My wife getting scared

[BDS]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> I presume there are multiple ways to simulate engine failure, depending on
how
> much realism one is prepared to sacrifice.

Well, besides idling which you mentioned, what other ways were you speaking
of?

> The engine hasn't actually failed, and in particular an idling engine is
very
> different from a stopped engine.

Of course it is, but how does this have a negative affect on the simulation
of an engine out?

> > Why does this require a full-motion sim?
>
> It doesn't, but many people here believe that anything that isn't moving
isn't
> realistic.

OK, so does that mean you still consider a sim to be ideal for practicing
engine outs regardless of whether it is full motion or not?

BDS

[Shirl]

Shirl:
> > We were talking about GA, and how often we, in GA, practice engine-out
> > emergencies. We were not talking about airliners. The degree of danger
> > in intentionally practicing them in a small aircraft vs. in an airliner
> > is not the same.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> What is the difference in danger level?

You're kidding, right?
The subject had nothing to do with airliners, so I'm not even going to
go there.

> > What is "second nature" when you are safely sitting on the ground in a
> > simulator is not always second nature when you're in a real airplane in
> > flight, or further, in a real airplane in a real in-flight emergency.
>
> Not true. The great value of simulation is that it can create reflexes and
> familiarity that are extremely useful for handling real-world emergencies.
> Pilots practice emergencies so frequently in the simulator that they
> automatically do all the right things when such emergencies occur in real life
> ... and that's the whole idea behind the simulator practice.

To clarify, we are talking specifically about simulated engine failure
practice, not other types of emergencies.

To repeat, yes there is value in simulation. In fact, a person can sit
in an airplane and repetitively simulate his/her own engine failure and
the associated drill and develop almost the same rote level of
automation in their response as they would in a simulator.

But yes, it absolutely IS true that what is second nature *on the
ground* may be different in flight. If a simulator were so real and
accurate that it could teach a person to automatically do "all the right
things", they should be able to complete all the training in a simulator
and then go out and fly the airplane to test standards. Why isn't this
done? Because what may be second nature on the ground in the simulator
may not be second nature in the actual airplane, nor are real world
conditions.

Some level of rote level response is necessary. But handling an
emergency in its entirety may often require more than the rote level
automation learned in a simulator...there will likely be elements of the
emergency that require spontaneous decision making that the sim can't
create. You can't practice those in an in-flight simulated engine
failure, either (because they're case specific), but at least doing the
rote part of the drill in a real airplane and experiencing how that
particular plane reacts with no power won't be a surprise if it is
practiced with some regularity.

> Those who cannot suspend disbelief for a simulation
> often have other problems that may interfere with being
> a safe pilot. Those who say "it's just a simulation" and
> dismiss every sim exercise in consequence also tend to
> be the ones who dismiss procedures, checklists, and
> regulations because they don't see immediate, life-
> threatening danger in doing so. Incidentally, this correlates
> with low intelligence, although that's not the only cause
> (testosterone can do it, too).

That's way off the subject...which has boiled down to practicing
simulated engine failure in a simulator vs. in a real airplane in
flight. I have no interest in debating personal blanket generalizations
or assumptions with no substantiating documentation.

> > In-flight simulated engine failure may not be exactly like the real
> > thing, either, but it's a lot closer than any simulator.
>
> Again, not true. Accurate simulations are much more like
> the real thing, in addition to being safer.

Accurate simulations on the ground are much more like the real thing
than an actual in-flight simulated engine failure? When was the last
time you flew? or experienced "the real thing"? Oh yeah, you haven't
done either, so how would you know which is "much more like the real
thing"? Your claim has no basis.

As for being safer, it's safe to say that flying the sim will always be
safer than flying an actual airplane in the actual sky! ... but that's
not what we're debating.

> > Hire a CFI if you aren't sure how to do it. In-flight engine-out
> > practice wouldn't be part of the private pilot curriculum if it is so
> > dangerous that no one should ever practice it.
>
> Maybe, although the curriculum used to include spin practice, too,
> until it became clear that it was more dangerous than it was worth.

Spins and engine failures are not the same thing. For one thing, an
engine can fail regardless of what the pilot does.

> > Duh--that's the whole point! FLYING is dangerous and potentially
> > expensive if not handled correctly. That's why pilots practice various
> > things to stay as proficient as possible and why regulations re pilot
> > currency and periodic review exist.
>
> And they practice a lot of this in simulators.

GA pilots practice "a lot of this" in simulators? For the nth time, we
are not talking about airline pilots.

> > Football practice may not be the same as the actual game, either, but
> > that's how players train. In-flight simulated engine failure practice is
> > as close to "the real thing" as possible without actually shutting down
> > the engine in flight ...
>
> A good on-the-ground simulator can provide a more realistic
> experience than any safe real-world attempt to simulate the
> situation.

Until you experience it firsthand, your claims about anything on the
ground being a more realistic simulation of something in flight mean
nothing.

> > No, a simulator wouldn't be "ideal". Can you learn useful emergency
> > skills in a simulator? Yes. Is it an ideal substitute for practicing
> > them in a real airplane while you're actually *in the air*, FLYING the
> > plane, making decisions, etc.? No.
>
> YES, it is. That's why simulators are used. They are
> safer, more convenient, and more faithful to the real
> thing (because simulating in a real aircraft to the same
> degree of realism is much too dangerous).

To what degree of realism are you speaking, specifically?

> > To my knowledge, you can't satisfy
> > the emergency portion of the private pilot checkride in a simulator; it
> > must be done in an actual airplane...while in flight!
>
> Regulations don't always keep up with the real world.

Huh? Are you suggesting a pilot applicant should be able to satisfy
these requirements in a simulator vs. in an airplane?

> > Cessna 140. It was mechanical, not pilot error. And yes, he landed
> > safely. Point is, after 30 years, he thought the odds were small, too,
> > but thankfully, he was well prepared.
>
> If it took 30 years, the odds were indeed small.

That is ONE case, and even after 30 years, the odds weren't small enough
to keep it from happening to him. For others, it happened in the first
year, still others during their training, and some never experience it.
Point is, even with slim odds, it happens, you never know when or to
whom, and there is rarely any way to know in advance -- best thing you
can do is to be as prepared as humanly possible. This might, or might
not, save your life. We obviously don't all agree on how to achieve and
maintain that preparedness, which is fine.

> > I personally don't think the wear-and-tear on the engine
> > in an occasional engine-out practice outweighs the value to me in
> > maintaining some level of proficiency by going through the drill
> > periodically in the airplane I fly (not in a rental that may react
> > differently).
>
> But if you mess up on the drill, you might be killed.

And if we hadn't just practiced a simulated engine-out two weeks prior
to the real thing, we might have messed up the real thing and been
killed.

> Why "of course"? When an engine is out, it stops running completely, and
> that's very different from an engine that is idling. For an accurate
> simulation, you need to shut the engine down completely. If this isn't done,
> the simulation is flawed, and potentially dangerous in that it doesn't teach
> the right things.
>
> This is where a simulator on the ground helps. In that simulator,
> you really can simulate a total engine failure, safely and accurately.

Wrong. You don't need to shut the engine down completely for the
simulation to have value. We've already established that sitting on the
ground is "safer" than flying a real airplane. An in-flight simulated
engine failure is not exactly the same as a real one...but neither is it
so different that it teaches anything contrary to the rote responses
that should be done or considered in an actual engine failure.

> > Do airports actually crash a plane to train emergency
> > personnel how to react in an actual crash? It's true that a simulated
> > engine failure *in an airplane* with the engine at idle is not quite the
> > same as an *actual* engine failure ... but the practice (at idle) in a
> > small aircraft is much closer to what you would actually feel and
> > experience than a simulator.
>
> Not true ... the simulator is superior.

And you know this how? When were you in a real engine failure? When did
you practice simulated engine failure in an airplane to be able to
compare it to a simulator? Stating your opinions as fact don't make them
any more valid than anyone else's.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jim Stewart writes:
>
>> Have you ever read how to conduct engine-out
>> training in a real GA aircraft, let alone
>> experience it?
>
> I've discussed it with pilots, and I know of the problems and false
> sense of security that improper simulation in a real aircraft can
> provide. Simulation on the ground is more accurate.


No, it isn't, fjukkit.



>
>> Engine-out training is typically done by pulling
>> the throttle to idle, not shutting down the
>> engine.
>
> When real engines fail, they don't just throttle back to idle, they
> stop.


No, they don't fjukkwit.



>
> It's a bit like practicing "landings" without ever actually touching
> down.
>
>> In the country, the plane is flown down to about
>> 50-100 feet off the deck, depending on terrain
>> and obstructions, followed by a climb-out and
>> evaluation of landing site selection and approach
>> speed and altitude.
>
> So a large part of the experience is missing. In real life, the
> landing doesn't end at 50 feet above the ground. And it doesn't
> matter much how well you handle it to that point if you mess it up
> thereafter.

Good grief, you are an idiot.

>
> This is why simulators are useful. In the simulator, you can fly all
> the way to landing, and learn and pratice things that may prevent you
> from being killed if it ever happens in real life. But that's too
> dangerous in a real airplane.
>
>> Engine-out training is one of the most interesting
>> and satisfying flight training drills there is.
>
> I think that's a matter of opinion.


No, it isn't.


>
>> I've never felt that it's particularly dangerous.
>> But then, I fly and you don't.
>
> How many engine-out emergencies have you experienced?
>
>> I thought you knew all about it?
>
> About the curriculum for private pilots? No, I haven't examined it in
> depth.
>
>> There's not much difference in drag between
>> a prop in front of an idling engine and a
>> stopped engine, at least not on my plane.
>
> That's not what other pilots have told me. But perhaps your plane is
> different.


From what, every other airplane flying?

You are a moron.


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jim Stewart writes:
>
>> Of course you're not going to land your
>> airplane with a perfectly good engine
>> in some farmer's field unless you have
>> a real good reason.
>
> So the simulation is seriously defective.
>
> On a computerized ground simulator, you _will_ land your airplane in a
> farmer's field.
>
>> But if it were real, you would do a
>> soft field landing in his field. Something
>> that you *have* trained and practiced
>> doing.
>
> With the engine shut off?
>
>> Why the fsk do we have to keep going over
>> this with you. I assume that you have a
>> little bit of brains. I know you're not
>> totally ignorant.
>
> I'm just demonstrating different viewpoints. Many pilots here clearly
> have limited experience and even more limited perspective. A little
> knowledge is a dangerous thing.
>
>> If you want to intelligently discuss training
>> and procedures, get the manuals and study
>> them.
>
> I do.
>


Maybe, but you undrstand nothing.


Nothing.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Shirl writes:
>
>> We were talking about GA, and how often we, in GA, practice
>> engine-out emergencies. We were not talking about airliners. The
>> degree of danger in intentionally practicing them in a small aircraft
>> vs. in an airliner is not the same.
>
> What is the difference in danger level?
>
>> What is "second nature" when you are safely sitting on the ground in
>> a simulator is not always second nature when you're in a real
>> airplane in flight, or further, in a real airplane in a real
>> in-flight emergency.
>
> Not true. The great value of simulation is that it can create
> reflexes and familiarity that are extremely useful for handling
> real-world emergencies. Pilots practice emergencies so frequently in
> the simulator that they automatically do all the right things when
> such emergencies occur in real life ... and that's the whole idea
> behind the simulator practice.
>
> Those who cannot suspend disbelief for a simulation often have other
> problems that may interfere with being a safe pilot. Those who say
> "it's just a simulation" and dismiss every sim exercise in consequence
> also tend to be the ones who dismiss procedures, checklists, and
> regulations because they don't see immediate, life-threatening danger
> in doing so. Incidentally, this correlates with low intelligence,
> although that's not the only cause (testosterone can do it, too).
>
>> In-flight simulated engine failure may not be exactly like the real
>> thing, either, but it's a lot closer than any simulator.
>
> Again, not true. Accurate simulations are much more like the real
> thing, in addition to being safer.
>
>> Hire a CFI if you aren't sure how to do it. In-flight engine-out
>> practice wouldn't be part of the private pilot curriculum if it is so
>> dangerous that no one should ever practice it.
>
> Maybe, although the curriculum used to include spin practice, too,
> until it became clear that it was more dangerous than it was worth.
>
>> Duh--that's the whole point! FLYING is dangerous and potentially
>> expensive if not handled correctly. That's why pilots practice
>> various things to stay as proficient as possible and why regulations
>> re pilot currency and periodic review exist.
>
> And they practice a lot of this in simulators.
>
>> Football practice may not be the same as the actual game, either, but
>> that's how players train. In-flight simulated engine failure practice
>> is as close to "the real thing" as possible without actually shutting
>> down the engine in flight ...
>
> A good on-the-ground simulator can provide a more realistic experience
> than any safe real-world attempt to simulate the situation.
>
>> No, a simulator wouldn't be "ideal". Can you learn useful emergency
>> skills in a simulator? Yes. Is it an ideal substitute for practicing
>> them in a real airplane while you're actually *in the air*, FLYING
>> the plane, making decisions, etc.? No.
>
> YES, it is. That's why simulators are used. They are safer, more
> convenient, and more faithful to the real thing (because simulating in
> a real aircraft to the same degree of realism is much too dangerous).
>
>> To my knowledge, you can't satisfy
>> the emergency portion of the private pilot checkride in a simulator;
>> it must be done in an actual airplane...while in flight!
>
> Regulations don't always keep up with the real world.
>
>> Cessna 140. It was mechanical, not pilot error. And yes, he landed
>> safely. Point is, after 30 years, he thought the odds were small,
>> too, but thankfully, he was well prepared.
>
> If it took 30 years, the odds were indeed small.

How would you know fjukwit?


>
>> I personally don't think the wear-and-tear on the engine
>> in an occasional engine-out practice outweighs the value to me in
>> maintaining some level of proficiency by going through the drill
>> periodically in the airplane I fly (not in a rental that may react
>> differently).
>
> But if you mess up on the drill, you might be killed.
>


Nope.


>> Of course not.
>
> Why "of course"? When an engine is out, it stops running completely,
> and that's very different from an engine that is idling. For an
> accurate simulation, you need to shut the engine down completely. If
> this isn't done, the simulation is flawed, and potentially dangerous
> in that it doesn't teach the right things.
>
> This is where a simulator on the ground helps. In that simulator, you
> really can simulate a total engine failure, safely and accurately.
>
>> Do airports actually crash a plane to train emergency
>> personnel how to react in an actual crash? It's true that a simulated
>> engine failure *in an airplane* with the engine at idle is not quite
>> the same as an *actual* engine failure ... but the practice (at idle)
>> in a small aircraft is much closer to what you would actually feel
>> and experience than a simulator.
>
> Not true ... the simulator is superior. =

No, it isn't.

I've flown sims of the same type as the airplanes I fly.


Sims that cost more than the actual airplanes in some cases. And they
are in no way superior for teaching anything. They're a handy tool for
procedures and no more.



Fjukkwit

Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Shirl" > wrote

> You're kidding, right?
You have been sucked in by him, as have many others.

He is not kidding. He is that stupid.

He has not, and never well attempt to fly anything other than a game
simulator.

He is a k00k that thrives off attention like you are giving him. Don't give
him the satisfaction, because it will do no good. You won't make him any
smarter, I guarantee.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jim Stewart" > wrote

> If you want to intelligently discuss training
> and procedures, get the manuals and study
> them.

Yeah, like that is going to happen. Not now, soon, or ever. Never-ever.

Don't be sucked in. Nope works. So does ignoring.
--
Jim in NC

[Shirl]

Shirl:
> > You're kidding, right?

"Morgans" > wrote:
> You have been sucked in by him, as have many others.
>
> He is not kidding. He is that stupid.
>
> He has not, and never well attempt to fly anything other than a game
> simulator.
>
> He is a k00k that thrives off attention like you are giving him. Don't give
> him the satisfaction, because it will do no good. You won't make him any
> smarter, I guarantee.

*nods* Sorry. I'm done.
Shirl

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> Well, besides idling which you mentioned, what other ways were you speaking
> of?

I don't know. However, I don't exclude possibilities just because I'm not
aware of them.

> Of course it is, but how does this have a negative affect on the simulation
> of an engine out?

It's unrealistic.

> OK, so does that mean you still consider a sim to be ideal for practicing
> engine outs regardless of whether it is full motion or not?

There's an ideal sim for any purpose, but no sim is ideal for every purpose.

[Mxsmanic]

Shirl writes:

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > What is the difference in danger level?
>
> You're kidding, right?

No, I'm calling your bluff, successfully.

> The subject had nothing to do with airliners, so I'm not even going to
> go there.

See above.

> To clarify, we are talking specifically about simulated engine failure
> practice, not other types of emergencies.

My comments still apply.

> But yes, it absolutely IS true that what is second nature *on the
> ground* may be different in flight.

Not for someone who knows how to use a simulator correctly.

Part of a successful simulation is in the mind of the pilot.

> If a simulator were so real and
> accurate that it could teach a person to automatically do "all the right
> things", they should be able to complete all the training in a simulator
> and then go out and fly the airplane to test standards. Why isn't this
> done?

Regulation lags behind technology, and the technology is only just now
approaching this point.

But I have no doubt that if there were no regulatory barriers, people could
learn to fly airliners in appropriate simulators without any time in a real
aircraft, and then move directly from the sim to revenue flights. And that
day will almost certainly come, in time.

> Because what may be second nature on the ground in the simulator
> may not be second nature in the actual airplane, nor are real world
> conditions.

No--see above. It's not a limitation of simulation so much as a limitation of
acceptance.

> But handling an emergency in its entirety may often require more
> than the rote level automation learned in a simulator ...

For some emergencies, the best possible response is an automatic, by-rote
response. Engine-out scenarios are close to this.

> ... there will likely be elements of the
> emergency that require spontaneous decision making that the sim can't
> create.

Some emergencies leave no time for decision-making.

> You can't practice those in an in-flight simulated engine
> failure, either (because they're case specific), but at least doing the
> rote part of the drill in a real airplane and experiencing how that
> particular plane reacts with no power won't be a surprise if it is
> practiced with some regularity.

It would not be a surprise after simulation, either.

> Accurate simulations on the ground are much more like the real thing
> than an actual in-flight simulated engine failure?

Yes.

> When was the last time you flew? or experienced "the real thing"? Oh yeah, you haven't
> done either, so how would you know which is "much more like the real
> thing"? Your claim has no basis.

How often do you practice these things in full-motion simulators?

> GA pilots practice "a lot of this" in simulators?

No, GA pilots typically don't practice much at all. That's why they get
killed when bad things happen.

> For the nth time, we are not talking about airline pilots.

I'm talking about all pilots. I cannot speak for you.

> Until you experience it firsthand, your claims about anything on the
> ground being a more realistic simulation of something in flight mean
> nothing.

Perhaps they mean nothing to you. But that's what you mean to me, so it works
out. I judge arguments based on their own merits, not their sources.

> To what degree of realism are you speaking, specifically?

The highest degree obtainable. For dangerous maneuvers, the highest realism
may only be safely attainable in simulation.

> Huh? Are you suggesting a pilot applicant should be able to satisfy
> these requirements in a simulator vs. in an airplane?

Sure, why not?

> And if we hadn't just practiced a simulated engine-out two weeks prior
> to the real thing, we might have messed up the real thing and been
> killed.

So you could be killed during the drill or during the real thing. Either way,
you end up dead.

> Wrong. You don't need to shut the engine down completely for the
> simulation to have value.

Yes, you do. Have you tried this in a multiengine aircraft?

> And you know this how?

That's what pilots, instructors, and institutions say about it, and their
arguments are cogent.

> Stating your opinions as fact don't make them
> any more valid than anyone else's.

The same is true for you, only I don't depend on attacks on your personality
to support my arguments.

[[email protected]]

With a little research you'll find otherwise qualified pilots use sims
before flying a different type aircraft. I seem to remember some
airlines allow ATRs to learn about a new type on a sim then fly as
first officer. This is a far cry from taking someone with zero time,
however, and offering them any level of control of an airplane.

These sims are elaborate, have operators outside to control the
experience, and cost many happy meals an hour to run.

[BDS[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> BDS writes:
>
> > Well, besides idling which you mentioned, what other ways were you
speaking
> > of?
>
> I don't know. However, I don't exclude possibilities just because I'm not
> aware of them.
>
> > Of course it is, but how does this have a negative affect on the
simulation
> > of an engine out?
>
> It's unrealistic.
>
> > OK, so does that mean you still consider a sim to be ideal for
practicing
> > engine outs regardless of whether it is full motion or not?
>
> There's an ideal sim for any purpose, but no sim is ideal for every
purpose.

So, in other words, when you make such wide and sweeping pronouncements like
you so often do and did again in this case, you really don't know what
you're talking about, eh?

BDS

[Tina]

We have learned, with respect to Mx, that some dogs like to be kicked.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Tina wrote:
> We have learned, with respect to Mx, that some dogs like to be kicked.
>
Interesting also to me as a VERY amateur Psychologist (Flight Instructor
you know :-) is the fact that even though a forum like this one can be
totally aware that it's being "had", the threads involving this person
and those like him are some of the longest if not THE longest threads to
be found on said forums.
I find this truly a fascinating aspect of Usenet.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> BDS writes:
>
>> "or something"?
>
> I presume there are multiple ways to simulate engine failure,
> depending on how much realism one is prepared to sacrifice.
>
>> How is it different?
>
> The engine hasn't actually failed, and in particular an idling engine
> is very different from a stopped engine.


How ouwl dyou know fjukkwit?

You have never done it.

Ever.


>
>> Why does this require a full-motion sim?
>
> It doesn't, but many people here believe that anything that isn't
> moving isn't realistic.
>

Lessee, that would be you and..

that's pretty much it..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> BDS writes:
>
>> Well, besides idling which you mentioned, what other ways were you
>> speaking of?
>
> I don't know. However, I don't exclude possibilities just because I'm
> not aware of them.
>



Bwawhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhhahwhahwhahhwha hwhhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwh
ahwhahhwhahhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhah whahwhahwh!

Uou're ON today!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Shirl writes:
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> > What is the difference in danger level?
>>
>> You're kidding, right?
>
> No, I'm calling your bluff, successfully.


No, you aren't.


>
>> The subject had nothing to do with airliners, so I'm not even going
>> to go there.
>
> See above.
>
>> To clarify, we are talking specifically about simulated engine
>> failure practice, not other types of emergencies.
>
> My comments still apply.


No, they don't.


>
>> But yes, it absolutely IS true that what is second nature *on the
>> ground* may be different in flight.
>
> Not for someone who knows how to use a simulator correctly.

Which certainly wouldn't be you.

In any case it's stil incorrect.

>
> Part of a successful simulation is in the mind of the pilot.
>


No it isn't, but given the state of your mind I can see how you might
think this.





>
>> Stating your opinions as fact don't make them
>> any more valid than anyone else's.
>
> The same is true for you, only I don't depend on attacks on your
> personality to support my arguments.
>

You don't have arguments.

You have bull****, period.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:1192103436.206133.45630@
57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:

> With a little research you'll find otherwise qualified pilots use sims
> before flying a different type aircraft. I seem to remember some
> airlines allow ATRs to learn about a new type on a sim then fly as
> first officer. This is a far cry from taking someone with zero time,
> however, and offering them any level of control of an airplane.
>
> These sims are elaborate, have operators outside to control the
> experience, and cost many happy meals an hour to run.
>
>
>
>
>

And they are still only toys tha ape flight.


Bertie

[Shirl]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> I'm talking about all pilots. I cannot speak for you.

There are a lot of things and people you can't speak for,
but you do anyway.

[Shirl]

wrote:
> With a little research you'll find otherwise qualified pilots use sims
> before flying a different type aircraft. I seem to remember some
> airlines allow ATRs to learn about a new type on a sim then fly as
> first officer. This is a far cry from taking someone with zero time,
> however, and offering them any level of control of an airplane.
>
> These sims are elaborate, have operators outside to control the
> experience, and cost many happy meals an hour to run.

All true, but again, we weren't talking about airline pilots...we were
discussing how often GA pilots practice simulated engine failures
between BFRs, which then drifted to whether sim engine failure practice
is more/less like "the real thing" than in-flight simulated engine
failure practice. I was referring to single-engine aircraft (though I
don't think I specified that anywhere).

[Jim Logajan]

Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Interesting also to me as a VERY amateur Psychologist (Flight Instructor
> you know :-) is the fact that even though a forum like this one can be
> totally aware that it's being "had", the threads involving this person
> and those like him are some of the longest if not THE longest threads to
> be found on said forums.
> I find this truly a fascinating aspect of Usenet.

I think this demotivator says it best about how this happens:

http://despair.com/ir.html

But then there are all these, relevant in some way (I think) to Usenet:

http://despair.com/dysfunction.html
http://despair.com/noname13.html
http://despair.com/idiocy.html
http://despair.com/cluelessness.html
http://despair.com/compromise.html
http://despair.com/connot.html
http://despair.com/humiliation.html
http://despair.com/potential.html
http://despair.com/stup24x30pri.html

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:00:08 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote in >:

>Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Interesting also to me as a VERY amateur Psychologist (Flight Instructor
>> you know :-) is the fact that even though a forum like this one can be
>> totally aware that it's being "had", the threads involving this person
>> and those like him are some of the longest if not THE longest threads to
>> be found on said forums.
>> I find this truly a fascinating aspect of Usenet.
>
>I think this demotivator says it best about how this happens:
>
>http://despair.com/ir.html
>
>But then there are all these, relevant in some way (I think) to Usenet:
>
>http://despair.com/dysfunction.html
>http://despair.com/noname13.html
>http://despair.com/idiocy.html
>http://despair.com/cluelessness.html
>http://despair.com/compromise.html
>http://despair.com/connot.html
>http://despair.com/humiliation.html
>http://despair.com/potential.html
>http://despair.com/stup24x30pri.html

Thank you for those humorous and insightful thoughts. Most
appreciated.