Getting confused with ATC order...Violation?

[RubberWatch]

Hello-

I am a student pilot. I was out flying solo today and was instructed
by ATC to fly a heading of 210. I thought he said 110 and I flew on
that heading. He then told me it looks like your going the wrong
direction i need you to fly 210. I got a bit locked up and said 210.
I ended up on 210 but I really kinda got "mike fright".

Anyway, I just wanted to know if this would constitute a violation and
if I might receive something in the mail, etc? He later told me to
"resume own navigaion" and I did not know what that meant...I asked
him if I could do my airwork and he said resume on navigation meant I
can do anything I want.

He did not ask me to call a land line or anything like that, though
when I requested to change to my CTAF as I had the airport in site, he
said frequency change approved and squalk VFR when I am on the ground.

Any thoughts?
SD

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

RubberWatch wrote:
> Hello-
>
> I am a student pilot. I was out flying solo today and was instructed
> by ATC to fly a heading of 210. I thought he said 110 and I flew on
> that heading. He then told me it looks like your going the wrong
> direction i need you to fly 210. I got a bit locked up and said 210.
> I ended up on 210 but I really kinda got "mike fright".
>
> Anyway, I just wanted to know if this would constitute a violation and
> if I might receive something in the mail, etc? He later told me to
> "resume own navigaion" and I did not know what that meant...I asked
> him if I could do my airwork and he said resume on navigation meant I
> can do anything I want.
>
> He did not ask me to call a land line or anything like that, though
> when I requested to change to my CTAF as I had the airport in site, he
> said frequency change approved and squalk VFR when I am on the ground.
>
> Any thoughts?
> SD

Yes. If you are directed by ATC to do something and you screw it up,
don't panic or get mike fright. The world won't come to an end; trust me.
Two things might happen. You will either be told of the error by ATC and
asked to correct it as you were here, or you yourself will notice the
error. Either way, key the mike, acknowledge the mistake openly and in a
professional manner and follow as ATC from that point directs.

The main thing to remember when dealing with ATC is that their prime
concern is your safety and the safety of other traffic. Nither you OR
ATC are perfect and mistakes will happen. What's important is that any
and all mistakes are corrected. It's not a blame game. It's a safety
game, and the trick is to minimize the mistakes.
By acknowledging a mistake with ATC you are helping them help you.
Believe me, they are not out there to write you up or diminish you in
any way.
Shoot straight with ATC all the time.....EVERY TIME!

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dan[_10_]]

On Apr 3, 8:01 pm, RubberWatch > wrote:
> Hello-
>
> I am a student pilot. I was out flying solo today and was instructed
> by ATC to fly a heading of 210. I thought he said 110 and I flew on
> that heading. He then told me it looks like your going the wrong
> direction i need you to fly 210. I got a bit locked up and said 210.
> I ended up on 210 but I really kinda got "mike fright".

A couple of questions first...

Did you announce you were a student pilot?
Which ATC were you talking to? (A tower? Class B?)


Dan Mc

[[email protected]]

RubberWatch > wrote:
> Hello-

> I am a student pilot. I was out flying solo today and was instructed
> by ATC to fly a heading of 210. I thought he said 110 and I flew on
> that heading. He then told me it looks like your going the wrong
> direction i need you to fly 210. I got a bit locked up and said 210.
> I ended up on 210 but I really kinda got "mike fright".

**** happens.

You should read back instructions to avoid this, Cessna 12A, heading 110,
so unless ATC is asleep you either hear nothing back or you get corrected.

> Anyway, I just wanted to know if this would constitute a violation and
> if I might receive something in the mail, etc? He later told me to
> "resume own navigaion" and I did not know what that meant...I asked
> him if I could do my airwork and he said resume on navigation meant I
> can do anything I want.

Hardly a violation unless you flew into class B or some other airspace
you weren't cleared for.

The phrase "resume own navigation" means exactly that, go where you think
you should go, ATC is no longer giving you vectors.

> He did not ask me to call a land line or anything like that, though
> when I requested to change to my CTAF as I had the airport in site, he
> said frequency change approved and squalk VFR when I am on the ground.

Normally, when the airport is in sight, you say that to ATC. They then
terminate flight following and tell you when (usually immediately)
when to switch to 1200.

If you are a LONG way out and just want to check CTAF for what's going
on, say that explicitly, as in something like, Cessna 12A, change to
Unicom, desire to maintain flight following until closer.

Switch back to ATC and tell them you are back.

Hopefully you append "student pilot" to the end of your initial request
and on each switch to a new controller. They then talk slower and
are more patient with you.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 17:01:21 -0700 (PDT), RubberWatch
> wrote:

>Hello-
>
>I am a student pilot. I was out flying solo today and was instructed
>by ATC to fly a heading of 210.

What class of airspace were you in at the time?

>I thought he said 110 and I flew on that heading. He then told me it
>looks like your going the wrong direction i need you to fly 210.

At this stage in your training, you might want to consider informing
the controller on initial call-up, that you are a student. But it
sounds like no paint was swapped, and everything worked out.

>I got a bit locked up and said 210.
>I ended up on 210 but I really kinda got "mike fright".
>

The surest cure for radio communications uneasiness is a copy of Bob
Gardner's "Say Again, Please":
http://www.asa2fly.com/Communications-Trainer-Say-Again-Please-P264_product1.aspx

Once you know what to expect and what is expected, you'll be more
comfortable.

>Anyway, I just wanted to know if this would constitute a violation and
>if I might receive something in the mail, etc?

Only the controller knows for sure. :-)

The clock is ticking.

It won't hurt you become familiar with how to file an ASRS form:
http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/report/electronic.html


http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/overview/briefing/br_6.html
The Immunity Concept

(FAA Advisory Circular AC No. 00-46D)

c. The filing of a report with NASA concerning an incident or
occurrence involving a violation of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IV, or the
FAR, is considered by FAA to be indicative of a constructive
attitude. Such an attitude will tend to prevent future violations.
Accordingly, although a finding of a violation may be made,
neither a civil penalty nor certificate suspension will be imposed
if:

The violation was inadvertent and not deliberate;

The violation did not involve a criminal offense, or accident, or
action under 49U.S.C. Section 44709 which discloses a lack of
qualification or competency, which are wholly excluded from this
policy:

The person has not been found in any prior FAA enforcement action
to have committed a violation of 49 U.S. C. Subtitle VIII, or any
regulation promulgated there for a period of 5 years prior to the
date of the occurrence; and

The person proves that, within 10 days after the violation, he or
she completed and delivered or mailed a written report of the
incident or occurrence to NASA under ASRS. See paragraphs 5c and
7b. NOTE: Paragraph 9 does not apply to air traffic controllers.



>He later told me to
>"resume own navigaion" and I did not know what that meant...I asked
>him if I could do my airwork and he said resume on navigation meant I
>can do anything I want.
>

ATC phraseology is standardized. A competent airman uses standard
terms when communicating with ATC. You'll find it all here:
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/ATpubs/PCG/index.htm

That said, you did good asking the controller for clarification.
Never be afraid to query the controller about any possible
misunderstanding.

>He did not ask me to call a land line or anything like that, though
>when I requested to change to my CTAF as I had the airport in site, he
>said frequency change approved and squalk VFR when I am on the ground.
>
>Any thoughts?
>SD

Your instructor will be impressed when you tell him you filed a NASA
form and now know how to communicate with ATC in standard phraseology.

[rec.aviation.student added]

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi

In article >,
> wrote:

> Hopefully you append "student pilot" to the end of your initial request
> and on each switch to a new controller. They then talk slower and
> are more patient with you.

That's good advice. In the UK we now have an official 'Student' prefix. This
was introduced after a student died in a crash where some non-standard
phraseology was used which it was felt contributed to it (a shift change of
ATC staff occurred while he was flying, and the new controllers didn't know
he was a student on his first solo).

I've used it myself and do find that controllers here will make an effort to
speak more slowly and clearly in response.

Andy

[Mxsmanic]

RubberWatch writes:

> I am a student pilot. I was out flying solo today and was instructed
> by ATC to fly a heading of 210. I thought he said 110 and I flew on
> that heading.

Did you read back the heading? If you read back 110 and he said nothing,
you're okay, since he should have corrected you. If you read back 210 and
then flew 110, that's potentially a problem (although probably not in this
case, since you fixed it). If you didn't read back the heading, that also can
potentially be a problem because the burden is upon you to fly the correct
heading if you didn't read it back.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 03:51:30 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>If you read back 110 and he said nothing,
>you're okay, since he should have corrected you.

As I recall, several years ago the FAA changed their policy, and
removed the controller from culpability in the event the pilot's
read-back was incorrect.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> RubberWatch writes:
>
>> I am a student pilot. I was out flying solo today and was instructed
>> by ATC to fly a heading of 210. I thought he said 110 and I flew on
>> that heading.
>
> Did you read back the heading? If you read back 110 and he said nothing,
> you're okay, since he should have corrected you.

Bull****, he's okay anyway.

STFU, you're wrong as usual.

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "RW" == RubberWatch > writes:

RW> Hello- I am a student pilot. I was out flying solo today and
RW> was instructed by ATC to fly a heading of 210. I thought he
RW> said 110 and I flew on that heading. He then told me it looks
RW> like your going the wrong direction i need you to fly 210. I
RW> got a bit locked up and said 210. I ended up on 210 but I
RW> really kinda got "mike fright".

RW> Anyway, I just wanted to know if this would constitute a
RW> violation

No, don't worry about it.

RW> and if I might receive something in the mail, etc?
No.
RW> He later told me to "resume own navigaion" and I did not know
RW> what that meant...I asked him if I could do my airwork and he
RW> said resume on navigation meant I can do anything I want.

Have your instructor explain some of the common phrases used by ATC.
This is very common and is usually used when you are flying towards a
destination that you've told ATC about; they vector you a bit to avoid
traffic; then tell you "resume own navigation" which means return to
flying towards your destination.

RW> He did not ask me to call a land line or anything like that,
RW> though when I requested to change to my CTAF as I had the
RW> airport in site, he said frequency change approved and squalk
RW> VFR when I am on the ground.

I am pretty sure he said and meant "frequency change approved, squawk
VFR" when means change to whatever frequency you want (destination
airport CTAF, AWOS or ATIS) and change your squawk code from what you
were assigned to 1200. Don't wait 'till your on the ground to do this.
--
If you define cowardice as running away at the first sign of
danger, screaming and tripping and begging for mercy, then yes,
Mister Brave Man, I guess I am a coward.
- Jack Handey

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> RubberWatch writes:
>
>> I am a student pilot. I was out flying solo today and was instructed
>> by ATC to fly a heading of 210. I thought he said 110 and I flew on
>> that heading.
>
> Did you read back the heading? If you read back 110 and he said
> nothing, you're okay, since he should have corrected you. If you read
> back 210 and then flew 110, that's potentially a problem (although
> probably not in this case, since you fixed it). If you didn't read
> back the heading, that also can potentially be a problem because the
> burden is upon you to fly the correct heading if you didn't read it
> back.

If you had ever flown a real airplane Anthony, you would know what a
moron you are. Ooops, I forgot, you've never flown a real airplane. All
you do is set the autopilot in your simulator and stroke your joystick
while watching the monitor.

[RubberWatch]

On Apr 3, 5:33 pm, Dan > wrote:
> On Apr 3, 8:01 pm, RubberWatch > wrote:
>
> > Hello-
>
> > I am a student pilot. I was out flying solo today and was instructed
> > by ATC to fly a heading of 210. I thought he said 110 and I flew on
> > that heading. He then told me it looks like your going the wrong
> > direction i need you to fly 210. I got a bit locked up and said 210.
> > I ended up on 210 but I really kinda got "mike fright".
>
> A couple of questions first...
>
> Did you announce you were a student pilot?
> Which ATC were you talking to? (A tower? Class B?)
>
> Dan Mc

Hi-

First of all, thank you to everyone who has promptly replied to my
posting. Either everyone is helpful, on different time zones, or many
pilots are internet junkies like myself :)
To clarify...

I was in E class airspace. < believe in E airspace communication is
not required but recommended while VFR>


I was talking to a ARTCC (Approach) , not a tower...typically I depart
a non towered airport and fly to a practice area but stay on norcal
approach while in the area....another thing he mentioned to me was
that I had "multiple targets near marysville" which I take to mean
that I was flying to an area that had alot of air traffic?

I did announce to him that I was a student pilot about midway into the
communication. I was on a heading of 300 when I was told to "alter
course 90 degrees to the right temporarily." Looking back on it I was
confused by his instruction and I did alter towards a heading of 060
and then somehow I heard him say 210. That is when things got thrown
off for me.

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> As I recall, several years ago the FAA changed their policy, and
> removed the controller from culpability in the event the pilot's
> read-back was incorrect.

In that case, what's the advantage of a readback? If the pilot is expected to
hear and obey correctly, why wouldn't the controller be held to the same
standard?

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Bull****, he's okay anyway.

He's more okay with a readback. Readbacks are good.

[BT]

excellent.. more advice from a simulator operator..

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> RubberWatch writes:
>
>> I am a student pilot. I was out flying solo today and was instructed
>> by ATC to fly a heading of 210. I thought he said 110 and I flew on
>> that heading.
>
> Did you read back the heading? If you read back 110 and he said nothing,
> you're okay, since he should have corrected you. If you read back 210 and
> then flew 110, that's potentially a problem (although probably not in this
> case, since you fixed it). If you didn't read back the heading, that also
> can
> potentially be a problem because the burden is upon you to fly the correct
> heading if you didn't read it back.

[John Clear]

In article >,
> wrote:
>RubberWatch > wrote:
>
>> I am a student pilot. I was out flying solo today and was instructed
>> by ATC to fly a heading of 210. I thought he said 110 and I flew on
>> that heading. He then told me it looks like your going the wrong
>> direction i need you to fly 210. I got a bit locked up and said 210.
>> I ended up on 210 but I really kinda got "mike fright".
>
>**** happens.
>
>You should read back instructions to avoid this, Cessna 12A, heading 110,
>so unless ATC is asleep you either hear nothing back or you get corrected.

That helps but still doesn't prevent brain farts. I was flying by
SFO the other day, and got a vector of 010 to avoid some departures,
read it back as 010, and then had a brain fart and turned to 110.
ATC called me on it, but by that point I was clear of the departure
path, and they turned me back on course.

To the original poster, unless you get a phone number to call, ATC
correcting your heading is the end of it. **** happens.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

BT wrote:
> excellent.. more advice from a simulator operator..
>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...



He's still here?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 05:42:59 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Larry Dighera writes:
>
>> As I recall, several years ago the FAA changed their policy, and
>> removed the controller from culpability in the event the pilot's
>> read-back was incorrect.
>
>In that case, what's the advantage of a readback?

The controller is still expected to listen for, and correct any,
errors in the pilot's read-back, but all responsibility for compliance
with ATC instructions is apparently solely the responsibility of the
pilot.

>If the pilot is expected to
>hear and obey correctly, why wouldn't the controller be held to the same
>standard?

The Pilot In Command is solely responsible for operation of his
flight. The change was questioned at the time it was implemented.
There is little question in my mind that the FAA seeks to minimize
their liability exposure.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

RubberWatch wrote:
>
> Any thoughts?
> SD

Move on in a positive direction.

You know what you did wrong and can learn from it. The controller
probably had a clue you were a student. I know that my local app/dep
folks know most of the local school tail numbers.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 20:22:09 -0700 (PDT), RubberWatch
> wrote:

>
>I was in E class airspace.

Technically, ATC has no jurisdiction to "victor" VFR aircraft
operating within Class E airspace. Controllers often do attempt to do
that, but compliance is at the discretion of the Pilot In Command
(PIC).

>< [I] believe in E airspace communication is not required but
>recommended while VFR>

That is correct.

Ask your instructor about Cockpit Resource Management and/or do a web
search. It's always best for the PIC to employ all the tools at his
disposal, and a controller at a radar scope provides an additional
means of spotting and avoiding conflicting air traffic. In congested
urban areas, and indeed other areas, the prudent pilot will request
Radar Traffic Advisory Service (Flight Following) and burn a landing
light to enhance his conspicuity (FAA Operation Light On).

>I was talking to a ARTCC (Approach) , not a tower...

Generally Air Route Traffic Control Centers ('Center' in the
vernacular) control the en route phase of flights.

Approach/Departure Control controllers are generally operating from a
Terminal Radar Approach CONtrol facility or TRACON. They typically
coordinate flights climbing to or descending from their en route
altitudes.

>typically I depart a non towered airport and fly to a practice area
>but stay on norcal approach while in the area....another thing he
>mentioned to me was that I had "multiple targets near marysville"
>which I take to mean that I was flying to an area that had alot of
>air traffic?

So you were receiving Radar Traffic Advisory Service from an Approach
Control facility (NorCal TRACON located in Sacramento), and the
controller "suggested" that you change course to avoid potential
conflicting air traffic. The "targets" refer to the display of
individual aircraft depicted on the controller's radar screen, not
something for you to aim at. :-)

>
>I did announce to him that I was a student pilot about midway into the
>communication. I was on a heading of 300 when I was told to "alter
>course 90 degrees to the right temporarily."

You were "advised" to alter your course by the controller. As PIC,
you have sole authority (and responsibility) for your flight
operations within Class E (and G) airspace.

It seems many CFIs fail to instill the concept of "command" in their
students.

Here are dictionary definitions of the word 'command':
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/command

The concept of being in command is often new to a flight student. I
can't emphasize strongly enough, that the flight crew member acting as
Pilot In Command must assume command responsibility for his flight
operations, and not abandon his responsibility to others. Because of
this necessity to command, I believe becoming an airman should be a
life changing experience for those unaccustomed to commanding.

>Looking back on it I was
>confused by his instruction and I did alter towards a heading of 060
>and then somehow I heard him say 210. That is when things got thrown
>off for me.

Radio communications can be difficult in the noisy environment. If
you haven't yet, consider purchasing an Active Noise Reduction
headset; you'll never go back to a passive headset.

At this stage in your flight training, these sort of errors are
common. But now that you've experienced this one, you'll be vigilant
to see that it isn't repeated. And after you have earned your Airmans
Certificate, you'll continue to make other errors and learn from them,
hence the cliche "license to learn."



--
There's an old saying that every pilot starts with a full bag of
luck, and empty bag of experience - the trick being to fill the
bag of experience before you empty the bag of luck"
-- Colin Southern

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2008-04-03 19:11:38 -0700, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> said:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> RubberWatch writes:
>>
>>> I am a student pilot. I was out flying solo today and was instructed
>>> by ATC to fly a heading of 210. I thought he said 110 and I flew on
>>> that heading.
>>
>> Did you read back the heading? If you read back 110 and he said nothing,
>> you're okay, since he should have corrected you.
>
> Bull****, he's okay anyway.
>
> STFU, you're wrong as usual.

Anthony forgets that people don't die in simulators.

They do die in real airplanes, though, and the FAA has held that a
pilot who reads back an erroneous clearance is still required to fly
the one given him by ATC, even if ATC doesn't correct him. But even if
Anthony was correct from a legal standpoint, flying a misunderstood
heading can easily kill you. Then it doesn't matter who was right --
you are the one who is dead.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On Apr 3, 9:04 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> As I recall, several years ago the FAA changed their policy, and
> removed the controller from culpability in the event the pilot's
> read-back was incorrect.
>

There was no change in policy.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-04, Private > wrote:
>> Technically, ATC has no jurisdiction to "victor" VFR aircraft
> I hesitate to nitpick an otherwise excelent post, but for the benefit of the
> OP wish to note that the correct spelling should be "vector".
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vector

"Got the vector, Victor?"
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On Apr 4, 6:57 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:ATC does
have
>
> Technically, ATC has no jurisdiction to "victor" VFR aircraft
> operating within Class E airspace. Controllers often do attempt to do
> that, but compliance is at the discretion of the Pilot In Command
> (PIC).
>

The Class E airspace near Marysville would be within the outer area
associated with Beale AFB Class C airspace. Class C services are
provided to participating traffic and VFR aircraft can be vectored.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Private wrote:
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> news:2008040405554543658-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
>> On 2008-04-03 19:11:38 -0700, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> said:
>>
>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> RubberWatch writes:
>>>>
>>>>> I am a student pilot. I was out flying solo today and was instructed
>>>>> by ATC to fly a heading of 210. I thought he said 110 and I flew on
>>>>> that heading.
>>>> Did you read back the heading? If you read back 110 and he said
>>>> nothing,
>>>> you're okay, since he should have corrected you.
>>> Bull****, he's okay anyway.
>>>
>>> STFU, you're wrong as usual.
>> Anthony forgets that people don't die in simulators.
>>
>> They do die in real airplanes, though, and the FAA has held that a pilot
>> who reads back an erroneous clearance is still required to fly the one
>> given him by ATC, even if ATC doesn't correct him. But even if Anthony was
>> correct from a legal standpoint, flying a misunderstood heading can easily
>> kill you. Then it doesn't matter who was right --
>> you are the one who is dead.
>> --
>> Waddling Eagle
>> World Famous Flight Instructor
>
>
> Difference between ATC and pilot.
> When a pilot makes a mistake the pilot dies.
> When ATC makes a mistake the pilot dies.
>
> Happy landings,
>
>

.........and this is a VERY good reason for pilots NEVER get into a
"who's right and who's wrong with ATC mental attitude, but rather to do
everything in their power to keep communication with ATC simple,
accurate, and above all, HELPFUL to ATC in aiding them in protecting the
pilot's safety.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On Apr 4, 7:55 am, C J Campbell >
wrote:
>
> They do die in real airplanes, though, and the FAA has held that a
> pilot who reads back an erroneous clearance is still required to fly
> the one given him by ATC, even if ATC doesn't correct him.
>

The FAA hasn't held that at all.

[RubberWatch]

Again...thanks everyone for your helpful advice....i just keep
laughing at the snide snips and jokes about simulators and differences
between atc and pilots...:)

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 08:51:09 -0700 (PDT), "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>On Apr 4, 6:57 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:ATC does
>have
>>
>> Technically, ATC has no jurisdiction to "victor" VFR aircraft
>> operating within Class E airspace. Controllers often do attempt to do
>> that, but compliance is at the discretion of the Pilot In Command
>> (PIC).
>>
>
>The Class E airspace near Marysville would be within the outer area
>associated with Beale AFB Class C airspace.

It looks that way here: http://skyvector.com/perl/code?id=KMYV&scale=3

>Class C services are provided to participating traffic and VFR
>aircraft can be vectored.

So that's only true for ATC vectoring VFR flights operating in Class E
airspace generally within 30 miles of a Class C airport. I hadn't
consulted a chart when I made my statement.

To be more accurate, I should have said, "Technically, ATC has no
jurisdiction to "victor" VFR aircraft operating within Class E
airspace unless they are within a Class C outer area." Is that
consistent with your view of the regulations/orders?

Thanks for your input.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 08:38:52 -0700 (PDT), "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>On Apr 3, 9:04 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>> As I recall, several years ago the FAA changed their policy, and
>> removed the controller from culpability in the event the pilot's
>> read-back was incorrect.
>>
>
>There was no change in policy.

So it seems. The FAA issued an interpretive rule:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/interpretiverule.pdf
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 1999
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 91
Pilot Responsibility for Compliance With Air Traffic Control
Clearances and Instructions

SUMMARY: Pilots operating in areas in
which air traffic control is exercised are
required by regulation to comply with
the clearances and instructions of air
traffic controllers except in very narrow
circumstances. The FAA has
consistently construed and enforced this
requirement as ascribing to pilots a high
level of responsibility to monitor air
traffic control communications
attentively. Under normal
circumstances, the FAA has expected
pilots to understand and to comply with
clearly transmitted and reasonably
phrased clearances and instructions that
govern their operations. Nevertheless, a
series of recent National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) enforcement
decisions has raised a question
regarding the regulatory responsibility
of pilots to hear and to comply with air
traffic control clearances and
instructions. This interpretive rule
confirms the FAA’s historical
construction of its regulations that
require compliance with air traffic
control clearances and instructions.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 09:39:39 -0700, "Private" >
wrote:

>the correct spelling should be "vector".

Thank you.

[Private]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2008040405554543658-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> On 2008-04-03 19:11:38 -0700, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> said:
>
>>
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> RubberWatch writes:
>>>
>>>> I am a student pilot. I was out flying solo today and was instructed
>>>> by ATC to fly a heading of 210. I thought he said 110 and I flew on
>>>> that heading.
>>>
>>> Did you read back the heading? If you read back 110 and he said
>>> nothing,
>>> you're okay, since he should have corrected you.
>>
>> Bull****, he's okay anyway.
>>
>> STFU, you're wrong as usual.
>
> Anthony forgets that people don't die in simulators.
>
> They do die in real airplanes, though, and the FAA has held that a pilot
> who reads back an erroneous clearance is still required to fly the one
> given him by ATC, even if ATC doesn't correct him. But even if Anthony was
> correct from a legal standpoint, flying a misunderstood heading can easily
> kill you. Then it doesn't matter who was right --
> you are the one who is dead.
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor


Difference between ATC and pilot.
When a pilot makes a mistake the pilot dies.
When ATC makes a mistake the pilot dies.

Happy landings,

[Private]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 20:22:09 -0700 (PDT), RubberWatch
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>I was in E class airspace.
>
> Technically, ATC has no jurisdiction to "victor" VFR aircraft

I hesitate to nitpick an otherwise excelent post, but for the benefit of the
OP wish to note that the correct spelling should be "vector".
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vector

> operating within Class E airspace. Controllers often do attempt to do
> that, but compliance is at the discretion of the Pilot In Command
> (PIC).
>
>>< [I] believe in E airspace communication is not required but
>>recommended while VFR>
>
> That is correct.
>
> Ask your instructor about Cockpit Resource Management and/or do a web
> search. It's always best for the PIC to employ all the tools at his
> disposal, and a controller at a radar scope provides an additional
> means of spotting and avoiding conflicting air traffic. In congested
> urban areas, and indeed other areas, the prudent pilot will request
> Radar Traffic Advisory Service (Flight Following) and burn a landing
> light to enhance his conspicuity (FAA Operation Light On).
>
>>I was talking to a ARTCC (Approach) , not a tower...
>
> Generally Air Route Traffic Control Centers ('Center' in the
> vernacular) control the en route phase of flights.
>
> Approach/Departure Control controllers are generally operating from a
> Terminal Radar Approach CONtrol facility or TRACON. They typically
> coordinate flights climbing to or descending from their en route
> altitudes.
>
>>typically I depart a non towered airport and fly to a practice area
>>but stay on norcal approach while in the area....another thing he
>>mentioned to me was that I had "multiple targets near marysville"
>>which I take to mean that I was flying to an area that had alot of
>>air traffic?
>
> So you were receiving Radar Traffic Advisory Service from an Approach
> Control facility (NorCal TRACON located in Sacramento), and the
> controller "suggested" that you change course to avoid potential
> conflicting air traffic. The "targets" refer to the display of
> individual aircraft depicted on the controller's radar screen, not
> something for you to aim at. :-)
>
>>
>>I did announce to him that I was a student pilot about midway into the
>>communication. I was on a heading of 300 when I was told to "alter
>>course 90 degrees to the right temporarily."
>
> You were "advised" to alter your course by the controller. As PIC,
> you have sole authority (and responsibility) for your flight
> operations within Class E (and G) airspace.
>
> It seems many CFIs fail to instill the concept of "command" in their
> students.
>
> Here are dictionary definitions of the word 'command':
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/command
>
> The concept of being in command is often new to a flight student. I
> can't emphasize strongly enough, that the flight crew member acting as
> Pilot In Command must assume command responsibility for his flight
> operations, and not abandon his responsibility to others. Because of
> this necessity to command, I believe becoming an airman should be a
> life changing experience for those unaccustomed to commanding.
>
>>Looking back on it I was
>>confused by his instruction and I did alter towards a heading of 060
>>and then somehow I heard him say 210. That is when things got thrown
>>off for me.
>
> Radio communications can be difficult in the noisy environment. If
> you haven't yet, consider purchasing an Active Noise Reduction
> headset; you'll never go back to a passive headset.
>
> At this stage in your flight training, these sort of errors are
> common. But now that you've experienced this one, you'll be vigilant
> to see that it isn't repeated. And after you have earned your Airmans
> Certificate, you'll continue to make other errors and learn from them,
> hence the cliche "license to learn."
>
>
>
> --
> There's an old saying that every pilot starts with a full bag of
> luck, and empty bag of experience - the trick being to fill the
> bag of experience before you empty the bag of luck"
> -- Colin Southern
>
>
>

[Christopher Brian Colohan]

Clark > writes:
> It's pretty clear that most of the controllers are really doing their best
> to make the airspace safe while helping folks get where they want to be. An
> airport with lots of training activity might give you the best "earful" of
> comms. Saturdays are also a real opportunity. :-)

If you are looking for a bunch of traffic and ATC instructions, ask
your instructor if you can fly down to KPAO or one of the other
bay-area airports on a weekend afternoon (since it sounds like you are
not too far from there). That should give you lots of experience with
busy airspace...

Chris

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> The Pilot In Command is solely responsible for operation of his
> flight. The change was questioned at the time it was implemented.
> There is little question in my mind that the FAA seeks to minimize
> their liability exposure.

It sounds grossly unfair. I'm surprised that the agency can make this type of
unilateral change. What legal recourse do pilots have?

Actually, I have issues with any agency that can enact and enforce regulations
unilaterally with force of law (the IRS springs to mind, but such agencies are
legion). It seems improper that any such agency can extend or withhold
something like a license based solely on its own discretion, without some sort
of due process or oversight--or am I missing some sort of procedure of this
nature that applies in the case of the FAA?

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> So it seems. The FAA issued an interpretive rule:
>
> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/interpretiverule.pdf
> Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 1999
> DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
> Federal Aviation Administration
> 14 CFR Part 91
> Pilot Responsibility for Compliance With Air Traffic Control
> Clearances and Instructions
>
> SUMMARY: Pilots operating in areas in
> which air traffic control is exercised are
> required by regulation to comply with
> the clearances and instructions of air
> traffic controllers except in very narrow
> circumstances. The FAA has
> consistently construed and enforced this
> requirement as ascribing to pilots a high
> level of responsibility to monitor air
> traffic control communications
> attentively. Under normal
> circumstances, the FAA has expected
> pilots to understand and to comply with
> clearly transmitted and reasonably
> phrased clearances and instructions that
> govern their operations. Nevertheless, a
> series of recent National Transportation
> Safety Board (NTSB) enforcement
> decisions has raised a question
> regarding the regulatory responsibility
> of pilots to hear and to comply with air
> traffic control clearances and
> instructions. This interpretive rule
> confirms the FAA’s historical
> construction of its regulations that
> require compliance with air traffic
> control clearances and instructions.

That just reasserts the need for pilots to obey ATC (exclusive of emergencies,
which is not stated here but is in the regulations). However, it doesn't say
anything about readback. If the pilot reads back instructions, and the
readback is incorrect, and ATC says nothing, how is the pilot to possibly know
that he is doing the wrong thing? Simple noise on the radio could cause him
to hear something incorrectly, no matter how "attentive" he might be.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> You've never done a readback in your life, Dip****.

I've done endless readbacks on VATSIM, and they are just like the real thing.
I know more about ATC than many VFR private pilots know.

[Mxsmanic]

C J Campbell writes:

> They do die in real airplanes, though, and the FAA has held that a
> pilot who reads back an erroneous clearance is still required to fly
> the one given him by ATC, even if ATC doesn't correct him.

But that is a physical impossibility. If the pilot heard 110 instead of 210
because of static, and he reads back and flies 110, and ATC doesn't correct
him, how is the pilot to magically know what ATC really said and magically fly
that?

Where did the FAA hold this?

[Mxsmanic]

BT writes:

> excellent.. more advice from a simulator operator..

Which part do you disagree with?

Do you think VFR pilots should not read back instructions from ATC?

Do you think VFR pilots should fly what ATC wants instead of what they heard
in ATC's instructions? If so, how are they to know what ATC really wants if
they misheard the instructions and they don't read them back, or if they read
them back and ATC fails to correct them? How do you do that?

[Mike Gilmour[_2_]]

"Private" > wrote in message
...
>
> Difference between ATC and pilot.
> When a pilot makes a mistake the pilot dies.
> When ATC makes a mistake the pilot dies.
>
> Happy landings,
>
>

Excepting ATC Peter Nielsen who was murdered for his mistake...

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:14:23 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>If the pilot heard 110 instead of 210
>because of static, and he reads back and flies 110, and ATC doesn't correct
>him, how is the pilot to magically know what ATC really said and magically fly
>that?

Ask, "Say again."

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> You've never done a readback in your life, Dip****.
>
> I've done endless readbacks on VATSIM, and they are just like the real
> thing. I know more about ATC than many VFR private pilots know.
>

You don't know **** about real ATC, you simulator moron.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> BT writes:
>
>> excellent.. more advice from a simulator operator..
>
> Which part do you disagree with?
>
> Do you think VFR pilots should not read back instructions from ATC?
>
> Do you think VFR pilots should fly what ATC wants instead of what they
> heard in ATC's instructions? If so, how are they to know what ATC
> really wants if they misheard the instructions and they don't read
> them back, or if they read them back and ATC fails to correct them?
> How do you do that?
>

Wow, you really don't know **** about flying. What a moron you are.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On Apr 4, 11:15 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> To be more accurate, I should have said, "Technically, ATC has no
> jurisdiction to "victor" VFR aircraft operating within Class E
> airspace unless they are within a Class C outer area." Is that
> consistent with your view of the regulations/orders?
>

TRSAs too.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Larry Dighera writes:

> > The Pilot In Command is solely responsible for operation of his
> > flight. The change was questioned at the time it was implemented.
> > There is little question in my mind that the FAA seeks to minimize
> > their liability exposure.

> It sounds grossly unfair.

Real life is unfair.

Grow up and get over yourself.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 10:34:57 -0700 (PDT), "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>On Apr 4, 11:15 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>> To be more accurate, I should have said, "Technically, ATC has no
>> jurisdiction to "victor" VFR aircraft operating within Class E
>> airspace unless they are within a Class C outer area." Is that
>> consistent with your view of the regulations/orders?
>>
>
>TRSAs too.

Thanks.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Nomen Nescio writes:

> > You've never done a readback in your life, Dip****.

> I've done endless readbacks on VATSIM, and they are just like the real thing.

Other than you don't have airplanes, big birds, loose balloons and other
assorted objects appearing out of nowhere, the aircraft isn't bouncing
around in turbulance while you try to maintain attitude and altitude,
there are no other people in the aircraft trying to talk to you,
there is a pause button so you can take a leak anytime you need to,
and there are no real world consequences to any of your actions, it is
just like the real thing.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jim Logajan]

"Mike Gilmour" > wrote:
> "Private" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Difference between ATC and pilot.
>> When a pilot makes a mistake the pilot dies.
>> When ATC makes a mistake the pilot dies.
>>
>> Happy landings,
>>
>>
>
> Excepting ATC Peter Nielsen who was murdered for his mistake...

A very sad case, in which the controller's instructions appear to have been
but one link in a chain of events and mistakes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashkirian_Airlines_Flight_2937

It isn't clear that the controller issued mistaken instructions per se. He
obviously didn't anticipate that flight 611 would also descend in response
to its TCAS alerts.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Other than you don't have airplanes, big birds, loose balloons and other
> assorted objects appearing out of nowhere, the aircraft isn't bouncing
> around in turbulance while you try to maintain attitude and altitude,
> there are no other people in the aircraft trying to talk to you,
> there is a pause button so you can take a leak anytime you need to,
> and there are no real world consequences to any of your actions, it is
> just like the real thing.

Most of these things have no influence on ATC communication.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Other than you don't have airplanes, big birds, loose balloons and other
>> assorted objects appearing out of nowhere, the aircraft isn't bouncing
>> around in turbulance while you try to maintain attitude and altitude,
>> there are no other people in the aircraft trying to talk to you,
>> there is a pause button so you can take a leak anytime you need to,
>> and there are no real world consequences to any of your actions, it is
>> just like the real thing.
>
> Most of these things have no influence on ATC communication.
>

Ignoramus. You have absolutely no idea of what it is like to fly a real
airplane. All you do is play with MSFS while stroking yourself.

[Matt Whiting]

RubberWatch wrote:
> Hello-
>
> I am a student pilot. I was out flying solo today and was instructed
> by ATC to fly a heading of 210. I thought he said 110 and I flew on
> that heading. He then told me it looks like your going the wrong
> direction i need you to fly 210. I got a bit locked up and said 210.
> I ended up on 210 but I really kinda got "mike fright".
>
> Anyway, I just wanted to know if this would constitute a violation and
> if I might receive something in the mail, etc? He later told me to
> "resume own navigaion" and I did not know what that meant...I asked
> him if I could do my airwork and he said resume on navigation meant I
> can do anything I want.
>
> He did not ask me to call a land line or anything like that, though
> when I requested to change to my CTAF as I had the airport in site, he
> said frequency change approved and squalk VFR when I am on the ground.
>
> Any thoughts?

Yes, forget about it and keep on flying. Oh, talk with your instructor
and fine out what "resume own navigation" means! :-)

I suppose it is technically a violation, but if every pilot was written
up for every mistake of this magnitude and every controller fired for
such mistakes ... the skies would be empty.

It pretty much means what it says. It means you are no longer receiving
navigation assistance (vectors) from the controller so you can fly
whatever heading suits your fancy and change it as often as you choose.

Matt

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Other than you don't have airplanes, big birds, loose balloons and other
> > assorted objects appearing out of nowhere, the aircraft isn't bouncing
> > around in turbulance while you try to maintain attitude and altitude,
> > there are no other people in the aircraft trying to talk to you,
> > there is a pause button so you can take a leak anytime you need to,
> > and there are no real world consequences to any of your actions, it is
> > just like the real thing.

> Most of these things have no influence on ATC communication.

In the real world, all these things are called distractions.

Distractions in the real world lead to errors in the real world.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Other than you don't have airplanes, big birds, loose balloons and
other
>> assorted objects appearing out of nowhere, the aircraft isn't
bouncing
>> around in turbulance while you try to maintain attitude and altitude,
>> there are no other people in the aircraft trying to talk to you,
>> there is a pause button so you can take a leak anytime you need to,
>> and there are no real world consequences to any of your actions, it
is
>> just like the real thing.
>
> Most of these things have no influence on ATC communication.
>


Wrong again, fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-04-04, Private > wrote:
>>> Technically, ATC has no jurisdiction to "victor" VFR aircraft
>> I hesitate to nitpick an otherwise excelent post, but for the benefit of
>> the
>> OP wish to note that the correct spelling should be "vector".
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vector
>
> "Got the vector, Victor?"

"Roger Roger"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> C J Campbell writes:
>
>> They do die in real airplanes, though, and the FAA has held that a
>> pilot who reads back an erroneous clearance is still required to fly
>> the one given him by ATC, even if ATC doesn't correct him.
>
> But that is a physical impossibility. If the pilot heard 110 instead
> of 210 because of static, and he reads back and flies 110, and ATC
> doesn't correct him, how is the pilot to magically know what ATC
> really said and magically fly that?
>

That's because you'r enot a pilot, you're an idiot.


When advice is needed on how to make a good burger out of dumpster
scraps, we'll call you.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Apr 4, 7:39 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>
> When advice is needed on how to make a good burger out of dumpster
> scraps, we'll call you.
>
> Bertie

You gotta put some kind of warning into your posts --"Don't drink
juice while reading"

That's the second time in a week...

sheese...

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Mxsmanic wrote:

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>I've done endless readbacks on VATSIM, and they are just like the real thing.

How exactly would you know this? The fact that you think a readback keeps
you safe from the FAA would lead me to believe that you don't really know
much about it at all. Much as you protest, things in the real world are not
the same as they are in your fantasy land.

>I know more about ATC than many VFR private pilots know.

VFR pilots have actually communicated with ATC. You have never done so.
Excuse me if I'm not impressed with your self assesment.

John Galban

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2008-04-04 16:39:05 -0700, Bertie the Bunyip > said:

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> C J Campbell writes:
>>
>>> They do die in real airplanes, though, and the FAA has held that a
>>> pilot who reads back an erroneous clearance is still required to fly
>>> the one given him by ATC, even if ATC doesn't correct him.
>>
>> But that is a physical impossibility. If the pilot heard 110 instead
>> of 210 because of static, and he reads back and flies 110, and ATC
>> doesn't correct him, how is the pilot to magically know what ATC
>> really said and magically fly that?
>>
>
> That's because you'r enot a pilot, you're an idiot.
>
>
> When advice is needed on how to make a good burger out of dumpster
> scraps, we'll call you.
>
> Bertie

Too bad Anthony really isn't a pilot. His epitaph would be "Died of a
physical impossibility."

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2008-04-04 08:53:46 -0700, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> said:

> On Apr 4, 7:55 am, C J Campbell >
> wrote:
>>
>> They do die in real airplanes, though, and the FAA has held that a
>> pilot who reads back an erroneous clearance is still required to fly
>> the one given him by ATC, even if ATC doesn't correct him.
>>
>
> The FAA hasn't held that at all.

Sorry. You are right. It was the NTSB in the Merrell case, 1999.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Jim Logajan]

C J Campbell > wrote:
> On 2008-04-04 08:53:46 -0700, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > said:
>
>> On Apr 4, 7:55 am, C J Campbell >
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> They do die in real airplanes, though, and the FAA has held that a
>>> pilot who reads back an erroneous clearance is still required to fly
>>> the one given him by ATC, even if ATC doesn't correct him.
>>>
>>
>> The FAA hasn't held that at all.
>
> Sorry. You are right. It was the NTSB in the Merrell case, 1999.

Thanks for mentioning that case - I was curious and looked it up. Got
several hits, including this helpful one:

http://www.aviationlawcorp.com/content/dangerous.html

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> In the real world, all these things are called distractions.
>
> Distractions in the real world lead to errors in the real world.

As I've said, most of these things have no significant effect on
communications with ATC.

[Mxsmanic]

Mxsmanic plays with toys writes:

> How can you make that statement?

When it's true.

> When have you experienced the real thing?

It is the real thing. It's all just words. The words in simulation are
identical to the real thing. ATC communication is one of those things that
can easily (very easily) be simulated with 100% realism.

> How many private pilots do you know?

Probably half a dozen or so.

> How do you measure their ATC knowledge?

I can ask them questions and count their errors.

[Mxsmanic]

JGalban via AviationKB.com writes:

> How exactly would you know this?

Exactly by listening and studying the real thing, and comparing.

> The fact that you think a readback keeps you safe from the FAA
> would lead me to believe that you don't really know much about
> it at all.

As I've said, I know a lot more than many VFR pilots (who know even less about
what keeps them safe from the FAA than I do).

> Much as you protest, things in the real world are not the same
> as they are in your fantasy land.

As much as you'd like to believe otherwise, I know a lot more than you care to
admit.

> VFR pilots have actually communicated with ATC.

Some have. It's possible to fly VFR without ever talking to ATC.

> You have never done so.

I've done the equivalent.

> Excuse me if I'm not impressed with your self assesment.

No need to excuse yourself; your opinion is not important.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > In the real world, all these things are called distractions.
> >
> > Distractions in the real world lead to errors in the real world.

> As I've said, most of these things have no significant effect on
> communications with ATC.

Are you hoping a lie repeated often enough will become the truth?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> In the real world, all these things are called distractions.
>>
>> Distractions in the real world lead to errors in the real world.
>
> As I've said, most of these things have no significant effect on
> communications with ATC.
>

You're a moron. Try taking your dick out of your mouth before rapping it
on your keyboard.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic plays with toys writes:
>
>> How can you make that statement?
>
> When it's true.
>
>> When have you experienced the real thing?
>
> It is the real thing. It's all just words. The words in simulation
> are identical to the real thing. ATC communication is one of those
> things that can easily (very easily) be simulated with 100% realism.
>
>> How many private pilots do you know?
>
> Probably half a dozen or so.
>
>> How do you measure their ATC knowledge?
>
> I can ask them questions and count their errors.
>

Yeah, sure you would know their errors. Just like you knew that a Barron
has an ejector seat, you ****ing nitwit.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Mxsmanic plays with toys writes:

> > How can you make that statement?

> When it's true.

> > When have you experienced the real thing?

> It is the real thing. It's all just words. The words in simulation are
> identical to the real thing. ATC communication is one of those things that
> can easily (very easily) be simulated with 100% realism.

Most people understand the effects of external distractions which aren't
simulated in your game simulators.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> JGalban via AviationKB.com writes:
>
>> How exactly would you know this?
>
> Exactly by listening and studying the real thing, and comparing.
>
>> The fact that you think a readback keeps you safe from the FAA
>> would lead me to believe that you don't really know much about
>> it at all.
>
> As I've said, I know a lot more than many VFR pilots (who know even
> less about what keeps them safe from the FAA than I do).
>
>> Much as you protest, things in the real world are not the same
>> as they are in your fantasy land.
>
> As much as you'd like to believe otherwise, I know a lot more than you
> care to admit.
>
>> VFR pilots have actually communicated with ATC.
>
> Some have. It's possible to fly VFR without ever talking to ATC.
>
>> You have never done so.
>
> I've done the equivalent.
>
>> Excuse me if I'm not impressed with your self assesment.
>
> No need to excuse yourself; your opinion is not important.
>

You have NOT done the equivalent, you lying piece of ****. You play
games while stroking yourself. MSFS is NOT flying, you moron. VATSIM is
not ATC, you moron.

You don't know **** from shinola about flying or ATC communication.

Asshole.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On Apr 4, 9:25 pm, C J Campbell >
wrote:
>
> Sorry. You are right. It was the NTSB in the Merrell case, 1999.
>

The NTSB ruled in Merrel's favor, that ruling was overturned by the US
Court of Appeals. Here's the report that appeared on AvWeb:


"Merrell v. FAA: A Readback Is No Defense

U.S. Court of Appeals Rules Against Pilot In Altitude Bust...

A U.S. appeals court has agreed with the FAA that Capt. Richard L.
Merrell,
of Northwest Airlines, was to blame for an altitude bust, despite an
earlier
NTSB decision that exonerated him. The FAA prosecuted Merrell after he
mistakenly complied with a climb clearance intended for another
aircraft.
Merrell read back the clearance in question, but his readback was
"stepped
on" by the aircraft for which the clearance was actually intended, and
ATC
never heard it. Merrell requested a hearing before an NTSB
administrative
law judge, who upheld the FAA's position.

Merrell then appealed his case to the full NTSB, who ruled in his
favor and
dismissed the FAA order. Merrell's victory was short-lived, however.
The FAA
appealed the NTSB ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which in
September
upheld the FAA's violation against Merrell. No further appeals are
expected.
This appears to be the case that prompted the FAA to issue its
"interpretive
rule" on pilot readbacks earlier this year."

[Matt Whiting]

Benjamin Dover wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Mxsmanic plays with toys writes:
>>
>>> How can you make that statement?
>> When it's true.
>>
>>> When have you experienced the real thing?
>> It is the real thing. It's all just words. The words in simulation
>> are identical to the real thing. ATC communication is one of those
>> things that can easily (very easily) be simulated with 100% realism.
>>
>>> How many private pilots do you know?
>> Probably half a dozen or so.
>>
>>> How do you measure their ATC knowledge?
>> I can ask them questions and count their errors.
>>
>
> Yeah, sure you would know their errors. Just like you knew that a Barron
> has an ejector seat, you ****ing nitwit.
>

What's a Barron? :-)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> JGalban via AviationKB.com writes:
>
>> How exactly would you know this?
>
> Exactly by listening and studying the real thing, and comparing.
>
>> The fact that you think a readback keeps you safe from the FAA
>> would lead me to believe that you don't really know much about
>> it at all.
>
> As I've said, I know a lot more than many VFR pilots (who know even
> less about what keeps them safe from the FAA than I do).
>
>> Much as you protest, things in the real world are not the same
>> as they are in your fantasy land.
>
> As much as you'd like to believe otherwise, I know a lot more than you
> care to admit.
>

No, you don't


Bertie

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On Apr 5, 7:49 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
> What's a Barron? :-)
>

A city and county in northwest Wisconsin. While the city is the
county seat, it has no ejection capability.

[Bob F.[_2_]]

--
Regards, BobF.
"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> JGalban via AviationKB.com writes:
>>
>>> How exactly would you know this?
>>
>> Exactly by listening and studying the real thing, and comparing.
>>
>>> The fact that you think a readback keeps you safe from the FAA
>>> would lead me to believe that you don't really know much about
>>> it at all.
>>
>> As I've said, I know a lot more than many VFR pilots (who know even
>> less about what keeps them safe from the FAA than I do).
>>
>>> Much as you protest, things in the real world are not the same
>>> as they are in your fantasy land.

You obviously have not been listening to the presidential debates!

>>
>> As much as you'd like to believe otherwise, I know a lot more than you
>> care to admit.
>>
>
> No, you don't
>
>
> Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Are you hoping a lie repeated often enough will become the truth?

I didn't say anything about lies.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Most people understand the effects of external distractions which aren't
> simulated in your game simulators.

External distractions are not a significant factor in this context.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Are you hoping a lie repeated often enough will become the truth?

> I didn't say anything about lies.

Correct, you didn't say anything "about" lies.

You are lying or denying the truth, not much difference there.

The bottom line is you don't know **** from shinola about communicating
in situations that provide distractions and stress.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Most people understand the effects of external distractions which aren't
> > simulated in your game simulators.

> External distractions are not a significant factor in this context.

You don't know **** from shinola about anything to do with a situation
that has real distractions and real stress and the resultant effects.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Bob F." > wrote in news:C_-
:

>
>

Mmmkay.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Are you hoping a lie repeated often enough will become the truth?
>
> I didn't say anything about lies.
>

Liar


Bertie

[Benjamin Dover]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Benjamin Dover wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Mxsmanic plays with toys writes:
>>>
>>>> How can you make that statement?
>>> When it's true.
>>>
>>>> When have you experienced the real thing?
>>> It is the real thing. It's all just words. The words in simulation
>>> are identical to the real thing. ATC communication is one of those
>>> things that can easily (very easily) be simulated with 100% realism.
>>>
>>>> How many private pilots do you know?
>>> Probably half a dozen or so.
>>>
>>>> How do you measure their ATC knowledge?
>>> I can ask them questions and count their errors.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, sure you would know their errors. Just like you knew that a
>> Barron has an ejector seat, you ****ing nitwit.
>>
>
> What's a Barron? :-)

A Barron is a Baron modified for Anthony so he can look for the
ejector seat handle.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Are you hoping a lie repeated often enough will become the truth?
>
> I didn't say anything about lies.

Liar. Liar. Pants on fire.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Most people understand the effects of external distractions which aren't
>> simulated in your game simulators.
>
> External distractions are not a significant factor in this context.
>

Says the asshole who has never flown an airplane. In the words of the
immortal Bugs, "What a maroon!"

[Mxsmanic]

Mxsmanic plays with toys writes writes:

> VATSIM is not ATC.

It doesn't have to be. It works the same way.

> Maybe you can explain to me why a gymnist can consistantly
> perform a perfect routine on a painted line on the ground,
> but is unable to do so on a balance beam a few feet off the ground.

I don't know anything about gymnastics.

> It's the exact same thing.

I see no connection between gymnastics and ATC.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic plays with toys writes writes:
>
>> VATSIM is not ATC.
>
> It doesn't have to be. It works the same way.
>
>> Maybe you can explain to me why a gymnist can consistantly
>> perform a perfect routine on a painted line on the ground,
>> but is unable to do so on a balance beam a few feet off the ground.
>
> I don't know anything about gymnastics.
>
>> It's the exact same thing.
>
> I see no connection between gymnastics and ATC.
>

Anthony, if you weren't such a lying ignoramus who didn't know ****
from shinola, you would see the connection. No wonder your life has been
such a failure that you are reducted to begging to survive.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic plays with toys writes writes:
>
>> VATSIM is not ATC.
>
> It doesn't have to be. It works the same way.


No, it doesn't. One seperates airplanes, the other, jerkoffs.



Bertie

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
> > You've never done a readback in your life, Dip****.
>
> I've done endless readbacks on VATSIM, and they are just like the real thing.
> I know more about ATC than many VFR private pilots know.

You don't know jack - there is simply no way you can simulate the
nervousness a student pilot might experience during flight and
conversation with ATC - sitting in front of a fuken computer.

--
Duncan

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> You don't know jack - there is simply no way you can simulate the
> nervousness a student pilot might experience during flight and
> conversation with ATC - sitting in front of a fuken computer.

The simulation works very well, since it involves most of the same factors
that produce nervousness.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dave Doe writes:
>
>> You don't know jack - there is simply no way you can simulate the
>> nervousness a student pilot might experience during flight and
>> conversation with ATC - sitting in front of a fuken computer.
>
> The simulation works very well, since it involves most of the same
> factors that produce nervousness.
>

Only to an asshole like you who doesn't know **** from shinola.

Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.

[Bob F.[_2_]]

So why do you do it? That's a rhetorical question BTW. ;-)

--
Regards, BobF.
"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Mxsmanic >
>
>>The simulation works very well, since it involves most of the same factors
>>that produce nervousness.
>
> "MOST"?!?
>
> I go to the range, regularly, and SIMULATE being in a firefight.
> There are only 2 minor details missing.......I'm not putting bullets
> in REAL humans, and nobody is trying to KILL ME.
> But I'm sure that would have no effect, whatsoever, in my performance
> during a REAL shootout.
>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: N/A
>
> iQCVAwUBR/kqFZMoscYxZNI5AQF/sgP+PGw316LdEwIZL+cOJhUM7jHAIcNbGg2y
> F6GdUf+tQ8lOOX25R9H/1pR+IiWSDkW036HUbTjPaP4EEvNzFFqyj8USecTp4Gig
> cuSMVcY4IEE2kftDm4zOC3xuJ81Le8VsHZLQzFKjrMtTKXU621 RITqbAvERmWDii
> oDobxLE3Yac=
> =FWwJ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dave Doe writes:
>
>> You don't know jack - there is simply no way you can simulate the
>> nervousness a student pilot might experience during flight and
>> conversation with ATC - sitting in front of a fuken computer.
>
> The simulation works very well, since it involves most of the same
> factors that produce nervousness.
>

What a double espresso?



Bertie

[george]

On Apr 7, 3:27 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dave Doe writes:
> > You don't know jack - there is simply no way you can simulate the
> > nervousness a student pilot might experience during flight and
> > conversation with ATC - sitting in front of a fuken computer.
>
> The simulation works very well, since it involves most of the same factors
> that produce nervousness.

Riiiight.
Except we don't have a pause function...
****ing dweeb

[Bob F.[_2_]]

Don't worry, with a little sim training you could get better at those
robberies, carjackings and home invasions. ;-)

--
Regards, BobF.
"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: "Bob F." >
>
>>So why do you do it? That's a rhetorical question BTW. ;-)
>
> Between my wife and I over 35 years:
>
> 4 attempted robberies
> 1 attempted carjacking
>
> and, last month, an attempted home invasion at 3:00 am.
> All quickly ended without a shot being fired, but most were
> a fraction of a second away from the hammer dropping.
>
> That's a rhetorical answer BTW. :)
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: N/A
>
> iQCVAwUBR/lCzpMoscYxZNI5AQHGpwP+NmKkdwPO/DWC4u5IZd72Y+T3JSLpdUE/
> 5WF3/G2t/XBUutuBbDh48KOdgI9moc2jQuPKfH5jDh4NICm/+t3laK9ayC0PjSUl
> xQZufaE6XyseYX2wvk0JLO47UF463Z+dWFoF69SNO9vJ1/l1kiJvA5v9uPOwYTxQ
> bonVIcF/CuU=
> =mJi0
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
> > You don't know jack - there is simply no way you can simulate the
> > nervousness a student pilot might experience during flight and
> > conversation with ATC - sitting in front of a fuken computer.
>
> The simulation works very well, since it involves most of the same factors
> that produce nervousness.

No, you *know* you're flying a simulation, and the brain *knows* that,
and you *know* you can't get into *real* trouble.

So it's nothing like the real thing at all.


Additionally, like most sim folk, you've probably done things very
differently from the real world (eg. you've mentioned you've flown
heavies). Well in real life, you start off doing a PPL. You don't
progress until you've done that. You are still a few thousand hours
away from flying a heavy. You have not done that in on your sim. As a
result, your flying on the sim is NOTHING LIKE reality.

for eg, picture this: you've done 6 or 7 hours on your PPL.
"Yesterday" you did your first solo. "Today" you are on your own
(taxying out and everything) and doing your second solo session, flying
in a grass circuit in a busy aerodrome that has a parallel RWY that
heavies and other traffic are using. A perpendicular RWY also exists.
Lets say you have:
36 and 18 and you're on 36 *grass* (simultaneous ops are approved on the
parallel RWY's). And there is 09 and 27 (but there is no 09/27 grass).

There are a couple other students (presumably) in the grass circuit with
you; you are happy that you are spacing yourself well and happy with
your touch-n-goes.

Your hour's up and you advise full-stop on your downwind call. ATC
clear you "left base, number 2, 36, report sighting 73 on short final".
You read back and report traffic in sight. You fly a longer downwind
for the sealed RWY and turn base. You hear the 73 cleared to land. You
hear a call to other traffic, you're mentioned, and they are number 3
(it's another 73). Then ATC call you are ask you to keep your speed up.
Getting nervous? You see on your base leg the #1 73's about to taxy off
the RWY, and looking to your right, you see the other 73's powerful
landing lights in the distance. Your begin your turn to final, you were
70kts on base, but being told to "hurry it up" you've pushed the nose
forward and not taken more flaps. You turn to final early as you're now
fast, at 450 AGL (you feel OK about that), your AS is now nearly 90kts.
You hear ATC advising the 73 they're now #2 (to you). You're now
levelling a bit, power off, grabbing flaps, and configuring for your
approach and flare. (Did you remember carb heat? - oh well). You're
150 AGL, speed's good, full flap. What's your next move?

Given your answer, I'll have some more questions for you.

--
Duncan

[Mxsmanic]

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 21:00:01 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio wrote:

> Between my wife and I over 35 years:
>
> 4 attempted robberies
> 1 attempted carjacking
>
> and, last month, an attempted home invasion at 3:00 am.
> All quickly ended without a shot being fired, but most were
> a fraction of a second away from the hammer dropping.
>
> That's a rhetorical answer BTW. :)

You're a bigger blowhard braggart than McCormack on his windiest days.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> "MOST"?!?

Yes, most.

[Jim Logajan]

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 03:27:06 +0200 (CEST), Mxsmanic plays with toys
writes wrote:

> Path: news.motzarella.org!motzarella.org!club-internet.fr!feedme-small.clubint.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!news.wiretrip.org!news.dizum.com!sewe r-output!mail2news
> From: Mxsmanic plays with toys writes >
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
> Subject: Re: Getting confused with ATC order...Violation?
> References: > > > > >
> Message-Id: >
> Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 03:27:06 +0200 (CEST)
> Mail-To-News-Contact:
> Organization:
> Xref: news.motzarella.org rec.aviation.piloting:30542825
>
>>When it's true.
>
> But it is false.
>
>> When have you experienced the real thing?
>
>>It is the real thing.
>
> VATSIM is not ATC.
>
> Maybe you can explain to me why a gymnist can consistantly perform a perfect routine on a painted line on the ground, but is unable to do so on a balance beam a few feet off the ground.
>
> It's the exact same thing.

This is one of those fake posts I was speaking of.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> No, you *know* you're flying a simulation, and the brain *knows* that,
> and you *know* you can't get into *real* trouble.

Actually, intelligent people are able to get past this. Anyone who is
completely unable to forget that he is engaging in a simulation will have a
hard time getting any utility out of simulation at all. Fortunately, like
Method actors, smart simulator users do not constantly tell themselves that
it's a simulation but instead try to pretend that it's real. When they do
this successfully the usefulness of the simulation is hugely enhanced.

One sees this problem in other domains where cognitive deficits exist. A
smart user of a video game will mentally set aside the unrealistic aspects of
the game and embrace the realistic ones, allowing for a fuller virtual
experience. A stupid user sees only what is actually there, and cannot
mentally bridge any gaps or overlook any anomalies, and so no matter how much
he plays the game, he never gets much out of it.

> Additionally, like most sim folk, you've probably done things very
> differently from the real world (eg. you've mentioned you've flown
> heavies). Well in real life, you start off doing a PPL. You don't
> progress until you've done that.

That is irrelevant for purposes of ATC. However, as it happens, I flew small
aircraft in the sim first.

> for eg, picture this: you've done 6 or 7 hours on your PPL.
> "Yesterday" you did your first solo. "Today" you are on your own
> (taxying out and everything) and doing your second solo session, flying
> in a grass circuit in a busy aerodrome that has a parallel RWY that
> heavies and other traffic are using.

I wouldn't normally fly at a busy aerodrome with seven hours of experience,
especially solo. I also don't like grass runways. You don't say what type of
aircraft you have in mind, but it sounds like some sort of pokey little tin
can that I wouldn't want to fly, not even for training.

> There are a couple other students (presumably) in the grass circuit with
> you; you are happy that you are spacing yourself well and happy with
> your touch-n-goes.

I wouldn't want to be in the grass circuit. I want pavement. I don't want to
fly with the po'folk.

> Your hour's up and you advise full-stop on your downwind call. ATC
> clear you "left base, number 2, 36, report sighting 73 on short final".
> You read back and report traffic in sight. You fly a longer downwind
> for the sealed RWY and turn base. You hear the 73 cleared to land. You
> hear a call to other traffic, you're mentioned, and they are number 3
> (it's another 73). Then ATC call you are ask you to keep your speed up.

I ask ATC for a precise speed restriction, and accept or refuse based on what
I consider that I can safely maintain. "Keep your speed up" is vague and means
nothing to me.

> Getting nervous? You see on your base leg the #1 73's about to taxy off
> the RWY, and looking to your right, you see the other 73's powerful
> landing lights in the distance. Your begin your turn to final, you were
> 70kts on base, but being told to "hurry it up" you've pushed the nose
> forward and not taken more flaps.

I fly only a Baron and a Bonanza, and neither will be at 70 knots on base. I
won't be in a position where I have to "hurry it up" because I won't accept
speed restrictions that might make the flight unsafe.

> You turn to final early as you're now
> fast, at 450 AGL (you feel OK about that), your AS is now nearly 90kts.
> You hear ATC advising the 73 they're now #2 (to you). You're now
> levelling a bit, power off, grabbing flaps, and configuring for your
> approach and flare. (Did you remember carb heat? - oh well). You're
> 150 AGL, speed's good, full flap. What's your next move?

Ninety knots is fine. I had full flaps long ago, so I'm not grabbing them
now. I have fuel injection. I descend to the runway, flare, and touch down,
and I turn at the next available taxiway after decelerating.

You're imposing a long list of conditions that you've chosen unilaterally. I
don't accept those conditions, as I've explained above. One of the advantages
of simulation is that it's not constrained by money issues, which means that I
don't have to fly tin cans over grass runways at barely above walking speed.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 03:14:28 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>One of the advantages
>of simulation is that it's not constrained by money issues, which means that I
>don't have to fly tin cans over grass runways at barely above walking speed.


Without intending to join the chorus, I respectfully submit, that you
have no concept of the joyous experience you are missing. Trust me.
:)

A new student pilot flying solo is at last free to wander in the third
dimension unconstrained as the vast majority of Earth bound souls are.
He soars from the surface of the Earth, and effortlessly guides his
light aircraft higher with such nimble agility, that the machine
mentally melds into his nervous system in a rapture of pure Zen
integration of spirit, mind and machine. He was born with wings, and
is as skillful and free as Bach's Jonathan. The pilot's visceral
reaction to the sights, sounds, smells, and kinesthetic cacophony's
endless bombardment of sensory input result in a unique ambiance that
is aviation. The pilot's post-flight consciousness is clear and
refreshed as though just squeegeed, and the world is a bright,
cheerful home indeed. Although he walks the same flat plane at the
juncture of atmosphere and terra as his fellows, he carries the
knowledge and experiences of the joy of flight, and the power to soar
at will.

Get out to the closest uncontrolled field (I visited one north of
Othus in 2000*) at which is based an Air France Aero Club. Beg a ride
with one of the members on a fair Saturday morning. You'll thank me.




* The folks I met were a hail-fellow-well-met most polite, warm, and
almost avuncular group that more than tolerated this foreign pilot who
knew no French.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
> > No, you *know* you're flying a simulation, and the brain *knows* that,
> > and you *know* you can't get into *real* trouble.
>
> Actually, intelligent people are able to get past this. Anyone who is
> completely unable to forget that he is engaging in a simulation will have a
> hard time getting any utility out of simulation at all. Fortunately, like
> Method actors, smart simulator users do not constantly tell themselves that
> it's a simulation but instead try to pretend that it's real.

Pretend, being the operative word. Only kids have plausable dualistic
minds. Perhaps that's you. The rest of us have grown up.


> When they do
> this successfully the usefulness of the simulation is hugely enhanced.

Enhanced, being the operative word there.

It's not reality, and you *cannot* escape that. To do so - and you
should be put in a mental asylum - no longer being able to distinguish
between reality and fantasy is considered by good psychologists to
dangerous.

<dribble snipped>
>
> > Additionally, like most sim folk, you've probably done things very
> > differently from the real world (eg. you've mentioned you've flown
> > heavies). Well in real life, you start off doing a PPL. You don't
> > progress until you've done that.
>
> That is irrelevant for purposes of ATC. However, as it happens, I flew small
> aircraft in the sim first.

It most certainly is not!

<rest of your dribbling excuse snipped>

You fly a sim and yet are unable to "put yourself in the seat" - that's
counter to your argument in the first place. (It's a sim, and you're
telling me you can't simulate it - pathetic really).

--
Duncan

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 03:14:28 +0200, Mxsmanic >
> wrote:

> >One of the advantages
> >of simulation is that it's not constrained by money issues, which means that I
> >don't have to fly tin cans over grass runways at barely above walking speed.


> Without intending to join the chorus, I respectfully submit, that you
> have no concept of the joyous experience you are missing. Trust me.
> :)

Sucker.

It isn't the real MX.

While the imitation of his style isn't bad, I would give it a B-, mostly
for effort.

For a fun game, how many words, phrases, and statements can you find the
real MX would never use or say.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jay Maynard]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 03:14:28 +0200, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>One of the advantages of simulation is that it's not constrained by money
>issues, which means that I don't have to fly tin cans over grass runways at
>barely above walking speed.

While the idiot's in my kill file, I have to respond to this (which Larry
quoted)...

I'm about to drop a heart-stopping amount of money on my very own brand new
tin can which will fly over grass, or hard surfaced, runways at considerably
over walking speed. There's a simple reason that I'm doing it, and it's one
that you'll never understand until you've been up in a small airplane for
yourself. If you don't understand, there's no amount of explanation that
will help.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Jim Logajan]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 03:14:28 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
Fake Mx Post.

[george]

On Apr 7, 4:11 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 03:14:28 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> Fake Mx Post.

An mx sim huh

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dave Doe writes:
>
>> No, you *know* you're flying a simulation, and the brain *knows*
>> that, and you *know* you can't get into *real* trouble.
>
> Actually, intelligent people are able to get past this. Anyone who is
> completely unable to forget that he is engaging in a simulation will
> have a hard time getting any utility out of simulation at all.
> Fortunately, like Method actors, smart simulator users do not
> constantly tell themselves that it's a simulation but instead try to
> pretend that it's real. When they do this successfully the usefulness
> of the simulation is hugely enhanced.
>
> One sees this problem in other domains where cognitive deficits exist.
> A smart user of a video game will mentally set aside the unrealistic
> aspects of the game and embrace the realistic ones, allowing for a
> fuller virtual experience. A stupid user sees only what is actually
> there, and cannot mentally bridge any gaps or overlook any anomalies,
> and so no matter how much he plays the game, he never gets much out of
> it.
>
>> Additionally, like most sim folk, you've probably done things very
>> differently from the real world (eg. you've mentioned you've flown
>> heavies). Well in real life, you start off doing a PPL. You don't
>> progress until you've done that.
>
> That is irrelevant for purposes of ATC. However, as it happens, I
> flew small aircraft in the sim first.
>
>> for eg, picture this: you've done 6 or 7 hours on your PPL.
>> "Yesterday" you did your first solo. "Today" you are on your own
>> (taxying out and everything) and doing your second solo session,
>> flying in a grass circuit in a busy aerodrome that has a parallel RWY
>> that heavies and other traffic are using.
>
> I wouldn't normally fly at a busy aerodrome with seven hours of
> experience, especially solo. I also don't like grass runways. You
> don't say what type of aircraft you have in mind, but it sounds like
> some sort of pokey little tin can that I wouldn't want to fly, not
> even for training.
>
>> There are a couple other students (presumably) in the grass circuit
>> with you; you are happy that you are spacing yourself well and happy
>> with your touch-n-goes.
>
> I wouldn't want to be in the grass circuit. I want pavement. I don't
> want to fly with the po'folk.
>
>> Your hour's up and you advise full-stop on your downwind call. ATC
>> clear you "left base, number 2, 36, report sighting 73 on short
>> final". You read back and report traffic in sight. You fly a longer
>> downwind for the sealed RWY and turn base. You hear the 73 cleared
>> to land. You hear a call to other traffic, you're mentioned, and
>> they are number 3 (it's another 73). Then ATC call you are ask you
>> to keep your speed up.
>
> I ask ATC for a precise speed restriction, and accept or refuse based
> on what I consider that I can safely maintain. "Keep your speed up" is
> vague and means nothing to me.
>
>> Getting nervous? You see on your base leg the #1 73's about to taxy
>> off the RWY, and looking to your right, you see the other 73's
>> powerful landing lights in the distance. Your begin your turn to
>> final, you were 70kts on base, but being told to "hurry it up" you've
>> pushed the nose forward and not taken more flaps.
>
> I fly only a Baron and a Bonanza, and neither will be at 70 knots on
> base. I won't be in a position where I have to "hurry it up" because
> I won't accept speed restrictions that might make the flight unsafe.
>
>> You turn to final early as you're now
>> fast, at 450 AGL (you feel OK about that), your AS is now nearly
>> 90kts. You hear ATC advising the 73 they're now #2 (to you). You're
>> now levelling a bit, power off, grabbing flaps, and configuring for
>> your approach and flare. (Did you remember carb heat? - oh well).
>> You're 150 AGL, speed's good, full flap. What's your next move?
>
> Ninety knots is fine. I had full flaps long ago, so I'm not grabbing
> them now. I have fuel injection. I descend to the runway, flare, and
> touch down, and I turn at the next available taxiway after
> decelerating.
>
> You're imposing a long list of conditions that you've chosen
> unilaterally. I don't accept those conditions, as I've explained
> above. One of the advantages of simulation is that it's not
> constrained by money issues, which means that I don't have to fly tin
> cans over grass runways at barely above walking speed.


You don't fly, period, fjukktard.



Bertie
>

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:


>
> Actually, intelligent people are able to get past this.

Gee, Anthony. Now you've broadcast to the whole world why you will
never fly or, in fact, never make an intelligent post to a usenet
newsgroup. You just aren't an intelligent person!

[[email protected]]

On Apr 6, 9:14 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I fly only a Baron and a Bonanza, and neither will be at 70 knots on base. I
> won't be in a position where I have to "hurry it up" because I won't accept
> speed restrictions that might make the flight unsafe.

You really, really don't know what you're talking about.

You fly neither.



Dan McCormack

[[email protected]]

On Apr 6, 11:35 pm, wrote:

> It isn't the real MX.
>
> While the imitation of his style isn't bad, I would give it a B-, mostly
> for effort.
>
> For a fun game, how many words, phrases, and statements can you find the
> real MX would never use or say.

There are some consistencies, so he must be a long time fan of MX.

My vote is that this is WJRFlyBoy.

He claimed to be leaving to go work on his PPL in one post, his ME in
another.

I think he simply HAS to post, and so will spoof other IDs just to be
able to say something, however worthless and spurious.

He's a monstrosity.


Dan McCormack

[PPL-A (Canada)]

On Apr 3, 8:01 pm, RubberWatch > wrote:
> Hello-
>
> I am a student pilot. I was out flying solo today and was instructed
> by ATC to fly a heading of 210. I thought he said 110 and I flew on
> that heading. He then told me it looks like your going the wrong
> direction i need you to fly 210. I got a bit locked up and said 210.
> I ended up on 210 but I really kinda got "mike fright".
>
> Anyway, I just wanted to know if this would constitute a violation and
> if I might receive something in the mail, etc? He later told me to
> "resume own navigaion" and I did not know what that meant...I asked
> him if I could do my airwork and he said resume on navigation meant I
> can do anything I want.
>
> He did not ask me to call a land line or anything like that, though
> when I requested to change to my CTAF as I had the airport in site, he
> said frequency change approved and squalk VFR when I am on the ground.
>
> Any thoughts?
> SD

After reading many of the posts below I see some very good advice.

I trained in Canada from a busy towered city airport and I found the
location helped with my ability to assess what was going on (and what
was directed at me and exactly what ATC wanted of me in particular),
and added to my radio IQ and confidence. It sounds like your
instructor has dropped the ball a bit. If you are flying to your
practice area solo you should have made this flight several times by
this point in your training, and you should have been doing all of the
radio work from the third trip to your practice area (with your
instructor helping you less and less from the second trip out to the
practice area). It seems that your radio and ATC knowledge needs some
work, and that perhaps your instructor has not delegated this
responsibility to you early and completely enough, and with enough
accuracy and confidence. Discuss this with your instructor. It is
dangerous for a student to be flying miles away from the home
aerodrome without good radio knowledge and confidence w.r.t. ATC. If
you are flying solo to your practice area then you should have by now
flown solo at your own aerodrome several times doing circuits, and
have passed some sort of written test about radio work I would
think. This is a requirement in Canada.

It does remind me of an incident in my training when the ex-military
ATC tower controller (we called him "Sarge"; he knew this and answered
to this name; he spoke quickly and had a sense of humour which could
confuse some students, but was patient with students and would spell
out complex instructions if you asked ... great guy), told me to
"maintain spacing from Dash-8 on straight-in final; report traffic in
sight and fly a right 270 to enter base and await further
instructions" ... this confused me and I asked "say again for
FFXX" ... he just repeated the same instructions. This started to
flumux me as I kept flying along on downwind toward the point where I
would usually turn base. I repeated myself getting nervous now
"...say again instructions for FFXX". I probably should have admitted
I didnt get it and say " XX Tower, please clarify instructions for
FFXX" but he figured it out for himself and explained "... FFXX; to
avoid extending your downwind past the noise sensitive area at your 10
o'clock just immediately turn your aircraft 270 degree to the right
which will put you on your base leg; report landing Dash-8 traffic and
Hercules now on long straight-in final in sight and report when
established on base." WOW! but at least I understood what he
wanted. Normally we would extend downwind 2 miles to allow spacing
for large landing aircraft (and avoid a small noise sensitive area
close to the airport), but this 3/4 of a circle turn kept me close to
the airport and would expedite my landing between the Dash-8 and the
Hercules (which he obviously knew about when he first made the call,
but I did not) rather than having to fly a 4 mile downwind extension
(!!!) and come in behind the Hercules. Point is ... ATC can confuse
at times ... ask for clarification if you are unsure of an
instruction.

Discuss what's going on with your instructor, especially your concerns
about your incident in detail. Never be afraid to use the words "say
again" and "please clarify instructions for ...", alert ATC to your
student status; get in the habit of reading back instructions and
clearances to ATC so any inconsistencies can be corrected before you
take (what might be the wrong) action, and make sure you debrief with
your instructor after every solo flight, especially if anything was
confusing during the flight or made you feel at all nervous.

Good luck.

[PPL-A (Canada)]

On Apr 6, 11:37 am, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > Dave Doe writes:
>
> >> You don't know jack - there is simply no way you can simulate the
> >> nervousness a student pilot might experience during flight and
> >> conversation with ATC - sitting in front of a fuken computer.
>
> > The simulation works very well, since it involves most of the same
> > factors that produce nervousness.
>
> Only to an asshole like you who doesn't know **** from shinola.
>
> Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
> Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
> Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
> Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
> Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
> Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
> Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
> Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
> Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
> Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
> Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
> Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
> Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
> Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
> Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
> Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
> Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
> Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
> Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
> Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
> Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
> Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
> Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
> Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
> Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
> Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
> Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
> Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
> Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
> Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
> Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.
> Anthony, you are one dumb piece of ****.

Is that you Jack Nicholson? How's the book coming along up at that
hotel in the mountains?

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 03:35:03 GMT, wrote:

>
>Sucker.
>
>It isn't the real MX.

Thank you so much for pointing out what is most important to you. :-)

[Jim Logajan]

george > wrote:
> On Apr 7, 4:11 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 03:14:28 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>> Fake Mx Post.
>
> An mx sim huh

Check the Path headers - the forged post appearing to come from me came
from albasani.net. My posts originate from Supernews.

Note that the forger has just enough knowledge of Usenet to not use Google
Groups, which includes an NNTP-Posting-Host header.

[JB]

On Apr 4, 6:41*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Other than you don't have airplanes, big birds, loose balloons and other
> > assorted objects appearing out of nowhere, the aircraft isn't bouncing
> > around in turbulance while you try to maintain attitude and altitude,
> > there are no other people in the aircraft trying to talk to you,
> > there is a pause button so you can take a leak anytime you need to,
> > and there are no real world consequences to any of your actions, it is
> > just like the real thing.
>
> Most of these things have no influence on ATC communication.

You are absolutely wrong on this. In some cases, dead wrong.
External distractions (real life turbulence, watching the restricted
airspace around you, overlapping ATC comms, other planes buzzing all
around etc etc etc) can turn a decent student pilot into a panicked
ball of jelly wondering how he will clean up his pants if/when he
lands safely. When ATC talks, you can get so flustered that you don't
know what they said. Been there, done that. That will never, ever,
ever happen to you sitting at the monitor killing time before Sesame
Street comes on.

[Mxsmanic]

JB writes:

> You are absolutely wrong on this. In some cases, dead wrong.
> External distractions (real life turbulence, watching the restricted
> airspace around you, overlapping ATC comms, other planes buzzing all
> around etc etc etc) can turn a decent student pilot into a panicked
> ball of jelly wondering how he will clean up his pants if/when he
> lands safely.

Following your logic, any distraction can do this, which means that no amount
of simulation OR real-life experience can be of any use, since there will
always be unexperienced distractions waiting to cause trouble.

But if all distractions are not qualitatively unique, then a single
distraction of any kind will suffice to simulate all others, in which case
both simulation and real-world experience will suffice as well, without
running the entire (infinite) gamut of possible distractions.

> When ATC talks, you can get so flustered that you don't
> know what they said. Been there, done that. That will never, ever,
> ever happen to you sitting at the monitor killing time before Sesame
> Street comes on.

It happens in simulation all the time, just like real life.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> "Most" ain't good enough.

Sure it is. If it were not, then real life wouldn't be good enough either,
since real life never exhausts all the possibilities.

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> Without intending to join the chorus, I respectfully submit, that you
> have no concept of the joyous experience you are missing. Trust me.
> :)

I think it depends on what you want to get out of aviation. Clearly, many
private pilots get enjoyment out of bouncing around in a tiny airplane. They
probably enjoy roller-coasters, too (whereas I do not).

> A new student pilot flying solo is at last free to wander in the third
> dimension unconstrained as the vast majority of Earth bound souls are.
> He soars from the surface of the Earth, and effortlessly guides his
> light aircraft higher with such nimble agility, that the machine
> mentally melds into his nervous system in a rapture of pure Zen
> integration of spirit, mind and machine. He was born with wings, and
> is as skillful and free as Bach's Jonathan. The pilot's visceral
> reaction to the sights, sounds, smells, and kinesthetic cacophony's
> endless bombardment of sensory input result in a unique ambiance that
> is aviation. The pilot's post-flight consciousness is clear and
> refreshed as though just squeegeed, and the world is a bright,
> cheerful home indeed. Although he walks the same flat plane at the
> juncture of atmosphere and terra as his fellows, he carries the
> knowledge and experiences of the joy of flight, and the power to soar
> at will.

Not quite as poetic as _High Flight_ or as direct as _One Six Right_, but a
respectable effort.

> Get out to the closest uncontrolled field (I visited one north of
> Othus in 2000*) at which is based an Air France Aero Club. Beg a ride
> with one of the members on a fair Saturday morning. You'll thank me.

And if I discover that I don't like it?

People fly that way in France because the environment is so restrictive that
they have no other options. All they can do, from what I've understood, is
putter around in tiny airplanes at tiny airfields, as they are effectively
barred from anything more complicated or comfortable.

[Mxsmanic]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

writes:

> It isn't the real MX.

Actually, it was, in this case.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2

iQA/AwUBR/qCjxv8knkS0DI6EQJJ0QCg/NvbgoaVlFmSAuu8gS/0D/C4fsUAn22g
GSBAXJELnJJvkBp2gGmRO4lJ
=noZB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> Pretend, being the operative word.

Pretending is extremely important to using simulators successfully. If you
cannot pretend--if you cannot suspend disbelief--you cannot really profit from
the simulator. Conversely, if you can do these things, using a simulator can
be extremely useful experience.

> Only kids have plausable dualistic minds. Perhaps that's you. The rest
> of us have grown up.

It's a function of intelligence more than age. The ability to adopt a
different viewpoint and voluntarily and selectively disregard aspects of
reality or fantasy at will is very closely correlated with intelligence, as it
requires considerable cognitive capacity. Animals have less intelligence and
virtually no imaginations, for example, and thus could never make much use of
simulators.

> Enhanced, being the operative word there.

Yes.

> It's not reality, and you *cannot* escape that.

Well, yes, you can. That's the whole idea. I've already explained the
principle above.

> To do so - and you
> should be put in a mental asylum - no longer being able to distinguish
> between reality and fantasy is considered by good psychologists to
> dangerous.

The inability to distinguish between reality and fantasy has nothing to do
with the ability to adopt either frame of reference.

Things like literary fiction and cinema depend on this ability, and it is
widely held and uncorrelated with mental illness. It is, in fact, a function
of intelligence, not insanity, as I've explained.

> It most certainly is not!

Because you say so? ATC is extremely easy to simulate realistically compared
to other aspects of flying.

> You fly a sim and yet are unable to "put yourself in the seat" - that's
> counter to your argument in the first place. (It's a sim, and you're
> telling me you can't simulate it - pathetic really).

I can put myself wherever I see fit in simulation, sometimes with varying
success (depending on the desired viewpoint and the type of simulation).
There are some aspects that I find more attractive and enjoyable than others.
An advantage of simulation is that I have a choice.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

JB wrote:
> On Apr 4, 6:41 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>>> Other than you don't have airplanes, big birds, loose balloons and other
>>> assorted objects appearing out of nowhere, the aircraft isn't bouncing
>>> around in turbulance while you try to maintain attitude and altitude,
>>> there are no other people in the aircraft trying to talk to you,
>>> there is a pause button so you can take a leak anytime you need to,
>>> and there are no real world consequences to any of your actions, it is
>>> just like the real thing.
>> Most of these things have no influence on ATC communication.
>
> You are absolutely wrong on this. In some cases, dead wrong.
> External distractions (real life turbulence, watching the restricted
> airspace around you, overlapping ATC comms, other planes buzzing all
> around etc etc etc) can turn a decent student pilot into a panicked
> ball of jelly wondering how he will clean up his pants if/when he
> lands safely. When ATC talks, you can get so flustered that you don't
> know what they said. Been there, done that. That will never, ever,
> ever happen to you sitting at the monitor killing time before Sesame
> Street comes on.
>
It's ironic and fascinatingly humorous:-)

I deal almost exclusively with research on these and other associated
issues literally every day. I interact with other professional pilots
including airline pilots, display pilots, test pilots from both the
military and civilian test flight communities, Red Bull Pilots, and as
well doctors, scientists, and technicians in the aerospace community.

Neither myself, or anyone of these people could have an opinion on these
issues that would mean anything, or alter in any way whatsoever,
anything put forth on these forums by Mxsmanic.

In other words, why bother? :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> Good analogy, I've seen a few (very few) actors who are pretty good at pretending
> to fly a plane. Put them in a real one, and they're in deep ****.

They are performing the inverse of simulation, but are using similar skills.
In their case, they are the primary locus of the simulation, rather than the
environment around them. For people using flight simulators, the simulator is
the locus, and they adapt to it.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You really, really don't know what you're talking about.

Show the errors, if any.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> And if I discover that I don't like it?

Don't do it again.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> JB writes:
>
>> You are absolutely wrong on this. In some cases, dead wrong.
>> External distractions (real life turbulence, watching the restricted
>> airspace around you, overlapping ATC comms, other planes buzzing all
>> around etc etc etc) can turn a decent student pilot into a panicked
>> ball of jelly wondering how he will clean up his pants if/when he
>> lands safely.
>
> Following your logic, any distraction can do this, which means that no
> amount of simulation OR real-life experience can be of any use, since
> there will always be unexperienced distractions waiting to cause
> trouble.
>
> But if all distractions are not qualitatively unique, then a single
> distraction of any kind will suffice to simulate all others, in which
> case both simulation and real-world experience will suffice as well,
> without running the entire (infinite) gamut of possible distractions.
>
>> When ATC talks, you can get so flustered that you don't
>> know what they said. Been there, done that. That will never, ever,
>> ever happen to you sitting at the monitor killing time before Sesame
>> Street comes on.
>
> It happens in simulation all the time, just like real life.
>

You're a moron. You can't compare simulation to real life until
you've done both. You can do a lot with simulation, but not everything.
You just sit alone at home and let the autopilot on MSFS fly the airplane
while you stare at the monitor and stroke your joystick. You know
absolutely nothing about the real world of flying and you don't want to
learn. No wonder you've been such a failure in life, Anthony.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> "Most" ain't good enough.
>
> Sure it is. If it were not, then real life wouldn't be good enough
> either, since real life never exhausts all the possibilities.
>

You're a ****ing nitwit, Anthony.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Larry Dighera writes:
>
>> Without intending to join the chorus, I respectfully submit, that you
>> have no concept of the joyous experience you are missing. Trust me.
>> :)
>
> I think it depends on what you want to get out of aviation. Clearly,
> many private pilots get enjoyment out of bouncing around in a tiny
> airplane. They probably enjoy roller-coasters, too (whereas I do
> not).
>
Anthony, you don't want to get anything out of aviation. For you,
aviation is just a game played on MSFS. That can be fun, but it is NOT
flying and you have deluded yourself into thinking it is. You should move
to a mental institution because you need help.

>> A new student pilot flying solo is at last free to wander in the
>> third dimension unconstrained as the vast majority of Earth bound
>> souls are. He soars from the surface of the Earth, and effortlessly
>> guides his light aircraft higher with such nimble agility, that the
>> machine mentally melds into his nervous system in a rapture of pure
>> Zen integration of spirit, mind and machine. He was born with wings,
>> and is as skillful and free as Bach's Jonathan. The pilot's visceral
>> reaction to the sights, sounds, smells, and kinesthetic cacophony's
>> endless bombardment of sensory input result in a unique ambiance that
>> is aviation. The pilot's post-flight consciousness is clear and
>> refreshed as though just squeegeed, and the world is a bright,
>> cheerful home indeed. Although he walks the same flat plane at the
>> juncture of atmosphere and terra as his fellows, he carries the
>> knowledge and experiences of the joy of flight, and the power to soar
>> at will.
>
> Not quite as poetic as _High Flight_ or as direct as _One Six Right_,
> but a respectable effort.
>
>> Get out to the closest uncontrolled field (I visited one north of
>> Othus in 2000*) at which is based an Air France Aero Club. Beg a
>> ride with one of the members on a fair Saturday morning. You'll
>> thank me.
>
> And if I discover that I don't like it?
>
Then stop. But you will know the difference between playing MSFS and
flying. You don't do it because your too chicken ****. You're afraid
you'll be force to recognize that all your pontifications about flying in
the usenet newsgroups were pure bull ****, just like you.

> People fly that way in France because the environment is so
> restrictive that they have no other options. All they can do, from
> what I've understood, is putter around in tiny airplanes at tiny
> airfields, as they are effectively barred from anything more
> complicated or comfortable.

You're understanding is wrong. Just like you.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> writes:
>
>> It isn't the real MX.
>
> Actually, it was, in this case.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP 8.0.2
>
> iQA/AwUBR/qCjxv8knkS0DI6EQJJ0QCg/NvbgoaVlFmSAuu8gS/0D/C4fsUAn22g
> GSBAXJELnJJvkBp2gGmRO4lJ
> =noZB
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

Who give a ****. Whether you, Anthony, or an imposter, it is still
pure, unadulterated bull ****.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dave Doe writes:
>
>> Pretend, being the operative word.
>
> Pretending is extremely important to using simulators successfully.
> If you cannot pretend--if you cannot suspend disbelief--you cannot
> really profit from the simulator. Conversely, if you can do these
> things, using a simulator can be extremely useful experience.
>
>> Only kids have plausable dualistic minds. Perhaps that's you. The
>> rest of us have grown up.
>
> It's a function of intelligence more than age. The ability to adopt a
> different viewpoint and voluntarily and selectively disregard aspects
> of reality or fantasy at will is very closely correlated with
> intelligence, as it requires considerable cognitive capacity. Animals
> have less intelligence and virtually no imaginations, for example, and
> thus could never make much use of simulators.
>
>> Enhanced, being the operative word there.
>
> Yes.
>
>> It's not reality, and you *cannot* escape that.
>
> Well, yes, you can. That's the whole idea. I've already explained
> the principle above.
>
>> To do so - and you
>> should be put in a mental asylum - no longer being able to
>> distinguish between reality and fantasy is considered by good
>> psychologists to dangerous.
>
> The inability to distinguish between reality and fantasy has nothing
> to do with the ability to adopt either frame of reference.
>
> Things like literary fiction and cinema depend on this ability, and it
> is widely held and uncorrelated with mental illness. It is, in fact,
> a function of intelligence, not insanity, as I've explained.
>
>> It most certainly is not!
>
> Because you say so? ATC is extremely easy to simulate realistically
> compared to other aspects of flying.
>
>> You fly a sim and yet are unable to "put yourself in the seat" -
>> that's counter to your argument in the first place. (It's a sim, and
>> you're telling me you can't simulate it - pathetic really).
>
> I can put myself wherever I see fit in simulation, sometimes with
> varying success (depending on the desired viewpoint and the type of
> simulation). There are some aspects that I find more attractive and
> enjoyable than others. An advantage of simulation is that I have a
> choice.

It is obvious, Anthony, that you are the product of simulated sex and
only imagines you have a life. And, given how badly you've done in your
imagined life, your imagination is severley deficient.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
> > Pretend, being the operative word.
>
> Pretending is extremely important to using simulators successfully. If you
> cannot pretend--if you cannot suspend disbelief--you cannot really profit from
> the simulator. Conversely, if you can do these things, using a simulator can
> be extremely useful experience.
>
> > Only kids have plausable dualistic minds. Perhaps that's you. The rest
> > of us have grown up.
>
> It's a function of intelligence more than age. The ability to adopt a
> different viewpoint and voluntarily and selectively disregard aspects of
> reality or fantasy at will is very closely correlated with intelligence, as it
> requires considerable cognitive capacity. Animals have less intelligence and
> virtually no imaginations, for example, and thus could never make much use of
> simulators.
>
> > Enhanced, being the operative word there.
>
> Yes.
>
> > It's not reality, and you *cannot* escape that.
>
> Well, yes, you can. That's the whole idea. I've already explained the
> principle above.

No what you explained is *my* argument - not yours. But thanks anyway.

You explaind that pretending <> reality, and that imagination <>
reality. (My points).

*Imagining* crossing a busy road may well be beneficial to your
survival. But it is *NOT* reality - the mind cannot percieve of all the
possiblities - there are too many variables and it is possible you may
not imagine the one possibility that ends up killing you. (How many
times have you crossed a one way street and NOT looked the other way -
because many people do just that and take it for granted). Which also
has advantages too - it is not good to imagine some situations for *too*
long - you may make a decision that is too late.

The short of it is, flying a sim is so far removed from the experience
of the real thing, that pilots are still required (thank fuk) to fly the
real thing when training.

This DOES apply to ATC comms too. Being on your sim (as you've never
flown the real thing) your mind *CANNOT* imagine what it would really be
like, you can only assume and guess and imagine.

Have you simulated (or even imagined) smoke coming out the heater vents?
Does your simulator simulate that?

What about a low setting sun, does it really dazzle you? Do you use the
visor much in the simulator?

Have you simulated dropping a cellphone on the floor and it bounces down
by the rudder pedals somewhere? (Would you consider that to be a
potential problem?)

Simulator:
a device, instrument, or piece of equipment designed to reproduce the
essential features of something, e.g. as an aid to study or training.


>

> > It most certainly is not!
>
> Because you say so? ATC is extremely easy to simulate realistically compared
> to other aspects of flying.

By itself, yes. However (and surely you can imagine this), to properly
gain a picture of, for example and in context of this discussion, an ATC
comms failure/breakdown, you need to imagine what could happen in
reality. I can think of many examples. You can't. And until you fly
the real thing you never will (you're just guessing).

> > You fly a sim and yet are unable to "put yourself in the seat" - that's
> > counter to your argument in the first place. (It's a sim, and you're
> > telling me you can't simulate it - pathetic really).
>
> I can put myself wherever I see fit in simulation, sometimes with varying
> success (depending on the desired viewpoint and the type of simulation).
> There are some aspects that I find more attractive and enjoyable than others.
> An advantage of simulation is that I have a choice.

So not taking up my challenge, even though you don't *really* have to
get your wallet out, or drive to the field, or even do pre-take-off
checks - you could actually setup the sim in about ONE MINUTE. OK.

Anyway, doesn't sound anything like real flying to me. eg. you say
"varying success". Well... you crash a plane in *real life* - you don't
walk away from it (very few do). I would put it do you that if you knew
you were going to crash (and very probably die) you'd be feeling very
differently to the same situation in the simulator. Your not *really*
scared, you're not *really* thinking I have just four more seconds
before I go in; more you're probably resigned to that fate and thinking
well I buggered that up, oh well... RESET.

But hey you say you can accurately simulate and imagine reality. OK,
question then, have you *ever* crashed a plane in the simulator? (sounds
like you have).

If so - why?, how? - you're DEAD! - how you could have let that EVER
happen?

--
Duncan

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> The short of it is, flying a sim is so far removed from the experience
> of the real thing, that pilots are still required (thank fuk) to fly the
> real thing when training.

That is somewhat a legacy of the past; it won't always be that way. Flying a
large airliner, for example, is sufficiently different from flying a small
plane that there isn't necessarily a clear advantage to compelling prospective
pilots to do the latter before the former. With the increasing demand for
pilots, particularly outside developed countries, training specific to
commercial flying with simulators alone will inevitably become common practice
in the future.

> This DOES apply to ATC comms too.

So how do air traffic controllers manage to handle communications without any
piloting experience?

> Being on your sim (as you've never
> flown the real thing) your mind *CANNOT* imagine what it would really be
> like, you can only assume and guess and imagine.

Speak for yourself. What I can imagine might be quite different from what you
can imagine.

I'm reminded of an article I read once on the reaction of a primitive tribe
when it was shown images of itself in a movie. The tribe members were unable
to interpret the images because they were flat, and they apparently lacked the
ability to set aside this difference in order to extract some utility from the
movie (or they were unwilling to use it).

> Have you simulated (or even imagined) smoke coming out the heater vents?

No. How does smoke get into the heater vents in a Baron?

> Does your simulator simulate that?

No.

> What about a low setting sun, does it really dazzle you?

Yes, you can simulate that, but I usually have it turned off.

> Have you simulated dropping a cellphone on the floor and it bounces down
> by the rudder pedals somewhere?

I don't use cell phones while operating vehicles.

> Would you consider that to be a potential problem?

Not for someone who keeps the cell phone stowed during flight.

> Simulator:
> a device, instrument, or piece of equipment designed to reproduce the
> essential features of something, e.g. as an aid to study or training.

Yes.

> By itself, yes. However (and surely you can imagine this), to properly
> gain a picture of, for example and in context of this discussion, an ATC
> comms failure/breakdown, you need to imagine what could happen in
> reality.

Actual breakdowns and failures are too rare to worry about. The simulation
normally concentrates on just communicating information properly. You can do
that with a pair of walkie-talkies, and of course it's all the easier to
conduct with a flight simulator.

> So not taking up my challenge, even though you don't *really* have to
> get your wallet out, or drive to the field, or even do pre-take-off
> checks - you could actually setup the sim in about ONE MINUTE. OK.

I don't really have any money for it, and I have no transportation, and the
only type of flying I could do isn't entirely congruent with the types I like
to simulate. The avionics I have in my simulated Baron and Bonanza, for
example, are far too expensive for flying clubs to afford--heck, they often
can't afford either of these aircraft to begin with. Flying some lame little
fabric-and-wood airplane by the seat of my pants with just a compass, in and
out of some dirt strip, really doesn't appeal to me. I'm scarcely interested
at all in physical sensations.

> Anyway, doesn't sound anything like real flying to me.

It depends on what type of flying you are simulating. There are many kinds of
flying.

> Well... you crash a plane in *real life* - you don't
> walk away from it (very few do).

I see quite a few accidents in the NTSB database that do not result in loss of
life or sometimes even any injury at all.

> I would put it do you that if you knew
> you were going to crash (and very probably die) you'd be feeling very
> differently to the same situation in the simulator.

So? The objective is not to simulate crashes, it is to simulate flight.
Avoid mistakes and you can generally avoid crashes.

> Your not *really* scared, you're not *really* thinking I have just four
> more seconds before I go in; more you're probably resigned to that fate
> and thinking well I buggered that up, oh well... RESET.

Some people aren't scared in real life. In life-or-death situations fear is
often deferred, such that people remain relatively level-headed up to and
including the crash. If they survive, they may be terrified afterwards and
may even go into a state of shock, but they'll stay clear-headed until the
crash. Of course, people who react in this way are more likely to survive to
begin with. Apprehension does get the adrenalin going and can help one to
handle emergencies, but abject fear and panic usually lead to bad things.

> But hey you say you can accurately simulate and imagine reality.

In certain respects, yes. That's what simulation is all about. The simulator
isn't very good at simulating crashes, but the entire idea is to avoid
crashes, not to simulate them.

> OK, question then, have you *ever* crashed a plane in the simulator?

Occasionally--just a few days ago, in fact. If it's a serious simulation
session, it's quite stressful. It the most recent case, at the end of an
uneventful flight, I became overconfident with my onboard TAWS and lost
situational awareness after making a poor decision to switch runways at the
last moment. With a 6-knot wind on the ground, I decided to stop the
straight-in approach for which I was already aligned, and attempt a right
downwind for the opposite runway. However, it was completely dark and I could
see nothing outside the airport, and although I knew there was rising terrain
nearby, I pressed on. To avoid terrain that I couldn't see, I turned to base
almost abeam the threshold of the runway and tried to scoot in. I also spent
too much time looking at the TAWS to see if I was clear of terrain. In my
preoccupation with doing this, I had left the AP on heading hold, and when I
saw that and disengaged it, naturally I rolled abruptly to one side. I
couldn't see the runway behind me nor could I see the terrain, and the sudden
turn caused me to lose altitude dangerously. The TAWS did indeed warn me of
terrain, but by that time it was too late, and I stalled in the darkness well
short of the runway and hit the side of the mesa.

Of course, you don't die in a simulation, but if you take your flying
seriously, the knowledge that you would surely be dead in real life and the
reflection on your flying skills that this represents is already quite a blow.
On the other hand, if you dismiss it all as just a game and a simulation, you
learn nothing, your ego is preserved, and when and if you're in the same
situation in real life one day, you die.

> If so - why?, how? - you're DEAD! - how you could have let that EVER
> happen?

Yes, I ask myself the same thing. When one is simulating for "fun," it
doesn't matter, but when the objective is serious simulation, it is a sobering
and humbling experience. And unlike pilots who have more ego than brains, I
do not claim that some sort of vague difference between the simulator and real
life caused the crash--it was pilot error, pure and simple, and it would have
happened in exactly the same way in real life, only with more permanent
consequences.

[JB]

Huh?? I'm a reasonably smart guy, but your incoherent blabbering
makes absolutely no sense at all.

They say if you turn a chimp loose on a keyboard, you will eventually
get Shakespeare. Keep at it Anthony, you're not quite there yet.


On Apr 7, 4:16*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Following your logic, any distraction can do this, which means that no amount
> of simulation OR real-life experience can be of any use, since there will
> always be unexperienced distractions waiting to cause trouble.
>
> But if all distractions are not qualitatively unique, then a single
> distraction of any kind will suffice to simulate all others, in which case
> both simulation and real-world experience will suffice as well, without
> running the entire (infinite) gamut of possible distractions.
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

JB wrote:
>
> They say if you turn a chimp loose on a keyboard, you will eventually
> get Shakespeare.

I think it's "War and Peace". That would be Tolstoy. Chimps can't dig
Shakespeare. :-)))


--
Dudley Henriques

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>> Have you simulated dropping a cellphone on the floor and it bounces down
>> by the rudder pedals somewhere?
>
> I don't use cell phones while operating vehicles.

Probably never even heard of an E6B, have you?

MSFS doesn't simulate partial-G situations in extreme turbulence where
small objects might work themselves loose.

A great thing to add to MSFS would be the seat sliding backward on
takeoff. A friend of mine's father tested an airplane for a buyer, and
as he rotated for takeoff the seat slid all the way backward such that
he couldn't reach the rudder pedal. Fortunately, he managed to not pull
the yoke back with him and cause departure spin.

That would be a spectacular failure to model for a flight simulator.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

gatt wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>>> Have you simulated dropping a cellphone on the floor and it bounces
>>> down by the rudder pedals somewhere?
>>
>> I don't use cell phones while operating vehicles.
>
> Probably never even heard of an E6B, have you?
>
> MSFS doesn't simulate partial-G situations in extreme turbulence where
> small objects might work themselves loose.
>
> A great thing to add to MSFS would be the seat sliding backward on
> takeoff. A friend of mine's father tested an airplane for a buyer, and
> as he rotated for takeoff the seat slid all the way backward such that
> he couldn't reach the rudder pedal. Fortunately, he managed to not pull
> the yoke back with him and cause departure spin.
>
> That would be a spectacular failure to model for a flight simulator.
>
>
This has been a long time issue in adjustable light plane seats,
especially Cessna seats. The issue at one time was so prevalent we added
a mandatory seat pin check to the run up checklist to insure any seat
adjustments made after entering the airplane were solidly made with the
pins in the locking holes.

I suggest even today that this check be made when flying any airplane
with a sliding seat.

--
Dudley Henriques

[gatt[_3_]]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> This has been a long time issue in adjustable light plane seats,
> especially Cessna seats. The issue at one time was so prevalent we added
> a mandatory seat pin check to the run up checklist to insure any seat
> adjustments made after entering the airplane were solidly made with the
> pins in the locking holes.
>
> I suggest even today that this check be made when flying any airplane
> with a sliding seat.

Yessir, that's what made me think of it. I was flying right seat in a
'73 Piper Arrow II for the first time on Saturday and couldn't get the
seat to latch until I banged on it. Not exactly a confidence booster.


-c

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

gatt wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> This has been a long time issue in adjustable light plane seats,
>> especially Cessna seats. The issue at one time was so prevalent we
>> added a mandatory seat pin check to the run up checklist to insure any
>> seat adjustments made after entering the airplane were solidly made
>> with the pins in the locking holes.
>>
>> I suggest even today that this check be made when flying any airplane
>> with a sliding seat.
>
> Yessir, that's what made me think of it. I was flying right seat in a
> '73 Piper Arrow II for the first time on Saturday and couldn't get the
> seat to latch until I banged on it. Not exactly a confidence booster.
>
>
> -c
>
Not a biggie really. Just put it on your runup checklist.

--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

On Apr 8, 7:20 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> gatt wrote:

> Not a biggie really. Just put it on your runup checklist.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

There's an STC for C172s for a roller lock -- won't let the pilot seat
slide back more than 1/3rd of the full travel.

No idea on price but should be worth it for any 172 owner...

There's an NTSB on a similar situation but with different cause:
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20021202X05546&key=1

Dan Mc

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
> > The short of it is, flying a sim is so far removed from the experience
> > of the real thing, that pilots are still required (thank fuk) to fly the
> > real thing when training.
>
> That is somewhat a legacy of the past; it won't always be that way. Flying a
> large airliner, for example, is sufficiently different from flying a small
> plane that there isn't necessarily a clear advantage to compelling prospective
> pilots to do the latter before the former. With the increasing demand for
> pilots, particularly outside developed countries, training specific to
> commercial flying with simulators alone will inevitably become common practice
> in the future.
>
> > This DOES apply to ATC comms too.
>
> So how do air traffic controllers manage to handle communications without any
> piloting experience?

By making it a part of the students ATC syllabus of course!

Here in New Zealand all ATC students spend time in the "third" seat (on
73's I think) so they can gain a first-hand perspective of pilot loading
at the various stages of flight.


>
> > Being on your sim (as you've never
> > flown the real thing) your mind *CANNOT* imagine what it would really be
> > like, you can only assume and guess and imagine.
>
> Speak for yourself. What I can imagine might be quite different from what you
> can imagine.

Yeah that's the problem, you can't imagine the real-world scenario
accurately. Pilots can, non-pilots can't. You can't win this argument,
I have evidence, you have none.


> I'm reminded of an article I read once on the reaction of a primitive tribe
> when it was shown images of itself in a movie. The tribe members were unable
> to interpret the images because they were flat, and they apparently lacked the
> ability to set aside this difference in order to extract some utility from the
> movie (or they were unwilling to use it).
>
> > Have you simulated (or even imagined) smoke coming out the heater vents?
>
> No. How does smoke get into the heater vents in a Baron?

It's a simulator, so change planes moron. Can't do it?

>
> > Does your simulator simulate that?
>
> No.
>
> > What about a low setting sun, does it really dazzle you?
>
> Yes, you can simulate that, but I usually have it turned off.

You didn't properly answer the question, does it really dazzle you? Of
course it doesn't, it's only a monitor.
>
> > Have you simulated dropping a cellphone on the floor and it bounces down
> > by the rudder pedals somewhere?
>
> I don't use cell phones while operating vehicles.

You are a waste of any further time - can't you use your imagination (it
doesn't have to be a cellphone, it could be your flight-computer (as
another poster suggested)).

Come on, wake up! Use your imagination that you claim to have and stop
negatively replying to questions - you know very well what's meant.

>
> > Would you consider that to be a potential problem?
>
> Not for someone who keeps the cell phone stowed during flight.

You really don't have any imagination do you. We're talking about a
hard object that made it's way down by the rudder pedals. It doesn't
matter what it is (specifically! - and you know that!).

Please re-answer the question.


<snipped your mis-reading - and therefore irrelevant reply to the rest>

--
Duncan

[george]

On Apr 9, 11:50 am, Dave Doe > wrote:

> Here in New Zealand all ATC students spend time in the "third" seat (on
> 73's I think) so they can gain a first-hand perspective of pilot loading
> at the various stages of flight.

Thank your lucky stars that we're here and he's hiding in a bedroom in
France

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Probably never even heard of an E6B, have you?

I have one, but it's not a cell phone.

> MSFS doesn't simulate partial-G situations in extreme turbulence where
> small objects might work themselves loose.

So?

> A great thing to add to MSFS would be the seat sliding backward on
> takeoff. A friend of mine's father tested an airplane for a buyer, and
> as he rotated for takeoff the seat slid all the way backward such that
> he couldn't reach the rudder pedal. Fortunately, he managed to not pull
> the yoke back with him and cause departure spin.

And this is a common occurrence in aircraft? Common enough to justify
simulation?

> That would be a spectacular failure to model for a flight simulator.

Flight simulators model the most probable situations first.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> By making it a part of the students ATC syllabus of course!

So why would non-pilot experience work for ATC, but not anyone else?

> Yeah that's the problem, you can't imagine the real-world scenario
> accurately. Pilots can, non-pilots can't. You can't win this argument,
> I have evidence, you have none.

As I've said, you don't know what I can or cannot imagine. I have very rarely
been surprised.

> It's a simulator, so change planes moron. Can't do it?

Why would I want to stop flying the airplane I prefer? Another one of the
advantages to simulation is that you can fly what you want.

> You didn't properly answer the question, does it really dazzle you?

Sometimes. In any case, you can't really see much of anything.

> Of course it doesn't, it's only a monitor.

So?

> You are a waste of any further time - can't you use your imagination (it
> doesn't have to be a cellphone, it could be your flight-computer (as
> another poster suggested)).

I can use my imagination, but using a cell phone is unsafe.

If it doesn't have to be a cell phone, then logically it could be just about
anything, which means that it isn't necessary to simulate everything, as I've
already pointed out.

> You really don't have any imagination do you. We're talking about a
> hard object that made it's way down by the rudder pedals. It doesn't
> matter what it is (specifically! - and you know that!).

What matters is that it won't make its way down by the rudder pedals if you
stow it properly.

[george]

On Apr 10, 4:12 am, Pont Neuf Troll Patrol > wrote:
> ANTHONY ATKIELSKI AKA MXMANIAC AKA WJRFLYBOY AKA DAN MC WRITES:
>
> >I can use my imagination, but using a cell phone is unsafe.
>
> Add using a cell phone to the list of things Tonie is afraid to do.

I wonder if the comms equipment in an aircraft engender the same fear
in our imitation aviator?

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...

<dribble, complete dribble>

GROW UP!

--
Duncan

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:32:38 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

>I can use my imagination, but using a cell phone is unsafe.

Haw-haw!

You are definitely the biggest **** on usenet.

I guess that's an accomplishment, of sorts.

[Edward A. Falk]

In article >,
RubberWatch > wrote:
>Hello-
>
>I am a student pilot. I was out flying solo today and was instructed
>by ATC to fly a heading of 210. I thought he said 110 and I flew on
>that heading. He then told me it looks like your going the wrong
>direction i need you to fly 210. I got a bit locked up and said 210.
>I ended up on 210 but I really kinda got "mike fright".

Hell son, I did that on my instrument checkride.

--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

[EridanMan]

> The concept of being in command is often new to a flight student. I
> can't emphasize strongly enough, that the flight crew member acting as
> Pilot In Command must assume command responsibility for his flight
> operations, and not abandon his responsibility to others. Because of
> this necessity to command, I believe becoming an airman should be a
> life changing experience for those unaccustomed to commanding.

Amen.

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Why would I want to stop flying the airplane I prefer? Another one of the
> advantages to simulation is that you can fly what you want.

That's like saying that one of the advantages of internet porn is that
you can screw who you want.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

gatt > wrote in
news:jPednbwm9p5jU2LanZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d@integraonlin e:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Why would I want to stop flying the airplane I prefer? Another one
>> of the advantages to simulation is that you can fly what you want.
>
> That's like saying that one of the advantages of internet porn is that
> you can screw who you want.
>
>

well put

Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> That's like saying that one of the advantages of internet porn is that
> you can screw who you want.

Traditionally the advantage of pornography is that it makes it unnecessary to
have sex with anybody.

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>> That's like saying that one of the advantages of internet porn is that
>> you can screw who you want.
>
> Traditionally the advantage of pornography is that it makes it unnecessary to
> have sex with anybody.

I'm sure you know all about that, too, but look:

I'll not let the point drift into a discussion about your simulated-sex
habits, except to say that strictly speaking it's not necessary to have
sex with anybody anyway.

If you don't know the difference between real sex and porn, that pretty
much explains everything.

-c

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:22:04 -0700, gatt wrote:

>If you don't know the difference between real sex and porn, that pretty
>much explains everything.

Hee-hee!

Beauty.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> That's like saying that one of the advantages of internet porn is
>> that you can screw who you want.
>
> Traditionally the advantage of pornography is that it makes it
> unnecessary to have sex with anybody.


wow, own goal.


Bertie

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> That's like saying that one of the advantages of internet porn is
>> that you can screw who you want.
>
> Traditionally the advantage of pornography is that it makes it
> unnecessary to have sex with anybody.

What's the matter Anthony? Strike out with your sex doll again?

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 12, 10:48*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> gatt writes:
> > That's like saying that one of the advantages of internet porn is that
> > you can screw who you want.
>
> Traditionally the advantage of pornography is that it makes it unnecessary to
> have sex with anybody.

If you are ambidextrous does that make you a bigamist?

Cheers