Boarding with engines running

[Mxsmanic]

Is it safe/advisable to board a small single- or twin-engined aircraft while
the prop(s) and engine(s) are turning? I'm just wondering if this is feasible
if you just have someone getting on or getting off (with the pilot being in
the aircraft the whole time).

On a related note, how long can you safely leave an aircraft (engines off)
with just the parking brake set, and when do you normally put chocks under the
wheels?

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

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

I generally hit the pause button before getting out of the chair.

[EridanMan]

> Is it safe/advisable to board a small single- or twin-engined aircraft while
> the prop(s) and engine(s) are turning? I'm just wondering if this is feasible
> if you just have someone getting on or getting off (with the pilot being in
> the aircraft the whole time).

Advisable? No.
Safe? Depends on too many factors to tell say outright... Front
engined aircraft that boards over the trailing edge of the wing?
Probably safe (although I'd imagine getting some doors open under even
an idle prop-stream would be a pain/might risk damage to the door...
light aircraft doors tend to be very flimsy) Twin which boards over
the wing? Not a chance... WAY to many other variables (how bright is
it (how visible is the prop disc), how much idle blast does the prop
throw?
Done anyways? Sure.

> On a related note, how long can you safely leave an aircraft (engines off)
> with just the parking brake set,

Kinda a nonsensical question, how long until the next stiff wind
blows? what angle will it blow at? In all honesty, most chalks will
probably do no better than the wheel brakes alone at protecting from a
stiff gust... t takes quite a bit of wind to overcome the static
friction of the wheels. If the wind is strong enough to overpower a
brake, a chalk probably won't do much better- what you'll need is good
heavy chains, or better yet, a hangar.

The flip-side is that in general, if your paying the MX bills, its
really not a good idea to leave the brake engaged, this is simply a
wear issue (Its better to store a hydrolic system unpressurized then
pressurized, If you have the choice). Wheel chalks are slightly more
reliable, and much cheaper, then a parking break, but no
"safer" (better at keeping an aircraft stationary)

> and when do you normally put chocks under the wheels?

when park your plane.... duh?

[gpsman]

On Feb 23, 8:04 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Is it safe/advisable to board a small single- or twin-engined aircraft while
> the prop(s) and engine(s) are turning?

Engine/s, yes. Prop/s, no.
-----

- gpsman

[The Old Bloke[_3_]]

"gpsman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Feb 23, 8:04 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Is it safe/advisable to board a small single- or twin-engined aircraft
>> while
>> the prop(s) and engine(s) are turning?
>
> Engine/s, yes. Prop/s, no.
> -----
>
> - gpsman
Foot on the clutch :-)

[Morgans[_2_]]

"EridanMan" > wrote

> when park your plane.... duh?

Just for the uninformed, this is a troll,; a disturbed person that only
flies microsoft flight simulator, and is afraid to get in a real airplane.
He has problems with reality, and should be treated as a troll, and ignored.
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

EridanMan writes:

> Advisable? No.
> Safe? Depends on too many factors to tell say outright... Front
> engined aircraft that boards over the trailing edge of the wing?
> Probably safe (although I'd imagine getting some doors open under even
> an idle prop-stream would be a pain/might risk damage to the door...
> light aircraft doors tend to be very flimsy) Twin which boards over
> the wing? Not a chance... WAY to many other variables (how bright is
> it (how visible is the prop disc), how much idle blast does the prop
> throw?
> Done anyways? Sure.

The scenario I have in mind is sitting waiting for a passenger to get on or
off, or helping a passenger get on or off. It's mainly just to have a more
realistic simulation. The aircraft I use in the sim is usually a Baron 58; if
I fly it online (VATSIM), it's important that stops at airports be of
realistic length (of the length that they would be if you stopped for some
specific purpose in real life, such as picking someone up or dropping someone
off).

Thus, I wanted to know if it's possible/safe/practical to sit with the engines
running while someone gets into or out of the plane, much as one would do with
a car when picking someone up. Maybe that is too farfetched for an aviation
context. I suppose the passenger would have to be able to get to the aircraft
on his own, and I don't know how tough that would be. And if the pilot had to
help him board or disembark, I assume it would be way too risky to leave the
aircraft running while he left his seat and got out of the plane.

> Kinda a nonsensical question, how long until the next stiff wind
> blows?

Not for me, as I don't have direct experience with this. I don't know how
easily small aircraft can be moved by the wind.

> In all honesty, most chalks will
> probably do no better than the wheel brakes alone at protecting from a
> stiff gust... t takes quite a bit of wind to overcome the static
> friction of the wheels. If the wind is strong enough to overpower a
> brake, a chalk probably won't do much better- what you'll need is good
> heavy chains, or better yet, a hangar.

A hangar would be great, but unfortunately the simulator doesn't support that
in most cases.

> The flip-side is that in general, if your paying the MX bills, its
> really not a good idea to leave the brake engaged, this is simply a
> wear issue (Its better to store a hydrolic system unpressurized then
> pressurized, If you have the choice). Wheel chalks are slightly more
> reliable, and much cheaper, then a parking break, but no
> "safer" (better at keeping an aircraft stationary)

OK.

> when park your plane.... duh?

I meant, do pilots keep a set of chocks in the aircraft and position the
chocks themselves, or is there a lineman or someone who does this, or what?
With large airliners there are crews who handle all of this, but I don't know
how it is done with tiny airplanes.

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

[JK]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Is it safe/advisable to board a small single- or twin-engined aircraft
> while
> the prop(s) and engine(s) are turning? I'm just wondering if this is
> feasible
> if you just have someone getting on or getting off (with the pilot being
> in
> the aircraft the whole time).
>
> On a related note, how long can you safely leave an aircraft (engines off)
> with just the parking brake set, and when do you normally put chocks under
> the
> wheels?
>

My personal rule (for my Cherokee 180) is to not have passengers getting on
or off while the prop is spinning, in my view the risk isn't worth the extra
few seconds to stop/restart the engine. A spinning prop cannot be quickly
stopped. Further, the door on my Cherokee is difficult to hold open, while
maneuvering yourself to get in or out, even with the engine at idle.

Whenever this topic arises, I have a flashback to a local news story I saw
about 25(?) years ago in St. Louis. Passengers were exiting a small
twin-engine commercial prop plane, at night, down the fold-out stairs on the
left side of the airplane. In those days, to save time, the practice was to
stop only the left engine and then carefully guide the passengers away from
the plane, towards the building. One of the passengers was a young girl,
about 6-8 years old, wearing a hat. In the blink of an eye, her hat blew
off her head, went under the plane towards the running engine, and she ran
after it. She was killed.

I only use the parking brake long enough to tie down, or place the chocks,
then I release the brake.

[Little Endian]

>
> The scenario I have in mind is sitting waiting for a passenger to get on or
> off, or helping a passenger get on or off. It's mainly just to have a more
> realistic simulation. The aircraft I use in the sim is usually a Baron 58; if

I just don't understand it, why do you need to go to such great
lengths in a simulator? Even in real life its the flying part that is
the most fun, the challenge to level off precisely and accurately with
the minimum of fuss, the thrill of taking off and landing within 100
ft of the numbers, handling stiff X-winds, using only pilotage to get
to a small airstrip etc. Of course taxing is fun too but its only
because of what comes after it or what came before it.

> I fly it online (VATSIM), it's important that stops at airports be of
> realistic length (of the length that they would be if you stopped for some
> specific purpose in real life, such as picking someone up or dropping someone
> off).

If I were to fly in a simulator the only thing I would be doing would
be to fly, fly, fly and never do the mundane things like taxing and
especially never do something as silly as simulating waiting for a
passenger. I don't see why you do not go up with a flight instructor
for an hour or so if you are so interested in the real life aspects of
flying. Its like the saying that a picture is worth a thousand words,
similarly one real flight can be worth a thousand simulator flights.
It would save you a heck of a lot of time not having to ask these
questions and time is money.

[Jim Macklin]

St. Louis passed a local law, all engines must be shutdown,
after that accident.
"JK" > wrote in message
nk.net...
snip|
| My personal rule (for my Cherokee 180) is to not have
passengers getting on
| or off while the prop is spinning, in my view the risk
isn't worth the extra
| few seconds to stop/restart the engine. A spinning prop
cannot be quickly
| stopped. Further, the door on my Cherokee is difficult to
hold open, while
| maneuvering yourself to get in or out, even with the
engine at idle.
|
| Whenever this topic arises, I have a flashback to a local
news story I saw
| about 25(?) years ago in St. Louis. Passengers were
exiting a small
| twin-engine commercial prop plane, at night, down the
fold-out stairs on the
| left side of the airplane. In those days, to save time,
the practice was to
| stop only the left engine and then carefully guide the
passengers away from
| the plane, towards the building. One of the passengers
was a young girl,
| about 6-8 years old, wearing a hat. In the blink of an
eye, her hat blew
| off her head, went under the plane towards the running
engine, and she ran
| after it. She was killed.
|
| I only use the parking brake long enough to tie down, or
place the chocks,
| then I release the brake.
|
|

[Paul kgyy]

Pilots have differing attitudes about safety. You can usually board a
low wing twin with engines running, but it's difficult to hold the
door, etc. The slipstream from even an idling prop is very strong.
Since props in motion tend to be invisible in peripheral vision, it's
easy for even informed airport personnel to accidentally walk into
them, as is reported with distressing frequency. A compromise is to
shut down the boarding side. A very careful pilot will always shut
down both for boarding and accept the time delay. I never leave my
single running to board or exchange passengers.

> On a related note, how long can you safely leave an aircraft (engines off)
> with just the parking brake set, and when do you normally put chocks under the
> wheels?
>

Depends on wind and ground slope. Parking brakes on cars use a cable;
parking brakes on many small aircraft instead lock the brakes with
hydraulic pressure. Since this may expand as temperatures warm up,
most pilots don't leave parking brakes on more than temporarily,
usually only until the chocks are in place. Bigger airports always
have chocks available. I carry a small aluminum pair when flying
cross country.

[Gene Seibel]

On Feb 23, 7:04 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Is it safe/advisable to board a small single- or twin-engined aircraft while
> the prop(s) and engine(s) are turning? I'm just wondering if this is feasible
> if you just have someone getting on or getting off (with the pilot being in
> the aircraft the whole time).
>
> On a related note, how long can you safely leave an aircraft (engines off)
> with just the parking brake set, and when do you normally put chocks under the
> wheels?

Only time I'd even consider boarding a passenger with the engine
running is if they were a pilot, instructor or mechanic.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[Andreas Tschoeke]

Little Endian schrieb:

>
> I just don't understand it, why do you need to go to such great
> lengths in a simulator?
>

Because we, the simmers, like to simulate RL as closely as possible,
that´s the reason why we simulate RL.

A friend of mine, who is a RL pilot, too, goes the other way; he
does things in the sim he wouldn´t think of doing in RL, which is
not the way I use MSFS. Therefore, I only fly with him in RL, not in the
sim, because only RL comes close to my experience in the sim.

Yes, I know, difficult to explain ...


:-) Andreas

[Danny Deger]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
snip

> Thus, I wanted to know if it's possible/safe/practical to sit with the
> engines
> running while someone gets into or out of the plane, much as one would do
> with
> a car when picking someone up. Maybe that is too farfetched for an
> aviation
> context. I suppose the passenger would have to be able to get to the
> aircraft
> on his own, and I don't know how tough that would be. And if the pilot
> had to
> help him board or disembark, I assume it would be way too risky to leave
> the
> aircraft running while he left his seat and got out of the plane.

If the passenger was a pilot or very familiar with airplane ops I might stay
in my seat with the engine running. But for the most part I would shut
down, assist the boarding process, and restart. For a quick pax pickup the
parking brakes would do the trick.

Danny Deger

[Peter Dohm]

> >
> > I just don't understand it, why do you need to go to such great
> > lengths in a simulator?
> >
>
> Because we, the simmers, like to simulate RL as closely as possible,
> that´s the reason why we simulate RL.
>
> A friend of mine, who is a RL pilot, too, goes the other way; he
> does things in the sim he wouldn´t think of doing in RL, which is
> not the way I use MSFS. Therefore, I only fly with him in RL, not in the
> sim, because only RL comes close to my experience in the sim.
>
> Yes, I know, difficult to explain ...
>
>
He flew the sim Pitts through WHERE???????

Oh! No! Not the Baltimore Harbour Tunnell!!!!!

Peter
(Sorry, couldn't resist... :-))))

[Peter Dohm]

> Pilots have differing attitudes about safety. You can usually board a
> low wing twin with engines running, but it's difficult to hold the
> door, etc. The slipstream from even an idling prop is very strong.
> Since props in motion tend to be invisible in peripheral vision, it's
> easy for even informed airport personnel to accidentally walk into
> them, as is reported with distressing frequency. A compromise is to
> shut down the boarding side. A very careful pilot will always shut
> down both for boarding and accept the time delay. I never leave my
> single running to board or exchange passengers.
>
Even when the saftey problems are adiquately addressed, an idling engine on
the far side of a twin moves a lot of air and can be disruptive to the
operation. I don't know, but suspect that part of the decision might
involve the availability of a jumper cart--just in case.


> > On a related note, how long can you safely leave an aircraft (engines
off)
> > with just the parking brake set, and when do you normally put chocks
under the
> > wheels?
> >
>
> Depends on wind and ground slope. Parking brakes on cars use a cable;
> parking brakes on many small aircraft instead lock the brakes with
> hydraulic pressure. Since this may expand as temperatures warm up,
> most pilots don't leave parking brakes on more than temporarily,
> usually only until the chocks are in place. Bigger airports always
> have chocks available. I carry a small aluminum pair when flying
> cross country.
>
In my part of the country, parking brakes on light aircraft are used rarely,
if at all. I have always presumed this was to facilitate the towing of
aircraft by ramp service personnel.

Transport aircraft are another matter, on which I have no recent
knowledge--however the hierarchy of ownership and operation, as well as the
mechanical features of the brakes, are completely different--so parking
brake use could be nearly universal.

In any case, chocks are frequently used as well and some careful light plane
owners always tie down their aircraft--even for a few minutes. That
minimizes the hazard of the propeller blast from another aircraft, and is
excellent and inexpensive insurance which I plan to use when I resume
flying.

Peter

[Andreas Tschoeke]

Peter Dohm schrieb:
>
>>
>>
> He flew the sim Pitts through WHERE???????
>
> Oh! No! Not the Baltimore Harbour Tunnell!!!!!
>
> Peter
> (Sorry, couldn't resist... :-))))
>


Peter, ?

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "EridanMan" > wrote
>
>> when park your plane.... duh?
>
> Just for the uninformed, this is a troll,; a disturbed person that only
> flies microsoft flight simulator, and is afraid to get in a real airplane.
> He has problems with reality, and should be treated as a troll, and
> ignored.
> --
> Jim in NC

Ok, is there ANYONE here who isn't already familier with Mr. Maniac's
background? Don't be shy - raise your hand.

Anyone?

Nope. I didn't think so.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Andreas Tschoeke]

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe schrieb:

>
> Ok, is there ANYONE here who isn't already familier with Mr. Maniac's
> background? Don't be shy - raise your hand.
>
> Anyone?
>
Here!

[Andreas Tschoeke]

Morgans schrieb:

> Just for the uninformed, this is a troll

definition?

:-) Andreas

P.S. Get'n fed up with this on r.a.p!

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote
>
> Ok, is there ANYONE here who isn't already familier with Mr. Maniac's
> background? Don't be shy - raise your hand.
>
> Anyone?
>
> Nope. I didn't think so.

This poster was a name I didn't recall seeing around, and I thought he was a
newbie that needed to be informed.

A thousand pardons, if that was not the case.
--
Jim in NC

[Andreas Tschoeke]

Morgans schrieb:
> "EridanMan" > wrote
>
>> when park your plane.... duh?
>
> Just for the uninformed, this is a troll,; a disturbed person that only
> flies microsoft flight simulator, and is afraid to get in a real airplane.
> He has problems with reality, and should be treated as a troll, and ignored.

[Blueskies]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in message
news:r5SdnXvx0KlcUX3YnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@wideopenwest .com...
:
: Ok, is there ANYONE here who isn't already familier with Mr. Maniac's
: background? Don't be shy - raise your hand.
:
: Anyone?
:
: Nope. I didn't think so.
:
: --
: Geoff
: The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
: remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
: When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.
:
:


Who?

[Blueskies]

"Andreas Tschoeke" > wrote in message ...
: Little Endian schrieb:
:
: >
: > I just don't understand it, why do you need to go to such great
: > lengths in a simulator?
: >
:
: Because we, the simmers, like to simulate RL as closely as possible,
: that´s the reason why we simulate RL.
:
: A friend of mine, who is a RL pilot, too, goes the other way; he
: does things in the sim he wouldn´t think of doing in RL, which is
: not the way I use MSFS. Therefore, I only fly with him in RL, not in the
: sim, because only RL comes close to my experience in the sim.
:
: Yes, I know, difficult to explain ...
:
:
::-) Andreas
:
:

You folks need to go off somewhere else and simulate RAP also...

[Mxsmanic]

Little Endian writes:

> I just don't understand it, why do you need to go to such great
> lengths in a simulator?

When flying online, it's important to have realistic delays for various
operations. Landing and then asking to taxi back out to the active thirty
seconds later isn't very realistic if you are supposedly letting off
passengers, having the cabin serviced, taking on new passengers, moving
luggage, and so on.

Knowing what operations must be performed in real life helps you simulate the
delay correctly.

The whole idea of simulation is to simulate real life. The only parts you
leave out are the ones that would ruin the advantage of simulation, such as
driving to and from the airport, dropping hundreds or thousands of dollars on
a flight, being stuck far from home waiting for weather to improve, and so on.

> Even in real life its the flying part that is
> the most fun, the challenge to level off precisely and accurately with
> the minimum of fuss, the thrill of taking off and landing within 100
> ft of the numbers, handling stiff X-winds, using only pilotage to get
> to a small airstrip etc. Of course taxing is fun too but its only
> because of what comes after it or what came before it.

Agreed. But sometimes peripheral activities enhance the illusion of reality.

Most simmers draw the line at anything that happens outside the aircraft, such
as going to and from the airport, filling out reports, and so on. A few go a
bit further and have complete passenger and cargo manifests and flight
schedules to respect and so on. It's a personal choice. However, everyone is
expected to do all the in-cockpit stuff, from startup to shutdown, and
obviously including things like taxiing.

When flying offline, one tends to cut out some parts. When flying online,
everything is done by the book, so that everyone has a more realistic
experience. You don't just pop into existence at the airport lined up for
take-off, for example, because you have to taxi out from the gate or ramp.

> If I were to fly in a simulator the only thing I would be doing would
> be to fly, fly, fly and never do the mundane things like taxing and
> especially never do something as silly as simulating waiting for a
> passenger.

That's your choice.

Some people take it further, and consider even flying mundane. They are the
ones who like the combat games and the "missions" of MSFS. Obviously, they
usually aren't seriously interested in aviation if they don't like flying for
its own sake.

Incidentally, if you don't like the mundane things, that's all the more reason
to fly a simulator, where you can skip all the boring stuff.

> I don't see why you do not go up with a flight instructor
> for an hour or so if you are so interested in the real life aspects of
> flying.

In real life, you can't avoid the boring parts and just keep the interesting
parts. You blow several hours of your time in boring activity for a few
minutes in the air, and it costs a fortune. That's not very cost-effective
compared to simulation.

> Its like the saying that a picture is worth a thousand words,
> similarly one real flight can be worth a thousand simulator flights.

Or it can be a waste of time.

> It would save you a heck of a lot of time not having to ask these
> questions and time is money.

I have more time than money.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Andreas Tschoeke writes:

> A friend of mine, who is a RL pilot, too, goes the other way; he
> does things in the sim he wouldn´t think of doing in RL, which is
> not the way I use MSFS. Therefore, I only fly with him in RL, not in the
> sim, because only RL comes close to my experience in the sim.

What sorts of things does he do in the sim?

I know that sims come in handy for trying all the things that would be too
dangerous or expensive in real life.

I took off from the tiny airport in Sedona a few days ago in a lightly loaded
747-400, just to see if it was possible (it is). That experiment would be
completely out of the question in real life, of course, even if you could tow
a 747-400 up onto the mesa to reach the airport. Granted, one could calculate
whether or not this would be possible by looking at the numbers, but it was
easier to just try it in a sim.

FWIW, I loaded 40,000 lbs of fuel and a few dozen of my closest friends, stood
on the brakes until I had take-off thrust, and took off without any
difficulty. With a full load the story would have been different.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Dohm writes:

> I don't know, but suspect that part of the decision might
> involve the availability of a jumper cart--just in case.

What is a jumper cart?

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

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> FWIW, I loaded 40,000 lbs of fuel and a few dozen of my closest friends, stood
> on the brakes until I had take-off thrust....

This guy's insane.

F--

[Mxsmanic]

TxSrv writes:

> This guy's insane.

Hardly. I flew down into Phoenix without incident, thus proving that it could
be done.

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

[Buck Murdock]

+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| Thank you, | ( (_) )
| Management | /`-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
================================================== ================

[Tim]

Mxsmanic wrote:

<snip>

>
> Incidentally, if you don't like the mundane things, that's all the more reason
> to fly a simulator, where you can skip all the boring stuff.
>

It seems to me, that by flying a simulator only, and swearing away REAL
flight and REAL life, you are missing out on all of REAL life.

>
> In real life, you can't avoid the boring parts and just keep the interesting
> parts. You blow several hours of your time in boring activity for a few
> minutes in the air, and it costs a fortune. That's not very cost-effective
> compared to simulation.

I'll take my "boring", expensive flights in my grumman cheetah over a
cheaper "more exciting" flight in an extra 300 or MU2 on MSFS ANY day...
I would bet most people feel the same. How can you compare real life
to MSFS? Boring parts of flying a REAL plane? Now I have heard everything.


>
>
>>Its like the saying that a picture is worth a thousand words,
>>similarly one real flight can be worth a thousand simulator flights.
>
>
> Or it can be a waste of time.

Sitting in front of a computer for hours on end pretending to be flying
with no plans to ever fly a real plane sounds like a perfect definition
of a waste of time...

>
>
> I have more time than money

Obviously you have a lot of time on your hands. I know lots of people
who have little money who fly. I think there is more to it than that.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 23, 6:42 pm, "gpsman" > wrote:
> On Feb 23, 8:04 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > Is it safe/advisable to board a small single- or twin-engined aircraft while
> > the prop(s) and engine(s) are turning?
>
> Engine/s, yes. Prop/s, no.

Its very common when I hop off the turbo prop from SFO to SMF that the
right engine is running and the prop is turning. Since we board from
the left side the airline does not appear to care.

-Robert

[Mxsmanic]

Tim writes:

> It seems to me, that by flying a simulator only, and swearing away REAL
> flight and REAL life, you are missing out on all of REAL life.

You have your preferences, and I have mine. You should not assume that real
flying is unconditionally preferable to simulated flying. If that were true,
there would be very few simmers and a lot more pilots.

> I'll take my "boring", expensive flights in my grumman cheetah over a
> cheaper "more exciting" flight in an extra 300 or MU2 on MSFS ANY day ...

That's your choie.

> I would bet most people feel the same.

I wouldn't. There are a lot more people playing with simulators than flying
for real.

> How can you compare real life to MSFS?

It's a simulation, the comparison is implicit.

> Boring parts of flying a REAL plane? Now I have heard everything.

There are parts that are boring. Sitting for ten hours watching waypoints
drift by can get pretty boring. Some pilots fall asleep.

> Sitting in front of a computer for hours on end pretending to be flying
> with no plans to ever fly a real plane sounds like a perfect definition
> of a waste of time...

To whom? I think it's fun, and relaxing.

> Obviously you have a lot of time on your hands.

Not really; but I have no money at all, so I still have more time than money.

> I know lots of people who have little money who fly.

They have a lot more money than I do.

> I think there is more to it than that.

Certainly. It's a question of money, time, red tape, overhead, regulations,
and many other things. It's a lot of trouble to go to for an experience that
is nearly identical to simulation.

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

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

If your prefer simming over RL, you should go back to the sim NG's and leave
the rest of us alone.

[Little Endian]

> Incidentally, if you don't like the mundane things, that's all the more reason
> to fly a simulator, where you can skip all the boring stuff.

Actually it depends on what you consider to be "boring stuff". I
consider the entire act of flying in a sim to be boring, the reason
being that it cannot even qualify as a challenging video game. IMO,
the reason for flying in real life is that it is a challenge and
challenges are fun. It is a challenge not because flying is hard, (it
isn't any harder than flying a sim) but because there is a penalty,
sometimes severe and always very real, for almost every mistake you
make. In real life my pulse goes up every time I have to go around
with full flaps with trees looming at the end of the runway but on a
sim I can do the same even while sipping beer. The reason is that the
stakes are different and a sim can never simulate the most important
aspect of real life which is reality. Ironically this very fact also
makes a sim so valuable for certain aspects of training. But would I
swap my racing pulse for the safety and comfort of my simulator?
Never!
Have you ever seen trapeze artists perform without a safety net? It
costs more to watch them perform without safety nets. Why? Because
people pay more when the stakes are real. Similarly it costs more to
fly in real life than in a simulator because the stakes are real.

> In real life, you can't avoid the boring parts and just keep the interesting
> parts. You blow several hours of your time in boring activity for a few
> minutes in the air, and it costs a fortune. That's not very cost-effective
> compared to simulation.

Depends on what you mean by cost-effective. I would not trade my 100+
hrs in the air for anything. There is no question that sims are
amazing and can be used as training aids very effectively but they
cannot make me sweat or feel nervous or make my pulse race.. which is
why I don't take them seriously except to marvel at the progress
technology has made.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> If your prefer simming over RL, you should go back to the sim NG's and leave
> the rest of us alone.

Why? The activity being simulated is piloting of an aircraft.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Little Endian writes:

> Actually it depends on what you consider to be "boring stuff".

Yes.

In my case, I consider going to and from the airport to be boring. I consider
not being close to home at the end of a flight to be hugely inconvenient. I
consider paying $250 an hour for each hour of flight to be very stressful. I
consider having to spend thousands of dollars and trudge through endless
paperwork just to be allowed to fly to be unacceptably onerous. I consider a
requirement that one be in Olympic condition to get a license to be an
unnecessary burden. I consider the inaccessibility of ownership of an
aircraft to be a major disappointment. I consider the possibility of being
killed to be an uncomfortably high risk. I consider the absence of bathrooms
on some aircraft to be a major inconvenience.

These are some of the reasons why I fly in simulation. Simulation preserves
most of the parts I like, while eliminating the parts I don't.

Lots of people engage in simulation of lots of things, for similar reasons.
Many people engage in combat simulations, for example, because real combat has
too many disadvantages.

> I consider the entire act of flying in a sim to be boring, the reason
> being that it cannot even qualify as a challenging video game.

Interesting. I find most video games boring ... except realistic simulations.
The games I like most are flight simulation, the Sims, and Sim City. Standard
FPS games leave me creaking with boredom in only a few seconds.

> IMO, the reason for flying in real life is that it is a challenge and
> challenges are fun.

Flying is a challenge in simulation, too. I'm surprised by how many people
cannot successfully take off or land in a simulator. This includes some
pilots, or at least the ones who have become dependent on physical sensations
(tin-can pilots and the like).

> It is a challenge not because flying is hard, (it
> isn't any harder than flying a sim) but because there is a penalty,
> sometimes severe and always very real, for almost every mistake you
> make.

Some people enjoy risking their lives; others find it an obstacle to
enjoyment.

> In real life my pulse goes up every time I have to go around
> with full flaps with trees looming at the end of the runway but on a
> sim I can do the same even while sipping beer.

Simulation only works if you take it seriously.

I'll even go so far as to say that people who consistently treat simulation as
mere gaming may also treat real flight the same way, because this has its
basis in their personality. The same type of personality that blows off
checklists in simulation because "it's not real life, anyway," may also do the
same thing in real life, with some similar dismissal as rationalization.

Conversely, someone who can force himself to take simulation seriously--even
knowing that it's not real--should also be able to force himself to do things
by the book in real life, even when those things seem unnecessary.

> The reason is that the
> stakes are different and a sim can never simulate the most important
> aspect of real life which is reality.

Reality might also be the least desirable part of the experience.

People read books and watch movies about things that they would never wish to
experience in real life. They enjoy reading about them and watching them, but
they don't want any reality behind it.

> But would I swap my racing pulse for the safety and comfort of my simulator?
> Never!

I find a racing pulse to be a distraction. There is much about flying to
appreciate, and having one's thoughts clouded by adrenalin ruins many of those
things. It's hard to appreciate the beauty of the Rocky Mountains when you
are hurtling towards them uncontrollably.

> Have you ever seen trapeze artists perform without a safety net? It
> costs more to watch them perform without safety nets. Why? Because
> people pay more when the stakes are real. Similarly it costs more to
> fly in real life than in a simulator because the stakes are real.

No, it costs more in real life than in a simulator simply because it is real
life, and the expensive parts cannot be deleted.

I'm surprised so many people mention the danger of flying as an attraction.
They must be high in testosterone. Personally, I think that if you feel
yourself at risk or in danger while flying, you're doing something wrong.

I hope airline pilots don't feel this way.

> Depends on what you mean by cost-effective. I would not trade my 100+
> hrs in the air for anything. There is no question that sims are
> amazing and can be used as training aids very effectively but they
> cannot make me sweat or feel nervous or make my pulse race.. which is
> why I don't take them seriously except to marvel at the progress
> technology has made.

So you are a thrillseeker. Quite a few GA pilots seem to be thrillseekers.
But we know what the safety experts say about them, don't we?

In my view, if my pulse is racing and I'm sweating, I've failed as a pilot.

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

[Jim Logajan]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> If your prefer simming over RL, you should go back to the sim NG's
>> and leave the rest of us alone.
>
> Why? The activity being simulated is piloting of an aircraft.

There are real pilots on the sim newsgroups that can and do help non-pilots
understand the differences between real life flying and simulated flying.
If there were no newsgroups for discussing flying simulations you might be
within reason to discuss that subject here. But since there are at least
two newsgroups that I know of where MS Flight Simulator is directly on
topic per their charters, you really have no plausible rationale to
continue to raise such topics here.

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> There are real pilots on the sim newsgroups that can and do help non-pilots
> understand the differences between real life flying and simulated flying.

There's nothing magic about being a real pilot, despite what pilots like to
believe. I know that it irritates them to face this.

> If there were no newsgroups for discussing flying simulations you might be
> within reason to discuss that subject here. But since there are at least
> two newsgroups that I know of where MS Flight Simulator is directly on
> topic per their charters, you really have no plausible rationale to
> continue to raise such topics here.

Fortunately, I don't need to justify my posting preferences to you or anyone
else.

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

[J. Doe]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> In my view, if my pulse is racing and I'm sweating, I've failed as a
> pilot.

Don't worry, you don't have a pulse. You've failed as a ****ing human
being.
Now just go away, find some other virtual sandbox to play in..........

[TheSmokingGnu]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> In my case, I consider going to and from the airport to be boring.

I find breathing to be quite boring, as well. May I please have a
simulator where I can pretend to carry out aerobic metabolism without
those nasty boring bits like breathing, eating, or excreting waste?


> I consider
> not being close to home at the end of a flight to be hugely inconvenient.

Assuming that you don't live in the middle of a large bog (as trolls are
wont to do, I'm told), there's a GA airport within walking distance of
your house. Promise.

> I
> consider paying $250 an hour for each hour of flight to be very stressful.

When I did my training, I was paying $80/hour, wet. One of my good
friends knew an owner and could get $39/hour, wet. Hell, I was only
paying $137/hour at ERAU, and THAT was the high price at the field.
$250/hour will get you something between a twin and a turboprop, wet.

Of course, you should learn the golden concept of pro rata. Bring a few
of your good friends along (you DO have friends, right?), and suddenly
that 250 is only $83 and change.

> I
> consider having to spend thousands of dollars and trudge through endless
> paperwork just to be allowed to fly to be unacceptably onerous.

See the above. If putting your name and home address on a form is too
difficult, it's a wonder how you managed to get Usenet access in the
first place.

> I consider a
> requirement that one be in Olympic condition to get a license to be an
> unnecessary burden.

I think you will find that many pilots are hardly Olympic-class
athletes. More like "healthy and generally not covered in green, scaly
warts".

> I consider the inaccessibility of ownership of an
> aircraft to be a major disappointment.

Something like 75% of all GA pilots either rent or have a fractional
ownership, neither of which is impossible (or even improbable) on even a
modest income.

> I consider the possibility of being
> killed to be an uncomfortably high risk.

You could die right now, reading this post. BAM, brain aneurysm (caused,
no doubt, by the sudden ingestion of too much logic). They'll find you
two weeks later, clutched over the keyboard, your body offering up the
most odoriferous effluence imaginable.

> I consider the absence of bathrooms
> on some aircraft to be a major inconvenience.

I told you to go before we left!

> I'm surprised by how many people
> cannot successfully take off or land in a simulator. This includes some
> pilots, or at least the ones who have become dependent on physical sensations

.... or it indicates how important those sensations really are to the art
and style of flying (which you have wholeheartedly discounted, not
actually having felt them yourself). Flying is not all numbers and
formulas, do X and Y will always result, a cold calculation done in head
to achieve an unerring sum. There's a feel to this sort of thing.

> Simulation only works if you take it seriously.

So does life, oddly enough.

> The same type of personality that blows off
> checklists in simulation because "it's not real life, anyway," may also do the
> same thing in real life, with some similar dismissal as rationalization.

Or perhaps it is that some people are able to distinguish between
virtual existence and the corporeal world, and understand that their
actions in one do not affect the outcome in the other.

Also, patently false generalizations by non-qualified personnel FTL.

> Reality might also be the least desirable part of the experience.

And yet reality is what the simulation (and similarly, the "serious" sim
pilot) strives for, in all dealings. So, no, if anything, simulations
should be MORE like real flying.

> They enjoy reading about them and watching them, but
> they don't want any reality behind it.

Reading a good murder mystery doesn't make you any more a detective than
flying a virtual 737 makes you qualified to offer edicts on procedure or
operation.

> It's hard to appreciate the beauty of the Rocky Mountains when you
> are hurtling towards them uncontrollably.

Which is, oddly enough, why pilots spend all that time doing that
"training" lark, so that they can keep from doing any hurtling, much
less uncontrollably so.

---
Mxsmanic wrote:

> There's nothing magic about being a real pilot

Not that you would know, being a feckless, cross/troll-posting,
arrogant, venomous, whingebag shut-in, without the stones to partake in
what he's "trying" to "simulate".

There, now your defeat is signatory on BOTH NG's. I couldn't possibly
have imagined the depth and breadth of your utter foolishness could
extend as far as it does here. "Surely, they're exaggerating" "He
couldn't be that stupid, could he?", I said to myself.

The rumors were true.

TheSmokingGnu

[Capt.Doug]

>"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
> Is it safe/advisable to board a small single- or twin-engined aircraft
while
> the prop(s) and engine(s) are turning? I'm just wondering if this is
feasible
> if you just have someone getting on or getting off (with the pilot being
in
> the aircraft the whole time).

It's feasible if some precautions are exercised. I did single-engine turns
in 19 seat turboprops for years. The left seat pilot watches out the window
for passengers who go anywhere but the stairs and the right seat pilot is at
the base of the stairs to guide the passengers. Only once did we shutdown in
a panic. I saw the wind take a stuffed animal from a child's hand toward the
running engine. I feared the child would bolt for the stuffed animal and I
feathered the engine into shutdown. Fortunately the child didn't go after
it.

> On a related note, how long can you safely leave an aircraft (engines off)
> with just the parking brake set, and when do you normally put chocks under
the
> wheels?

On the big jets, we stop at the gate, set the parking brake, check for
alternate electrical power, shutdown the engines, turn off the seatbelt
sign, wait for the signal that chocks are in place, and release the parking
brake for heat dissipation.

D.

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> There are real pilots on the sim newsgroups that can and do help
>> non-pilots
>> understand the differences between real life flying and simulated flying.
>
> There's nothing magic about being a real pilot, despite what pilots like
> to
> believe. I know that it irritates them to face this.

He never said there was.....but just between you and me, I believe that
flying a real plane is the most magic experience you can have, next to the
birth of your children that is. I don't expect you to understand that, as I
doubt either scenario will ever eventuate for you.
Oz/Crash Lander

>
>> If there were no newsgroups for discussing flying simulations you might
>> be
>> within reason to discuss that subject here. But since there are at least
>> two newsgroups that I know of where MS Flight Simulator is directly on
>> topic per their charters, you really have no plausible rationale to
>> continue to raise such topics here.
>
> Fortunately, I don't need to justify my posting preferences to you or
> anyone
> else.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Peter Dohm]

>
> On the big jets, we stop at the gate, set the parking brake, check for
> alternate electrical power, shutdown the engines, turn off the seatbelt
> sign, wait for the signal that chocks are in place, and release the
parking
> brake for heat dissipation.
>
I had known when the parking brake was normally applied on a transport jet,
but not when it was usually released--just not something I ever needed to
know.

Thanks,
Peter

[Mxsmanic]

Crash Lander writes:

> He never said there was.....but just between you and me, I believe that
> flying a real plane is the most magic experience you can have, next to the
> birth of your children that is.

I consider the birth of children to be extremely mundane. After all, it
occurs better than twice per second worldwide. Perhaps I'm simply not that
easily impressed.

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

[Mxsmanic]

TheSmokingGnu writes:

> I find breathing to be quite boring, as well. May I please have a
> simulator where I can pretend to carry out aerobic metabolism without
> those nasty boring bits like breathing, eating, or excreting waste?

I don't know any way of avoiding these things; if I did, you can be sure that
I would have eliminated them by now.

> Assuming that you don't live in the middle of a large bog (as trolls are
> wont to do, I'm told), there's a GA airport within walking distance of
> your house. Promise.

The nearest airport is about 15 miles away. That's a five-hour walk, and
while I've been known to walk for longer than that at a stretch, it's too
inconvenient to count.

> When I did my training, I was paying $80/hour, wet. One of my good
> friends knew an owner and could get $39/hour, wet. Hell, I was only
> paying $137/hour at ERAU, and THAT was the high price at the field.
> $250/hour will get you something between a twin and a turboprop, wet.

I presume you don't live in Europe.

> Of course, you should learn the golden concept of pro rata. Bring a few
> of your good friends along (you DO have friends, right?), and suddenly
> that 250 is only $83 and change.

And what are my friends going to do while I'm flying?

> See the above. If putting your name and home address on a form is too
> difficult, it's a wonder how you managed to get Usenet access in the
> first place.

Unfortunately, it's much more than putting a name and address on a form.

> I think you will find that many pilots are hardly Olympic-class
> athletes. More like "healthy and generally not covered in green, scaly
> warts".

Many of them are in poor condition, I'm sure. But the medical doesn't address
fitness, it addresses a long list of imaginary issues.

> Something like 75% of all GA pilots either rent or have a fractional
> ownership, neither of which is impossible (or even improbable) on even a
> modest income.

That proves my point. Most people don't rent or have fractional ownership of
their cars.

> You could die right now, reading this post. BAM, brain aneurysm (caused,
> no doubt, by the sudden ingestion of too much logic). They'll find you
> two weeks later, clutched over the keyboard, your body offering up the
> most odoriferous effluence imaginable.

Pulling negative Gs at altitude would greatly increase that probability.

But the real risk is that of an accident.

> I told you to go before we left!

After three hours or so, it's time to go again, depending on many variables.

> ... or it indicates how important those sensations really are to the art
> and style of flying ...

Except that they aren't, as IFR flight proves, and as the accidents of pilots
flying in IMC without special training amply demonstrates. Not only are the
largely unnecessary, but they are often worse than unnecessary, because they
are distracting and misleading.

> ... (which you have wholeheartedly discounted, not
> actually having felt them yourself).

I have felt them myself. I've been in a plane, just not at the controls. But
the whole plane moves, not just the cockpit.

> Flying is not all numbers and formulas ...

That depends on the flying environment. It's a lot more numbers and formulas
than seat of the pants.

> ... do X and Y will always result, a cold calculation done in head
> to achieve an unerring sum. There's a feel to this sort of thing.

I do not share this romantic illusion.

> And yet reality is what the simulation (and similarly, the "serious" sim
> pilot) strives for, in all dealings.

With certain key omissions. A perfect simulation of reality would not be a
simulation, nor would it serve much purpose.

> Reading a good murder mystery doesn't make you any more a detective than
> flying a virtual 737 makes you qualified to offer edicts on procedure or
> operation.

Try me. I wouldn't mind a few hours in a 737 simulator. Specifically, a
737-800. I'm working on the 747-400.

> Which is, oddly enough, why pilots spend all that time doing that
> "training" lark, so that they can keep from doing any hurtling, much
> less uncontrollably so.

Then why do so many of them crash?

> Not that you would know, being a feckless, cross/troll-posting,
> arrogant, venomous, whingebag shut-in, without the stones to partake in
> what he's "trying" to "simulate".
>
> There, now your defeat is signatory on BOTH NG's.

Well, at least you made me smile.

> I couldn't possibly
> have imagined the depth and breadth of your utter foolishness could
> extend as far as it does here. "Surely, they're exaggerating" "He
> couldn't be that stupid, could he?", I said to myself.

In contrast, I could have easily predicted the tone and perhaps even the words
of your post. I'm used to it.

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

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Crash Lander writes:
>
>> He never said there was.....but just between you and me, I believe that
>> flying a real plane is the most magic experience you can have, next to
>> the
>> birth of your children that is.
>
> I consider the birth of children to be extremely mundane. After all, it
> occurs better than twice per second worldwide. Perhaps I'm simply not
> that
> easily impressed.

I can think of 1 second that could have been better spent! The result of
which has indeed become very mundane.
Crash Lander

[Mxsmanic]

Capt.Doug writes:

> On the big jets, we stop at the gate, set the parking brake, check for
> alternate electrical power, shutdown the engines, turn off the seatbelt
> sign, wait for the signal that chocks are in place, and release the parking
> brake for heat dissipation.

Is the parking brake on a large aircraft a separate mechanism from the regular
brakes, or does it use the same mechanism?

Which reminds me ... I once took off from LAX in my 747-400, and after a bit I
happened to look at the gear page on the EICAS, and it showed all the brakes
in the yellow range for temperature (9). I absolutely could not figure out
how I had heated them up, as I had rolled very gentle to the runway, and I had
generally slowed just by cutting the throttle rather than by applying the
brakes (the 747-400 seems to slow very quickly if you have N1 at less than 36%
or so, even lightly loaded).

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

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>> Of course, you should learn the golden concept of pro rata. Bring a few
>> of your good friends along (you DO have friends, right?), and suddenly
>> that 250 is only $83 and change.
>
> And what are my friends going to do while I'm flying?

ROFLMAO! Go on! Name one! Assuming you do pull a name that you, at least,
consider a friend, he'd do exactly what he does at your place while you sim
fly!

>Most people don't rent or have fractional ownership of
> their cars.

A LOT of people a re paying off cars. They call it Hire Purchase.

Crash Lander

[Rip]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Capt.Doug writes:
>
>
>>On the big jets, we stop at the gate, set the parking brake, check for
>>alternate electrical power, shutdown the engines, turn off the seatbelt
>>sign, wait for the signal that chocks are in place, and release the parking
>>brake for heat dissipation.
>
>
> Is the parking brake on a large aircraft a separate mechanism from the regular
> brakes, or does it use the same mechanism?
>
> Which reminds me ... I once took off from LAX in my 747-400, and after a bit I
> happened to look at the gear page on the EICAS, and it showed all the brakes
> in the yellow range for temperature (9). I absolutely could not figure out
> how I had heated them up, as I had rolled very gentle to the runway, and I had
> generally slowed just by cutting the throttle rather than by applying the
> brakes (the 747-400 seems to slow very quickly if you have N1 at less than 36%
> or so, even lightly loaded).
>
Gracious, Anthony! First your spell checker fails, and now your grammar
is going by the wayside, too? Are you overdosing on Jolt and Galoise, or
is it just time to check the meds?

[Mxsmanic]

Crash Lander writes:

> ROFLMAO! Go on! Name one! Assuming you do pull a name that you, at least,
> consider a friend, he'd do exactly what he does at your place while you sim
> fly!

You haven't answered my question: What are my friends (who supposedly chipped
in for the cost of a flight) going to do while I'm flying?

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

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> You haven't answered my question: What are my friends (who supposedly
> chipped
> in for the cost of a flight) going to do while I'm flying?

Well, heaven forbid they would use the time to have a conversation with you!
Possibly even maybe enjoy the scenery? You know! The kind of things 'normal'
people do!
Crash Lander

[Gary[_2_]]

On Feb 23, 8:04 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Is it safe/advisable to board a small single- or twin-engined aircraft while
> the prop(s) and engine(s) are turning? I'm just wondering if this is feasible
> if you just have someone getting on or getting off (with the pilot being in
> the aircraft the whole time).
>
> On a related note, how long can you safely leave an aircraft (engines off)
> with just the parking brake set, and when do you normally put chocks under the
> wheels?

Use the pause button when boarding imaginary passengers. If you're
leaving the simulated aircraft for a longer period, power down the PC.

And don't think for a moment that the pretend controllers give a rats
ass about how long you leave the simulated plane on the pretend ramp
while boarding imaginary passengers.

[gpsman]

On Feb 25, 10:54 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote: <brevity
snip>
>
> You haven't answered my question:

Your questions have never been answered to your satisfaction, probably
because you suffer symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome, among other anti-
social ailments.

> What are my friends (who supposedly chipped
> in for the cost of a flight) going to do while I'm flying?

Let them supposedly jackoff on the back of your neck. Who gives a
****?
------

- gpsman

[TheSmokingGnu]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> The nearest airport is about 15 miles away.

********, Europe's covered in airports. My money's still with the bog
theory.

> I presume you don't live in Europe.

No, I live in LA, where everything is 4 times as expensive as it is in
other parts of the country, and 5 times what it cost to make.

> And what are my friends going to do while I'm flying?

Enjoy the scenery?
Have a conversation with you?
Take the controls for a bit, to give 'em a taste for flight?
Enjoy the destination?

> Unfortunately, it's much more than putting a name and address on a form.

Oh sure, there's space for things like your height, and weight, age,
that sort of thing. Not like you have to sign in blood or anything.

> But the medical doesn't address
> fitness, it addresses a long list of imaginary issues.

Does too, and those "imaginary" issues will become quite real and
apparent if you happen to have one in the middle of executing pilotary
duties. Thus, we have medical screening, which for private licenses and
GA aircraft, is about as menial as one can get (hardly more than a
bog-standard physical).

> That proves my point. Most people don't rent or have fractional ownership of
> their cars.

Every car under lease is rented from the car company, and every car
financed through a loan company is equitable to a fractional ownership
(in that you own your portion of the car so far paid).

Besides, many fractional ownerships get you access to a fleet of
hundreds of ready-to-fly machines, all over the country. I doubt anyone
keeps that many cars around.

> Pulling negative Gs at altitude would greatly increase that probability.

Thus why most flight is conducted at bog-standard 1G, worry-wart.

> But the real risk is that of an accident.

So utterly minimal with healthy piloting technique that it's hardly
worth considering.

> After three hours or so, it's time to go again, depending on many variables.

You wouldn't want to sit still for three hours anyway.

> Except that they aren't, as IFR flight proves, and as the accidents of pilots
> flying in IMC without special training amply demonstrates.

Not only are your enumerations vastly overstated, what it "proves" is
that stress and unfamiliarity with proper procedure kills far more
people that out-of-the-blue accidents do. Thus, training programs strive
to teach applicable techniques, and even go so far as to put students
INTO those kinds of situations, so they can experience them personally
(and so be a less stressful situation, should it occur).

In any case, the vast majority of unqualified pilots do their civic duty
and stay well clear of things they're not supposed to be in.

> Not only are the
> largely unnecessary, but they are often worse than unnecessary, because they
> are distracting and misleading.

You say again, having never felt them or used them.

> I have felt them myself. I've been in a plane, just not at the controls. But
> the whole plane moves, not just the cockpit.

Passenger flights in a jet don't count, dear. Airline pilots are paid to
make the flight as smooth and unperturbed as possible (as all pilots
strive for). You would **** yourself at the real workload to keep a
plane doing what it's supposed to do.

> That depends on the flying environment. It's a lot more numbers and formulas
> than seat of the pants.
>
> I do not share this romantic illusion.

Tell me, then what roll rate is required for a 737-800 to roll wings
level at 250 knots and 10,000 feet on a heading of 030 with a wind from
the south at 10 knots, as the plane turns on standard rate west to east?

> With certain key omissions. A perfect simulation of reality would not be a
> simulation, nor would it serve much purpose.

Sounds like you need to look "simulation" up again.

What good, then, does a full-motion simulator serve to an airline pilot
practicing catastrophic failure scenarios? Surely, he doesn't need to
know what the plane will feel like it's doing? He could much more easily
reach the correct switches in the correct time and order if the deck
weren't gallaphanting about? When practicing in-cabin fires, it's much
too bothersome to use simulated smoke; how else could people see those
little guidance lights in the aisles to find the exits?

Hypocrisy, thy name is Manic.

> Try me. I wouldn't mind a few hours in a 737 simulator. Specifically, a
> 737-800. I'm working on the 747-400.

What's the seventh step in the Engine out-In flight checklist?

> Then why do so many of them crash?

That's the point. THEY DON'T. Hundreds upon thousands of GA flights
begin and end without any incident whatsoever.

> Well, at least you made me smile.

That's what I do.

> In contrast, I could have easily predicted the tone and perhaps even the words
> of your post. I'm used to it.

Consistency's a bitch, innit?

If such predication was actually possible, you will have understood the
meaning of my post, digested it's particularly chosen verbiage, and
taken the long walk off a short pier you so desperately deserve. Since,
in point of fact, you did not, I will take that to mean that both A):
You didn't really get it, and B): you can't really predict my posts, and
are thus, once again, proven a feckless liar.

TheSmokingGnu

[Mxsmanic]

Crash Lander writes:

> Well, heaven forbid they would use the time to have a conversation with you!

Indeed. If I'm paying $250 an hour to fly a tin can, I don't want to waste
money on conversation with friends, which I can undertake for free at just
about any time.

> Possibly even maybe enjoy the scenery?

While they either freeze or roast in the cabin, and as their hearing is
destroyed by the noise.

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

[Mxsmanic]

gpsman writes:

> Your questions have never been answered to your satisfaction, probably
> because you suffer symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome, among other anti-
> social ailments.

Sometimes I've received satisfactory answers. But in other cases (such as
this one), there apparently has been no one qualified to provide answers.

> Let them supposedly jackoff on the back of your neck.

An odd suggestion, and difficult for a girl to carry out.

> Who gives a ****?

It wasn't my suggestion.

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

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Crash Lander writes:
>
>> Well, heaven forbid they would use the time to have a conversation with
>> you!
>
> Indeed. If I'm paying $250 an hour to fly a tin can, I don't want to
> waste
> money on conversation with friends, which I can undertake for free at just
> about any time.

You really don't socialise much do you. You'll find that your conversation
whilst mid flight would be vastly different to a conversation in your
bedroom, or wherever your computer is, particularly if the conversation
participants had never flown before.

>> Possibly even maybe enjoy the scenery?
>
> While they either freeze or roast in the cabin, and as their hearing is
> destroyed by the noise.

Even the tiny ultra light I fly has a cabin heat, and windows that allow air
flow to cool you down if you are hot! The a/c will have headsets for all
occupants. Most are VERY effective at keeping engine noise down. Some are
even able to let you listen to commercial radio or even cd's whilst in
flight. Next negative response? I feel like I'm dealing with my 4 year old!
"Daddy, I don't want to eat my dinner!"
"Why not?"
"I don't like it!"
"But you haven't even tried it!"
"It's yucky!"
"How do you know?"
Here comes the Mxsmanic type response!
"Because!"
"Because why?"
"Just because!"

30 minutes later he's still sitting there, but guess what! He does try it,
and he does eat it! Daddy was right!
Now, Mxsmanic! Eat your dinner!
Oz/Crash Lander
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>> Let them supposedly jackoff on the back of your neck.
>
> An odd suggestion, and difficult for a girl to carry out.

You just don't know the right girls! ;-)
Oz/Crash Lander

[Mxsmanic]

TheSmokingGnu writes:

> ********, Europe's covered in airports. My money's still with the bog
> theory.

I live in Paris, which is hardly a bog. The two major airports are each about
15 miles out. Le Bourget is at a comparable distance, as are aerodromes more
dedicated to GA and training, such as Toussus-le-Noble.

> No, I live in LA, where everything is 4 times as expensive as it is in
> other parts of the country, and 5 times what it cost to make.

You have a large airport right in the middle of town, as well as a number of
others within reasonable distance. And you have that nice Van Nuys airport
for GA.

> Enjoy the scenery?

It would have to be quite a comfortable aircraft.

> Have a conversation with you?

Only if they are willing to scream for the duration.

> Take the controls for a bit, to give 'em a taste for flight?

It might be dangerous for them to continually climb to and from the front
seats.

> Enjoy the destination?

If the destination is the thing, they don't need to fly.

> Does too, and those "imaginary" issues will become quite real and
> apparent if you happen to have one in the middle of executing pilotary
> duties.

Except that this almost never happens; it's a bit like getting struck by
lightning.

Conversely, pilots who have passed the medical often have occult medical
issues that don't become obvious _until_ a problem arises (usually not in
flight, though, since that is statistically unlikely).

I was looking at autopsy summaries for some ATP pilots with recent first-class
medicals, and both of them had serious atherosclerosis that could have killed
them off at any moment; one had more than 90% obstruction of his coronary
arteries. The medical seems to have missed that.

> Thus, we have medical screening, which for private licenses and
> GA aircraft, is about as menial as one can get (hardly more than a
> bog-standard physical).

Unless you have one of the conditions on that arbitrary list. Just being
color blind can exclude you, even though color vision is almost insignificant
for piloting.

> So utterly minimal with healthy piloting technique that it's hardly
> worth considering.

Oh really? Then how can the danger of death be a key attraction to flying for
real, as so many here have claimed? You can't have it both ways.

> In any case, the vast majority of unqualified pilots do their civic duty
> and stay well clear of things they're not supposed to be in.

If they are truly one with their aircraft, feeling and empathizing with its
every mood and emotion, they'd be able to fly blindfolded.

> You say again, having never felt them or used them.

I've certainly felt them, as I've been in aircraft, just like most people.

> Passenger flights in a jet don't count, dear.

Because you say so?

> Airline pilots are paid to make the flight as smooth and unperturbed
> as possible (as all pilots strive for).

If I don't feel it, neither do they; and if they don't feel it, they can't fly
by it. QED.

> You would **** yourself at the real workload to keep a plane doing what
> it's supposed to do.

I already know that workload. You watch the waypoints click by on the MFD or
the FMC.

> Tell me, then what roll rate is required for a 737-800 to roll wings
> level at 250 knots and 10,000 feet on a heading of 030 with a wind from
> the south at 10 knots, as the plane turns on standard rate west to east?

I don't know. What roll rate is required?

On a 737-800, like most aircraft in its category, you push buttons and turn
knobs to change altitude and heading. You don't fly with the yoke in your
teeth.

> What good, then, does a full-motion simulator serve to an airline pilot
> practicing catastrophic failure scenarios?

It allows him to practice procedures without the risk of being injured or
damaging the aircraft.

> Surely, he doesn't need to know what the plane will feel like it's doing?

Correct, in many cases. He just needs to memorize certain procedures that he
won't have time to look up for certain serious emergencies. He needs to learn
to stay calm and execute these procedures even when he knows that an emergency
exists. He needs to do all the steps in the right order, without leaving
anything out or adding anything.

In a simulator, he can practice worst-case scenarios until he can perform them
reflexively. When the real situation arises (if it ever does), he can do
everything that is necessary automatically.

> He could much more easily reach the correct switches in the correct
> time and order if the deck weren't gallaphanting about?

Actually, he's strapped in, so he isn't moving around much, and while many
situations involve significant movements of the aircraft, they are not
necessarily random, jerky movements that might make it difficult to reach the
controls. There are a few situations that might restrict the pilot through
acceleration, but there the key is to avoid letting it go that far in the
first place.

> When practicing in-cabin fires, it's much
> too bothersome to use simulated smoke; how else could people see those
> little guidance lights in the aisles to find the exits?

Actually, cabin simulators do use simulated smoke.

> What's the seventh step in the Engine out-In flight checklist?

I don't know. I haven't practiced engine-out scenarios on big iron. On my
Baron, I recall that a failed engine must be feathered and I must apply rudder
and aileron towards the good engine. Once the aircraft is trimmed for the
single engine, I can look further into the problem. But I don't do a lot of
engine-out practice on the Baron, either.

> Consistency's a bitch, innit?

I didn't say that it bothered me. It's quite convenient, albeit boring at
times.

> If such predication was actually possible, you will have understood the
> meaning of my post, digested it's particularly chosen verbiage, and
> taken the long walk off a short pier you so desperately deserve.

I do understand the meaning of your post, but it's very different from what
you'd like people to believe it to be. I've been interacting with people like
yourself online for many years.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Gary writes:

> And don't think for a moment that the pretend controllers give a rats
> ass about how long you leave the simulated plane on the pretend ramp
> while boarding imaginary passengers.

Actually they do, although it depends somewhat on the controller.

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

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>> Have a conversation with you?
>
> Only if they are willing to scream for the duration.

Oh, how cute! You actually think the microphones on the headsets are only
for talking to atc? Ah, children say the darndest things!
The microphones are voice activated, and whatever you say, at normal talking
volume is heard in each of the passengers headsets.
Got any other completely negative excuses that are completely irrelevant?
Crash Lander

[Mxsmanic]

Crash Lander writes:

> You really don't socialise much do you.

Not if I can help it.

> You'll find that your conversation
> whilst mid flight would be vastly different to a conversation in your
> bedroom, or wherever your computer is, particularly if the conversation
> participants had never flown before.

Maybe. So what? As I've said, I'm not going to pay $250 an hour just to chat
with friends.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Crash Lander writes:

> You just don't know the right girls!

I just don't know the wrong girls.

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

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Crash Lander writes:
>
>> You just don't know the right girls!
>
> I just don't know the wrong girls.

Meh! Tomaytoes - Tomartoes!
Crash Lander

[Mxsmanic]

Crash Lander writes:

> Oh, how cute! You actually think the microphones on the headsets are only
> for talking to atc?

If they have headsets. Do you keep a headset for every seat in your aircraft?
That's $4000 for a Baron.

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

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> If they have headsets. Do you keep a headset for every seat in your
> aircraft?
> That's $4000 for a Baron.

How many seats is that? 6? plus to in the cockpit? That's 8 headsets. You'd
have a decent set for the pilot, a reasonable set for co-pilot, and second
hand $200 jobs for the passengers! That's nowhere near $4000. If you carried
passengers regularly, yes, you'd carry the headsets, otherwise, as a pilot,
with presumable a reasonable relationship with other pilots from the same
airfield, I'm sure you could rustle up a few loan sets for your passengers.
Most aircraft you buy will come with at least 1 set anyway!
Crash Lander

[TheSmokingGnu]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> I live in Paris, which is hardly a bog.

Well, I'll not offer my opinions on that.

There are 14 airports alone in the Paris metropolitan area, and Orly is
like a hop, skip, and a bus ride away. I can't be arsed to put the
effort in for you. Help yourself, and all that.

> You have a large airport right in the middle of town, as well as a number of
> others within reasonable distance. And you have that nice Van Nuys airport
> for GA.

Ha, I'm just trying to imagine the (very colorful) language the LAX
controllers would use to tell me that my landing clearance was denied;
they get mad enough when you encroach on their outlying space, much less
trying to use it whilst the 744's fly past.

And, Van Nuys isn't all that great for GA training. It's right up
against and under Class C to boot, and damned busy with lots of mixed
traffic, and only two runways. Makes for a hell of a ramp dance, keeping
away from the jet blasts, but otherwise does not offer the environment
conducive to real learning.

> It would have to be quite a comfortable aircraft.

It's not exactly an Iron Maiden, if that's what you're pointing at. And
yes, the seats do go ALL the way down...

> Only if they are willing to scream for the duration.

******** squared! Headsets are mandatory flight gear on my flights,
thanksya. The rental place has them available for interlopers, gratis.

> It might be dangerous for them to continually climb to and from the front
> seats.

Remember that "you wouldn't want to sit still for three hours" bit in
the last post? Let the "co-pilot" have a go, and rotate at the pit
stops. Do I really have to think this ****e up for you?

> If the destination is the thing, they don't need to fly.

Flying *around while at* the destination. And, need I remind you of the
speed and convenience of taking a plane rather than, say, skiing across
the fscking Rockies?

> Conversely, pilots who have passed the medical often have occult medical
> issues that don't become obvious _until_ a problem arises (usually not in
> flight, though, since that is statistically unlikely).

So why worry about it? :P

Besides, medicals aren't excuses to skip regular checkups with your
normal physician, which *DOES* pick up this sort of thing.

> Unless you have one of the conditions on that arbitrary list. Just being
> color blind can exclude you, even though color vision is almost insignificant
> for piloting.

What are you ****ing smoking?

If you're red/green colorblind, how can you tell which navigation light
is on which wing, and what direction and heading is that aircraft off
the left wing going?

You don't know? What do you mean you don't know? It's perfectly obvious,
green/red and he's heading towards you. Red/green, away. What do you
mean you can't tell the damn difference between the lights?

Ok, different situation. You go NORDO because some very key widget in
the radio bus decides to burn out. What light signal did the tower just
give you? Was it "clear to land" or "hold and circle"? What do you mean
you can't tell the difference between the lights?

And the list goes on and on. Color is key to flight.

> Oh really? Then how can the danger of death be a key attraction to flying for
> real, as so many here have claimed?

It's the danger of living that attracts people to flying. The knowledge
that at some random moment, they may break down and actually experience
something worth remembering instead of sitting indoors and pounding away
endlessly at the keyboard.

The danger of death comes with every activity in our lives, from flying
to breathing. The fact you can't recognize this only drives the point
home harder.

> If they are truly one with their aircraft, feeling and empathizing with its
> every mood and emotion, they'd be able to fly blindfolded.

I can. Can you?

It's part and parcel of unusual attitude training.

> Because you say so?

Yes.

> If I don't feel it, neither do they; and if they don't feel it, they can't fly
> by it. QED.

If you don't feel it, it's because you're not sensitive to it; the
airline pilot's thus being so (rather, MORE sensitive) are able to
maintain aircraft positioning without disturbing or alerting the paying
curmudgeons in the back to their maneuvering. QED.

> I already know that workload. You watch the waypoints click by on the MFD or
> the FMC.

Thus proving the worth (or lack thereof) of simulation as applicable to
real world operation. QED.

> I don't know. What roll rate is required?

I'm sorry, I thought all of flight was formula, and hard fact. I
thought, you being such an expert in the operation of the 737-800 (as
you profess), that you could give me precise performance figures given a
complete scenario. I guess YOU AREN'T UP TO THE TASK.

And the answer is: it's a trick question. You don't know your current
heading, and so you don't know how far away you are from your intended
course. Even if you did know that, the answer is variable (do you start
the rollout immediately from your current heading? Do you start when 30
degrees abeam? Do you start as you pass it?). The real answer is:
enough. Enough so that the aircraft is operated in a smooth manner, with
a minimum of surface deflection, in an expeditious manner, with as
little error as possible. That is flying, and it's VISCERAL, not calculable.

> On a 737-800, like most aircraft in its category, you push buttons and turn
> knobs to change altitude and heading. You don't fly with the yoke in your
> teeth.

That's the way YOU choose to fly the aircraft. The plane is, first and
foremost, flown by hand, by pilots, with training and experience.

>> Surely, he doesn't need to know what the plane will feel like it's doing?
>
> Correct, in many cases. He just needs to memorize certain procedures that he
> won't have time to look up for certain serious emergencies.

Heaven forbid he should find out the lateral-G load of the unexpected
maneuver prevents him from reaching that critical switch which completes
the sequence, eh?

Heaven forbid he should feel the buffet in the controls of the oncoming
stall, which his instrument cluster failed to report to him due to a
blocked static port, eh?

> Actually, he's strapped in, so he isn't moving around much, and while many
> situations involve significant movements of the aircraft, they are not
> necessarily random, jerky movements that might make it difficult to reach the
> controls.

Like, say, a high-G turn. QED.


> There are a few situations that might restrict the pilot through
> acceleration, but there the key is to avoid letting it go that far in the
> first place.

Your left engine falls off (wasn't properly reattached by the
groundcrew). You're now 2000+ lbs. out of list, have heavy yaw from the
operating engine, losing all sorts of other systems (like the hydraulics
that move your ailerons and flaps), generally getting a wicked shimmy,
AND you have no idea what just happened.

Guess it was your fault for letting it go that far, eh?

> Actually, cabin simulators do use simulated smoke.

Your failure to spot the satire is very telling.

> I don't know.

That seems to be a recurring theme with you.

I thought you were experienced enough to make edicts on procedure and
operation? What happened to your burst of confidence?

Emergency procedures are some of the FIRST things you should learn, and
THE FIRST thing you should have memorized before stepping into the
cockpit. Engine out is a big one, because you can loose a compressor to
AOA on takeoff, or if you get a bird, or if your fuel system isn't
configured properly (or not functioning properly in the first place).
Losing an engine means lots of complicated, sometimes counter-intuitive
(and hand-flown) procedures. And you don't ****ing know.

---

I promised myself that I wouldn't do intellectual battle with an unarmed
opponent, but in your case, you're already running with scissors, naked
through a field of cactus.

TheSmokingGnu

[Al Borowski]

On Feb 26, 4:50 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
<lots of stuff>

You are, by far, the best troll I have ever seen. Well Done.

Cheers,

Al, who spends $100 an hour to fly, without a medical and with
virtually no paperwork.

[Mxsmanic]

Crash Lander writes:

> How many seats is that? 6? plus to in the cockpit? That's 8 headsets.

Six total, for a Baron 58 in club configuration.

> You'd have a decent set for the pilot, a reasonable set for co-pilot, and second
> hand $200 jobs for the passengers!

My passengers get the same quality I get.

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

[Mxsmanic]

TheSmokingGnu writes:

> There are 14 airports alone in the Paris metropolitan area ...

Yes, but they are all in the suburbs.

> ... and Orly is like a hop, skip, and a bus ride away.

It's more than an hour away, and I don't think it welcomes general aviation.

> Ha, I'm just trying to imagine the (very colorful) language the LAX
> controllers would use to tell me that my landing clearance was denied;
> they get mad enough when you encroach on their outlying space, much less
> trying to use it whilst the 744's fly past.

Why would they deny you landing clearance?

> And, Van Nuys isn't all that great for GA training.

It's a lot better than Orly.

> So why worry about it?

That's what I ask. The FAA worries excessively about the wrong things.

> Besides, medicals aren't excuses to skip regular checkups with your
> normal physician, which *DOES* pick up this sort of thing.

No, regular check-ups won't pick it up, either. It's often the sort of thing
you must be looking for.

> If you're red/green colorblind, how can you tell which navigation light
> is on which wing, and what direction and heading is that aircraft off
> the left wing going?

By the way the lights move in relation to each other.

However, most people with red-green color blindness have deuteranomaly or
protanomaly, which means that they can still see red and green, but it is more
difficult for them than it is for normal people (and they see them slightly
differently, although they may still be distinct).

> Ok, different situation. You go NORDO because some very key widget in
> the radio bus decides to burn out. What light signal did the tower just
> give you? Was it "clear to land" or "hold and circle"? What do you mean
> you can't tell the difference between the lights?

Just make sure you carry a handheld.

> And the list goes on and on. Color is key to flight.

Hardly. There are a handful of situations in which it matters. Usually it
doesn't.

> It's the danger of living that attracts people to flying. The knowledge
> that at some random moment, they may break down and actually experience
> something worth remembering instead of sitting indoors and pounding away
> endlessly at the keyboard.

That may be true for _some_ pilots, but certainly not all. There are many
potential attractions to flying, and not everyone is looking for adventure.

> The danger of death comes with every activity in our lives, from flying
> to breathing.

In which case there's nothing special about flying. You undermine your own
argument.

> I can. Can you?

Nobody can.

> It's part and parcel of unusual attitude training.

It's not part of flight.

> If you don't feel it, it's because you're not sensitive to it; the
> airline pilot's thus being so (rather, MORE sensitive) are able to
> maintain aircraft positioning without disturbing or alerting the paying
> curmudgeons in the back to their maneuvering. QED.

No, they don't feel it either, or I should say, they don't feel it any more
than the passengers do. Everyone is in the same aircraft.

> Thus proving the worth (or lack thereof) of simulation as applicable to
> real world operation.

You watch the waypoints click by both in simulation and in real life.

> I'm sorry, I thought all of flight was formula, and hard fact.

It is, in theory, but that doesn't mean that everyone does the calculations.

> I thought, you being such an expert in the operation of the 737-800 (as
> you profess), that you could give me precise performance figures given a
> complete scenario. I guess YOU AREN'T UP TO THE TASK.

No, I just know that the 737-800 does this for me, thanks to being familiar
with the aircraft. The AFDS turns the aircraft, not I.

> And the answer is: it's a trick question. You don't know your current
> heading, and so you don't know how far away you are from your intended
> course. Even if you did know that, the answer is variable (do you start
> the rollout immediately from your current heading? Do you start when 30
> degrees abeam? Do you start as you pass it?). The real answer is:
> enough. Enough so that the aircraft is operated in a smooth manner, with
> a minimum of surface deflection, in an expeditious manner, with as
> little error as possible. That is flying, and it's VISCERAL, not calculable.

Clearly, tin-can pilots predominate here. I'm reminded of a rower in crew who
claims that a cruise-ship captain steers the ship by the feel of the oars in
his hands.

> That's the way YOU choose to fly the aircraft. The plane is, first and
> foremost, flown by hand, by pilots, with training and experience.

No, it is not. Almost all of the average commercial flight is flown by the
FMC. The pilots typically only fly take-off and landing; and in low
visibility, they may use the autoland feature to have the aircraft land itself
as well.

> Heaven forbid he should find out the lateral-G load of the unexpected
> maneuver prevents him from reaching that critical switch which completes
> the sequence, eh?

There are very few emergencies that involve such forces. Large airliners are
only sound to about 2.5 Gs or so. A G force great enough to prevent him from
reaching a switch may well be enough to snap the wings off also, so there's
not much point in worrying about it.

> Heaven forbid he should feel the buffet in the controls of the oncoming
> stall, which his instrument cluster failed to report to him due to a
> blocked static port, eh?

His instruments warn him of critical angle of attack long before he comes
anywhere near it. It is unlikely to ever reach the buffer or even
stick-shaker stage if he is watching his instruments.

> Like, say, a high-G turn. QED.

He won't (read: can't) be making any turns of more than 2.5 Gs or so.
Airliners are not fighter planes.

> Your left engine falls off (wasn't properly reattached by the
> groundcrew). You're now 2000+ lbs. out of list, have heavy yaw from the
> operating engine, losing all sorts of other systems (like the hydraulics
> that move your ailerons and flaps), generally getting a wicked shimmy,
> AND you have no idea what just happened.
>
> Guess it was your fault for letting it go that far, eh?

You can train for that in the sim.

> Your failure to spot the satire is very telling.

Your conversion of a mistake to "satire" is noted.

> That seems to be a recurring theme with you.

Not really; but if I don't know, I'm not afraid to say so.

> I thought you were experienced enough to make edicts on procedure and
> operation?

I'm experienced enough to make some statements with a high level of certainty,
but not others.

> What happened to your burst of confidence?

Confidence is what allows me to admit when I don't know. People who never say
that they don't know are insecure liars.

> Emergency procedures are some of the FIRST things you should learn, and
> THE FIRST thing you should have memorized before stepping into the
> cockpit.

Normal procedures first; then emergencies.

> Engine out is a big one, because you can loose a compressor to
> AOA on takeoff, or if you get a bird, or if your fuel system isn't
> configured properly (or not functioning properly in the first place).

If you haven't learned to fly an aircraft normally, you won't be able to learn
how to fly it abnormally.

> Losing an engine means lots of complicated, sometimes counter-intuitive
> (and hand-flown) procedures. And you don't ****ing know.

I know part of it, but I don't practice it much. I don't have to deal with
failures in simulation, and I don't plan to fly for real, so such exercises
are academic, and I undertake them only out of curiosity.

> I promised myself that I wouldn't do intellectual battle with an unarmed
> opponent, but in your case, you're already running with scissors, naked
> through a field of cactus.

If that were true, you wouldn't have to resort to personal attacks. I don't.

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

[CRaSH]

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

d:->))

[Little Endian]

> Flying is a challenge in simulation, too. I'm surprised by how many people
> cannot successfully take off or land in a simulator. This includes some

Then I think your simulator does not really simulate flying of an
airplane properly. I cannot consider a simulator to be worth anything
if a real life pilot cannot fly it without any problems. That is the
test of any simulator and seems like your sim fails it quite badly.

> pilots, or at least the ones who have become dependent on physical sensations
> (tin-can pilots and the like).

What is a tin-can pilot?

> Simulation only works if you take it seriously.

Yes, but what you are talking about is not simulation of flying
because according to you, real life pilots cannot takeoff or land in
your simulator.

> things. It's hard to appreciate the beauty of the Rocky Mountains when you
> are hurtling towards them uncontrollably.

The simulator does not depict the beauty of the Rocky Mountains in any
way. I have hiked all over the Rockies and its not possible to
replicate that beauty of Romo in a simulator with fake images. When I
get a chance I will fly around the Rockies too but only in a real
airplane.

> In my view, if my pulse is racing and I'm sweating, I've failed as a pilot.

Maybe so but that is how we learn to become better real life pilots.
Its an educational process and it never ends which is why its so
highly valued.

[gpaleo]

Ï "Nomen Nescio" > Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
...
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Mxsmanic >
>
>>In my case, I consider going to and from the airport to be boring.
>
> Translation: I can't afford a car
>
.................................................. .................................................. .....
>
> Hope this helps.


Funny!!!!!!!!!

One has to admit, though, that he is one of the most successful trolls in
recent memory.
People just HAVE TO reply to him!!!!!!!!!!! Amazing!!!!!!
George

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
> wrote:
> Is it safe/advisable to board a small single- or twin-engined aircraft while
> the prop(s) and engine(s) are turning? I'm just wondering if this is feasible
> if you just have someone getting on or getting off (with the pilot being in
> the aircraft the whole time).

We used to board the Islander at NWPC Cark while the pilot was running the
engines up. Bit scary the first few times :)

Andy

[EridanMan]

On Feb 24, 4:13 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote
>
>
>
> > Ok, is there ANYONE here who isn't already familier with Mr. Maniac's
> > background? Don't be shy - raise your hand.
>
> > Anyone?
>
> > Nope. I didn't think so.
>
> This poster was a name I didn't recall seeing around, and I thought he was a
> newbie that needed to be informed.
>
> A thousand pardons, if that was not the case.
> --
> Jim in NC

I'm a lurker/occasional poster...

I honestly had not understood what a lot of the problem with MX was
until I read Jay's thread about loosing a friend while flying a few
hours after posting this response to him. (I don't read every thread
on this board) I'm not sure if I would still categorize him as a
Troll in the strictest sense (not that Trollish behavior isn't a very
subjective judgment). I've always considered Trolls to be posters who
intentionally 'stir the pot' to see the emotional reaction without
truly caring about the subject matter. MX on the other hand seems
genuinely interested in flying and aviation, but otherwise fairly
oblivious to how tactless and sophomoric his arguments can sound to
others...

To be completely honest, I suspect that MX is either a child or
autistic adult- clearly intelligent and proud of his knowledge, but
also completely oblivious socially/empathically and a little to eager
to 'show off what he knows'.

I think it would be hard to argue that he hadn't stirred up at least
some reasonably interesting threads on this board... But I can
understand those of you who are sick of it... I'm sorry, I will try
and remember to use the MX: subject tag if/when I respond to him in
the future.

[Jim Stewart]

Nomen Nescio wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Mxsmanic >
>
>>In my case, I consider going to and from the airport to be boring.
>
>
> Translation: I can't afford a car

Most snipped....

Almost too funny for a Monday morning. Nearly had
a coffee spew.

[EridanMan]

Wow MX, and you wonder why you infuriate this board so much.

I think the biggest fact that your missing here is that for us 'real
pilots', flying is among the greatest and most visceral passions in
our lives... The piloting community is linked primarily by passion
and emotion for our past-time, not simply policy and procedure.

Why else do you think we dedicate such a high percentage of our lives
resources to one hobby?

> Yes.
>
> In my case, I consider going to and from the airport to be boring. I consider
> not being close to home at the end of a flight to be hugely inconvenient. I
> consider paying $250 an hour for each hour of flight to be very stressful. I
> consider having to spend thousands of dollars and trudge through endless
> paperwork just to be allowed to fly to be unacceptably onerous. I consider a
> requirement that one be in Olympic condition to get a license to be an
> unnecessary burden. I consider the inaccessibility of ownership of an
> aircraft to be a major disappointment. I consider the possibility of being
> killed to be an uncomfortably high risk. I consider the absence of bathrooms
> on some aircraft to be a major inconvenience.

And right here you have just proved that you 'don't get it'... People
here do not value your opinion because, quite frankly, why should they
listen to some cocky 'arm-chair pilot' who is telling them how to do
what they eagerly and willingly accept each and every one of the
inconveniences and risks you mention to do because it simply means
that much to them? You have just admitted that you don't have the
passion for flight, stop telling us that we shouldn't either.

> These are some of the reasons why I fly in simulation. Simulation preserves
> most of the parts I like, while eliminating the parts I don't.

I flew flight simulators from the time I was 8 until I was 23.
Simulators are _sorry_ excuses for reality, that is a simple truth.
ALL they are good for is teaching some of the more mundane aspects of
aviation in a sterile, passionless environment. If those pedantic
details are all that interests you about aviation... well, I'm sorry.
But you absolutely need to understand that there is far more why we
fly than anything that can be portrayed in simulation...

> Lots of people engage in simulation of lots of things, for similar reasons.
> Many people engage in combat simulations, for example, because real combat has
> too many disadvantages.

People take their combat simulations pretty damn far (airsoft,
paintball) because combat simulations suffer the same lack of
'experience' that flight simulations do.

> Flying is a challenge in simulation, too. I'm surprised by how many people
> cannot successfully take off or land in a simulator. This includes some
> pilots, or at least the ones who have become dependent on physical sensations
> (tin-can pilots and the like).

Its not about the challenge, its about simply 'being up there' with
all of the rights, privileges, and responsibilities entitled therein.

> Simulation only works if you take it seriously.
>
> I'll even go so far as to say that people who consistently treat simulation as
> mere gaming may also treat real flight the same way, because this has its
> basis in their personality. The same type of personality that blows off
> checklists in simulation because "it's not real life, anyway," may also do the
> same thing in real life, with some similar dismissal as rationalization.

That is a tremendously arrogant assumption for someone who has already
shown that he has absolutely no concept as to what motivates private
pilots.

> Reality might also be the least desirable part of the experience.

How would you know?

How can you not see how tremendously infuriating it is to those of us
who willingly and happily spend a third of our lives resources flying
for the passion and meaning it brings our lives to have some 'kid'
with no comprehension of why we do it constantly second guessing and
trying to one-up us?

If you would keep your postings to simple questions and
clarifications, that would be one thing, but then to completely
discount the entire reason that we do it in the first place? And you
wonder why this board is so rude to you.

> I find a racing pulse to be a distraction. There is much about flying to
> appreciate, and having one's thoughts clouded by adrenalin ruins many of those
> things. It's hard to appreciate the beauty of the Rocky Mountains when you
> are hurtling towards them uncontrollably.
>
> No, it costs more in real life than in a simulator simply because it is real
> life, and the expensive parts cannot be deleted.
>
> I'm surprised so many people mention the danger of flying as an attraction.
> They must be high in testosterone. Personally, I think that if you feel
> yourself at risk or in danger while flying, you're doing something wrong.
>

> So you are a thrillseeker. Quite a few GA pilots seem to be thrillseekers.
> But we know what the safety experts say about them, don't we?
>
> In my view, if my pulse is racing and I'm sweating, I've failed as a pilot.

You mistake the simple passion of experience for some form of
irrational thrillseeking. Pilot's don't fly because its dangerous,
pilots fly because they can FLY... There really is no other way to
describe it...

Actually:

Consider this MX- To us, it feels like you are an intentionally deaf
(earplugged) person arguing with us about the sound of a symphony.
Sure, you can understand an learn all of the instruments, their
ranges, the music theory behind them, and you might even be able to
compose a few interesting pieces. You can get a lot 'in simulation',
and much of it is even admirable knowledge.

That said, you continue to argue with those of us who enjoy listening
to music about the value of ACTUALLY EXPERIENCING the music. If you
simply wanted to learn music theory that is one thing, but instead,
you actually cast judgment about the value of experiencing the very
act for which you have a passion for the mundane theory. Of course
we're going to think you're an arrogant prick- until you take the
earplugs out of your ears and go have a listen to the experience of
aviation, you've completely lost the forest for the trees.

> I hope airline pilots don't feel this way.

I never picked up professional photography out of fear for loosing my
passion for it. Similarly, I would never fly professionally out of a
similar fear.

It is the passion that drives us, it is the experience that drives
us. There is nothing more beautiful than experiencing our world from
the heavens, everything else is just details.

[TheSmokingGnu]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Yes, but they are all in the suburbs.

Oh, call the whaamublance, would ya.

> Why would they deny you landing clearance?

Because LAX is one of the busiest airports in the world, which handles
thousands of flights a day, and the controllers may be juggling a
half-dozen aircraft each, which all has to move in a smooth procession.
Sure, a 172 pilot can ASK for clearance, but he's more than very likely
to receive a "thanks, but no thanks".

> That's what I ask. The FAA worries excessively about the wrong things.

The point, dear boy, is that YOU worry about it too much.

> No, regular check-ups won't pick it up, either. It's often the sort of thing
> you must be looking for.

I can't speak for French doctoring, but here this sort of thing is par
for the course.

> By the way the lights move in relation to each other.

Which requires that you not only stare at the lights for any given
period of time, it also deducts critical time you may need to:

Adjust the controls
Fiddle a knob
Check your instruments
Move the #*(&@ out of the way of the jumbo jet on a collision course
with your plane.

Sorry, you need to be able to look and KNOW, immediately. Only color
does that.

> it is more
> difficult for them than it is for normal people (and they see them slightly
> differently, although they may still be distinct).

In which case they can apply for a SODA. If they pass, huzzah.

> Just make sure you carry a handheld.

Your handheld is burnt out, and all your batteries are dead. And there's
no power port in the plane. And the Mets are playing that evening.

You are well and truly NORDO. What signal did the tower just give you?

> Hardly. There are a handful of situations in which it matters. Usually it
> doesn't.

Like:

Reading a chart
Reading weather
Checking airspeed
Checking fuel for water and correct grade

Nope, still need it.

> There are many
> potential attractions to flying, and not everyone is looking for adventure.

Yes, they all are. You don't fly because it's a horrid trudge uphill in
sleet, you do it because you want to experience something you wouldn't
get staying on the ground (not, again, that you would know).

> In which case there's nothing special about flying. You undermine your own
> argument.

That was never my argument to begin with, fool.

> Nobody can.

I can.

> It's not part of flight.

That wasn't a condition of it's possibility. Your mistake, again.

> No, they don't feel it either, or I should say, they don't feel it any more
> than the passengers do. Everyone is in the same aircraft.

Do you not read?

Their sensitivity to it is greater than yours. True, the forces are the
same throughout the aircraft, but their perception is far better than
you or I.

> No, I just know that the 737-800 does this for me, thanks to being familiar
> with the aircraft. The AFDS turns the aircraft, not I.

Then you haven't learned to fly the aircraft. You've learned to twiddle
a knob, and any ground-pounder can do that.

Take the controls sometime.

> Clearly, tin-can pilots predominate here.

Clearly, supercilious bull**** predominates here with you. Don't be so
crass to think a pilot does not know how to fly his aircraft, because
you can twiddle a knob (remember our "murder mystery" argument).

> No, it is not.

How would you know?

> The pilots typically only fly take-off and landing; and in low
> visibility, they may use the autoland feature to have the aircraft land itself
> as well.

Pilots typically fly all the way through the initial parts of the
departure, procedure turns and such. It's a bitch to find out George has
gone kaddywompus in IFR traffic.

> Large airliners are
> only sound to about 2.5 Gs or so.

Care to state a source?

> A G force great enough to prevent him from
> reaching a switch may well be enough to snap the wings off also

At 2.5G, your 20lbs. head weighs 50lbs. Your 40lbs. arm weighs 100lbs.
And if you were actually flying at max G load (around 4G's for a
passenger aircraft), your arm could weigh 160lbs. Still think you have
the arm strength to hit that switch?

>> Heaven forbid he should feel the buffet in the controls of the oncoming
>> stall, which his instrument cluster failed to report to him due to a
>> blocked static port, eh?
>
> His instruments warn him of critical angle of attack long before he comes
> anywhere near it. It is unlikely to ever reach the buffer or even
> stick-shaker stage if he is watching his instruments.

Did you not actually read that? Your instruments aren't telling you
anything. They think everything is fine. The plane is approaching a
stall and they can't detect it, and you (Mr. I Don't Need to Feel
Anything), take it all the way through to a full-root stall, because
you're super-confident that your instruments will never ever lie to you.

Congratulations, your worthless pronouncements have killed all aboard.

> He won't (read: can't) be making any turns of more than 2.5 Gs or so.
> Airliners are not fighter planes.

Read the (two) above.

> You can train for that in the sim.

That's not the point.

> Your conversion of a mistake to "satire" is noted.

Wasn't a mistake in the least. You need to read it again.

> I'm experienced enough to make some statements with a high level of certainty,
> but not others.

So your statement "Try me" was just fallacious bluff, then? You are
ready to admit that flying a virtual 737 in no way permits nor prepares
you for the task of taking a real bird to the air?

> Normal procedures first; then emergencies.

Emergency procedures are listed first in the POH for a reason.

You may begin to learn some normal procedures first, but once again you
fail to properly read my statement. Emergency procedures are the first
you memorize (which you have clearly failed to do, in the confidence
that your perfect computing environment will never offer up any undue
failure lest you request it).

> If you haven't learned to fly an aircraft normally, you won't be able to learn
> how to fly it abnormally.

And by all appearances, you haven't learned to fly, period.

> I know part of it, but I don't practice it much. I don't have to deal with
> failures in simulation, and I don't plan to fly for real, so such exercises
> are academic, and I undertake them only out of curiosity.

So again you freely admit that simulation does not prepare you for the
rigors and necessity of flying a real aircraft, and that it's inherent
safety makes you a complacent pilot with sloppy habits?

I think we've made a breakthrough here.

> If that were true, you wouldn't have to resort to personal attacks.

What personal attacks? So far as I know, everything I've said is true.

Please take half a second to actually read the post. Most of this crap
is you failing to register what exactly it is you're reading.

Please don't try to run with scissors, naked, through a field of cactus,
backwards.

TheSmokingGnu

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

Nice analysis, but he just ignores stuff that he doesn't like.

Yes, it's great to be welcoming, receptive, open minded, and polite, as some
people have pointed out, but he will never respond in kind. He's also hard
to ignore, since his volume of posts tends to overwhelm the NG.

The fact is that he only looks at things from his own close minded, self
centered, and narrow perspective. He pretends to want to learn, but his
attitudes preclude any meaningful interchange of ideas.

He does not work, and can not seem to hold a job, yet he blames this on the
economy and a variety of other external factors.

He is actually a pretty pathetic character- kind of a lost dog that you feel
sorry for, but when you reach out a helping hand, the dog bites you.

Unfortunately, the lost dog continues to hang around and won't go away, and
worse he ruins the NG with his ****.

I just wish he'd get a real (not simulated) life and find some other
interests so he wouldn't spend all of his waking hours polluting RAP.

[Marcel Kuijper[_2_]]

"Nomen Nescio" wrote:

> Hope this helps.

ROTFLMAO!!!!

You bet it does! Dude, you da man!
Yes siree, this guy probably has a sign around his neck that
reads: "My mommy won't let me cross the street."


Marcel

[Don Burnette]

"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
<snip>

>
> >In my view, if my pulse is racing and I'm sweating, I've failed as a
pilot.
>
> Translation: My pulse races and I sweat when I try to get out of a chair.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
>

ROTFLMAO!

That was awesome, thank you!!!


Don

[Terry 56W[_2_]]

Flying a Cherokee180 I will always turn off the the engine for safety
sake and I won't start the engine if there's someone behind me,
fueling or working on their airplane. I will turn the plane away from
that individual for safety and out of courtesy. There's no reason to
take a chance. I use the chocks everytime I leave the airplane,
including in the hanger, and carry several sets with me. The larger
airports with a lineman will usually use their own set of chokes. I
have helped push a Cessna out of the snow with the power applied and
the slip stream was pretty strong, not something I would wish on
someone else.

[Mxsmanic]

Little Endian writes:

> Then I think your simulator does not really simulate flying of an
> airplane properly.

It does, but sometimes minor differences throw people off, especially if
they've come to depend on them. A good pilot, however, can adapt very
quickly. The most obvious differences in this respect are somewhat different
control mechanisms and a slightly different visual experience.

> I cannot consider a simulator to be worth anything
> if a real life pilot cannot fly it without any problems.

If real-life pilots could fly simulators without any problems, you wouldn't
need simulators.

> What is a tin-can pilot?

A pilot who has experience only with small general-aviation aircraft.

> Yes, but what you are talking about is not simulation of flying
> because according to you, real life pilots cannot takeoff or land in
> your simulator.

Some can, some can't. On a good machine with appropriate controls, they
should all be able to do it, or something is wrong.

> The simulator does not depict the beauty of the Rocky Mountains in any
> way.

It's not a scenery simulator.

> I have hiked all over the Rockies and its not possible to
> replicate that beauty of Romo in a simulator with fake images.

It's not a hiking simulator, either.

> Maybe so but that is how we learn to become better real life pilots.

No, that is how one discovers that he is a poor pilot, or that he is in a
situation that he will not survive.

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

[TheSmokingGnu]

Nomen Nescio wrote:

> Hope this helps.

Absolute corker!

You almost made me miss class, laughing too hard on the way there.

TheSmokingGnu

[EridanMan]

> It does, but sometimes minor differences throw people off, especially if
> they've come to depend on them. A good pilot, however, can adapt very
> quickly. The most obvious differences in this respect are somewhat different
> control mechanisms and a slightly different visual experience.

You are not a pilot.
You do not understand the social interactions on the radio (or on this
forum, evidently).
You do not understand how to flare on landing (Even your beloved
Commercial pilots will tell you the flare is a purely 'seat-of-the-
pants' action... there's a reason autoland sucks),
You do not understand a basic traffic pattern
You do not understand how wear and tear effects and airplane.
You do not understand the thrill of looking down a runway.
You do not understand the beauty of watching the sun set over your
town.

All that you understand is how to push buttons and turn knobs in a
program made up in Redmond to get it to do what you want it to do.
Simulation is worthless without reality, you reject the reality of
flying, then what point is the simulation? To you, Flight simulator
is no better than any other roll playing game, and arbitrary set of
rules to master... Without the passion, thrill, or experience of
actually being up there in the clouds, its completely and utterly
meaningless.

> Some can, some can't. On a good machine with appropriate controls, they
> should all be able to do it, or something is wrong.

You have no basis for saying that, because you don't know what its
like to fly... They are two fundamentally different actions - one is
providing inputs to a logical system which makes an approximation of
how those inputs would effect a 'virtual' aircraft and provides a
profoundly limited (Narrow-View and audio only) feedback and the other
is controlling a machine as it physically carries you through the
sky...

Simply because the tables and rough physics models of the logical
system provide a rough enough approximation of the aircraft behavior
that they can be useful for learning aircraft systems and procedures
does NOT make the simulation experience anything near actually letting
yourself loose with the world as your playground.

> It's not a scenery simulator.

Actually, the problem (at least with MSFS) is that it is - the great
majority of the computing power going into your MSFS game is driving
the graphics and rendering, not the flight model. MSFS actually has a
notoriously BAD flight model, and there's only so much you can do with
pre-rendered flight physics tables.

You put WAY too much faith in the authenticity of your simulation.

MSFS is a GAME. It is not flying. you are not a pilot. If you want to
learn from pilots, fine... if you want to tell us how to experience
our passion in life based on what your GAME is telling you, get lost.

> No, that is how one discovers that he is a poor pilot, or that he is in a
> situation that he will not survive.

Non-sequitor.

[Jim Stewart]

EridanMan wrote:

>>It does, but sometimes minor differences throw people off, especially if
>>they've come to depend on them. A good pilot, however, can adapt very
>>quickly. The most obvious differences in this respect are somewhat different
>>control mechanisms and a slightly different visual experience.

To which I would add..

The difference between flying a sim and flying an
aircraft is like the difference between having
sex with your hand and having sex with a real
woman/man.

[Capt.Doug]

>"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
> Is the parking brake on a large aircraft a separate mechanism from the
regular
> brakes, or does it use the same mechanism?

Typically alternate pucks in the calipers will be powered by different
hydraulic systems. The parking brake will use one set of pucks.

> Which reminds me ... I once took off from LAX in my 747-400, and after a
bit I
> happened to look at the gear page on the EICAS, and it showed all the
brakes
> in the yellow range for temperature

Did you retrack the gear into the wheel-wells with elevated temperatures?
That could be a major fire hazard.

D.

[capt]

"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Mxsmanic >
>>I
>>consider paying $250 an hour for each hour of flight to be very stressful.
>
> Translation: I live on $600 a month

I ain't too far from that, SSA pays about $880/mo
Still flight time is doable tho, even if it's only once a month.

I don't think it's $250 an hour for flight time here tho.

>>I
>>consider having to spend thousands of dollars and trudge through endless
>>paperwork just to be allowed to fly to be unacceptably onerous.
>
> Translation: I ain't smart enough to pass the written test.

All he needs to do is study

>>I consider a
>>requirement that one be in Olympic condition to get a license to be an
>>unnecessary burden.
>
> Translation: I'm so fat I need a shoehorn to squeeze through a doorway.

Sport pilot takes care of that.

>>I consider the inaccessibility of ownership of an
>>aircraft to be a major disappointment.
>
> Translation: Nobody wants to buy me a plane.

Join a flight club.
Very few people own their own plane here, but I think we got 1 or 2 club
planes.

>>I consider the possibility of being
>>killed to be an uncomfortably high risk
>
> Translation: I sleep with the lights on 'cause the monsters under
> my bed come out when it's dark.

cars will kill ya too, even more so.

>>I consider the absence of bathrooms
>>on some aircraft to be a major inconvenience.
>
> Translation: I have chronic EXPLOSIVE diarrhea

Airports are nearby

[Mxsmanic]

Capt.Doug writes:

> Typically alternate pucks in the calipers will be powered by different
> hydraulic systems. The parking brake will use one set of pucks.

So setting the parking brake in a large aircraft has some of the same
disadvantages as in a small aircraft, if hydraulic pressure is being
maintained.

> Did you retrack the gear into the wheel-wells with elevated temperatures?
> That could be a major fire hazard.

Unfortunately, yes. I only found out that the brakes were very hot by
accident, and I was well into my departure by then.

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

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Unfortunately, yes. I only found out that the brakes were very hot by
> accident, and I was well into my departure by then.

In what fantasy world was this? You are insane.

F--

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "capt" > said:
>>>I consider a
>>>requirement that one be in Olympic condition to get a license to be an
>>>unnecessary burden.
>>
>> Translation: I'm so fat I need a shoehorn to squeeze through a doorway.
>
>Sport pilot takes care of that.

Not really. When the plane only has 600 pounds useful load, and you
weigh nearly 300, there isn't much left over for the instructor and fuel.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Here in the US, we are so schizoid and deeply opposed to government
censorship that we insist on having unaccountable private parties
to do it instead. -- Bill Cole

[Kobra]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Is it safe/advisable to board a small single- or twin-engined aircraft
> while
> the prop(s) and engine(s) are turning? I'm just wondering if this is
> feasible
> if you just have someone getting on or getting off (with the pilot being
> in
> the aircraft the whole time).
>

Mxmanic,

The people on the aviation newsgroup are giving you a pretty hard time. I
don't fully understand it. Your questions seem relevant to aviation in a
general sort of way. Sorry the group is so middle-schoolish to your
questions.

Your wanting your sim'ing to be as realistic as possible is perfectly
normal. I did it for a long time in MSFS as well as the F16 Fighting Falcon
sim. I wanted to do everything as the real pilot would do on a real mission
(sitting in on the briefing, programming the GPS, starting the engines,
setting the radio frequencies, etc). It adds to the realism and I
understand it's importance if it's something you will never be able to
experience in real life.

The planes we fly can be more fun than an airliner in the way they handle
and maneuver so quickly. They are also more fun than a simulator for those
financially fortunate enough to indulge in such an expensive hobby.
Further, it's not as dangerous as you alluded in a previous post, nor do
most of us fly because we are 'thrill seekers". It is a thrill, but not
because our lives are on the line. It's a thrill because so few people can
do it and do it well. We are proud of our training and the self-discipline
it takes to learn to fly properly and safely.

Also, the simulator is harder to fly than a real (tin can) airplane. In the
real plane all your senses are helping you control the plane. i.e. you
feel the acceleration, you feel the bank, the pitch, the yaw, etc. You can
feel the yoke stiffen as the plane accelerates, you feel the change in pitch
when you roll the trim in and you feel the brake pressure and you can feel
rudder pressure. It's so much different and all these sensations help you
coordinate the plane's attitude and control.

Landing is 10X's easier in the real plane because you can look out the
windows and have a true real life perspective of how high you are and how
fast you are moving. Often in a sim I lose perspective on altitude and
speed and genuinely get disoriented on landing.

Keep sim'ing and maybe one day you'll do what I did. I was flying MSFS one
afternoon and just said, "That's it!" I grabbed my check book and drove to
the local airport and plucked down 45 dollars for a 1/2 hour introductory
flight. I was instantly hooked and continued on to my instrument rating and
commercial pilot's license. I am also the owner of Cessna Cardinal RG and
have flown all over from Toronto, Maine, Georgia, Martha's Vineyard,
Nantucket, Miami and the Bahamas to name a few. It's quite an experience to
fly to far off destinations that I could never get to easily by car and
would be too short by airliner.

All the best, Kobra

[Mxsmanic]

Kobra writes:

> The planes we fly can be more fun than an airliner in the way they handle
> and maneuver so quickly.

If you like sudden movements. Sudden movements tend to make me queasy,
however.

> Also, the simulator is harder to fly than a real (tin can) airplane.

In that case, I should be able to step into the real thing and fly it like a
pro immediately, since I have no trouble flying the sim most of the time.

> Keep sim'ing and maybe one day you'll do what I did. I was flying MSFS one
> afternoon and just said, "That's it!" I grabbed my check book and drove to
> the local airport and plucked down 45 dollars for a 1/2 hour introductory
> flight.

Perhaps one day when I have plenty of time and money I'll try it, although
there is a substantial risk of disappointment. Right now, I only have $8, so
it won't be any time soon.

> I was instantly hooked and continued on to my instrument rating and
> commercial pilot's license. I am also the owner of Cessna Cardinal RG and
> have flown all over from Toronto, Maine, Georgia, Martha's Vineyard,
> Nantucket, Miami and the Bahamas to name a few.

You must be independently wealthy.

> It's quite an experience to
> fly to far off destinations that I could never get to easily by car and
> would be too short by airliner.

Sounds great, if you enjoy travel. I hate to travel, though (for me, that's
one of the _problems_ with aviation in real life, not one of the advantages).

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

[Roger[_4_]]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:26:59 -0600, "Don Burnette"
> wrote:

>
>"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
><snip>
>
>>
>> >In my view, if my pulse is racing and I'm sweating, I've failed as a
>pilot.
>>

In that case you've never flown a real plane much. <:-))


>> Translation: My pulse races and I sweat when I try to get out of a chair.
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>>
>
>ROTFLMAO!
>
>That was awesome, thank you!!!
>
>
>Don
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[CRaSH]

Roger wrote:
>
> In that case you've never flown a real plane much. <:-))
>
>

I'm beginning to have doubts if he's even been ON one, probably took QM-2
over to Paris...
Or a hot air ballon, with organically generated hot air - oh no, that'd be
too exciting for the poor dear.........
d:->))

[Roger[_4_]]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:55:25 -0700, "capt" > wrote:

>
>"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> From: Mxsmanic >
>>>I
>>>consider paying $250 an hour for each hour of flight to be very stressful.
>>
>> Translation: I live on $600 a month
>
>I ain't too far from that, SSA pays about $880/mo
>Still flight time is doable tho, even if it's only once a month.

Story in the paper a couple weeks back listed commuter pilots as
making less than $20K a year. How accurate that is, I don't know.

>
>I don't think it's $250 an hour for flight time here tho.
>
>>>I
>>>consider having to spend thousands of dollars and trudge through endless
>>>paperwork just to be allowed to fly to be unacceptably onerous.
>>
>> Translation: I ain't smart enough to pass the written test.
>
>All he needs to do is study
>
>>>I consider a
>>>requirement that one be in Olympic condition to get a license to be an
>>>unnecessary burden.

Olympic condition???
He should see some of the pilots we have out at the local airport. One
has to crawl up the wing (low wing aircraft) to get in the door.

>>
>> Translation: I'm so fat I need a shoehorn to squeeze through a doorway.

That's why they make 182s and 210s. You could haul a piano in one.

>
>Sport pilot takes care of that.
>
>>>I consider the inaccessibility of ownership of an
>>>aircraft to be a major disappointment.
>>
>> Translation: Nobody wants to buy me a plane.
>
>Join a flight club.
>Very few people own their own plane here, but I think we got 1 or 2 club
>planes.
>
>>>I consider the possibility of being
>>>killed to be an uncomfortably high risk
>>
>> Translation: I sleep with the lights on 'cause the monsters under
>> my bed come out when it's dark.
>
>cars will kill ya too, even more so.
>
>>>I consider the absence of bathrooms
>>>on some aircraft to be a major inconvenience.
>>
>> Translation: I have chronic EXPLOSIVE diarrhea
>
>Airports are nearby
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:45:46 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

>In a previous article, "capt" > said:
>>>>I consider a
>>>>requirement that one be in Olympic condition to get a license to be an
>>>>unnecessary burden.
>>>
>>> Translation: I'm so fat I need a shoehorn to squeeze through a doorway.
>>
>>Sport pilot takes care of that.
>
>Not really. When the plane only has 600 pounds useful load, and you
>weigh nearly 300, there isn't much left over for the instructor and fuel.

You're describing a Cessna 150. We had one instructor and student who
weighed enough together that they could only put a bit less than half
fuel in the 150 and they don't carry much to begin with. <:-)) Even
when I was a bit more trim and a lot younger the two of us put it near
gross. Surprisingly the 150 with the smaller engine can handle the
larger load.

Even the G-III I'm building has about 850 to 900# useful load and
although it has plenty of shoulder room it's not an easy plane to get
into. It is a low wing that stands on a fairly tall gear. I'd guess
the wing root is nearly two feet higher than the root on a Bonanza and
it's *slippery* too <:-))
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Roger > said:
>On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:45:46 +0000 (UTC),
>(Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>>In a previous article, "capt" > said:
>>>> Translation: I'm so fat I need a shoehorn to squeeze through a doorway.
>>>
>>>Sport pilot takes care of that.
>>
>>Not really. When the plane only has 600 pounds useful load, and you
>>weigh nearly 300, there isn't much left over for the instructor and fuel.
>
>You're describing a Cessna 150. We had one instructor and student who
>weighed enough together that they could only put a bit less than half

That's why I trained in a Warrior. The useful load was closer to 850 lbs.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Alright. Talk. Don't make me reach over there and pull your still-pumping
heart out from the gaping hole you used to call a chest whilst breaking
your sternum and playing air guitar with your ribcage. -- Tai

[Mxsmanic]

Paul Tomblin writes:

> That's why I trained in a Warrior. The useful load was closer to 850 lbs.

That's why I like to fly a 747-400. The useful load is a little over 450,000
lbs.

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

[EridanMan]

Kobra,

Please take a few to go back over the history of MX in this forum
before you judge us as harsh.

Many people on this forum, including myself, went out of our way to to
give him lucid, complete answers and be very polite when he first came
to this forum. Even after his questions became incessant, the forum
continued to answer, figuring that the responses would make for good
'search fodder' at some point in the future.

Unfortunately the level of posting continued to increase, and more
frustratingly, he very quickly began a habit of arguing with the
answers he did not agree with. So many of his questions could be
answered by a quick, one hour demo ride, but he outright refused to
consider it, and instead started to get very condescending towards us
when we did not immediately answer his questions (as you can see from
this post, our unwillingness to immediately answer his question and
suggesting he look up the very basic answer via Google leads him to
suggest that 'Tin Can' pilots are obviously inferior to those on the
'sim' forum this forum referred him too).

And at this point, yes those who still post in response to him are
very puerile... the simple fact is we're sick of it. We're sick of
his incessant opinion on every matter (despite his admitted lack of
experience), we're sick of his temper tantrums when we ask him to
please be more polite, we're sick of hearing about how much better his
sim-ing experience is than our actual flying, how dangerous actual
flying is, how worthless reality is, how immature and 'thrillseeking'
real life pilots are... but for some reason he still insists on asking
for our input on EVERYTHING...

The other thing I would suggest is that you go ahead and google MX...
He came to RAP after being driven away from the simulator forums (for
similar behavior). In fact, if you look at his history of posting,
you'll find he has a tremendously arrogant, puerile streak which
quickly drives all of the forums he participates in crazy...

Its a shame, I for one feel kinda bad for him... (I suspect he's just
an adolescent or suffers from Asperger's Syndrome). I think you'll
find most of us have no problem with his striving for realism in his
simming, most of us wouldn't even mind the questions (If he'd at least
be willing to check out and read up on stuff on his own).

Its the attitude that's just worn the patience of this board thin...

[Peter Dohm]

> >
> >>>I consider a
> >>>requirement that one be in Olympic condition to get a license to be an
> >>>unnecessary burden.
>
> Olympic condition???
> He should see some of the pilots we have out at the local airport. One
> has to crawl up the wing (low wing aircraft) to get in the door.
>
I don't know if you're joking or not, but I really did watch one guy who had
to back off a couple of steps and achieve some momentum to climb onto the
wing of a Comanche.

For once, I managed to watch with a straight face.

Peter :-)

[Not4wood]

Nomen,

This has to be one of the funniest things I've read. You are the Winner!

Now I've seen part of the thread that asks MX Lunatic to leave and go back
to the sim newsgroup. No thanks, they dont want him there either. He was
kicked out of that also as well as the other aviation newsgroups. He just
refuses to leave.


Not4wood


"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Mxsmanic >
>
>>In my case, I consider going to and from the airport to be boring.
>
> Translation: I can't afford a car
>
>>I consider
>>not being close to home at the end of a flight to be hugely inconvenient.
>
> Translation: I have chronic diarrhea




>>So you are a thrillseeker. Quite a few GA pilots seem to be
>>thrillseekers.
>>But we know what the safety experts say about them, don't we?
>
> Translation: I'll be happy as a pig in **** if one of you folks die in
> a plane crash.
>
>>In my view, if my pulse is racing and I'm sweating, I've failed as a
>>pilot.
>
> Translation: My pulse races and I sweat when I try to get out of a chair.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: N/A

[Roger[_4_]]

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 02:52:20 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

>In a previous article, Roger > said:
>>On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:45:46 +0000 (UTC),
>>(Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>>>In a previous article, "capt" > said:
>>>>> Translation: I'm so fat I need a shoehorn to squeeze through a doorway.
>>>>
>>>>Sport pilot takes care of that.
>>>
>>>Not really. When the plane only has 600 pounds useful load, and you
>>>weigh nearly 300, there isn't much left over for the instructor and fuel.
>>
>>You're describing a Cessna 150. We had one instructor and student who
>>weighed enough together that they could only put a bit less than half
>
>That's why I trained in a Warrior. The useful load was closer to 850 lbs.

I started in a Piper Colt many...many...many...well you get the idea
but then a wife, two kids and a new home in the country came along. I
didn't fly from about 63 or so until 87 when we made a few flights in
a 150, but I joined in a partnership on a Cherokee 180 before I
soloed. I did all of my cross country work except for one trip in the
Cherokee and put well over 300 hours on it before purchasing the Deb.

The Cherokee is nice and stable while the 150 is like riding a cork on
a rough pond. <:-)) However the Deb is really spacious compared to the
Cherokee. The seats are up high much like chairs and the feel is
quite different.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 22:46:53 -0500, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:

>> >
>> >>>I consider a
>> >>>requirement that one be in Olympic condition to get a license to be an
>> >>>unnecessary burden.
>>
>> Olympic condition???
>> He should see some of the pilots we have out at the local airport. One
>> has to crawl up the wing (low wing aircraft) to get in the door.
>>
>I don't know if you're joking or not, but I really did watch one guy who had
>to back off a couple of steps and achieve some momentum to climb onto the
>wing of a Comanche.

No, I'm not joking. However it's not completely a weight problem
although that's a good portion of it. He basically grabs the door
frame and pulls himself up into a position where he can get in. If he
ever got into the Deb I'm afraid we'd have to lift him out as he just
doesn't have the mobility.

With that much heft I'd be afraid they might miss the wing walk way
once they got up some momentum.

OTOH I've seen some guys who could be pro football players for size
get into a Cherokee 6 and Dakota without a problem. OTOH they not only
were big, they were in pretty good shape.

I took one guy over 280 in the Cherokee 180 with no problem although
I wasn't expecting the nose to drop like that when I pulled the power
on final <:-)) (We were within CG even though he told me he only
weighed 240)<:-))

>
>For once, I managed to watch with a straight face.
>
>Peter :-)
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Not4wood]

Crash,

I was in a Hot Air Balloon once. Never do it again, was boring as hell.
Didn't do nothing, couldn't steer it couldnt even throw things off to hit
people or birds. LOL


Not4wood

"CRaSH" > wrote in message
...
> Roger wrote:
>>
>> In that case you've never flown a real plane much. <:-))
>>
>>
>
> I'm beginning to have doubts if he's even been ON one, probably took QM-2
> over to Paris...
> Or a hot air ballon, with organically generated hot air - oh no, that'd be
> too exciting for the poor dear.........
> d:->))
>

[Capt. BF. \(Hawkeye\) Pierce]

yea I fergit about that LOL

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "capt" > said:
>>>>I consider a
>>>>requirement that one be in Olympic condition to get a license to be an
>>>>unnecessary burden.
>>>
>>> Translation: I'm so fat I need a shoehorn to squeeze through a doorway.
>>
>>Sport pilot takes care of that.
>
> Not really. When the plane only has 600 pounds useful load, and you
> weigh nearly 300, there isn't much left over for the instructor and fuel.
>
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
> Here in the US, we are so schizoid and deeply opposed to government
> censorship that we insist on having unaccountable private parties
> to do it instead. -- Bill Cole

[Capt. BF. \(Hawkeye\) Pierce]

Hey Roger, I hear FCC has gutted the CW code to get a ham license for all
claasses effective Feb 23'rd '07
Can you give us the lowdown

"Roger" > wrote in message
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>Paul Tomblin writes:
>> That's why I trained in a Warrior. The useful load was closer to 850 lbs.
>
>That's why I like to fly a 747-400. The useful load is a little over 450,000
>lbs.

I'll take a real Warrior over a fake 747 any day of the year. At least
when I fly somewhere, when I get out of the plane I'm really there, not in
a pathetic little ******** in Paris.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
The way NT mounts filesystems is something I'd expect to find in a
barnyard or on a stock-breeding farm.
-- Mike Andrews

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

EridanMan wrote:
> Kobra,
>
> Please take a few to go back over the history of MX in this forum
> before you judge us as harsh.
>
> Many people on this forum, including myself, went out of our way to to
> give him lucid, complete answers and be very polite when he first came
> to this forum. Even after his questions became incessant, the forum
> continued to answer, figuring that the responses would make for good
> 'search fodder' at some point in the future.

Heck, I even offered to mail him a stack of expired VFR and IFR charts,
as well as approach plates and AF/D's. <G>

Lots of us tried...

[Kobra]

> his incessant opinion on every matter (despite his admitted lack of
> experience), we're sick of his temper tantrums when we ask him to
> please be more polite, we're sick of hearing about how much better his...

EridanMan,

You are correct in that I did not research the majority of his past
postings. I thought about that after I clicked Send. The few I saw seemed
reasonable and the group's responses were harsh and it made me feel bad for
him. My response was a knee-jerk reply.

He may be annoying to the Group by I don't think he's a troll in the literal
definition. He does have a stake in the question and it's answer.

Your are also most likely correct in that he is a young person.

Kobra

[Kobra]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> If you like sudden movements. Sudden movements tend to make me queasy,
> however.

Well, I didn't say "sudden". They are just more responsive. A better
analogy would be the difference between driving a Mustang verses a bus or
tractor-trailer. Both can be fun to drive for different reasons, but the
handling is far different.
>
>> Also, the simulator is harder to fly than a real (tin can) airplane.
>
> In that case, I should be able to step into the real thing and fly it like
> a
> pro immediately, since I have no trouble flying the sim most of the time.

Probably not like a pro and not immediately, but your experience in a sim
will definately give you an advange over someone completely new to flying.
You will pick up on things more quickly. But be careful though, simmers
learn some bad habits too that start to become engrained and then are harder
to shake then someone completely new. For example...simmers tend to stare
at their instruments too much and have difficulty learning to fly by looking
out of the windscreen. They therefore "chase needles" quite a bit at first
in their begining lessons.

If you do take a lesson someday you will need time to adjust to the
sensations of flight and sight-picture. The sim and the real view out of
the windscreen are a bit different. The first thing you might not like is
if there is some mild turbulence. That is something simmers don't have to
deal with and the sim can't simulate well. It can be annoying, but it is a
true part of real flying that must be dealt with by pilots of all
disiplines.

>> Keep sim'ing and maybe one day you'll do what I did. I was flying MSFS
>> one
>> afternoon and just said, "That's it!" I grabbed my check book and drove
>> to
>> the local airport and plucked down 45 dollars for a 1/2 hour introductory
>> flight.
>
> Perhaps one day when I have plenty of time and money I'll try it, although
> there is a substantial risk of disappointment. Right now, I only have $8,
> so
> it won't be any time soon.

Maybe not anytime soon, but I would bet dollars to dougnuts that you will
someday have a good income.
>
>> I was instantly hooked and continued on to my instrument rating and
>> commercial pilot's license. I am also the owner of Cessna Cardinal RG
>> and
>> have flown all over from Toronto, Maine, Georgia, Martha's Vineyard,
>> Nantucket, Miami and the Bahamas to name a few.
>
> You must be independently wealthy.

Wealthy is relative. I have an middle class income, but I skimp over here
to spend more over there. IOW's I budget for flying.

>
>> It's quite an experience to
>> fly to far off destinations that I could never get to easily by car and
>> would be too short by airliner.
>
> Sounds great, if you enjoy travel. I hate to travel, though (for me,
> that's
> one of the _problems_ with aviation in real life, not one of the
> advantages).

Really, hmmmm... you paint with a broad brush my man to say, "I hate to
travel..." A statement like that can only be made by someone who has
limited experience with traveling as an independent person. Maybe it has to
do with lack of money or maybe you hate being out amongst people.

What are some of your negative experiences with traveling that you base your
attitude on? Where did you travel and with whom? How do you feel about
people in general? These are really rhetorical questions and more for you
to contemplate than answer.

Kobra

[Mark Hansen]

On 02/28/07 09:06, Kobra wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> If you like sudden movements. Sudden movements tend to make me queasy,
>> however.
>
> Well, I didn't say "sudden". They are just more responsive. A better
> analogy would be the difference between driving a Mustang verses a bus or
> tractor-trailer. Both can be fun to drive for different reasons, but the
> handling is far different.
>>
>>> Also, the simulator is harder to fly than a real (tin can) airplane.
>>
>> In that case, I should be able to step into the real thing and fly it like
>> a
>> pro immediately, since I have no trouble flying the sim most of the time.
>
> Probably not like a pro and not immediately, but your experience in a sim
> will definately give you an advange over someone completely new to flying.
> You will pick up on things more quickly. But be careful though, simmers
> learn some bad habits too that start to become engrained and then are harder
> to shake then someone completely new. For example...simmers tend to stare
> at their instruments too much and have difficulty learning to fly by looking
> out of the windscreen. They therefore "chase needles" quite a bit at first
> in their begining lessons.

Wow. It's clear from this that you haven't looked at much of MX's postings.

It's really sad to see people go through this over and over and over and over....

[BDS[_2_]]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote

> Wow. It's clear from this that you haven't looked at much of MX's
postings.
>
> It's really sad to see people go through this over and over and over and
over....

Yeah, when I read that post I thought, well, now I know what a fish that's
already been caught must feel like watching the other fish chase after the
bait...

BDS

[Mxsmanic]

Paul Tomblin writes:

> I'll take a real Warrior over a fake 747 any day of the year. At least
> when I fly somewhere, when I get out of the plane I'm really there, not in
> a pathetic little ******** in Paris.

For me, actually arriving at a real destination would be a huge disadvantage.
I don't really want to end up in Aspen or St. Maarten or anything like that.
They simply have interesting airports.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Kobra writes:

> Well, I didn't say "sudden".

True, but sudden movements are hard to avoid in small aircraft except in
perfectly still air. They are sudden in comparison to, say, a 737 or 747.

> They are just more responsive.

They respond more quickly, true.

> A better
> analogy would be the difference between driving a Mustang verses a bus or
> tractor-trailer. Both can be fun to drive for different reasons, but the
> handling is far different.

Exactly.

> Probably not like a pro and not immediately, but your experience in a sim
> will definately give you an advange over someone completely new to flying.
> You will pick up on things more quickly. But be careful though, simmers
> learn some bad habits too that start to become engrained and then are harder
> to shake then someone completely new. For example...simmers tend to stare
> at their instruments too much and have difficulty learning to fly by looking
> out of the windscreen. They therefore "chase needles" quite a bit at first
> in their begining lessons.

I try to look out the window in the sim. It's not very easy, which is why
simmers tend to avoid it. I have the twist axis on the throttle set up for
horizontal panning, though, and that helps a lot, as now I can look at the
field as fly a pattern. It would probably be easier with semicircular canals,
however.

Hardware like TrackIR is supposed to make this easier, but I'm wary of
installing even more hardware, and I don't want to slow sim performance
further, and I don't like using the virtual cockpit.

> If you do take a lesson someday you will need time to adjust to the
> sensations of flight and sight-picture. The sim and the real view out of
> the windscreen are a bit different.

No doubt. I don't anticipate that it would take very long; probably like
moving from one type of motor vehicle to another.

> The first thing you might not like is if there is some mild turbulence.

I don't like turbulence. I don't like the feel of it, and I don't like having
to fight with it.

> That is something simmers don't have to deal with and the sim can't
> simulate well.

I've heard that MSFS not only simulates it less than ideally, but it also
exaggerates it.

> It can be annoying, but it is a
> true part of real flying that must be dealt with by pilots of all
> disiplines.

It can be avoided by not flying for real.

> Maybe not anytime soon, but I would bet dollars to dougnuts that you will
> someday have a good income.

I used to have a good income. I don't now.

> Wealthy is relative. I have an middle class income, but I skimp over here
> to spend more over there. IOW's I budget for flying.

Nobody with a middle-class income today is doing that. What used to be the
middle class in the U.S. today is now just scraping by. It might have been
possible in the 1960s, though.

> Really, hmmmm... you paint with a broad brush my man to say, "I hate to
> travel..."

In my case, it's entirely true. I don't even like to go out into the suburbs.

> A statement like that can only be made by someone who has limited
> experience with traveling as an independent person.

I've travelled a lot, always on business because I won't travel voluntarily.
I was on my own each time. I hated it.

> Maybe it has to do with lack of money or maybe you hate being out
> amongst people.

It's just a hatred of the overhead of travel: trips, hotels, logistics, and so
on. You spend the great majority of your time with these and very little time
enjoying the destination. Some people don't care about that, but I do. And
even then, should you really come to like it, it's extremely temporary, and as
soon as you are even remotely settled in, it's time to go home.

It all seems very wasteful and stressful to me. The best way to exclude me
from any type of competition or contest is to offer a trip as the grand prize
(unless it is convertible to cash).

> What are some of your negative experiences with traveling that you base your
> attitude on?

All of them. Flying, trains, ground transportation are all immensely
time-consuming and frustrating. Air travel is the worst, and gets worse every
day. Staying in hotels is very unpleasant. Eating at restaurants is
time-consuming and expensive. Trudging around to see all the required sights
is boring. For me, all these factors significantly outweigh the advantages,
and so I do not travel.

> Where did you travel and with whom?

Mostly on business on my own. My jobs required it. My managers knew that
there was no point in asking me to travel, since, if the travel was optional,
my answer was automatically no. And the destination didn't matter.

> How do you feel about people in general?

Something I must deal with to get by.

> These are really rhetorical questions and more for you
> to contemplate than answer.

They seem very philosophical in a discussion of aviation, although I suppose
the question of travel cannot be avoided if you are flying for real.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Mark Hansen writes:

> It's really sad to see people go through this over and over and over and over....

Only if you are frustrated by your inability to control others.

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

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>Paul Tomblin writes:
>> I'll take a real Warrior over a fake 747 any day of the year. At least
>> when I fly somewhere, when I get out of the plane I'm really there, not in
>> a pathetic little ******** in Paris.
>
>For me, actually arriving at a real destination would be a huge disadvantage.
>I don't really want to end up in Aspen or St. Maarten or anything like that.
>They simply have interesting airports.

What a pathetic so-called life you live.

Not that there is any danger of it, but I hope you never reproduce.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
The way NT mounts filesystems is something I'd expect to find in a
barnyard or on a stock-breeding farm.
-- Mike Andrews

[Tim]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> Nobody with a middle-class income today is doing that. What used to be the
> middle class in the U.S. today is now just scraping by. It might have been
> possible in the 1960s, though.
>

Horse****. I have a middle class income. I own a plane. It is a
matter of priorities. Instead of buying/leasing a new car, one can
instead own an old, used airplane. Too many people I know with low to
middle incomes spend like crazy on cars, TVs, stereos, golf, etc. I
chose to spend it on flying. Once again you prove that you have no idea
what the F you are talking about.

[Mxsmanic]

Tim writes:

> Horse****. I have a middle class income. I own a plane. It is a
> matter of priorities. Instead of buying/leasing a new car, one can
> instead own an old, used airplane. Too many people I know with low to
> middle incomes spend like crazy on cars, TVs, stereos, golf, etc. I
> chose to spend it on flying. Once again you prove that you have no idea
> what the F you are talking about.

I depend on data and statistics, rather than anecdotes.

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

[Bryan[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Paul Tomblin writes:
>
>> I'll take a real Warrior over a fake 747 any day of the year. At least
>> when I fly somewhere, when I get out of the plane I'm really there, not in
>> a pathetic little ******** in Paris.
>
> For me, actually arriving at a real destination would be a huge disadvantage.
> I don't really want to end up in Aspen or St. Maarten or anything like that.
> They simply have interesting airports.
>
Yep,home detention tends to take away the fun of travel

[Danny Deger]

"EridanMan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Feb 24, 4:13 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote
snip

> I think it would be hard to argue that he hadn't stirred up at least
> some reasonably interesting threads on this board... But I can
> understand those of you who are sick of it... I'm sorry, I will try
> and remember to use the MX: subject tag if/when I respond to him in
> the future.
>
>

Great idea on the MX in the subject line. We should also do this when
responding, so those that wish to can filter for MX in the subject line. I
for one and more annoyed with the typical half a dozen posts sent to him
insulting him and asking him to stop everytime he asks a question. I find
mentally filter his work easy. Filtering the post sent to him is the
effort. Don't people realize he probably LIKE the insulting posts and
numerous requests asking him to stop?

Danny Deger

[Tim]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tim writes:
>
>
>>Horse****. I have a middle class income. I own a plane. It is a
>>matter of priorities. Instead of buying/leasing a new car, one can
>>instead own an old, used airplane. Too many people I know with low to
>>middle incomes spend like crazy on cars, TVs, stereos, golf, etc. I
>>chose to spend it on flying. Once again you prove that you have no idea
>>what the F you are talking about.
>
>
> I depend on data and statistics, rather than anecdotes.
>

Two pilots and owners on this newsgroup just countered your incorrect
generalization with proof by negative example and you dismiss them by
saying they are anecdotes? You are truly off your rocker.

Looney tunes. Wacko.


What kind of medications are you taking? (Or prescribed at one time?)
I would love to know. What was the last diagnosis you had by a
medical/mental health professional?

[Not4wood]

Excussssssssssssssseee Me MXs Lunatic

That Beaver that I was in, did have headsets for all eight people on board.
Thats one PIC and the passenger in front. Lucky for me I was the one behind
the Pilot going out.

Not4wood


"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Crash Lander writes:
>
>> Oh, how cute! You actually think the microphones on the headsets are only
>> for talking to atc?
>
> If they have headsets. Do you keep a headset for every seat in your
> aircraft?
> That's $4000 for a Baron.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Tim writes:

> Two pilots and owners on this newsgroup just countered your incorrect
> generalization with proof by negative example and you dismiss them by
> saying they are anecdotes?

Anecdotes are not proof. And without a detailed analysis of their financial
status vs. a widely-accepted model of middle-class status, their experiences
cannot be given much credence.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Not4wood writes:

> That Beaver that I was in, did have headsets for all eight people on board.

But it was not your aircraft, I take it? Good headsets are expensive. Then
again, everything in an aircraft tends to be expensive, just like the aircraft
itself.

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

[gpsman]

On Feb 28, 10:03 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Not4wood writes:
> > That Beaver that I was in, did have headsets for all eight people on board.
>
> But it was not your aircraft, I take it? Good headsets are expensive. Then
> again, everything in an aircraft tends to be expensive, just like the aircraft
> itself.

Don't you ever tire of demonstrating your ignorance and reticence to
the acquisition of knowledge?

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/index.shtml
-----

- gpsman

[Jay Beckman]

"gpsman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Feb 28, 10:03 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Not4wood writes:
>> > That Beaver that I was in, did have headsets for all eight people on
>> > board.
>>
>> But it was not your aircraft, I take it? Good headsets are expensive.
>> Then
>> again, everything in an aircraft tends to be expensive, just like the
>> aircraft
>> itself.
>
> Don't you ever tire of demonstrating your ignorance and reticence to
> the acquisition of knowledge?
>
> http://www.trade-a-plane.com/index.shtml
> -----
>
> - gpsman

No offense inteded, but (given to whom it is directed) that may just be the
mother of all rehtorical questions...

Jay B

[SameAsB4]

"gpsman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Feb 28, 10:03 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Not4wood writes:
>> > That Beaver that I was in, did have headsets for all eight people on
>> > board.
>>
>> But it was not your aircraft, I take it? Good headsets are expensive.
>> Then
>> again, everything in an aircraft tends to be expensive, just like the
>> aircraft
>> itself.
>
> Don't you ever tire of demonstrating your ignorance and reticence to
> the acquisition of knowledge?

Everybody knows different stuff, why the cockie?

>
> http://www.trade-a-plane.com/index.shtml
> -----
>
> - gpsman
>
>

[Peter Dohm]

> >I don't know if you're joking or not, but I really did watch one guy who
had
> >to back off a couple of steps and achieve some momentum to climb onto the
> >wing of a Comanche.
>
> No, I'm not joking. However it's not completely a weight problem
> although that's a good portion of it. He basically grabs the door
> frame and pulls himself up into a position where he can get in. If he
> ever got into the Deb I'm afraid we'd have to lift him out as he just
> doesn't have the mobility.
>
> With that much heft I'd be afraid they might miss the wing walk way
> once they got up some momentum.
>
The guy was overweight, although not to an unusual degree, but had a hip
problem.

However, I strongly suspect that less weight would have helped a lot.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> TheSmokingGnu writes:
>
>> There are 14 airports alone in the Paris metropolitan area ...
>
> Yes, but they are all in the suburbs.
>
>> ... and Orly is like a hop, skip, and a bus ride away.
>
> It's more than an hour away, and I don't think it welcomes general
> aviation.
>
>> Ha, I'm just trying to imagine the (very colorful) language the LAX
>> controllers would use to tell me that my landing clearance was
>> denied; they get mad enough when you encroach on their outlying
>> space, much less trying to use it whilst the 744's fly past.
>
> Why would they deny you landing clearance?
>
>> And, Van Nuys isn't all that great for GA training.
>
> It's a lot better than Orly.
>
>> So why worry about it?
>
> That's what I ask. The FAA worries excessively about the wrong
> things.
>
>> Besides, medicals aren't excuses to skip regular checkups with your
>> normal physician, which *DOES* pick up this sort of thing.
>
> No, regular check-ups won't pick it up, either. It's often the sort
> of thing you must be looking for.
>
>> If you're red/green colorblind, how can you tell which navigation
>> light is on which wing, and what direction and heading is that
>> aircraft off the left wing going?
>
> By the way the lights move in relation to each other.
>
> However, most people with red-green color blindness have deuteranomaly
> or protanomaly, which means that they can still see red and green, but
> it is more difficult for them than it is for normal people (and they
> see them slightly differently, although they may still be distinct).
>
>> Ok, different situation. You go NORDO because some very key widget in
>> the radio bus decides to burn out. What light signal did the tower
>> just give you? Was it "clear to land" or "hold and circle"? What do
>> you mean you can't tell the difference between the lights?
>
> Just make sure you carry a handheld.
>
>> And the list goes on and on. Color is key to flight.
>
> Hardly. There are a handful of situations in which it matters.
> Usually it doesn't.
>
>> It's the danger of living that attracts people to flying. The
>> knowledge that at some random moment, they may break down and
>> actually experience something worth remembering instead of sitting
>> indoors and pounding away endlessly at the keyboard.
>
> That may be true for _some_ pilots, but certainly not all. There are
> many potential attractions to flying, and not everyone is looking for
> adventure.
>
>> The danger of death comes with every activity in our lives, from
>> flying to breathing.
>
> In which case there's nothing special about flying. You undermine
> your own argument.
>
>> I can. Can you?
>
> Nobody can.
>
>> It's part and parcel of unusual attitude training.
>
> It's not part of flight.
>
>> If you don't feel it, it's because you're not sensitive to it; the
>> airline pilot's thus being so (rather, MORE sensitive) are able to
>> maintain aircraft positioning without disturbing or alerting the
>> paying curmudgeons in the back to their maneuvering. QED.
>
> No, they don't feel it either, or I should say, they don't feel it any
> more than the passengers do. Everyone is in the same aircraft.
>
>> Thus proving the worth (or lack thereof) of simulation as applicable
>> to real world operation.
>
> You watch the waypoints click by both in simulation and in real life.
>
>> I'm sorry, I thought all of flight was formula, and hard fact.
>
> It is, in theory, but that doesn't mean that everyone does the
> calculations.
>
>> I thought, you being such an expert in the operation of the 737-800
>> (as you profess), that you could give me precise performance figures
>> given a complete scenario. I guess YOU AREN'T UP TO THE TASK.
>
> No, I just know that the 737-800 does this for me, thanks to being
> familiar with the aircraft. The AFDS turns the aircraft, not I.
>
>> And the answer is: it's a trick question. You don't know your current
>> heading, and so you don't know how far away you are from your
>> intended course. Even if you did know that, the answer is variable
>> (do you start the rollout immediately from your current heading? Do
>> you start when 30 degrees abeam? Do you start as you pass it?). The
>> real answer is: enough. Enough so that the aircraft is operated in a
>> smooth manner, with a minimum of surface deflection, in an
>> expeditious manner, with as little error as possible. That is flying,
>> and it's VISCERAL, not calculable.
>
> Clearly, tin-can pilots predominate here. I'm reminded of a rower in
> crew who claims that a cruise-ship captain steers the ship by the feel
> of the oars in his hands.
>
>> That's the way YOU choose to fly the aircraft. The plane is, first
>> and foremost, flown by hand, by pilots, with training and experience.
>
> No, it is not. Almost all of the average commercial flight is flown
> by the FMC. The pilots typically only fly take-off and landing; and
> in low visibility, they may use the autoland feature to have the
> aircraft land itself as well.
>
>> Heaven forbid he should find out the lateral-G load of the unexpected
>> maneuver prevents him from reaching that critical switch which
>> completes the sequence, eh?
>
> There are very few emergencies that involve such forces. Large
> airliners are only sound to about 2.5 Gs or so. A G force great
> enough to prevent him from reaching a switch may well be enough to
> snap the wings off also, so there's not much point in worrying about
> it.
>
>> Heaven forbid he should feel the buffet in the controls of the
>> oncoming stall, which his instrument cluster failed to report to him
>> due to a blocked static port, eh?
>
> His instruments warn him of critical angle of attack long before he
> comes anywhere near it. It is unlikely to ever reach the buffer or
> even stick-shaker stage if he is watching his instruments.
>
>> Like, say, a high-G turn. QED.
>
> He won't (read: can't) be making any turns of more than 2.5 Gs or so.
> Airliners are not fighter planes.
>
>> Your left engine falls off (wasn't properly reattached by the
>> groundcrew). You're now 2000+ lbs. out of list, have heavy yaw from
>> the operating engine, losing all sorts of other systems (like the
>> hydraulics that move your ailerons and flaps), generally getting a
>> wicked shimmy, AND you have no idea what just happened.
>>
>> Guess it was your fault for letting it go that far, eh?
>
> You can train for that in the sim.
>
>> Your failure to spot the satire is very telling.
>
> Your conversion of a mistake to "satire" is noted.
>
>> That seems to be a recurring theme with you.
>
> Not really; but if I don't know, I'm not afraid to say so.
>
>> I thought you were experienced enough to make edicts on procedure and
>> operation?
>
> I'm experienced enough to make some statements with a high level of
> certainty, but not others.
>
>> What happened to your burst of confidence?
>
> Confidence is what allows me to admit when I don't know. People who
> never say that they don't know are insecure liars.
>
>> Emergency procedures are some of the FIRST things you should learn,
>> and THE FIRST thing you should have memorized before stepping into
>> the cockpit.
>
> Normal procedures first; then emergencies.
>
>> Engine out is a big one, because you can loose a compressor to
>> AOA on takeoff, or if you get a bird, or if your fuel system isn't
>> configured properly (or not functioning properly in the first place).
>
> If you haven't learned to fly an aircraft normally, you won't be able
> to learn how to fly it abnormally.
>
>> Losing an engine means lots of complicated, sometimes
>> counter-intuitive (and hand-flown) procedures. And you don't ****ing
>> know.
>
> I know part of it, but I don't practice it much. I don't have to deal
> with failures in simulation, and I don't plan to fly for real, so such
> exercises are academic, and I undertake them only out of curiosity.
>

What a marooon!



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Capt.Doug writes:
>
>> Typically alternate pucks in the calipers will be powered by
>> different hydraulic systems. The parking brake will use one set of
>> pucks.
>
> So setting the parking brake in a large aircraft has some of the same
> disadvantages as in a small aircraft, if hydraulic pressure is being
> maintained.
>
>> Did you retrack the gear into the wheel-wells with elevated
>> temperatures? That could be a major fire hazard.
>
> Unfortunately, yes. I only found out that the brakes were very hot by
> accident, and I was well into my departure by then.


into your departure?


Bwawhahhwhahwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahhwha hwhahhwhahwhahwhahhwha
hwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhhahw hahwhhahwhahwhahhwhahw
hhahwhahwhhawhhahwhahwh!



bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gary writes:
>
>> And don't think for a moment that the pretend controllers give a rats
>> ass about how long you leave the simulated plane on the pretend ramp
>> while boarding imaginary passengers.
>
> Actually they do, although it depends somewhat on the controller.



keyboard!



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Little Endian writes:
>
>> Then I think your simulator does not really simulate flying of an
>> airplane properly.
>
> It does, but sometimes minor differences throw people off, especially
> if they've come to depend on them. A good pilot, however, can adapt
> very quickly. The most obvious differences in this respect are
> somewhat different control mechanisms and a slightly different visual
> experience.
>
>> I cannot consider a simulator to be worth anything
>> if a real life pilot cannot fly it without any problems.
>
> If real-life pilots could fly simulators without any problems, you
> wouldn't need simulators.
>
>> What is a tin-can pilot?
>
> A pilot who has experience only with small general-aviation aircraft.
>
>> Yes, but what you are talking about is not simulation of flying
>> because according to you, real life pilots cannot takeoff or land in
>> your simulator.
>
> Some can, some can't. On a good machine with appropriate controls,
> they should all be able to do it, or something is wrong.
>
>> The simulator does not depict the beauty of the Rocky Mountains in
>> any way.
>
> It's not a scenery simulator.
>
>> I have hiked all over the Rockies and its not possible to
>> replicate that beauty of Romo in a simulator with fake images.
>
> It's not a hiking simulator, either.
>
>> Maybe so but that is how we learn to become better real life pilots.
>
> No, that is how one discovers that he is a poor pilot, or that he is
> in a situation that he will not survive.


Good lord, how big an idiot are you anyway?



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Mark Hansen writes:
>
>> It's really sad to see people go through this over and over and over
>> and over....
>
> Only if you are frustrated by your inability to control others.

Control?


Bwawhahwhahhwhahhwhahwhha!

God you're just priceless!



bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Tim writes:
>
>> Horse****. I have a middle class income. I own a plane. It is a
>> matter of priorities. Instead of buying/leasing a new car, one can
>> instead own an old, used airplane. Too many people I know with low
>> to middle incomes spend like crazy on cars, TVs, stereos, golf, etc.
>> I chose to spend it on flying. Once again you prove that you have no
>> idea what the F you are talking about.
>
> I depend on data and statistics, rather than anecdotes.
>

or experience


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Paul Tomblin writes:
>
>> I'll take a real Warrior over a fake 747 any day of the year. At
>> least when I fly somewhere, when I get out of the plane I'm really
>> there, not in a pathetic little ******** in Paris.
>
> For me, actually arriving at a real destination would be a huge
> disadvantage. I don't really want to end up in Aspen or St. Maarten or
> anything like that. They simply have interesting airports.
>

Good grief
Why stop there? i'm sure your home planet is lovely this time of year.


Bertie