Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]
January 20th 08, 02:46 AM
Mxsmanic > wrote in
:
> writes:
>
>> Because it involves airplanes. Real airplanes.
>
> And what is a "real" airplane? A jet fighter? A Cessna 152? A UAV?
> A remote-controlled model? A glider? A 747?
>
>> Because a cloth or wooden airplane is still an airplane and
>> still requires real skill to fly and, in most cases, a license.
>
> What is this obsession of private pilots with wind and motion and all
> the visceral aspects of primitive flight? Listening to them, you'd
> think there's nothing else to aviation.
>
>> Even an ultralight is real flying, where a computer simulator is not.
>
> You're entitled to your opinion.
>
>> Becase real flying involves real risk, that's why.
>
> Safe pilots minimize risk. A risky flight is a flight conducted by an
> incompetent pilot.
>
> Here again, it seems that some pilots aren't happy unless they are in
> danger. It's thrill-seeking behavior, which is a bad sign.
>
>> That management requires study,
>> discipline, training, and compliance. This is something totally,
>> completely, absolutely, utterly lacking in simulation.
>
> You can learn everything you need to know with the aid of a simulator.
> The only reason this isn't done now is that there are still
> regulatory obstacles to doing so. But that will change.
>
>> Death is not possible due to crashing a computer simulation.
>
> Fear of death is an extremely defective motivation for rigor and
> discipline in piloting. If you cannot do things right unless you're
> scared of dying, you aren't a good pilot. The challenge is to do
> things right even when you feel complacent and safe, because that's
> when bad things usually happen.
>
>> If it was, you wouldn't be making so much noise here.
>
> I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion.
>
>> If you want some idea of the risk, rig yourself a device that
>> electrocutes you dead if you crash your simulator. Then sit down and
>> fly it.
>
> I don't need the threat of bodily harm to compel me to do things
> correctly and well.
>
>> Wrong again. Those glass panels are not simulation any more
>> than the old gyro instruments were; they provide necessary
>> information for flight in IMC.
>
> I wasn't talking about the panels; I was talking about the flight
> controls. Modern airliners have no physical connections to the control
> surfaces, and the "feel" of the controls is 100% simulated.
>
>> Ask any other real pilot and see if the answer varies much.
>
> I have. The answer varies considerably.
Nope, they al think you are a fjukkwit.
>
>> Your insisting that simulation is the same as flying sounds like a
>> serious probelm with delusion.
>
> Simulation is not the same as flying a real airplane. But then again,
> flying airplane A is not the same as flying airplane B, either.
You're an idiot.
All airpanes work the same way.
>
:
> writes:
>
>> Because it involves airplanes. Real airplanes.
>
> And what is a "real" airplane? A jet fighter? A Cessna 152? A UAV?
> A remote-controlled model? A glider? A 747?
>
>> Because a cloth or wooden airplane is still an airplane and
>> still requires real skill to fly and, in most cases, a license.
>
> What is this obsession of private pilots with wind and motion and all
> the visceral aspects of primitive flight? Listening to them, you'd
> think there's nothing else to aviation.
>
>> Even an ultralight is real flying, where a computer simulator is not.
>
> You're entitled to your opinion.
>
>> Becase real flying involves real risk, that's why.
>
> Safe pilots minimize risk. A risky flight is a flight conducted by an
> incompetent pilot.
>
> Here again, it seems that some pilots aren't happy unless they are in
> danger. It's thrill-seeking behavior, which is a bad sign.
>
>> That management requires study,
>> discipline, training, and compliance. This is something totally,
>> completely, absolutely, utterly lacking in simulation.
>
> You can learn everything you need to know with the aid of a simulator.
> The only reason this isn't done now is that there are still
> regulatory obstacles to doing so. But that will change.
>
>> Death is not possible due to crashing a computer simulation.
>
> Fear of death is an extremely defective motivation for rigor and
> discipline in piloting. If you cannot do things right unless you're
> scared of dying, you aren't a good pilot. The challenge is to do
> things right even when you feel complacent and safe, because that's
> when bad things usually happen.
>
>> If it was, you wouldn't be making so much noise here.
>
> I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion.
>
>> If you want some idea of the risk, rig yourself a device that
>> electrocutes you dead if you crash your simulator. Then sit down and
>> fly it.
>
> I don't need the threat of bodily harm to compel me to do things
> correctly and well.
>
>> Wrong again. Those glass panels are not simulation any more
>> than the old gyro instruments were; they provide necessary
>> information for flight in IMC.
>
> I wasn't talking about the panels; I was talking about the flight
> controls. Modern airliners have no physical connections to the control
> surfaces, and the "feel" of the controls is 100% simulated.
>
>> Ask any other real pilot and see if the answer varies much.
>
> I have. The answer varies considerably.
Nope, they al think you are a fjukkwit.
>
>> Your insisting that simulation is the same as flying sounds like a
>> serious probelm with delusion.
>
> Simulation is not the same as flying a real airplane. But then again,
> flying airplane A is not the same as flying airplane B, either.
You're an idiot.
All airpanes work the same way.
>