r.a.ifr barely alive

[M[_1_]]

Back in 1998 when I got my rating, rec.aviation.ifr was beaming with
activities. There were at least a dozen new threads getting posted
every day.

Where is everybody? I know GA flying is down but the traffic drop in
r.a.ifr is a lot worse than say r.a.piloting. Maybe we all became
dumber after a decade of IFR flying with GPS?

[Sam Spade]

M wrote:
> Back in 1998 when I got my rating, rec.aviation.ifr was beaming with
> activities. There were at least a dozen new threads getting posted
> every day.
>
> Where is everybody? I know GA flying is down but the traffic drop in
> r.a.ifr is a lot worse than say r.a.piloting. Maybe we all became
> dumber after a decade of IFR flying with GPS?
>

Unmoderated fight sites with fired ex-FAA racist employees become old
stuff after awhile.

[John T]

"Bill Watson" > wrote in message

>>
>> Unmoderated fight sites with fired ex-FAA racist employees become old
>> stuff after awhile.
>
> Yep, what he said.

Add to that the spam that's becoming more of a problem throughout Usenet and
it's no wonder folks are opting for registration-only sites like the AOPA
forums.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[Sam Spade]

John T wrote:
> "Bill Watson" > wrote in message
>
>
>>>Unmoderated fight sites with fired ex-FAA racist employees become old
>>>stuff after awhile.
>>
>>Yep, what he said.
>
>
> Add to that the spam that's becoming more of a problem throughout Usenet and
> it's no wonder folks are opting for registration-only sites like the AOPA
> forums.
>

Not all Usenet Groups have this problem. A telecom group I use does not
require registration but it is moderated. The posts don't appear until
the moderation first reads and clears them.

Granted, a registration group works even better.

[John T]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message

>>
>> Add to that the spam that's becoming more of a problem throughout
>> Usenet and it's no wonder folks are opting for registration-only
>> sites like the AOPA forums.
>
> Not all Usenet Groups have this problem. A telecom group I use does
> not require registration but it is moderated. The posts don't appear
> until the moderation first reads and clears them.

True, but the only r.a.* group I know is moderated is the .stories group.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[Scott Moore]

M wrote:
> Back in 1998 when I got my rating, rec.aviation.ifr was beaming with
> activities. There were at least a dozen new threads getting posted
> every day.
>
> Where is everybody? I know GA flying is down but the traffic drop in
> r.a.ifr is a lot worse than say r.a.piloting. Maybe we all became
> dumber after a decade of IFR flying with GPS?
>

Everytime I ask a question on this group I get an amazingly nasty
response, and often, the new favorite insult is to accuse people of
being flight simulator pilots (vs. real).

When I fly, I run into people who are nicer than average (I just got
invited to a nice tour of a facility where they were rebuilding
ex-military jets the other weekend).

What goes on here, I have no clue for.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Scott Moore wrote:
> Everytime I ask a question on this group I get an amazingly nasty
> response, and often, the new favorite insult is to accuse people of
> being flight simulator pilots (vs. real).


That is a direct response to a plague of postings in the other aviation
newsgroups from a prolific troll. He posts a seemingly reasonable question,
then argues with the people who answer him. That wouldn't be bad in itself
except he's never flown and has stated he never will. The people who answer him
have.

And the newbies can't tell them apart....




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Mxsmanic]

Scott Moore writes:

> Everytime I ask a question on this group I get an amazingly nasty
> response, and often, the new favorite insult is to accuse people of
> being flight simulator pilots (vs. real).

This helps the person doing the insulting hide the fact that he doesn't know
anything about IFR flight. There are lots of low-time pilots without
instrument ratings on these groups, and many of them are insecure and
aggressive.

> When I fly, I run into people who are nicer than average (I just got
> invited to a nice tour of a facility where they were rebuilding
> ex-military jets the other weekend).
>
> What goes on here, I have no clue for.

Two different populations.

[Dennis Johnson]

"Everytime I ask a question on this group I get an amazingly nasty
response..."


It's been the opposite for me. Maybe I've just been lucky, but I've asked a
couple of technical questions about IFR procedures and received correct
answers within minutes! And no nasty responses, either. The traffic on
this group is low, but the signal to noise ratio is much higher than on the
other rec.aviation.xxxxxxx groups I read.

Dennis

[Helen Waite]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Scott Moore writes:
>
>> Everytime I ask a question on this group I get an amazingly nasty
>> response, and often, the new favorite insult is to accuse people of
>> being flight simulator pilots (vs. real).
>
> This helps the person doing the insulting hide the fact that he
> doesn't know anything about IFR flight. There are lots of low-time
> pilots without instrument ratings on these groups, and many of them
> are insecure and aggressive.
>
>> When I fly, I run into people who are nicer than average (I just got
>> invited to a nice tour of a facility where they were rebuilding
>> ex-military jets the other weekend).
>>
>> What goes on here, I have no clue for.
>
> Two different populations.

You're not a pilot. All you do is regurgiate stuff you've read without any
understanding of how it applies in the real world. You've never flown a
real aircraft IFR and have no idea what it is like. You just fantasize.

[Mxsmanic]

Helen Waite writes:

> You're not a pilot. All you do is regurgiate stuff you've read without any
> understanding of how it applies in the real world. You've never flown a
> real aircraft IFR and have no idea what it is like. You just fantasize.

I thought my point was clear enough without the illustration, but thanks,
anyway.

[Jon]

On May 10, 6:09 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Helen Waite writes:
> > You're not a pilot. All you do is regurgiate stuff you've read without any
> > understanding of how it applies in the real world. You've never flown a
> > real aircraft IFR and have no idea what it is like. You just fantasize.
>
> I thought my point was clear enough without the illustration, but thanks,
> anyway.

She wasn't illustrating your point, but I can see why you'd "think"
she was.

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Scott Moore writes:
>
>> Everytime I ask a question on this group I get an amazingly nasty
>> response, and often, the new favorite insult is to accuse people of
>> being flight simulator pilots (vs. real).
>
> This helps the person doing the insulting hide the fact that he doesn't know
> anything about IFR flight.

How much IFR time do you have, MX?

>There are lots of low-time pilots without
> instrument ratings on these groups, and many of them are insecure and
> aggressive.


So, is your instrument rating current?

-c

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> How much IFR time do you have, MX?

In the sim? Probably a couple thousand hours. I don't log it.

How much IMC time do you have?

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> How much IFR time do you have, MX?
>
> In the sim? Probably a couple thousand hours. I don't log it.
>
> How much IMC time do you have?

Translation: I have a couple thousand hours playing a game but don't have
the foggiest idea what real IFR flight is like.

Your a total fraud Anthony. And a moron to boot!

[Valued Corporate #120,345 Employee (B A R R Y)]

On Thu, 15 May 2008 12:10:30 -0700, gatt >
wrote:

>
>How much IFR time do you have, MX?

Intel Flight Rating? <G>

[Mxsmanic]

Benjamin Dover writes:

> Translation: I have a couple thousand hours playing a game but don't have
> the foggiest idea what real IFR flight is like.

Not much different from someone who flies under a hood but never in IMC.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Benjamin Dover writes:
>
>> Translation: I have a couple thousand hours playing a game but don't
>> have the foggiest idea what real IFR flight is like.
>
> Not much different from someone who flies under a hood but never in
> IMC.
>

Really? How would you know you nitwit? You've never flown under the hood.
You don't know **** from shinola about flying Anthony. You're just a
moron.

[Mxsmanic]

Benjamin Dover writes:

> Really? How would you know you nitwit?

They are both simulations. MSFS simulates IFR flight (with or without IMC).
Flying under a hood in a real aircraft simulates IFR flight in IMC. But a
hood is not real IMC. If flying under a hood is useful (and it is), then
flying MSFS is also useful.

The fact is, anything other than the real thing is just a simulation; if
simulations are not useful, then that has to apply across the board, not just
to simulations that you prefer to dismiss. If MSFS is not useful, then
neither is flying under a hood, or looking at a drawing made by an instructor,
or examining illustrations in a book, or watching an instructional DVD.

Fortunately, all of these simulations _are_ useful and _will_ help with the
real thing. Some of them are a lot safer that the real thing, too--and the
slight loss of accuracy with respect to the real thing is more than
compensated by the reduced or eliminated risk of dying.

Now, you can poo-poo MSFS simulation of IFR in IMC and simply wait until you
encounter the real thing and pray that you deal with it correctly, but to me
it seems a lot smarter to go with the simulation, which will give you at least
some vague handle on the real thing, and that is surely better than nothing at
all.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Benjamin Dover writes:
>
>> Really? How would you know you nitwit?
>
> They are both simulations. MSFS simulates IFR flight (with or without
> IMC). Flying under a hood in a real aircraft simulates IFR flight in
> IMC. But a hood is not real IMC. If flying under a hood is useful
> (and it is), then flying MSFS is also useful.
>
> The fact is, anything other than the real thing is just a simulation;
> if simulations are not useful, then that has to apply across the
> board, not just to simulations that you prefer to dismiss. If MSFS is
> not useful, then neither is flying under a hood, or looking at a
> drawing made by an instructor, or examining illustrations in a book,
> or watching an instructional DVD.
>
> Fortunately, all of these simulations _are_ useful and _will_ help
> with the real thing. Some of them are a lot safer that the real
> thing, too--and the slight loss of accuracy with respect to the real
> thing is more than compensated by the reduced or eliminated risk of
> dying.
>
> Now, you can poo-poo MSFS simulation of IFR in IMC and simply wait
> until you encounter the real thing and pray that you deal with it
> correctly, but to me it seems a lot smarter to go with the simulation,
> which will give you at least some vague handle on the real thing, and
> that is surely better than nothing at all.
>

I'd call you a ****ing moron for that response, that would require
increasing your IQ by several thousand orders of magnitude. You are stupid
beyond belief Anthony.

Flying under the hood only simulates the inability to see out of the
window. You are still in a real airplane and experience the real
sensations of flight. It is quite different than sitting in front of a
ground based simulator.

If the first time you, by yourself, enter IMC and have never flown under
the hood, you'll have no idea of how the physical sensations can affect
you. Flying under the hood, which is done with a minimum of a safety pilot
in the seat next to you, does let you experience these sensations and how
they can misdirect you. You then learn how to counter your inborn
instincts to react to these physical sensations.

No one has poo-pooed MSFS simulation of IMC for what it is good for. It is
you, you dumb ****, who has constantly poo-pooed real pilots who have real
experience in IMC solely because their real world experience doesn't match
you inorantly misconcieved conclusions, based on misuse of a tool, of what
real IMC will be like.

I'd love to stick your pompous ass in a real airplane in IMC and see how
long you last. I'll bet you won't even last 90 seconds.

You, being the asshole you are, constantly misinterpet what every pilot in
this newsgroup has been telling you about MSFS. No pilot has said it
doesn't serve a purpose. It is a good tool for practicing instrument
procedures. But, like any tool, it can be misused, especially by those
(you Anthony) who don't understand the tool's limitations. MSFS is a
terrible tool to learn basic flying skills.

And, all your attempts to say otherwise is pure bull ****. You've never
flown an airplane. Other's in this forum who have flow for many years have
pointed out the differences. You, Anthony, can't comprehend what they are
saying because you lack the frame of reference. You're nothing but fecal
matter wired to a keyboard.

[gatt[_4_]]

Benjamin Dover wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in

>>> How much IFR time do you have, MX? In the sim? Probably a couple thousand hours. I don't log it.
>>
>> How much IMC time do you have?
>
> Translation: I have a couple thousand hours playing a game but don't have
> the foggiest idea what real IFR flight is like.


Meanwhile, I've killed thousands upon thousands of Germans (Japanese,
Russians, Canadians and even American) playing Battlefield 1942 and Call
of Duty online. What I hate is when some World War II veteran tries to
tell me what it was like storming a beach or charging a machine gun
bunker. They don't have a FRACTION of combat time as I do in my video game.

When I used to play Warbirds I racked up something over 500 career
kills. That's WAY more than Chuck Yeager ever shot down. What the hell
does HE know by comparison?!

;>

-c

[Tom[_5_]]

Mx, really, that is illogical even by your standards.

You are saying that "They are both simulations, therefore if one is
useful then the other is useful." Wow.

And no pilot would claim that flying under the hood is a perfect
simulation of flying in IMC. That's why when we're training for our
instrument ratings we seek out real IMC to fly in to get that
experience.

We also use simulators, including MSFS. Many pilots agree that MSFS is
useful for instrument training, particularly with regard to flying
procedures (although not with regard to learning to ignore the
physical sensations of flight in IMC).

Nobody is saying MSFS is not a useful tool. They are just saying that
since you have only experienced MSFS, whereas most of the posters here
have experienced sims, hood time and real IMC, you aren't exactly in a
strong position to opine about things.

Why do you do it? You are clearly intelligent enough to understand
that what you have written here is illogical. And yet you love to pick
holes in other people's logic. You could be a useful and well-liked
contributor to this forum if you recognized the fact that pilots who
have flown in real life do have some valuable experience that you
can't understand.

If you think flying is too risky, fine don't do it. I don't care. The
risk is not worth it to you. But it's worth it to me and no amount of
telling me that I can get the same experience in front of my PC will
persuade me otherwise, because to me it's about the freedom of going
places, not the pleasure of correctly flying a procedure (although I
enjoy that too).


On May 16, 11:01*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> They are both simulations. *MSFS simulates IFR flight (with or without IMC).
> Flying under a hood in a real aircraft simulates IFR flight in IMC. *But a
> hood is not real IMC. *If flying under a hood is useful (and it is), then
> flying MSFS is also useful.
>
> The fact is, anything other than the real thing is just a simulation; if
> simulations are not useful, then that has to apply across the board, not just
> to simulations that you prefer to dismiss. *If MSFS is not useful, then
> neither is flying under a hood, or looking at a drawing made by an instructor,
> or examining illustrations in a book, or watching an instructional DVD.
>