MS Flight Sim

[Dennis Johnson]

Greetings,

I think those who are arguing that flying MS Flight Sim isn't really
"flying" are on the losing side of the argument. Flying is flying, I don't
care if it's a Cub without an electrical system or a computer running MS
Flight Sim. As far as general procedures go, MS Flight Sim gives a great
workout, and for instrument procedures, it's terrific.

If a person is sitting in front of an instrument panel manipulating controls
whose performance is based on aerodynamic principles, that's flying. It
might be flying a simulator, but it's still flying.

I think it's in our best interest to welcome anyone to this newsgroup who is
interested in aviation. Personally, I'm impressed with Mxsmanic's
commitment to mastering instrument procedures. I'll bet he could put many
of us to shame.

Give the guy a break.

Dennis

[ArtP]

I agree that flying MSFS in IFR is really flying.

When I fly with MSFS I always fly by hand. I have settings set to full
realism. I use real approach plates. I always set visibility to the
minimum for the approach. I fly the full approach. When I am finished
I am drained.

When I fly for real I use the autopilot coupled to the GPS. I am
really just a passenger. Flying for real is much easier than MSFS.
Even hand flying the real plane is much easier the MSFS.

But that is good because when all of the fancy fails for real, I will
be glad I spent all of that time on MSFS.

[scott moore]

Dennis Johnson wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I think those who are arguing that flying MS Flight Sim isn't really
> "flying" are on the losing side of the argument. Flying is flying, I don't
> care if it's a Cub without an electrical system or a computer running MS
> Flight Sim. As far as general procedures go, MS Flight Sim gives a great
> workout, and for instrument procedures, it's terrific.

Flying with flight sim is like sex with a magazine.

[Jay Beckman]

"Dennis Johnson" > wrote in message
. ..
> Greetings,
>
>I think those who are arguing that flying MS Flight Sim isn't really
>"flying" are on the losing side of the argument. Flying is flying, I don't
>care if it's a Cub without an >electrical system or a computer running MS
>Flight Sim. As far as general procedures go, MS Flight Sim gives a great
>workout, and for instrument procedures, it's >terrific.

It's a "Survey Sim" and is mediocre at best. Because of the broad expanse
of aircraft offered, it can't possibly fully model all aspects of each
aircraft in full fidelity. I may be wrong, but I've always understood that
that's why software like Elite or On Top devote 95% of the screen to the
panel? So that maximum processor cycles can be devoted to getting the most
fluid and precise response from the instruments?

>If a person is sitting in front of an instrument panel manipulating
>controls whose performance is based on aerodynamic principles, that's
>flying. It might be flying a >simulator, but it's still flying.

I must respectfully disagree. Flying requires action <-> reaction on three
axis'. Manipulating pixels in 2D (IMO) is not flying.

>I think it's in our best interest to welcome anyone to this newsgroup who
>is interested in aviation.

I wholeheartedly agreee. And if "The Albatross" were sincerely interested
in aviation, he'd be welcomed with open arms. As it stands, he has made it
crystal clear that he considers the experiences and collective wisdom of the
aviation community to be suspect, flying is nothing more than a hobby to be
enjoyed by the idle rich and GA aircraft are death traps.

>Personally, I'm impressed with Mxsmanic's commitment to mastering
>instrument procedures.

OMFG!! I guess I missed those posts while shoveling through the rest of his
cross-posted tripe.

>I'll bet he could put many of us to shame.

That's a bet I'd be more than happy to take.

>Give the guy a break.

Just as soon as he:
- Learns to say Thank You
- Actually listens to and attempts to learn from what others post
- Learns to say Thank You
- Stops refuting absolutely every last piece of information he's offered
- Learns to say Thank You
- Stops pronouncing that he knows better than those that "have the T-Shirt"
- Learns to say Thank You
- Stops belittling GA on GA-centric newsgroups
- Learns to say Thank You
- Stops pronouncing MSFS as the be all and end all of flight simulators
- Learns to say Thank You
- Starts using Google, FAA, AOPA, EAA, etc. websites of his own volition
- Learns to say Thank You
- Goes and takes an Intro Flight
- Learns to say Thank You

In case you didn't get it there, Sparky... It ain't so much the material as
it is the attitude.

Posting to aviation-specific newsgroups and decrying flying in general (and
GA in specific), then asking the pilot community to spoon feed him answers
(readily avialable from thousands of sources on the web) just so he can
dismiss the answers and dump on those making the effort to answer is, IMO,
the very definition of "Trolling."

In short: **** Him...

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Jay Beckman]

"scott moore" > wrote in message
. ..
> Dennis Johnson wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I think those who are arguing that flying MS Flight Sim isn't really
>> "flying" are on the losing side of the argument. Flying is flying, I
>> don't care if it's a Cub without an electrical system or a computer
>> running MS Flight Sim. As far as general procedures go, MS Flight Sim
>> gives a great workout, and for instrument procedures, it's terrific.
>
> Flying with flight sim is like sex with a magazine.

No more callers, we have a winner...

LOL

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Beckman writes:

> It's a "Survey Sim" and is mediocre at best. Because of the broad expanse
> of aircraft offered, it can't possibly fully model all aspects of each
> aircraft in full fidelity.

Then you might want to rethink the praise that people heap upon X-Plane, which
does exactly that.

In fact, the number of models is almost uncorrelated with the fidelity of the
modeling. It's more a matter of budget than capacity.

> I may be wrong, but I've always understood that
> that's why software like Elite or On Top devote 95% of the screen to the
> panel? So that maximum processor cycles can be devoted to getting the most
> fluid and precise response from the instruments?

More likely they are intended to provide practice for instrument flight, which
is what such simulators do best. So scenery isn't very important.

> I must respectfully disagree. Flying requires action <-> reaction on three
> axis'. Manipulating pixels in 2D (IMO) is not flying.

You have six or more axes to manipulate in a PC simulator. And flying by the
seat of the pants is not the sum total of flight.

> I wholeheartedly agreee. And if "The Albatross" were sincerely interested
> in aviation, he'd be welcomed with open arms. As it stands, he has made it
> crystal clear that he considers the experiences and collective wisdom of the
> aviation community to be suspect, flying is nothing more than a hobby to be
> enjoyed by the idle rich and GA aircraft are death traps.

Your statements reveal more than you realize. They reveal, in particular,
that you don't care about someone who is sincerely interested in aviation.
You care about someone who agrees with you and your friends unconditionally,
because your ego is more important than passing whatever knowledge you have on
to others. The experiences and collective wisdom of the aviation community at
large are not very suspect, but you do not even begin to remotely represent
this community, and the experiences and collective "wisdom" of your club, such
as it is, pale in comparison and are often highly suspect.

USENET is filled with people who want to be experts but aren't. I listen, but
I verify. And I ask people to support their statements. If they cannot do
so, it's pretty likely that they are wrong, no matter how much they fume and
cuss and stamp their feet.

> OMFG!! I guess I missed those posts while shoveling through the rest of his
> cross-posted tripe.

I suspect that your attention was diverted by your emotional reaction.

> That's a bet I'd be more than happy to take.

Be careful what you wish for.

> Just as soon as he:
> - Learns to say Thank You
> - Actually listens to and attempts to learn from what others post
> - Learns to say Thank You
> - Stops refuting absolutely every last piece of information he's offered
> - Learns to say Thank You
> - Stops pronouncing that he knows better than those that "have the T-Shirt"
> - Learns to say Thank You
> - Stops belittling GA on GA-centric newsgroups
> - Learns to say Thank You
> - Stops pronouncing MSFS as the be all and end all of flight simulators
> - Learns to say Thank You
> - Starts using Google, FAA, AOPA, EAA, etc. websites of his own volition
> - Learns to say Thank You
> - Goes and takes an Intro Flight
> - Learns to say Thank You

It's interesting to note that all but one of these statements relate to
maintaining the egos of you and your friends, and some of them are incorrect
as well. Only one (taking an intro flight) is actually related to learning
about aviation.

So learning about aviation isn't what you want. You want an ego boost. But
you won't get that from me. Sorry.

> In case you didn't get it there, Sparky... It ain't so much the material as
> it is the attitude.

Exactly. You care about the attitude; I care about the material. I have no
time to pander to fragile egos.

> Posting to aviation-specific newsgroups and decrying flying in general (and
> GA in specific), then asking the pilot community to spoon feed him answers
> (readily avialable from thousands of sources on the web) just so he can
> dismiss the answers and dump on those making the effort to answer is, IMO,
> the very definition of "Trolling."

I haven't done that.

> In short: **** Him...

Your maturity and calm are commendable. QED.

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

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Dennis Johnson wrote:
> I think it's in our best interest to welcome anyone to this newsgroup who is
> interested in aviation. Personally, I'm impressed with Mxsmanic's
> commitment to mastering instrument procedures. I'll bet he could put many
> of us to shame.
>
> Give the guy a break.


Into the crapper you go with him. If you think that about him, anything you
think about anything else is bound to be ****. He's had more than enough time
over the months to change his ways; he's not interested. That's fine. His
dribblings don't make it to my computer. Now yours don't either.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[john hawkins]

Right on. Have any of you flown the blue box(Link ANT-18)? It maybe approved
but it flies like no airplane I ever flew. BUT it was a fantastic workout
for TRAINING.

"ArtP" > wrote in message
...
> I agree that flying MSFS in IFR is really flying.
>
> When I fly with MSFS I always fly by hand. I have settings set to full
> realism. I use real approach plates. I always set visibility to the
> minimum for the approach. I fly the full approach. When I am finished
> I am drained.
>
> When I fly for real I use the autopilot coupled to the GPS. I am
> really just a passenger. Flying for real is much easier than MSFS.
> Even hand flying the real plane is much easier the MSFS.
>
> But that is good because when all of the fancy fails for real, I will
> be glad I spent all of that time on MSFS.
>

[Kevin Clarke]

Dennis Johnson wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I think those who are arguing that flying MS Flight Sim isn't really
> "flying" are on the losing side of the argument. Flying is flying, I don't
> care if it's a Cub without an electrical system or a computer running MS
> Flight Sim. As far as general procedures go, MS Flight Sim gives a great
> workout, and for instrument procedures, it's terrific.
>
> If a person is sitting in front of an instrument panel manipulating controls
> whose performance is based on aerodynamic principles, that's flying. It
> might be flying a simulator, but it's still flying.
>
> I think it's in our best interest to welcome anyone to this newsgroup who is
> interested in aviation. Personally, I'm impressed with Mxsmanic's
> commitment to mastering instrument procedures. I'll bet he could put many
> of us to shame.
>
> Give the guy a break.
>

Not even close. MSFS is a marginally useful training tool. I use it
sometimes to practice an approach. But to say that it is flying defies
credibility.

As for your endorsement of the rec.aviation.* favorite troll, I could
not care less. I haven't read a post by him months. It makes for a
better experience.

KC

[Sam Spade]

john hawkins wrote:
> Right on. Have any of you flown the blue box(Link ANT-18)? It maybe approved
> but it flies like no airplane I ever flew. BUT it was a fantastic workout
> for TRAINING.

I thought the blue box was a Link C-3.

I held a Link Trainer Operator's rating when the Ground Instructor
Certificate had 8 possible ratings.

As you can see by the rating the CAA/FAA considered it a trainer, not a
simulator.

[Sam Spade]

scott moore wrote:

> Dennis Johnson wrote:
>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I think those who are arguing that flying MS Flight Sim isn't really
>> "flying" are on the losing side of the argument. Flying is flying, I
>> don't care if it's a Cub without an electrical system or a computer
>> running MS Flight Sim. As far as general procedures go, MS Flight Sim
>> gives a great workout, and for instrument procedures, it's terrific.
>
>
> Flying with flight sim is like sex with a magazine.

The problem is that MSFS is not a flight simulator. Since Microsoft is
only making a game, they can call it what they want.

It can be useful as a nav procedures trainer provided realistic winds
are not needed as part of the training exercise. And, also, if the XP
Reality modules are included to make it do what Microsoft was unwilling
or unable to do.

[Sam Spade]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:


>
>
> Into the crapper you go with him. If you think that about him, anything you
> think about anything else is bound to be ****. He's had more than enough time
> over the months to change his ways; he's not interested. That's fine. His
> dribblings don't make it to my computer. Now yours don't either.
>
>
>
I use Netscape as my news reader. Do you know how to kill a pest on
that platform?

I don't have a clue.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Sam Spade wrote:
> I use Netscape as my news reader. Do you know how to kill a pest on
> that platform?
>
> I don't have a clue.


No idea. I know how to filter with my software but have no clue with Netscape
either. Surely there's a way.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Dennis Johnson]

"Kevin Clarke" > wrote in message news:T3BFh.7673>>
>MSFS is a marginally useful training tool. I use it sometimes to practice
>an approach. But to say that it is flying defies credibility.
>

I offered the following definition of "flying" in my previous post:

"If a person is sitting in front of an instrument panel manipulating
controls
whose performance is based on aerodynamic principles, that's flying. It
might be flying a simulator, but it's still flying."

What's your definition?

Dennis

[Sam Spade]

Dennis Johnson wrote:

> I offered the following definition of "flying" in my previous post:
>
> "If a person is sitting in front of an instrument panel manipulating
> controls
> whose performance is based on aerodynamic principles, that's flying. It
> might be flying a simulator, but it's still flying."
>
> What's your definition?
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
I've never given this much thought. I have been through stages of this
stuff in my long career:

1. F-100 fligher simulator, without motion. The Air Force indeed called
it a simulator because the cockpit was a real F-100, aerodynamics, etc,
but there was no visual nor any way to really to takeoffs or landings.
(I was not a USAF pilot, rather an elisted guy who had a lot of access
to the simulator; i.e. simulator technican with private pilot's license).

2. Air Force C-11, similar to a T-33 with ILS, DME Zero Reader, etc.
Great navigation and flight procedures trainer. No autopilot so it had
to be hand-flown.

3. "Demo" or some such name, no motion, large single-engine trainer.
Sort of like a Beaver. Can't remember the name of the bird but the
pilot-rated desk jockys flew it 4 hours a month to maintain flight pay.

4. Classic Link C-3.

5. Went with the airline when they had non-motion simulators, which were
approved for only a portion of Part 121 training. The nitty-gritty had
to be done in the actual airplane.

6. Then, Level D simulators with full motion, approved visual, and were
used for all training, including rating ride. Also, for all proficiency
checks, etc.

7. Retired and have taken several ICCs in ATDs, which I found very
effective for that purpose.

Of all these, what came to the closest to flying to me? The Level D
flight simulators, no question about it. But, even they lack a lot of
what really happens in the real world of flying the actual aircraft they
simulate.

[Dan Luke]

"Dennis Johnson" wrote:

> Flying is flying, I don't care if it's a Cub without an
> electrical system or a computer running MS Flight Sim.

********.

> Give the guy a break.

Better yet, give him a plonk.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"scott moore" wrote:

>
> Flying with flight sim is like sex with a magazine.

Haw!

LOL of the day.

[Allen[_1_]]

"Dennis Johnson" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Kevin Clarke" > wrote in message news:T3BFh.7673>>
>>MSFS is a marginally useful training tool. I use it sometimes to practice
>>an approach. But to say that it is flying defies credibility.
>>
>
> I offered the following definition of "flying" in my previous post:
>
> "If a person is sitting in front of an instrument panel manipulating
> controls
> whose performance is based on aerodynamic principles, that's flying. It
> might be flying a simulator, but it's still flying."
>
> What's your definition?
>
> Dennis

Uh, actually being airborne.

[Jon]

On Mar 1, 9:53 am, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com>
wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
> > I use Netscape as my news reader. Do you know how to kill a pest on
> > that platform?

Which client? I have an older version of Communicator that bundles
Netscape's Mail and News clients, running on a Unix box. Haven't used
it in years, but can check if needed.

> > I don't have a clue.
>
> No idea. I know how to filter with my software but have no clue with Netscape
> either. Surely there's a way.

> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

If you're using Thunderbird, you can 'kill' a thread, but that might
be overkill. Filtering is straightforward:

Select message from <plonkee-to-be>
Message -> Create Filter from Message

Then it just becomes an issue of managing those that continue to feed
the obsession by replying, e.g. deciding which of those must be
plonked.

HTH...

Regards,
Jon

[Jon]

On Mar 1, 9:11 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
> scott moore wrote:
> > Dennis Johnson wrote:
>
> >> Greetings,
>
> >> I think those who are arguing that flying MS Flight Sim isn't really
> >> "flying" are on the losing side of the argument. Flying is flying, I
> >> don't care if it's a Cub without an electrical system or a computer
> >> running MS Flight Sim. As far as general procedures go, MS Flight Sim
> >> gives a great workout, and for instrument procedures, it's terrific.
>
> > Flying with flight sim is like sex with a magazine.
>
> The problem is that MSFS is not a flight simulator. Since Microsoft is
> only making a game, they can call it what they want.
>
> It can be useful as a nav procedures trainer provided realistic winds
> are not needed as part of the training exercise. And, also, if the XP
> Reality modules are included to make it do what Microsoft was unwilling
> or unable to do.

<Note: the following has little, if anything, to do with MSFS>

Although several years old, I found <http://www.faa.gov/safety/
programs_initiatives/aircraft_aviation/nsp/research/media/
Paul_Ray.rtf> to be an interesting read.

Folks here in the Human Factors division are contributing to some of
the reference docos (e.g. ICAO 9625), but I was only able to get my
hands on hardcopy at this time. Will try to provide online linkage as
any becomes available.

Regards,
Jon

[Mxsmanic]

Allen writes:

> Uh, actually being airborne.

So a balloon would count?

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

[Jon]

On Mar 1, 1:10 pm, "Jon" > wrote:
> On Mar 1, 9:11 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>
>
> > scott moore wrote:
> > > Dennis Johnson wrote:
>
> > >> Greetings,
>
> > >> I think those who are arguing that flying MS Flight Sim isn't really
> > >> "flying" are on the losing side of the argument. Flying is flying, I
> > >> don't care if it's a Cub without an electrical system or a computer
> > >> running MS Flight Sim. As far as general procedures go, MS Flight Sim
> > >> gives a great workout, and for instrument procedures, it's terrific.
>
> > > Flying with flight sim is like sex with a magazine.
>
> > The problem is that MSFS is not a flight simulator. Since Microsoft is
> > only making a game, they can call it what they want.
>
> > It can be useful as a nav procedures trainer provided realistic winds
> > are not needed as part of the training exercise. And, also, if the XP
> > Reality modules are included to make it do what Microsoft was unwilling
> > or unable to do.
>
> <Note: the following has little, if anything, to do with MSFS>
>
> Although several years old, I found <http://www.faa.gov/safety/
> programs_initiatives/aircraft_aviation/nsp/research/media/
> Paul_Ray.rtf> to be an interesting read.
>
> Folks here in the Human Factors division are contributing to some of
> the reference docos (e.g. ICAO 9625), but I was only able to get my
> hands on hardcopy at this time. Will try to provide online linkage as
> any becomes available.
>
> Regards,
> Jon

<Note: the following continues to have nothing at all to do with MSFS,
since it's not a serious player>

FAA's National Simulator Program (NSP) contains a fair amount of
material, including links to Advisory Circulars, Guidance Bulletins,
Lists of Qualified Simulators, etc.

It may be found at:

<http://www.faa.gov/safety/programs_initiatives/aircraft_aviation/nsp/
>

Regards,
Jon

[Steve S]

"scott moore" > wrote in message
. ..
> Flying with flight sim is like sex with a magazine.

Which is still better than no sex at all.

[Rip]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Allen writes:
>
>
>>Uh, actually being airborne.
>
>
> So a balloon would count?
>
Duh. Can you not parse "airborne". You should try balloon simulation,
Anthony. Given your inexhaustable supply of hot air, you should be a
natural.

[Kevin Clarke]

Dennis Johnson wrote:
> "Kevin Clarke" > wrote in message news:T3BFh.7673>>
>> MSFS is a marginally useful training tool. I use it sometimes to practice
>> an approach. But to say that it is flying defies credibility.
>>
>
> I offered the following definition of "flying" in my previous post:
>
> "If a person is sitting in front of an instrument panel manipulating
> controls
> whose performance is based on aerodynamic principles, that's flying. It
> might be flying a simulator, but it's still flying."
>
> What's your definition?
You have to be in the air at the very least. Not sitting in front of a
TV with a bag of cheetohs.

KC

>
> Dennis
>
>
>

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Dennis Johnson" > wrote:

> If a person is sitting in front of an instrument panel manipulating controls
> whose performance is based on aerodynamic principles, that's flying. It
> might be flying a simulator, but it's still flying.

If your butt isn't in the airplane, you aren't flying.

Operating a sim isn't flying

Operating an RC plane isn't flying (the RC is flying but you aren't)

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

[Sam Spade]

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article >,
> "Dennis Johnson" > wrote:
>
>
>>If a person is sitting in front of an instrument panel manipulating controls
>>whose performance is based on aerodynamic principles, that's flying. It
>>might be flying a simulator, but it's still flying.
>
>
> If your butt isn't in the airplane, you aren't flying.

Interesting article in this week Av Week about the operator of an UAV
not having his/her butt in the tin.

Didn't we really learn the reasonable fear of flying during our presolo
training and especially on our first solo flight?

(something MXmaniac wouldn't have a clue about)

[Tim]

Dennis Johnson wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I think those who are arguing that flying MS Flight Sim isn't really
> "flying" are on the losing side of the argument. Flying is flying, I don't
> care if it's a Cub without an electrical system or a computer running MS
> Flight Sim. As far as general procedures go, MS Flight Sim gives a great
> workout, and for instrument procedures, it's terrific.
>
> If a person is sitting in front of an instrument panel manipulating controls
> whose performance is based on aerodynamic principles, that's flying. It
> might be flying a simulator, but it's still flying.
>
> I think it's in our best interest to welcome anyone to this newsgroup who is
> interested in aviation. Personally, I'm impressed with Mxsmanic's
> commitment to mastering instrument procedures. I'll bet he could put many
> of us to shame.
>
> Give the guy a break.
>
> Dennis
>
>

You're kidding I hope. Commitment to mastering instrument procedures?
This is a flying newsgroup, not a sim newsgroup, yet he blatantly shows
nothing but disdain for real flying.

MS flight sim is a game. It is not flying.

[Jay B]

On Mar 1, 12:16 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jay Beckman writes:
> > It's a "Survey Sim" and is mediocre at best. Because of the broad expanse
> > of aircraft offered, it can't possibly fully model all aspects of each
> > aircraft in full fidelity.
>
> Then you might want to rethink the praise that people heap upon X-Plane, which
> does exactly that.

Wouldn't know a thing about X-Plane...have never tried it. But since
it too is a survey sim, I'm fairly confident the same things apply.
I've read that it crunches numbers differently/better than FS (which
is "table based") but it still isn't flying.

> In fact, the number of models is almost uncorrelated with the fidelity of the
> modeling. It's more a matter of budget than capacity.

Don't care if it's due to budget or capacity. It still lacks
fidelity. It does not model every aspect of every plane offered.

> > I may be wrong, but I've always understood that
> > that's why software like Elite or On Top devote 95% of the screen to the
> > panel? So that maximum processor cycles can be devoted to getting the most
> > fluid and precise response from the instruments?

> More likely they are intended to provide practice for instrument flight, which
> is what such simulators do best. So scenery isn't very important.

It's exactly what it's meant for...scenery doesn't matter at all.

> > I must respectfully disagree. Flying requires action <-> reaction on three
> > axis'. Manipulating pixels in 2D (IMO) is not flying.
>
> You have six or more axes to manipulate in a PC simulator. And flying by the
> seat of the pants is not the sum total of flight.

It is in visual flight. No feel, no action, no reaction. And by the
same token, no feel, no action, nothing to fool your senses in IMC
either. Feel (whether required or something to be discounted) is
still a key component of RL flying. It can be your friend or it can
kill you but it cannot be ignored nor discarded.

> > I wholeheartedly agreee. And if "The Albatross" were sincerely interested
> > in aviation, he'd be welcomed with open arms. As it stands, he has made it
> > crystal clear that he considers the experiences and collective wisdom of the
> > aviation community to be suspect, flying is nothing more than a hobby to be
> > enjoyed by the idle rich and GA aircraft are death traps.

> Your statements reveal more than you realize. They reveal, in particular,
> that you don't care about someone who is sincerely interested in aviation.

Actually, those who know me know that I am a devout worshiper at the
high alter of flight. I've been an aviation buff all my life (well
before I earned my wings) and I extoll it's virtues to any and all who
will listen. I make every effort to offer my non-flying friends the
opportunity to ride along in the hope that they will catch the bug and
want to get their own certificate.

>You care about someone who agrees with you and your friends unconditionally, because your ego is more important >than passing whatever knowledge you have on to others.

Couldn't be more wrong. See above. As for ego, when it comes to
being a pilot, I have 147 hours of total flight time. There are
pilots on these boards with over 10,000 hours + ... the difference
between you and me is that I know when to shut my mouth, open my ears
and listen. Doesn't mean I have to agree or believe everything they
post but it doesn mean that they deserve their due by shear weight of
numbers. It's called respect. A concept with which you are so
obviously unfamiliar with.

>The experiences and collective wisdom of the aviation community at large are not very suspect, but you do not even >begin to remotely represent this community, and the experiences and collective "wisdom" of your club, such
>as it is, pale in comparison and are often highly suspect.

So that's what this is all about, eh? You feel left out of the club?
There's an easy way to join. Oh, but I forgot, you hate to fly. Oh
well...

>USENET is filled with people who want to be experts but aren't. I listen, but I verify.

No you don't. You argue, defy and generally **** on anyone and
everyone. You **** *on* people and they tell you to **** *off.*
Seems fair to me.

>And I ask people to support their statements.

And when they do, you **** on them some more.

>If they cannot do so, it's pretty likely that they are wrong, no matter how much they fume and cuss and stamp their >feet.

Yet you persist in asking questions which generally be unanswerable in
a forum populated largely by GA pilots? Do you really thing you'll
get operational details for a 747-400 from a group that is
predominently concerned with Cessnas, Pipers and the like? Your
yelling "Fire" in an empty theatre and that makes it oh so easy for
you to cast out your little pearls of disdain, "I guess no one here
knows anything..." Who's stamping their little feet in this case, eh?

>> OMFG!! I guess I missed those posts while shoveling through the rest of his cross-posted tripe.

> I suspect that your attention was diverted by your emotional reaction.

Wow, thanks for bringing me back to center. I really need to control
those irrational outbursts directed at completely anonymous people. I
really hate when I do that. *Sigh*, we all have our crosses to bear.

>> That's a bet I'd be more than happy to take.

> Be careful what you wish for.

I want a pony. Howzat?

> > Just as soon as he:
> > - Learns to say Thank You
> > - Actually listens to and attempts to learn from what others post
> > - Learns to say Thank You
> > - Stops refuting absolutely every last piece of information he's offered
> > - Learns to say Thank You
> > - Stops pronouncing that he knows better than those that "have the T-Shirt"
> > - Learns to say Thank You
> > - Stops belittling GA on GA-centric newsgroups
> > - Learns to say Thank You
> > - Stops pronouncing MSFS as the be all and end all of flight simulators
> > - Learns to say Thank You
> > - Starts using Google, FAA, AOPA, EAA, etc. websites of his own volition
> > - Learns to say Thank You
> > - Goes and takes an Intro Flight
> > - Learns to say Thank You

>It's interesting to note that all but one of these statements relate to maintaining the egos of you and your friends, and >some of them are incorrect as well. Only one (taking an intro flight) is actually related to learning about aviation.

Really? You mean you couldn't learn anything from aviation web
sites? From the FAA, AOPA and/or EAA? From the information provided
by other, more experienced pilots? From Google's own archive? So
none of these are sources of information where you could learn? Hmmm,
maybe the internet really is over rated...I'm crushed.
And there you go with the ego thing again... How, praytell, is it
possible to maintain this mythical "club" you carry on about when
usenet is the most egalitarian communcicative device ever conceived?
No one has said you can't post here. You are free to do as you
please...but so is everyone else. If you are perceived as being a
pariah, or if you feel particularly persecuted, then perhaps you
should look inward before lashing out. People are free to say and do
as they please, but they are not exempt from the consequences of their
words or deeds.

>So learning about aviation isn't what you want. You want an ego boost. But you won't get that from me. Sorry.

Again with the ego boost? I think your issue is becoming more and
more clear. You realize don't you that you could be the second coming
of Wilbur Wright, but unless you've walked the walk, all the talk in
the world is never going to earn you one iota of respect here so long
as you continue to boast, brag and otherwise browbeat people here
without ever having moved even an inch off Terra Firma as a pilot?
Seriously, if you want to be Cock of the Rock, you need to take your
act where someone gives a damn.

> > In case you didn't get it there, Sparky... It ain't so much the material as
> > it is the attitude.

> Exactly. You care about the attitude; I care about the material. I have no time to pander to fragile egos.

I coun't four specific references to ego. Anyone else see one I
missed? Seems to me that in an attempt to hold up some kind of a
mirror to the aviation newsgroups, you're holding it backwards.
That's the one and only thing I find utterly fascinating about this
entire episode and it occurs with absolute unfailing repetition. The
closer that people come to the root cause of your motivation, the
louder you squawk.

> > Posting to aviation-specific newsgroups and decrying flying in general (and
> > GA in specific), then asking the pilot community to spoon feed him answers
> > (readily avialable from thousands of sources on the web) just so he can
> > dismiss the answers and dump on those making the effort to answer is, IMO,
> > the very definition of "Trolling."

> I haven't done that.

Yes. Yes you have. You, my friend are the 21st century, electronic
equivalent of the little brother that no ones wants to let tag along.
"Look At Me...Look At Me...Look At Me...Aw c'mon guys, won't anyone
pay attention at all??!!!???"


> > In short: **** Him...

>Your maturity and calm are commendable. QED.

Why thank you. They happen to be two of my best traits!

[Mxsmanic]

Jay B writes:

> Don't care if it's due to budget or capacity. It still lacks
> fidelity. It does not model every aspect of every plane offered.

Why do you require that every aspect of every plane be modeled?

> It's exactly what it's meant for...scenery doesn't matter at all.

There you have it, then. No sense spending many processor cycles and screen
space on scenery if you don't need it.

> It is in visual flight.

No, it's not. That's why it's called "visual" flight, and not "tactile"
flight. If you cannot see in visual flight, you crash, no matter what
sensations you feel. Conversely, if you can see in visual flight, you don't
need sensations.

> It can be your friend or it can
> kill you but it cannot be ignored nor discarded.

I don't see how it can be your friend, since it's useless and misleading
unless you also have visual input or instruments to actually give you the
information you need. And you can most definitely ignore it, otherwise
instrument flight wouldn't be possible.

> Actually, those who know me know that I am a devout worshiper at the
> high alter of flight. I've been an aviation buff all my life (well
> before I earned my wings) and I extoll it's virtues to any and all who
> will listen. I make every effort to offer my non-flying friends the
> opportunity to ride along in the hope that they will catch the bug and
> want to get their own certificate.

That's not what I said. I said that you don't care about someone who is
interested in aviation, not that you aren't interested in it yourself.

> As for ego, when it comes to being a pilot, I have 147 hours of total
> flight time. There are pilots on these boards with over 10,000 hours +
> ... the difference between you and me is that I know when to shut
> my mouth, open my ears and listen.

The difference between you and me is 147 hours. The difference between you
and the other pilots of whom you speak is 9,853 hours. In other words, you're
essentially a non-pilot on this scale, just like me. But I suppose you'll
claim that the first hour makes all the difference, and the other 9,999 hours
are unimportant.

> Doesn't mean I have to agree or believe everything they
> post but it doesn mean that they deserve their due by shear weight of
> numbers. It's called respect. A concept with which you are so
> obviously unfamiliar with.

I respect people who have demonstrated their worthiness of respect. I don't
respect anyone by default, and numbers and credentials don't count, as I long
ago discovered that they are only very loosely correlated with things worthy
of respect. You can have 9000 hours of experience, or you can have 100 hours
ninety times over.

> So that's what this is all about, eh? You feel left out of the club?

No, I'm not interested in clubs. I'm interested in aviation. If anything,
having to join a club just to fly would put me off.

> No you don't. You argue, defy and generally **** on anyone and
> everyone.

I argue because I have often verified, and found discrepancies for which I
need explanations. I question answers and expect the answers to be
substantiated. If someone simply says "because I say so," I know that he
doesn't know what he is talking about.

> And when they do, you **** on them some more.

No. They don't support the statements, in the majority of cases. Instead,
they become emotional and angry, and insist that I must believe them just
because they said so. The more I uncover their actual ignorance of the topic,
the more irritated and aggressive they become. But I am not distracted by
this, as I've seen it thousands of times before.

> Yet you persist in asking questions which generally be unanswerable in
> a forum populated largely by GA pilots?

I was hoping there would be more pilots of other types. There still may be.
The handful of vocal posters aren't necessarily representative, they're just
loud.

> Do you really thing you'll get operational details for a 747-400 from
> a group that is predominently concerned with Cessnas, Pipers and the like?

I haven't found a more likely group on USENET. Do you know of one?

> Wow, thanks for bringing me back to center. I really need to control
> those irrational outbursts directed at completely anonymous people.

It's often just a question of practice, although personality plays a role.

> Really?

Yes.

> You mean you couldn't learn anything from aviation web
> sites? From the FAA, AOPA and/or EAA?

Ah, I suppose that applies. I only glanced at the list once your intent
became apparent. So that's two out of all statements. Why is every other
statement "Learns to say Thank You"? What does that have to do with aviation?

> From the information provided by other, more experienced pilots?

Like pilots with a staggering 147 hours, you mean? Three weeks of experience?

> And there you go with the ego thing again... How, praytell, is it
> possible to maintain this mythical "club" you carry on about when
> usenet is the most egalitarian communcicative device ever conceived?

It isn't. That's part of what irritates the people who want to do so. They
come to believe that a newsgroup is their turf, and then when they are
reminded that anyone can use USENET and all are equal, they become irritated.

> No one has said you can't post here. You are free to do as you
> please...but so is everyone else.

Thank goodness.

> If you are perceived as being a
> pariah, or if you feel particularly persecuted, then perhaps you
> should look inward before lashing out.

I don't care how I'm perceived. I just like to discuss aviation.

> Again with the ego boost?

Yes. Most of the conflicts boil down to that to some extent.

> You realize don't you that you could be the second coming
> of Wilbur Wright, but unless you've walked the walk, all the talk in
> the world is never going to earn you one iota of respect here ...

I don't care about getting respect here. I don't have an ego to maintain. I
just come here to discuss aviation.

> ... so long as you continue to boast, brag and otherwise browbeat
> people here without ever having moved even an inch off Terra Firma
> as a pilot?

Whereas, say, 147 hours would change everything (the next 10,000 wouldn't
matter, though).

> Seriously, if you want to be Cock of the Rock, you need to take your
> act where someone gives a damn.

See above. The way I'm perceived is unimportant. What is important is
discussions of aviation.

> I coun't four specific references to ego.

Yes; ego is a problem for many here. It's the source of many conflicts.
People lash out when their egos are bruised, and if their egos are bigger than
their accomplishments, they become very emotional indeed.

> Why thank you. They happen to be two of my best traits!

We all have good points. I'm told that they are among mine as well.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Rip writes:

> Duh. Can you not parse "airborne".

Airborne = in the air. Hot-air balloons qualify, and yet I see no useful
correlation between balloon experience and fixed-wing powered aircraft
experience.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Noel writes:

> If your butt isn't in the airplane, you aren't flying.

So when I sat in the cockpit of a 747, I was flying?

Flying is in the mind and heart, not in the air.

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

[scott moore]

Steve S wrote:
> "scott moore" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Flying with flight sim is like sex with a magazine.
>
> Which is still better than no sex at all.
>
>

Replace "still better than" with "equal to", and you have
it right.

[scott moore]

scott moore wrote:
> Dennis Johnson wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I think those who are arguing that flying MS Flight Sim isn't really
>> "flying" are on the losing side of the argument. Flying is flying, I
>> don't care if it's a Cub without an electrical system or a computer
>> running MS Flight Sim. As far as general procedures go, MS Flight Sim
>> gives a great workout, and for instrument procedures, it's terrific.
>
> Flying with flight sim is like sex with a magazine.

Top 10 ways flight simulator is like sex with a magazine:

10. If you are "white knuckling it", you're doing it wrong.

9. Very little commitment is involved. You can change magazines
(airplanes) quickly.

8. It requires little in the way of mechanical aids.

7. It's very unlikely to lead to the real thing anytime soon.

6. Talking about the experience with others generally is not a good
idea, unless of course they do it, too. In which case its just a bit
weird.

5. Its best done alone.

4. The view is basically 2d.

3. The cost is low.

2. The excitement of it is all up to your imagination.

(drumroll..........)

1. If you think they are equal or even similar, chances are great
you have not experienced either.

[Jay B]

On Mar 1, 11:58 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jay B writes:
> > Don't care if it's due to budget or capacity. It still lacks
> > fidelity. It does not model every aspect of every plane offered.
>
> Why do you require that every aspect of every plane be modeled?

I don't. You're the one who claims that MSFS properly reflects RL
flight. However, I don't know how you can draw that conclusion
without any RL experience with which to compare.

> > It's exactly what it's meant for...scenery doesn't matter at all.

> There you have it, then. No sense spending many processor cycles and screen
> space on scenery if you don't need it.

What about contact approaches and circle to land approaches?

>> It is in visual flight.

>No, it's not. That's why it's called "visual" flight, and not "tactile" flight. If you cannot see in visual flight, you crash, >no matter what sensations you feel. Conversely, if you can see in visual flight, you don't need sensations.

Spoken like a true devotee of life in 2D. If you ever do go up for
real, you'll very quickly find that you can find a use for all five
senses.

>>It can be your friend or it can kill you but it cannot be ignored nor discarded.

>I don't see how it can be your friend, since it's useless and misleading unless you also have visual input or >instruments to actually give you the information you need. And you can most definitely ignore it, otherwise
>instrument flight wouldn't be possible.

But in the end, feel is still there (as either the expected force
resultant from your direct action (I bank, I turn, I feel the pressure
in my butt...) or as the force you properly interpret via the
instruments (I feel pressure in my butt...why?) Either way, you
aren't flying in a vaccuum.

>> Actually, those who know me know that I am a devout worshiper at the
> > high alter of flight. I've been an aviation buff all my life (well
> > before I earned my wings) and I extoll it's virtues to any and all who
> > will listen. I make every effort to offer my non-flying friends the
> > opportunity to ride along in the hope that they will catch the bug and
> > want to get their own certificate.
>
> That's not what I said. I said that you don't care about someone who is
> interested in aviation, not that you aren't interested in it yourself.

Read what I wrote again: "I make every effort to offer my non-flying
friends the opportunity to ride along in the hope that they will catch
the bug and want to get their own certificate." If that isn't
extending myself for others who may (or may not) be interested in
aviation, then I don't know what is.

> > As for ego, when it comes to being a pilot, I have 147 hours of total
> > flight time. There are pilots on these boards with over 10,000 hours +
> > ... the difference between you and me is that I know when to shut
> > my mouth, open my ears and listen.
>
> The difference between you and me is 147 hours. The difference between you
> and the other pilots of whom you speak is 9,853 hours. In other words, you're
> essentially a non-pilot on this scale, just like me.

All I need separate you from me is the .9 hours I logged on my first
lesson in October, 2004.

>But I suppose you'll claim that the first hour makes all the difference

Atta Boy Kreskin...

>and the other 9,999 hours are unimportant.

Again, this is where you miss the entire point. To me, the other
9,999 hours are supremely important. If a 10,000+ hour pilot speaks,
I shut mouth and become all ears. Does it matter if I immediately
take everything they say at face value? Of course not. But, unlike
you, I *know* I don't have the piloting chops to stand there and call
bull**** to his/her face. If nothing else, that's just simply rude.

>> Doesn't mean I have to agree or believe everything they
>> post but it doesn mean that they deserve their due by shear weight of
>> numbers. It's called respect. A concept with which you are so
>> obviously unfamiliar with.
>
>I respect people who have demonstrated their worthiness of respect.

Great. And conversely, the world at large reserves the right to
respond as it sees fit to those who are not.

>I don't respect anyone by default, and numbers and credentials don't count, as I long ago discovered that they are >only very loosely correlated with things worthy of respect.

Do you have this same lack of respect for all authority figures? You
gonna tell a Cop he's full of ****? A Dentist when he's up to his
elbows in your mouth? How about a surgeon who has a vital internal
organ in his hand at that particular moment? You gonna ask to see his
diploma? Or would you rather quote some obscure passage from Grey's
Anatomy?

>You can have 9000 hours of experience, or you can have 100 hours ninety times over.

Did you come up with that yourself or did you read it somewhere?

>> So that's what this is all about, eh? You feel left out of the club?

>No, I'm not interested in clubs. I'm interested in aviation. If anything, having to join a club just to fly would put me >off.

>>No you don't. You argue, defy and generally **** on anyone and everyone.
>
>I argue because I have often verified, and found discrepancies for which I need explanations. I question answers and >expect the answers to be substantiated. If someone simply says "because I say so," I know that he
>doesn't know what he is talking about.

I dare you to go into the Google Archive and find five things that
you've been told (quote the posts) that were later found to be
incorrect in the FARs (quote the regulation.) You've never been a
student pilot, but one of the most important things you learn: You
don't have to know it cold, but you need to know how/where to look it
up. Thing one with most of the poeple here is that you simply will
not do the legwork required to get the knowledge. You don't have to
take anything that anyone tells you as vertias, but for GOD'S SAKE go
crack a book or hit any of the hundreds (if not thousands) of websites
devoted to the dissemination of the information you seek.

>>And when they do, you **** on them some more.
>
>No. They don't support the statements, in the majority of cases. Instead, they become emotional and angry, and >insist that I must believe them just because they said so.

And to a person, every last one of them has said (in effect): If you
don't believe me, here's a book, URL, DVD, other "person / place /
thing" you can consult. There are things in aviation that are
universal truths as well as sources of information that (while open to
interpretation) are considered the last word. The FARs are a perfect
example. Yeah, some of it doesn't make a whole lot of sense and some
of it is contradictory and suspect...but it doesn't change the fact
that if your interpretation doesn't match that of "The Man" when he
comes to visit, you're probably screwed. This is a dicotomy that,
IMO, you just have to learn to live with.

>The more I uncover their actual ignorance of the topic, the more irritated and aggressive they become. But I am not >distracted by this, as I've seen it thousands of times before.

Ignorance is defined as: "A Lack Of Knowledge." You, by your status
as a non-pilot, are as ignorant (note the lower case "i") as one can
possbily be about piloting because you've never piloted an aircraft of
any kind. Doesn't matter if you can quote the FAR/AIM chapter and
verse. You are not a pilot, therefore you are ignorant about being a
pilot. You can cure your ignorance on most subjects in the same
manner that I cured mine...read. But until you actually control an
aircraft in flight, you will always be ignorant about being a pilot.
QED back at ya...

>>Yet you persist in asking questions which generally be unanswerable in a forum populated largely by GA pilots?

>I was hoping there would be more pilots of other types. There still may be.

If you had even half the sense you claim to have, the tenor of posts
should tell you that their aren't very many heavy-iron pilots here so
asking those types of questions is simply a way to allow you to sit
there and feel smug. There's an old saying (it pertains to military
flying but it fits here too...):

"If someone is a fighter (airline) pilot, don't worry, they'll tell
you. If they aren't, don't embarrass them by asking..."

>The handful of vocal posters aren't necessarily representative, they're just loud.

The only reason someone "shouts" is because they think the other
person isn't listening. Don't know about you, but I usually don't
need to be told something more than once before it sinks in.

>>Do you really thing you'll get operational details for a 747-400 from a group that is predominently concerned with >>Cessnas, Pipers and the like?
>
> I haven't found a more likely group on USENET. Do you know of one?

Two actually: rec.aviation.questions and rec.aviation.answers.

>>Wow, thanks for bringing me back to center. I really need to control those irrational outbursts directed at >>completely anonymous people.

> It's often just a question of practice, although personality plays a role.

<ZOOM>

>>You mean you couldn't learn anything from aviation web sites? From the FAA, AOPA and/or EAA?
>
>Ah, I suppose that applies. I only glanced at the list once your intent became apparent. So that's two out of all >statements. Why is every other statement "Learns to say Thank You"? What does that have to do with aviation?

It simply serves to point out that you don't value the information
you're being provided with (not just due respect) but with any respect
at all. I've looked and I don't see a single post from you (good, bad
or indifferent) where you've shown any appreciation whatsoever for the
time and effort that people here taken.

We've had many non-pilots post here (and by here I mean
rec.aviation.*) and by and large they've all received answers from
others. But, unlike you, they know that they are "ignorant" about
being a pilot. It's simple really. If you were to start just one
post with: "I'm not a pilot but..." or "I've noticed something in
MSFS and I'm wondering if you pilots could help me with..." or maybe
even just "Does X happen in real life...?"

Once upon a time it was called "knowing your place." I'll just refer
back to what I said about me Vs a 10,000 hour pilot. I don't have to
agree, but it's just plain rude to say you know better when chances
are, you don't.

>>From the information provided by other, more experienced pilots?

>Like pilots with a staggering 147 hours, you mean? Three weeks of experience?

Dunno what you want me to say there bucko. It's 147 hours of real
flight that you don't have. You can make all the essoteric arguements
you want. Toss out all the little latin phrases, make your bombastic
and utterly increadible statements of fact about your Barons and 747s
but in the end, I have 147 hours and counting...and you have???

>> And there you go with the ego thing again... How, praytell, is it
>> possible to maintain this mythical "club" you carry on about when
>> usenet is the most egalitarian communcicative device ever conceived?

>It isn't. That's part of what irritates the people who want to do so. They
>come to believe that a newsgroup is their turf, and then when they are
>reminded that anyone can use USENET and all are equal, they become irritated.

Your wrong. People get irritated because an ignorant person has the
unmittigated gaul to post things that make them seem as if they are
what they are not. You can not have it both ways. You can not
attempt to pass yourself off on the one hand as a pilot, then turn
right around and make disparaging comments about aviation. You're so
obviously not a pilot (because a real pilot will not make the kind of
statements about flying that you make) that you simply will never gain
any degree of credability here. Don't care how much you bitch, moan,
whine, complain, cojole, beg, plead, browbeat, implore, agree, deny or
obfuscate. Your cover is blown and It's simply not possible.

>>No one has said you can't post here. You are free to do as you please...but so is everyone else.

> Thank goodness.
>
>>If you are perceived as being a pariah, or if you feel particularly persecuted, then perhaps you should look inward >>before lashing out.
>
> I don't care how I'm perceived. I just like to discuss aviation.

So you keep saying...

Interesting that you snipped my sentence relating to how people are
not immune from the consequences of their actions. It's ok for anyone
to post whatever they want, so long as they agree with you right?
Everyone's out of step but my Johnny..."

>>Again with the ego boost?

>Yes. Most of the conflicts boil down to that to some extent.

>>You realize don't you that you could be the second coming
>>of Wilbur Wright, but unless you've walked the walk, all the talk in
>>the world is never going to earn you one iota of respect here ...

>I don't care about getting respect here. I don't have an ego to maintain. I
>just come here to discuss aviation.

So you keep saying...

>>... so long as you continue to boast, brag and otherwise browbeat
>>people here without ever having moved even an inch off Terra Firma
>>as a pilot?

>Whereas, say, 147 hours would change everything (the next 10,000 wouldn't
>matter, though).

Don't really care what you think on the matter. I know that even my
measly 147hrs has made a change in me like nothing else short of the
rapture could possibly affect. In a way, I actually feel sort of
sorry for you that you'll never experience it yourself. And we both
know I'm right...you never will. I was a wannabee for 43 years but I
had the balls to do more than just wish.

>>Seriously, if you want to be Cock of the Rock, you need to take your act where someone gives a damn.

> See above. The way I'm perceived is unimportant. What is important is
> discussions of aviation.

So you keep saying...

> > I coun't four specific references to ego.

>Yes; ego is a problem for many here.

Yourself excepted, of course...

>It's the source of many conflicts. People lash out when their egos are bruised, and if their egos are bigger than their >accomplishments, they become very emotional indeed.

And you are able to determine that someones ego is bigger than their
deeds, how? And I mean specifically in these forums, in print, in
black and white. I don't think anyone else here has ever said that
they "don't fly in real life" then post about flying their Baron, et
al... My God, talk about Pot, Kettle, Black. You have the temmerity
to say that people here have egos bigger than their accomplishments
while you try to come off like Sky King backed by exactly ZERO actual
experience.

Man, you've either got balls the size of Kansas or else you suffer
from the most screaming form of reality disconnect as is possible to
have.

(Seems Anthony would make a good politician... Very convenient of him
to just completely omit my comments about him being the electronic
version of the little brother that can't come play with the big boys.
Guess that one hit a little too close to home.)

>>Why thank you. They happen to be two of my best traits!

>We all have good points. I'm told that they are among mine as well.

So you keep saying...

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Bob Noel writes:
>
>
>>If your butt isn't in the airplane, you aren't flying.
>
>
> So when I sat in the cockpit of a 747, I was flying?
>
> Flying is in the mind and heart, not in the air.
>
Your retorts are hostile and absurd on their face.

I guess sex is in the mind and the hear, and not with the woman (or man,
as the case may be.)

[Mxsmanic]

Jay B writes:

> You're the one who claims that MSFS properly reflects RL
> flight.

I claim that MSFS, like any simulator, correctly models a portion of reality,
and is thus useful for certain purposes that are satisfied by that modeling.

I do not dismiss MSFS or any other simulator as a training tool or as a
substitute for flying.

> However, I don't know how you can draw that conclusion
> without any RL experience with which to compare.

Since I did not draw that conclusion, your ignorance of something that did not
happen is understandable.

> What about contact approaches and circle to land approaches?

What about them? Match the simulator to the task, and you'll be happy.

> Spoken like a true devotee of life in 2D. If you ever do go up for
> real, you'll very quickly find that you can find a use for all five
> senses.

You're ignoring my point: To fly an aircraft, you must either be able to see
something out the windows or you must be able to determine the aircraft's
behavior from instruments. Sensations alone will not allow you to avoid a
crash, and they are not necessary if you already have one of the other two
sources of information.

So, while you may enjoy the physical sensations you feel in a small aircraft
aloft, they are neither necessary nor sufficient for flying the aircraft.

> But in the end, feel is still there ...

Obviously it is still there. But you cannot fly by it, and you _can_ fly
without it.

> Read what I wrote again: "I make every effort to offer my non-flying
> friends the opportunity to ride along in the hope that they will catch
> the bug and want to get their own certificate."

And if they fail to catch the bug, how do you treat them?

> If that isn't extending myself for others who may (or may not) be interested in
> aviation, then I don't know what is.

It's not. It's trying to convert them to your viewpoint, which isn't quite
the same thing.

> All I need separate you from me is the .9 hours I logged on my first
> lesson in October, 2004.

Unfortunately there's no clear basis for that statement. Nine tenths of an
hour is nothing. I find it odd that you dismiss 9000 hours that you don't
have, but cling to 0.9 hours that you do have; it does not seem rational.

However, I've seen this before. Many people claim that the minimum essential
experience for some purpose just happens to be slightly less than they
personally have, and that levels of greater experience are relatively
redundant. Odd how the threshold always falls so close to their personal
experience. So if they have one hour of experience, they'll claim that the
first hour makes all the difference, and the rest isn't important. If they
have 100 hours of experience, they'll claim that one needs at least 90 hours
to make a difference, but that additional experience beyond that is just
frosting on the cake. And so on.

It's an insidious manifestation of ego.

> Again, this is where you miss the entire point. To me, the other
> 9,999 hours are supremely important. If a 10,000+ hour pilot speaks,
> I shut mouth and become all ears.

You care only about the number on the meter, and not how it was spent?

It's possible to make the same mistakes for a lifetime, until and unless they
kill you.

> But, unlike
> you, I *know* I don't have the piloting chops to stand there and call
> bull**** to his/her face. If nothing else, that's just simply rude.

The perceived rudeness is actually the part that bothers you, isn't it?

> Great. And conversely, the world at large reserves the right to
> respond as it sees fit to those who are not.

The world at large does not need my authorization to do anything.

> Do you have this same lack of respect for all authority figures?

If their authority is statutory or otherwise arbitrary, yes. Anyone who wants
respect from me must earn it.

> You gonna tell a Cop he's full of ****?

I'll tell him when he is wrong.

> A Dentist when he's up to his elbows in your mouth? How about a surgeon
> who has a vital internal organ in his hand at that particular moment?
> You gonna ask to see his diploma? Or would you rather quote some
> obscure passage from Grey's Anatomy?

If I have reason to believe they are wrong, I'll say so.

Your unspoken point here is that I should allow people to bully me into
submission. You may do that if you wish, but I don't generally follow that
path.

> Did you come up with that yourself or did you read it somewhere?

The notion is as old as the hills.

> I dare you to go into the Google Archive and find five things that
> you've been told (quote the posts) that were later found to be
> incorrect in the FARs (quote the regulation.) You've never been a
> student pilot, but one of the most important things you learn: You
> don't have to know it cold, but you need to know how/where to look it
> up.

So if I can look things up, it's okay for me to be wrong? That seems
reasonable, in most situations (somewhat less so during a cockpit emergency,
of course).

Of course, others can do the same. There's no shame in being wrong. But
stubbornly insisting that one is right and that others are wrong can be
counterproductive. And the principles are the same for everyone, with or
without a pilot's license.

The problem I see here is that some people think that a credential equates to
knowledge or ability, and unfortunately for them that just isn't true.

> Thing one with most of the poeple here is that you simply will
> not do the legwork required to get the knowledge.

I do considerable research on my own.

> You don't have to
> take anything that anyone tells you as vertias, but for GOD'S SAKE go
> crack a book or hit any of the hundreds (if not thousands) of websites
> devoted to the dissemination of the information you seek.

Done.

> And to a person, every last one of them has said (in effect): If you
> don't believe me, here's a book, URL, DVD, other "person / place /
> thing" you can consult.

No, they have not. Usually it's more like, "I'm a pilot, and if you don't
believe me, you're stupid."

> Ignorance is defined as: "A Lack Of Knowledge."

I am aware of this.

> You, by your status as a non-pilot, are as ignorant (note the lower
> case "i") as one can possbily be about piloting because you've never
> piloted an aircraft of any kind.

Thank you for providing a textbook example of what I've just described above:
you're mistaking the credential for the knowledge. Not pilot = doesn't know.
But it is dangerous to draw this conclusion.

> Doesn't matter if you can quote the FAR/AIM chapter and
> verse. You are not a pilot, therefore you are ignorant about being a
> pilot. You can cure your ignorance on most subjects in the same
> manner that I cured mine...read. But until you actually control an
> aircraft in flight, you will always be ignorant about being a pilot.
> QED back at ya...

See my remarks about stubbornly insisting even in the face of conflicting
reality.

> If you had even half the sense you claim to have, the tenor of posts
> should tell you that their aren't very many heavy-iron pilots here so
> asking those types of questions is simply a way to allow you to sit
> there and feel smug.

Why would I feel smug about asking questions? To ask questions is to admit
ignorance, which would be very damaging to some of the egos here.

> "If someone is a fighter (airline) pilot, don't worry, they'll tell
> you. If they aren't, don't embarrass them by asking..."

So my questions are embarrassing?

> The only reason someone "shouts" is because they think the other
> person isn't listening.

That is only one of several possible reasons. In any case, shouting
accomplishes nothing.

> Don't know about you, but I usually don't
> need to be told something more than once before it sinks in.

Unless you disagree with it, in which case mere repetition is unlikely to
work.

> Two actually: rec.aviation.questions and rec.aviation.answers.

Those newsgroups are dead.

> It simply serves to point out that you don't value the information
> you're being provided with (not just due respect) but with any respect
> at all.

It also points out that, as I've already said, you care more about being
thanked than about passing on whatever knowledge you have. That seems very
egotistical to me. Why does it matter whether or not people gush with
gratitude each time you deign to reply?

> I've looked and I don't see a single post from you (good, bad
> or indifferent) where you've shown any appreciation whatsoever for the
> time and effort that people here taken.

So? I practice the Golden Rule, and for me, spreading knowledge is its own
reward. If others are more selfish than I am, that's their problem, not mine.

> We've had many non-pilots post here (and by here I mean
> rec.aviation.*) and by and large they've all received answers from
> others. But, unlike you, they know that they are "ignorant" about
> being a pilot.

No, unlike me, they kowtow to others whom them believe to be of greater rank.
It's the Superman syndrome. People with strong egos are often hero
worshippers as well. It's an insidious form of pride.

> It's simple really. If you were to start just one
> post with: "I'm not a pilot but..." or "I've noticed something in
> MSFS and I'm wondering if you pilots could help me with..." or maybe
> even just "Does X happen in real life...?"

I don't see why the wording of the question is important. Should I start
questions with "My Lord," perhaps?

> Once upon a time it was called "knowing your place."

Ah. So what really irritates you is that I refuse to know my place. Kind of
like all those uppity blacks in the Civil Rights Movement, eh?

> I'll just refer
> back to what I said about me Vs a 10,000 hour pilot. I don't have to
> agree, but it's just plain rude to say you know better when chances
> are, you don't.

Rudeness or the lack thereof is not important. What is important is getting
things right.

> Dunno what you want me to say there bucko. It's 147 hours of real
> flight that you don't have.

Yes. The equivalent of less than three weeks of full-time flying.

Would you take the advice of a doctor who had three weeks' experience in
medicine more than you did?

> Toss out all the little latin phrases, make your bombastic
> and utterly increadible statements of fact about your Barons and 747s
> but in the end, I have 147 hours and counting...and you have???

In other words, you're so proud of your brief time in a cockpit that you'll
ignore all other sources of information and assert that you know best because
you've had those few hours. This illustrates the problem I've been
describing. It isn't very rational behavior. It is driven by emotions, and
not particularly healthy ones at that.

> People get irritated because an ignorant person has the
> unmittigated gaul to post things that make them seem as if they are
> what they are not.

People get irritated when other people disagree with them. It's as simple as
that.

> You can not attempt to pass yourself off on the one hand as a pilot,
> then turn right around and make disparaging comments about aviation.

Pilots aren't allowed to make disparaging comments about aviation?

> You're so obviously not a pilot (because a real pilot will not make the kind of
> statements about flying that you make) that you simply will never gain
> any degree of credability here.

Real pilots never say anything negative about aviation, and never disagree
with those in the club?

Actually, I haven't been negative at all. I like aviation.

> Don't care how much you bitch, moan,
> whine, complain, cojole, beg, plead, browbeat, implore, agree, deny or
> obfuscate. Your cover is blown and It's simply not possible.

There is no "cover." I'm not on a secret mission to destroy the Club.

> So you keep saying...

If only people would hear.

> Interesting that you snipped my sentence relating to how people are
> not immune from the consequences of their actions.

I had no quarrel with it, although I didn't see much relevance in it in the
current context.

> It's ok for anyone
> to post whatever they want, so long as they agree with you right?

It's okay for anyone to post what he wants, period. USENET is one of the few
remaining bastions of relatively free speech.

> So you keep saying...

And apparently it goes into some ears and out of others. Perhaps there is
nothing to stop it along the way.

> Don't really care what you think on the matter.

You stop caring when I stop agreeing.

> I know that even my measly 147hrs has made a change in me like nothing
> else short of the rapture could possibly affect.

But that's you, not me.

> In a way, I actually feel sort of sorry for you that you'll never
> experience it yourself. And we both know I'm right...you never will.

Never is an absolute, and I prefer to avoid speaking in terms of absolutes.
But right now actually flying in an aircraft seems unlikely for me over the
short term.

> I was a wannabee for 43 years but I had the balls to do more than just wish.

It's not a question of courage. Do you find flying to be scary?

> So you keep saying...

Well, perhaps you or someone will listen someday, and the discussion of
aviation can resume.

> Yourself excepted, of course...

I don't have any ego to speak of.

> And you are able to determine that someones ego is bigger than their
> deeds, how?

Their accomplishments do not match their claims.

In the specific context of questions and answers, people who assert the
correctness of their answers but cannot substantiate them are usually
overstating their competence.

> And I mean specifically in these forums, in print, in
> black and white. I don't think anyone else here has ever said that
> they "don't fly in real life" then post about flying their Baron, et
> al... My God, talk about Pot, Kettle, Black. You have the temmerity
> to say that people here have egos bigger than their accomplishments
> while you try to come off like Sky King backed by exactly ZERO actual
> experience.

Even if that were true, how would it prevent anyone from discussing aviation
with me?

Are you interested in discussion aviation? I can afford to have these
counterproductive discussions within limits as long as nobody is willing to
actually discuss aviation, but if anyone returns to that topic I may have to
abandon this conversation.

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

[Sam Spade]

Many years ago when I worked for a small FAA-approved flying school we
once had a student with an attitude similar to your's. He went through
3 different instructors in a few presolo lessons because he was cocky,
full of misinformation, had a closed mind, knew more than the flight
instructors (his position, not theirs).

He was handed off to the chief pilot for an interview and an evaluation
flight. Then he was shown the door and the chief pilot sent a letter to
the FAA summarizing the actions and the reason for them.

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> Many years ago when I worked for a small FAA-approved flying school we
> once had a student with an attitude similar to your's. He went through
> 3 different instructors in a few presolo lessons because he was cocky,
> full of misinformation, had a closed mind, knew more than the flight
> instructors (his position, not theirs).
>
> He was handed off to the chief pilot for an interview and an evaluation
> flight. Then he was shown the door and the chief pilot sent a letter to
> the FAA summarizing the actions and the reason for them.

What is your point?

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

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>Many years ago when I worked for a small FAA-approved flying school we
>>once had a student with an attitude similar to your's. He went through
>>3 different instructors in a few presolo lessons because he was cocky,
>>full of misinformation, had a closed mind, knew more than the flight
>>instructors (his position, not theirs).
>>
>>He was handed off to the chief pilot for an interview and an evaluation
>>flight. Then he was shown the door and the chief pilot sent a letter to
>>the FAA summarizing the actions and the reason for them.
>
>
> What is your point?
>
Duh

[Tim]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Rip writes:
>
>
>>Duh. Can you not parse "airborne".
>
>
> Airborne = in the air. Hot-air balloons qualify, and yet I see no useful
> correlation between balloon experience and fixed-wing powered aircraft
> experience.
>


Ever been in a turkish prison, johnny?

MS flight sim prepares no one for weather-related issues with flying,
does it? You see no correlation, but if someone points one out you will
deny/dismiss or otherwise refute their comments with nothing but your
own fantasy-world "facts." Why even bother.

[Mxsmanic]

Tim writes:

> MS flight sim prepares no one for weather-related issues with flying,
> does it?

It does, although the model is imperfect. Flying in complete IMC in MSFS can
be useful for IFR practice.

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

[Dave Reinhart]

Jay Beckman wrote:
> "Dennis Johnson" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>Greetings,
>>
>>I think those who are arguing that flying MS Flight Sim isn't really
>>"flying" are on the losing side of the argument. Flying is flying, I don't
>>care if it's a Cub without an >electrical system or a computer running MS
>>Flight Sim. As far as general procedures go, MS Flight Sim gives a great
>>workout, and for instrument procedures, it's >terrific.
>
>
> It's a "Survey Sim" and is mediocre at best. Because of the broad expanse
> of aircraft offered, it can't possibly fully model all aspects of each
> aircraft in full fidelity. I may be wrong, but I've always understood that
> that's why software like Elite or On Top devote 95% of the screen to the
> panel? So that maximum processor cycles can be devoted to getting the most
> fluid and precise response from the instruments?
>
>
>>If a person is sitting in front of an instrument panel manipulating
>>controls whose performance is based on aerodynamic principles, that's
>>flying. It might be flying a >simulator, but it's still flying.
>
>
> I must respectfully disagree. Flying requires action <-> reaction on three
> axis'. Manipulating pixels in 2D (IMO) is not flying.
>
>
>>I think it's in our best interest to welcome anyone to this newsgroup who
>>is interested in aviation.
>
>
> I wholeheartedly agreee. And if "The Albatross" were sincerely interested
> in aviation, he'd be welcomed with open arms. As it stands, he has made it
> crystal clear that he considers the experiences and collective wisdom of the
> aviation community to be suspect, flying is nothing more than a hobby to be
> enjoyed by the idle rich and GA aircraft are death traps.
>
>
>>Personally, I'm impressed with Mxsmanic's commitment to mastering
>>instrument procedures.
>
>
> OMFG!! I guess I missed those posts while shoveling through the rest of his
> cross-posted tripe.
>
>
>>I'll bet he could put many of us to shame.
>
>
> That's a bet I'd be more than happy to take.
>
>
>>Give the guy a break.
>
>
> Just as soon as he:
> - Learns to say Thank You
> - Actually listens to and attempts to learn from what others post
> - Learns to say Thank You
> - Stops refuting absolutely every last piece of information he's offered
> - Learns to say Thank You
> - Stops pronouncing that he knows better than those that "have the T-Shirt"
> - Learns to say Thank You
> - Stops belittling GA on GA-centric newsgroups
> - Learns to say Thank You
> - Stops pronouncing MSFS as the be all and end all of flight simulators
> - Learns to say Thank You
> - Starts using Google, FAA, AOPA, EAA, etc. websites of his own volition
> - Learns to say Thank You
> - Goes and takes an Intro Flight
> - Learns to say Thank You
>
> In case you didn't get it there, Sparky... It ain't so much the material as
> it is the attitude.
>
> Posting to aviation-specific newsgroups and decrying flying in general (and
> GA in specific), then asking the pilot community to spoon feed him answers
> (readily avialable from thousands of sources on the web) just so he can
> dismiss the answers and dump on those making the effort to answer is, IMO,
> the very definition of "Trolling."
>
> In short: **** Him...
>
> Jay Beckman
> PP-ASEL
> Chandler, AZ
>
>
Some of the add-on aircraft are quite authentic. I fly a Cardinal and
got the Dream Flight Cardinal and it does a very good job of modeling
the real airplane.

Dave Reinhart

[Judah]

"Dennis Johnson" > wrote in
:

> If a person is sitting in front of an instrument panel manipulating
> controls whose performance is based on aerodynamic principles, that's
> flying. It might be flying a simulator, but it's still flying.

By your definition, birds do something other than fly.

Flying means being carried aloft. That's how Webster sees it.

Piloting may include simulators, but flying does not.

> I think it's in our best interest to welcome anyone to this newsgroup
> who is interested in aviation. Personally, I'm impressed with
> Mxsmanic's commitment to mastering instrument procedures. I'll bet he
> could put many of us to shame.
>
> Give the guy a break.

Manic's problem has nothing to do with flying, knowledge, or procedures.
It has everything to do with respect and attitude.

He is like a man born sightless who would scorn artists in their own
gallery because they use terms like "warm colors" and "cool colors". He
insists that colors cannot express temperature because he cannot feel any
more warmth when he touches red and yellow than when he touches blue.

He may make accurate technical statements. But, like the blind man, his
appreciation of the full experience is limited. We all know that if he had
just a momentary glimpse of the rainbow he would "get it". And for a brief
period, many of us try to help him cure his blindness. We try to describe
the colors blue and red and yellow, the feelings and emotions that are
evoked when we look at a Stained-Glass Window by Chagall, a Sunflower by
Van Gogh, or a Soup Can by Warhol. We hope that he will open his eyes, and
see, and begin to understand.

But instead he just tells us that we are wrong - that sight has nothing to
do with temperature, and he doesn't need it or want it. He says we're just
idiot artists because we can't explain blue and red and yellow to him. They
must not exist because he doesn't get it.

He will never appreciate art as anything more than the texture of ink
saturated on paper.

He is lost, and all he really has to do is open his eyes.

What a shame.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> By your definition, birds do something other than fly.

They don't have a yoke or rudder to manipulate, and they don't get the
"leans," so by the definition of many other pilots here, they aren't flying,
either.

> Flying means being carried aloft.

So elevators fly.

> That's how Webster sees it.

There's no such thing as "Webster." It's a meaningless generic term applied
to dictionaries to make them sound authoritative.

> Manic's problem has nothing to do with flying, knowledge, or procedures.
> It has everything to do with respect and attitude.

True. People here aren't interested in being correct or incorrect, or
discussing aviation. They are interested in maintaining a social club with a
stereotypical male pecking order. I'm not interested in playing the game or
asking for permission to enter the treehouse, and so I'm the enemy. Aviation
has nothing to do with it. The nominal topic of a newsgroup _never_ has
anything to do with it, despite the claims of the club members to the
contrary.

> We all know that if he had
> just a momentary glimpse of the rainbow he would "get it".

No, I wouldn't. Most people have trouble understanding and accepting that not
everyone is like themselves. These people tell me that I'll "get it" when I
have experience X. But I know myself better than they do, and I know that I
won't change. I never have in the past. But that makes me different from
them, and so that is something they cannot grasp.

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