in a real cockpit is a sine qua non of flying.

> But I will say that the most unreal, and annoying, thing about flying
> a computer sim is that I actually have to look at the screen to know
> what's going on.

Like flying on instruments, you mean?

> I can fly a real plane fairly accurately for maybe a half
> minute without looking at anything for attitude and position information.

I take it you don't fly IFR very much.

> After that, small errors in perception start to compound and then I'm in
> trouble without any references. But a half minute of flying by "feel" alone
> can be quite useful at times. I'd bet, though, that there a LOT of other
> pilots that can say the same thing.

Interesting, but I don't see any advantage to this.

> Now you've got me wondering what my current G tolerance is at age 50.

As I recall, G tolerance is not necessarily correlated with age.
Women are better at it, though.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[bdl]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> True, but for many types of aviation, this is irrelevant. Instrument
> flying doesn't require it; indeed, you're supposed to be _independent_
> of motion when flying on instruments (so to some extent a lack of
> motion can be useful).

Useful to keeping the dirty side down, but that just hilights one of
the ways simulation is different than real flying, right? The MSFS
simulation doesn't provide the (misleading) physical cues that ARE
there in instrument flight. The fluid in your ears isn't tumbling, you
instinctively "know" which side is right side up, etc.

I flew simulators from the very first sim on the Apple and pretty much
every version to MSFS 9 today. I new some of the developers from that
company (name escapes me) in hampaign that used to make the product
before MS bought them (An aside, one of my fraternity brothers had a
job in QA. His entire job was to slew to various airports and verify
that the radio frequencies worked at that location....) I'ts amazing
how much of the real world we've been able to compress into off the
shelf consumer class hardware.

I used to love it. I did the vatsim thing etc. I twondered how pilots
such as Kennedy could "lose it" on a night flight. I intellectually
knew about spatial disorientation, and that the cure was to just "be"
on the gagues. But it wasn't until I actually DID it, in a real
airplane, with real mass/inertia, real turbulence, etc, that I found
out it was nothing like my imagination or my experience in the sims.

I remember reading an article within the last couple of years on IMC
flying about a instructor and a student pilot with respect to control
forces. I believe it was called something like "the unseen hand of
god". it was a good article that mentioned the control forces we as
pilots will exert on control wheels simply by gripping the yoke too
hard. And we won't even REALIZE that we're putting those forces into
the system. The plane will feel like someone ELSE is flying it. I.e.,
the unseen hand of god.

The solution of course is to simply relax. But our eyes giving us
different cues than our bodies make that hard to do. We have instincts
built into us. Feeling like your falling (less than 1 g) causes you to
try to "hold on".

I've never been able to recreate that feeling in a sim. I have a hard
time recreating it in the airplane with a hood on. It's not the same
as being able to see the clouds whizzing past your windscreen.

The best I've been able to explain entering IMC is like when you first
dive into a pool. The world you were in changes. The rules of gravity
seem to change, your senses change, etc. It's funny, I find myself
holding my breath when I do it in my real airplane in real clouds.

As a computer engineer, I've often sketched out in my mind an add on to
MSFS or otherwise that would change the flight models to recreate that
"unseen hand of god". Something akin to random control inputs forcing
the pilot to concentrate and disregard his physical cues of sitting
straight and level.

I, like Jay, do not belittle your questions on the group. I don't
consider you to be a troll. Just someone that wants more information
about the real world of aviation. I do think its strange when you ask
questions, and when the answer doesn't seem orrespond to your simulated
worldview you seem to take issue with reality instead of the
simulation.

And while the whole "simming vs. reality" superiority argument is
subjective anyway, it is also simply silly. If you want to represent
yourself as an experienced pilot because you have thousands of hours on
simulated barons or boeing business jets, then great, have at it.

I'm going to be one of the rare ones on here and say DON'T go get a
real flight. I'm not sure how you'd react to an actual comparison.

Brian

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Nomen Nescio > posted:
>
> Falcon 4.0 Allied Force has a 716 page manual. There are some radar
> modes that I still haven't figured out a practical use for.
> It's no "load & play" game, for sure. You actually have to LEARN
> something and I think that's what puts a lot of people off.
>
I haven't looked into the status of this sim for quite some time. I knew
that it was being updated periodically by enthusiasts after Microprose
dumped it, but ISTR that there was some legal action that forced them to
abandon their work. Have things changed?

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> You don't really exist, pal. You are just a simulation of a human being.

And here you are, talking to me. Hmm.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

bdl writes:

> Useful to keeping the dirty side down, but that just hilights one of
> the ways simulation is different than real flying, right?

It is one way in which some simulations are different. But this
difference can be good rather than bad, if you are trying to learn
instrument flight.

> I used to love it. I did the vatsim thing etc. I twondered how pilots
> such as Kennedy could "lose it" on a night flight. I intellectually
> knew about spatial disorientation, and that the cure was to just "be"
> on the gagues. But it wasn't until I actually DID it, in a real
> airplane, with real mass/inertia, real turbulence, etc, that I found
> out it was nothing like my imagination or my experience in the sims.

We all have our personalities to deal with. But we don't all react in
the same ways.

> As a computer engineer, I've often sketched out in my mind an add on to
> MSFS or otherwise that would change the flight models to recreate that
> "unseen hand of god". Something akin to random control inputs forcing
> the pilot to concentrate and disregard his physical cues of sitting
> straight and level.

But that would not be like real life. If a pilot is unconsciously
moving the controls, he'll do that on the sim, too.

> I do think its strange when you ask
> questions, and when the answer doesn't seem orrespond to your simulated
> worldview you seem to take issue with reality instead of the
> simulation.

I've been burned innumerable times throughout my life by posturing
airheads who claimed to be experts but weren't. I don't make that
mistake any more. Trust, but verify, as a politician once said. Or
better still, don't trust at all.

And one way to find out if someone is blowing smoke or actually knows
what he is talking about is to ask more questions.

> And while the whole "simming vs. reality" superiority argument is
> subjective anyway, it is also simply silly. If you want to represent
> yourself as an experienced pilot because you have thousands of hours on
> simulated barons or boeing business jets, then great, have at it.

I don't think it's in the thousands, but I'm not sure.

> I'm going to be one of the rare ones on here and say DON'T go get a
> real flight. I'm not sure how you'd react to an actual comparison.

There's a good chance that I wouldn't like the real thing.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Blueskies]

"bdl" > wrote in message :

....
: As a computer engineer, I've often sketched out in my mind an add on to
: MSFS or otherwise that would change the flight models to recreate that
: "unseen hand of god". Something akin to random control inputs forcing
: the pilot to concentrate and disregard his physical cues of sitting
: straight and level.
:

Some sort of flashing light thing off in your peripheral vision, moving up and down slowly and out of phase with
simulated aircraft orientation. Maybe not a flashing light, just varying in intensity, maybe like one of those old
special effects you would see on the Twilight Zone, with the spiral line slowly turning....

[Frank....H]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>> The most important thing is to =stay= in the roundabout until you
>> =know=, with sufficient lead time, where you get out.
>
> No, the most important thing is for taxpayers (AKA: "Users") to lynch
> traffic "engineers" who insist on foisting such silliness as
> "roundabouts", "left turn only" arrows, and other "traffic calming
> devices" on the rest of us.
>
<snip>

Don't knock the roundabouts just because Americans haven't figured out how
to use them. They are much more efficient for intersections where the
probability of traffic entering/leaving the intersection in any direction
is about equal. Since we don't actually stop at 4 way stops anyway this is
a much better system.....if we learn how to use it. Without the education
part we loose the benefit.

As to lynching traffic engineers....First in line are the ones who have
forgotten about flashing yellows. I pass two intersections regularly where
they had to put up traffic lights for the rush (half) hour but never revert
to flashing yellow. Now instead of some people occasionally waiting during
the day _everybody_ waits most of the time.

--
Frank....H

[bdl]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> It is one way in which some simulations are different. But this
> difference can be good rather than bad, if you are trying to learn
> instrument flight.

Since you've never learned instrument flight (i.e. flown in real-world
IMC) how would you know? I would agree with you that it's easier on
the sim. It's still demonstrates a flaw in the simulation.

> > But it wasn't until I actually DID it, in a real
> > airplane, with real mass/inertia, real turbulence, etc, that I found
> > out it was nothing like my imagination or my experience in the sims.
>
> We all have our personalities to deal with. But we don't all react in
> the same ways.

Rather an obtuse statement. So? You don't know how you will react
until you've done it.

> But that would not be like real life. If a pilot is unconsciously
> moving the controls, he'll do that on the sim, too.

No he won't in the non full-motion sim, because he won't have that
"motion" that induces him to move the controls. As one example, the
feeling of falling backwards when leveling off from a climb. The sim
pilot is in steady one-G all the time.

> I've been burned innumerable times throughout my life by posturing
> airheads who claimed to be experts but weren't. I don't make that
> mistake any more. Trust, but verify, as a politician once said. Or
> better still, don't trust at all.

I'm fine with trust but verify, but don't use evidence of how the sim
works as evidence of how the real world works.

> > And while the whole "simming vs. reality" superiority argument is
> > subjective anyway, it is also simply silly. If you want to represent
> > yourself as an experienced pilot because you have thousands of hours on
> > simulated barons or boeing business jets, then great, have at it.
>
> I don't think it's in the thousands, but I'm not sure.

It doesn't matter if its 1 or 1000.

[bdl]

Blueskies wrote:
> "bdl" > wrote in message :

>
> Some sort of flashing light thing off in your peripheral vision, moving up and down slowly and out of phase with
> simulated aircraft orientation. Maybe not a flashing light, just varying in intensity, maybe like one of those old
> special effects you would see on the Twilight Zone, with the spiral line slowly turning....

I was thinking something more in line with random movements that had to
be corrected by the pilot. Very minor movements, but ones that would
force some concentration and cross-check. With head tracking software
you could randomly put the plane into small turns whenever the user
looks away from the 6-pack... Along with turbulence settings that
accelerate the deviations...

In reality though who would care? It still woulnd't be full motion and
it still wouldnt be reasonable simulation of the real environment. I'd
rather spend the time flying :-)

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:13:21 -0600, "Frank....H" > wrote in
>:

>
>Don't knock the roundabouts just because Americans haven't figured out how
>to use them.

Exactly. They're de rigueur in Europe, and I found the prospect of a
same-direction collision infinitely preferable to being broadsided at
right angles. But Mr. Honeck wouldn't know about that. :-)

>As to lynching traffic engineers....First in line are the ones who have
>forgotten about flashing yellows. I pass two intersections regularly where
>they had to put up traffic lights for the rush (half) hour but never revert
>to flashing yellow. Now instead of some people occasionally waiting during
>the day _everybody_ waits most of the time.

And those who don't, contribute to the revenue stream created by
infraction citations. Follow the money ...

[Mxsmanic]

bdl writes:

> Since you've never learned instrument flight (i.e. flown in real-world
> IMC) how would you know?

Correction: I have learned instrument flight. It is true that I have
not flown in real-world IMC.

> Rather an obtuse statement. So?

So it may not be accurate or appropriate to assume that others will
react as you have or would.

> You don't know how you will react until you've done it.

I don't know for sure, but I do have a pretty good idea.

> No he won't in the non full-motion sim, because he won't have that
> "motion" that induces him to move the controls.

He'll still have the force of habit.

> I'm fine with trust but verify, but don't use evidence of how the sim
> works as evidence of how the real world works.

Why not? The sim is designed to mimic real life, and very often the
way the sim works is also the way the real world works.

> It doesn't matter if its 1 or 1000.

It matters quite a bit.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Montblack]

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
> Strangely, no one has blamed the failed Bush Administration, or the war
> in Iraq, for ANYTHING...yet.


That's because they're this:

------> <-------

Self canceling.

Symbiotic:
2. Psychiatry. a relationship between two people in which each person is
dependent upon and receives reinforcement, whether beneficial or
detrimental, from the other.

> It'll come...it *always* comes...

'07 ....D+2 <g>


Montblack-hawk-down ...(again)

[john smith]

bdl wrote:

>Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>
>But that would not be like real life. If a pilot is unconsciously
>moving the controls, he'll do that on the sim, too.
>
>
>
>No he won't in the non full-motion sim, because he won't have that
>"motion" that induces him to move the controls. As one example, the
>feeling of falling backwards when leveling off from a climb. The sim
>pilot is in steady one-G all the time.
>
>

I have been waiting for this opportunity!

You don't get "the leans" sitting in a chair playing MSFS!

[Jay Honeck]

> As to lynching traffic engineers....First in line are the ones who have
> forgotten about flashing yellows.

Amen. Our entire downtown area should be flashing yellow after 9 PM.

But I still think the new multitude of left-turn-only arrows are the
ultimate gas/time waster, at least around here. Apparently some
traffic engineer decided that we, as drivers, were no longer competent
at judging speed/time/distance in our heads, and thus could no longer
be trusted to safely turn left when the light is green.

So, every night, on my way home from the hotel, I sit at a stoplight
waiting for my little left turn arrow, while the light is green and
there is NO traffic coming toward me. The wait can be over a minute,
which doesn't sound like much -- but if you multiply the amount of
gas/time I've wasted there over the last four years, and then multiply
THAT times the number of other drivers that turn left at that
intersection, I'll bet we have wasted enough $$$ to keep the Iowa City
Airport funded for a year...

:-(
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[john smith]

Frank....H wrote:

>Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>
>
>>>The most important thing is to =stay= in the roundabout until you
>>>=know=, with sufficient lead time, where you get out.
>>>
>>>
>>No, the most important thing is for taxpayers (AKA: "Users") to lynch
>>traffic "engineers" who insist on foisting such silliness as
>>"roundabouts", "left turn only" arrows, and other "traffic calming
>>devices" on the rest of us.
>>
>>
>>
><snip>
>
>Don't knock the roundabouts just because Americans haven't figured out how
>to use them. They are much more efficient for intersections where the
>probability of traffic entering/leaving the intersection in any direction
>is about equal. Since we don't actually stop at 4 way stops anyway this is
>a much better system.....if we learn how to use it. Without the education
>part we loose the benefit.
>
>As to lynching traffic engineers....First in line are the ones who have
>forgotten about flashing yellows. I pass two intersections regularly where
>they had to put up traffic lights for the rush (half) hour but never revert
>to flashing yellow. Now instead of some people occasionally waiting during
>the day _everybody_ waits most of the time.
>

How to drive roundabouts... US style

http://www.dublin.oh.us/video/roundabout.php

[Jay Honeck]

> How to drive roundabouts... US style
>
> http://www.dublin.oh.us/video/roundabout.php

Phooey. That video doesn't show anything about how folks actually
drive in roundabouts.

It helps if you're in a Mustang Cobra convertible with Steppenwolf
cranked up high on a hot summer night -- but this maneuver can be done
at any time, in any vehicle. Approach the roundabout at as high (or
higher) a rate of speed as you may feel comfortable with -- but
certainly nothing less than 40 mph.

As you approach the roundabout, aim for the very center of the circular
(usually grassy) median. At the last possible moment, swerve hard
right to avoid hitting the curb. Again, it really helps if you're in a
low-slung sports car with sticky tires on dry pavement -- but I've seen
this done in all manner of vehicles.

Slew around to the right, and then sling the wheel back hard to the
left, so as to not hit the opposite curb. You are now in a 2-G left
turn, so downshift and punch the throttle to allow the rear end to
break loose, putting your vehicle in a perfect power slide around the
roundabout. If you're really good, you can go almost all the way
around the roundabout in this manner.

This is great fun, and can be repeated daily. This maneuver worked
well with the chicanes, too.

"Safer". Bah.

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Larry Dighera]

On 3 Jan 2007 16:39:00 -0800, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in om>:

>Apparently some traffic engineer decided that we, as drivers, were no
>longer competent at judging speed/time/distance in our heads, and thus
>could no longer be trusted to safely turn left when the light is green.

It was probably instigated by the insurance companies.

However, with the overly generous licensing procedures in place in
California, many licensed drivers may indeed not be capable of proper
judgment.

We can't abandon the inept; we've got to invent ways to bring them up
to speed, or face a revolt, IMO. I heard somewhere that about 25% of
drivers in Los Angeles aren't licensed as it is.

[Jay Honeck]

> We can't abandon the inept; we've got to invent ways to bring them up
> to speed, or face a revolt, IMO. I heard somewhere that about 25% of
> drivers in Los Angeles aren't licensed as it is.

Hey -- this is happening in a state where the majority of
Medicare/MediCal health coverage is being spent on making hospital
payments for births to illegal aliens. Some $400 million in 2005
alone. (Child birth for non-citizens is 100% covered by tax-payer
money.)

Every member of my family that lived in California (and loved it, at
one time) has left it. That state is completely out of control.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> Let me see if I'm following you here, Jim.
>
> You're chiding *me* in a thread that *I* started for responding to a
> guy who responded to me?

Yep. Just say no to responding to the MX, in any situation. You have done
so in many other threads also, and have defended him as saying his questions
were "interesting," or something like that.

> Have you been taking Montblack's pain meds again?

Nope, but I wish I was. It might make this whole fiasco more tollerable.

I am figuring out who the worst examples are, as far as who tries to give
rational responses to HIM. The list is growing, and I hope I don't end up
putting you on the list. I really don't want to.

--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> So, every night, on my way home from the hotel, I sit at a stoplight
> waiting for my little left turn arrow, while the light is green and
> there is NO traffic coming toward me. The wait can be over a minute,
> which doesn't sound like much -- but if you multiply the amount of
> gas/time I've wasted there over the last four years, and then multiply
> THAT times the number of other drivers that turn left at that
> intersection, I'll bet we have wasted enough $$$ to keep the Iowa City
> Airport funded for a year...

The solution to that is to have a flashing red arrow. You can then turn
left after a safely stop.
--
Jim in NC

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 21:34:30 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote in >:

>The solution to that is to have a flashing red arrow. You can then turn
>left after a safely stop.


There are alternative solutions:


http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=884256599+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
21453. (a) A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone
shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering
the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none,
then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped
until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in
subdivision (b).
(b) Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, a
driver, after stopping as required by subdivision (a), facing a
steady circular red signal, may turn right, or turn left from a
one-way street onto a one-way street. A driver making that turn
shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an
adjacent crosswalk and to any vehicle that has approached or is
approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard to the
driver, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to that
vehicle until the driver can proceed with reasonable safety.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote

> There are alternative solutions:
>
>
> http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=884256599+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
> 21453. (a) A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone
> shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering
> the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none,
> then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped
> until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in
> subdivision (b).
> (b) Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, a
> driver, after stopping as required by subdivision (a), facing a
> steady circular red signal, may turn right, or turn left from a
> one-way street onto a one-way street. A driver making that turn
> shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an
> adjacent crosswalk and to any vehicle that has approached or is
> approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard to the
> driver, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to that
> vehicle until the driver can proceed with reasonable safety.

All that says is that you are allowed to do a left on red, if on a one way,
onto a one way. That isn't what Jay is talking about. He is talking about
turning across oncoming traffic, or lack there of, where with a solid Green
Yellow Red light, he could turn left while on Green, but now he has a solid
Red turn and can not turn.

A blinking Red would allow a left turn if traffic allows. It just takes one
more light in the stack, and the correct traffic control computer.
--
Jim in NC

[Montblack]

("Larry Dighera" wrote)
> There are alternative solutions:


Yes. Move to Minnesota and ride a motorcycle.

<http://www.dps.state.mn.us/mmsc/latest/MMSCHomeSecondary.asp?cid=5&mid=153>
(From the Minnesota Motorcycle Safety Center website)

3. Lisa Asks: Can Motorcyclists Go Through Red Lights?

I was told that if a motorcycle has a red light at a four way stop light,
and there is NO TRAFFIC, it is okay for the motorcyclist to proceed through
the light, regardless of direction, i.e. left turn, straight through the
intersection.
This can't be true, can it?!?

Dear Lisa,
It is only partially true. It's still illegal to blow off a red light, but
if a rider is ticketed for doing so, he or she may have a legal defense. See
below for the full text of the statute, passed in 2003:

<http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H3203.4&session=ls82>
Sec. 42. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 169.06, is amended by adding a
subdivision to read: Subd. 9.

[AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE RELATING TO UNCHANGING TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL.]

(a) A person operating a motorcycle who violates subdivision 4 by entering
or crossing an intersection controlled by a traffic-control signal against a
red light has an affirmative defense to that charge if the person
establishes all of the following conditions:
(1) the motorcycle has been brought to a complete stop;

(2) the traffic-control signal continues to show a red light for an
unreasonable time;

(3) the traffic-control signal is apparently malfunctioning or, if
programmed or engineered to change to a green light only after detecting the
approach of a motor vehicle, the signal has apparently failed to detect the
arrival of the motorcycle; and

(4) no motor vehicle or person is approaching on the street or highway to be
crossed or entered or is so far away from the intersection that it does not
constitute an immediate hazard.

(b) The affirmative defense in this subdivision applies only to a violation
for entering or crossing an intersection controlled by a traffic-control
signal against a red light and does not provide a defense to any other civil
or criminal action.


Montblack-leather-jacket

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Correction: I have learned instrument flight. It is true that I have
> not flown in real-world IMC.

By no definition except your own, which is utterly irrelevant, have you
learned instrument flight. Notice that last little word, "flight".
Learning instrument flight involves FLYING. You haven't. Period.

Yes, I know there are sims that can be logged as flight time. They
involve elaborate certification to get that status. Most of that
certification makes sure the experience is similar enough to flying to
count. And no sensible person would say that you can learn instrument
flight only on one of those sims. You don't even have access to one.

You haven't learned flight. Not any kind. It seems to be a problem for
you. Get over it.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[[email protected]]

Viperdoc wrote:
> at Waukesha (also not a great tourist attraction)
>

Hey I flew an Arrow there once to see a Maynard Ferguson concert at the
High School, in about 2002 or 2003.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> By no definition except your own, which is utterly irrelevant, have you
> learned instrument flight.

I've learned it a lot better than many non-IR pilots.

> Notice that last little word, "flight".
> Learning instrument flight involves FLYING. You haven't. Period.

I've simulated, which is good enough.

> Yes, I know there are sims that can be logged as flight time. They
> involve elaborate certification to get that status.

Yes, and ironically they aren't always very realistic. Just
certified.

> Most of that certification makes sure the experience is similar
> enough to flying to count.

No, it doesn't. It makes sure that certain details match reality,
while ignoring the rest. The simulation may be highly unrealistic
overall.

And sometimes an absence of certification simply means that nobody was
willing to jump through the hoops necessary to obtain it.

> And no sensible person would say that you can learn instrument
> flight only on one of those sims.

Why not?

> You don't even have access to one.

Where did I describe my access?

> You haven't learned flight. Not any kind. It seems to be a problem for
> you. Get over it.

I'm not the one who seems to be emotional about it. It's not a
problem for me. I know what I've learned, and it is considerable.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> I've learned it a lot better than many non-IR pilots.

Even if that were true (you're conveniently forgetting the requirement for
basic instrument instruction in the PPL, which you have not gone through and
which is the very foundation of any "instrument flight"), what's the
relevance with regard to your statement that you "have learned instrument
flight"? You still haven't.

>
> > Notice that last little word, "flight".
> > Learning instrument flight involves FLYING. You haven't. Period.
>
> I've simulated, which is good enough.

It's not good enough by anybody's standards except your own. So it is not
good enough by a long shot. The authorities, not you, make the rules
regarding what constitutes "instrument flight" (your choice of words, not
mine, so you're going to be held by it).

> Yes, and ironically they aren't always very realistic. Just
> certified.

How would you know? Have you used them? And even if you did, how would you
know how realistic they are? And it doesn't matter anyway, since, as I said
above, YOU are not the one deciding what is "instrument flight".

> > And no sensible person would say that you can learn instrument
> > flight only on one of those sims.
>
> Why not?

Because. It's the way certification of instrument rated pilots works. A
simple matter of definition.

> I'm not the one who seems to be emotional about it. It's not a
> problem for me. I know what I've learned, and it is considerable.

Why are you making life so hard for yourself and your fellow humans? Are you
really that incapable of normal human-to-human interaction?

Of course you have learned a considerable amount about flying. Nobody in
their right mind on this group has ever doubted that, not even those that
have attacked you. You know way more than the average layman, and in some
areas you know more than some pilots. The effort you have put into learning
this is admirable.

BUT the point is this: You have in no way and nowhere nearly the
qualification to say you have "learned instrument flight". There are strict
and clear definitions regarding what that statement means and what it
requires. You don't fulfil those requirements by a long shot. Many here do.
And you DO offend them by claiming you have the requirement without really
having it, because they have put a lot of effort and money into getting it -
and they are just as proud of their knowledge as you are. So why not show a
little respect? You'd be met with respect in turn. And you'd be telling the
truth about your qualifications instead of just making them up.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[bdl]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> I've learned it a lot better than many non-IR pilots.

How do you know?

>> Learning instrument flight involves FLYING. You haven't. Period.
>
> I've simulated, which is good enough.

How do you know? Plenty of people thought they knew it well enough in
the simulator.

Brian

[bdl]

john smith wrote:
> >No he won't in the non full-motion sim, because he won't have that
> >"motion" that induces him to move the controls. As one example, the
> >feeling of falling backwards when leveling off from a climb. The sim
> >pilot is in steady one-G all the time.
> >
> >
>
> I have been waiting for this opportunity!
>
> You don't get "the leans" sitting in a chair playing MSFS!

Exactly!

[Thomas Borchert]

Bdl,

> How do you know?
>

It's not about knowing. There's a clear definition of "instrument flight". What MX has done is not it.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Frank....H]

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:

<snip>

Remember speed bumps aren't meant to help car drivers,
> they're meant to help pedestrians as a defence _against_ ruthless
> drivers. Works. Incidentally the Dutch word is "drempel", reminiscent
> of the sound a car makes when driving over one.
>
> Regards
>

It took us a few days to realize they are called "Sleeping Policemen" in the
Bahamas. Every time we saw a warning sign we wondered if there was a donut
shop nearby....

--
Frank....H

[Frank....H]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>> As to lynching traffic engineers....First in line are the ones who have
>> forgotten about flashing yellows.
>

<snip>

> So, every night, on my way home from the hotel, I sit at a stoplight
> waiting for my little left turn arrow, while the light is green and
> there is NO traffic coming toward me. The wait can be over a minute,
> which doesn't sound like much -- but if you multiply the amount of
> gas/time I've wasted there over the last four years, and then multiply
> THAT times the number of other drivers that turn left at that
> intersection, I'll bet we have wasted enough $$$ to keep the Iowa City
> Airport funded for a year...

If it's a regular (round) green light can't you go when it's clear? Or
perhaps your complaint is actually about "straight arrows"? ;-)

--
Frank....H

[Jay Honeck]

> (b) Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, a
> driver, after stopping as required by subdivision (a), facing a
> steady circular red signal, may turn right, or turn left from a
> one-way street onto a one-way street.

When this law was introduced in Wisconsin, way back in the early 1980s,
I took advantage of it and turned left on red from a one-way street
onto another one-way street -- and was IMMEDIATELY pulled over and
ticketed.

My vociferous protestations that the turn was legal eventually led to a
shift supervisor coming to the scene, and verifying that I was, indeed,
correct. I had the pleasure of watching the cop tear up my ticket, and
apologize for inconveniencing me... ;-)

Unfortunately, this law won't help the new situation with the
ever-more-ubiquitous "left turn only" arrows.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> If it's a regular (round) green light can't you go when it's clear? Or
> perhaps your complaint is actually about "straight arrows"? ;-)

Nope. Through traffic has its own signal light. Left turners must
wait (interminably) for a dedicated green arrow -- even though there is
NO traffic coming at us.

It's absurd, and becoming ever-more-common here in Iowa.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Skylune]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
> > By no definition except your own, which is utterly irrelevant, have you
> > learned instrument flight.
>
> I've learned it a lot better than many non-IR pilots.
>
> > Notice that last little word, "flight".
> > Learning instrument flight involves FLYING. You haven't. Period.
>
> I've simulated, which is good enough.
>
> > Yes, I know there are sims that can be logged as flight time. They
> > involve elaborate certification to get that status.
>
> Yes, and ironically they aren't always very realistic. Just
> certified.
>
> > Most of that certification makes sure the experience is similar
> > enough to flying to count.
>
> No, it doesn't. It makes sure that certain details match reality,
> while ignoring the rest. The simulation may be highly unrealistic
> overall.
>
> And sometimes an absence of certification simply means that nobody was
> willing to jump through the hoops necessary to obtain it.
>
> > And no sensible person would say that you can learn instrument
> > flight only on one of those sims.
>
> Why not?
>
> > You don't even have access to one.
>
> Where did I describe my access?
>
> > You haven't learned flight. Not any kind. It seems to be a problem for
> > you. Get over it.
>
> I'm not the one who seems to be emotional about it. It's not a
> problem for me. I know what I've learned, and it is considerable.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

It is probably easier to fly a little spam can than the exercises you
describe flying different aircraft on the sim. As the AOPA likes to
say in their GA Serving (up) America website: anyone can do it and it
will save you alot of time in your travels. It is true that most
anyone that wants to can fly. Even convicted drug dealers are eligible
to obtain PPLs. See article below:

http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-26/1167846561143310.xml&storylist=alabamanews

[Jose[_1_]]

> If your
> computer is going to be non-deterministic, it cannot be an accurate
> simulation.

In Process Explorer (for Windows 98 - if you use XP it's built in) there
is an option to set the priority of a program to "real time". While
this is probably not sufficient for certification, it may address the issue.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Other things related to his presence generate disruptions to the group as
> well. Posts that discuss him that he didn't start nor directly involve him
> come to mind. One question is why someone would generate such reactions
> from others? I understand it as a typical response to an outsider whose
> primary objective is to provoke. One can witness such behavior in almost
> any social venue.

He doesn't start those posts. There is a "gang up" mentality in almost
all groups, this one included. Once started ("fairly" or not) it's hard
to stop. But that fact doesn't validate it.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> No, the most important thing is for taxpayers (AKA: "Users") to lynch
> traffic "engineers" who insist on foisting such silliness as
> "roundabouts", "left turn only" arrows, and other "traffic calming
> devices" on the rest of us.

Ok, I'll agree with that. You bring the torches, I'll bring the stakes.

This "roundabout" thing seems to come around every twenty years or so.
We replaced all the roundabouts in NY for safety reasons twenty years
ago. Now they are being installed for safety reasons.

> No, the most important thing is for taxpayers (AKA: "Users") to lynch
> traffic "engineers" who insist on foisting such silliness as
> "roundabouts", "left turn only" arrows, and other "traffic calming
> devices" on the rest of us.

As you can see even here, efforts to change behavior rarely work. I
wish people (elected and non) would learn this and just leave us alone!

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

>
> I have been waiting for this opportunity!
>
> You don't get "the leans" sitting in a chair playing MSFS!

However, you might try setting MSFS up on a rotating chair-desk combo,
and having a friend spin it slowly but at gently varying rates while you
sim in the dark.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Apparently some
> traffic engineer decided that we, as drivers, were no longer competent
> at judging speed/time/distance in our heads, and thus could no longer
> be trusted to safely turn left when the light is green.

Dunno about where you are, but around here, if both lights turned green,
nobody after the first car could turn left. There are just too many of
them coming the other way.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[BDS[_2_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. net...
> >
> > I have been waiting for this opportunity!
> >
> > You don't get "the leans" sitting in a chair playing MSFS!
>
> However, you might try setting MSFS up on a rotating chair-desk combo,
> and having a friend spin it slowly but at gently varying rates while you
> sim in the dark.

If you do that you may also want to keep some barf bags handy!

Back to the original topic of this thread for a moment and speaking to the
usefulness of GA - our company plane allows us to do things that would not
be practical without it. These days it is a major pain to take any
technical test equipment on the airlines, let alone a technical, sensitive,
and sometimes heavy product.

No problem, we just toss it in the back of our plane and head out. We have
gotten equipment sales because we were able to show up at a customer's plant
the same day and put a trial unit in place. We can also fly out to a
customer's plant on a moment's notice and on our own schedule. Our
competitors simply cannot do that.

We have also gotten sales because we could go out and pick up the customer
and bring him back to our plant for a demo. We paid for the purchase price
of our plane the first time we did this - it was a large sale that was going
to be given to the competition. The customer had already made up his mind
and didn't want to put in a 12 hr round trip drive just to see us, so he had
ruled us out. But, when we told him we could have him back at his desk by
early that afternoon he agreed to come up and we ended up with the sale.
There are many more stories like that.

BDS

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> ... you're conveniently forgetting the requirement for
> basic instrument instruction in the PPL, which you have not gone through and
> which is the very foundation of any "instrument flight" ...

I haven't forgotten it, I've just disregarded it, since if it had any
teeth, there wouldn't be so many non-IR pilots dying when they
encounter IMC.

> It's not good enough by anybody's standards except your own.

My own standards are the only ones that count. However, there are
others who have similar standards, including some real-world pilots.

> The authorities, not you, make the rules
> regarding what constitutes "instrument flight" (your choice of words, not
> mine, so you're going to be held by it).

You must be in Germany.

The authorities only make regulations and law, not reality. If you
are flying with only instruments, you are in instrument flight,
authorities or not.

> How would you know? Have you used them?

I've looked into them, but I've never used them ... mainly because
they are overpriced and underfeatured (thanks to the certification).

> And it doesn't matter anyway, since, as I said
> above, YOU are not the one deciding what is "instrument flight".

Instrument flight is pretty self-evident. If you are using
instruments alone, it's instrument flight.

> Because. It's the way certification of instrument rated pilots works. A
> simple matter of definition.

But that's not the same thing. Instrument _flight_ and instrument
_rating_ are not the same thing. The former is defined by the reality
of how you fly; the latter is a conceptual invention.

> Why are you making life so hard for yourself and your fellow humans?

I'm not.

> BUT the point is this: You have in no way and nowhere nearly the
> qualification to say you have "learned instrument flight".

Try me.

> There are strict and clear definitions regarding what that statement means
> and what it requires.

Those definitions are arbitrary and limited in scope. The reality of
instrument flight is otherwise, no matter what the "official"
definitions might say.

> You don't fulfil those requirements by a long shot. Many here do.

Very few here do.

> And you DO offend them by claiming you have the requirement without really
> having it ...

Offense cannot be given, only taken.

> ... because they have put a lot of effort and money into getting it -
> and they are just as proud of their knowledge as you are.

Pride goeth before a fall.

I am not proud of what I know, but I am not unwilling to state it,
either.

> So why not show a little respect?

I show respect where it is due, and even then only in extreme
moderation. People untroubled by pride do not need respect to stroke
their egos.

> You'd be met with respect in turn.

I don't need respect, and I don't care whether I get it or not.

> And you'd be telling the truth about your qualifications instead
> of just making them up.

I don't lie.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

bdl writes:

> How do you know? Plenty of people thought they knew it well enough in
> the simulator.

And?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Skylune writes:

> It is probably easier to fly a little spam can than the exercises you
> describe flying different aircraft on the sim.

I don't know. Flying a spam cam is different, at least in simulation,
but I wouldn't call it easier. It depends on what you're good at.

> It is true that most
> anyone that wants to can fly. Even convicted drug dealers are eligible
> to obtain PPLs.

As long as they are rich and in robust health.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jose > posted:

>> Other things related to his presence generate disruptions to the
>> group as well. Posts that discuss him that he didn't start nor
>> directly involve him come to mind. One question is why someone would
>> generate such reactions from others? I understand it as a typical
>> response to an outsider whose primary objective is to provoke. One
>> can witness such behavior in almost any social venue.
>
> He doesn't start those posts.
>
I do believe that the above "...he didn't start nor directly involve
him..." covers that. '-)

> There is a "gang up" mentality in
> almost all groups, this one included. Once started ("fairly" or not)
> it's hard to stop. But that fact doesn't validate it.
>
Just to be clear, I'm not justifying the behavior, merely noting that it
isn't at all unusual in human social interactions. One who chooses to
repeatedly exhibit behavior that elicits such responses is not that
dissimilar to someone who finds themselves in frequent bar fights; they
are not innocent victims of the abuse they receive.

Neil

[bdl]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> > How do you know? Plenty of people thought they knew it well enough in
> > the simulator.
>
> And?

And maybe you are wrong as well. Until you actually do "instrument
flight" in a real airplane with real clouds, you wouldn't know.

[Jose[_1_]]

> I don't understand how (normally) level headed folks can NOT get irked.

We can get irked, but we choose not to irk others with our irkedness.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> One who chooses to
> repeatedly exhibit behavior that elicits such responses is not that
> dissimilar to someone who finds themselves in frequent bar fights; they
> are not innocent victims of the abuse they receive.

Neither is the rest of the bar innocent.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> How? You're scared to get in a real plane.

In a full-motion simulator.

> I doubt you'd pass the psychological requirements.

I wasn't aware of any psychological requirements.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Doug Spencer]

On 4 Jan 2007 14:51:28 -0800
"bdl" > wrote:

>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > > How do you know? Plenty of people thought they knew it well enough in
> > > the simulator.
> >
> > And?
>
> And maybe you are wrong as well. Until you actually do "instrument
> flight" in a real airplane with real clouds, you wouldn't know.
>

When I was doing my initial training for my private, I was lucky enough
to have the opportunity to do a flight to 10,000 ft with a CFII during
minimum VFR (just over 3 miles visibility, unlimited ceiling)
conditions due to mist. With the slant to see the ground at nearly 2
miles up, we couldn't see anything around us and were effectively on an
IFR flight in contact with Center, though technically in VFR
conditions.

Even though we had completely smooth conditions at the time, there was
a world of difference in realizing your only way out of the white bubble
you are floating in is your instruments versus flying in similar
conditions in the simulator. Things like the vibration of the engine,
the forces the plane exerts in level and banking flight, and the
actuality of it cannot be fully replicated in a PC simulator. It was a
very eerie experience that would be good for VFR pilots to see for
themselves. The hood and the simulator don't replicate the experience
well at all.

After flying in near actual instrument conditions, it is easy to see
where a VFR pilot, even one with simulator experience but without real
world experience, could lose control of the plane in short order.
Continued VFR flight into instrument conditions is a top cause of
accidents according to the Nall report. Throw in some turbulence and
some distractions and you have a completely different experience from
the safety of a simulator.

Doug

--
For UNIX, Linux and security articles
visit http://SecurityBulletins.com/

[Mxsmanic]

bdl writes:

> And maybe you are wrong as well. Until you actually do "instrument
> flight" in a real airplane with real clouds, you wouldn't know.

Maybe. But I've always been quite good at evaluating myself.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Wolfgang Schwanke >
wrote:


> That shows that people in your area are not accustomed to speed bumps
> and view them as a "novelty". That is foremost a cultural problem. It
> doesn't show they're useless, because they work elsewhere. Over here
> they're installed in front of most schools and in many residential
> areas. It really does help to keep the traffic away or at least slow
> down, when signs alown won't do it because drivers choose to ignore
> them. So if they insist to speed out of neglect, they can be forced to
> slow down. Remember speed bumps aren't meant to help car drivers,
> they're meant to help pedestrians as a defence _against_ ruthless
> drivers. Works. Incidentally the Dutch word is "drempel", reminiscent
> of the sound a car makes when driving over one.
>
> Regards

All speedbumps do is create small zones of confusion wrt how fast a car
will go. Some cars will virtually stop while other can take the bump at
speed. In between the speedbumps drivers will still speed and may
actually go faster to make up time for being unnecessarily delays by
the useless speedbumps

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[bdl]

Doug Spencer wrote:
> After flying in near actual instrument conditions, it is easy to see
> where a VFR pilot, even one with simulator experience but without real
> world experience, could lose control of the plane in short order.
> Continued VFR flight into instrument conditions is a top cause of
> accidents according to the Nall report. Throw in some turbulence and
> some distractions and you have a completely different experience from
> the safety of a simulator.

Exactly my point Dough.

I had a similar flight for my night cross-country when doing my PPL
(moderate turbulence below 12000, strong winds, snow(!) and of course
night).

I could see lights below but because of the extreme sideways ground
track due to the winds It was all i could do to keep the plane level.
I kept wanting to turn it so that the pretty lights below me were
traveling in the "right" direction.

[bdl]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> bdl writes:
>
> > And maybe you are wrong as well. Until you actually do "instrument
> > flight" in a real airplane with real clouds, you wouldn't know.
>
> Maybe. But I've always been quite good at evaluating myself.

Not having any instrument flight experience you are not qualified to
evaluate your instrument flying ability.

Just like I'm not qualified to judge my aerobatic ability by being able
to loop the 747 in MSFS.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

Finally, a very revealing post that explains you quite nicely. We've gotten to
the bottom of the matter.

> My own standards are the only ones that count.

In that case, any discussion is moot. Among other problems, you suffer from
delusions of grandeur.

> Pride goeth before a fall.

In case you didn't notice: you fell.

> I don't lie.

You're a top notch liar about your qualifications. You're an imposter. You lie.
Openly and unabashedly. And you obviously don't like to be caught.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> I wasn't aware of any psychological requirements.
>

Figures.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

bdl writes:

> Not having any instrument flight experience you are not qualified to
> evaluate your instrument flying ability.

I am qualified to evaluate my ability to handle activities of this
type without prior experience, however.

The tacit assumption in your post seems to be that everyone is bad at
instrument flight by default, and can only become good by doing it in
an actual aircraft. I'm not convinced that this is true. Some people
are able to fly an aircraft competently under VFR with no prior
instruction; they simply happen to be good at that sort of thing. The
same may also apply for IFR.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[bdl]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> bdl writes:
>
> > Not having any instrument flight experience you are not qualified to
> > evaluate your instrument flying ability.
>
> I am qualified to evaluate my ability to handle activities of this
> type without prior experience, however.

Which activities would these be?

> The tacit assumption in your post seems to be that everyone is bad at
> instrument flight by default, and can only become good by doing it in
> an actual aircraft. I'm not convinced that this is true. Some people
> are able to fly an aircraft competently under VFR with no prior
> instruction; they simply happen to be good at that sort of thing. The
> same may also apply for IFR.

You don't sound to sure.

So your position is that there are people that are naturally good at
flying, and also naturally good at flying IFR, and that you are one of
these enlightened souls because you've got so many hours in a simulator
in IFR conditions (albeit at a constant 1-g) and that ability would
naturally translate to a real aircraft in real IMC.

Oh wait, you did crack up one of your simulated aircraft didn't you.
That CFIT you mentioned.

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> Flying an aircraft level can be done by a 5 year old after 5 minutes
> instruction. Take off, landing, and many of the things in between have
> to be learnt.

Some people get it right the first time.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

bdl writes:

> Which activities would these be?

Activities that involve primarily mental tasks, such as reading
instruments, assessing the information gained therefrom, and deciding
upon an appropriate course of action.

> You don't sound to sure.

I'm not sure.

> So your position is that there are people that are naturally good at
> flying, and also naturally good at flying IFR ...

Yes.

> ... and that you are one of these enlightened souls because you've
> got so many hours in a simulator in IFR conditions ...

I don't know if I'd be good at flying from a physical standpoint. I
tend to be uncoordinated at first compared to others, but I learn and
improve until I'm often better than average, although it's a long
process. I'm good at being precise rather than quick.

As for instrument flight, I'm pretty sure I'd be good at that. It's
the type of task that I generally do well.

> ... (albeit at a constant 1-g) and that ability would
> naturally translate to a real aircraft in real IMC.

For instrument flight, yes. For visual flight, less so, although it
still would be significant.

> Oh wait, you did crack up one of your simulated aircraft didn't you.
> That CFIT you mentioned.

I haven't had a crash in quite a while. In general, though, if I
crash, it is from an overambitious attempt to land--what pilots call
getthereitis. In real life, I am vastly more prudent.

My most recent crashes have been due to extremely bad weather--weather
I'd never attempt to fly in in real life. On some occasions, I've
been lifted 20 feet while 10 feet above the runway, and then slammed
back down. I don't see how any pilot could land in conditions like
that.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[bdl]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> I don't know if I'd be good at flying from a physical standpoint. I
> tend to be uncoordinated at first compared to others, but I learn and
> improve until I'm often better than average, although it's a long
> process. I'm good at being precise rather than quick.

IFR flying is a very physical process. It requires you to disregard
your senses. Something that is not able to be simulated in your chair
at your computer. This has been my point all along.

[Mxsmanic]

bdl writes:

> IFR flying is a very physical process. It requires you to disregard
> your senses.

These two statements conflict.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Bdl,

> It requires you to disregard
> your senses. Something that is not able to be simulated in your chair
> at your computer. This has been my point all along.
>

It also requires to be quick, not precise, quite often.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> It also requires to be quick, not precise, quite often.

If you have to depend on the speed of your reflexes, you've already
made a mistake.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> If you have to depend on the speed of your reflexes, you've already
> made a mistake.
>

How would you know?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[bdl]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> bdl writes:
>
> > IFR flying is a very physical process. It requires you to disregard
> > your senses.
>
> These two statements conflict.
>

Physically draining... That better? If I could put myself in a little
1-G bubble inside the cockpit, IFR flying would be a piece of cake.
See the attitude indicator? Keep it right side up.. (Except when it
fails).

[Mxsmanic]

bdl writes:

> Physically draining... That better?

I guess so. Although I should think that IFR would be mentally
draining, rather than physically training. Of course, having to think
carefully for a few hours or risk hitting a mountainside can have side
effects that produce considerable fatigue over time.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> bdl writes:
>
>> Physically draining... That better?
>
> I guess so. Although I should think that IFR would be mentally
> draining, rather than physically training. Of course, having to think
> carefully for a few hours or risk hitting a mountainside can have side
> effects that produce considerable fatigue over time.
>
Those are the least of one's concerns in IMC/IFR. Look up MEA to know why.

Neil

[Roger[_4_]]

On 6 Jan 2007 12:06:57 -0800, "bdl" > wrote:

>
>Mxsmanic wrote:
>> bdl writes:
>>
>> > IFR flying is a very physical process. It requires you to disregard
>> > your senses.
>>
>> These two statements conflict.

They are both true and they do conflict which is what makes instrument
flying a challenge. <:-))

>>
>
>Physically draining... That better? If I could put myself in a little

Don't forget, mentally draining as well. Mental overload is quite
common for instrument students and for those of us with a good many
hours a good, seasoned, sadistic, CFII can prove we too are not
immune. <:-))

>1-G bubble inside the cockpit, IFR flying would be a piece of cake.
>See the attitude indicator? Keep it right side up.. (Except when it
>fails).
Ain't nothing like trying to fly the airplane when you have a case of
spatial disorientation so bad you have to point at the instruments to
do your scan and it's so rough you keep missing your target. With your
thought processes so screwed up you then have to stop and try,
(unsuccessfully) to remember which instrument you were after and you
can't tell up from down. Of course all of this is while you are the
most nauseated you can ever remember and feel the need to tie the
"lunch bag" around your neck (just in case)<:-))
Not that I've ever been there.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com