Sad day for Mxsmanic

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> It's not about MSFS, it's about MX.
>
> Then criticism of MSFS or simulators in general is unwarranted, isn't it?
>
>> However, since MSFS is the only experience MX has, it gets a bad name by
>> default.
>
> So if a pilot you don't like flies a Cessna 152, does that make you hate
> Cessna 152s? Do you thereafter criticize Cessna 152s as not being "real
> aircraft"?
>
>> There are groups for games and simulation, and if discussing MSFS was
>> MX's
>> real motive, that's where he would be.
>
> Simulation discussions normally take place in the context of what is being
> simulated, not in venues that address only the program (unless the topic
> is
> truly program issues). That's what simulation is all about.

You don't fly anything, dumb ass.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

No you're not, dumb ass, you have never left your desk.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Wrong again as apparently you don't know what the term "flight simulator"
>> means.
>
> Who is constrained to abide by FAA rules, exactly?

Relax, no one gives a **** about how you fly your desk.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Wrong, X-Plane is not part of any flight simulator certified by the FAA.
>>
>> It is part of a Personal Computer-based Aviation Training Device, which
>> is something else entirely.
>
> No, it's not something else at all. It's a simulator. All training
> devices
> are simulators.
>
>> What they actually claim it is is "an engineering tool that can be used
>> to predict the flying qualities of fixed and rotary wing aircraft".
>
> They claim a lot of things, including "... since X-Plane has been approved
> for
> flight-training in many countries to many levels, you should be able to
> use
> it to build your own flight simulator ..." which tacitly acknowledges the
> equivalence between the two.

Doesn't matter what they claim anyway wanna be, it a game and you're a wanna
be.

[Varactor]

On Mar 2, 11:50*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Varactor writes:
> > The no visual reverence problem was solved by Sperry eighty years ago.
>
> Then why do pilots still crash regularly after entering IMC?

You think they do when IR? But your observation is a non-sequiteur and
largely sophist.

Cheers

[Varactor]

On Mar 2, 11:51*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> -b- writes:
> > But G1000 is so generalized that now you can no longer buy a small or
> > medium plane without it.
>
> I'll worry about that when I'm in the market for an airplane.
>

SPOLRK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL

[Varactor]

On Mar 2, 11:55*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> -b- writes:
> > Is there something you haven't told us?
> > Are you confined to a hospital bed or something?
> > You know, plenty of people with disabilities still learn to fly.
> > There are plenty of paraplegics, and some quadriplegics who fly, each with
> > respect to their own disabilities. There are even blind pilots' flying
> > associations.
>
> I don't recall mentioning any disabilities.

No, but we can tell.

Cheers

[Varactor]

On Mar 2, 12:47*pm, Mike Ash > wrote:
> In article >,
>
> *-b- > wrote:
> > Oh by the way - why did you dutifully reproduce the preceding text, but wipe
> > out the part about schizophrenia?
>
> It's a classic MX trolling tactic. He is a master of selectively quoting
> people, and then responding only to what's quoted to steer the
> conversation in his preferred direction. If you stated that the Earth is
> round in a debate with him, he would snip out just enough to make it
> look like you were an idiot, and then make a reply that, at least
> superficially, makes him look like the only one who knows anything.
>

Huh? it's not round....

[Ibby]

> Go ahead and engage the dumb ass. Most of us made that mistake at one time
> or another. You will find he is nothing but a prick in sheeps clothing.

I try not to engage in conversations with him as I have 'known' him
for a couple of years now and know what he is like. He does partake
in other forums which relate specifically to the simulator/game and
believe me there is a similar attitude towards him by quite a few
there too.

I can empathise with most of your posts which I read last night (boy
is this thread long!). It is simply WRONG for MX to assume that he is
as 'good' as a real pilot because his soul training is based on the
simulator and theory from reading books and flight manuals. Yes they
DO help alot but you need that tactile feeling of flight and the true
effects of the controls which the sim cannot bring to life. It is
also WRONG for everyone here to completely disregard Microsoft's
software solely as a 'game' rather than a 'Training Aid' because of
your revulsion to MX's persona! I want to reiterate I'm defending the
simulator more than defending MX here.

FSX 'taught' me a hell of a lot before I even stepped into a real
cockpit. With the right add-ons and hardware it can be very
intutative and emersive. I have a proper yoke with throttle quadrant
with levers for mixture, throttle and flaps. I have rudder pedals
too. The highly detailed aircraft from PDMG have Full photorealistic
3D cockpits and with the use of a piece of hardware called TrackIR Pro
which can track your head movements allowing you to look and move all
around the flightdeck. Every switch is where it is on the real
aircraft, every dial does as it should, the glass cockpits are all
modelled exactly the same too. Ok I have NEVER stepped into a REAL
747 flightdeck but have a lot of flightdeck videos including the
excellent Virgin Atlantic 747-400 http://www.flight1.com/products.asp?product=ITV-74V-001
which goes over every system in fine detail and they are indeed very
well modelled by PMDG The 747-400 also comes with approximately a 700
page manual detailing all the systems and procedures so it's certainly
not for the average 'gamer'. Hundreds of differing failures can be
set to run at a timed point or randomly too to add realism with
failure checklists printed in the manuals.

I'm sure some of you guys would actually enjoy it if you tried it
properly with good quality payware aircraft, detailed airports and the
right hardware. It can teach you SO much when it comes to navigation.

Whilst I enjoy using FSX I will NEVER belittle a real pilot by saying
I'm better than you which is a pitfall MX quite often falls into but I
can whole heartidly state it CAN teach you a hell of a lot more than
some of you guys think. I don't know any of you guys or your
qualifications (I apologise) but for those with a basic PPL may I ask
if YOU stepped onto a flightdeck of a 747-400 or a 737NG would you
understand how to control it? A good flight simulator can help that
lack of knowledge.

Ibby

[Ibby]

> Sounds like you do have a reasonable head on your shoulders so
> hopefully you will get the gist of my post..

Thanks ;-)

> You really think you are going to have enough time to figure out how
> to get the headset on, find the button to contact ATC, MOVE the bodies
> out of your way to climb into the left or right seat, and then ATC is
> going to have time to find someone to walk you through the complicated
> FMC procedures before you buy the farm? *There is no reset button, and
> autoland is something that wouldn't be set on a descent profile for an
> approach I don't think?????

First priority is NOT talking to ATC but retaining control of the
aircraft. If it is decending rapidly the FIRST button I would engage
is Altitude Hold which will start the aircraft to level out. This can
be easily reached without moving the Pilot or FO. The pilots can be
moved in a moment and ATC can be contacted once you have 'control'.
The radios are more than likely already tuned to the nearest
controller. The major part of the FMC will now be 'unimportant' as
you will no longer be required to continue on your planned route. The
Mode Control Panel (the buttons and dials on the glareshield) take
precedence over the FMC. For the FMC to control the flight director
two buttons require engaging - LNAV (Lateral Navigation) which
controls the roll mode and VNAV which control the Vertical Navigation
and Thrust. Changing the Heading on the MCP and pressing Heading
Select WILL disengage LNAV and the aircraft will no longer be
following the 'magenta' line as set out in the FMC's LEGS pages.
Changing the target altitude on the MCP will cause the aircraft to
level off at that altitude (if still in VNAV) i.e. say you were
currently descending from FL180 and planned altitude of your next
waypoint was FL60ft setting the MCP altitude to FL100 WILL cause the
aircraft to level off at 10000ft. If Vertical Speed is also selected
VNAV will disengage and the IAS/MACH window will open showing the
current speed (it blanks when the FMC is controlling the airspeed as
per parameters set in the FMC) this can then be manually reduced by
using the control knob. The only area of the FMC I can see which
requires input would be the NAV/RAD page which allows manual input of
VOR's NDB's and ILS's which would be essential for a controlled
landing.

> Please think of the human adrenalin factor. *Iceman we are not.....
>
> The reality is that even as a private pilot, I seriously doubt that I
> would be able to find the right knobs to twist in the vast array of
> the digitalized world that would sit in front of me.

I agree and stated before the majority of us would literally be
crapping ourselves. The sim DOES help however in understanding the
'digitised' controls and knobs. When I took my first flying lesson in
a Cessna 152 (yes basic in comparision) but it was exactly the same as
the payware aircraft I bought for the sim. I had NO fear what so ever
as I felt I had done it for years. I knew the effects of every
movement of the control column and rudder pedals etc etc.

> The stuff is massive to comprehend under a simulated environment
> without the danger of buying the farm. *To expect somebody like myself
> who does fly a SE plane who never set foot in the cockpit of a
> commercial jet to be able to follow programming instructions for the
> FMC and set it up for autoladning just is not realistic.

Agree, fear would play a major part not just for your own life but
that of the other souls on board.
As stated before the majority of the FMC is obsolete and the aircraft
can be controlled via the MCP and the autopilot. ATC will quite often
vector a pilot with differing headings, speed restrictions and
altitude constraints to that on the FMC flightplan but in most cases
the PIC will use the MCP to make these temporary changes. ATC will
normally vector the pilot back onto an intercept course at some stage
to resume the planned route. Once the ILS frequency and course is
programmed into the NAV/RAD page of the FMC and the aircraft is on an
intercept course pressing LOC will enable the aircraft to capture the
ILS localiser and APP will allow the the capture of the glideslope.
When APP is pressed all 3 autopilots are engaged and thus the autoland
is armed. ATC can instruct you to reduce your airspeed via the control
knob and extend the flaps, landing gear can be lowered and landing
lights and strobes switched on prior to Flaps 20 with continual
slowing using the autothrottle system and further extension of the
flaps. Speed brakes are armed by moveing the spoiler level beside the
throttle to the armed position and Autobrakes can be set using the
rotary dial. Once all wheels are on the ground the trust reverser
levers can be pulled back until your ground speed is 80knots. I'm not
saying it will be a piece of cake but providing the runway is a CAT111
with autoland facilities it will be a hell of a lot easier than having
to disengage the autopilot and autothrottle system and hand fly and
flare the last 200ft then bringing the aircraft to a manual stop.


> Yeah, I am sitting at the comforts of my computer, I study day in and
> day out of the procedures of a 767 FMC, the above scenario pans out.
> You don't think a person wouldn't have a brain fart due to the
> adrenalin factor from the chaos developing behind you from the
> passengers and yourself saying WTF do I do next?

You may well freak out some of cope better with pressure. I'm not
going to do an MX and say yeah I'm superman no problem.

>
> Clicking on the knob to tune the radio, moving
> my mouse just a little bit without my head turnign ain't the real
> deal.

TrackIR is a great piece of hardware which interprets highly
accurately your head movement IRL. This changes your view and
position within the 3D virtual flightdeck on screen. I can look left
and right , up/down at the overhead panels, twist my head, lean
forward and back as I would in a real aircraft. All buttons and
switches are where they should be. I dont pretend to know anything
about your GPS you mention but some software vendors do a better job
at modelling components than others i.e. FSX default aircraft versus
the expensive PMDG aircraft. There is also the confines of the
platform. Microsoft created a 'platform' which other developers use
to the best of their abilities. Some elements just cannot be
intergrated in their models as the application doesn't support them.


> Flying in my plane, scanning my instruments IN IMC, doing all I can to
> reduce the movement of my head to tune my 430 is not the same as
> clicking a mouse on my simulator. *Is it the big knob or little knob,
> Is it the knob on the right or is it the knob on the left. *Little
> knob, what do you mean little knob, I see bunches of knobs. *

That's how the simulator can help. They have 'big' knobs and 'little'
knobs as per the real aircraft
A simulator cannot help you deal with IMC conditions as you cannot
feel the movement of the aircraft. Unless your attention is 100%
fixed on instrument scanning you wont know your in a bank or descent
in the sim.

>what page is the approach plate on

Approach plates are there to facilitate the control and management /
seperation of aircraft into/out busy airfields. In an emergency, now
I'm talking about a non-pilot flying, they would not be required. ATC
would HAVE to clear all other traffic out of your way and vector to
the active runway.

> MSFS will NEVER simulate the real deal of push, pulling, turning,
> tuning ir twisting any aircraft avionics. *It doesn't simulate
> reaching across the panel, holding the plane upright (remember, I have
> to scan my instruments to remain upright, can't assume autopilot will
> do that for you!!)

This is where TrackIR helps enormously. You DO have to look to your
right along the instrumation panel, you DO have to use your right hand
to control knobs and switches via the mouse albeit and you DO have to
lean over to reach or improve your view of certain dials. In this
scenario autopilot would be essential with manual changes to the MCP.
There is NO way I would even consider trying to manually fly a
commerical airliner as keeping it straight and level without
overspeeding or stalling would be very difficult for a beginner.
>
> As I have posted many, many times, and I have used MSFS X. *

Did you use payware aircraft or the default as there can be a world of
difference depending on the vendor

>Flying an
> approach on the computer just doesn't simulate the physical sensations
> of IMC. *Not sure if you ever been in IMC, not even sure if you are a
> pilot, but if you never been in IMC, please talk to a IA rated pilot
> and ask him to take you up. *You will never look at a cloud the same
> way.

you can purchase weather generating programmes which download current
weather METARS and generate appropriate cloud bases, winds, fogs, rain
etc within the sim. I agree the sim cannot generate the feel. I'm
NOT a qualified pilot and have never flown yet in IMC conditions. I
agree hand flying an aircraft in the simulator in IMC can be difficult
as you have zero sensation of movement.

Ibby

[Ibby]

>
> No you're not, dumb ass, you have never left your desk.

I think he means as a passenger ;-(

Ibby

[Morgans[_2_]]

"BeechSundowner" > wrote

As I have posted many, many times, and I have used MSFS X. Flying an
approach on the computer just doesn't simulate the physical sensations
of IMC. Not sure if you ever been in IMC, not even sure if you are a
pilot, but if you never been in IMC, please talk to a IA rated pilot
and ask him to take you up. You will never look at a cloud the same
way.
***********************************
You might as well give it up with this person, too. It is more likely that
you will have a real 747 qualified pilot on board, than you would likely
find a simmer with the kind of "practiced" on the 747. This one will never
concede, either.
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

Varactor writes:

> You think they do when IR?

No, I think they do when they are not instrument-rated. Most private pilots
do not have an IR.

The point being, of course, that inadequate familiarity and practice with
instrument procedures, and/or inadequate equipment on board the aircraft, can
lead to problems.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Look it up.

I already have. The FAA has jurisdiction over practically no one, with the
exception of pilots and other people who work in the aviation industry.

Thus, anyone can build and/or fly a flight simulator, with or without
recognition or approval from the FAA. Microsoft and X-Plane have already done
so, of course.

[Ibby]

> ***********************************
> You might as well give it up with this person, too. *It is more likely that
> you will have a real 747 qualified pilot on board, than you would likely
> find a simmer with the kind of "practiced" on the 747. *This one will never
> concede, either.
> --
> Jim in NC

Jim

Believe me I'm nowhere near as bad as MX!!!

Are you saying that all that I have learnt and 'practiced' bears no
correlation to the systems and controls of a real 747-400 because it
does. I have watched a lot of real tutorial dvds (not talking about
little flyby clips on Youtube, but official licensed products on the
747 and 767 flightdecks). The position and behavior of EVERY switch
whether it on the overhead panel, radio panel, Mode Control Panel, the
glass cockpit, the FMC do EXACTLY as the real thing does. I know if I
press 'this' the aircraft will do 'that'. A full procedural checklist
MUST be followed (as per the real thing) for engine start including
APU, ground power, setting pumps to Aux and Auto, turning off packs
etc I know for FACT that if I was to sit down in a 747-400 flightdeck
(forgetting all this emergency landing issue) I could name a huge
majority of the switches, tell you where they are located and the
effect they have on the flight thus giving me some form of advantage
to that of a person who has never been on a flight deck OR used a
simulator/game.

I have openly stated it's a training aid and can successfully
compliment flight training for procedures and navigation flight
planning etc. I know it's not the be-all-and-end all tool that will
give you a PPL after a weeks use which is were MX falls short off. I
know there is a LOT more to learn about the dynamics of flight,
weather systems, regulations etc etc. I know alot of real life pilots
who use it and some are actually prominant members on this forum (but
keep quite), there are those with PPL's, instructors, a retired A320
captain and a retired Gulf War veteran who flew rotaries in the Gulf.
When I took my first flying lesson I felt I could have solo'd, laugh
as you may, but the controls, throttle, pitching, descending, straight
and level flight, torque effects of the prop had ALL been experienced
by me in the sim so I already knew how to compensate for them. I was
turning to certain bearings, climbing/descending to set altitudes,
trimming the aircraft, maintaining set speeds - ALL on my first lesson
and ALL picked up entirely from the sim. As I've already said we all
need real lessons too but the sim CAN help as it has already done for
me.

Ibby

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Look it up.
>
> I already have. The FAA has jurisdiction over practically no one, with the
> exception of pilots and other people who work in the aviation industry.

No, you didn't since what you say is puerile and not relevant to the
discussion anyway.

> Thus, anyone can build and/or fly a flight simulator, with or without
> recognition or approval from the FAA. Microsoft and X-Plane have already done
> so, of course.

Sure anyone can build or fly a flight simulator, but that wasn't the issue.

Neither Microsoft nor X-Plane claim to be doing so; both claim to be
marketing a game.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Varactor writes:
>
>> You think they do when IR?
>
> No, I think they do when they are not instrument-rated. Most private pilots
> do not have an IR.
>
> The point being, of course, that inadequate familiarity and practice with
> instrument procedures, and/or inadequate equipment on board the aircraft, can
> lead to problems.

No, your point was to attempt to take a shot at the real pilots you hate
so much.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Just go look it up!]

On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 04:59:33 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>BeechSundowner writes:
>
>> Imagine you in seat 20F. The plane you are in is inbound for LAX.
>> The plane is descending through 25000 feet. Sudden lurch in the
>> plane, due to the front row passengers (AKA pilot and copilot) keels
>> over dead.
>
>Since the aircraft is on autopilot, there will be no lurch, unless CWS or CWP
>are enabled by control movements (depends on the aircraft).

Which instantly and reinforces the fact that you know *nothing*
because even the PMDG and LDS simulations all include the automatic
disconnect which happens when enough force is excerted on the control
column, a-la what would happen when the pilots keel over on it, or
grab it to execute a TCAS commanded evasive manuver (obviously in
addition to the AP disco button).

[Tim[_1_]]

"-b-" > wrote
>
> To paraphrase, the programs are not completely without usefulness, but
they are
> not simulators.

That's not what he said, he said they weren't "flight training devices".
The FAA has a definition for what qualifies as a "flight training device",
or FTD. They do not have one for "simulator". Webster does, and MSFS seems
to fit that very general definition: "A device, data processing system, or
computer program for representing features of the behavior of a physical or
abstract system."

Notice it doesn't say "all features" or "exact behavior" because those are
qualitative. MSFS is indeed a flight simulator, albeit a poor one.

[Tim[_1_]]

"-b-" > wrote
> Yours is the very definition of an out of context post.
> MX has made it clear that he is not interested in the FAA's definition of
a
> simulator or fligght training device, but focuses on its functionalities.
> Collins cites functionalities to circumscribe the usefulness of these
devices,
> and you comme back to FAA definitions!! Let's call in Kafka to clarify!!
>

You must be new here.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"-b-" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
>
> says...
>>
>>
>>
>>"-b-" > wrote
>>> Yours is the very definition of an out of context post.
>>> MX has made it clear that he is not interested in the FAA's definition
>>> of
>>a
>>> simulator or fligght training device, but focuses on its
>>> functionalities.
>>> Collins cites functionalities to circumscribe the usefulness of these
>>devices,
>>> and you comme back to FAA definitions!! Let's call in Kafka to clarify!!
>>>
>>
>>You must be new here.
>>
>>
>
> From what I'm seeing, I take that as a compliment.
>

From what we are seeing, that's not what was intended.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Ibby" > wrote in message
...
> ***********************************
> You might as well give it up with this person, too. It is more likely that
> you will have a real 747 qualified pilot on board, than you would likely
> find a simmer with the kind of "practiced" on the 747. This one will never
> concede, either.
> --
> Jim in NC

Jim

Believe me I'm nowhere near as bad as MX!!!

Are you saying that all that I have learnt and 'practiced' bears no
correlation to the systems and controls of a real 747-400 because it
does. I have watched a lot of real tutorial dvds (not talking about
little flyby clips on Youtube, but official licensed products on the
747 and 767 flightdecks). The position and behavior of EVERY switch
whether it on the overhead panel, radio panel, Mode Control Panel, the
glass cockpit, the FMC do EXACTLY as the real thing does. I know if I
press 'this' the aircraft will do 'that'. A full procedural checklist
MUST be followed (as per the real thing) for engine start including
APU, ground power, setting pumps to Aux and Auto, turning off packs
etc I know for FACT that if I was to sit down in a 747-400 flightdeck
(forgetting all this emergency landing issue) I could name a huge
majority of the switches, tell you where they are located and the
effect they have on the flight thus giving me some form of advantage
to that of a person who has never been on a flight deck OR used a
simulator/game.

I have openly stated it's a training aid and can successfully
compliment flight training for procedures and navigation flight
planning etc. I know it's not the be-all-and-end all tool that will
give you a PPL after a weeks use which is were MX falls short off. I
know there is a LOT more to learn about the dynamics of flight,
weather systems, regulations etc etc. I know alot of real life pilots
who use it and some are actually prominant members on this forum (but
keep quite), there are those with PPL's, instructors, a retired A320
captain and a retired Gulf War veteran who flew rotaries in the Gulf.
When I took my first flying lesson I felt I could have solo'd, laugh
as you may, but the controls, throttle, pitching, descending, straight
and level flight, torque effects of the prop had ALL been experienced
by me in the sim so I already knew how to compensate for them. I was
turning to certain bearings, climbing/descending to set altitudes,
trimming the aircraft, maintaining set speeds - ALL on my first lesson
and ALL picked up entirely from the sim. As I've already said we all
need real lessons too but the sim CAN help as it has already done for
me.

Ibby

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really, and how was your landing?

[[email protected]]

Tim > wrote:
>
> "-b-" > wrote
>>
>> To paraphrase, the programs are not completely without usefulness, but
> they are
>> not simulators.
>
> That's not what he said, he said they weren't "flight training devices".
> The FAA has a definition for what qualifies as a "flight training device",
> or FTD. They do not have one for "simulator". Webster does, and MSFS seems
> to fit that very general definition: "A device, data processing system, or
> computer program for representing features of the behavior of a physical or
> abstract system."
>
> Notice it doesn't say "all features" or "exact behavior" because those are
> qualitative. MSFS is indeed a flight simulator, albeit a poor one.

Actually the FAA does have definitions for simulators and other training
devices in Part 60.

A couple of huge differences between the games and a real simulator is
that a real simulator has all real switches and buttons that operate,
not pictures on a display activated by a mouse and force feedback on
the controls.

PCATD's, i.e. a flight simulator game with enough hardware to qualify
for instrument procedures training, are covered elsewhere.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"-b-" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, #$$9#@%%%.^^^ says...
>>
>>
>>
>>"-b-" > wrote in message
...
>>> In article >,
>>>
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"-b-" > wrote
>>>>> Yours is the very definition of an out of context post.
>>>>> MX has made it clear that he is not interested in the FAA's definition
>>>>> of
>>>>a
>>>>> simulator or fligght training device, but focuses on its
>>>>> functionalities.
>>>>> Collins cites functionalities to circumscribe the usefulness of these
>>>>devices,
>>>>> and you comme back to FAA definitions!! Let's call in Kafka to
>>>>> clarify!!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You must be new here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> From what I'm seeing, I take that as a compliment.
>>>
>>
>>From what we are seeing, that's not what was intended.
>
>
>
> Intentions may be obscure, arguments explicit. The latter being
> weak......an you extremely stupid.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"-b-" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, #$$9#@%%%.^^^ says...
>>
>>
>>
>>"-b-" > wrote in message
...
>>> In article >, #$$9#@%%%.^^^ says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"-b-" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>
>>>>> says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"-b-" > wrote
>>>>>>> Yours is the very definition of an out of context post.
>>>>>>> MX has made it clear that he is not interested in the FAA's
>>>>>>> definition
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>> simulator or fligght training device, but focuses on its
>>>>>>> functionalities.
>>>>>>> Collins cites functionalities to circumscribe the usefulness of
>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>devices,
>>>>>>> and you comme back to FAA definitions!! Let's call in Kafka to
>>>>>>> clarify!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You must be new here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From what I'm seeing, I take that as a compliment.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>From what we are seeing, that's not what was intended.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Intentions may be obscure, arguments explicit. The latter being
>>> weak......an you extremely stupid.
>
> Intentions become more explicit, arguments weaker.

Geez,,,,,you're almost as astute as Mixie himself. You simmers are all
alike.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"-b-" > wrote in message
...
>
> Simulation is not the question here, but your own inability to grasp the
> subjet at hand is most disconcerting, and would certainly not be conducive
> to safe piloting skills.
>

Like a simmer would know.

[-b-]

If it can help to quell the semantic battle, here's what Richard Collins has to
say about the matter, in a Nov 2006 article on instrument instruction :

"When we were writing about learning to fly, it was suggested that a private
pilot course should be completed before starting training to get an idea of
what is coming. That is an equally good idea before you begin instrument
training. This is a far more complex endeavor and a pilot needs to go through
an instrument rating ground course to get a feel for that complexity. An
inexpensive PC airplane program, like Microsoft Flight Simulator or X-Plane
(both available from Amazon), might also help in scoping out what is involved.
These are not flight training devices but they can be useful in looking at
procedures. An advance look at instrument training and flying might make it
seem like the greatest and most fun challenge you can find, or it might seem a
bit much. If the latter is the case, you might want to fly VFR for a while and
then revisit the instrument course".

To paraphrase, the programs are not completely without usefulness, but they are
not simulators. Of course, you could always write to FLYING to contest this
point of view. You could demand that he publish a retraction. Many pilots write
to him, but most with less than twenty thousand or so hours refrain from going
to head with someone so clearly more experienced (not to mention the fact that
he has the broadest readership base in all of aviation). He also has something
of a reputation for not suffering fools gently. Your call . . .








In article >,
says...
>
>
writes:
>
>> Look it up.
>
>I already have. The FAA has jurisdiction over practically no one, with the
>exception of pilots and other people who work in the aviation industry.
>
>Thus, anyone can build and/or fly a flight simulator, with or without
>recognition or approval from the FAA. Microsoft and X-Plane have already done
>so, of course.

[-b-]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>
>"-b-" > wrote
>>
>> To paraphrase, the programs are not completely without usefulness, but
>they are
>> not simulators.
>
>That's not what he said, he said they weren't "flight training devices".
>The FAA has a definition for what qualifies as a "flight training device",
>or FTD. They do not have one for "simulator". Webster does, and MSFS seems
>to fit that very general definition: "A device, data processing system, or
>computer program for representing features of the behavior of a physical or
>abstract system."
>
>Notice it doesn't say "all features" or "exact behavior" because those are
>qualitative. MSFS is indeed a flight simulator, albeit a poor one.
>
>

Yours is the very definition of an out of context post.
MX has made it clear that he is not interested in the FAA's definition of a
simulator or fligght training device, but focuses on its functionalities.
Collins cites functionalities to circumscribe the usefulness of these devices,
and you comme back to FAA definitions!! Let's call in Kafka to clarify!!

[-b-]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>
>"-b-" > wrote
>> Yours is the very definition of an out of context post.
>> MX has made it clear that he is not interested in the FAA's definition of
>a
>> simulator or fligght training device, but focuses on its functionalities.
>> Collins cites functionalities to circumscribe the usefulness of these
>devices,
>> and you comme back to FAA definitions!! Let's call in Kafka to clarify!!
>>
>
>You must be new here.
>
>

From what I'm seeing, I take that as a compliment.

[Mxsmanic]

Just go look it up! writes:

> Which instantly and reinforces the fact that you know *nothing*
> because even the PMDG and LDS simulations all include the automatic
> disconnect which happens when enough force is excerted on the control
> column, a-la what would happen when the pilots keel over on it, or
> grab it to execute a TCAS commanded evasive manuver (obviously in
> addition to the AP disco button).

What makes you believe that an incapacitated pilot would hit the yoke with
enough force to disengage the autopilot? "Airplane" is a Hollywood work of
fiction, not real life.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"-b-" > wrote in message
>
> What "simmers" do or don't know is highly variable, and finally of little
> consequence compared to pilots, whose testosterone-driven judgement has
> been
> implicated in a large number of accidents, which could have been avoided.

MX, put your sock back on....

sheesh....plonk
--
Jim in NC

[-b-]

In article >, #$$9#@%%%.^^^ says...
>
>
>
>"-b-" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>>
>> says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"-b-" > wrote
>>>> Yours is the very definition of an out of context post.
>>>> MX has made it clear that he is not interested in the FAA's definition
>>>> of
>>>a
>>>> simulator or fligght training device, but focuses on its
>>>> functionalities.
>>>> Collins cites functionalities to circumscribe the usefulness of these
>>>devices,
>>>> and you comme back to FAA definitions!! Let's call in Kafka to clarify!!
>>>>
>>>
>>>You must be new here.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> From what I'm seeing, I take that as a compliment.
>>
>
>From what we are seeing, that's not what was intended.



Intentions may be obscure, arguments explicit. The latter being weak.
>

[-b-]

In article >, #$$9#@%%%.^^^ says...
>
>
>
>"-b-" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, #$$9#@%%%.^^^ says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"-b-" > wrote in message
...
>>>> In article >,
>>>>
>>>> says...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"-b-" > wrote
>>>>>> Yours is the very definition of an out of context post.
>>>>>> MX has made it clear that he is not interested in the FAA's definition
>>>>>> of
>>>>>a
>>>>>> simulator or fligght training device, but focuses on its
>>>>>> functionalities.
>>>>>> Collins cites functionalities to circumscribe the usefulness of these
>>>>>devices,
>>>>>> and you comme back to FAA definitions!! Let's call in Kafka to
>>>>>> clarify!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You must be new here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From what I'm seeing, I take that as a compliment.
>>>>
>>>
>>>From what we are seeing, that's not what was intended.
>>
>>
>>
>> Intentions may be obscure, arguments explicit. The latter being
>> weak......an you extremely stupid.

Intentions become more explicit, arguments weaker.


>
>

[-b-]

In article >, #$$9#@%%%.^^^ says...
>
>
>
>"-b-" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, #$$9#@%%%.^^^ says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"-b-" > wrote in message
...
>>>> In article >, #$$9#@%%%.^^^ says...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"-b-" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"-b-" > wrote
>>>>>>>> Yours is the very definition of an out of context post.
>>>>>>>> MX has made it clear that he is not interested in the FAA's
>>>>>>>> definition
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>> simulator or fligght training device, but focuses on its
>>>>>>>> functionalities.
>>>>>>>> Collins cites functionalities to circumscribe the usefulness of
>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>devices,
>>>>>>>> and you comme back to FAA definitions!! Let's call in Kafka to
>>>>>>>> clarify!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You must be new here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From what I'm seeing, I take that as a compliment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>From what we are seeing, that's not what was intended.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Intentions may be obscure, arguments explicit. The latter being
>>>> weak......an you extremely stupid.
>>
>> Intentions become more explicit, arguments weaker.
>
>Geez,,,,,you're almost as astute as Mixie himself. You simmers are all
>alike.
>
>

Simulation is not the question here, but your own inability to grasp the
subjet at hand is most disconcerting, and would certainly not be conducive
to safe piloting skills.

[Ibby]

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Really, and how was your landing?

I wasn't allowed to land on my first lesson and I would doubt anyone
is but I'm sure your hoping to compare my first lesson to how I, or a
complete novice with zero aircraft experience, would land a commercial
airliner. Landing a small Cessna 152 (with NO AUTOPILOT) requires
manual control of pitch and throttle to retain the required descent
rate and localiser following. Landing an airliner can all be done via
the Autoland system with the press of a few buttons. It doesn't have
to be done manually, you do NOT have to control the yoke or touch the
thrust levers until on the ground. MOST real life landings are done
with this method with the pilot perhaps only disconnecting the
autopilot and autothrottle systems a few hundred feet above ground
level when the aircraft is already established and configured for the
descent path i.e. descent rate, airspeed and lateral position. His
hands will of course remain on the control column and thrust levels in
case he needs to press the TOGA button on the thrust lever in case of
a Go-Around etc.

If a novice or even a PPL pilot had to hand fly an airliner and land
it yes it would more than likely result in disaster but less likely
with the highly technical automation systems available today in the
Next Generation Boeings.

Ibby

[-b-]

In article >, #$$9#@%%%.^^^ says...
>
>
>
>"-b-" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Simulation is not the question here, but your own inability to grasp the
>> subjet at hand is most disconcerting, and would certainly not be conducive
>> to safe piloting skills.
>>
>
>Like a simmer would know.
>
>

What "simmers" do or don't know is highly variable, and finally of little
consequence compared to pilots, whose testosterone-driven judgement has been
implicated in a large number of accidents, which could have been avoided.

[Just go look it up!]

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 09:35:37 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Just go look it up! writes:
>
>> Which instantly and reinforces the fact that you know *nothing*
>> because even the PMDG and LDS simulations all include the automatic
>> disconnect which happens when enough force is excerted on the control
>> column, a-la what would happen when the pilots keel over on it, or
>> grab it to execute a TCAS commanded evasive manuver (obviously in
>> addition to the AP disco button).
>
>What makes you believe that an incapacitated pilot would hit the yoke with
>enough force to disengage the autopilot? "Airplane" is a Hollywood work of
>fiction, not real life.

Because unlike you I've been there and know it only takes 15-20lb of
pressure to disconnect the autopilot? The postulated scenario is well
within reason that the system would have disconnected, "Airplane" or
not.

Hell, the theroy is that Eastern Airlines flight 401 crashed because
the Captain bumped the yoke while just turning to talk to the copilot
and didn't know he had changed modes. It happened.

You don't even understand the basics of the systems that you
supposedly simulate "just like real life" and come here and try and
tell real pilots who use this stuff day in and day out that you know
more than them, because playing MSFS is a suitable substitute for real
world experience and knoweldge? I knew it was a mistake to put an
expiration date on your entry in my killfile.

[-b-]

Time to reveal an amazing secret! You have been the unwitting first subject
of the all-new MX-SIM 1.0! That's right - It's easy to be MX! You too can be
MX!

Here's a hint for starters : Discard all thread orientation - this is direct
action! Favor form over content. Respond word-to-word, without respect to
context. Throw in a few three-dollar words to remain aloof. Insinuate
generously and insult directly where needed ("unsafe pilot" remarks serve as
slaps in the face - use them generously). Use PC to feign contact with the
real world (male, testosterone, emotions over intellect ) Use copy and paste
functions to invoke these facile expressions repeatedly - (Function keys in
MX-SIM 1.0 invoke these stock phrases automatically). Above all, remain aloof
- the real subject of the discussion is secondary, even inconsequential.
Deriding and insulting other contributors is the only objective.

International Secret technique revealed!!
This intellectually advanced tactic is derived from the French "Orpheus"
theater piece by Jean Anouillh : "It's easy to appear sophisticated. You just
have to think of nothing. This is within the grasp of every woman . . ."

"Every woman", that was in 1945 - today it can be YOU! The tactic is
precisely to think of nothing! Insulting the adversary, on the basis of the
syntax of the preceding post, is the only objective. This is certain to drive
any well-meaning contributor up the wall, because they would like to advance
toward an understanding, a conclusion or a dialog, but with the patented MXS
technique all of these are non-starters. Use their natural good intentions
against them! Take advantage of their desire to offer helpful dialog and
information to insult and deride them. Frustrate their attempts to foster
dialog by responding only to specific syntactic phrases. These are only a few
of the techniques you will learn in the all-new MX-SIM 1.0 package!

This simple "Amway" technique has proven so successful that usenet
contributors the world over believe that its users have intellectual
resources far above their actual capacity! That's right! You don't need any
brain at all to be MX! You too can say anything you want, directly contradict
what you said the very same day making it look as though it was someone else
who was inconsistent. Imagine the satisfaction of insulting world renowned
experts in any field - things you know nothing about - and leaving them
stupefied, dumbfounded by your gratuitous insults! This result can be yours
with the new MX-SIM 1.0 package!!

I'm so convinced of the effectiveness of this new package that I'm going to
offer you another free tip! Avoid any sense of compassion or empathy! These
defects will weaken your argument. The original MXS was an extreme Asperger's
Syndrome sufferer - a mental disease in which empathy becomes completely
impossible and which, as a result, drastically alters human interactions.
Well guess what - that total lack of emotional empathy is often misconstrued
by well-meaning victims as intellectual superiority! You can actually make
people think you are hundreds of times smarter than you really are, simply by
making it clear that you don't give a s*** about them or anyone else, and
simply focusing on words!!

But I've given enough away - Now it's up to you. To benefit form a COMPLETELY
FREE SPECIAL FIRST EDITION OFFER of MXS-SIM 1.0, send $100 to :

THE MENTAL HEALTH FOUNDATION
P.O. BOX 322
ALBANY, N.Y. 12201


Proceeds will go toward therapy for MXSMANIC, and it's going to take a lot!!






In article >,
says...
>
>
>
>"-b-" > wrote in message
>>
>> What "simmers" do or don't know is highly variable, and finally of little
>> consequence compared to pilots, whose testosterone-driven judgement has
>> been
>> implicated in a large number of accidents, which could have been avoided.
>
>MX, put your sock back on....
>
>sheesh....plonk


>--
>Jim in NC
>
>

[Mxsmanic]

Just go look it up! writes:

> Because unlike you I've been there and know it only takes 15-20lb of
> pressure to disconnect the autopilot?

Why would incapacitated pilots be exerting pressure on the yoke?

> You don't even understand the basics of the systems that you
> supposedly simulate "just like real life" and come here and try and
> tell real pilots who use this stuff day in and day out ...

Virtually nobody here uses this stuff day in and day out. Most of the pilots
here are low-time private pilots, although they might fancy themselves
captains of the sky.

> ... that you know more than them, because playing MSFS is a suitable
> substitute for real world experience and knoweldge?

When it comes to airliner systems, it's a lot more informative than the
baseless speculation I'm seeing from tin-toy pilots here. And I add research
to that, which apparently is also a very rare practice among many posters
here.

You don't learn these systems by trial and error in the aircraft.

[Ibby]

> Hell, the theroy is that Eastern Airlines flight 401 crashed because
> the Captain bumped the yoke while just turning to talk to the copilot
> and didn't know he had changed modes. *It happened.
>

I cannot see how you wouldn't know the autopilot has been disconnected
as there is a very loud audible warning when this occurs as well as a
warning master switch above the PFD that the pilot cannot miss on
737/747 aircraft and I'm sure Airbus have it too

Ibby

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Ibby" > wrote in message
...

> Hell, the theroy is that Eastern Airlines flight 401 crashed because
> the Captain bumped the yoke while just turning to talk to the copilot
> and didn't know he had changed modes. It happened.
>

I cannot see how you wouldn't know the autopilot has been disconnected
as there is a very loud audible warning when this occurs as well as a
warning master switch above the PFD that the pilot cannot miss on
737/747 aircraft and I'm sure Airbus have it too

Ibby

-----------------------------------------

Yeah, but you can't seem to see a lot of things, like reality for openers.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Just go look it up! writes:
>
>> Because unlike you I've been there and know it only takes 15-20lb of
>> pressure to disconnect the autopilot?
>
> Why would incapacitated pilots be exerting pressure on the yoke?
>
>> You don't even understand the basics of the systems that you
>> supposedly simulate "just like real life" and come here and try and
>> tell real pilots who use this stuff day in and day out ...
>
> Virtually nobody here uses this stuff day in and day out. Most of the
> pilots
> here are low-time private pilots, although they might fancy themselves
> captains of the sky.
>
>> ... that you know more than them, because playing MSFS is a suitable
>> substitute for real world experience and knoweldge?
>
> When it comes to airliner systems, it's a lot more informative than the
> baseless speculation I'm seeing from tin-toy pilots here. And I add
> research
> to that, which apparently is also a very rare practice among many posters
> here.
>
> You don't learn these systems by trial and error in the aircraft.

Then why are you hear dumb ass. Do you think you come here to teach!

You're just the village retard.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Ibby" > wrote in message
...
>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Really, and how was your landing?
>
> I wasn't allowed to land on my first lesson and I would doubt anyone
> is but I'm sure your hoping to compare my first lesson to how I, or a
> complete novice with zero aircraft experience, would land a commercial
> airliner. Landing a small Cessna 152 (with NO AUTOPILOT) requires
> manual control of pitch and throttle to retain the required descent
> rate and localiser following. Landing an airliner can all be done via
> the Autoland system with the press of a few buttons. It doesn't have
> to be done manually, you do NOT have to control the yoke or touch the
> thrust levers until on the ground. MOST real life landings are done
> with this method with the pilot perhaps only disconnecting the
> autopilot and autothrottle systems a few hundred feet above ground
> level when the aircraft is already established and configured for the
> descent path i.e. descent rate, airspeed and lateral position. His
> hands will of course remain on the control column and thrust levels in
> case he needs to press the TOGA button on the thrust lever in case of
> a Go-Around etc.
>
> If a novice or even a PPL pilot had to hand fly an airliner and land
> it yes it would more than likely result in disaster but less likely
> with the highly technical automation systems available today in the
> Next Generation Boeings.
>
> Ibby

Oh brother, Mx Jr.

[Dave Doe]

In article <94be11d7-f0cb-4b92-b98e-36585bce1806
@q11g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, says...
>
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Really, and how was your landing?
>
> I wasn't allowed to land on my first lesson and I would doubt anyone
> is but I'm sure your hoping to compare my first lesson to how I, or a
> complete novice with zero aircraft experience, would land a commercial
> airliner. Landing a small Cessna 152 (with NO AUTOPILOT) requires
> manual control of pitch and throttle to retain the required descent
> rate and localiser following. Landing an airliner can all be done via
> the Autoland system with the press of a few buttons. It doesn't have
> to be done manually, you do NOT have to control the yoke or touch the
> thrust levers until on the ground. MOST real life landings are done
> with this method

??? Most?

Certainly not.

--
Duncan

[-b-]

In article >,
says...


>
>Why would incapacitated pilots be exerting pressure on the yoke?

Because they fell over on it. A well documented scenario in the real world.

>Virtually nobody here uses this stuff day in and day out. Most of the pilots
>here are low-time private pilots, although they might fancy themselves
>captains of the sky.

Yes, by definition, they are. Once you become quualified and certificated and
assume control of an aircraft, you are pilot in command. What's really
disturbing is that there are people without any of the above qualificfations or
experience who consider themselves qualified to pass judgement. Such people are
potentially dangerous.

[Mxsmanic]

-b- writes:

> Because they fell over on it. A well documented scenario in the real world.

Really? Incapacitated pilots who overcome a five-point harness and fall all
the way forward onto the yoke? Can you point me to some examples?

> Yes, by definition, they are. Once you become quualified and certificated and
> assume control of an aircraft, you are pilot in command.

Ho-hum.

> What's really disturbing is that there are people without any of the
> above qualificfations or experience who consider themselves qualified
> to pass judgement.

Like aircraft engineers, you mean?

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> Over a hundred dead Russians are testement that your "sure" is baseless.

How so?

>> What is up with these MSFS freaks? Why on Earth do they think a game is
> anything like the real world?

Why do so many private pilots feel threatened by simulators? Strangely
enough, airline pilots are far less likely to exhibit this sort of knee-jerk
rejection.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Why do so many private pilots feel threatened by simulators?

You have delusions of grandeur.

No one is threatened by simultators.

Most everyone is annoyed by a self-proclaimed aviation expert who's
credentials consist of playing games and reading Internet articles
about aviation. That the self-proclaimed aviation expert also has
a bad case of tunnel vision and the social skills of a 8 year old
doesn't help the situation.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> -b- writes:
>
>> Because they fell over on it. A well documented scenario in the real
>> world.
>
> Really? Incapacitated pilots who overcome a five-point harness and fall
> all
> the way forward onto the yoke? Can you point me to some examples?
>
>> Yes, by definition, they are. Once you become quualified and certificated
>> and
>> assume control of an aircraft, you are pilot in command.
>
> Ho-hum.
>
>> What's really disturbing is that there are people without any of the
>> above qualificfations or experience who consider themselves qualified
>> to pass judgement.
>
> Like aircraft engineers, you mean?

No, retarded, antisocial cave dwellers like yourself.

He was really quite clear, try to keep up.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Clark writes:
>
>> Over a hundred dead Russians are testement that your "sure" is baseless.
>
> How so?
>
>>> What is up with these MSFS freaks? Why on Earth do they think a game is
>> anything like the real world?
>
> Why do so many private pilots feel threatened by simulators? Strangely
> enough, airline pilots are far less likely to exhibit this sort of
> knee-jerk
> rejection.

Their not, they just know you're a retarded, ****-for-brains so they avoid
you.

[Just go look it up!]

On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:21:45 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>-b- writes:
>
>> Because they fell over on it. A well documented scenario in the real world.
>
>Really? Incapacitated pilots who overcome a five-point harness and fall all
>the way forward onto the yoke? Can you point me to some examples?

Except for the lap belt the rest of the 5 point harness is not
required except for takeoff, landing, and taxi. You don't sit in the
5 point harness for the entire flight. Falling forward onto the yoke
wouldn't be a big problem enroute.

For example of being unrestrained enroute would be the pilot who went
out the front window when it popped out due to improper maintenance:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE0D8173CF932A25755C0A9669582 60

Back to my killbox. You still just don't even want to do any of your
own thought or research.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Clark > wrote:

> What is up with these MSFS freaks? Why on Earth do they think a game is
> anything like the real world? The only logical explanation is that they have
> no experience in the real world...

That's certainly part of it. Another big part, I think, is an inability
to view the world in anything but black and white.

Take the fellow's recent statement that physical sensations are useless
when flying. His "proof" was simple: you can't fly if you close your
eyes, so the sensations must be useless.

This, of course, makes no sense. They can be useful without being so
useful that they're all you need. But he sees things in black and white,
yes or no, one or zero, nothing in between.

Then we have the simulator. Well, MSFS *is* realistic to some degree. It
*is* useful to some degree. People use it to practice IFR procedures and
the like. Applying the absolutist argument here, and you can see how
MSFS is 100% accurate for everything that matters and anything you get
in the real world that's not found in MSFS is pointless or stupid anyway.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> So you admit your ignorance on the matter of autopilot disconnect.

No, I'm wondering which specific incident you have in mind.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Clark writes:
>
>> So you admit your ignorance on the matter of autopilot disconnect.
>
> No, I'm wondering which specific incident you have in mind.

In your case, you have your choice of many.

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> In other words you don't know which is a fundamental definition
> of ignorance.

More like a defect in recall, since if there is a basis for it, I'm sure I've
read about it.

> You claim to be good at research so figure it out. Try to actually learn
> something for once. It'll do you good to admit ignorance and correct the
> condition.

Given what I usually read here and how unreliable it tends to be, I'll just
assume that it's baseless unless you can provide some sort of reference.

[a[_3_]]

On Mar 7, 2:07*pm, Clark > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > Clark writes:
>
> >> In other words you don't know which is a fundamental definition
> >> of ignorance.
>
> > More like a defect in recall, since if there is a basis for it, I'm sure
> > I've read about it.
>
> Now you claim defective recall. Wow. Well, it's a start. Keep working on
> naming your defects and maybe things will get better for you.
>
>
>
> >> You claim to be good at research so figure it out. Try to actually
> >> learn something for once. It'll do you good to admit ignorance and
> >> correct the condition.
>
> > Given what I usually read here and how unreliable it tends to be, I'll
> > just assume that it's baseless unless you can provide some sort of
> > reference.
>
> Good luck little boy. Keep on kiddin' yourself that you know something based
> on your toy.
>
> --
> ---
> there should be a "sig" here

I had this thought: wouldn't it be nice when flying a tail dragger to
be able to "turn off the nose"?. Talk about real world v sim, huh?

[Mxsmanic]

a writes:

> I had this thought: wouldn't it be nice when flying a tail dragger to
> be able to "turn off the nose"?

As I've pointed out before, there are clear advantages to simulation,
otherwise it wouldn't be so popular.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>a writes:
>
>> I had this thought: wouldn't it be nice when flying a tail dragger to
>> be able to "turn off the nose"?
>
> As I've pointed out before, there are clear advantages to simulation,
> otherwise it wouldn't be so popular.

Yeah, like you never have to leave you mother's basement.

[Ibby]

> -----------------------------------------
>
> Yeah, but you can't seem to see a lot of things, like reality for openers.

I'm sorry but that is just a bloody stupid reply so please try to grow
up this thread is full of childish etiquette. ANY real life
commercial aircraft has a VERY LOUD audible ALARM when the Autopilot
is disengaged (as well as a flashing red master caution switch) either
via the control bar on the MCP panel, the switch on the yoke or by
moving the control column excessively as in the case of an emergency.
The entire crew on the flight deck WOULD hear it. My comments have
NOTHING what so ever to do with using a flight sim they ARE based on
what DOES happen in a 737 and 747 for a start and sure the same on any
Airbus as well.

Ibby

[Ibby]

> What is up with these MSFS freaks? Why on Earth do they think a game is
> anything like the real world? The only logical explanation is that they have
> no experience in the real world...
>
> --
> ---
> there should be a "sig" here

As I have said my comments have absolutely NOTHING to do with a sim.
BOEING's autopilot system HAS and ALWAYS HAS given a warning sound and
very loudly when the autopilot system is disconnected.

This flight deck video is on a REAL 747, not a sim or game but
reality. At 4min 58seconds the autopilot IS disconnected and you
cannot miss the alarm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-TWH93qTY&feature=channel

Even your basic autopilot system on a Cessna gives a warning alarm

Ibby

[Ibby]

> So you admit your ignorance on the matter of autopilot disconnect. In other
> words, your wonderful simulator is inadequate. Sorry 'bout that little boy.

I will post this again as it's NOT ignorance, it is REALITY.
Watch this clip - A REAL CLIP ON A REAL BOEING 747-400 NOT A GAME
4min 58 seconds the autopilot is disconnected by the pilot via a
button on his control column.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-TWH93qTY&feature=channel

This group is pathetic, I was going to try give you guys a chance but
you lot argue against ANYTHING depending on the source of the comment.
I'm sure most of you have experience in general aviation but are there
any real commercial pilots on here that will back your arguements, not
against the good or bad aspects of a sim but back your comments about
what you lot believe happens on a real commercial flightdeck

Ibby

[Ibby]

>
> Oh brother, Mx Jr.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

God man grow up. What do you think the point of an autopilot,
autolanding and autothrottle systems are for?? To make control of an
airliner easier for the flightcrew whether it an Airbus, Boeing and MD
and even a Cirus, Pipers etc. As a Cessna 152 has NONE of these
systems they have to be flown by hand and landed by hand. An airliner
does NOT HAVE to be hand flown - in REAL LIFE and RARELY is. Read
some books, watch some videos and wise up you lot. I was DEFENDING
the skill required in hand flying a light aircraft but it just seems
to literally 'fly' over a lot of heads here in your blindness for what
you are reading. There is nothing wrong with my previous post. I
know what is required in a real aircraft to control airspeed,
attitude, descents and climbs because I HAVE bloody flown a REAL
aircraft but in the UK you are not permitted to land or take off on
your first lesson which I was commenting on.

Ibby

[Ibby]

>*It doesn't have
> > to be done manually, you do NOT have to control the yoke or touch the
> > thrust levers until on the ground. *MOST real life landings are done
> > with this method
>
> ??? Most?
>
> Certainly not.
>
> --
> Duncan

Duncan

So do YOU believe a pilot of a 737 or 747 hand flys an entire STAR
approach, captures the ILS localiser and glideslope, whilst keeping
critical control of his altitude and reducing airspeed and deployment
of flaps ALL by hand. Commercial pilots use the autopilot's approach
system at the very LEAST to get established on the localiser and
control the descent on the glideslope whilst they manually reduce the
desired speed (still under the autopilots autohrottle control) on the
Mode Control Panel

Watch this video of the final stages of a 747-400 approach and landing
into San Fransisco. This is a typical landing. The pilot
disconnected the autopilot at a few hundred feet but this aircraft and
runway 28L could have enabled him to perform a full autoland.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ShBOtPiuNM

As you can clearly witness the majority of the input required by the
pilot to maintain flight, approach and landing is via the MCP on the
glareshield

Ibby


Ibby

[Dave Doe]

In article <02f02df5-278d-42e2-b0ee-aa5271b2f795
@q11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, says...
> >*It doesn't have
> > > to be done manually, you do NOT have to control the yoke or touch the
> > > thrust levers until on the ground. *MOST real life landings are done
> > > with this method
> >
> > ??? Most?
> >
> > Certainly not.
> >
> > --
> > Duncan
>
> Duncan
>
> So do YOU believe a pilot of a 737 or 747 hand flys an entire STAR
> approach, captures the ILS localiser and glideslope, whilst keeping
> critical control of his altitude and reducing airspeed and deployment
> of flaps ALL by hand. Commercial pilots use the autopilot's approach
> system at the very LEAST to get established on the localiser and
> control the descent on the glideslope whilst they manually reduce the
> desired speed (still under the autopilots autohrottle control) on the
> Mode Control Panel

Relevance? (we're (you were) talking autolands, not approaches or even
cruise flight).


> Watch this video of the final stages of a 747-400 approach and landing
> into San Fransisco. This is a typical landing. The pilot
> disconnected the autopilot at a few hundred feet but this aircraft and
> runway 28L could have enabled him to perform a full autoland.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ShBOtPiuNM

Relevance? (we're (you were) talking autolands, not approaches or even
cruise flight).


> As you can clearly witness the majority of the input required by the
> pilot to maintain flight, approach and landing is via the MCP on the
> glareshield

Relevance? (we're (you were) talking autolands, not approaches or even
cruise flight).

--
Duncan

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> And a Russian Airbus crashed after an undetected autopilot disconnect. Now do
> you have a clue?

Airbus? Well, all bets are off if you're flying a Scarebus.

You must be talking about Flight 593, with kids in the cockpit. Substantial
movement of the control column by one of the captain's kids visiting the
cockpit triggered a cancellation of roll-mode AP control, which in the
Scarebus is not audibly annunciated. It didn't take long for the pilots to
notice something was amiss, but by the time they figured it all out and got
the airplane under control, they were too low, and they crashed.

The mere fact that the captain let his kids touch the controls tends to imply
that the crew was incompetent to begin with.

> Next, look up the Century series of autopilots. I'll guarantee you that they
> don't give any audible alert when they disconnect. Don't even try to argue
> this one since I have one in my aircraft.

Are you flying a 747 or an A380?

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Ibby" > wrote in message news:05c5bdae-edf3-4329-86d5-

No your not. You are hear to create noise and confusion, just like your
brother MX.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Ibby" > wrote in message news:aa4e0851-e0d5-4fb1-98dd-

Maybe you should take this back to the sim or game group. Perhaps it would
actually interest them.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Ibby" > wrote in message news:d1a8081d-1417-4547-927c-

You are really stuck on this warning bell thing. Have you had your hearing
tested lately?

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Clark writes:
>
>> And a Russian Airbus crashed after an undetected autopilot disconnect.
>> Now do
>> you have a clue?
>
> Airbus? Well, all bets are off if you're flying a Scarebus.
>
> You must be talking about Flight 593, with kids in the cockpit.
> Substantial
> movement of the control column by one of the captain's kids visiting the
> cockpit triggered a cancellation of roll-mode AP control, which in the
> Scarebus is not audibly annunciated. It didn't take long for the pilots
> to
> notice something was amiss, but by the time they figured it all out and
> got
> the airplane under control, they were too low, and they crashed.
>
> The mere fact that the captain let his kids touch the controls tends to
> imply
> that the crew was incompetent to begin with.
>
>> Next, look up the Century series of autopilots. I'll guarantee you that
>> they
>> don't give any audible alert when they disconnect. Don't even try to
>> argue
>> this one since I have one in my aircraft.
>
> Are you flying a 747 or an A380?

You are both flying a desk, dumb ass.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Ibby" > wrote in message
...

You grow up dumb ass. Just exactly like MX, in your ignorance and
inexperience you missed the whole point.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Ibby" > wrote in message news:02f02df5-278d-42e2-b0ee-

What a moron. Go back to the sim group gamer.

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
> > Are you flying a 747 or an A380?
>
> Butt out dumbass. No one asked for your ignorance to be displayed here.

I'll take that as a "neither."

[Ibby]

On Mar 9, 12:43*pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
> "Ibby" > wrote in message news:05c5bdae-edf3-4329-86d5-
>
> No your not. You are hear to create noise and confusion, just like your
> brother MX.

This has NOTHING to do with MX, this has NOTHING to DO with Flight
Sims, this HAS to do with WHAT DOES HAPPEN on a flightdeck.
God man watch some videos, ask a real commercial pilot and stop bloody
denouncing everything ppl say. Now I do not know what faults in the
accident reported caused the pilot not to know the autopilot was
disengaged but on the majority of aircraft from the past 15 years
there is an ALARM. Even your basic Cessna's have an alarm when you
disengage it and resume manual flight control.

[Ibby]

> Ibby, if you want to respond to my comments about another person's ignorance
> then perhaps you should try to understand the example.
>
> You've clearly failed here and attempt to blame me for your failure. Bad form
> to say the least.
>
> --
> ---
> there should be a "sig" here- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

PPL here are saying that the autopilot has NO warning system when
disengaged because 'I' said it does on one post and that I couldn't
understand how the pilot of the reported accident wasn't aware he
accidently switched it off, and as 'I' use a sim 'I' haven't got a
bloody clue and am made out to be a LIAR.
The clip 'I' posted clearly shows on a REAL 747-400 aircraft that the
Autopilot DOES have a warning system when the autopilot is
disconnected. The 737 also has it and so do most airliners and a lot
of General Aviation aircraft too.

I give up with group. You make out we simmers have zero qualification
to speak about certain issues and I agree on some aspects. But
considering most of you lot are probably not commercial pilots either
then the same can be said for your responses when you start shouting
'we don't believe you because you play a game', even when video
evidence is posted before your eyes of real aircraft. Yes I may have
never set foot on a real flightdeck of an airliner, though I at least
have flown a real plane (unlike MX) but that does not mean I cannot
aquire the knowledge that I understand what will happen to the
aircraft if I push this button whilst flying with the autopilot.

One does NOT have to fully experience something physically to
understand how it works. A doctor does not have had to experience the
pains and traumas etc his patients perhaps have to understand what is
happening inside their bodies and how to remedy them. An astromoner
does NOT have to get inside the Space Shuttle and enter the deep
realms of space to understand about the planets and stars!!!!!!!

Goodbye

Ibby

[Ibby]

> Next, look up the Century series of autopilots. I'll guarantee you that they
> don't give any audible alert when they disconnect. Don't even try to argue
> this one since I have one in my aircraft.
>
> Sheesh, some people...
>
> --
> ---
> there should be a "sig" here- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well perhaps this model didn't have an alarm even though they bloody
should have and this accident has clearly proven the need for all
aircraft to have them.
My comments were based on my 'knowledge' of Boeings and a great number
of your common GA aircraft. It doesnt matter how I know this either
via the sim, reading or videos, the simple fact is Boeing have an
alarm but because an honest and accurate comment about a 747-400 comes
from either MX or myself or millions of other sim users (even real
pilots who do both) it means ****all on this group

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Ibby" > wrote in message news:8eece7d0-8289-4053-97b9-

No mater how many times you explain it, you still are not getting the point.

Just like you brother MX.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Ibby" > wrote in message
...
>
No, you assumptions are base on your experience period, and that is
extremely limited.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Clark writes:
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > Are you flying a 747 or an A380?
>>
>> Butt out dumbass. No one asked for your ignorance to be displayed here.
>
> I'll take that as a "neither."

Might as well, you pull all your other assumptions out of your ass.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Ibby" > wrote in message
...

Don't let the door hit you in the ass.

[george]

On Mar 10, 8:51*am, Ibby > wrote:
> *It doesnt matter how I know this either
> via the sim, reading or videos, the simple fact is Boeing have an
> alarm but because an honest and accurate comment about a 747-400 comes
> from either MX or myself or millions of other sim users (even real
> pilots who do both) it means ****all on this group

Yup. You finally twigged it.
Return at all haste to your 'sim' group and leave we poor real time
pilots to wallow in reality.

[Ibby]

> You are both flying a desk, dumb ass.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Now this is just childish.

Most of this group argue that a simmer has NO knowledge whatsoever of
what occurs inside a real aircraft because he has never set foot
inside that model for which he is 'familiar' with.
When evidence is placed in front of you that a REAL 747-400 has an
audible alarm on autopilot disengagement you still throw insults back
saying 'you are wrong'.

Going back to the original comments on whether a novice could land
this aircraft on an emergency under guidance this entire video clip
clearly shows all that is required. ATC are giving the pilot heading,
speed and altitude commands and he is adjusting the MCP. He is NOT
flying the aircraft, the autopilot is and with adequate instruction
others could adjust the appropriate knobs too as the are ALL on the
Mode Control Panel (as clearly demonstrated on this clip). The AP is
controlling the throttles and elevator trim etc to maintain the course
etc as entered on the MCP. The pilot COULD have done a full autoland
on runway 28L as LAND3, Rollout and Flare were all armed and confirmed
by the pilot. By switching on the autobrakes the autopilot and
autothrottle system would have cut the throttles at 50ft, flared the
aircraft and autobraked whilst keeping the aircraft on the centreline
without the pilot even touching the controls or manual braking. If
you dont believe it go ask a 747-400 captain.

Ibby

[Ibby]

On Mar 9, 8:02*pm, george > wrote:
> On Mar 10, 8:51*am, Ibby > wrote:
>
> > *It doesnt matter how I know this either
> > via the sim, reading or videos, the simple fact is Boeing have an
> > alarm but because an honest and accurate comment about a 747-400 comes
> > from either MX or myself or millions of other sim users (even real
> > pilots who do both) it means ****all on this group
>
> Yup. You finally twigged it.
> Return at all haste to your 'sim' group and leave we poor real time
> pilots to wallow in reality.

So George why not go ask a REAL 747-400 pilot to confirm all that has
been said here and what is 'reality'. A 747-400 HAS an alarm, plain
simple, to argue against that you're bloody stupid. Even if I wasn't
a simmer I know a real one has it on it's systems

[Ibby]

> You are really stuck on this warning bell thing. Have you had your hearing
> tested lately?

Because that is one issue you lot said directly to myself was a LIE.
You lot made out that EVERYTHING we say is utter CRAP. I originally
questioned how I couldn't understand how the russian pilot failed to
notice the AP being switched off as I know from both the sim and
videos on real flightdecks that the Boeing 747 and 737's have them but
according to you lot THEY DONT because the 'desk pilot' says so. But
do I get an educated response saying 'well as we are only GA pilots
and also haven't physically flown a 747 you may be correct but this
particular Russian model didnt have an alarm' we just get a childish
'f@=k you'

Ibby

[Ibby]

> You grow up dumb ass. Just exactly like MX, in your ignorance and
> inexperience you missed the whole point.

So how can someone who HAS physically controlled a real aircraft (me)
be compared to MX who HASN'T controlled a real aircraft????????????

The Sim isn't perfect but it DOES teach (especially with commercial
addons) elements of flight and navigation. It helped me understand
what was required on my first flight in a Cessna 152.
Infact the REAL aircraft was EASIER to roll, pitch and trim than the
sim. If my comments are so stupid about landing an airliner then YOU
describe to ME the process involved in doing so!! Why do airports
have ILS's, why do they have DME etc, for navigation and automated
flight. Why does the FMC have a full SID STAR database if the pilot
was just going to hand fly them based on his charts? Do commercial
airlines use the autopilot - yes they do from 500ft after takeoff to
potential touchdown. An airline pilot would NEVER hand fly an entire
route from takeoff, cruise to landing as per your assumptions. Doing
so WOULD be very difficult and I'd freely give credit to a pilot that
could do it but they use all systems available to ease their workload
- FACT. Ask a REAL airline pilot, not a GA pilot. Infact ask them
too, if you have an autopilot on your aircraft - DO you use it and why
do you use it if not to make the flight easier? You hardly use it 'for
the challenge'

Ibby

[Ibby]

> Relevance? (we're (you *were) talking autolands, not approaches or even
> cruise flight).
>
> --
> Duncan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

This all stems from earlier posts here on whether a NOVICE pilot
during an emergency could control an aircraft and successfully land
it.
The aircraft on this video did have an assigned STAR but has been
vectored to intercept the ILS localiser. The P.I.C. is NOT flying the
747, he is simply adjusting the MCP knobs and switches on the
glareshield

During an emergency a novice could do the exact same under the
guidance of ATC. With autoland enabled and a certified runway he
wouldnt have to touch the yoke or throttle at all. Other pilots here
believe an airliner MUST be handflown on finals just because their
automation systems do not offer the same capablilities of the
747-400. Yes some carriers request pilots to disengage the autopilot
and autothottle system on final and hand fly the remaining 500 feet
descent but it doesn't have to be done

[Ibby]

On Mar 9, 12:50*pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
> "Ibby" > wrote in message news:02f02df5-278d-42e2-b0ee-
>
> What a moron. Go back to the sim group gamer.

Maxwell

What aircraft do you personally fly??????????????
Does it have an autopilot???????????????
Can it capture an ILS Localiser?????????????
Can it capture an ILS Glideslope and maintain a constant descent
rate???????????????
Can it control your throttle/thrust to maintain a set
airspeed????????????????????????????????

I would assume it can't if it's a GA aircraft which means you manually
fly on finals just like I would expect to do in a similar sized plane.

Can a 747-400, 737NG, 767 do all the above - YES THEY CAN. This has
nothing to do with simming. They DO have these automated facilities
and they ARE bloody used.
How the hell is stating that they do use these systems be 'moronic' -
if they are NOT used then WHY HAVE THEM at the majority of controlled
airports?????????

Ibby

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> Return at all haste to your 'sim' group and leave we poor real time
> pilots to wallow in reality.

Since the behavior of the sim matches the behavior of the real aircraft, what
reality is lacking in simulation?

[Just go look it up!]

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 17:20:20 -0700 (PDT), Ibby >
wrote:

>
>> So you admit your ignorance on the matter of autopilot disconnect. In other
>> words, your wonderful simulator is inadequate. Sorry 'bout that little boy.
>
>I will post this again as it's NOT ignorance, it is REALITY.
>Watch this clip - A REAL CLIP ON A REAL BOEING 747-400 NOT A GAME
>4min 58 seconds the autopilot is disconnected by the pilot via a
>button on his control column.
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-TWH93qTY&feature=channel
>
>This group is pathetic, I was going to try give you guys a chance but
>you lot argue against ANYTHING depending on the source of the comment.
>I'm sure most of you have experience in general aviation but are there
>any real commercial pilots on here that will back your arguements, not
>against the good or bad aspects of a sim but back your comments about
>what you lot believe happens on a real commercial flightdeck

Do you not understand that increasing the volume of alarms or
tweaking operating modes of autoflight systems after an accident
caused wouldn't be unusual?

[Mxsmanic]

Ibby writes:

> So how can someone who HAS physically controlled a real aircraft (me)
> be compared to MX who HASN'T controlled a real aircraft????????????

We both fail to kowtow before the treehouse club, and to the club members,
that's all that matters. Welcome to USENET.

If you must take sides, at least be sure to choose your friends carefully.

[a[_3_]]

On Mar 9, 4:53*pm, Ibby > wrote:
> > Relevance? (we're (you *were) talking autolands, not approaches or even
> > cruise flight).
>
> > --
> > Duncan- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> This all stems from earlier posts here on whether a NOVICE pilot
> during an emergency could control an aircraft and successfully land
> it.
> The aircraft on this video did have an assigned STAR but has been
> vectored to intercept the ILS localiser. *The P.I.C. is NOT flying the
> 747, he is simply adjusting the MCP knobs and switches on the
> glareshield
>
> During an emergency a novice could do the exact same under the
> guidance of ATC. *With autoland enabled and a certified runway he
> wouldnt have to touch the yoke or throttle at all. Other pilots here
> believe an airliner MUST be handflown on finals just because their
> automation systems do not offer the same capablilities of the
> 747-400. *Yes some carriers request pilots to disengage the autopilot
> and autothottle system on final and hand fly the remaining 500 feet
> descent but it doesn't have to be done

I watched the real time adjustments during the approach, and have
serious doubts that someone alone in the cockpit with over the radio
instuctions could in fact do what the crew did, even if that person
had sim experience. In the world of psychology studies regarding open-
loop instruction systems have shown them to be very error prone. It
would take someone very good at giving blinded verbal instructions to
pull it off.

Read what happened in something I just posted about an F18 pilot being
given instructions on bringing his bird home in San Diego -- hardly
inexperienced, and yet the result was a deadly crash. The claim being
made here is someone with zero real experience would fare better. I'd
not bet on that.

The good news is, there are no bets to be made. It's an experiment not
being done.

[Mxsmanic]

a writes:

> I watched the real time adjustments during the approach, and have
> serious doubts that someone alone in the cockpit with over the radio
> instuctions could in fact do what the crew did, even if that person
> had sim experience.

Any intelligent person could do it with or without sim experience. And
remember, these aircraft can be flown by one person in a pinch.

> In the world of psychology studies regarding open-
> loop instruction systems have shown them to be very error prone. It
> would take someone very good at giving blinded verbal instructions to
> pull it off.

With someone good at following them, and someone good at giving them, things
would work out.

> Read what happened in something I just posted about an F18 pilot being
> given instructions on bringing his bird home in San Diego -- hardly
> inexperienced, and yet the result was a deadly crash.

He was in training.

[Mxsmanic]

Just go look it up! writes:

> Do you not understand that increasing the volume of alarms or
> tweaking operating modes of autoflight systems after an accident
> caused wouldn't be unusual?

Boeing doesn't wait for accidents before installing alarms.

[Ibby]

> No mater how many times you explain it, you still are not getting the point.

My original 'point' was that I could not understand how a pilot could
not know the AP was disconnected based on what is fitted to the
majority of current aircraft.
Now I know that this particular Russian Airbus did NOT have an alarm
but that does NOT give you the right to argue other aircraft also have
NO system of alarm just because ***I*** said it.

I dont have to be a commercial pilot to be aware of this the same as I
don't have to be Neil Armstrong and step onto the surface of the moon
to 'know' it's not made out of cheese. Awareness and knowledge (to a
some degree) can be acquired solely from the written word, videos and
from real pilots of the particular aircraft you are studying otherwise
why have flight manuals, why have detailed manuals about a particular
aircraft when according to you the ONLY accurate and entirely
formidible 'training' MUST be done on a real flightdeck. There is a
cross over of this type of learning for real pilots amongst ANY other
profession - Theory/Practicle

[Ibby]

> If you must take sides, at least be sure to choose your friends carefully.

I'm trying to defend aspects of the sim and made that very clear on my
original post and topic change.
It was a partial defense for your comments that simulated knowledge of
aircraft systems and locations of buttons and procedures does bear
accurate resemblance to that on the real flight deck.
My comments about personally having some flight experience is true but
as I like to sim as well 'I've been tarred with the same brush'

Most of these ppl on here 'have got it in for MSFS' because of your
continual 'I know best attitude' and lack of full and detailed
responses to counter their negative replies. Because of this ANY
comment made by ANY simmer means nothing!!!!!!!! I believe if
information has been cross referenced by many accurate sources then
it's deemed, by propabilities, to be true and doesn't physically have
to be experienced by oneself. Even if we got Oskar Wagner on here, a
REAL A320 pilot and a long time FSX fan, to write about what a REAL
Airbus does Maxwell and the rest of them would say CRAP, or bOB to
discuss rotaries. Even if they said the EXACT same as us it would
mean nothing. Dudley Henriques is a real pilot too and offers his
techical knowledge to software vendors as far as I'm aware of and
worked closely with the likes of RealAir - but again that means
nothing to these ppl. I'm sure there a more 'skeletons' in this
'closet' of a forum who keep quiet!!!!!!!!!!

I used to log into this group the odd time and now remember why I
stopped as it's all pathetic. I'm out of here!!!!!!!!!!!

Ibby

[Dave Doe]

In article <df56c4f0-02b3-45b8-9331-
>, says...
>
> > Relevance? (we're (you *were) talking autolands, not approaches or even
> > cruise flight).
> >
> > --
> > Duncan- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> This all stems from earlier posts here on whether a NOVICE pilot
> during an emergency could control an aircraft and successfully land
> it.

It does not! It stems from YOUR post that "MOST landing are autolands".

They are not.

--
Duncan

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Ibby" > wrote in message
...
>
and you continue driving the wrong direction while increasing your speed.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Just go look it up! writes:
>
>> Do you not understand that increasing the volume of alarms or
>> tweaking operating modes of autoflight systems after an accident
>> caused wouldn't be unusual?
>
> Boeing doesn't wait for accidents before installing alarms.

You should work for the Microsoft Help Desk.

That answer was completely correct, but totally useless.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Ibby" > wrote in message
...
>
>> You are both flying a desk, dumb ass.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Now this is just childish.
>
> Most of this group argue that a simmer has NO knowledge whatsoever of
> what occurs inside a real aircraft because he has never set foot
> inside that model for which he is 'familiar' with.
> When evidence is placed in front of you that a REAL 747-400 has an
> audible alarm on autopilot disengagement you still throw insults back
> saying 'you are wrong'.
>
> Going back to the original comments on whether a novice could land
> this aircraft on an emergency under guidance this entire video clip
> clearly shows all that is required. ATC are giving the pilot heading,
> speed and altitude commands and he is adjusting the MCP. He is NOT
> flying the aircraft, the autopilot is and with adequate instruction
> others could adjust the appropriate knobs too as the are ALL on the
> Mode Control Panel (as clearly demonstrated on this clip). The AP is
> controlling the throttles and elevator trim etc to maintain the course
> etc as entered on the MCP. The pilot COULD have done a full autoland
> on runway 28L as LAND3, Rollout and Flare were all armed and confirmed
> by the pilot. By switching on the autobrakes the autopilot and
> autothrottle system would have cut the throttles at 50ft, flared the
> aircraft and autobraked whilst keeping the aircraft on the centreline
> without the pilot even touching the controls or manual braking. If
> you dont believe it go ask a 747-400 captain.
>
> Ibby

But your desk still didn't move.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> george writes:
>
>> Return at all haste to your 'sim' group and leave we poor real time
>> pilots to wallow in reality.
>
> Since the behavior of the sim matches the behavior of the real aircraft,
> what
> reality is lacking in simulation?

You have been give this answer many different way, examples and from
different people yet you continue to ask.

Got a comprehension problem?

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Ibby" > wrote in message
...
>
>> You are really stuck on this warning bell thing. Have you had your
>> hearing
>> tested lately?
>
> Because that is one issue you lot said directly to myself was a LIE.
> You lot made out that EVERYTHING we say is utter CRAP. I originally
> questioned how I couldn't understand how the russian pilot failed to
> notice the AP being switched off as I know from both the sim and
> videos on real flightdecks that the Boeing 747 and 737's have them but
> according to you lot THEY DONT because the 'desk pilot' says so. But
> do I get an educated response saying 'well as we are only GA pilots
> and also haven't physically flown a 747 you may be correct but this
> particular Russian model didnt have an alarm' we just get a childish
> 'f@=k you'
>
> Ibby

No, but now you are a liar. I never said any such thing, simboi.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Ibby" > wrote in message
...
>
>> You grow up dumb ass. Just exactly like MX, in your ignorance and
>> inexperience you missed the whole point.
>
> So how can someone who HAS physically controlled a real aircraft (me)
> be compared to MX who HASN'T controlled a real aircraft????????????

You attitude and insistence on arguing things you clearly don't understand.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Ibby writes:
>
>> So how can someone who HAS physically controlled a real aircraft (me)
>> be compared to MX who HASN'T controlled a real aircraft????????????
>
> We both fail to kowtow before the treehouse club, and to the club members,
> that's all that matters. Welcome to USENET.
>
> If you must take sides, at least be sure to choose your friends carefully.

No, because you are both inexperience and have bad attitudes.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Ibby" > wrote in message
...
>
>> If you must take sides, at least be sure to choose your friends
>> carefully.
>
> I'm trying to defend aspects of the sim and made that very clear on my
> original post and topic change.
> It was a partial defense for your comments that simulated knowledge of
> aircraft systems and locations of buttons and procedures does bear
> accurate resemblance to that on the real flight deck.


You two need to get a room.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>a writes:

You delusion continues.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Ibby" > wrote in message news:0bd92fd4-730f-4191-8b44-

Exactly your problem. You don't have enough experience to answer that
question.

[a[_3_]]

On Mar 9, 5:33*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> a writes:
> > I watched the real time adjustments during the approach, and have
> > serious doubts that someone alone in the cockpit with over the radio
> > instuctions could in fact do what the crew did, even if that person
> > had sim experience.
>
> Any intelligent person could do it with or without sim experience. *And
> remember, these aircraft can be flown by one person in a pinch.
>
> > In the world of psychology studies regarding open-
> > loop instruction systems have shown them to be very error prone. It
> > would take someone very good at giving blinded verbal instructions to
> > pull it off.
>
> With someone good at following them, and someone good at giving them, things
> would work out.
>
> > Read what happened in something I just posted about an F18 pilot being
> > given instructions on bringing his bird home in San Diego -- hardly
> > inexperienced, and yet the result was a deadly crash.
>
> He was in training.

He was geting 'expert' instructions over the radio, and still people
died. Is the connection too obscure for you?

[-b-]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Just go look it up! writes:
>
>> Do you not understand that increasing the volume of alarms or
>> tweaking operating modes of autoflight systems after an accident
>> caused wouldn't be unusual?
>
>Boeing doesn't wait for accidents before installing alarms.

Pithy. But can you substantiate that claim? A single, salient example?
Of course you can't, because , as usual you claim is nothing more than
testosterone drivel - macho hype.

In fact, most warning systems and most rulemaking decisions are based on
actual accident data, and frequently influenced by specific "lmandmark"
accidents, and rerely by Mxmanic's trademark of testosterone over
intellect.

[Mxsmanic]

Ibby writes:

> Most of these ppl on here 'have got it in for MSFS' because of your
> continual 'I know best attitude' and lack of full and detailed
> responses to counter their negative replies.

No. Pilots who engage in knee-jerk dismissals of simulation were doing that
long before I was around. I've seen it frequently in conversations in which I
didn't even participate. Some pilots are just very insecure about anything
that might diminish the prestige they believe that real flying has.

> Dudley Henriques is a real pilot too and offers his
> techical knowledge to software vendors as far as I'm aware of and
> worked closely with the likes of RealAir - but again that means
> nothing to these ppl.

I note that Dudley has a far more balanced view of simulation than some of the
more rabid, low-time, small-aircraft pilots on this newsgroup.

[Mxsmanic]

a writes:

> He was geting 'expert' instructions over the radio, and still people
> died. Is the connection too obscure for you?

No, he was not getting expert instructions. He already knew how to fly the
plane, and nobody was telling him how to do so over the radio. The
instructions concerned other matters, such as which airport would be the best
choice for landing.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Ibby writes:
>
>> Most of these ppl on here 'have got it in for MSFS' because of your
>> continual 'I know best attitude' and lack of full and detailed
>> responses to counter their negative replies.
>
> No. Pilots who engage in knee-jerk dismissals of simulation were doing
> that
> long before I was around. I've seen it frequently in conversations in
> which I
> didn't even participate. Some pilots are just very insecure about
> anything
> that might diminish the prestige they believe that real flying has.
>
>> Dudley Henriques is a real pilot too and offers his
>> techical knowledge to software vendors as far as I'm aware of and
>> worked closely with the likes of RealAir - but again that means
>> nothing to these ppl.
>
> I note that Dudley has a far more balanced view of simulation than some of
> the
> more rabid, low-time, small-aircraft pilots on this newsgroup.

Why, because most do not accept the importance simulation plays in your
fantasy life?

Sim worshipers like you and Ibby would find solace on the sim and game
groups, but then you would have to accept reality.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Ibby" > wrote in message
...


During an emergency a novice could do the exact same under the
guidance of ATC. With autoland enabled and a certified runway he
wouldnt have to touch the yoke or throttle at all. Other pilots here
believe an airliner MUST be handflown on finals just because their
automation systems do not offer the same capablilities of the
747-400. Yes some carriers request pilots to disengage the autopilot
and autothottle system on final and hand fly the remaining 500 feet
descent but it doesn't have to be done

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carry on my wayward son, you powers of imagination are quickly surpassing
Mx.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>a writes:
>
>> He was geting 'expert' instructions over the radio, and still people
>> died. Is the connection too obscure for you?
>
> No, he was not getting expert instructions. He already knew how to fly
> the
> plane, and nobody was telling him how to do so over the radio. The
> instructions concerned other matters, such as which airport would be the
> best
> choice for landing.

How would you know, you have never flown anything but a desk.

[a[_3_]]

On Mar 10, 8:25*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> a writes:
> > He was geting 'expert' instructions over the radio, and still people
> > died. Is the connection too obscure for you?
>
> No, he was not getting expert instructions. *He already knew how to fly the
> plane, and nobody was telling him how to do so over the radio. *The
> instructions concerned other matters, such as which airport would be the best
> choice for landing.

Your view of expert instructions is very limited. Why not read the
release completely, then tell me which of those who were giving him
advice were not expert?

The point I am making, and this crash demonstrates it, is even when
someone knows enough and has been trained in a given airplane, he or
she can get into trouble, and expert advice from the ground was unable
to resolve the matter. Your claim is that someone with MSFS experience
without actual cockpit time could do better, with the assumption that
a qualified expert -- more expert than the F18 instructors that were
used in this case in any event -- could be found.

Oh well, you've waltzed around this maypole often enough, and you are
clearly getting the attention on line that you seem to need.
Congratulations.

[Mxsmanic]

a writes:

> Your view of expert instructions is very limited. Why not read the
> release completely, then tell me which of those who were giving him
> advice were not expert?

I have. I don't know if they were experts or not, but they were not giving
expert instruction, certainly not expert instruction in piloting.

> The point I am making, and this crash demonstrates it, is even when
> someone knows enough and has been trained in a given airplane, he or
> she can get into trouble, and expert advice from the ground was unable
> to resolve the matter. Your claim is that someone with MSFS experience
> without actual cockpit time could do better, with the assumption that
> a qualified expert -- more expert than the F18 instructors that were
> used in this case in any event -- could be found.

In the scenario I've discussed, there's nothing wrong with the aircraft.
Abnormal procedures can stump even the best pilots, but in a normally
functioning airliner, anyone can land it with the automation available. If the
only problem is incapacitation of the pilots, the outlook for a safe landing
is quite good.

[Tony]

On Mar 10, 12:01*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> a writes:
> > Your view of expert instructions is very limited. Why not read the
> > release completely, then tell me which of those who were giving him
> > advice were not expert?
>
> I have. *I don't know if they were experts or not, but they were not giving
> expert instruction, certainly not expert instruction in piloting.
>
> > The point I am making, and this crash demonstrates it, is even when
> > someone knows enough and has been trained in a given airplane, he or
> > she can get into trouble, and expert advice from the ground was unable
> > to resolve the matter. Your claim is that someone with MSFS experience
> > without actual cockpit time could do better, with the assumption that
> > a qualified expert -- more expert than the F18 instructors that were
> > used in this case in any event -- could be found.
>
> In the scenario I've discussed, there's nothing wrong with the aircraft.
> Abnormal procedures can stump even the best pilots, but in a normally
> functioning airliner, anyone can land it with the automation available. If the
> only problem is incapacitation of the pilots, the outlook for a safe landing
> is quite good.

As I've pointed out, you've won, you've gotten the on line attention
you seek.

[Just go look it up!]

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 17:51:23 -0500, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:

>
>"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>> Just go look it up! writes:
>>
>>> Do you not understand that increasing the volume of alarms or
>>> tweaking operating modes of autoflight systems after an accident
>>> caused wouldn't be unusual?
>>
>> Boeing doesn't wait for accidents before installing alarms.
>
>You should work for the Microsoft Help Desk.
>
>That answer was completely correct, but totally useless.

Especially when I specifically said *increasing volume* or *tweaking
modes* rather than installing an alarm system. Or is that what you
were alluding to?

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Just go look it up!" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 17:51:23 -0500, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>>> Just go look it up! writes:
>>>
>>>> Do you not understand that increasing the volume of alarms or
>>>> tweaking operating modes of autoflight systems after an accident
>>>> caused wouldn't be unusual?
>>>
>>> Boeing doesn't wait for accidents before installing alarms.
>>
>>You should work for the Microsoft Help Desk.
>>
>>That answer was completely correct, but totally useless.
>
> Especially when I specifically said *increasing volume* or *tweaking
> modes* rather than installing an alarm system. Or is that what you
> were alluding to?

When Mx is on the run, he often reverts to irrelevant statements. The old
"If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bull****" routine.

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
> wrote:
> but in the UK you are not permitted to land or take off on
> your first lesson which I was commenting on.

I know of no regulation in the UK that prevents it. If there were one, I
would therefore know of several people in the UK that have breached it.

Andy
(UK PPL)