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

[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:
>
>
>>Virtually all aircraft that can autoland operate only into Class D airports.
>
>
> That would mean that all the largest and most expensive aircraft
> (which are generally equipped with autoland) avoid all the largest and
> most complex airports in the United States (which are generally Class
> B or Class C), which is exactly the opposite of reality.
>

The discussion was about the 91.129 requirement to remain on or above
the G/S whether VFR or IFR. 91.129 is the language for Class D airports.

91.129 also applies to Class C and B airports as a matter of regulation.

So, I made a technical misstatement, I should have said, "Virtually all
aircraft that can autoland operate only into airports subject to 91.129."

For purposes of the issue there is absolutely no difference whether it
be B, C, or D, because the rules for D apply to B and C.

[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]

Mxsmanic,

> The result depends on the reader. It was deliberately ambiguous in
> order to ensure this. The interpretation put upon it by the reader
> can reveal much.
>

That's a very sophisticated way of saying: I am an arrogant prick
jerking your chains.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[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]

Sam Spade writes:

> 91.129 also applies to Class C and B airports as a matter of regulation.

There are separate sections for Class B and Class C, and they don't
say anything about this restriction.

> For purposes of the issue there is absolutely no difference whether it
> be B, C, or D, because the rules for D apply to B and C.

Where is this written?

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

[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.

[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.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>91.129 also applies to Class C and B airports as a matter of regulation.
>
>
> There are separate sections for Class B and Class C, and they don't
> say anything about this restriction.
>
>
>>For purposes of the issue there is absolutely no difference whether it
>>be B, C, or D, because the rules for D apply to B and C.
>
>
> Where is this written?
>
Your stupidity is showing again.

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> Your stupidity is showing again.

No, I looked and didn't find it, so I'm asking you to point it out.
It isn't written, is it?

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

[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.

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:


>> That regulation applies only to Class D airports.
>>
> Virtually all aircraft that can autoland operate only into Class D
> airports.

Uh, what?

[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.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>Your stupidity is showing again.
>
>
> No, I looked and didn't find it, so I'm asking you to point it out.
> It isn't written, is it?
>
Man, why do you continue to be so arrogant when you don't understand how
to read FARs?

Look for the little ****>---- that I have placed a couple of times as
highlighting.

§ 91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.
(a) General. Unless otherwise authorized or required by the ATC facility
having jurisdiction over the Class D airspace area, each person
operating an aircraft in Class D airspace must comply with the
applicable provisions of this section. In addition, each person must
comply with §§ 91.126 and 91.127. For the purpose of this section, the
primary airport is the airport for which the Class D airspace area is
designated. A satellite airport is any other airport within the Class D
airspace area.
(b) Deviations. An operator may deviate from any provision of this
section under the provisions of an ATC authorization issued by the ATC
facility having jurisdiction over the airspace concerned. ATC may
authorize a deviation on a continuing basis or for an individual flight,
as appropriate.
(c) Communications. Each person operating an aircraft in Class D
airspace must meet the following two-way radio communications requirements:
(1) Arrival or through flight. Each person must establish two-way radio
communications with the ATC facility (including foreign ATC in the case
of foreign airspace designated in the United States) providing air
traffic services prior to entering that airspace and thereafter maintain
those communications while within that airspace.
(2) Departing flight. Each person -
(i) From the primary airport or satellite airport with an operating
control tower must establish and maintain two-way radio communications
with the control tower, and thereafter as instructed by ATC while
operating in the Class D airspace area; or
(ii) From a satellite airport without an operating control tower, must
establish and maintain two-way radio communications with the ATC
facility having jurisdiction over the Class D airspace area as soon as
practicable after departing.
(d) Communications failure. Each person who operates an aircraft in a
Class D airspace area must maintain two-way radio communications with
the ATC facility having jurisdiction over that area.
(1) If the aircraft radio fails in flight under IFR, the pilot must
comply with 91.185 of the part.
(2) If the aircraft radio fails in flight under VFR, the pilot in
command may operate that aircraft and land if -
(i) Weather conditions are at or above basic VFR weather minimums;
(ii) Visual contact with the tower is maintained; and
(iii) A clearance to land is received.
(3) {Does not exist - Ed.}
(e) Minimum Altitudes. When operating to an airport in Class D airspace,
each pilot of -
(1) A large or turbine-powered airplane shall, unless otherwise required
by the applicable distance from cloud criteria, enter the traffic
pattern at an altitude of at least 1,500 feet above the elevation of the
airport and maintain at least 1,500 feet until further descent is
required for a safe landing;
(2) A large or turbine-powered airplane approaching to land on a runway
served by an instrument landing system (ILS), if the airplane is ILS
equipped, shall fly that airplane at an altitude at or above the glide
slope between the outer marker (or point of interception of glide slope,
if compliance with the applicable distance from clouds criteria requires
interception closer in) and the middle marker; and
(3) An airplane approaching to land on a runway served by a visual
approach slope indicator shall maintain an altitude at or above the
glide slope until a lower altitude is necessary for a safe landing.

Paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this section do not prohibit normal
bracketing maneuvers above or below the glide slope that are conducted
for the purpose of remaining on the glide slope.

(f) Approaches. Except when conducting a circling approach under Part 97
of this chapter or unless otherwise required by ATC, each pilot must -
(1) Circle the airport to the left, if operating an airplane; or
(2) Avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft, if operating a helicopter.
(g) Departures. No person may operate an aircraft departing from an
airport except in compliance with the following:
(1) Each pilot must comply with any departure procedures established for
that airport by the FAA.
(2) Unless otherwise required by the prescribed departure procedure for
that airport or the applicable distance from clouds criteria, each pilot
of a turbine-powered airplane and each pilot of a large airplane must
climb to an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface as rapidly as
practicable.
(h) Noise abatement. Where a formal runway use program has been
established by the FAA, each pilot of a large or turbine-powered
airplane assigned a noise abatement runway by ATC must use that runway.
However, consistent with the final authority of the pilot in command
concerning the safe operation of the aircraft as prescribed in §
91.3(a), ATC may assign a different runway if requested by the pilot in
the interest of safety.
(i) Takeoff, landing, taxi clearance. No person may, at any airport with
an operating control tower, operate an aircraft on a runway or taxiway,
or take off or land an aircraft, unless an appropriate clearance is
received from ATC. A clearance to "taxi to" the takeoff runway assigned
to the aircraft is not a clearance to cross that assigned takeoff
runway, or to taxi on that runway at any point but is a clearance to
cross other runways that intersect the taxi route to that assigned
takeoff runway. A clearance to "taxi to" any point other than an
assigned takeoff runway is clearance to cross all runways that intersect
the taxi route to that point.


§ 91.130 Operations in Class C airspace.
(a) General. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each aircraft operation
in Class C airspace must be conducted in compliance with this section
****>----and § 91.129.____<**** For the purpose of this section, the
primary airport is the airport for which the Class C airspace area is
designated. A satellite airport is any other airport within the Class C
airspace area.
(b) Traffic patterns. No person may take off or land an aircraft at a
satellite airport within a Class C airspace area except in compliance
with FAA arrival and departure traffic patterns.
(c) Communications. Each person operating an aircraft in Class C
airspace must meet the following two-way radio communications requirements:
(1) Arrival or through flight. Each person must establish two-way radio
communications with the ATC facility (including foreign ATC in the case
of foreign airspace designated in the United States) providing air
traffic services prior to entering that airspace and thereafter maintain
those communications while within that airspace.
(2) Departing flight. Each person -
(i) From the primary airport or satellite airport with an operating
control tower must establish and maintain two-way radio communications
with the control tower, and thereafter as instructed by ATC while
operating in the Class C airspace area; or
(ii) From a satellite airport without an operating control tower, must
establish and maintain two-way radio communications with the ATC
facility having jurisdiction over the Class C airspace area as soon as
practicable after departing.
(d) Equipment requirements. Unless otherwise authorized by the ATC
having jurisdiction over the Class C airspace area, no person may
operate an aircraft within a Class C airspace area designated for an
airport unless that aircraft is equipped with the applicable equipment
specified in § 91.215.
(e) Deviations. An operator may deviate from any provision of this
section under the provisions of an ATC authorization issued by the ATC
facility having jurisdiction over the airspace concerned. ATC may
authorize a deviation on a continuing basis or for an individual flight,
as appropriate.


§ 91.131 Operations in Class B airspace.
(a) Operating rules. No person may operate an aircraft within a Class B
airspace area ****>-----except in compliance with § 91.129 and the
following rules:<----****
(1) The operator must receive an ATC clearance from the ATC facility
having jurisdiction for that area before operating an aircraft in that area.
(2) Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each person operating a large
turbine engine-powered airplane to or from a primary airport for which a
Class B airspace area is designated must operate at or above the
designated floors of the Class B airspace area while within the lateral
limits of that area.
(3) Any person conducting pilot training operations at an airport within
a Class B airspace area must comply with any procedures established by
ATC for such operations in that area.
(b) Pilot requirements.
(1) No person may take off or land a civil aircraft at an airport within
a Class B airspace area or operate a civil aircraft within a Class B
airspace area unless -
(i) The pilot in command holds at least a private pilot certificate;
(ii) The pilot in command holds a recreational pilot certificate and has
met--
(A) The requirements of § 61.101(d) of this chapter; or
(B) The requirements for a student pilot seeking a recreational pilot
certificate in § 61.94 of this chapter;
(iii) The pilot in command holds a sport pilot certificate and has met --
(A) The requirements of § 61.325 of this chapter; or
(B) The requirements for a student pilot seeking a recreational pilot
certificate in § 61.94 of this chapter; or
(iv) The aircraft is operated by a student pilot who has met the
requirements of § 61.94 or § 61.95 of this chapter, as applicable.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (b)(1)(ii), (b)(1)(iii)
and (b)(1)(iv) of this section, no person may take off or land a civil
aircraft at those airports listed in section 4 of appendix D to this
part unless the pilot in command holds at least a private pilot certificate.
(c) Communications and navigation equipment requirements. Unless
otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft within a
Class B airspace area unless that aircraft is equipped with -
(1) For IFR operation. An operable VOR or TACAN receiver; and
(2) For all operations. An operable two-way radio capable of
communications with ATC on appropriate frequencies for that Class B
airspace area.
(d) Transponder requirements. No person may operate an aircraft in a
Class B airspace area unless the aircraft is equipped with the
applicable operating transponder and automatic altitude reporting
equipment specified in paragraph (a) of § 91.215, except as provided in
paragraph (d) of that section.

[Thomas Borchert]

Sam,

> In a Level D simulator in 121 opertions
>

And the connection to MSFS is?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>
>>> That regulation applies only to Class D airports.
>>>
>> Virtually all aircraft that can autoland operate only into Class D
>> airports.
>
>
> Uh, what?

I corrected that. Virtually all aircraft that can autoland operate
either into Class D airports or airports that are subject to the rules
of Class D airports; i.e., FAR 91.129.

The context was remaining on or above the ILS G/S in VFR from the "OM"
inbound.

[Sam Spade]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

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

[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.

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> Man, why do you continue to be so arrogant when you don't understand how
> to read FARs?

Why don't you just quote the relevant text from the beginning?

> Look for the little ****>---- that I have placed a couple of times as
> highlighting.

Found it, thanks. I note, however, that some parts of 91.129
specifically mention Class D, while others do not. The implication of
this is that only the parts that do not mention Class D explicitly
will apply in other airspaces. Part (e):

> (e) Minimum Altitudes. When operating to an airport in Class D airspace,
> each pilot of ...

explicitly mentions Class D airspace, and thus would not appear to
apply to other airspaces.

How do you know that this part applies to all airspaces? The
distinction between parts mentioning Class D and those not mentioning
it appears to be deliberate.

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

[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?

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>Man, why do you continue to be so arrogant when you don't understand how
>>to read FARs?
>
>
> Why don't you just quote the relevant text from the beginning?

Because I chose not to.
>
>

>
> Found it, thanks. I note, however, that some parts of 91.129
> specifically mention Class D, while others do not. The implication of
> this is that only the parts that do not mention Class D explicitly
> will apply in other airspaces. Part (e):
>
>
>>(e) Minimum Altitudes. When operating to an airport in Class D airspace,
>>each pilot of ...
>
>
> explicitly mentions Class D airspace, and thus would not appear to
> apply to other airspaces.
>
> How do you know that this part applies to all airspaces? The
> distinction between parts mentioning Class D and those not mentioning
> it appears to be deliberate.
>

The provisions of 91.129 apply to Class B and C airspace unless there is
something in the Class B or C rules that *clearly* countermands some
part of 91.129

In the case of Class C ATC can waive appropriate requirements of 91.129;
in Class B it doesn't say that.

With the issue of remaining on, or above the ILS G/S in VFR, ATC would
never waive that.

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> Because I chose not to.

And I chose to regard your assertion with suspicion in consequence.

> The provisions of 91.129 apply to Class B and C airspace unless there is
> something in the Class B or C rules that *clearly* countermands some
> part of 91.129

According to whom?

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

[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.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>Because I chose not to.
>
>
> And I chose to regard your assertion with suspicion in consequence.
>
>
>>The provisions of 91.129 apply to Class B and C airspace unless there is
>>something in the Class B or C rules that *clearly* countermands some
>>part of 91.129
>
>
> According to whom?
>
According to the little man inside your head that gives you those awful
headaches.

[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

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: JD ]
> Posted At: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 9:42 AM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's
ATC
> Subject: Re: Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's
ATC
>
>
> Jim Carter wrote:
> > MS - why don't you get a copy of the instrument flying handbook or
the
> > TERPS manual, or some other good text and learn the system? Every
one of
> > the questions you've been asking are addressed in those and in the
AIM
> > and FARs. These are the information sources that aspiring pilots use
in
> > their pursuit of knowledge.
>
> Online version of the AIM: http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/index.htm

"Page Not Found
Sorry, but the page you have requested has moved or no longer exists.
Please use the links provided below to find the resource you were
looking for:

Home
FAA Home"

Try
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/a
im/

[A Lieberma]

Buck Murdock > wrote in
:

> 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.

I'd have to agree with the nice planes :-)

767 with personal entertainment on the back of each seat, including the
cheap seats I was in. Movies or video games or even a GPS flight show.

Went to seatguru, selected the outer seat either behind or in front of
the wing.

First time on a 767 for me, and it is the quietest plane I ever been on!

Oh yea, the trip, awesome.

Only dissapointment was Lihue airport didn't have a GA place where I
could rent a Cessna.

Tell you what though, airliners had a dickens of a time at Lihue.

Downhill runway, every landing was a crusher, and every landing, we
stopped no sooner then the 1000 foot marker. Couldn't figure it out
until one takeoff, the pilot took his sweet time lining up, and I
happened to be on the left side of the plane. Runway had a huge grade
going down.

Allen

[A Lieberma]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

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

Yep, typical response of a person who never stepped into a plane.

Ya know, safety announcements just may have to be made if something
catastropic happens to the electrial system and flight attendence have to
bark out orders using their own voices. I.E evacutation orders.

Allen

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberma writes:

> Yep, typical response of a person who never stepped into a plane.

No, typical response of someone who has actually looked at the comm
stack in a commercial airliner.

> Ya know, safety announcements just may have to be made if something
> catastropic happens to the electrial system and flight attendence have to
> bark out orders using their own voices. I.E evacutation orders.

Yes, but not every announcement is an evacuation order. Announcements
can be made that override all audio channels.

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

[A Lieberma]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

>> Ya know, safety announcements just may have to be made if something
>> catastropic happens to the electrial system and flight attendence
>> have to bark out orders using their own voices. I.E evacutation
>> orders.
>
> Yes, but not every announcement is an evacuation order. Announcements
> can be made that override all audio channels.

Yep, a response from a person who never stepped into a plane.

Reeeeeeeed carefully above.

Better yet, pull the plug to your computer and make an announcment over
your radio stack and see just how many of your imaginary passengers will
hear your announcement.

Allen

[[email protected]]

A Lieberma wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
> >> Ya know, safety announcements just may have to be made if something
> >> catastropic happens to the electrial system and flight attendence
> >> have to bark out orders using their own voices. I.E evacutation
> >> orders.
> >
> > Yes, but not every announcement is an evacuation order. Announcements
> > can be made that override all audio channels.
>
> Yep, a response from a person who never stepped into a plane.
> Reeeeeeeed carefully above.

?? It might be clear in your own head, but I can't figure out what
you're arguing about. All Mx said is that you can hear announcements
on top of the headphone channels. That's certainly been my
experience. Are you claiming otherwise?

Puzzled, Kev

[Ron Natalie]

wrote:
> A Lieberma wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>> Ya know, safety announcements just may have to be made if something
>>>> catastropic happens to the electrial system and flight attendence
>>>> have to bark out orders using their own voices. I.E evacutation
>>>> orders.
>>> Yes, but not every announcement is an evacuation order. Announcements
>>> can be made that override all audio channels.
>> Yep, a response from a person who never stepped into a plane.
>> Reeeeeeeed carefully above.
>
> ?? It might be clear in your own head, but I can't figure out what
> you're arguing about. All Mx said is that you can hear announcements
> on top of the headphone channels. That's certainly been my
> experience. Are you claiming otherwise?
>
Every stupid-assed announcement from 'This is your captain speaking
we're now flying over the Grand Canyon' to the 'we're about to
start trying to salvage the airline's bottom line by serving you
overpriced stale snack boxes' overrides whatever meager audio
programming was offered.

[A Lieberma]

wrote in news:1169122320.744364.254680@
11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com:

> ?? It might be clear in your own head, but I can't figure out what
> you're arguing about. All Mx said is that you can hear announcements
> on top of the headphone channels. That's certainly been my
> experience. Are you claiming otherwise?

Nope, what I am saying is that headphones should not be worn should safety
announcements OUTSIDE the PA system be needed due to catastrophic
electrical loss. (I was quite clear about this in my reply to Mx)

On my latest flight, all movies were shut down below 10,000 feet in
preparation for landing. As stated earlier up in the thread, I was
surprised to hear that audio for channel 9 was still available since I was
under the understanding since all videos were shut down, that the channel
nine audio would have been shut off.

This is the part, I just learned from this thread :-)

Allen

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberma writes:

> Nope, what I am saying is that headphones should not be worn should safety
> announcements OUTSIDE the PA system be needed due to catastrophic
> electrical loss.

How many people would be wearing headphones after a loss of electrical
power? Are there vacuum-powered audio systems?

> On my latest flight, all movies were shut down below 10,000 feet in
> preparation for landing. As stated earlier up in the thread, I was
> surprised to hear that audio for channel 9 was still available since I was
> under the understanding since all videos were shut down, that the channel
> nine audio would have been shut off.

Why? There isn't necessarily any reason to shut either of them off,
as long as announcements are heard.

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