Why The Hell... (random rant)

[[email protected]]

On Apr 7, 9:46 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> They aren't, though. Most training for airline pilots today takes place in
> simulators, so pure simulator-based training is only one small step away from
> the current practice.

This is incorrect. Most training for airline pilots takes place in
the right seat.

> > The magnetic compass is included in the minimum equipment list of any
> > aircraft I know, so obviously authorities disagree with that opinion.
>
> Or they simply haven't bothered to change the regulations, and have little
> motivation to do so.

Or there's actually somebody on the planet who's compentent and who
disagrees with you. Did you ever entertain that possibility?

> I suppose if you consider malfunctioning avionics to be acceptable, you can
> take off with that. I wouldn't.
If you knew anything about flight training or actually flying, you
wouldn't be saying this. I flew with NO instruments as part of my pre-
solo training.

The required avionics are mission dependent. For example, if you're
not going to fly IFR, you don't need any instruments that are only
used for IFR. As long as you don't go below the minimum equipment
list, and as long as you placard any inoperative instruments, you
don't need everything working.

[BDS]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote...
> BDS writes:
>
> > Just about any decent instrument BFR or IPC is going to involve a loss
of
> > the DG or HSI in IMC.
>
> But those are only a few of many instruments.

I'm not sure that any of this applies to you since I don't think you ever
simulate failures or simulate flying without the autopilot doing all of the
work. But, just for fun you may want to try shooting a VOR or ILS approach
without your HSI/DG and without the compass (or GPS) and let us know how you
do. You may find it difficult to intercept the final approach course and
track it inbound with no heading reference.

BDS

[Snowbird]

"Mxsmanic" wrote ..

>> As a minimum, I will expect you never to have broken anything on those
>> simulated planes you fly.
>
> That minimum is satisfied.

Including simulated damage?

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Snowbird writes:
>
>> Please elaborate what that higher standard is and how you claim to
>> achieve
>> it.
>
> I've already explained it. I want all instruments to work, not just those
> on
> the MEL.
>
>> As a minimum, I will expect you never to have broken anything on those
>> simulated planes you fly.
>
> That minimum is satisfied.
>

You haven't satisfied dog crap.

Let's seen you answer the man's question. Or have you just ran yourself off
in to social IMC again, and are now experiencing a lawn dart crash due to
psychological vertigo.

[BDS]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> I've already explained it. I want all instruments to work, not just those
on
> the MEL.

We all do, but in real life things fail. When that happens, you owe it to
yourself and your passengers to be able to get back on the ground alive.

BDS

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> I'm not sure that any of this applies to you since I don't think you ever
> simulate failures or simulate flying without the autopilot doing all of the
> work.

I regularly fly by hand in small aircraft, but only occasionally in large
aircraft, as these practices are realistic.

A sim only produces failures if you request them, and I usually don't, unless
I want to practice something specific, such as engine failure. Practicing
failure scenarios is quite academic in a simulator, and doesn't serve much
purpose unless you intend to fly a real aircraft. It can be interesting for
other reasons, though.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Snowbird writes:

> Including simulated damage?

No, I've had damage before. I thought you meant instrument failure.

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

[BDS]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> Practicing
> failure scenarios is quite academic in a simulator, and doesn't serve much
> purpose unless you intend to fly a real aircraft. It can be interesting
for
> other reasons, though.

Yes, it could show you how useful your compass can be for instance.

BDS

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> BDS writes:
>
>> I'm not sure that any of this applies to you since I don't think you ever
>> simulate failures or simulate flying without the autopilot doing all of
>> the
>> work.
>
> I regularly fly by hand in small aircraft, but only occasionally in large
> aircraft, as these practices are realistic.

No your don't, you don't fly anything but a desk

>
> A sim only produces failures if you request them, and I usually don't,
> unless
> I want to practice something specific, such as engine failure. Practicing
> failure scenarios is quite academic in a simulator, and doesn't serve much
> purpose unless you intend to fly a real aircraft. It can be interesting
> for
> other reasons, though.
>

You how did you come to suffer the delusion that you could operate a real
aircraft in IMC.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Snowbird writes:
>
>> Including simulated damage?
>
> No, I've had damage before. I thought you meant instrument failure.
>

Realy, what happened. Pizza grease on the yoke, spilled milk in the
keyboard?

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Realy, what happened. Pizza grease on the yoke, spilled milk in the
> keyboard?

I've damaged gear before with particularly rough landings. On at least one
occasion I damaged the flap mechanism, which caused one of the flaps to
extende improperly with full flaps, giving the aircraft a strong tendency to
roll. That took me a while to figure out.

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

[Snowbird]

"Mxsmanic" wrote ..
>
>> Including simulated damage?
>
> No, I've had damage before. I thought you meant instrument failure.
>

Thank you. The reason I press this issue is because aviation safety is
serious business. Claiming to have a high safety standard based on simulator
flying only, is in my opinion close to nonsense.
Why? Because the sim pilot does not run the risk of getting hurt if things
go bad. The objective when training a pilot to be a safe airliner captain is
not only mastering the buttons and switches, but also to achieve those
skills without breaking any airplane parts in the process. Therefore actual
flying training is so good. It teaches the student in the most realistic way
the consequences of not yet having the required skills - with a Flight
Instructor always there to keep the situation safe and coach the student on
how to progress towards his goal to become a pilot. That mental attitude -
grasping the consequences of a pilot failure - is one of the most important
traits of a safe pilot.

Ugh, I've spoken ;-)

[Mxsmanic]

Snowbird writes:

> Thank you. The reason I press this issue is because aviation safety is
> serious business. Claiming to have a high safety standard based on simulator
> flying only, is in my opinion close to nonsense.

I don't see why that would make any difference.

> Why? Because the sim pilot does not run the risk of getting hurt if things
> go bad.

People with a good attitude towards safety don't need to be motivated by the
risk of getting hurt. Indeed, if the only way to make someone conscientious
about safety is to put him into a situation where he is at immediate and
obvious risk, then there is a problem with his attitude.

Most people run into dangerous situations because they behaved in unsafe ways
when there is _not_ any obvious risk of harm. Since they are motivated only
by obvious, immediate risk, any time that they do not perceive such a risk,
they disregard safety.

This is how motorcycle riders crush their skulls by not wearing a helmet.
They don't see an immediate, obvious risk to not wearing a helmet, so they
don't put one on. Then, when the risk actually becomes significant, they are
unprepared. Most people will put on a helmet if they know that they're about
to hit a brick wall. The difficulty is in getting people to put on helmets
even when they aren't in any immediate and obvious danger.

Thus, a pilot who is motivated to be safe only by a risk of accident or injury
is not fundamentally a safe pilot. The safe pilot takes precautions
irrespective of any obvious risk.

> It teaches the student in the most realistic way
> the consequences of not yet having the required skills - with a Flight
> Instructor always there to keep the situation safe and coach the student on
> how to progress towards his goal to become a pilot.

If a flight instructor is there, it's not realistic. The risk is not any
greater than in a simulator, since the instructor can save the day. People in
that situation are motivated by a desire for approval from the instructor, not
by any real risk. The problem there is that they may not behave safely when
the instructor is not around to correct them, especially if they've never been
motivated in any other way.

> That mental attitude -
> grasping the consequences of a pilot failure - is one of the most important
> traits of a safe pilot.

Everyone can grasp the consequences when the risk is immediate and obvious.
Many people cannot when the risk is more remote. And this is true even for
trained pilots, which is why so many trained pilots still crash due to a lack
of caution and concern for safety.

In summary, if you only learn about safety when you are threatened with
immediate harmful consequences, you haven't really learned about safety.

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

[[email protected]]

On Apr 7, 11:10 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A sim only produces failures if you request them, and I usually don't, unless
> I want to practice something specific, such as engine failure. Practicingfailurescenarios is quite academic in a simulator, and doesn't serve much
> purpose unless you intend to fly a real aircraft. It can be interesting for
> other reasons, though.

This is pretty ironic, don't you think?

One of the prime motivations for using simulators for pilot training
is to be able to practice failure scenarios. (Yes, cost is another
prime motivation.)

Pilot training would be quite simple without having to learn all of
those pesky failure scenarios.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

When it comes to BS, I think you have reached your weekly high point. That
had to be at least a triple flutter blast.

Nothing is too easy for the person that will never have to actually do it.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> This is pretty ironic, don't you think?

Why?

> One of the prime motivations for using simulators for pilot training
> is to be able to practice failure scenarios. (Yes, cost is another
> prime motivation.)

Yes, but that's because they are flying real aircraft, and failure scenarios
are impractical and dangerous to practice in real aircraft. At the same time,
failures cannot be avoided in real aircraft.

> Pilot training would be quite simple without having to learn all of
> those pesky failure scenarios.

Yes, and that's why a non-pilot can land an airliner in an emergency.

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

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> This is pretty ironic, don't you think?
>
> Why?
>
>> One of the prime motivations for using simulators for pilot training
>> is to be able to practice failure scenarios. (Yes, cost is another
>> prime motivation.)
>
> Yes, but that's because they are flying real aircraft, and failure
> scenarios
> are impractical and dangerous to practice in real aircraft. At the same
> time,
> failures cannot be avoided in real aircraft.
>
>> Pilot training would be quite simple without having to learn all of
>> those pesky failure scenarios.
>
> Yes, and that's why a non-pilot can land an airliner in an emergency.
>

You're not even entertaining as common troll. Why didn't you post a few
"bait" question before you sprung the big one????

[K Baum]

On Apr 7, 7:53 am, wrote:

>
> > They aren't, though. Most training for airline pilots today takes place in
> > simulators, so pure simulator-based training is only one small step away from
> > the current practice.
>
> This is incorrect. Most training for airline pilots takes place in
> the right seat.

Actualy Alpha, you are incorrect. It is against FARs to conduct
training during part 135 or 121 ops. ALL airline training is done in
the sim.

>
> The required avionics are mission dependent. For example, if you're
> not going to fly IFR, you don't need any instruments that are only
> used for IFR. As long as you don't go below the minimum equipment
> list, and as long as you placard any inoperative instruments, you
> don't need everything working.

Here again, all airline flights are conducted on an instrument flight
plan. As an interesting note, its been about 10 years since the
airlines have done any partial panel training .

[Mxsmanic]

K Baum writes:

> Here again, all airline flights are conducted on an instrument flight
> plan. As an interesting note, its been about 10 years since the
> airlines have done any partial panel training .

Even in sims? Why was it discontinued?

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

[[email protected]]

On Apr 7, 5:49 pm, "K Baum" > wrote:
> Actualy Alpha, you are incorrect. It is against FARs to conduct
> training during part 135 or 121 ops. ALL airline training is done in
> the sim.

I think we're working with different definitions of training. The
first officer, especially in the beginning, is still learning the
job. And training how to do the captain's job takes place largely in
the right seat.

The number of hours spent is the simulator is dwarfed by the time
spent learning while working in the right seat.

> > The required avionics are mission dependent. For example, if you're
> > not going to fly IFR, you don't need any instruments that are only
> > used for IFR. As long as you don't go below the minimum equipment
> > list, and as long as you placard any inoperative instruments, you
> > don't need everything working.
>
> Here again, all airline flights are conducted on an instrument flight
> plan. As an interesting note, its been about 10 years since the
> airlines have done any partial panel training .

And I wasn't talking about airline flights here.

Have all airlines really stopped partial-panel training? Do you have
a citation for this? I'd love to learn more.

[Peter Dohm]

>
>
> Regarding the magnetic compass, note that its usefulness is not limited to
> those "catastrophic blackout" emergency-landing scenarios that some of the
> posts here suggest. It may be simpler events such as an in-flight restart
of
> the FMS, or a handheld GPS falling on the floor in a small aircraft. In
such
> cases the magnetic compass helps against straying off course until the
> problem is fixed.
>
>
Hi Snowbird,

I realize that, in placing this comment here, I am indeed preaching to the
choir; but feel compelled, for the benefit of any newbies reading still
this, to add that the most common use of the magnetic compass in more fully
equipped aircraft is to correct the DG as is precesses or to verify that a
slaved DG or HSI is properly correcting for precession. I was taught to
perform this task as part of the cruise checklist at 15 minute intervals.

Best regards, and thanks for an interesting and iformative series of posts.

Peter

[K Baum]

On Apr 7, 4:14 pm, wrote:
> On Apr 7, 5:49 pm, "K Baum" > wrote:>

>
> I think we're working with different definitions of training. The
> first officer, especially in the beginning, is still learning the
> job. And training how to do the captain's job takes place largely in
> the right seat.

True, I was refering mostly to MV and PV. That is all done in the sim.
The first time you take the controls of an actual plane is during OE
with sheep in the back. The captains job is not that dificult to
learn. Lets see, show up at the last minute, take regular naps, and
plenty of reading material, oh yea, and pick up the bar tab :).
>
> > Here again, all airline flights are conducted on an instrument flight
> > plan. As an interesting note, its been about 10 years since the
> > airlines have done any partial panel training .
>
> And I wasn't talking about airline flights here.

Sorry, between all the back and forth with this MX individual, I must
have got confused. Airlines are the primary users of MELs, and maybe
this is what caused me to think this.
>
> Have all airlines really stopped partial-panel training? Do you have
> a citation for this? I'd love to learn more.

I have never seen any form of partial panel done since the old
turboprop days. I can only guess that they have not found this to be a
very effective use of sim time.The only thing I can remember anything
close to partial panel was about 6 years ago when I was ask to fly a
raw data approach. You do have standby instruments of course, but I
have never seen anyone have to demonstrate flight by reference to
these, and it is not in the training curriculum or even the FCM. Sorry
I cant be more helpful, but my guess is that with the redundancy built
into a modern airliner, it just isnt necesary. Another thing to
consider is that with a glass cockpit, all of the flight info is on
one instrument anyways so partial panel isnt really valid.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> I think we're working with different definitions of training. The
> first officer, especially in the beginning, is still learning the
> job. And training how to do the captain's job takes place largely in
> the right seat.

But he is not learning to fly, not even the aircraft in question. His
"training" is company procedures and policies.

> The number of hours spent is the simulator is dwarfed by the time
> spent learning while working in the right seat.

More specifically, the number of hours spent in the simulator is dwarfed by
the time spent in the right seat. However, the simulator time is pure
training. The right-seat time is just work, and getting used to aspects of
the job unrelated to flight per se.

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

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Snowbird writes:
>
> > I see no reference to jet airliners in the OP's post.
>
> It was in the posts preceding mine.
>
> > Your opinion again. That airliner captain would have training and experience
> > in using a magnetic compass, so it certainly would be better than nothing to
> > him.
>
> It's better than nothing in the sense that hitting dirt is better than hitting
> concrete.
>
> > There are such things as proficiency check flights, where the examiner may
> > choose to test the pilot's knowledge on that subject. Pilots obviously want
> > to pass the checkride. Anyway, it's not a particularly difficult skill.
>
> Okay, how many private pilots are compelled to demonstrate flying with just a
> compass alone for proficiency check flights? And how realistic is such a
> demonstration; that is, how often are pilots actually in this type of
> situation in real life?

About 100% (certainly here in NZ). Not *always* covered in BFR's no
doubt, but certainly in the PPL curriculum - compass turns onto North,
South, East, West and some in betweens too.

It's essential stuff - in any plane.

--
Duncan

[Alan Gerber]

In rec.aviation.student K Baum > wrote:
> these, and it is not in the training curriculum or even the FCM. Sorry
> I cant be more helpful, but my guess is that with the redundancy built
> into a modern airliner, it just isnt necesary. Another thing to
> consider is that with a glass cockpit, all of the flight info is on
> one instrument anyways so partial panel isnt really valid.

Yikes! What if that one instrument goes tango uniform? It's a good thing
there's always a compass to fall back on, then! :-)

What if the failure isn't in the instrument, but in a sensor? Would that
warrant practice analogous to partial panel, or are there enough redundant
sensors that it wouldn't be worth it?

(For those who aren't paying close attention, we've switched mid-paragraph
from redundant airline cockpits to small GA planes with glass panels.)

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Mxsmanic]

Alan Gerber writes:

> Yikes! What if that one instrument goes tango uniform? It's a good thing
> there's always a compass to fall back on, then! :-)

Large airliners have a great deal of redundancy, and that helps. Contrast
this with things like a G1000 in a small plane, which has no redundancy at
all.

> What if the failure isn't in the instrument, but in a sensor? Would that
> warrant practice analogous to partial panel, or are there enough redundant
> sensors that it wouldn't be worth it?

Airliners often do have redundant sensors as well.

> For those who aren't paying close attention, we've switched mid-paragraph
> from redundant airline cockpits to small GA planes with glass panels.

The latter are much riskier than the former.

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

[Jose]

> The only thing I can remember anything
> close to partial panel was about 6 years ago when I was ask to fly a
> raw data approach.

What is a raw data approach?

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[CJ]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> CJ writes:
>
>> Uh, no. What Ron Natalie said was:
>>
>> "The engine in just about every airplane out there runs just freaking
>> fine
>> without any electrical power consumed nor delivered to the rest of the
>> aircraft."
>>
>> It's an accurate statement - that's probably what confused you.
>
> "Without any electrical power consumed." And before you say it, "nor"
> excludes the remainder of the sentence (unlike "or").

Hmm, why does "Pedantic Usenet Ass" leap to mind?

Okay, s_l_o_w_l_y now, "The engine in just about every airplane out there
runs just freaking fine without any electrical power consumed...", is what
Mr. Natalie said. "The assertion was that there was no electricity in some
aircraft" is what you said. "Who asserted no electricity" is what I said.
To anyone but a pedantic usenet ass, Mr. Natalie's statement is clear - the
ENGINE runs fine without any electrical power being consumed - it generates
it's own electricity using a magneto. It does not CONSUME electricity - no
outside source of electricity.

Repeating the question you snipped, who asserted no electricity?

CJ

Has anyone trademarked "pedantic usenet ass" yet? I think I first saw it in
a McNicoll / Honeck thread.

[Snowbird]

"Mxsmanic" wrote ..
> Snowbird writes:
>
>> Thank you. The reason I press this issue is because aviation safety is
>> serious business. Claiming to have a high safety standard based on
>> simulator
>> flying only, is in my opinion close to nonsense.
>
> I don't see why that would make any difference.
>
It's explained in the next paragraph.

>> Why? Because the sim pilot does not run the risk of getting hurt if
>> things
>> go bad.
>
> People with a good attitude towards safety don't need to be motivated by
> the
> risk of getting hurt. Indeed, if the only way to make someone
> conscientious
> about safety is to put him into a situation where he is at immediate and
> obvious risk, then there is a problem with his attitude.
>
In my experience, some pilot students do not have the right attitude when
they start. That concerns especially those who have a lot of MS flight sim
time and consider themselves already very proficient.

> Most people run into dangerous situations because they behaved in unsafe
> ways
> when there is _not_ any obvious risk of harm. Since they are motivated
> only
> by obvious, immediate risk, any time that they do not perceive such a
> risk,
> they disregard safety.
>
So therefore risk areas are demonstrated during training, so they can be
percieved and avoided in the future.

> This is how motorcycle riders crush their skulls by not wearing a helmet.
> They don't see an immediate, obvious risk to not wearing a helmet, so they
> don't put one on. Then, when the risk actually becomes significant, they
> are
> unprepared. Most people will put on a helmet if they know that they're
> about
> to hit a brick wall. The difficulty is in getting people to put on
> helmets
> even when they aren't in any immediate and obvious danger.´

I doubt a motorcycle safety expert would agree bikers don't see the risks of
not wearing a helmet. Seeing risks is different from taking risks.

>
> Thus, a pilot who is motivated to be safe only by a risk of accident or
> injury
> is not fundamentally a safe pilot. The safe pilot takes precautions
> irrespective of any obvious risk.

Those precautions include training to improve the perception of non-obvious
risks.

>
>> It teaches the student in the most realistic way
>> the consequences of not yet having the required skills - with a Flight
>> Instructor always there to keep the situation safe and coach the student
>> on
>> how to progress towards his goal to become a pilot.
>
> If a flight instructor is there, it's not realistic. The risk is not any
> greater than in a simulator, since the instructor can save the day.
> People in
> that situation are motivated by a desire for approval from the instructor,
> not
> by any real risk. The problem there is that they may not behave safely
> when
> the instructor is not around to correct them, especially if they've never
> been
> motivated in any other way.


The problem is that the simulator can not ruin the day.

>
>> That mental attitude -
>> grasping the consequences of a pilot failure - is one of the most
>> important
>> traits of a safe pilot.
>
> Everyone can grasp the consequences when the risk is immediate and
> obvious.
> Many people cannot when the risk is more remote. And this is true even
> for
> trained pilots, which is why so many trained pilots still crash due to a
> lack
> of caution and concern for safety.

Simulators, especially simple one-screen variants, tend to make the risk
perception even more remote, so they are not a general solution.
>
> In summary, if you only learn about safety when you are threatened with
> immediate harmful consequences, you haven't really learned about safety.
>

Safety is a part of most every subject of pilot training, it's not limited
to flight training. You have to pass all subjects to get the license.

[Mxsmanic]

Snowbird writes:

> In my experience, some pilot students do not have the right attitude when
> they start. That concerns especially those who have a lot of MS flight sim
> time and consider themselves already very proficient.

What's wrong with their attitude?

> So therefore risk areas are demonstrated during training, so they can be
> percieved and avoided in the future.

Anyone who has studied carefully, even on the ground, already knows what most
of the risks are. And a prudent person will be trying to avoid those risks
even at the start of instruction. Indeed, some students might have to be
convinced that the risks are not so great as they believe, just to get them to
fly.

There are other people who are excited by risk. Pointing the risks out to
them only excites them more, and makes them more determined to push the
envelope in order to feel the thrill of risk. These people make bad pilots.
I imagine an instructor can recognize the type. However, it's perfectly
possible for an instructor to have this problem himself, in which case he may
be a danger to himself and his students.

> I doubt a motorcycle safety expert would agree bikers don't see the risks of
> not wearing a helmet. Seeing risks is different from taking risks.

Some people truly do not see risks. They are unable to see long-term
consequences to their actions. They perceive and act upon only immediate,
obvious risks. Part of this is personality; a lot of it is correlated with
general intelligence (that is, stupid people take more risks). Also,
testosterone encourages this type of behavior, which is why it is more common
among men than women.

Riders who don't wear helmets may be fully aware of the risks and yet willing
to take them ... but in most cases they think the risks magically do not apply
to them, or they vastly underestimate the risk because it isn't constantly
staring them in the face. These riders often select themselves out of the
gene pool, but not before they've reproduced, unfortunately.

> Those precautions include training to improve the perception of non-obvious
> risks.

That can make some pilots more cautious; and it may induce others to seek
greater thrills. Not everyone reacts to a perception of risk with precaution.

You might teach one pilot about spins and spin recovery, and he will forever
thereafter be extraordinarily prudent, carefully avoiding any situation that
might lead to a spin, even if he knows that it might be recoverable. He's
that way because of natural caution and risk avoidance. But another pilot
might be a thrillseeker: he might be more excited by the immediate and obvious
risk of spins than by the safety appeal of avoiding them. And so he will
continue to take risks, and perhaps even increase his risk out of a conscious
or unconscious thrillseeking element in his personality.

Some people are happier when they are safe; others are happier when they are
in danger. The second type shouldn't be flying outside of the military.

> The problem is that the simulator can not ruin the day.

That's not a problem for people who are already cautious and good at avoiding
risk. It is sufficient to point out a risk to them, and they will avoid it.
They may enjoy simulator work precisely because of the lower risk.

Those who consider simulators boring and long for the thrill of risk in a real
aircraft are the ones to watch carefully. There are many attractions to
aviation, but when risk is the foremost among them, there's a problem.

> Simulators, especially simple one-screen variants, tend to make the risk
> perception even more remote, so they are not a general solution.

The perception of risk depends on the person, not the environment. Some
people will perceive and avoid risks entirely on their own. Others will not
perceive risks even when they confront them directly. Still others perceive
the risks and seek them out. The actual environment you use to teach them
really doesn't matter much.

> Safety is a part of most every subject of pilot training, it's not limited
> to flight training. You have to pass all subjects to get the license.

Getting the license and being a safe pilot are two entirely different things.

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

[Jay Honeck]

> > You do realize that MX is an emotionally disturbed individual has has
> > never flown in a small plane and thinks that Microsoft Flight Sim is
> > real, don't you?
>
> Well, he's an interesting personality.

Snowbird! Welcome back! Long time no read.

I trust life in the great state of Missouri is treating you well?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Snowbird]

"Mxsmanic" wrote
>
>
> What's wrong with their attitude?
>
Typically they have not only simulated the destruction of a number of
aircraft, but are completely unaware of the aspects of aviation that occur
before takeoff and after landing. It takes time and effort to get them
understand neither is an option in real aviation.

> There are other people who are excited by risk.

This seems to be a favorite theme of yours. In my experience, such people
tend to favor more extreme activities such as parachuting or mountain
climbing, over flying They tend to be discouraged by what they call
"restrictive rules" of aviation. For most pilots, in my experience, the
fascination of flying is something quite remote from the thrill-seeking
behavior you describe.

But I recall that this theme has been discussed at length here recently, so
obviously it would be a waste of time for me to continue repeating what
other aviators have already said. Have a nice day.

[Snowbird]

"Jay Honeck" wrote ...
>
> Snowbird! Welcome back! Long time no read.
>
> I trust life in the great state of Missouri is treating you well?
> --

Hi Jay,
I'm sorry but it seems that this is a case of two persons with the same
nickname.

But thank you anyway for the warm welcome, which is a good example of the
great spirit you bring to this newsgroup.

[Mxsmanic]

Snowbird writes:

> Typically they have not only simulated the destruction of a number of
> aircraft, but are completely unaware of the aspects of aviation that occur
> before takeoff and after landing. It takes time and effort to get them
> understand neither is an option in real aviation.

Some people use simulators precisely because they are aware of all the useless
overhead in real aviation and prefer to avoid it. I know that's the key
reason for me.

I rather doubt that any intelligent person would question the utility of
avoiding a crash in real aviation.

> This seems to be a favorite theme of yours.

It's a favorite theme of the FAA, too, one of a group of characteristics that
one finds frequently among pilots who have accidents.

The FAA isn't the only organization to notice this, however.

> In my experience, such people
> tend to favor more extreme activities such as parachuting or mountain
> climbing, over flying They tend to be discouraged by what they call
> "restrictive rules" of aviation.

But some of them do become pilots, behaving long enough to get the license,
and then they ignore the rules and take serious risks. Additionally, this
character defect exists in degrees, and so it might be mild enough not to
interfere with getting a license, but severe enough to encourage a pilot to
take risks that will eventually get him killed.

> For most pilots, in my experience, the
> fascination of flying is something quite remote from the thrill-seeking
> behavior you describe.

It's a question of personality. Note that people who are fascinated by
physical sensations are only one step away from the thrillseekers.

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

[BDS]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> Some people use simulators precisely because they are aware of all the
useless
> overhead in real aviation and prefer to avoid it. I know that's the key
> reason for me.

Perhaps, but you are missing a huge part of the flying experience, and I
don't mean the physical sensation part that you always focus on.

> It's a question of personality. Note that people who are fascinated by
> physical sensations are only one step away from the thrillseekers.

You need to understand that the experience of actual flight can be
stimulating mentally as well as physically, and that the mental stimulation
can also be the major factor. You also need to understand that the mental
stimulation you get from a sim is not the same as the mental stimulation you
get from actual flight - I do both, and I also know countless pilots who do
as well, and they all would totally agree with that statement. See if you
can find a single pilot who has done both, and who will agree with your
assertion that simulation - and especially PC simulation - is mentally the
same experience as actual flight.

For most people, seeing a picture of the Grand Canyon is a far cry from
actually being there looking at it, and yet they are physically the same
experience.

BDS

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> Perhaps, but you are missing a huge part of the flying experience, and I
> don't mean the physical sensation part that you always focus on.

It's still cost-effective. I get most of the experience at only a fraction of
the cost, and without the overhead of the parts that aren't fun.

> You need to understand that the experience of actual flight can be
> stimulating mentally as well as physically, and that the mental stimulation
> can also be the major factor.

Sure, although some of the most mentally stimulating parts also happen to be
parts that can be effectively simulated (such as instrument flight).

> You also need to understand that the mental
> stimulation you get from a sim is not the same as the mental stimulation you
> get from actual flight - I do both, and I also know countless pilots who do
> as well, and they all would totally agree with that statement.

You need to understand that the stimulation of real flight may well be
_different_ from that of a simulator, but it is not necessarily _better_.

For example, I don't enjoy being jostled by turbulence until I throw up.
That's one possible experience of real aviation that I can do without. It's
never an issue in simulation.

> For most people, seeing a picture of the Grand Canyon is a far cry from
> actually being there looking at it, and yet they are physically the same
> experience.

I've done both, and the main difference I saw was that the canyon is in three
dimensions when you look at it in person. Otherwise it looks like a picture.
Others in my party felt the same way. It wasn't worth hours of driving and
staying in a fleabag hotel at highway-robbery rates, and all the other
overhead associated with visiting, and so I never went back.

I would like a better simulation of the canyon in MSFS, though. But I suppose
that would just slow down the frame rates.

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

[BDS]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> For example, I don't enjoy being jostled by turbulence until I throw up.

Me either. Although I have to say that the only time I ever felt even
slightly airsick it wasn't due to turbulence - a bad hot dog that I ate for
lunch combined with the sun beating down on me and in my eyes on the flight
home was to blame for it.

BDS

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> Me either. Although I have to say that the only time I ever felt even
> slightly airsick it wasn't due to turbulence - a bad hot dog that I ate for
> lunch combined with the sun beating down on me and in my eyes on the flight
> home was to blame for it.

Statistically, the incidence of motion sickness in aircraft is very low; the
figures I've seen are around 0.1%. It's common enough that FAs see it often,
but the chances of an individual becoming airsick on a flight are pretty slim.
I have a weak stomach and I've never gotten sick on an aircraft, even in
substantial turbulence. On a 747, though, there's a pretty good chance that a
few people will get sick in turbulence.

On the other hand, if I have a migraine or headache, I can get very sick very
quickly if things jostle around a lot, unless I'm the one driving (or
piloting).

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

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Alan Gerber writes:
>
>> Yikes! What if that one instrument goes tango uniform? It's a good
>> thing
>> there's always a compass to fall back on, then! :-)
>
> Large airliners have a great deal of redundancy, and that helps. Contrast
> this with things like a G1000 in a small plane, which has no redundancy at
> all.
>
>> What if the failure isn't in the instrument, but in a sensor? Would that
>> warrant practice analogous to partial panel, or are there enough
>> redundant
>> sensors that it wouldn't be worth it?
>
> Airliners often do have redundant sensors as well.
>
>> For those who aren't paying close attention, we've switched mid-paragraph
>> from redundant airline cockpits to small GA planes with glass panels.
>
> The latter are much riskier than the former.
>

And since we all know you have never flown or even worked on a 747, your
reference are?

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> I think we're working with different definitions of training. The
>> first officer, especially in the beginning, is still learning the
>> job. And training how to do the captain's job takes place largely in
>> the right seat.
>
> But he is not learning to fly, not even the aircraft in question. His
> "training" is company procedures and policies.
>
>> The number of hours spent is the simulator is dwarfed by the time
>> spent learning while working in the right seat.
>
> More specifically, the number of hours spent in the simulator is dwarfed
> by
> the time spent in the right seat. However, the simulator time is pure
> training. The right-seat time is just work, and getting used to aspects
> of
> the job unrelated to flight per se.
>

And you read all this where???

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> And since we all know you have never flown or even worked on a 747, your
> reference are?

My study and simulation of the aircraft. What are yours?

You really should try to discuss the topic at hand, rather than try to
discredit me. There's not much to be gained in the latter if you haven't
established your own credibility with the former.

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

[d.g.s.]

On 4/8/2007 7:33 PM Mxsmanic jumped down, turned around, and wrote:

> You really should try to discuss the topic at hand, rather than try to
> discredit me.

You really should try to quit telling others how and what to post.

You seem upset. Perhaps you should take a tranquilizer.
--
dgs

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> And since we all know you have never flown or even worked on a 747, your
>> reference are?
>
> My study and simulation of the aircraft. What are yours?
>
> You really should try to discuss the topic at hand, rather than try to
> discredit me. There's not much to be gained in the latter if you haven't
> established your own credibility with the former.
>

Exacty, based on information you pulled out of your butt!

[Gary[_2_]]

On Apr 7, 2:31 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Yes, and that's why a non-pilot can land an airliner in an emergency.

No, you can't.

Do you make the 'poketa poketa poketa' sound in your head when you
have these Walter Mitty fantasies?

[Mxsmanic]

Gary writes:

> No, you can't.

I've already explained how and why it is possible.

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

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gary writes:
>
>> No, you can't.
>
> I've already explained how and why it is possible.
>

No, you just outlined your fantasy. This is not a simulator forum, it is a
forum for real pilots. We deal with real answers. The scenario you dreamed
is nothing more than science fiction.

You are deranged.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> No, you just outlined your fantasy. This is not a simulator forum, it is a
> forum for real pilots. We deal with real answers. The scenario you dreamed
> is nothing more than science fiction.

You may have missed the relevant posts, in which I outlined the general
procedure that would be followed by a non-pilot in order to land a typical
airliner, in real life, with help over the radio in the form of instructions
from someone very familiar with the aircraft.

The procedure is quite simple. Anyone with the ability to correctly follow
instructions would be able to carry it out. No piloting experience would be
required, for reasons that I have already explained.

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

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> No, you just outlined your fantasy. This is not a simulator forum, it is
>> a
>> forum for real pilots. We deal with real answers. The scenario you
>> dreamed
>> is nothing more than science fiction.
>
> You may have missed the relevant posts, in which I outlined the general
> procedure that would be followed by a non-pilot in order to land a typical
> airliner, in real life, with help over the radio in the form of
> instructions
> from someone very familiar with the aircraft.
>
> The procedure is quite simple. Anyone with the ability to correctly
> follow
> instructions would be able to carry it out. No piloting experience would
> be
> required, for reasons that I have already explained.
>

Exactly, just you you outlined in YOUR FANTASY.

[Snowbird]

"Mxsmanic" wrote :
>
> You may have missed the relevant posts, in which I outlined the general
> procedure that would be followed by a non-pilot in order to land a typical
> airliner, in real life, with help over the radio in the form of
> instructions
> from someone very familiar with the aircraft.

I'd like to examine that procedure. As you are obviously the planet's prime
expert on the subject of where to find those posts, could you please direct
me to them.

>
> The procedure is quite simple. Anyone with the ability to correctly
> follow
> instructions would be able to carry it out. No piloting experience would
> be
> required, for reasons that I have already explained.
>

Same as above, please direct me to those reasons.

[andrew m. boardman]

K Baum > wrote:
>Here again, all airline flights are conducted on an instrument flight
>plan.

Is this totally true now? It wasn't too common, but a few years ago US
scheduled 135 was still making VFR flights around here, and last I
checked there was an OpSpec allowance for part 121 VFR flights, though I
don't know to what degree it's ever been issued.

[Mxsmanic]

Snowbird writes:

> I'd like to examine that procedure. As you are obviously the planet's prime
> expert on the subject of where to find those posts, could you please direct
> me to them.

You can google for them.

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

[Snowbird]

"Mxsmanic" wrote
>
>
> You can google for them.
>

Is that the limit of your expertise ?

[Mxsmanic]

Snowbird writes:

> Is that the limit of your expertise?

It's unrelated to expertise, and primarily just a consequence of my
unwillingness to do research for others.

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

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Snowbird writes:
>
>> Is that the limit of your expertise?
>
> It's unrelated to expertise, and primarily just a consequence of my
> unwillingness to do research for others.
>

That's a grand attitude for some one that constantly releys on others for
help.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> That's a grand attitude for some one that constantly releys on others for
> help.

It's a practical necessity. I provide help just as I request it.

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

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> That's a grand attitude for some one that constantly releys on others for
>> help.
>
> It's a practical necessity. I provide help just as I request it.
>

No you don't, and no you just didn't, and when you do you still don't have a
clue.

Have you had this character defect since birth?

[Snowbird]

"Mxsmanic" wrote ...
>
> You may have missed the relevant posts, in which I outlined the general
> procedure that would be followed by a non-pilot in order to land a typical
> airliner, in real life, with help over the radio in the form of
> instructions
> from someone very familiar with the aircraft.
>
> The procedure is quite simple. Anyone with the ability to correctly
> follow
> instructions would be able to carry it out.

Well, fortunately, even if the first paragraph would be viable, Mxsmanic has
already excluded himself from the group referred to in the second paragraph
;-)

[Snowbird]

"Mxsmanic" wrote ...
>
>> Is that the limit of your expertise?
>
> It's unrelated to expertise, and primarily just a consequence of my
> unwillingness to do research for others.
>

Well, something for the record.

You know, that kind of attitude is highly dangerous in all aviation safety
related matters.

I'd strongly advise you to reconsider it. In my own experience, the opposite
way of interaction with other people has been both successful and enjoyable.
Try it sometime.

[Mxsmanic]

Snowbird writes:

> You know, that kind of attitude is highly dangerous in all aviation safety
> related matters.

An unwillingness to do someone else's research is dangerous?

I have my hands full with my own research. I cannot accommodate the demands
of others.

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

[Snowbird]

"Mxsmanic" wrote ...

>
> An unwillingness to do someone else's research is dangerous?

Certainly. Picture yourself as a F/O in the right seat of your 747, aspiring
to become captain. The captain asks you to look up the approach plate for
him and you answer like you did. Clearly dangerous to your future airline
crew career.

>
> I have my hands full with my own research. I cannot accommodate the
> demands
> of others.
>

Your life might benefit if you reconsider your priorities.

[Mxsmanic]

Snowbird writes:

> Certainly. Picture yourself as a F/O in the right seat of your 747, aspiring
> to become captain.

I'm already a captain of my 747.

> The captain asks you to look up the approach plate for
> him and you answer like you did. Clearly dangerous to your future airline
> crew career.

That depends on how petty the captain is. There are good captains, and there
are bad captains. But in any case, looking up plates would be part of my job
in that case, so I'd have no reason to refuse.

> Your life might benefit if you reconsider your priorities.

Not in this respect.

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

[Snowbird]

"Mxsmanic" wrote ...
>
> I'm already a captain of my 747. *simulator.
>
That's exactly the problem. You think real life is as easy as simulation.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Snowbird writes:

> > You know, that kind of attitude is highly dangerous in all aviation safety
> > related matters.

> An unwillingness to do someone else's research is dangerous?

> I have my hands full with my own research. I cannot accommodate the demands
> of others.

Here's a simple solution to the problem; if you can't back up your
statements with a reference, don't make them.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Here's a simple solution to the problem; if you can't back up your
> statements with a reference, don't make them.

I don't see a problem, so no "solution" is required.

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

[Snowbird]

"Mxsmanic" wrote ..
>
> I don't see a problem, so no "solution" is required.
>
I recall you just said you have your hands full?

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Here's a simple solution to the problem; if you can't back up your
> > statements with a reference, don't make them.

> I don't see a problem, so no "solution" is required.

You just said you had your hands full, so...

A statement without a reference is an opinion.

Ergo, we can assume anything you say is merely your opinion and has
no basis in fact.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Ergo, we can assume anything you say is merely your opinion and has
> no basis in fact.

Not "we," just you. I'm familiar with techniques of forced teaming.

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

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Ergo, we can assume anything you say is merely your opinion and has
> > no basis in fact.

> Not "we," just you. I'm familiar with techniques of forced teaming.

Is that an opinion or do you have a reference to show it is true?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Is that an opinion or do you have a reference to show it is true?

It's a topic I've read about, one of a number of methods used by people to
manipulate others (provided they are unaware of the manipulation). I'm immune
to it.

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

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Is that an opinion or do you have a reference to show it is true?

> It's a topic I've read about, one of a number of methods used by people to
> manipulate others (provided they are unaware of the manipulation). I'm immune
> to it.

That isn't what I was talking about.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jay Honeck]

> > Snowbird! Welcome back! Long time no read.
>
> > I trust life in the great state of Missouri is treating you well?
>
> Hi Jay,
> I'm sorry but it seems that this is a case of two persons with the same
> nickname.

Whoops, sorry. There was a woman pilot (from Missouri, obviously) who
went by the nom de guerre of "Snowbird" here for many years. She
disappeared a few years ago, and took her sharp wit, experience, and
sound judgment with her, dang it.

But welcome, anyway!

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