Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC

[Mxsmanic]

I fly from KLAX to KLAS, using the FMC to handle most of the flight.
With the routing I put in, the FMC decides on some default altitudes
and includes required altitudes for the arrival and departure
procedures I select. Part of what it does is to create a descent
schedule from the nominal cruise altitude to the arrival procedure.

So I leave KLAX and my last explicit instruction from ATC is "climb
and maintain FL290," which is my programmed and filed cruise altitude.
Now, my question is this: If the FMC has a programmed descent in its
route, do I let the FMC start the descent where it sees fit, or do I
force the aircraft to maintain FL290 until ATC explicitly clears me
for my own navigation or for a lower altitude? And if ATC's last
instruction had simply been "resume own navigation" or "proceed as
filed," would that mean that I'd be free to begin the descent whenever
the FMC (or I) decides it's best?

In situations where I can begin the descent at my discretion (assuming
that own navigation implies this), should I tell ATC that I'm leaving
my cruise altitude? If the FMC has a continuously changing estimate
of lower altitudes in the descent profile, what should I give as my
target altitude? The next fix that has a specific altitude? (Such as
a fix in the arrival procedure)

Climbing I think I understand. If I'm told to resume own navigation,
or cleared as filed in the first place, I climb per my flight plan/FMC
profile. If ATC says maintain X, I stay at X until ATC tells me to
resume own navigation or instructs me to change altitudes. But the
descent part still has me a bit confused.

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

[John Theune]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> I fly from KLAX to KLAS, using the FMC to handle most of the flight.
> With the routing I put in, the FMC decides on some default altitudes
> and includes required altitudes for the arrival and departure
> procedures I select. Part of what it does is to create a descent
> schedule from the nominal cruise altitude to the arrival procedure.
>
> So I leave KLAX and my last explicit instruction from ATC is "climb
> and maintain FL290," which is my programmed and filed cruise altitude.
> Now, my question is this: If the FMC has a programmed descent in its
> route, do I let the FMC start the descent where it sees fit, or do I
> force the aircraft to maintain FL290 until ATC explicitly clears me
> for my own navigation or for a lower altitude? And if ATC's last
> instruction had simply been "resume own navigation" or "proceed as
> filed," would that mean that I'd be free to begin the descent whenever
> the FMC (or I) decides it's best?
>
> In situations where I can begin the descent at my discretion (assuming
> that own navigation implies this), should I tell ATC that I'm leaving
> my cruise altitude? If the FMC has a continuously changing estimate
> of lower altitudes in the descent profile, what should I give as my
> target altitude? The next fix that has a specific altitude? (Such as
> a fix in the arrival procedure)
>
> Climbing I think I understand. If I'm told to resume own navigation,
> or cleared as filed in the first place, I climb per my flight plan/FMC
> profile. If ATC says maintain X, I stay at X until ATC tells me to
> resume own navigation or instructs me to change altitudes. But the
> descent part still has me a bit confused.
>
Are you flying IFR? if so then ATC will tell you what altitude to be at.
Resume own navigation refers to routing not altitude. VFR is a
different set of rules.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 15:35:41 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>I fly [MS FlightSimulator] from KLAX to KLAS, using the FMC to handle most of the flight.
>With the routing I put in, the FMC decides on some default altitudes
>and includes required altitudes for the arrival and departure
>procedures I select. Part of what it does is to create a descent
>schedule from the nominal cruise altitude to the arrival procedure.
>
>So I leave KLAX and my last explicit instruction from ATC is "climb
>and maintain FL290," which is my programmed and filed cruise altitude.
>Now, my question is this: If the FMC has a programmed descent in its
>route, do I let the FMC start the descent where it sees fit, or do I
>force the aircraft to maintain FL290 until ATC explicitly clears me
>for my own navigation or for a lower altitude?

Above 18,000' is Class A airspace. It's also called positive control
airspace; you won't get a "resume own navigation" instruction in Class
A airspace.

You can request lower from ATC, but until you are given a new
altitude, you must maintain that for which you are cleared.

>And if ATC's last
>instruction had simply been "resume own navigation" or "proceed as
>filed," would that mean that I'd be free to begin the descent whenever
>the FMC (or I) decides it's best?

No.

Consider reading the appropriate Aeronautical Information Manual
sections <http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/>, so that you don't pose such
obviously ignorant questions to three newsgroups.

[mad8]

i wonder if his simulator's ATC tells him to hang himself he will? (one
can only hope)
John Theune wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > I fly from KLAX to KLAS, using the FMC to handle most of the flight.
> > With the routing I put in, the FMC decides on some default altitudes
> > and includes required altitudes for the arrival and departure
> > procedures I select. Part of what it does is to create a descent
> > schedule from the nominal cruise altitude to the arrival procedure.
> >
> > So I leave KLAX and my last explicit instruction from ATC is "climb
> > and maintain FL290," which is my programmed and filed cruise altitude.
> > Now, my question is this: If the FMC has a programmed descent in its
> > route, do I let the FMC start the descent where it sees fit, or do I
> > force the aircraft to maintain FL290 until ATC explicitly clears me
> > for my own navigation or for a lower altitude? And if ATC's last
> > instruction had simply been "resume own navigation" or "proceed as
> > filed," would that mean that I'd be free to begin the descent whenever
> > the FMC (or I) decides it's best?
> >
> > In situations where I can begin the descent at my discretion (assuming
> > that own navigation implies this), should I tell ATC that I'm leaving
> > my cruise altitude? If the FMC has a continuously changing estimate
> > of lower altitudes in the descent profile, what should I give as my
> > target altitude? The next fix that has a specific altitude? (Such as
> > a fix in the arrival procedure)
> >
> > Climbing I think I understand. If I'm told to resume own navigation,
> > or cleared as filed in the first place, I climb per my flight plan/FMC
> > profile. If ATC says maintain X, I stay at X until ATC tells me to
> > resume own navigation or instructs me to change altitudes. But the
> > descent part still has me a bit confused.
> >
> Are you flying IFR? if so then ATC will tell you what altitude to be at.
> Resume own navigation refers to routing not altitude. VFR is a
> different set of rules.

[Mxsmanic]

John Theune writes:

> Are you flying IFR?

Yes. I've filed a SID, a route, and a STAR, and programmed this into
the FMC as well. The FMC apparently decides when to start the descent
from cruise (if you don't override it), presumably based on the
altitude restrictions it has to respect for the arrival procedure.

> if so then ATC will tell you what altitude to be at.
> Resume own navigation refers to routing not altitude.

Ah ... is there another phrase that also means altitude is at my
discretion, or is altitude always under the control of ATC? The fact
that the FMC provides for its own descent schedule implies that there
must be situations in IFR where I'm allowed to climb or descend at my
discretion (?).

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

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> Above 18,000' is Class A airspace. It's also called positive control
> airspace; you won't get a "resume own navigation" instruction in Class
> A airspace.
>
> You can request lower from ATC, but until you are given a new
> altitude, you must maintain that for which you are cleared.

OK. Does that apply to lateral navigation as well? Nobody seems to
object when I let the FMC follow the lateral course as filed (at least
during the en route phase of the flight).

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> I fly from KLAX to KLAS
>

No, you don't. For the sake of those reading here that haven't
discovered your background, please state clearly that you are playing
MS FS.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> The fact
> that the FMC provides for its own descent schedule implies that there
> must be situations in IFR where I'm allowed to climb or descend at my
> discretion
>

No. That fact implies that the simulation does not simulate real life
well in this respect. You wanted an example, you got one all by
yourself.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Nobody seems to
> object when I let the FMC follow the lateral course as filed
>

And who would, in a simulation? All the times I have played FS in a
multiplayer environment, the guys simulating ATC really had no clue at
all about how it is done in real life. They still made a big deal about
following the rules they themselves didn't understand, though.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[BDS[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 15:35:41 +0100, Mxsmanic >
> wrote in >:
>
> >I fly [MS FlightSimulator] from KLAX to KLAS, using the FMC to handle
most of the flight.

Good morning ladies and gentlemen and welcome to Imaginary Airlines. Sorry
for the delay in departure, but we had some technical difficulties with the
PC and had to reboot from a "blue screen of death". Everything is normal
now and we should be departing as soon as I give myself clearance and hit
the bathroom. Oops, wait a minute, I think I hear the telephone ringing...
Sorry again for the delay - that was my ex-girlfriend and the conversation
got a little terse. I also took the opportunity to make a sandwich and pop
open a brewski. On climbout be sure to look down and notice the beautiful
parquee floor below us. Those of you fortunate enough to be seated on the
right side of the room will have a fantastic view of the door to the bath
room. As long as the power stays on and this #$&@# windows PC behaves we
should be arriving on time. Thanks again for flying Imaginary Airlines, we
hope to see you back again soon...

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:47:14 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera writes:
>
>> Above 18,000' is Class A airspace. It's also called positive control
>> airspace; you won't get a "resume own navigation" instruction in Class
>> A airspace.
>>
>> You can request lower from ATC, but until you are given a new
>> altitude, you must maintain that for which you are cleared.
>
>OK. Does that apply to lateral navigation as well? Nobody seems to
>object when I let the FMC follow the lateral course as filed (at least
>during the en route phase of the flight).

Please consider doing your own research:

http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/PCG/
RESUME OWN NAVIGATION- Used by ATC to advise a pilot to resume
his/her own navigational responsibility. It is issued after
completion of a radar vector or when radar contact is lost while
the aircraft is being radar vectored.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>> if so then ATC will tell you what altitude to be at.
>> Resume own navigation refers to routing not altitude.
>
>Ah ... is there another phrase that also means altitude is at my
>discretion, or is altitude always under the control of ATC? The fact
>that the FMC provides for its own descent schedule implies that there
>must be situations in IFR where I'm allowed to climb or descend at my
>discretion (?).

If your FMC wants to descend, ask ATC for a descent. If you're going to
be descending with multiple segments of different descent rates, ask ATC
for "descent at pilots discretion".

Real world IFR flying is about coordinating your actions with those of all
the other planes out there, not flying along fat, dumb and happy doing
whatever you feel like. That's the whole point of ATC - to make sure you
don't hit what you can't see. ATC's second priority is to make sure the
system runs smoothly, so your actions don't interfere with somebody else
and somebody else's actions don't interfere with you.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"I love the smell of burning components in the morning.
Smells like victory." (The ******* Operator From Hell)

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> And who would, in a simulation?

Air traffic controllers.

> All the times I have played FS in a multiplayer environment, the guys
> simulating ATC really had no clue at all about how it is done in real
> life.

Did you give them the benefit of your superior knowledge? Which
networks did you use?

> They still made a big deal about following the rules they
> themselves didn't understand, though.

I hope you set them straight.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> >OK. Does that apply to lateral navigation as well? Nobody seems to
> >object when I let the FMC follow the lateral course as filed (at least
> >during the en route phase of the flight).
>
> Please consider doing your own research:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/PCG/
> RESUME OWN NAVIGATION- Used by ATC to advise a pilot to resume
> his/her own navigational responsibility. It is issued after
> completion of a radar vector or when radar contact is lost while
> the aircraft is being radar vectored.

I don't see an answer to my question in that paragraph.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> That fact implies that the simulation does not simulate real life
> well in this respect.

What part of the FMC or ATC simulation is incorrect?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Paul Tomblin writes:

> If your FMC wants to descend, ask ATC for a descent. If you're going to
> be descending with multiple segments of different descent rates, ask ATC
> for "descent at pilots discretion".

OK, thanks. Is that the procedure followed by pilots in the real
world as well?

> Real world IFR flying is about coordinating your actions with those of all
> the other planes out there, not flying along fat, dumb and happy doing
> whatever you feel like.

Yes. That's why I'm trying to find out what the rules are.

> That's the whole point of ATC - to make sure you
> don't hit what you can't see. ATC's second priority is to make sure the
> system runs smoothly, so your actions don't interfere with somebody else
> and somebody else's actions don't interfere with you.

Yes. I try to be cooperative with ATC.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> No, you don't.

I did so last night. Today, at least thus far, it was Chandler to
Sedona, and then back from Sedona to Phoenix.

> For the sake of those reading here that haven't
> discovered your background, please state clearly that you are playing
> MS FS.

Why? Most people don't have a phobia of simulation, and for things
like instrument flight and ATC, simulation isn't different enough from
real life to matter for most of the major concepts of both. In
domains where I suspect there may be a discrepancy, I ask for
clarification, which is why I'm here.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Why? Most people don't have a phobia of simulation, and for things
> like instrument flight and ATC, simulation isn't different enough from
> real life to matter for most of the major concepts of both.
>

Jeeze, not always the same again.

Your description of your "flight" would never, ever happen in the real
world (which, BTW, means that you statement about the differences
between sim and RL is complete, utter BS). Thus, if you really want
people to react in a sensible way, you need to provide the context,
which is simming. If you don't, people won't understand your post in the
least bit.

Since you have been made aware of this problem in your posts several
times, the only logical conclusion is that you are not interested in
sensible reactions. That's why people conclude you're a troll, not
someone asking for clarification.

--

Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> > And who would, in a simulation?
>
> Air traffic controllers.
>

Then that would be a very bad simulation. Ah, more and more differences
to real life...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Your description of your "flight" would never, ever happen in the real
> world (which, BTW, means that you statement about the differences
> between sim and RL is complete, utter BS).

Which aspect of the flight was unlike the real world?

As I recall, I started at gate 35 at KLAX, was cleared to KLAS with
LOOP4 DAG KEPEC1 at FL290, left on 24L (which is right behind the
gate), and proceeded more or less uneventually to KLAS, with a few
minor modifications to my route from ATC along the way. I did have to
fight with the autopilot and FMS on the way in to KLAS, but only
because I'm not that experienced with them yet. I'm getting better.
In particular, I'm slowly figuring out how to change things en route
so that I can adapt to instructions from ATC, instead of being
compelled to let the FMS fly the entire route as originally entered.
As I get used to it, I like the FMS more than I did at first.

> Thus, if you really want people to react in a sensible way, you need
> to provide the context, which is simming.

Which part of the above doesn't happen in real life?

> If you don't, people won't understand your post in the least bit.

They seem to have understood it without any difficulty.

> Since you have been made aware of this problem in your posts several
> times, the only logical conclusion is that you are not interested in
> sensible reactions.

No. Another, more probable possibility is that it's not a problem to
begin with, except in your own perception, which is not universal.

> That's why people conclude you're a troll, not someone asking
> for clarification.

Virtually no one has reached this conclusion, apart from a vocal
minority that finds me irritating. It's unfortunate that I end up
explaining this to that minority in almost every thread in which I
participate. If they would just stick to the topic, things would go
much better for all.

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

[Gary[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Which aspect of the flight was unlike the real world?

You never left the ground?

[Mxsmanic]

Gary writes:

> You never left the ground?

Is that good or bad? What does it have to do with ATC?

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

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>Paul Tomblin writes:
>
>> If your FMC wants to descend, ask ATC for a descent. If you're going to
>> be descending with multiple segments of different descent rates, ask ATC
>> for "descent at pilots discretion".
>
>OK, thanks. Is that the procedure followed by pilots in the real
>world as well?

I live and fly in the real world, so I can only talk about the real world.
My "real world" is part 91 IFR below the oxygen altitudes, however, so
some of what I say isn't applicablle to part 121 in class A airspace.

Another "trick" is to ask for a cruise clearance, which also allows you to
manage your own descent profile. However in my chunk of the real world,
I've never seen it used or needed it.

I fly with a Garmin 296 handheld GPS. In my experience, nearly always
just around the same time it says I need to start my descent if I want to
descend at 500fpm to my destination, ATC clears me down to a lower
altitude without being asked.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
A male pilot is a confused soul who talks about women when he's flying,
and about flying when he's with a woman.

[gpsman]

Mxsmanic wrote: <groups adjusted>
> Gary writes:
>
> > You never left the ground?
>
> Is that good or bad? What does it have to do with ATC?

Good, and nothing.
-----

- gpsman

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 18:09:26 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera writes:
>
>> >OK. Does that apply to lateral navigation as well? Nobody seems to
>> >object when I let the FMC follow the lateral course as filed (at least
>> >during the en route phase of the flight).
>>
>> Please consider doing your own research:
>>
>> http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/PCG/
>> RESUME OWN NAVIGATION- Used by ATC to advise a pilot to resume
>> his/her own navigational responsibility. It is issued after
>> completion of a radar vector or when radar contact is lost while
>> the aircraft is being radar vectored.
>
>I don't see an answer to my question in that paragraph.

I do.

[Mxsmanic]

Paul Tomblin writes:

> I fly with a Garmin 296 handheld GPS. In my experience, nearly always
> just around the same time it says I need to start my descent if I want to
> descend at 500fpm to my destination, ATC clears me down to a lower
> altitude without being asked.

I have noticed this as well. I suppose if they know the route well,
they know when the descent usually starts.

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

[Darkwing]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic,
>
>> > And who would, in a simulation?
>>
>> Air traffic controllers.
>>
>
> Then that would be a very bad simulation. Ah, more and more differences
> to real life...
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

Mxsmanic, Chief Pilot - Circle Jerk Airlines.

-------------------------------------
DW

[Darkwing]

"BDS" > wrote in message
et...
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 15:35:41 +0100, Mxsmanic >
>> wrote in >:
>>
>> >I fly [MS FlightSimulator] from KLAX to KLAS, using the FMC to handle
> most of the flight.
>
> Good morning ladies and gentlemen and welcome to Imaginary Airlines.
> Sorry
> for the delay in departure, but we had some technical difficulties with
> the
> PC and had to reboot from a "blue screen of death". Everything is normal
> now and we should be departing as soon as I give myself clearance and hit
> the bathroom. Oops, wait a minute, I think I hear the telephone
> ringing...
> Sorry again for the delay - that was my ex-girlfriend and the conversation
> got a little terse. I also took the opportunity to make a sandwich and
> pop
> open a brewski. On climbout be sure to look down and notice the beautiful
> parquee floor below us. Those of you fortunate enough to be seated on the
> right side of the room will have a fantastic view of the door to the bath
> room. As long as the power stays on and this #$&@# windows PC behaves we
> should be arriving on time. Thanks again for flying Imaginary Airlines,
> we
> hope to see you back again soon...
>
>

Seems about right to me.

----------------------------------------
DW

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>Paul Tomblin writes:
>> I fly with a Garmin 296 handheld GPS. In my experience, nearly always
>> just around the same time it says I need to start my descent if I want to
>> descend at 500fpm to my destination, ATC clears me down to a lower
>> altitude without being asked.
>
>I have noticed this as well. I suppose if they know the route well,
>they know when the descent usually starts.

Except they know where to start my descent whether I'm flying a 100 knot
Archer or a 140 knot Lance, or on one occasion, a Piper Dakota with a 70
knot tail wind.

I suspect there is software they use to handle this.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
#define sizeof(x) ((int)rand()*1024)

[Morgans[_2_]]

"John Theune" > wrote

> Are you flying IFR? if so then ATC will tell you what altitude to be at.
> Resume own navigation refers to routing not altitude. VFR is a different
> set of rules.

He is flying a simulator "game," so he isn't really flying anything, and has
no consequences to whatever he does.

Get it?
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote

> Mxsmanic, Chief Pilot - Circle Jerk Airlines.

He doesn't care about sex, remember?

Personally, I think he has had his balls chopped off.
--
Jim in NC

[Capt.Doug]

>"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
> Now, my question is this: If the FMC has a programmed descent in its
> route, do I let the FMC start the descent where it sees fit, or do I
> force the aircraft to maintain FL290 until ATC explicitly clears me
> for my own navigation or for a lower altitude?

The profile in the FMS is for efficiency and does not take other traffic
into account. You must wait until ATC explicitely clears you to another
altitude. If you are about to pass the FMS's descent point, politely prompt
ATC for a lower altitude. Going into LAS, you very well may get vectors off
the planned route so that ATC can adequately space the arrival traffic (in
the real world).

>And if ATC's last
> instruction had simply been "resume own navigation" or "proceed as
> filed," would that mean that I'd be free to begin the descent whenever
> the FMC (or I) decides it's best?

No. That would be for lateral navigation only unless explicitely cleared for
different altitudes. Here is an example that one of my colleagues recently
received counseling about. He was cleared via the KORRY 3 arrival into KLGA.
He started to descend according to the profile. ATC asked why he was
descending and to call a number after landing (not good). He was cleared via
the KORRY 3, not cleared to descend via the KORRY 3. Slight difference, but
very important for traffic seperation.

> In situations where I can begin the descent at my discretion (assuming
> that own navigation implies this), should I tell ATC that I'm leaving
> my cruise altitude?

Yes, the Aeronautical Information Manual states that a pilot should advise
when leaving an altitude.

> If the FMC has a continuously changing estimate
> of lower altitudes in the descent profile, what should I give as my
> target altitude? The next fix that has a specific altitude? (Such as
> a fix in the arrival procedure)

Yes.

> Climbing I think I understand. If I'm told to resume own navigation,
> or cleared as filed in the first place, I climb per my flight plan/FMC
> profile. If ATC says maintain X, I stay at X until ATC tells me to
> resume own navigation or instructs me to change altitudes. But the
> descent part still has me a bit confused.

Query ATC for the assigned altitude so that both of you are on the same
page. Climbs are the same as descents. 'resume own navigation' is for
lateral flight. Don't climb unless expicitely assigned a new altitude by
ATC.

D.

[Peter Dohm]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > Mxsmanic, Chief Pilot - Circle Jerk Airlines.
>
> He doesn't care about sex, remember?
>
> Personally, I think he has had his balls chopped off.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>
The following is pasted from Mxsmanic's initial post in this thread:

------pasted article begins-------

I fly from KLAX to KLAS, using the FMC to handle most of the flight.
With the routing I put in, the FMC decides on some default altitudes
and includes required altitudes for the arrival and departure
procedures I select. Part of what it does is to create a descent
schedule from the nominal cruise altitude to the arrival procedure.

So I leave KLAX and my last explicit instruction from ATC is "climb
and maintain FL290," which is my programmed and filed cruise altitude.
Now, my question is this: If the FMC has a programmed descent in its
route, do I let the FMC start the descent where it sees fit, or do I
force the aircraft to maintain FL290 until ATC explicitly clears me
for my own navigation or for a lower altitude? And if ATC's last
instruction had simply been "resume own navigation" or "proceed as
filed," would that mean that I'd be free to begin the descent whenever
the FMC (or I) decides it's best?

-------remainder snipped-------

There is obvious potential for enterainment in this simulation!

But there's more: when last we read, he was simulating a B58.
(No, not that one, the kind with two recips... )

Gotta' go ... I hear the beer calling from the fridge ...

Peter <bfg>

[Gus Cabre]

Just out of curiosity, what simulator are you using?

Gus
EGYC

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>I fly from KLAX to KLAS, using the FMC to handle most of the flight.
> With the routing I put in, the FMC decides on some default altitudes
> and includes required altitudes for the arrival and departure
> procedures I select. Part of what it does is to create a descent
> schedule from the nominal cruise altitude to the arrival procedure.
>
> So I leave KLAX and my last explicit instruction from ATC is "climb
> and maintain FL290," which is my programmed and filed cruise altitude.
> Now, my question is this: If the FMC has a programmed descent in its
> route, do I let the FMC start the descent where it sees fit, or do I
> force the aircraft to maintain FL290 until ATC explicitly clears me
> for my own navigation or for a lower altitude? And if ATC's last
> instruction had simply been "resume own navigation" or "proceed as
> filed," would that mean that I'd be free to begin the descent whenever
> the FMC (or I) decides it's best?
>
> In situations where I can begin the descent at my discretion (assuming
> that own navigation implies this), should I tell ATC that I'm leaving
> my cruise altitude? If the FMC has a continuously changing estimate
> of lower altitudes in the descent profile, what should I give as my
> target altitude? The next fix that has a specific altitude? (Such as
> a fix in the arrival procedure)
>
> Climbing I think I understand. If I'm told to resume own navigation,
> or cleared as filed in the first place, I climb per my flight plan/FMC
> profile. If ATC says maintain X, I stay at X until ATC tells me to
> resume own navigation or instructs me to change altitudes. But the
> descent part still has me a bit confused.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Dohm writes:

> There is obvious potential for enterainment in this simulation!

I agree. But it is a learning experience as well, and good practice.

> But there's more: when last we read, he was simulating a B58.

A Baron 58, yes. One tail number is the Baron, the other is a Boeing
Business Jet 2 (the private-aircraft version of a 737-800).
Obviously, I was flying the latter when I was having trouble dealing
with the FMC, as the Baron is not so equipped.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> He is flying a simulator "game," so he isn't really flying anything, and has
> no consequences to whatever he does.

The consequences are slightly different; IFR flight, however, is the
same, with the same rules and procedures, with a few very minor
exceptions imposed by technical constraints (not applicable in the
context of this discussion).

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> > He is flying a simulator "game," so he isn't really flying anything, and has
> > no consequences to whatever he does.
>
> The consequences are slightly different; IFR flight, however, is the
> same, with the same rules and procedures, with a few very minor
> exceptions imposed by technical constraints
>

How would you know? Many here can make a direct comparison - and have. You can't.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Capt.Doug writes:

> The profile in the FMS is for efficiency and does not take other traffic
> into account. You must wait until ATC explicitely clears you to another
> altitude.

So it would probably be best to set the MCP to prevent any descent
until I'm cleared, then?

> If you are about to pass the FMS's descent point, politely prompt
> ATC for a lower altitude.

"Request descent," or something, I presume.

> Going into LAS, you very well may get vectors off
> the planned route so that ATC can adequately space the arrival traffic (in
> the real world).

In simulation, too, even though traffic is sometimes too light to
justify it (the ATCs need practice as well). In fact, it seems that I
almost never follow the arrival procedure as published. Often just as
I'm beginning it, ATC gives me other instructions. I suppose it's a
bit of a relief as then all I have to do is follow their instructions,
rather than try to follow the arrival chart (but if the FMC is doing
it, it's easy).

> No. That would be for lateral navigation only unless explicitely cleared for
> different altitudes.

Is there a specific phrasing that means "you can do your own lateral
AND vertical navigation"? Or does ATC as a rule never let IFR flights
select their own altitudes?

> Here is an example that one of my colleagues recently
> received counseling about. He was cleared via the KORRY 3 arrival into KLGA.
> He started to descend according to the profile. ATC asked why he was
> descending and to call a number after landing (not good). He was cleared via
> the KORRY 3, not cleared to descend via the KORRY 3. Slight difference, but
> very important for traffic seperation.

Hmm. I just assumed that since the plates usually indicate altitudes,
"cleared via the KORRY 3" would necessarily mean following both the
course and altitude indications. What does ATC say if they want you
to follow everything on the plate, including the indicated altitudes?

Did your colleague get into significant trouble?

> Yes, the Aeronautical Information Manual states that a pilot should advise
> when leaving an altitude.

OK.

> Yes.

OK, so should I say something like "leaving FL290 for 12000 at CLARR,"
assuming I'm already cleared to descend at my discretion?

> Query ATC for the assigned altitude so that both of you are on the same
> page. Climbs are the same as descents. 'resume own navigation' is for
> lateral flight. Don't climb unless expicitely assigned a new altitude by
> ATC.

So there is no equivalent of "resume own navigation" for altitude,
like "resume own altitude," or whatever?

If ATC regularly overrides the plates and (apparently) doesn't often
clear anyone to follow the altitude indications on the plates, why do
all the approach plates seem to mention altitudes? Just for radio
loss? (Except they often seem to have separate procedures for
communications loss.)

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

[Mxsmanic]

Gus Cabre writes:

> Just out of curiosity, what simulator are you using?

Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004.

However, I use the PMDG 737-800 add-on aircraft, which is equipped
like the real thing (practically a different world as compared to the
default 737 in the simulator). I also use the Dreamfleet Baron 58
add-on, which, again, is also in a category of its own. Both are
renowned for their uncompromising realism with respect to the real
aircraft.

I also have a separate joystick and throttle, and rudder pedals.
Anything fancier is hard to justify at this time.

I fly a mixture of VFR and IFR on the Baron, and mostly IFR on the
737. I also use VATSIM, the leading virtual flight network, so that I
can interact with other human pilots and controllers by radio, rather
than just interact with the computer-generated stuff provided by MSFS
when it is in offline mode.

All in all, the realism is striking, and much better than some
detractors like to believe.

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

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> All in all, the realism is striking, and much better than some
> detractors like to believe.

How do you know?

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> I fly a mixture of VFR and IFR on the Baron, and mostly IFR on the
> 737. I also use VATSIM, the leading virtual flight network, so that I
> can interact with other human pilots and controllers by radio, rather
> than just interact with the computer-generated stuff provided by MSFS
> when it is in offline mode.
>
> All in all, the realism is striking, and much better than some
> detractors like to believe.
>

I don't think you understand the aerodynamics of the real world. MSFS
has great scenery but the aircraft and the atmosphere modeling are
terribly wrong in MSFS.

[bdl]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> All in all, the realism is striking, and much better than some
> detractors like to believe.

The realism is very striking. That doesn't make it REAL, however. By
definition.

[Sam Spade]

bdl wrote:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>
>>All in all, the realism is striking, and much better than some
>>detractors like to believe.
>
>
> The realism is very striking. That doesn't make it REAL, however. By
> definition.
>
The topography is striking. The realizm is zip.

[bdl]

Sam Spade wrote:
> bdl wrote:
>
> > Mxsmanic wrote:
> >
> >
> >>All in all, the realism is striking, and much better than some
> >>detractors like to believe.
> >
> >
> > The realism is very striking. That doesn't make it REAL, however. By
> > definition.
> >
> The topography is striking. The realizm is zip.

And the topography wasn't that striking till they fixed the bridges...
;)

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> How do you know?

The honest ones admit it to me.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> I don't think you understand the aerodynamics of the real world. MSFS
> has great scenery but the aircraft and the atmosphere modeling are
> terribly wrong in MSFS.

It sounds like you don't fly much in MSFS.

Tell me _exactly_ what's wrong with the aircraft modeling.

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

[Mxsmanic]

bdl writes:

> The realism is very striking. That doesn't make it REAL, however.

As long as the realism is striking, it doesn't have to be real. The
whole purpose of simulation is realism without reality, after all.

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

[john smith]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

>In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>
>
>>Paul Tomblin writes:
>>
>>
>>>I fly with a Garmin 296 handheld GPS. In my experience, nearly always
>>>just around the same time it says I need to start my descent if I want to
>>>descend at 500fpm to my destination, ATC clears me down to a lower
>>>altitude without being asked.
>>>
>>>
>>I have noticed this as well. I suppose if they know the route well,
>>they know when the descent usually starts.
>>
>>
>
>Except they know where to start my descent whether I'm flying a 100 knot
>Archer or a 140 knot Lance, or on one occasion, a Piper Dakota with a 70
>knot tail wind.
>
>I suspect there is software they use to handle this.
>


It believe it is based on the instrument requirement (?) of 500 fpm rate
of descent.

At a given airspeed and altitude, at 500 fpm an aircraft should commence
its descent at the calculated distance.

This will vary depending on the facility, traffic and procedures.

I calculate the distance in may head for my given cruise altitude and
wait to see if ATC calls me at the appropriate time. They are usually
early on the call to assign lower.

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

For example, the Extra 300 model is extremely poor. The acceleration is
slower than the real aircraft, and the roll rate is much, much less than the
full scale plane.

Plus, I'm not pulling or pushing 8 g's or rolling at 400 degrees a second in
the chair. Sims, even full motion ones, can not mimic the visceral cues
found in real flight.

Additionally, the visual cues looking at a computer monitor are not the
same, since there is no peripheral vision input on the simple models such as
MSFS. There are some advantages to multiple monitor systems with motion.

Even without motion, having a full size cockpit with real instruments adds a
lot to the realism (at least this was my experience at Simcomm). Sitting in
front of a computer screen flying with a joystick, pedals, and throttle
really don't come close to the actual experience of flying.

[gpsman]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Judah writes:
>
> > How do you know?
>
> The honest ones admit it to me.

Spurious conclusion. Those who agree with you are honest, those who
don't are not?

Either way, your judgment of realism is based on anything -but- your
own experience, and you are left to sort the opinions of others. Your
opinion that MSFS is realistic, or unrealistic, has no basis in any
-fact- that you have ascertained, since those... lemme count... yep,
zero is the total.
-----

- gpsman

[Ross]

Viperdoc wrote:
> For example, the Extra 300 model is extremely poor. The acceleration is
> slower than the real aircraft, and the roll rate is much, much less than the
> full scale plane.
>
> Plus, I'm not pulling or pushing 8 g's or rolling at 400 degrees a second in
> the chair. Sims, even full motion ones, can not mimic the visceral cues
> found in real flight.
>
> Additionally, the visual cues looking at a computer monitor are not the
> same, since there is no peripheral vision input on the simple models such as
> MSFS. There are some advantages to multiple monitor systems with motion.
>
> Even without motion, having a full size cockpit with real instruments adds a
> lot to the realism (at least this was my experience at Simcomm). Sitting in
> front of a computer screen flying with a joystick, pedals, and throttle
> really don't come close to the actual experience of flying.
>
>

It's not a Extra 300 but I had the opportunity years ago to "fly" the
American Airlines Fokker F100 at their DFW training center at full
motion. I thought that was pretty realistic for this general aviation pilot.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Mxsmanic]

gpsman writes:

> Spurious conclusion. Those who agree with you are honest, those who
> don't are not?

No. The honest ones admit it; the dishonest or disingenuous ones
argue about it endlessly.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> For example, the Extra 300 model is extremely poor. The acceleration is
> slower than the real aircraft, and the roll rate is much, much less than the
> full scale plane.

Perhaps so. I presume the Extra 300 is a "fun" plane, not a serious
one, like many of the others.

Note that the accuracy of simulation depends not only on the
simulation engine, but also on the parameters for each aircraft model.
The default aircraft are rather casually defined.

> Plus, I'm not pulling or pushing 8 g's or rolling at 400 degrees a second in
> the chair. Sims, even full motion ones, can not mimic the visceral cues
> found in real flight.

Yes, yes. I'm getting tired of hearing about this. That's not a flaw
in the simulation, anyway.

> Additionally, the visual cues looking at a computer monitor are not the
> same, since there is no peripheral vision input on the simple models such as
> MSFS. There are some advantages to multiple monitor systems with motion.

I can look left and right by twisting the stick, although I'll grant
that it's not like the real thing. However, that's not a defect in
the simulator software, either.

> Even without motion, having a full size cockpit with real instruments adds a
> lot to the realism (at least this was my experience at Simcomm). Sitting in
> front of a computer screen flying with a joystick, pedals, and throttle
> really don't come close to the actual experience of flying.

I tried a much more elaborate simulator about a week ago (still
without motion). I wasn't familiar with the aircraft it
simulated--apparently something like a Piper Cub--but I managed to do
several ILS approaches successfully with an instructor alongside.

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

[john smith]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>Viperdoc writes:
>
>For example, the Extra 300 model is extremely poor. The acceleration is
>slower than the real aircraft, and the roll rate is much, much less than the
>full scale plane.
>
>
>
>Perhaps so. I presume the Extra 300 is a "fun" plane, not a serious
>one, like many of the others.
>
>

It does't get much more serious than an Extra 300 when it comes to
general aviation aircraft!

[Jim Stewart]

Nomen Nescio wrote:

> Landings are waaaay too easy. A poor landing in reality is a lot more
> exciting than the MSFS models.

No ****.

I have about 150 hours in MSFS and 10 hours
and 5 or 6 landings in a real plane. *Nothing*
in FS prepares you for the instructor shouting..

"Steer with your feet"
"You're flaring 20 feet too high"
"Steer with your feet"
"Hold the nose up"
"Steer with your feet"
"Watch your speed"

As the ground rushes up towards you at 60 knots
and the feeling that you're just about to
literally drag your ass down the runway.

I wonder if Max could even handle the
degree of psychological battering it takes
to become a good real-world pilot.

[A Lieberma]

Jim Stewart > wrote in
:

> "Steer with your feet"
> "You're flaring 20 feet too high"
> "Steer with your feet"
> "Hold the nose up"
> "Steer with your feet"
> "Watch your speed"
>
> As the ground rushes up towards you at 60 knots
> and the feeling that you're just about to
> literally drag your ass down the runway.

Don't forget "right rudder, right rudder" being drilled in your head from
your instructor for takeoffs.

Allen

[Capt.Doug]

>"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
> So it would probably be best to set the MCP to prevent any descent
> until I'm cleared, then?

MCP = max continuous power? Sorry- not familiar with the term as used on an
FMS. The important thing is to not set the altitude hold for descent until
cleared by ATC.

> In simulation, too, even though traffic is sometimes too light to
> justify it (the ATCs need practice as well). In fact, it seems that I
> almost never follow the arrival procedure as published. Often just as
> I'm beginning it, ATC gives me other instructions. I suppose it's a
> bit of a relief as then all I have to do is follow their instructions,
> rather than try to follow the arrival chart (but if the FMC is doing
> it, it's easy).

A good center controller will have all of the arrivals spaced like pearls
before everyone hits the arrival's gate. That way everyone can follow the
arrival as charted with ATC isssuing speed changes to maintain spacing.

> Is there a specific phrasing that means "you can do your own lateral
> AND vertical navigation"? Or does ATC as a rule never let IFR flights
> select their own altitudes?

The most common is a clearance to cross a fix at an assigned altitude
(crossing restriction). Say for example you are cruising at FL290 and the
controller isues you a clearance to cross a fix at 12000'. It is your
perogative as to when to start your descent so long as you cross the fix at
the assigned altitude.

During the climb, ATC sees the final altitude we requested on our flight
plan. They try to get us up there, traffic permitting. After that we request
from ATC any altitude changes we want and they work us to that altitude,
traffic permitting.

> What does ATC say if they want you
> to follow everything on the plate, including the indicated altitudes?

"DESCEND via the Korry 3"

> Did your colleague get into significant trouble?

No, because seperation wasn't lost.

> OK, so should I say something like "leaving FL290 for 12000 at CLARR,"
> assuming I'm already cleared to descend at my discretion?

Sounds professional.

> So there is no equivalent of "resume own navigation" for altitude,
> like "resume own altitude," or whatever?

In the IFR world, altitude is all important. There are crossing restrictions
and block altitudes, but most of the time we follow

> If ATC regularly overrides the plates and (apparently) doesn't often
> clear anyone to follow the altitude indications on the plates, why do
> all the approach plates seem to mention altitudes? Just for radio
> loss?

In the real world we usually follow the arrival procedures with the
altitudes as published. When flying the big jets, just remember that you
will need 3 miles for every 1000' you want to descend plus another 5 miles
to slow for the 250 knot speed restriction at 10000'.

D.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> The rudder is a joke. It changes the direction that the nose is pointed,
> but does not control flight path.

What does a real aircraft do?

> Ground effect is either poorly modeled, or not modeled at all.

You don't sound very certain.

> Actual aerodynamic effects of wind such as wind shear are either pooly
> modeled, or not modeled at all.

See above.

> Stalls are not poorly modeled, but not entirely accurate.

What parts are inaccurate?

> "Turbulence" is pathetic. The plane just twitches around a bit. This
> does not even come close to reality.

I didn't know there was a standard form of turbulence.

> Landings are waaaay too easy. A poor landing in reality is a lot more
> exciting than the MSFS models.

Why do so many real pilots have trouble landing in the sim, then?

Most real pilots have told me that it's much easier to fly an aircraft
for real.

> Mass and moment of inertia effects range from poorly modeled to
> weak, depending on the modeled aircraft (some add ons are pretty
> fair, but the limitations of MSFS calculations limit the accuracy of the
> models).

Which limitations of the MSFS calculations produce which flaws?

> High altitude flight results in highly unrealistic control responses and overall
> aerodynamic behavior.

What are the unrealistic details?

> I could probably come up with a few more if I spent a few more minutes
> thinking about it.

It would be better to quantify and isolate the ones you've already
mentioned, in order to make it possible to verify them.

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

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

An Extra 300 is a pretty serious plane- extremely sensitive on the controls,
and can be pretty much flown with three finger touch. It is much harder to
land than most spam cans due to limited forward visibility, and in fact it
comes in over the fence at the same speed as the Baron, only with no view
forward.

Also, pulling or pushing over six g's is pretty serious flying, let alone
while doing rolls at 400 degrees a second or tumbling end over end.

MSFS does not even come remotely close to the visceral sensations or flight
model of the Extra.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> No. The honest ones admit it; the dishonest or disingenuous ones
> argue about it endlessly.

How do you know who is honest and who is lying?

[gpsman]

Mxsmanic wrote: <brevity snip/groups adjusted>
> It would be better to quantify and isolate the ones you've already
> mentioned, in order to make it possible to verify them.

It would be better, IMO, if you would get some air under your ass to
verify them, instead of relying on the experience of others, then
arguing, sans (that's French) basis.
-----

- gpsman

[TxSrv]

MxsClueless wrote:
>
> Tell me _exactly_ what's wrong with the aircraft modeling.

For starters, the program doesn't really understand air
density. The program tries, but only in MSFS can one
maintain a semblance of controllability in a 172 at FL 250.
Plus, the mixture control does not react as it should at
even 7000. Ditto the ASI whilst upstairs.

I indeed do have every version since 1.0, and yes the
graphics on ver. 10 are outstanding and a decent frame rate
on my newish machine. But it's a totally phony experience
at face value. Flying IFR in mere marginal weather like
just 2-3 viz, thus not "hard IMC," can be a pleasure, and
only partly because VFR flight in poor viz can be a
distasteful chore. Set up that condition in MSFS and it's a
complete bore. Ditto as to punching through a thin (but VFR
ceiling) overcast under IFR, but do that in MSFS it's
objectively a bore with phony, all-white below.

I also like playing Walter Mitty now and then by flying big
air carrier jets too, but why anybody would simulate that by
engaging autopilot and letting FMS do the tricky stuff
(well, not really, if exp) for a thousand+ miles, hours on
end, I don't understand. And taking ATC instructions from
VATSIM people who likely know little of the real-life
nuances of ATC at least. What % of air carrier pilots
actually fly MSFS as an avocation? The tiny % who may do I
suggest have issues, and I'd rather not be a pax in seat 17A
whilst he/she is up front, thank you.

I also think MSFS is an excellent implementation, given the
programming challenge, and I tell my flying friends, even
"old duffs" like me but who are into computing and have the
machine for it, to try it for just some occasional fun and
see some nifty stuff it now does. And no more, without
actually saying so, since I know they won't get hooked.

Conversely, if flight exp via computer is all you want (and
moot, as all you can afford), fine. Chacun a son gout. But
an analogy is where I served in the U.S. Army, but own only
one handgun I fired just once, so I'm not a gun enthusiast
but respect such avocations of others. Chacun a son gout. I
even think there's too many weapons/capita here, but whether
the attendant consequences are tolerable is a legitimate
debate. I think on balance it is tolerable, but could I ever
start a silly, flaming debate by arguing the contrary,
especially never having really engaged in the sporting
activity! I also think I know know many technical things
about weapons, but hardly an expert, despite what I might
read further on the internet. If I have a technical
question, I can post to a gun enthusiast net group and hope
it's only a 4-post thread not flaming me should I be branded
naive or just an annoyance.

What I would not do is take pot shots at those who engage in
legitimate activities such as gun collecting, shooting
sports, or actual flying in a group of those who do, nor
would I claim shoot-em-up computer games is realistic and
sufficient for practical purposes. Nor would spend much of
my waking hours arrogantly posting on matters I really don't
know much about, especially where my actual identity is
known to the entire English-speaking internet world.

Why, from everything I've read about sociology and
psychiatry on the net, I think you have issues. Forgive me,
that stepped over the line! :-)

F--

[Newps]

You wonder why people ridicule you.





Mxsmanic wrote:
> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>
>>The rudder is a joke. It changes the direction that the nose is pointed,
>>but does not control flight path.
>
>
> What does a real aircraft do?


It changes flight path, like he said, you dumb****.



>
>
>>Ground effect is either poorly modeled, or not modeled at all.
>
>
> You don't sound very certain.


Spoken like someone who couldn't even identify a plane, much less fly one.



>
>
>>Actual aerodynamic effects of wind such as wind shear are either pooly
>>modeled, or not modeled at all.
>
>
> See above.

See above.



>
>>"Turbulence" is pathetic. The plane just twitches around a bit. This
>>does not even come close to reality.
>
>
> I didn't know there was a standard form of turbulence.

It's a computer. Other than maing the screen wobble what else can it
do? It's **** poor.




>
> It would be better to quantify and isolate the ones you've already
> mentioned, in order to make it possible to verify them.


Then why ask the question?
>

[Alexey Goldin]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> Yes, yes. I'm getting tired of hearing about this. That's not a flaw
> in the simulation, anyway.
>

Let me jump into it.

First about background --- I am not GA pilot yet, I plan to start
lessons in a fall. I however a small time hang glider pilot (about 25
hours, 83 flights), currently live in Chicago where the weather is not
great for hang gliding in winter. While hang glider is very different
from GA aircraft, it has some things in common --- being stupid can
kill you.

What you are getting annoyed is the following (and here I am
extrapolating from what I know in different flying community) --- there
is invisible hierarchy and you do not accept it. The hierarchy is for a
reason though --- people are not equal, some know more then others,
some have more experience.

Why is this important? Listening to people with experience and learning
from them can help you in a sticky situation. However to assign weight
to what people are saying it is very important to know if they know
what they are talking about.

You however insist on you right to claim experience without having any,
and write about flying from one airport to another without ever
mentioning it was just a simulation. There is extremely small (once in
a million or less), but nonzero chance that some day you give advice
based on you experience which can kill a student who will take it
seriously. I know your background at this point, so I will not take
your advice seriously, but somebody without knowing your background
might. This is why I believe it is important that you know your place
in invisible hierarchy of pilots (I know mine, it is fairly low at this
point but will get higher after I learn to fly these noisy oil and gaz
burning contraptions), mention your background when discussing you
"flights" and avoid giving advice.

While everyone has right to live the life he chooses, it is important
that we use appropriate words lest we stop understanding each other
and words loose their meaning and we are back to this tower of Babel
situation again. Your "flights" are not flights, although they can be
very enjoyable, the distinction is very important. You are trying to
redefine meaning of words, make them fuzzier in a community where
precision of communications means saving lives and surprised at
hostility you are getting. I wonder why?

While sims can be pretty detailed, they are by definition are different
from the real thing, because people who create them are just humans and
their knowledge is limited. Because knowledge of every particular
person is limited, it is possible that no one knows all details how
different they are from the real thing. You may not find out until it
is too late. The difference is often found in a very spectacular
fashion. I do not think anyone who flied any kind of Space Shuttle
simulator had failure similar to what happened to Columbia. Every year
many pilots find there is a difference between their mental model of
airplane ("I still have 1 hour of fuel") and real thing. You expect
your mental model to be perfect. Well, as I often heard when I still
was scientist "In theory there is no difference between theory and
practice. In practice thee is." One difference that real flying (yes,
hang glider too) teaches you that you have a lot of limitations.
Apparently simming does not, because you are not getting scared
enough. In real flying smug feeling is a sure sign that humility
lesson is coming, as one smart guy said. I wonder how is this aspect of
flying is taken care of in MSFS.

I do not have enough time in GA aircrafts (or simulators for that
matter) to say how similar is simulation to real thing --- latest
"Flight training" magazine seems to suggests it might be somewhat
useful. I am absolutely confident that simulation is absolutely useless
for training to fly hang gliders, just like it would be useless for
learning to ride a bicycle. Never mind feeling forces that give you
important feedback, noise of rushing air or squeaking of the
structure that gives you important clues about speed or how close you
are to stall. How would you talk about glider feeling "mushed" to
someone who never experienced it? He might just say "You are not clear
on this point so you do not know what happens and it is not in MSFS
anyway so I might forget about it". Never mind adrenaline when you
make a stupid mistake and find out that problems always happen in
clusters and pile up much faster then you can think about them with no
option to pause, save, think and restore later. What is more important
--- no simulation can prepare you for the feeling when you circle 5
feet away from a young falcon who found first thermal in his life.

[A Lieberma]

Newps > wrote in
:

> Then why ask the question?

Because he is a troll.............

When will we learn not to answer his question is the 64K question of the
year.

Allen

[gpsman]

Mxsmanic wrote: <groups adjusted>
> gpsman writes:
>
> > Spurious conclusion. Those who agree with you are honest, those who
> > don't are not?
>
> No. The honest ones admit it; the dishonest or disingenuous ones
> argue about it endlessly.

Spurious conclusion. Your conclusion is identical to that you made
previously: those who agree with you are correct and honest; those who
disagree know you are correct, but are liars. All determined while you
lack any basis to determine who might be right or wrong.

If you were as smart as you seem to believe you might on your own
correctly assume a cheap game simulator approaches realism, but that's
all it does, or can do.

Your incessant crossposting to irrelevant groups is an obvious
indicator that you are a k00k... and the time you spend here arguing
with those who know of which they speak might be better spent
accumulating the income that would allow you to get an hour of air
under your ass so that you might form your conclusions via your own
experience.
-----

- gpsman

[Wade Hasbrouck]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>>Viperdoc writes:
>>
>>For example, the Extra 300 model is extremely poor. The acceleration is
>>slower than the real aircraft, and the roll rate is much, much less than
>>the full scale plane.
>>
>>
>>Perhaps so. I presume the Extra 300 is a "fun" plane, not a serious
>>one, like many of the others.
>>
>
> It does't get much more serious than an Extra 300 when it comes to general
> aviation aircraft!
>

I would like to see him tell Patty Wagstaff that her airplane is just a
"fun" plane and not a "serious" plane. :-)

[Mxsmanic]

gpsman writes:

> It would be better, IMO, if you would get some air under your ass to
> verify them, instead of relying on the experience of others, then
> arguing, sans (that's French) basis.

My own experience would not necessarily help, as it would just as
subjective and limited as the experience of others. Rather like the
old story about the blind men and the elephant.

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

[Mxsmanic]

gpsman writes:

> Your conclusion is identical to that you made
> previously: those who agree with you are correct and honest; those who
> disagree know you are correct, but are liars.

That was not my conclusion.

Pilots I know to be honest have agreed that MSFS is useful for
training and a reasonable simulation of flight. Pilots I know to be
insecure blowhards have insisted that it is neither. I have noted the
correlation.

> If you were as smart as you seem to believe you might on your own
> correctly assume a cheap game simulator approaches realism, but that's
> all it does, or can do.

All simulators merely approach realism in a strict sense, but if the
part they simulate is the part you want or need, that's all that
matters.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

If that post doesn't prove you're an arrogant troll, I don't know what
it takes to people here still believing you just seek knowledge.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Capt.Doug,

> > OK, so should I say something like "leaving FL290 for 12000 at CLARR,"
> > assuming I'm already cleared to descend at my discretion?
>
> Sounds professional.
>

Actually, no, it doesn't. The word "for" is to be avoided because it sound
the same as "four". It sounds like many airline pilots (just like "twelve
hundred" or "with you"), but professional it is not.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Alexey,

nice post. Good luck with your flying lessons!

> You however insist on you right to claim experience without having any,

Yep. The word "imposter" comes to mind.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Nomen,

> >Why do so many real pilots have trouble landing in the sim, then?
>
> One of the reasons is the useless rudder modeling.
>

I think the main reason is lack of visual clues.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Capt.Doug writes:

> MCP = max continuous power?

Mode Control Panel--the gadgets on the glare shield that control the
autopilot. So I set the ALT HOLD parameter on that to prevent the FMS
from going below a certain altitude on its own.

> The important thing is to not set the altitude hold for descent until
> cleared by ATC.

Up to now, I've been setting the altitude above my cruise for the
climb, and then below the airfield for my descent, thus preventing it
from ever limiting the FMS. But it now appears that I should be using
it to make sure I don't overstep any ATC instructions. So if they say
climb and maintain 5000, I set 5000 until I get new instructions, thus
preventing the FMS from taking me all the way to cruise altitude
before I've been cleared for it.

I note, however, that I'm often cleared for a higher altitude before
reaching the previously cleared altitude, so sometimes I just keep a
hand near the altitude setting on the MCP, ready to adjust it if I
have to, while letting the FMC do its thing.

> A good center controller will have all of the arrivals spaced like pearls
> before everyone hits the arrival's gate.

The quality of controllers in simulation is quite variable, but the
good ones are just as good as real controllers (sometimes they _are_
real controllers, who, for some reason, like to simulate their work
when they aren't doing it for real--I guess some people really like
their jobs).

> The most common is a clearance to cross a fix at an assigned altitude
> (crossing restriction). Say for example you are cruising at FL290 and the
> controller isues you a clearance to cross a fix at 12000'. It is your
> perogative as to when to start your descent so long as you cross the fix at
> the assigned altitude.

OK, I've had those. I'll remember to treat them as an implicit
clearance to descend or climb to the specified altitude at my
discretion.

> During the climb, ATC sees the final altitude we requested on our flight
> plan. They try to get us up there, traffic permitting. After that we request
> from ATC any altitude changes we want and they work us to that altitude,
> traffic permitting.

Do you often need a different altitude from the one you filed?
Perhaps for fuel considerations, or headwinds, or something?

> "DESCEND via the Korry 3"

Ah ... see, I would have interpreted that as more restrictive, i.e.,
meaning that I should change altitudes but that my heading should not
change. I guess it's the other way around. And I suppose it doesn't
make much sense that you'd be cleared to descend via the STAR and yet
not be cleared to follow it laterally, now that I think more about it.

> No, because seperation wasn't lost.

So what do they say in this telephone call?

> Sounds professional.

Cool. Now if I can just say it with a Texas drawl.

> In the IFR world, altitude is all important. There are crossing restrictions
> and block altitudes, but most of the time we follow

I would have thought that altitude and track would both be about
equally important.

> In the real world we usually follow the arrival procedures with the
> altitudes as published. When flying the big jets, just remember that you
> will need 3 miles for every 1000' you want to descend plus another 5 miles
> to slow for the 250 knot speed restriction at 10000'.

I have discovered that it's much harder to move large jets towards the
ground than it is to move them towards the sky.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> How do you know who is honest and who is lying?

By knowing their overall personalities.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Wade Hasbrouck writes:

> I would like to see him tell Patty Wagstaff that her airplane is just a
> "fun" plane and not a "serious" plane. :-)

I was talking about the MSFS model of the plane, not the plane itself.

I'm sure Patty Wagstaff considers it fun; otherwise, why would she fly
it?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Stewart writes:

> I have about 150 hours in MSFS and 10 hours
> and 5 or 6 landings in a real plane. *Nothing*
> in FS prepares you for the instructor shouting..

If your instructor shouts, you need a new instructor.

> I wonder if Max could even handle the
> degree of psychological battering it takes
> to become a good real-world pilot.

An instructor who could not keep a cool head would never retain my
business. I have too much experience to tolerate that sort of
misbehavior.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> An Extra 300 is a pretty serious plane- extremely sensitive on the controls,
> and can be pretty much flown with three finger touch.

Even in simulation, it's extraordinarily "nervous." I'm sure it's
much worse in real life. Nevertheless, I can see why an aerobatic
pilot would enjoy flying it. It seems to be an aircraft that will
instantly do whatever it is told ... for better or for worse.

> It is much harder to
> land than most spam cans due to limited forward visibility, and in fact it
> comes in over the fence at the same speed as the Baron, only with no view
> forward.

I imagine anyone who is competent to flying probably can land it
virtually blindfolded.

> Also, pulling or pushing over six g's is pretty serious flying, let alone
> while doing rolls at 400 degrees a second or tumbling end over end.

In real life, I don't like Gs at all, as they are hazardous to health.

> MSFS does not even come remotely close to the visceral sensations or flight
> model of the Extra.

Thank goodness!

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

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> It changes flight path, like he said, you dumb****.

The rudder rotates the aircraft about its yaw axis, in both simulation
and real flight. Whether or not this changes the flight path depends
on a number of factors.

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

[Mxsmanic]

TxSrv writes:

> For starters, the program doesn't really understand air
> density. The program tries, but only in MSFS can one
> maintain a semblance of controllability in a 172 at FL 250.

That would probably be a flaw in the specific model.

How does the 172 fly when you pilot it at FL250 yourself?

> Plus, the mixture control does not react as it should at
> even 7000.

What does it do wrong?

> But it's a totally phony experience
> at face value. Flying IFR in mere marginal weather like
> just 2-3 viz, thus not "hard IMC," can be a pleasure, and
> only partly because VFR flight in poor viz can be a
> distasteful chore. Set up that condition in MSFS and it's a
> complete bore.

Speak for yourself.

> Ditto as to punching through a thin (but VFR
> ceiling) overcast under IFR, but do that in MSFS it's
> objectively a bore with phony, all-white below.

See above.

I guess a lot of pilots like all those strong physical sensations.
There doesn't seem to be much of an intellectual component to their
enjoyment, and they seem to regard the brain work parts as necessary
evils rather than as enjoyable in themselves. This may be relatively
specific to GA pilots, though. Large aircraft involve fewer
sensations and a lot more brain work, and might appeal to the sedate
and cerebral types a bit more.

> I also like playing Walter Mitty now and then by flying big
> air carrier jets too, but why anybody would simulate that by
> engaging autopilot and letting FMS do the tricky stuff
> (well, not really, if exp) for a thousand+ miles, hours on
> end, I don't understand.

Because that's how it is done in real life. In real life, you don't
buzz control towers and fly through narrow canyons in a 737. You fly
it on sedate, planned, IFR routes from one major city to another.
Some people like that, some don't. It's like the differences among
speedboats, sailboats, aircraft carriers, and tankers.

> And taking ATC instructions from VATSIM people who likely know
> little of the real-life nuances of ATC at least.

Actually, they know a great deal about it. They have to train for it,
and many of them are pilots or controllers in real life.

> What % of air carrier pilots actually fly MSFS as an avocation?

A surprising number of pilots enjoy MSFS. You can't always jump in a
real plane and go. This is especially true if you fly large aircraft
for a living; few people have jet airliners of their own to fly for
pleasure.

> The tiny % who may do I suggest have issues, and I'd rather
> not be a pax in seat 17A whilst he/she is up front, thank you.

Then it's best not to ask anyone up front if he ever uses MSFS, as you
might get a very unpleasant surprise.

> Conversely, if flight exp via computer is all you want (and
> moot, as all you can afford), fine.

It's all that is practical, and I'm not entirely sure that real flight
would be an improvement. There are a lot of unpleasant things about
flying for real.

> Why, from everything I've read about sociology and
> psychiatry on the net, I think you have issues. Forgive me,
> that stepped over the line!

No problem. You've just put me into the same category that you had
previously set aside for many airline pilots, and that's not bad
company.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Actually, no, it doesn't. The word "for" is to be avoided because it sound
> the same as "four". It sounds like many airline pilots (just like "twelve
> hundred" or "with you"), but professional it is not.

Which airline do you fly for, again?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> Uh, gee, Einstein, a real rudder DOES control flight path.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. It rotates the aircraft
about its yaw axis, which can have a number of different effects,
depending on the situation.

> There is in MSFS. There isn't in real life. My guess is that MSFS merely
> uses a random number generator to add a degree or 2 of bank or pitch.
> Real turbulence can throw a plane up or down a few hundred ft in seconds.
> Turbulence in MSFS has NO effect on altitude.

It does when I encounter it.

> One of the reasons is the useless rudder modeling.

No, I think the main reasons are that some pilots depend excessively
on physical sensations, and become disoriented without them. Also,
some depend a lot on a large field of vision, which most simulator
configurations don't provide.

> Here's a test you can do yourself.
> Fly straight and level.
> Look at your heading.
> Now feed in full rudder (pick a direction) and hold the wings level (this
> is critical).
> After doing this for couple minutes or so, release the rudder. Again, always keeping
> the wings level (any bank at all will screw up the test).
> Now look at the heading. If you did this perfectly, the heading will be exactly
> the same. Now check your flight path. You'll see that it's a straight line.
> With a real rudder, your heading will change significantly and your flight
> path will not be a straight line.

I did it. The plane turns (reluctantly), and the flight path curves.
The heading changes. And the wings were level, because I turned on the
wing leveling function in the autopilot, which forces them to stay
level (it was using quite a bit of aileron to keep them level, but
they did not budge).

So MSFS apparently passes the test.

> BTW, The rudder responses are reasonably accurate in "x-plane" so
> there's no reason MSFS couldn't model it properly. But that does not
> change the fact that it's not.

It seems to work fine on my copy of MSFS. Rather like your rudder
test.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Which airline do you fly for, again?
>

Are you determined to make a complete idiot of yourself now? But I'm
glad to see it is possible to penetrate that armor you've conveniently
constructed around your sorry self.

GA aircraft and airlines use the same radio frequencies. They are
required to use the same phrases in their radio work. So I don't need
to fly for an airline to make qualified statements about radio work. I
have been educated in radio work in just the same way as an airline
pilot. You haven't. So take the advice of another poster: STFU and take
notes!

FWIW, the part I mentioned is easily obtainable by reading the AIM or
the Pilot-Controller-Glossary, which you have been pointed to, but are
too lazy to read. Instead, you prefer to try making silly personal
attacks. You're a lying troll.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[BDS]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
> > Uh, gee, Einstein, a real rudder DOES control flight path.
>
> Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. It rotates the aircraft
> about its yaw axis, which can have a number of different effects,
> depending on the situation.

Staying within the context of this discussion vis-a-vis rudder input alone
and your statement above, can you describe when it does and does not affect
flight path and in which aircraft this is true? What are the number of
different effects it can have and what situations do they occur in.

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> Staying within the context of this discussion vis-a-vis rudder input alone
> and your statement above, can you describe when it does and does not affect
> flight path and in which aircraft this is true? What are the number of
> different effects it can have and what situations do they occur in.

There are many different possibilities. In the experiment suggested
to me, I held the wings level (via the autolevel function of the
autopilot), applied full right rudder, and the aircraft yawed and
gradually changed heading. The ground track was a segment of a circle
(depending on how long I held the rudder). Supposedly MSFS can't do
this, but it did.

Adjusting the rudder yaws the aircraft. In ordinary level flight,
this will tend to cause the aircraft to enter a turn. The asymmetric
lift resulting from the yaw will tend to push the aircraft into a bank
in the same direction as the rudder is turning the aircraft, and
aerodynamic forces on the rest of the aircraft will assist this.

The rudder can also be used to compensate for other forces acting
about the yaw axis. It can be used to compensate for crosswinds or
engine torque. It can be used to establish and maintain coordinated
turns. And so on.

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

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

While this thread is obviously degenerating to your base level of illogic
and circular reasoning, I can tell you that your statement "anyone competent
to flying can probably can land (an Extra) virtually blindfolded" is
laughingly untrue.

Landing a tailwheel airplane is a distinctly different challenge compared to
a tricycle gear plane. I have close to 1000 hours in tailwheel planes, and I
(along with any other pilot of tailwheel aircraft) will tell you that it
takes a lot more attention to land these planes, particularly in gusting
crosswind conditions.

The Extra is harder in some ways, because it lands fast and sinks rapidly,
with no forward visibility. On the other hand the controls (especially the
rudder) remain effective even at low airspeeds. Once on the runway it is
very stable, and does not hop around like a Pitts.

The reason why people are alienated by your posts are the ridiculous
pronouncements like the one quoted above, which are illogical conclusions
based on no meaningful experience or reasoning. Get a clue.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> bdl writes:
>
>
>>The realism is very striking. That doesn't make it REAL, however.
>
>
> As long as the realism is striking, it doesn't have to be real. The
> whole purpose of simulation is realism without reality, after all.
>
In the context of aviation the purpose of simulation is to faithfully
duplicate the aircraft flight deck, panels and systems, motion, and
outside visual references so that pilot qualification in the simulator
translates into pilot qualification in the aircraft.

[BDS[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> I guess a lot of pilots like all those strong physical sensations.
> There doesn't seem to be much of an intellectual component to their
> enjoyment, and they seem to regard the brain work parts as necessary
> evils rather than as enjoyable in themselves. This may be relatively
> specific to GA pilots, though.

It's insulting diatribe like this that convinces me that contrary to what
Jose and Jay seem to think, Mx is not here to learn but rather to provoke.

He is always the first to resort to insults when he has nowhere else to go
in the argument. Why else would he make comments like the above along with
such things as "GA pilots are incompetent", "people in the USA have no
courage, only ego", etc., etc.

Not once have I seen him admit that he might be mistaken, and that in itself
is very telling.

[Buck Murdock]

In article >,
john smith > wrote:

>
> It believe it is based on the instrument requirement (?) of 500 fpm rate
> of descent.

That's the absolute minimum descent rate; more typical is a 3-degree
(roughly 300 feet per nautical mile) descent. ATC is expecting a normal
rate of descent for your particular type of airplane to achieve that.

In a spamcan doing 90 knots groundspeed, 500fpm is about right. In a
typical jet doing 450 knots over the ground, that's going to be more
like 2300 feet per minute. (Groundspeed in knots * 5 will give you a
pretty good target to achieve a 3 degree descent.)

[Alexey Goldin]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> If your instructor shouts, you need a new instructor.
>

I remember preparing to takeoff from a training hill in a hang glider
and when I started running, then wind direction slightly changed and I
started hesitating and thought about aborting run. An instructor
started shouting "Run, run you bloody stupid f***d!" . And a lot of
other unpleasant words in a split second. I ran, took off Ok and landed
well.

When I came back, I thanked her for saving me from possibly broken arm
or leg (no kidding) and unpleasant time spent in hospital, never mind
bent aluminium.

You have no clue, do you?

[Alexey Goldin]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> If your instructor shouts, you need a new instructor.
>

I remember preparing to takeoff from a training hill in a hang glider
and when I started running, then wind direction slightly changed and I
started hesitating and thought about aborting run. An instructor
started shouting "Run, run you bloody stupid f***d!" . And a lot of
other unpleasant words in a split second. I ran, took off Ok and landed
well.

When I came back, I thanked her for saving me from possibly broken arm
or leg (no kidding) and unpleasant time spent in hospital, never mind
bent aluminium.

You have no clue, have you?

[BDS[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> There are many different possibilities. In the experiment suggested
> to me, I held the wings level (via the autolevel function of the
> autopilot), applied full right rudder, and the aircraft yawed and
> gradually changed heading. The ground track was a segment of a circle
> (depending on how long I held the rudder). Supposedly MSFS can't do
> this, but it did.

Well, then that conflicts with what another poster said which I believe was
that MSFS allowed you to yaw the nose without any heading change.

[Paul kgyy]

When flying IFR with jet aircraft, the pilot has little discretion
unless specifically given by ATC.

A usual transmission is, United xxx, descend to 15000, and that's what
you do. On rare occasion, it may be a little looser, United xxx
descent at pilot's discretion, cross intersection xyz at 15000.

If you want a better feel for what actually goes on than you will ever
get via newsgroup, take a couple of United flights and listen to the
ATC channel - it can be much more entertaining than the movie at times.

[Thomas Borchert]

Alexey,

> You have no clue, have you?
>

On human interaction and when shouting might be appropriate? No, he
doesn't.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Paul kgyy wrote:
>
> If you want a better feel for what actually goes on than you will ever
> get via newsgroup, take a couple of United flights and listen to the
> ATC channel - it can be much more entertaining than the movie at times.

A cheaper way is check this out:
<http://www.liveatc.net/>

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> ...and many of them [VATSIM] are pilots or controllers in real life.

How do you actually know they are real controllers? Within
any endeavor, there's room for a few who do odd things. But
I have trouble believing the typical ATC would regularly
spend off-hours directing nonpilots in a make-believe IFR
environment.

If there were many real controllers doing this, you wouldn't
have so many misconceptions about IFR, the few rigid rules
which are not to be violated, and the essential task of the
controller.

F--

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> Pilots I know to be honest have agreed that MSFS is useful for
> training and a reasonable simulation of flight. Pilots I know to be
> insecure blowhards have insisted that it is neither.

I seriously doubt you've ever talked in person to many real
pilots.

F--

[TxSrv]

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> No, I think the main reasons are that some pilots depend excessively
> on physical sensations, and become disoriented without them.

In visual flight conditions? You don't know what you're
talking about.

F--

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> TxSrv writes:
>
>> For starters, the program doesn't really understand air
>> density. The program tries, but only in MSFS can one
>> maintain a semblance of controllability in a 172 at FL 250.
>
> That would probably be a flaw in the specific model.

All planes, and various propulsion systems, react in the
same way to air density. The program itself could handle
this, needing only some specifics from the model file and
which it does supply for certain things. Whatever. Of the
zillion FS planes out there for download, point me toward a
normally-aspirated, piston aircraft, with certificated HP in
the model file, and which isn't a real hoot when slewed up
into the flight levels.

>> Plus, the mixture control does not react as it should at
>> even 7000.
>
> What does it do wrong?

The red knobby thingy? Besides doing little but being an
on/off switch? I dunno. Regarding rarefied air, I read
somewhere on the net it's just the way carburetors work.

F--

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Ross wrote:

>>
>
> It's not a Extra 300 but I had the opportunity years ago to "fly" the
> American Airlines Fokker F100 at their DFW training center at full
> motion. I thought that was pretty realistic for this general aviation
> pilot.

Was that full motion simulator running MSFS? That was the software in
question.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Alexey Goldin wrote: The same message twice.

You are using google groups to post aren't you? Trust you first click. :)

[Sam Spade]

Paul kgyy wrote:
> When flying IFR with jet aircraft, the pilot has little discretion
> unless specifically given by ATC.

Jets are given pilot discretion clearance whenever possible. It is not
a rare event.
>
> A usual transmission is, United xxx, descend to 15000, and that's what
> you do. On rare occasion, it may be a little looser, United xxx
> descent at pilot's discretion, cross intersection xyz at 15000.

You have that a bit wrong. If a crossing restriction is included a
pilot's discretion descent is implied.

AIM Reference:

If the altitude information of an ATC DESCENT clearance includes a
provision to “CROSS (fix) AT” or “AT OR ABOVE/BELOW (altitude),” the
manner in which the descent is executed to comply with the crossing
altitude is at the pilot’s discretion. This authorization to descend at
pilot’s discretion is only applicable to that portion of the flight to
which the crossing altitude restriction applies, and the pilot is
expected to comply with the crossing altitude as a provision of the
clearance. Any other clearance in which pilot execution is optional will
so state “AT PILOT’S DISCRETION.”


>
> If you want a better feel for what actually goes on than you will ever
> get via newsgroup, take a couple of United flights and listen to the
> ATC channel - it can be much more entertaining than the movie at times.
>
If someone has to ride United Airlines to learn about ATC transmissions,
the pain isn't worth the gain.

[Sam Spade]

B A R R Y wrote:

> Paul kgyy wrote:
>
>>
>> If you want a better feel for what actually goes on than you will ever
>> get via newsgroup, take a couple of United flights and listen to the
>> ATC channel - it can be much more entertaining than the movie at times.
>
>
> A cheaper way is check this out:
> <http://www.liveatc.net/>


I'd add the caveat that the value of listening to tower or TRACON,
although, great, does not give the flavor of listening to center sectors
adjacent to busy terminal airspace. For instance, all the descent stuff
that might include PD clearances will occur on Los Angeles Center
frequenices, high and low sectors, not on SoCal frequencies.

[Alexey Goldin]

Sorry :-) Will be more careful next time.


Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Alexey Goldin wrote: The same message twice.
>
> You are using google groups to post aren't you? Trust you first click. :)

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Newps writes:
>
>
>>It changes flight path, like he said, you dumb****.
>
>
> The rudder rotates the aircraft about its yaw axis, in both simulation
> and real flight. Whether or not this changes the flight path depends
> on a number of factors.
>

You get dumber everyday.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
>>Uh, gee, Einstein, a real rudder DOES control flight path.
>
>
> Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

There is never a case where it doesn't change flight path.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> BDS writes:
>
>
>>Staying within the context of this discussion vis-a-vis rudder input alone
>>and your statement above, can you describe when it does and does not affect
>>flight path and in which aircraft this is true? What are the number of
>>different effects it can have and what situations do they occur in.
>
>
> There are many different possibilities. In the experiment suggested
> to me, I held the wings level (via the autolevel function of the
> autopilot), applied full right rudder, and the aircraft yawed and
> gradually changed heading. The ground track was a segment of a circle
> (depending on how long I held the rudder). Supposedly MSFS can't do
> this, but it did.
>
> Adjusting the rudder yaws the aircraft. In ordinary level flight,
> this will tend to cause the aircraft to enter a turn. The asymmetric
> lift resulting from the yaw will tend to push the aircraft into a bank
> in the same direction as the rudder is turning the aircraft, and
> aerodynamic forces on the rest of the aircraft will assist this.
>
> The rudder can also be used to compensate for other forces acting
> about the yaw axis. It can be used to compensate for crosswinds or
> engine torque. It can be used to establish and maintain coordinated
> turns. And so on.



You still haven't listed one time when the rudder does not change flight
path.

[Peter R.]

Sam Spade > wrote:

> I'd add the caveat that the value of listening to tower or TRACON,
> although, great, does not give the flavor of listening to center sectors
> adjacent to busy terminal airspace. For instance, all the descent stuff
> that might include PD clearances will occur on Los Angeles Center
> frequenices, high and low sectors, not on SoCal frequencies.

Not sure if you are assuming that LiveATC.net only carries tower or TRACON
frequencies or not, but in case you are: LiveATC.net also carries many
centner frequencies.

As an example, LiveATC.net has many Boston and NY center frequencies.

Another point is that LiveATC is made up of volunteers providing scanned
frequencies. There are not a lot of western US frequencies on the site due
simply to the lack of volunteers offering them. If you know anyone... :)


--
Peter
A LiveATC volunteer feeding KSYR tower and approach.

[Sam Spade]

Peter R. wrote:
> Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>
>>I'd add the caveat that the value of listening to tower or TRACON,
>>although, great, does not give the flavor of listening to center sectors
>>adjacent to busy terminal airspace. For instance, all the descent stuff
>>that might include PD clearances will occur on Los Angeles Center
>>frequenices, high and low sectors, not on SoCal frequencies.
>
>
> Not sure if you are assuming that LiveATC.net only carries tower or TRACON
> frequencies or not, but in case you are: LiveATC.net also carries many
> centner frequencies.
>
> As an example, LiveATC.net has many Boston and NY center frequencies.
>
> Another point is that LiveATC is made up of volunteers providing scanned
> frequencies. There are not a lot of western US frequencies on the site due
> simply to the lack of volunteers offering them. If you know anyone... :)
>
>
I missed the center frequencies. To get a good flavor of the east high
and low LA frequenices you would need a volunteer in Barstow and one
somewhere in the Ontario area. ;-)

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>>
>>> Uh, gee, Einstein, a real rudder DOES control flight path.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
>
>
> There is never a case where it doesn't change flight path.

Not so. When an engine fails on a multi, a lot of rudder is required.
Skillfully done, the application of a lot of rudder is mandatory to
maintain the desired flight path.

[Peter R.]

Sam Spade > wrote:

> I missed the center frequencies. To get a good flavor of the east high
> and low LA frequenices you would need a volunteer in Barstow and one
> somewhere in the Ontario area. ;-)

Is that where their antenna farms or just the facilities are located?

--
Peter

[Mark Hansen]

On 01/05/07 09:58, Sam Spade wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Uh, gee, Einstein, a real rudder DOES control flight path.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
>>
>>
>> There is never a case where it doesn't change flight path.
>
> Not so. When an engine fails on a multi, a lot of rudder is required.
> Skillfully done, the application of a lot of rudder is mandatory to
> maintain the desired flight path.

It is changing the flight path the aircraft would have taken had you
not applied the rudder.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

TxSrv wrote:
> But I have trouble
> believing the typical ATC would regularly spend off-hours directing
> nonpilots in a make-believe IFR environment.

So do I.

I also have trouble believing very many real pilots would bother to
participate in that whole shebang.

[Barney Rubble]

How do you know that they aren't just agreeing with you in the hope that you
will go away? Seems much more plausible based on your current performance.

Transpose mxsmanic with moron to reach the whining, live in the dark,
trolling buffoon.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Judah writes:
>
>> How do you know who is honest and who is lying?
>
> By knowing their overall personalities.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Barney Rubble]

She flies it to get away from you....

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Wade Hasbrouck writes:
>
>> I would like to see him tell Patty Wagstaff that her airplane is just a
>> "fun" plane and not a "serious" plane. :-)
>
> I was talking about the MSFS model of the plane, not the plane itself.
>
> I'm sure Patty Wagstaff considers it fun; otherwise, why would she fly
> it?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Alexey Goldin]

Nomen Nescio wrote:
> different.
> In MSFS, maintain normal climb pitch, and speed, and you will
> always climb. Maintain normal descent pitch and you will always
> descend. Independent of MSFS "turbulence". Any 10 hr REAL pilot
> already knows that this is not true in a real plane.
>

If this statement about MSFS behavior is true, it is impossible to
simulate soaring flight in MSFS. I have no experience with MSFS --- is
this the case? Never mind simulated flying under cumulonimbus or in
virga --- exactly the case where you do not want to do it for real...

I saw simulated soaring flight in X-plane, so at least some programs
probably do it more properly...

[Sam Spade]

Peter R. wrote:
> Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>
>>I missed the center frequencies. To get a good flavor of the east high
>>and low LA frequenices you would need a volunteer in Barstow and one
>>somewhere in the Ontario area. ;-)
>
>
> Is that where their antenna farms or just the facilities are located?
>

It would be where the remote transmitter/receivers would be located.
(aka "RCO" remote communications outlet.)

I am approximating the location of these two RCOs. Stay tuned.

[Sam Spade]

Mark Hansen wrote:

> On 01/05/07 09:58, Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>Newps wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Uh, gee, Einstein, a real rudder DOES control flight path.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
>>>
>>>
>>>There is never a case where it doesn't change flight path.
>>
>>Not so. When an engine fails on a multi, a lot of rudder is required.
>>Skillfully done, the application of a lot of rudder is mandatory to
>>maintain the desired flight path.
>
>
> It is changing the flight path the aircraft would have taken had you
> not applied the rudder.

That is like saying a localizer changes the flight path on an ILS.

[gpsman]

Nomen Nescio wrote: <brevity snip/groups adjusted>
> Falcon 4.0 is like that for me. Does it actually behave like a F-16?
> I dunno. It behaves like a PLANE and that's important to me, although
> there are a few things I've noticed that I would bet are quite
> different in a real F-16. But I don't care because I am trying to learn
> the GAME and be good at the GAME. Since I'll probably never get
> a chance to fly, or even fly in, an F-16, the differences just don't matter
> to me (although I did get to sit in one and embarrass my wife by making
> jet noises and shouting "Fox one").
> I enjoy it for what it is and have no delusions that I really know
> how to fly an F-16. And if a REAL F-16 pilot told me about what it was like to
> fly a REAL F-16, I wouldn't be arguing about the differences in the
> Falcon 4.0 flight models..........I'd STFU and take notes.

Now that's funny!

Falcon 3.0 was advertised as the declassified version of the software
used to train NG pilots. I have no idea how realistic it remained, but
it was real enough to make me sweat and hold my breath as I struggled
to not have my ass shot out of the sky.

I don't remember exactly what year I purchased it, but the machine I
first ran it on was a 486/25 (in DOS).

THAT... was one kickass game!
http://www.f4hq.com/default.php?page=default
-----

- gpsman

[mad8]

Paul kgyy wrote:
> If you want a better feel for what actually goes on than you will ever
> get via newsgroup, take a couple of United flights and listen to the
> ATC channel - it can be much more entertaining than the movie at times.

i love that "channel". It's really fun being able to say to the person
you're flying with "i can predict the future. Check it out, we're gonna
turn left in about 3 seconds"

just like at work i always listen to the DFW stream...
http://www.caesimuflite.com/atcindex1.html

[Ross]

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>How does the 172 fly when you pilot it at FL250 yourself?
>
>
> It can't get up there, the C172 has a service ceiling arount 14,000 ft.
>

I had mine on a cold day to 14,500 and still climbing at 500 fpm. Forgot
the O2 to go any highter. I just wanted to see how high I could go. I
was in contact with ATC for monitoring. Just a fun thing to do.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Ross]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> Ross wrote:
>
>
>>It's not a Extra 300 but I had the opportunity years ago to "fly" the
>>American Airlines Fokker F100 at their DFW training center at full
>>motion. I thought that was pretty realistic for this general aviation
>>pilot.
>
>
> Was that full motion simulator running MSFS? That was the software in
> question.
>
>
Nope, this was the real multi million $ American Airline simulator in
Ft. Worth Texas at their training center. I do not suspect they you
MSFS. I even had a AA instructor at the computer behind me.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Jim Stewart]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jim Stewart writes:
>
>
>>I have about 150 hours in MSFS and 10 hours
>>and 5 or 6 landings in a real plane. *Nothing*
>>in FS prepares you for the instructor shouting..
>
>
> If your instructor shouts, you need a new instructor.


Airplanes are noisy and students get fixated
on things.

I don't need another instructor, I need to
stop replying to your senseless trolls.

>>I wonder if Max could even handle the
>>degree of psychological battering it takes
>>to become a good real-world pilot.
>
>
> An instructor who could not keep a cool head would never retain my
> business. I have too much experience to tolerate that sort of
> misbehavior.

Your abject cluelessness is staggering.

In this case shouting and a cool head
have nothing to do with each other.

I'm done with you. You seem to be reasonably
intelligent yet you seem to have the wisdom
of a 2-year old. Please, please stay away
from real airports and real planes.

[Mxsmanic]

Barney Rubble writes:

> How do you know that they aren't just agreeing with you in the hope that you
> will go away? Seems much more plausible based on your current performance.

I know they aren't stupid.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Ross writes:

> Nope, this was the real multi million $ American Airline simulator in
> Ft. Worth Texas at their training center. I do not suspect they you
> MSFS.

Sometimes it can be surprising what runs on the back end.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Alexey Goldin writes:

> When I came back, I thanked her for saving me from possibly broken arm
> or leg (no kidding) and unpleasant time spent in hospital, never mind
> bent aluminium.

She could have accomplished the same without shouting or swearing.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> It can't get up there, the C172 has a service ceiling arount 14,000 ft.

Then how do you know how it behaves at FL250?

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

[Mxsmanic]

TxSrv writes:

> How do you actually know they are real controllers?

I know where they work.

> But I have trouble believing the typical ATC would regularly
> spend off-hours directing nonpilots in a make-believe IFR
> environment.

Is it also hard for you to believe that an airline pilot would spend
his off-hours flying a small private plane?

> If there were many real controllers doing this, you wouldn't
> have so many misconceptions about IFR, the few rigid rules
> which are not to be violated, and the essential task of the
> controller.

Why don't you try it, and report back here?

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

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> I also have trouble believing very many real pilots would bother to
> participate in that whole shebang.

Many real pilots play with MSFS all the time.

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

[Mxsmanic]

TxSrv writes:

> All planes, and various propulsion systems, react in the
> same way to air density. The program itself could handle
> this, needing only some specifics from the model file and
> which it does supply for certain things. Whatever. Of the
> zillion FS planes out there for download, point me toward a
> normally-aspirated, piston aircraft, with certificated HP in
> the model file, and which isn't a real hoot when slewed up
> into the flight levels.

Since you cannot test the real aircraft that high, you have no way of
knowing whether the simulation is accurate or not.

> The red knobby thingy? Besides doing little but being an
> on/off switch?

It's considerably more than an on/off switch when I use it.

> I dunno.

I agree.

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

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> Well, then that conflicts with what another poster said which I believe was
> that MSFS allowed you to yaw the nose without any heading change.

Yes, it does.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> You still haven't listed one time when the rudder does not change flight
> path.

A forward slip.

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

[A Lieberma]

"Barney Rubble" > wrote in
:

> How do you know that they aren't just agreeing with you in the hope
> that you will go away? Seems much more plausible based on your current
> performance.

Only way the troll will go away is for us not to answer him.....

Allen

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> There is never a case where it doesn't change flight path.

Landing in a crosswind.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Mark Hansen writes:

> It is changing the flight path the aircraft would have taken had you
> not applied the rudder.

It is also maintaining the flight path that you originally intended.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> Won't work that way. The wing leveler won't keep the wings level in
> that situation.

You are telling me things that are manifestly untrue when I actually
try them, which wastes my time.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Alexey Goldin writes:

> If this statement about MSFS behavior is true, it is impossible to
> simulate soaring flight in MSFS. I have no experience with MSFS --- is
> this the case? Never mind simulated flying under cumulonimbus or in
> virga --- exactly the case where you do not want to do it for real...

MSFS includes a glider. I have no glider experience so I cannot
comment on its realism.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> In the context of aviation the purpose of simulation is to faithfully
> duplicate the aircraft flight deck, panels and systems, motion, and
> outside visual references so that pilot qualification in the simulator
> translates into pilot qualification in the aircraft.

No. Simulation reproduces specific aspects of the real world with
specific levels of accuracy and realism. No simulation reproduces
everything perfectly. Some simulators reproduce certain things
perfectly. There is no one size that fits all, nor is it necessary
for all simulators to reproduce everything.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Paul kgyy writes:

> If you want a better feel for what actually goes on than you will ever
> get via newsgroup, take a couple of United flights and listen to the
> ATC channel - it can be much more entertaining than the movie at times.

I didn't know it was possible to do that. I haven't flown in a long
time. I'm surprised nobody has forbidden it as "useful to
terrorists."

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

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>I don't think you understand the aerodynamics of the real world. MSFS
>>has great scenery but the aircraft and the atmosphere modeling are
>>terribly wrong in MSFS.
>
>
> It sounds like you don't fly much in MSFS.
>
> Tell me _exactly_ what's wrong with the aircraft modeling.
>

Off the top of my head:

The King Air, on autopilot, will not maintain the set vertical speed if
the IAS drops below 120 knots or so. It will nose-dive and crash. Not
so with a real King Air.

Cross winds on autopilot are not handled correctly on an RNAV approach.

Strong winds aloft dramatically affect IAS in a holding pattern, which
is wrong beyond belief.

That is my short list.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Ross writes:
>
>
>>Nope, this was the real multi million $ American Airline simulator in
>>Ft. Worth Texas at their training center. I do not suspect they you
>>MSFS.
>
>
> Sometimes it can be surprising what runs on the back end.
>
In those $10 million simulators it sure as Hell ain't windows.

[Peter Dohm]

> Your incessant crossposting to irrelevant groups is an obvious
> indicator that you are a k00k... and the time you spend here arguing
> with those who know of which they speak might be better spent
> accumulating the income that would allow you to get an hour of air
> under your ass so that you might form your conclusions via your own
> experience.

Naw ... that would ruin the little schmeckel's enjoyment of the sim.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>In the context of aviation the purpose of simulation is to faithfully
>>duplicate the aircraft flight deck, panels and systems, motion, and
>>outside visual references so that pilot qualification in the simulator
>>translates into pilot qualification in the aircraft.
>
>
> No. Simulation reproduces specific aspects of the real world with
> specific levels of accuracy and realism. No simulation reproduces
> everything perfectly. Some simulators reproduce certain things
> perfectly. There is no one size that fits all, nor is it necessary
> for all simulators to reproduce everything.
>
Did I say "perfectly?"

How much Appendix D simulator training and proficiency checks have you had?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> TxSrv writes:
>
>> All planes, and various propulsion systems, react in the
>> same way to air density. The program itself could handle
>> this, needing only some specifics from the model file and
>> which it does supply for certain things. Whatever. Of the
>> zillion FS planes out there for download, point me toward a
>> normally-aspirated, piston aircraft, with certificated HP in
>> the model file, and which isn't a real hoot when slewed up
>> into the flight levels.
>
> Since you cannot test the real aircraft that high, you have no way of
> knowing whether the simulation is accurate or not.


To all of you R.A.P., R.A.I. and R.A.S. regulars out there that take up for
this little twit please read the above and rethink your position. If you
still think he asks logical questions and makes only reasoned statements
please list you name below.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> MSFS includes a glider. I have no glider experience so I cannot
> comment on its realism.


POST OF THE MONTH.

[Mark Hansen]

On 01/05/07 14:15, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> TxSrv writes:
>>
>>> All planes, and various propulsion systems, react in the
>>> same way to air density. The program itself could handle
>>> this, needing only some specifics from the model file and
>>> which it does supply for certain things. Whatever. Of the
>>> zillion FS planes out there for download, point me toward a
>>> normally-aspirated, piston aircraft, with certificated HP in
>>> the model file, and which isn't a real hoot when slewed up
>>> into the flight levels.
>>
>> Since you cannot test the real aircraft that high, you have no way of
>> knowing whether the simulation is accurate or not.
>
>
> To all of you R.A.P., R.A.I. and R.A.S. regulars out there that take up for
> this little twit please read the above and rethink your position. If you
> still think he asks logical questions and makes only reasoned statements
> please list you name below.
>
>


Well, I just laughed when I saw that statement. But, I've seen so may
like that from him that it's just the same old thing.

Still, it's been clear to me for some time that he's not here for
the exchange of information, but to disrupt this board (among other
things) - and he's keeps getting plenty of help ;-\

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Uh, gee, Einstein, a real rudder DOES control flight path.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is never a case where it doesn't change flight path.
>
>
> Not so. When an engine fails on a multi, a lot of rudder is required.
> Skillfully done, the application of a lot of rudder is mandatory to
> maintain the desired flight path.




Yep, thus changing the flight path from the centered position.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Newps writes:
>
>
>>You still haven't listed one time when the rudder does not change flight
>>path.
>
>
> A forward slip.


BZZT, try again.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Newps writes:
>
>
>>There is never a case where it doesn't change flight path.
>
>
> Landing in a crosswind.


Steeeeeerike two.

[Alexey Goldin]

Amazing. Anyone knows about possibility for killfile in Google groups?


Mxsmanic wrote:
> Alexey Goldin writes:
>
> > When I came back, I thanked her for saving me from possibly broken arm
> > or leg (no kidding) and unpleasant time spent in hospital, never mind
> > bent aluminium.
>
> She could have accomplished the same without shouting or swearing.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Rick Branch]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> B A R R Y writes:
>
>> I also have trouble believing very many real pilots would bother to
>> participate in that whole shebang.
>
> Many real pilots play with MSFS all the time.
>

A friend of mine is a pilot for an international cargo carrier, and he
does play with MSFS. He just loves to fly a 747 off of a grass strip
that is about half a mile from his (real) house. The grass strip is in
the MSFS database, so he uses it. (I guess it beats pretending to drive
to the airport.)

So, at least one professional pilot likes to _PLAY_ with MSFS.

[Peter Dohm]

> >> I also have trouble believing very many real pilots would bother to
> >> participate in that whole shebang.
> >
> > Many real pilots play with MSFS all the time.
> >
>
> A friend of mine is a pilot for an international cargo carrier, and he
> does play with MSFS. He just loves to fly a 747 off of a grass strip
> that is about half a mile from his (real) house. The grass strip is in
> the MSFS database, so he uses it. (I guess it beats pretending to drive
> to the airport.)
>
> So, at least one professional pilot likes to _PLAY_ with MSFS.

Could be amusing. Tthose sim engines are virtually imune to FOD; and the
wing tips can slice through trees like they were never there ... <bfg>

Peter

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> Since you cannot test the real aircraft that high, you have no
> way of knowing whether the simulation is accurate or not.

Brilliant. How do we get there in the first place? What
limiters do you suppose in a normally-aspirated,
piston-engine A/C would prevent us? Barring extraordinary
ridge lift in winter-cold air, and maybe that would be
insufficient, how do we get to FL 300 like I've done in MSFS
in a 172? Possible only with slew. And what's that silly
MSFS phugoid thing all about in this rarefied air? It's
program code; not reality.

F--

[Buck Murdock]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Ross writes:
>
> > Nope, this was the real multi million $ American Airline simulator in
> > Ft. Worth Texas at their training center. I do not suspect they you
> > MSFS.
>
> Sometimes it can be surprising what runs on the back end.

As someone who's been flying them every six months for a decade, and
*instructing* in them for several years, it wouldn't be surprising at
all. And as Mr. Space correctly points out, there's not so much as a
snippet of Microsoft code running those $12 MM simulators.

They run custom-designed simulator software, running on banks of
computers. They can communicate with the actual, physical avionics that
are the same as those installed in the aircraft. (Very, very different
from painting graphics on what amounts to a matte painting that looks
somewhat like a cockpit.) They also mimic the physical sensations,
which are *critical* in coming anywhere close to completely simulating
flight.

I've played MSFS, I've spent hundreds of hours in full-motion
simulators, and I've flown thousands of hours in transport aircraft.
Until you have done more than one of the above, you ARE NOT QUALIFIED to
make comparisons amongst them.

[Capt.Doug]

>"Mxsmanic" wrote in message > Do you often need a different altitude from
the one you filed?
> Perhaps for fuel considerations, or headwinds, or something?

Often times our actual weight will be slightly different from the flight
planned weight requiring 2000' up or down for fuel optimization. Turbulence
is another reason to change altitudes, sometimes 10000' or more. A 2000'
change in altitude usually doesn't make enough difference in headwinds to
justify the increased fuel burn of changing altitudes. Sometimes we are just
plain stuck at an inefficient altitude because of same direction traffic.

> So what do they say in this telephone call?

Along the lines of 'Now you know- don't do it again".

> I would have thought that altitude and track would both be about
> equally important.

They are both important, however altitude leeway is +/-300' whereas airways
have .5 to 4 miles of leeway.

D.

[Capt.Doug]

>"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
> Actually, no, it doesn't. The word "for" is to be avoided because it sound
> the same as "four". It sounds like many airline pilots (just like "twelve
> hundred" or "with you"), but professional it is not.

Let's split hairs- I am aware of the Flying Tigers' accident. However,
'four' followed by 'twelve' is hard to confuse. 'four one two thousand'
doesn't make sense either. Professionals are admonished to be concise and
efficient in their transmissions. In that sense, and because Maniac did say
that he was already issued the crossing restriction, "Leaving FL290" would
be better.

D.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> I know they aren't stupid.

How do you know this?

[gpsman]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote: <groups adjusted>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> >
> > MSFS includes a glider. I have no glider experience so I cannot
> > comment on its realism.
>
>
> POST OF THE MONTH.

Lol!

What are the odds of a conclusion that seems rational emanating from
that keyboard?
-----

- gpsman

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Viperdoc" > wrote:

> While this thread is obviously degenerating to your base level of illogic
> and circular reasoning, I can tell you that your statement "anyone competent
> to flying can probably can land (an Extra) virtually blindfolded" is
> laughingly untrue.

Aww heck, landings are assured. Surviving the landing is a different matter

:-)

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

[Sam Spade]

Capt.Doug wrote:

>>"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
>>So it would probably be best to set the MCP to prevent any descent
>>until I'm cleared, then?
>
>
> MCP = max continuous power? Sorry- not familiar with the term as used on an
> FMS. The important thing is to not set the altitude hold for descent until
> cleared by ATC.

Mode Control Panel

[Sam Spade]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Mxsmanic,
>
>
>>Which airline do you fly for, again?
>>
>
>
> Are you determined to make a complete idiot of yourself now? But I'm
> glad to see it is possible to penetrate that armor you've conveniently
> constructed around your sorry self.

Well stated, Tom.

I fell for this jerk in the beginning.

[Sam Spade]

Buck Murdock wrote:

> In article >,
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>
>>Ross writes:
>>
>>
>>>Nope, this was the real multi million $ American Airline simulator in
>>>Ft. Worth Texas at their training center. I do not suspect they you
>>>MSFS.
>>
>>Sometimes it can be surprising what runs on the back end.
>
>
> As someone who's been flying them every six months for a decade, and
> *instructing* in them for several years, it wouldn't be surprising at
> all. And as Mr. Space correctly points out, there's not so much as a
> snippet of Microsoft code running those $12 MM simulators.
>
> They run custom-designed simulator software, running on banks of
> computers. They can communicate with the actual, physical avionics that
> are the same as those installed in the aircraft. (Very, very different
> from painting graphics on what amounts to a matte painting that looks
> somewhat like a cockpit.) They also mimic the physical sensations,
> which are *critical* in coming anywhere close to completely simulating
> flight.
>
> I've played MSFS, I've spent hundreds of hours in full-motion
> simulators, and I've flown thousands of hours in transport aircraft.
> Until you have done more than one of the above, you ARE NOT QUALIFIED to
> make comparisons amongst them.

AMEN

And, it is Mr. Spade. ;-)

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>> Newps wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Uh, gee, Einstein, a real rudder DOES control flight path.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is never a case where it doesn't change flight path.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not so. When an engine fails on a multi, a lot of rudder is required.
>> Skillfully done, the application of a lot of rudder is mandatory to
>> maintain the desired flight path.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yep, thus changing the flight path from the centered position.

That is pure b.s. It keeps the flight path intended going, rather than
letting if follow the flight path at the centered position, which is
also known as a torgue roll into intverted flight, followed by a briefly
painful death for all aboard.

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>> Newps wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Uh, gee, Einstein, a real rudder DOES control flight path.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is never a case where it doesn't change flight path.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not so. When an engine fails on a multi, a lot of rudder is required.
>> Skillfully done, the application of a lot of rudder is mandatory to
>> maintain the desired flight path.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yep, thus changing the flight path from the centered position.

Have a nice torque roll day.

[N2310D]

"gpsman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote: <groups adjusted>
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> >
>> > MSFS includes a glider. I have no glider experience so I cannot
>> > comment on its realism.
>>
>>
>> POST OF THE MONTH.
>
> Lol!
>
> What are the odds of a conclusion that seems rational emanating from
> that keyboard?

I am delighted to see his post which can most logically be read as:

MSFS includes a glider (Baron). I have no glider (Baron) experience so I
cannot comment on its realism.

or, better still,

MSFS includes an airplane. I have no airplane experience so I cannot
comment on its realism.

He said it in so many words, I only pose the corollary.

[A Lieberma]

Nomen Nescio > wrote in
:

> But that gets boring after a while since it's so damned easy to cook this
> ant.
> So I'm done.

Thank you!!!!!!!!!!

[Mxsmanic]

N2310D writes:

> MSFS includes a glider (Baron). I have no glider (Baron) experience so I
> cannot comment on its realism.

The Baron is a powered aircraft.

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

[Jay Beckman]

"gpsman" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Nomen Nescio wrote: <brevity snip/groups adjusted>
>> Falcon 4.0 is like that for me. Does it actually behave like a F-16?
>> I dunno. It behaves like a PLANE and that's important to me, although
>> there are a few things I've noticed that I would bet are quite
>> different in a real F-16. But I don't care because I am trying to learn
>> the GAME and be good at the GAME. Since I'll probably never get
>> a chance to fly, or even fly in, an F-16, the differences just don't
>> matter
>> to me (although I did get to sit in one and embarrass my wife by making
>> jet noises and shouting "Fox one").
>> I enjoy it for what it is and have no delusions that I really know
>> how to fly an F-16. And if a REAL F-16 pilot told me about what it was
>> like to
>> fly a REAL F-16, I wouldn't be arguing about the differences in the
>> Falcon 4.0 flight models..........I'd STFU and take notes.
>
> Now that's funny!
>
> Falcon 3.0 was advertised as the declassified version of the software
> used to train NG pilots. I have no idea how realistic it remained, but
> it was real enough to make me sweat and hold my breath as I struggled
> to not have my ass shot out of the sky.
>
> I don't remember exactly what year I purchased it, but the machine I
> first ran it on was a 486/25 (in DOS).
>
> THAT... was one kickass game!
> http://www.f4hq.com/default.php?page=default
> -----
>
> - gpsman
>

FWIW..

I've always been a fan of the entire Falcon series. It's come a very long
way from when it ran in wire frame, then CGA (Cyan, Pink and black) and on
through F3/4 and it's current itteration of Allied Force.

Back in the late '80s I got a chance to visit the AZ ANG section of the
Tucson International Airport. For those who may not know, they do a brisk
F16 training business at TUS and they run a lot of foreign pilots through
there as well.

Besides the book learning, they had several different "devices" to help
pilots learn the switchology. This ranged from simple wall posters, to a
wooden mockup (nice polished maple...) where the panel sections, switches
and dials were twice normal size to aid in finding them by feel, to a couple
of full-fidelity (but non moving) sims built from real F16 cockpit tubs.
They also had a radar/weapons trainer which I found facinating more because
of who made it than for what it was used. The stick and throttle were off
the shelf Thrustmaster and all you saw sitting at it was a wire-frame HUD
display. "Out there somewhere" were wire-frame adversaries to lock up,
close with and shoot at. The manufacturer was...(drumroll)...**Spectrum
Holobyte.**

This was the genesis of the Falcon series for the home PC.

Jay B

[Mxsmanic]

Capt.Doug writes:

> They are both important, however altitude leeway is +/-300' whereas airways
> have .5 to 4 miles of leeway.

Three hundred feet seems generous for altitudes. I thought I read
somewhere that I was supposed to be within 100 feet, or was it 60
feet? Now I can't seem to find a specific tolerance in the FARs. Of
course this isn't normally a problem if I'm on autopilot, but when
flying by hand I still have trouble holding an altitude.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> In those $10 million simulators it sure as Hell ain't windows.

I don't know, as I don't have any specs in front of me, but Windows
might well be used for certain functions, as it would lower
implementation costs if the OS is suitable for the purpose (writing a
custom operating system is very expensive). If the actual simulation
software is custom-written, I'd expect something a bit more efficient,
like a bare-bones UNIX system, or a dedicated real-time OS. But one
cannot use just anything, because the more exotic the OS, the more
expensive the development carried out for it.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Buck Murdock writes:

> Until you have done more than one of the above, you ARE NOT QUALIFIED to
> make comparisons amongst them.

Qualifications on USENET are never certain.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Rick Branch writes:

> A friend of mine is a pilot for an international cargo carrier, and he
> does play with MSFS. He just loves to fly a 747 off of a grass strip
> that is about half a mile from his (real) house. The grass strip is in
> the MSFS database, so he uses it. (I guess it beats pretending to drive
> to the airport.)

I didn't think that 747s could be used with grass strips. I know some
other airliners can be used on unpaved strips, although it may require
special option packages.

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

[Mxsmanic]

TxSrv writes:

> Brilliant. How do we get there in the first place?

If it's above the ceiling of the aircraft, you don't.

> Barring extraordinary
> ridge lift in winter-cold air, and maybe that would be
> insufficient, how do we get to FL 300 like I've done in MSFS
> in a 172?

You don't.

The point is that, since you cannot test the real aircraft at that
altitude, you don't really know how it would behave. And so you don't
necessarily know if the simulation is accurate or not. Simulation
allows you to magically place the aircraft at that altitude. In real
life, you'd have to climb to that altitude. The only exception might
be a drop from a larger aircraft, which would indeed allow you to test
it at high altitudes. It's hard to see any use for that, however,
beyond satisfaction of curiosity.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> BZZT, try again.

Which flight path is followed in a forward slip?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> Steeeeeerike two.

Why? The intended flight path is aligned with the centerline of the
runway, and in fact that is the flight path followed; there is no
deviation.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> The King Air, on autopilot, will not maintain the set vertical speed if
> the IAS drops below 120 knots or so. It will nose-dive and crash. Not
> so with a real King Air.

Does the King Air allow you to set a vertical speed? What happens on
the real aircraft?

> Cross winds on autopilot are not handled correctly on an RNAV approach.

Which autopilot? What does it do incorrectly?

> Strong winds aloft dramatically affect IAS in a holding pattern, which
> is wrong beyond belief.

I'll have to look.

> That is my short list.

I don't recall ever flying the King Air, but I'll try to remember to
look at the other things the next time the opportunity arises.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> Since you've never flown a real aircraft AT ALL, you have no way of
> knowing whether the simulation is accurate or not.

The real aircraft cannot climb to that altitude, so _nobody_ knows
whether the simulation is accurate or not.

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

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> Three hundred feet seems generous for altitudes. I thought I read
> somewhere that I was supposed to be within 100 feet, or was it 60
> feet? Now I can't seem to find a specific tolerance in the FARs. Of
> course this isn't normally a problem if I'm on autopilot, but when
> flying by hand I still have trouble holding an altitude.

Autopilot does work quite well in MSFS, really. In real
flight under IFR, the bounds of permissible altitude
deviation as seen by ATC via our Mode C squawks are derived
from published FAA documents, not the FARs. Google is fun;
site:www.faa.gov. Knock yourself out. I also can hold
altitude quite well within 10's of feet in a real
no-autopilot airplane in even raucous meteorological
conditions. Years of MSFS sim weenie experience taught me
how, I must admit.

F--

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> The real aircraft cannot climb to that altitude, so _nobody_ knows
> whether the simulation is accurate or not.

You are missing the point that MSFS does not model, nor need
it for the vast majority of sensible users, the forced
(slewed) behavior of a 172 in the high flight levels be
real. Any real pilot, who knows the feel/behavior of a 172
class airplane near sea level, verses say 12,000 feet, and
who understands the aerodynamics involved and the effect of
limited HP in really rarefied air, need not be a "rocket
surgeon" to be able to accurately extrapolate.

F--

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> What happens on the real aircraft?

They crash. Real airplanes easily crash, despite what even
a King Air pilot I know well tells me. Not exactly a
pussycat, but a solid, predictable machine. Heck, he's just
a "blowhard," to use your word. Please also ignore any
alleged pilot here who tells you anything. The Microsoft
Games Development Team are the real gurus; I though we
stipulated that hundreds of posts ago.

F--

[Not4wood]

I think its great when he misses the point and the whole gist of the
conversation like this
and just jumps in at the only portion he knows. NOTHING

gpsman - Great line I think this should start the great lines of the quote
of the new year.

What are the odds of a conclusion that seems rational emanating from
that keyboard?
-----

Not4wood



"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> N2310D writes:
>
>> MSFS includes a glider (Baron). I have no glider (Baron) experience so I
>> cannot comment on its realism.
>
> The Baron is a powered aircraft.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Buck Murdock writes:
>
>
>>Until you have done more than one of the above, you ARE NOT QUALIFIED to
>>make comparisons amongst them.
>
>
> Qualifications on USENET are never certain.
>
You think I am making up the knowledge I have about air carrier operations?

You could learn from someone like me, instead you would rather be
arrogant and defend your lack of knowledge as being what it is most
certainly not.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>The King Air, on autopilot, will not maintain the set vertical speed if
>>the IAS drops below 120 knots or so. It will nose-dive and crash. Not
>>so with a real King Air.
>
>
> Does the King Air allow you to set a vertical speed? What happens on
> the real aircraft?
>
>
>>Cross winds on autopilot are not handled correctly on an RNAV approach.
>
>
> Which autopilot? What does it do incorrectly?
>
>
>>Strong winds aloft dramatically affect IAS in a holding pattern, which
>>is wrong beyond belief.
>
>
> I'll have to look.
>
>
>>That is my short list.
>
>
> I don't recall ever flying the King Air, but I'll try to remember to
> look at the other things the next time the opportunity arises.
>
Again, you're handicaped because you have no experience in comperable
aircraft.

You are a total waste of time.

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> You think I am making up the knowledge I have about air carrier
> operations?

I don't know. But I'm certain that many people make up many things on
USENET, and I know better than to believe whatever I'm told.

When someone tells me that most of the autoland-enabled aircraft are
landing only at Class D airports, I start to wonder.

> You could learn from someone like me, instead you would rather be
> arrogant and defend your lack of knowledge as being what it is most
> certainly not.

I see a lot of anomalies, and it makes me wary. See, despite what
people claim, I _do_ consult other sources, and if they conflict with
what people tell me here, it raises a lot of questions in my mind
about who is correct.

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

[Mxsmanic]

TxSrv writes:

> You are missing the point that MSFS does not model, nor need
> it for the vast majority of sensible users, the forced
> (slewed) behavior of a 172 in the high flight levels be
> real.

Without testing the aircraft at that altitude, there's no way to
verify the MSFS modeling of the aircraft at that altitude.

Since the real aircraft cannot reach that altitude on its own, there's
not much point in worrying about the MSFS model; but one cannot simply
say that it is incorrect, one can only say that it is unverified.

If MSFS allowed a 172 to climb to that altitude even though it could
not do so in real life, that would be an obvious flaw in the model;
but I don't believe it does that (I never fly the 172). Slewing does
not count because that is a deliberate overruling of the laws of
physics for convenience in setting up simulations.

> Any real pilot, who knows the feel/behavior of a 172
> class airplane near sea level, verses say 12,000 feet, and
> who understands the aerodynamics involved and the effect of
> limited HP in really rarefied air, need not be a "rocket
> surgeon" to be able to accurately extrapolate.

In other words, nobody knows for sure. When you actually test the
aircraft at that altitude, be sure to report back, as the data can be
checked again the model. In the meantime, neither you nor anybody
else can say anything definitive about it.

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

[Mxsmanic]

TxSrv writes:

> They crash.

But that is supposedly what MSFS also does, so it's correct.

If you can give me precise instructions on what to try and what the
result should be, I'll try it on MSFS. I don't know much about the
King Air.

> Please also ignore any alleged pilot here who tells you
> anything.

I never ignore; but I don't unconditionally believe, either.

> The Microsoft Games Development Team are the real gurus; I
> though we stipulated that hundreds of posts ago.

Many of the developers who have worked on MSFS over the years have
been pilots, too.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> If the real aircraft can't get to a FL, *any* representation of the
> aircraft's behavior at that altitude is incorrect.

Not so. The aircraft could be placed there by another aircraft, in
which case it would have some sort of behavior that presumably could
be simulated. It just can't get there under its own power. Slewing
functions in a simulator are the equivalent of carrying the aircraft
to that altitude in real life.

Thus, while there may not be much practical reason to simulate the
aircraft at that altitude, since it is physically possible for it to
be at that altitude, it is also possible to simulate it at that
altitude. However, if nobody ever tests the aircraft for real at that
altitude, any simulation of its behavior there remains a matter of
speculation and unverifiable.

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

[Rick Branch]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Rick Branch writes:
>
>> A friend of mine is a pilot for an international cargo carrier, and he
>> does play with MSFS. He just loves to fly a 747 off of a grass strip
>> that is about half a mile from his (real) house. The grass strip is in
>> the MSFS database, so he uses it. (I guess it beats pretending to drive
>> to the airport.)
>
> I didn't think that 747s could be used with grass strips.

In the world of MSFS it's possible. Give it a try.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> TxSrv writes:
>
>> You are missing the point that MSFS does not model, nor need
>> it for the vast majority of sensible users, the forced
>> (slewed) behavior of a 172 in the high flight levels be
>> real.
>
> Without testing the aircraft at that altitude, there's no way to
> verify the MSFS modeling of the aircraft at that altitude.
>
If the real aircraft can't get to a FL, *any* representation of the
aircraft's behavior at that altitude is incorrect. The only correct
modelling would be to accurately represent the aircraft's behavior at its
service ceiling.

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Rick Branch writes:

> In the world of MSFS it's possible. Give it a try.

MSFS tends to be more forgiving of such things, although that depends
on the aircraft model used (some add-ons are much more strict).

I wouldn't risk the aircraft on grass in real life, so I won't risk it
in simulation.

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> If the real aircraft can't get to a FL, *any* representation of the
>> aircraft's behavior at that altitude is incorrect.
>
> Not so. The aircraft could be placed there by another aircraft, in
> which case it would have some sort of behavior that presumably could
> be simulated. It just can't get there under its own power. Slewing
> functions in a simulator are the equivalent of carrying the aircraft
> to that altitude in real life.
>
That is an absurd scenario, and of no use in the simulation of the real
aircraft.

Bottom line: if the game allows the aircraft to reach a FL that is twice
the service ceiling of the real aircraft, then the engine is modelled
incorrectly. If the engine is modelled incorrectly, everything else about
the aircraft's behavior in the game is suspect. Of course, it is a
non-issue for those of us that actually fly.

Neil

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>You think I am making up the knowledge I have about air carrier
>>operations?
>
>
> I don't know. But I'm certain that many people make up many things on
> USENET, and I know better than to believe whatever I'm told.
>
> When someone tells me that most of the autoland-enabled aircraft are
> landing only at Class D airports, I start to wonder.
>
>
>>You could learn from someone like me, instead you would rather be
>>arrogant and defend your lack of knowledge as being what it is most
>>certainly not.
>
>
> I see a lot of anomalies, and it makes me wary. See, despite what
> people claim, I _do_ consult other sources, and if they conflict with
> what people tell me here, it raises a lot of questions in my mind
> about who is correct.
>

Good, go play with your other sources.

[Sam Spade]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Nomen,
>
>
>>>Why do so many real pilots have trouble landing in the sim, then?
>>
>>One of the reasons is the useless rudder modeling.
>>
>
>
> I think the main reason is lack of visual clues.
>

In a Level D simulator in 121 opertions a rating candidate must
demonstrate landing in the maximum crosswind limit for that aircraft.
This is done with the visual set at severe clear. When the aircraft is
decrab in the flare the rudder has to be used "just right." (another
example of employment of rudder to maintain the present and essential
flight path track. ;-)

Some folks have to practice it more than others before they are ready
for the rating ride.

[Thomas Borchert]

Nomen,

> When you were a kid, did you ever hold a magnifying glass over an
> ant and watch it fry? Responding to Mx is quite similar
>

I like that comparison ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> It doesn't behave there at all, because it can't get there on its own.
> If MSFS allows you to fly a C172 to that altitude, it models it wrongly.

It doesn't allow you to fly there, but you can slew up to that
altitude.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> That is an absurd scenario, and of no use in the simulation of the real
> aircraft.

I agree. But the important point is that nobody knows whether the
simulation is correct or not, because nobody has tried hoisting a 172
to that altitude to see how it flies.

> Bottom line: if the game allows the aircraft to reach a FL that is twice
> the service ceiling of the real aircraft, then the engine is modelled
> incorrectly.

MSFS does not allow that. The only way to get that high is by
slewing.

> Of course, it is a non-issue for those of us that actually fly.

You seem to be pretty upset over it.

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

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 15:50:58 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>I wouldn't risk the [747] aircraft on grass in real life, so I won't risk it
>in simulation.

Your statement reveals your self-delusion at best, and deep seated
neurosis or worse.

What's the worst that could happen if you took that SIMULATED risk?
Would it destroy your confidence the SIMULATED realism of your FANTSY
world? Do you fear exposing the lack of realism of MSFS's simulation
modeling?

Go ahead, give it a try. I won't tell, and you can PRETEND the
SIMULATED 747 sank in the soft earth. :-)

[gpsman]

Mxsmanic wrote: <groups adjusted>
> Neil Gould writes:
>
> > If the real aircraft can't get to a FL, *any* representation of the
> > aircraft's behavior at that altitude is incorrect.
>
> Not so. The aircraft could be placed there by another aircraft, in
> which case it would have some sort of behavior that presumably could
> be simulated. It just can't get there under its own power. Slewing
> functions in a simulator are the equivalent of carrying the aircraft
> to that altitude in real life.
>
> Thus, while there may not be much practical reason to simulate the
> aircraft at that altitude, since it is physically possible for it to
> be at that altitude

Well, which is it?! Could the aircraft be placed there by another
aircraft, or is it physically impossible for it to be at that altitude?

> However, if nobody ever tests the aircraft for real at that
> altitude, any simulation of its behavior there remains a matter of
> speculation and unverifiable.

<spit take> Ever hear of physics?
-----

- gpsman

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:


>
>>Of course, it is a non-issue for those of us that actually fly.
>
>
> You seem to be pretty upset over it.
>
You have a talent for causing real pilots to have that emotion. You
need a lot of work on tact and interpersonal relationships. I suspect,
though, you just don't care that you come off as arrogant, ignorant, and
obnoxious.

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> You have a talent for causing real pilots to have that emotion.

They choose their emotions; I don't. Smart pilots tend to be
relatively unaffected, but it's still their choice.

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

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Newps writes:
>
>
>>BZZT, try again.
>
>
> Which flight path is followed in a forward slip?

Irrelavant. The point is my dear clueless wonder is that the flight
path is altered by the rudder.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Newps writes:
>
>
>>Steeeeeerike two.
>
>
> Why? The intended flight path is aligned with the centerline of the
> runway, and in fact that is the flight path followed; there is no
> deviation.

The rudder changed the flight path from what it would have been.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> Irrelavant.

It's highly relevant, and it proves my point.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> The rudder changed the flight path from what it would have been.

The flight path is where you want the aircraft to go, not where it
would have gone.

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

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Newps writes:
>
>
>>Irrelavant.
>
>
> It's highly relevant, and it proves my point.
>

Once again you are completely lost.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Newps writes:
>
>
>>The rudder changed the flight path from what it would have been.
>
>
> The flight path is where you want the aircraft to go, not where it
> would have gone.


Sorry, once again you are clueless. The flight path is the track over
the ground. Not the desired track, not the aircraft heading but the
actual track. That track can be controlled a number of ways.

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Newps writes:
>>
>>
>>> The rudder changed the flight path from what it would have been.
>>
>>
>>
>> The flight path is where you want the aircraft to go, not where it
>> would have gone.
>
>
>
> Sorry, once again you are clueless. The flight path is the track over
> the ground. Not the desired track, not the aircraft heading but the
> actual track. That track can be controlled a number of ways.

That is correct. But, in most IFR operations desired track and actual
track must be virtually the same. If an engine is failed while actual
track is the same as desired track, and the proper application of rudder
(means no alieron cross-control input) results in continuing the actual
flight track to equal the desired flight track, then the flight path has
remained unchanged.

[Thomas Borchert]

Sam,

> In a Level D simulator in 121 opertions
>

And the connection to MSFS is?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Sam Spade]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Sam,
>
>
>>In a Level D simulator in 121 opertions
>>
>
>
> And the connection to MSFS is?
>
Zero

[Slade]

"gpsman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Mxsmanic wrote: <groups adjusted>
>> Neil Gould writes:
>>
>> > If the real aircraft can't get to a FL, *any* representation of the
>> > aircraft's behavior at that altitude is incorrect.
>>
>> Not so. The aircraft could be placed there by another aircraft, in
>> which case it would have some sort of behavior that presumably could
>> be simulated. It just can't get there under its own power. Slewing
>> functions in a simulator are the equivalent of carrying the aircraft
>> to that altitude in real life.
>>
>> Thus, while there may not be much practical reason to simulate the
>> aircraft at that altitude, since it is physically possible for it to
>> be at that altitude
>
> Well, which is it?! Could the aircraft be placed there by another
> aircraft, or is it physically impossible for it to be at that altitude?
>
>> However, if nobody ever tests the aircraft for real at that
>> altitude, any simulation of its behavior there remains a matter of
>> speculation and unverifiable.
>
> <spit take> Ever hear of physics?
> -----
>
> - gpsman

Steven Hawkins he's not!

Slade

[601XL Builder]

TxSrv wrote:

> Microsoft Games Development Team are the real gurus;

Actually one of them pretty much told him he was full of sh!t.

[bdl]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Thus, while there may not be much practical reason to simulate the
> aircraft at that altitude, since it is physically possible for it to
> be at that altitude, it is also possible to simulate it at that
> altitude. However, if nobody ever tests the aircraft for real at that
> altitude, any simulation of its behavior there remains a matter of
> speculation and unverifiable.

Why is the service ceiling of a 172 set so low then? Is it your
contention that if a B-29 dropped a 172 (i.e. "slew") from FL300 it
would continue to fly?

That its engine would somehow magically find enough oxygen to feed the
normally aspirated engine?

You'll construct anything in your mind to maintain your fantasy won't
you?

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> Why would anyone be upset over a non-issue? I'm certainly not.

Of course.

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

[Mxsmanic]

bdl writes:

> Why is the service ceiling of a 172 set so low then?

Because it cannot climb in any useful way above a certain altitude,
and it's not a high-performance aircraft.

> Is it your contention that if a B-29 dropped a 172 (i.e. "slew") from FL300 it
> would continue to fly?

I don't really know. I think it probably would, but it would be
pretty unstable.

> That its engine would somehow magically find enough oxygen to feed the
> normally aspirated engine?

It doesn't need an engine to fly.

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> Of course, it is a non-issue for those of us that actually fly.
>
> You seem to be pretty upset over it.
>
Why would anyone be upset over a non-issue? I'm certainly not.

Neil

[Buck Murdock]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Sam Spade writes:
>
> > In those $10 million simulators it sure as Hell ain't windows.
>
> I don't know...

And that would be the key point. I *do* know. I operate them for a
living, doing airline training in them.

> ... Windows
> might well be used for certain functions, as it would lower
> implementation costs if the OS is suitable for the purpose (writing a
> custom operating system is very expensive).

Hence the $12 MM pricetag for a typical Level D simulator, and the
nearly $1000/hour you'll pay to fly it.

> But one
> cannot use just anything, because the more exotic the OS, the more
> expensive the development carried out for it.

Yes. Which is why a full-motion simulator is not available for $69 at
CompUSA.

[Peter R.]

Wolfgang Schwanke > wrote:

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Wolfgang Schwanke writes:
>>
>>> It can't get up there, the C172 has a service ceiling arount 14,000 ft.
>>
>> Then how do you know how it behaves at FL250?
>
> It doesn't behave there at all, because it can't get there on its own.
> If MSFS allows you to fly a C172 to that altitude, it models it wrongly.

I've never placed my hand into the yellow flames of a campfire but I KNOW
with certainty what would happen if I did.


--
Peter

[Mxsmanic]

Buck Murdock writes:

> And that would be the key point. I *do* know. I operate them for a
> living, doing airline training in them.

What operating system is used?

> Hence the $12 MM pricetag for a typical Level D simulator, and the
> nearly $1000/hour you'll pay to fly it.

I feel certain that generous profit margins are built into these
prices.

> Yes. Which is why a full-motion simulator is not available for $69 at
> CompUSA.

Not yet, at least. The motion part will be expensive for a long time,
because there is very little trend towards cost reduction in
mechanical systems, but the computers are already there--there just
isn't any readily available software to handle it. A standard PC is
fast enough to handle it.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Peter R. writes:

> I've never placed my hand into the yellow flames of a campfire but I KNOW
> with certainty what would happen if I did.

You extrapolate based on the knowledge that you have, but you do not
know.

The distinction can be important in flying. Pilots who extrapolate
and confuse extrapolation with direct knowledge can get into trouble.

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

[Stefan]

Wolfgang Schwanke schrieb:

> It doesn't behave there at all, because it can't get there on its own.
> If MSFS allows you to fly a C172 to that altitude, it models it wrongly.

Actually, you're wrong in two ways:

You can get up there in a 172. You just can't go up there on your own
(which you stated correctly). Once at altitude, release from whatever
took you there and look how the3 172 behaves.

Second, todays numeric models are astonishingly accurate. Feed the data
in a suitable program and look how the 172 would behave.

Stefan

[Sam Spade]

Buck Murdock wrote:


> Yes. Which is why a full-motion simulator is not available for $69 at
> CompUSA.

Damn!

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Buck Murdock writes:
>
>
>>And that would be the key point. I *do* know. I operate them for a
>>living, doing airline training in them.
>
>
> What operating system is used?
>
>
>>Hence the $12 MM pricetag for a typical Level D simulator, and the
>>nearly $1000/hour you'll pay to fly it.
>
>
> I feel certain that generous profit margins are built into these
> prices.
>
>
>>Yes. Which is why a full-motion simulator is not available for $69 at
>>CompUSA.
>
>
> Not yet, at least. The motion part will be expensive for a long time,
> because there is very little trend towards cost reduction in
> mechanical systems, but the computers are already there--there just
> isn't any readily available software to handle it. A standard PC is
> fast enough to handle it.
>

You are so full of ****.

Several million of the $10-12 million goes to buy all the cockpit
hardware and essential avionics software and systems interfaces.

Again, you are so full of **** and an arrogant pain in the ass. If you
were for real and my aviation student, I would drop you like a hot potato.

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> Several million of the $10-12 million goes to buy all the cockpit
> hardware and essential avionics software and systems interfaces.

Where does the rest go?

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

[BDS]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Peter R. writes:
>
> > I've never placed my hand into the yellow flames of a campfire but I
KNOW
> > with certainty what would happen if I did.
>
> You extrapolate based on the knowledge that you have, but you do not
> know.

Predictable response. Now, if someone were to back you up and say they did
put their hand in the flames and what you predicted would happen is
accurate, the response will be "not everyone is like you".

It is argument for argument's sake.

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>> Several million of the $10-12 million goes to buy all the cockpit
>> hardware and essential avionics software and systems interfaces.
>
> Where does the rest go?

Toward the huge manufacturing and other costs incurred to
hand-produce a very complex machine in extremely low sales
volumes.

F--

[Mxsmanic]

TxSrv writes:

> Toward the huge manufacturing and other costs incurred to
> hand-produce a very complex machine in extremely low sales
> volumes.

So the manufacturers are selling these simulators at cost? That's
very good of them.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> I have no doubt that anything can be modelled to a high degree of
> accuracy. The issue is, does MSFS?

In this case, yes, probably. It's only a difference in altitude.

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

[Stefan]

Wolfgang Schwanke schrieb:

> Agree, but why am I wrong? I didn't say anything to the contrary. I said
> _if_ MSFS allows you to fly the 172 up there, then it's wrong.

Maybe a communications problem? If MSFS lets you climb there in a 172 on
your own, then it's wrong. If however it just lets you put it up there
as a starting point, this isn't wrong per se. The question then is, how
does it handle the situation?

> I have no doubt that anything can be modelled to a high degree of
> accuracy. The issue is, does MSFS?

No idea. Most probably not.

Stefan

[Mxsmanic]

Stefan writes:

> Maybe a communications problem? If MSFS lets you climb there in a 172 on
> your own, then it's wrong. If however it just lets you put it up there
> as a starting point, this isn't wrong per se. The question then is, how
> does it handle the situation?

At 45,000 feet, the engine seems to windmill a bit but will not run.
Airspeed is about 80 KIAS, and the aircraft can be held level easily
enough, but it is losing altitude very quickly, at around 2000 fpm.
Not much can be done with it (short of diving) for 15-20,000 feet or
so, at which point control seems to get better, and the engine will
run if you set the mixture right. At that altitude there are some
fairly huge phugoid movements if you try to climb or descend. Whether
the aircraft actually behaves this way in real life at such altitudes,
I don't know.

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

[Duncan (NZ)]

In article >,
says...
> Stefan writes:
>
> > Maybe a communications problem? If MSFS lets you climb there in a 172 on
> > your own, then it's wrong. If however it just lets you put it up there
> > as a starting point, this isn't wrong per se. The question then is, how
> > does it handle the situation?
>
> At 45,000 feet, the engine seems to windmill a bit but will not run.
> Airspeed is about 80 KIAS, and the aircraft can be held level easily
> enough, but it is losing altitude very quickly, at around 2000 fpm.
> Not much can be done with it (short of diving) for 15-20,000 feet or
> so, at which point control seems to get better, and the engine will
> run if you set the mixture right. At that altitude there are some
> fairly huge phugoid movements if you try to climb or descend. Whether
> the aircraft actually behaves this way in real life at such altitudes,
> I don't know.

AFAIK no-one has ever towed a C-172 to 45K' - unlike MSFS where you can
just pause and set the a/c at any altitude you like.

--
Duncan

[Mxsmanic]

Duncan writes:

> AFAIK no-one has ever towed a C-172 to 45K' ...

So nobody really knows.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> The distinction can be important in flying.
>

How would you know?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Sam Spade wrote:
> Buck Murdock wrote:
>
>
>> Yes. Which is why a full-motion simulator is not available for $69 at
>> CompUSA.
>
> Damn!

I can just imagine that Geek Squad installation visit. <G>

[Buck Murdock]

In article >,
B A R R Y > wrote:

> >> Yes. Which is why a full-motion simulator is not available for $69 at
> >> CompUSA.
> >
> > Damn!
>
> I can just imagine that Geek Squad installation visit. <G>

"Well... I really think you should get the 3-year service plan on this,
'cuz we see a lot of service calls on these. Let's see.... $12
million.... .... yeah, it'd be just $3.5 million for 3 years of full
coverage. Can I sign you up now?"

<grin>

[Sam Spade]

Buck Murdock wrote:
> In article >,
> B A R R Y > wrote:
>
>
>>>>Yes. Which is why a full-motion simulator is not available for $69 at
>>>>CompUSA.
>>>
>>>Damn!
>>
>>I can just imagine that Geek Squad installation visit. <G>
>
>
> "Well... I really think you should get the 3-year service plan on this,
> 'cuz we see a lot of service calls on these. Let's see.... $12
> million.... .... yeah, it'd be just $3.5 million for 3 years of full
> coverage. Can I sign you up now?"
>
> <grin>

In addition to the $3.5 mil service contract the owner is required to
provide a break room and rest facilities for the full time geeks.

[[email protected]]

mad8 wrote:
> Paul kgyy wrote:
> > If you want a better feel for what actually goes on than you will ever
> > get via newsgroup, take a couple of United flights and listen to the
> > ATC channel - it can be much more entertaining than the movie at times.
>
> i love that "channel". It's really fun being able to say to the person
> you're flying with "i can predict the future. Check it out, we're gonna
> turn left in about 3 seconds"

Coming into LAX a while back, I was listening on that channel. We
were cruising along nicely when I hear ATC urgently call out something
like "United 123, traffic twelve o'clock, descend immediately to eight
thousand, please expedite!" I turned to my companion and said "hold
on". A second later, we all went weightless as the plane took an
unusually sharp dive.

After we leveled off again, the captain came on the speaker and said,
"Well folks, as you can tell, we've just been given permission to
descend towards the airport."

Kev

[Gig 601XL Builder]

wrote:

> Coming into LAX a while back, I was listening on that channel. We
> were cruising along nicely when I hear ATC urgently call out something
> like "United 123, traffic twelve o'clock, descend immediately to
> eight thousand, please expedite!" I turned to my companion and said
> "hold on". A second later, we all went weightless as the plane took
> an unusually sharp dive.
>
> After we leveled off again, the captain came on the speaker and said,
> "Well folks, as you can tell, we've just been given permission to
> descend towards the airport."
>

I had a similar experience on a United flight into Little Rock AR a few
years ago. I was listening to the channel while we were on final and the
tower calls "United 456, GO AROUND GO AROUND, Aircraft on the runway."
Before the second "Go Around" had been called the engines got real loud. The
tower then told the Baron to clear the active, contact ground and call the
tower at XXX-XXXX when able.

We were own very short final. And I have no doubt the pilot saw the runway
incurrtion at the same time the tower did.

[A Lieberma]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
:

> I had a similar experience on a United flight into Little Rock AR a
> few years ago. I was listening to the channel while we were on final
> and the tower calls "United 456, GO AROUND GO AROUND, Aircraft on the
> runway." Before the second "Go Around" had been called the engines got
> real loud. The tower then told the Baron to clear the active, contact
> ground and call the tower at XXX-XXXX when able.
>
> We were own very short final. And I have no doubt the pilot saw the
> runway incurrtion at the same time the tower did.

Hmmm, aren't all electronics stowed below 10,000 feet. I would have
thought that all audio and movie channels would be turned off by the
captain, especially short final?

Allen

[Jay Beckman]

"A Lieberma" > wrote in message
. 18...
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> :
>
>> I had a similar experience on a United flight into Little Rock AR a
>> few years ago. I was listening to the channel while we were on final
>> and the tower calls "United 456, GO AROUND GO AROUND, Aircraft on the
>> runway." Before the second "Go Around" had been called the engines got
>> real loud. The tower then told the Baron to clear the active, contact
>> ground and call the tower at XXX-XXXX when able.
>>
>> We were own very short final. And I have no doubt the pilot saw the
>> runway incurrtion at the same time the tower did.
>
> Hmmm, aren't all electronics stowed below 10,000 feet. I would have
> thought that all audio and movie channels would be turned off by the
> captain, especially short final?
>
> Allen

United's Channel 9 (when the captain allows) is usually available from
battery on to shutdown. I've listened to the ATIS, clearance, push, taxi,
takeoff, etc with the only interuptions being the safety briefing and what's
for lunch.

Jay B

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberma writes:

> Hmmm, aren't all electronics stowed below 10,000 feet.

There's nothing to stow for on-board entertainment. And the most
interesting part of listening to ATC would be during take-off and
landing.

> I would have
> thought that all audio and movie channels would be turned off by the
> captain, especially short final?

Why?

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

[Buck Murdock]

In article >,
A Lieberma > wrote:

> Hmmm, aren't all electronics stowed below 10,000 feet.

PORTABLE electronics. If they shut off the aircraft-installed radios
below 10,000, it would make communications with the tower a little
difficult. :-)

[A Lieberma]

Buck Murdock > wrote in news:nobody-
:

> PORTABLE electronics. If they shut off the aircraft-installed radios
> below 10,000, it would make communications with the tower a little
> difficult. :-)

Good point. Guess they better at least leave the radios on until they hear
they have been cleared to land..... *big smile*

What I meant to say was that I thought that all headphones must be off
below 10,000 feet for the ability to hear instructions.

[A Lieberma]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in
:

> United's Channel 9 (when the captain allows) is usually available from
> battery on to shutdown. I've listened to the ATIS, clearance, push,
> taxi, takeoff, etc with the only interuptions being the safety
> briefing and what's for lunch.

Hopefully Continental will do the same tomorrow when I leave from HOU to
HNL :-)) as JAN to HOU, lil RJs are not outfitted with channel niners.

Allen

[Jay Beckman]

"A Lieberma" > wrote in message
. 18...
> "Jay Beckman" > wrote in
> :
>
>> United's Channel 9 (when the captain allows) is usually available from
>> battery on to shutdown. I've listened to the ATIS, clearance, push,
>> taxi, takeoff, etc with the only interuptions being the safety
>> briefing and what's for lunch.
>
> Hopefully Continental will do the same tomorrow when I leave from HOU to
> HNL :-)) as JAN to HOU, lil RJs are not outfitted with channel niners.
>
> Allen

AFAIK,

United is the only carrier that has ATC on the entertainment system.

Jay B

[Buck Murdock]

In article >,
A Lieberma > wrote:

> Hopefully Continental will do the same tomorrow when I leave from HOU to
> HNL :-)) as JAN to HOU, lil RJs are not outfitted with channel niners.

United is the only airline I've ever heard of that does the
ATC-through-the-audio-system thing. I know for sure that Continental
doesn't.

Frankly, though, choosing between Continental and United is a
no-brainer. I'd rather ride on Continental any day of the week, even
without "channel 9." Nicer planes, better food.

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberma writes:

> What I meant to say was that I thought that all headphones must be off
> below 10,000 feet for the ability to hear instructions.

Safety announcements can override all audio channels, so it isn't
necessary to take headphones off to hear them.

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

[Kev]

Buck Murdock wrote:
> United is the only airline I've ever heard of that does the
> ATC-through-the-audio-system thing. I know for sure that Continental
> doesn't.

I'm pretty sure another airline had the ATC channel for a while in the
90s, but not any more. Cameras are another deal...

American used to show the view out front on takeoff on its TV screens,
until after that DC-10 crash in Chicago, 1979. Rumors say they had to
pay extra for the pain and suffering caused by the passengers seeing
their own doom.

I can't remember what airline I was on to Copenhagen a few years ago,
but you could use your personal monitor control to see views both out
front and looking straight down.

Regards, Kev

[Gig 601XL Builder]

A Lieberma wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> :
>
>> I had a similar experience on a United flight into Little Rock AR a
>> few years ago. I was listening to the channel while we were on final
>> and the tower calls "United 456, GO AROUND GO AROUND, Aircraft on the
>> runway." Before the second "Go Around" had been called the engines
>> got real loud. The tower then told the Baron to clear the active,
>> contact ground and call the tower at XXX-XXXX when able.
>>
>> We were own very short final. And I have no doubt the pilot saw the
>> runway incurrtion at the same time the tower did.
>
> Hmmm, aren't all electronics stowed below 10,000 feet. I would have
> thought that all audio and movie channels would be turned off by the
> captain, especially short final?
>
> Allen

The audio channels where on during this flight. I would assume that the
audio system in airlines would be certified for in-flight use. Since I got
an I-Pod I haven't listened to the audio they provide but back then the only
time you couldn't hear the audio channels was when the crew override kicked
in.

[Jay Beckman]

"Kev" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Buck Murdock wrote:
>> United is the only airline I've ever heard of that does the
>> ATC-through-the-audio-system thing. I know for sure that Continental
>> doesn't.
>
> I'm pretty sure another airline had the ATC channel for a while in the
> 90s, but not any more. Cameras are another deal...
>
> American used to show the view out front on takeoff on its TV screens,
> until after that DC-10 crash in Chicago, 1979. Rumors say they had to
> pay extra for the pain and suffering caused by the passengers seeing
> their own doom.

Personally, I can't imagine much more pain and suffering beyond the
realization that you are knife-edge (and still rolling) in a DC10...

> I can't remember what airline I was on to Copenhagen a few years ago,
> but you could use your personal monitor control to see views both out
> front and looking straight down.

Flew Egypt Air 777 to Cairo and it had a forward-looking camera on the nose
gear. Cool view on a long final approach to land.

Jay B

[Kev]

Jay Beckman wrote:
> "Kev" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > American used to show the view out front on takeoff on its TV screens,
> > until after that DC-10 crash in Chicago, 1979. Rumors say they had to
> > pay extra for the pain and suffering caused by the passengers seeing
> > their own doom.
>
> Personally, I can't imagine much more pain and suffering beyond the
> realization that you are knife-edge (and still rolling) in a DC10...

Yeah, no kidding, but to lawyers it's a big deal. Some states allow
suing for the pain and suffering that goes between the incident and
death.

So apparently the amount of time that someone is consciously
terrorized, can be a major factor in death (or for that matter, life if
they make it) compensation. If the insurance company can prove that
everyone was knocked unconcious, then there's far less non-pecuniary
damages allowed than if the passengers were awake... during a 30,000
foot fall, for example.

This kind of compensation doesn't apply over international ocean, due
to the Death on the High Seas act.

IANAL, Kev