Sad day for Mxsmanic

[John Godwin]

It seems as if Microsoft is pulling the plug on MS Flight Simulator.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7902468.stm

--

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
John Godwin > wrote:

> It seems as if Microsoft is pulling the plug on MS Flight Simulator.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7902468.stm

Wow, it's a very good day to be Austin Meyer. (The guy who makes
X-Plane.)

The bit in the article where he talks about a simmer being asked to land
a passenger plane after the pilots have been debilitated is pretty
funny. Absolutely no mention whatsoever of the difficulty or
improbability of actually pulling off such a feat. It is simply assumed
that it could be done.

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

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"John Godwin" > wrote in message
...
> It seems as if Microsoft is pulling the plug on MS Flight Simulator.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7902468.stm
>
> --

I think it's a liability issue.

MSFS is so much like really flying, they have to consider the aging fleet.
Sooner or later we are going to start seeing structural code failures in
versions that have not been properly maintained.

[Mxsmanic]

John Godwin writes:

> It seems as if Microsoft is pulling the plug on MS Flight Simulator.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7902468.stm

Existing copies of MSFS will continue to run indefinitely. Software doesn't
wear out.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Ash writes:

> The bit in the article where he talks about a simmer being asked to land
> a passenger plane after the pilots have been debilitated is pretty
> funny. Absolutely no mention whatsoever of the difficulty or
> improbability of actually pulling off such a feat. It is simply assumed
> that it could be done.

It can easily be done.

Large commercial transports are heavily automated, and most flights are
conducted under computer control for most of their durations. With the
automation in operation, no particular flying skill is required to keep the
aircraft flying, and since the automation can also land the aircraft, no
particularly flying skill is required for landing, either.

Because of this, any person of reasonable intelligence who can follow
instructions precisely can land an airliner, with help over the radio from a
pilot.

Many people imagine a non-pilot grabbing the yoke and wrestling the aircraft
to the ground, Hollywood-style, and that type of scenario is indeed
implausible and likely to end in failure. But it's a very unrealistic
scenario, because in reality the automation would fly the plane, and the
non-pilot would never have to touch the controls. As long as he can follow
instructions, press buttons, and turn dials, he can land the airplane (or,
more precisely, he can direct the computer to land the airplane).

This has already been demonstrated on multiple occasions in full-motion sims.
In fact, some people are able to land airliners by hand without any previous
instruction, as long as they have an instructor to guide them. It's not
rocket science.

It's actually easier to land an airliner than it is to land a small aircraft,
because small aircraft usually have only limited automation, just as small
aircraft pilots usually have no clue about how large airliners work, and tend
to assume that everything flies like their Cessnas.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> John Godwin writes:
>
>> It seems as if Microsoft is pulling the plug on MS Flight Simulator.
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7902468.stm
>
> Existing copies of MSFS will continue to run indefinitely. Software doesn't
> wear out.

Yep, all the software for DOS and an EGA display, not to mention the
Apple II stuff is still running, assuming you can find hardware that
still runs outside a museum.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Mike Ash writes:
>
> > The bit in the article where he talks about a simmer being asked to land
> > a passenger plane after the pilots have been debilitated is pretty
> > funny. Absolutely no mention whatsoever of the difficulty or
> > improbability of actually pulling off such a feat. It is simply assumed
> > that it could be done.
>
> It can easily be done.

When it's tested, either with an actual in-flight crisis or by having
somebody set it up as an experiment, then I will believe it. Until then,
please do not act as though the unknown is certain.

And no, I don't mean testing it in a simulator.

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

[BT]

The local AATD I use for IFR currency is run by XPlane
not MSFS

B

"John Godwin" > wrote in message
...
> It seems as if Microsoft is pulling the plug on MS Flight Simulator.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7902468.stm
>
> --

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

wrote:
>
> Yep, all the software for DOS and an EGA display, not to mention the
> Apple II stuff is still running, assuming you can find hardware that
> still runs outside a museum.

Umm.. not for nothing, but I still have my Apple IIe, and runs
great, especially if I want to play a good game of Karateka or Zaxxon!

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFJojxfyBkZmuMZ8L8RAsL7AJ966ChwB12WHhjdk7ztCm D2DymDogCeMBaU
7x49J1KHqprm+Gp8MkI5xEo=
=mZ81
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Steve Foley[_4_]]

"Wolfgang Schwanke" > wrote in message
...

> Umm, I don't know about Apples, but Intel machines ought to be fully
> backward compatible. All Intel compatible CPUs including the latest 64
> Bit DualCore and its clones can emulate 8086/8088, and all modern
> graphics boards can emulate ancient graphics modes such as EGA,
> Hercules or plain text mode. So you can run old versions of DOS and
> ancient softwares.

I doubt an old DOS version will recognise a USB joystick, and I don't think
you'll find a game port that will plug into your 64 Bit DualCore
motherboard.

At work I've been fighting with some old software running on 386/486
hardware. I don't know why, but the text software havs an eight second delay
between screens. There's a hardware security device on the parallel port
that I suspect is part of the problem. I've tried every bios setting I could
find, but it won't go away.

Also, I don't theing the video boards do hercules. I recall needing some
kind of software emulator to do that at one time. Unless I'm thinking of the
CGA emulator that ran on a Hercules adapter.

[Steve Foley[_4_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Ash writes:
>
>> The bit in the article where he talks about a simmer being asked to land
>> a passenger plane after the pilots have been debilitated is pretty
>> funny. Absolutely no mention whatsoever of the difficulty or
>> improbability of actually pulling off such a feat. It is simply assumed
>> that it could be done.
>
> It can easily be done.
>

No it cannot. It would end in disaster.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2009-02-23, > wrote:
> Yep, all the software for DOS and an EGA display, not to mention the
> Apple II stuff is still running, assuming you can find hardware that
> still runs outside a museum.

There's plenty of that type of hardware that retrocomputing addicts
still have in working order.

In any case, there are quite a few emulators around for 8 bit systems.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
wrote:

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > John Godwin writes:
> >
> >> It seems as if Microsoft is pulling the plug on MS Flight Simulator.
> >>
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7902468.stm
> >
> > Existing copies of MSFS will continue to run indefinitely. Software doesn't
> > wear out.
>
> Yep, all the software for DOS and an EGA display, not to mention the
> Apple II stuff is still running, assuming you can find hardware that
> still runs outside a museum.

Emulators, my good man! You can find them for nearly any system. There
are plenty of good Apple II emulators out there, good enough to run
pretty much any software made for them. There are even emulators for old
DOS machines that will run in Windows that will do a much better job of
running old software than Windows itself will: check out DOSBox for that
one.

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

[good grief]

>..........
> It can easily be done.
> .......


Be sure you get video of the landing.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Ash writes:

> When it's tested, either with an actual in-flight crisis or by having
> somebody set it up as an experiment, then I will believe it. Until then,
> please do not act as though the unknown is certain.
>
> And no, I don't mean testing it in a simulator.

The simulators are good enough for the FAA and the airlines, so they're good
enough for me.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> No it cannot. It would end in disaster.

Why?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Yep, all the software for DOS and an EGA display, not to mention the
> Apple II stuff is still running, assuming you can find hardware that
> still runs outside a museum.

Well-behaved MS-DOS applications do indeed still run today. And of course
MS-DOS itself still runs.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> I doubt an old DOS version will recognise a USB joystick, and I don't think
> you'll find a game port that will plug into your 64 Bit DualCore
> motherboard.

Since DOS didn't support USB, there's no need to recognize a USB joystick in
DOS applications.

[Darkwing]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Ash writes:
>
>> When it's tested, either with an actual in-flight crisis or by having
>> somebody set it up as an experiment, then I will believe it. Until then,
>> please do not act as though the unknown is certain.
>>
>> And no, I don't mean testing it in a simulator.
>
> The simulators are good enough for the FAA and the airlines, so they're
> good
> enough for me.


Found a photo of you online Anthony.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/head_up_your_ass2.jpg

[Darkwing]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> No it cannot. It would end in disaster.
>
> Why?


For the same reason I'm really good at killing zombies on my computer, it
isn't real life you nitwit.

[Darkwing]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> I doubt an old DOS version will recognise a USB joystick, and I don't
>> think
>> you'll find a game port that will plug into your 64 Bit DualCore
>> motherboard.
>
> Since DOS didn't support USB, there's no need to recognize a USB joystick
> in
> DOS applications.


You can't even understand what others mean in their posts. No wonder your a
shut in, social interaction with you has to be tedious at best.

[Steve Foley[_4_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> No it cannot. It would end in disaster.
>
> Why?

It has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction that any other outcome is
possible.

I do not accept your conjecture as proof.

When you have evidence that someone with nothing but simulator experience
has successfully landed an airliner full of passengers, let me know.

[Darkwing]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
...
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Steve Foley writes:
>>
>>> No it cannot. It would end in disaster.
>>
>> Why?
>
> It has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction that any other outcome is
> possible.
>
> I do not accept your conjecture as proof.
>
> When you have evidence that someone with nothing but simulator experience
> has successfully landed an airliner full of passengers, let me know.


This will be a circular conversation where MS insists that simulation is
close enough that it could easily be pulled off with no further proof.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Ash writes:
>
>> The bit in the article where he talks about a simmer being asked to land
>> a passenger plane after the pilots have been debilitated is pretty
>> funny. Absolutely no mention whatsoever of the difficulty or
>> improbability of actually pulling off such a feat. It is simply assumed
>> that it could be done.
>
> It can easily be done.
>
> Large commercial transports are heavily automated, and most flights are
> conducted under computer control for most of their durations. With the
> automation in operation, no particular flying skill is required to keep
> the
> aircraft flying, and since the automation can also land the aircraft, no
> particularly flying skill is required for landing, either.
>
> Because of this, any person of reasonable intelligence who can follow
> instructions precisely can land an airliner, with help over the radio from
> a
> pilot.
>
> Many people imagine a non-pilot grabbing the yoke and wrestling the
> aircraft
> to the ground, Hollywood-style, and that type of scenario is indeed
> implausible and likely to end in failure. But it's a very unrealistic
> scenario, because in reality the automation would fly the plane, and the
> non-pilot would never have to touch the controls. As long as he can
> follow
> instructions, press buttons, and turn dials, he can land the airplane (or,
> more precisely, he can direct the computer to land the airplane).
>
> This has already been demonstrated on multiple occasions in full-motion
> sims.
> In fact, some people are able to land airliners by hand without any
> previous
> instruction, as long as they have an instructor to guide them. It's not
> rocket science.
>
> It's actually easier to land an airliner than it is to land a small
> aircraft,
> because small aircraft usually have only limited automation, just as small
> aircraft pilots usually have no clue about how large airliners work, and
> tend
> to assume that everything flies like their Cessnas.

You simply must be on drugs, or you are naive you shouldn't walk to school
alone.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Ash writes:
>
>> When it's tested, either with an actual in-flight crisis or by having
>> somebody set it up as an experiment, then I will believe it. Until then,
>> please do not act as though the unknown is certain.
>>
>> And no, I don't mean testing it in a simulator.
>
> The simulators are good enough for the FAA and the airlines, so they're
> good
> enough for me.

Anything is good enough for you. You are satisfied to live in a hole in
France.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> No it cannot. It would end in disaster.
>
> Why?

He says with the usual child like gaze.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Yep, all the software for DOS and an EGA display, not to mention the
>> Apple II stuff is still running, assuming you can find hardware that
>> still runs outside a museum.
>
> Well-behaved MS-DOS applications do indeed still run today. And of course
> MS-DOS itself still runs.

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprise if your tight ass wasn't still running it. Why
don't you get a real job and upgrade?

[Steve Foley[_4_]]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
...


>
> This will be a circular conversation where MS insists that simulation is
> close enough that it could easily be pulled off with no further proof.

Maybe semi-circular.

When he responds with the same conjecture, there won't be any point in
repeating myself.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Yep, all the software for DOS and an EGA display, not to mention the
>> Apple II stuff is still running, assuming you can find hardware that
>> still runs outside a museum.
>
> Well-behaved MS-DOS applications do indeed still run today. And of course
> MS-DOS itself still runs.

So you are admitting that not ALL DOS applications will run today,
only "Well-behaved MS-DOS applications"?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mike Ash > wrote:
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> > John Godwin writes:
>> >
>> >> It seems as if Microsoft is pulling the plug on MS Flight Simulator.
>> >>
>> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7902468.stm
>> >
>> > Existing copies of MSFS will continue to run indefinitely. Software doesn't
>> > wear out.
>>
>> Yep, all the software for DOS and an EGA display, not to mention the
>> Apple II stuff is still running, assuming you can find hardware that
>> still runs outside a museum.
>
> Emulators, my good man! You can find them for nearly any system. There
> are plenty of good Apple II emulators out there, good enough to run
> pretty much any software made for them. There are even emulators for old
> DOS machines that will run in Windows that will do a much better job of
> running old software than Windows itself will: check out DOSBox for that
> one.

RSTS/E, RSX-11, RT-11, TOPS-10, TOPS-20, VMS...

PDP-6, PDP-8, PDP-10, PDP-11, VAX...

That's just one company.

How about a GE 150, Burroughs B2500, Honeywell H316, SDS 900?

CPU's, OS's and their libraries go obsolete and become unsupportable.

The software is on EBCDIC punch cards, got an emualtor to read those?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Darkwing]

> wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>>
>>> Yep, all the software for DOS and an EGA display, not to mention the
>>> Apple II stuff is still running, assuming you can find hardware that
>>> still runs outside a museum.
>>
>> Well-behaved MS-DOS applications do indeed still run today. And of
>> course
>> MS-DOS itself still runs.
>
> So you are admitting that not ALL DOS applications will run today,
> only "Well-behaved MS-DOS applications"?
>


They are medicated with Ritalin to keep them in-line.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
wrote:

> > Emulators, my good man! You can find them for nearly any system. There
> > are plenty of good Apple II emulators out there, good enough to run
> > pretty much any software made for them. There are even emulators for old
> > DOS machines that will run in Windows that will do a much better job of
> > running old software than Windows itself will: check out DOSBox for that
> > one.
>
> RSTS/E, RSX-11, RT-11, TOPS-10, TOPS-20, VMS...
>
> PDP-6, PDP-8, PDP-10, PDP-11, VAX...
>
> That's just one company.
>
> How about a GE 150, Burroughs B2500, Honeywell H316, SDS 900?
>
> CPU's, OS's and their libraries go obsolete and become unsupportable.
>
> The software is on EBCDIC punch cards, got an emualtor to read those?

Many of your systems do have emulators or simulators available, in fact.
(This page has a whole bunch: http://simh.trailing-edge.com/) True
enough that some don't, as far as I could find with a cursory search.
But it took a *very* long time for that to happen, and none of them had
anything like the ubiquity of the Microsoft platform. I would fully
expect Windows software to be usable until the very end of time. People
might not care about writing emulators for such hardware, but Intel x86
emulators and Windows API translation layers will probably be maintained
forever.

Even if they're not, it's going to take decades at the least before a
new copy MSFS stops being usable.

I have to say, while MX is the king of disputing anything and everything
just because he can, a lot of the people who reply to him aren't much
better. Perhaps when he said that "Software doesn't wear out" he failed
to apply the proper caveats and qualifiers to this statement, but his
overall *point*, that MSFS still works and will still works even though
it's no longer being developed, was entirely sound, and really didn't
merit an argument.

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

[Blanche]

Mike Ash > wrote:
>In article >,
>wrote:
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> > John Godwin writes:
>> >
>> >> It seems as if Microsoft is pulling the plug on MS Flight Simulator.
>> >>
>> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7902468.stm
>> >
>> > Existing copies of MSFS will continue to run indefinitely. Software doesn't
>> > wear out.
>>
>> Yep, all the software for DOS and an EGA display, not to mention the
>> Apple II stuff is still running, assuming you can find hardware that
>> still runs outside a museum.
>
>Emulators, my good man! You can find them for nearly any system. There
>are plenty of good Apple II emulators out there, good enough to run
>pretty much any software made for them. There are even emulators for old
>DOS machines that will run in Windows that will do a much better job of
>running old software than Windows itself will: check out DOSBox for that
>one.

I've even found CDC 6600 emulators!

[george]

On Feb 24, 4:53*am, "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message

> > Since DOS didn't support USB, there's no need to recognize a USB joystick
> > in
> > DOS applications.
>
> You can't even understand what others mean in their posts. No wonder your a
> shut in, social interaction with you has to be tedious at best.

Hey be fair. The pillock doesn't realise that his "Windows" is just a
DOS application

[george]

On Feb 24, 9:12*am, Blanche > wrote:

> I've even found CDC 6600 emulators!

I have a couple of TRS80 emulators and no floppy ancient enough to
read the floppies

[Darkwing]

"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Ash > wrote:
>>In article >,
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> > John Godwin writes:
>>> >
>>> >> It seems as if Microsoft is pulling the plug on MS Flight Simulator.
>>> >>
>>> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7902468.stm
>>> >
>>> > Existing copies of MSFS will continue to run indefinitely. Software
>>> > doesn't
>>> > wear out.
>>>
>>> Yep, all the software for DOS and an EGA display, not to mention the
>>> Apple II stuff is still running, assuming you can find hardware that
>>> still runs outside a museum.
>>
>>Emulators, my good man! You can find them for nearly any system. There
>>are plenty of good Apple II emulators out there, good enough to run
>>pretty much any software made for them. There are even emulators for old
>>DOS machines that will run in Windows that will do a much better job of
>>running old software than Windows itself will: check out DOSBox for that
>>one.
>
> I've even found CDC 6600 emulators!
>

Man I was just digging that I can play Duckhunt on my computer!

[Mxsmanic]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:

> For the same reason I'm really good at killing zombies on my computer, it
> isn't real life you nitwit.

Unfortunately, that's not an answer. The reality is that there is no basis
for your assertion.

It has long been taken as gospel that a non-pilot could never land an
airliner, and as long as one sticks to the outdated assumption that he'd have
to actually take the controls, that's probably true. But today's airliners
are so heavily automated that they can be flown and landed without ever
touching the flight controls, so the dogma of yesteryear is no longer
applicable.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> It has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction that any other outcome is
> possible.

That is not the same as demonstrating that it would end in disaster.

> I do not accept your conjecture as proof.

Likewise.

> When you have evidence that someone with nothing but simulator experience
> has successfully landed an airliner full of passengers, let me know.

The non-pilot would not need simulator experience. He would only need the
ability to follow instructions, along with a cool head.

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> I have a couple of TRS80 emulators and no floppy ancient enough to
> read the floppies

I'm sure there are actual TRS-80 computers out there and running as well.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> So you are admitting that not ALL DOS applications will run today,
> only "Well-behaved MS-DOS applications"?

Yes. Poorly written applications may stop running even from one update of an
operating system to the next. In the case of MS-DOS, many such applications
bypassed the OS to access the BIOS or the hardware directly, and applications
like those often stopped running long ago (sometimes even under MS-DOS).

[Darkwing]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> For the same reason I'm really good at killing zombies on my computer, it
>> isn't real life you nitwit.
>
> Unfortunately, that's not an answer. The reality is that there is no
> basis
> for your assertion.
>
> It has long been taken as gospel that a non-pilot could never land an
> airliner, and as long as one sticks to the outdated assumption that he'd
> have
> to actually take the controls, that's probably true. But today's
> airliners
> are so heavily automated that they can be flown and landed without ever
> touching the flight controls, so the dogma of yesteryear is no longer
> applicable.


Dude, I wouldn't guarantee that I could land an airliner, even if I did it
wouldn't be pretty. But don't let reality get in the way of your delusion of
saving the day. If you want to pretend that pushing a few buttons that you
are told to push and the thing autolanding as "really" landing an airliner
then that is hardly landing an airliner. Now if you want to talk hand flying
the plane onto the runway with just MSFS experience as your background then
I think you live in fantasy land.

[Darkwing]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> It has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction that any other outcome is
>> possible.
>
> That is not the same as demonstrating that it would end in disaster.
>
>> I do not accept your conjecture as proof.
>
> Likewise.
>
>> When you have evidence that someone with nothing but simulator experience
>> has successfully landed an airliner full of passengers, let me know.
>
> The non-pilot would not need simulator experience. He would only need the
> ability to follow instructions, along with a cool head.


Having someone instruct you set the plane up to autoland is not you flying
an airliner to landing.

[Mike]

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in message
...
>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mike Ash writes:
>>
>>> When it's tested, either with an actual in-flight crisis or by having
>>> somebody set it up as an experiment, then I will believe it. Until then,
>>> please do not act as though the unknown is certain.
>>>
>>> And no, I don't mean testing it in a simulator.
>>
>> The simulators are good enough for the FAA and the airlines, so they're
>> good
>> enough for me.
>
> Anything is good enough for you. You are satisfied to live in a hole in
> France.

Sez the inbred who is satisfied to live in the ******** called Okieland.

What a moran.
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/n/U/moran.jpg

[Mxsmanic]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:

> If you want to pretend that pushing a few buttons that you
> are told to push and the thing autolanding as "really" landing an airliner
> then that is hardly landing an airliner.

The airliner ends up on the ground, stopped, undamaged, with all passengers
safe. That's as real as it gets.

> Now if you want to talk hand flying
> the plane onto the runway with just MSFS experience as your background then
> I think you live in fantasy land.

Hand-flying isn't necessary, as I have explained.

[Mxsmanic]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:

> Having someone instruct you set the plane up to autoland is not you flying
> an airliner to landing.

By whose definition?

The question was whether or not a non-pilot could land an airliner safely.
The answer is yes. Restricting the scenario to hand-flying only--something
that even the regular pilots don't normally do--is excessively artificial and
irrelevant, rather akin to saying that the pilots aren't really controlling
the airplane unless they turn off the hydraulics and move the control surfaces
with muscle power alone.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Having someone instruct you set the plane up to autoland is not you flying
>> an airliner to landing.
>
> By whose definition?
>
> The question was whether or not a non-pilot could land an airliner safely.
> The answer is yes. Restricting the scenario to hand-flying only--something
> that even the regular pilots don't normally do--is excessively artificial and
> irrelevant, rather akin to saying that the pilots aren't really controlling
> the airplane unless they turn off the hydraulics and move the control surfaces
> with muscle power alone.

Babbling nonsense.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[a[_3_]]

On Feb 23, 6:29*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:
> > Having someone instruct you set the plane up to autoland is not you flying
> > an airliner to landing.
>
> By whose definition?
>
> The question was whether or not a non-pilot could land an airliner safely..
> The answer is yes. *Restricting the scenario to hand-flying only--something
> that even the regular pilots don't normally do--is excessively artificial and
> irrelevant, rather akin to saying that the pilots aren't really controlling
> the airplane unless they turn off the hydraulics and move the control surfaces
> with muscle power alone.

It seems to me it is a safe assertion for MX to make, since he does
not fly and therefore never exposes himself to the 'risk' or
opportunity of demonstrating his claim. Now, consider for a moment
those circumstances where both pilots were rendered unable to fly. The
most probable thing is probably some very serious physical accident in
the cockpit. It would not be 'neat', would it? The call would be for
someone who can fly a very likely crippled airplane, with no "stop-
reset-start" provision.

[george]

On Feb 24, 3:29*pm, a > wrote:
> Now, consider for a moment
> those circumstances where both pilots were rendered unable to fly. The
> most probable thing is probably some very serious physical accident in
> the cockpit. It would not be 'neat', would it? The call would be for
> someone who can fly a very likely crippled airplane, with no "stop-
> reset-start" provision.

Such a scenario that both pilots are impaired doesn't bode well for
the pax or the hull insurance

[Herbert Paulis]

"Mxsmanic" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
> Mike Ash writes:
>
>> The bit in the article where he talks about a simmer being asked to land
>> a passenger plane after the pilots have been debilitated is pretty
>> funny. Absolutely no mention whatsoever of the difficulty or
>> improbability of actually pulling off such a feat. It is simply assumed
>> that it could be done.
>
> It can easily be done.
>
> [snip further brabble]

For what it is worth, I have taken a go in an A320 simulator (I have a
PPL/IFR license for 8 years now) some time ago. Expensive pleasure but well
worth the experience. I have indeed tried to hand land it w/o autopilot
because I wanted to experience the difference in controls (I usually fly a
172 Rocket).

It actually took me three tries to get the damn thing to the ground safely.
The problem was neither tracking the glide slope nor fiddling around with
the speed control, these were pretty simple actually. But I could not so
easily get the flaring scheme out of my head which made me land the bird on
its nose wheel twice as I flared well too late. You have to flare the
******* at an altitude where I do not yet spend a single thought on flaring
in my Cessna.

But, and that's the actual point, while I was busy keeping the bird on track
the FI who was acompanying the situation did actually push a whole lot of
switches which seemingly were necessary also to land safely. And once I got
her to the ground safely I was actually surprised how difficult it was to
keep her on the RWY during the landing run. Can someone with no or FS
experience only do it safely? From the experience I doubt it ...

Just my 2 cents.

Herbert

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> You hope it includes stopped. Not all autoland systems have auto-braking much
> less automatic deployment of spoilers and thrust reversers.

The person flying the aircraft can be instructed on applying the brakes.

> Dream on. You've never hand flown anything so how could you possibly know?

By reading and learning, something that many people never attempt.

[Mxsmanic]

Herbert Paulis writes:

> But, and that's the actual point, while I was busy keeping the bird on track
> the FI who was acompanying the situation did actually push a whole lot of
> switches which seemingly were necessary also to land safely. And once I got
> her to the ground safely I was actually surprised how difficult it was to
> keep her on the RWY during the landing run. Can someone with no or FS
> experience only do it safely? From the experience I doubt it ...

Someone with FS experience would at least know what all that "whole lot of
switches" actually does.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Clark writes:
>
> > You hope it includes stopped. Not all autoland systems have auto-braking much
> > less automatic deployment of spoilers and thrust reversers.
>
> The person flying the aircraft can be instructed on applying the brakes.
>
> > Dream on. You've never hand flown anything so how could you possibly know?
>
> By reading and learning, something that many people never attempt.

Coming from you - that's one hell of an oxymoron.

--
Duncan

[Darkwing]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Herbert Paulis writes:
>
>> But, and that's the actual point, while I was busy keeping the bird on
>> track
>> the FI who was acompanying the situation did actually push a whole lot of
>> switches which seemingly were necessary also to land safely. And once I
>> got
>> her to the ground safely I was actually surprised how difficult it was to
>> keep her on the RWY during the landing run. Can someone with no or FS
>> experience only do it safely? From the experience I doubt it ...
>
> Someone with FS experience would at least know what all that "whole lot of
> switches" actually does.


Bull****. Not even the G1000 in MSX is even close to complete.

[Martin Hotze[_3_]]

schrieb:
> So you are admitting that not ALL DOS applications will run today,
> only "Well-behaved MS-DOS applications"?


and ya all keep feeding the idio^qtroll, not enough, you also start a
thread only for him.

and then folks jump in and wonder why the group is dying.

#m

[Tman[_2_]]

a wrote:
Now, consider for a moment
> those circumstances where both pilots were rendered unable to fly. The
> most probable thing is probably some very serious physical accident in
> the cockpit. It would not be 'neat', would it? The call would be for
> someone who can fly a very likely crippled airplane, with no "stop-
> reset-start" provision.
>
Maybe, maybe not. It could be from the in-flight beverages / snacks --
if they're shared at the front office. I never eat the peanuts on
Southwest, just so I can be standy in such an event. A few hours in
piston singles, eh that'll help.
T

[Tman[_2_]]

Darkwing wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Herbert Paulis writes:
>>
>>> But, and that's the actual point, while I was busy keeping the bird on
>>> track
>>> the FI who was acompanying the situation did actually push a whole lot of
>>> switches which seemingly were necessary also to land safely. And once I
>>> got
>>> her to the ground safely I was actually surprised how difficult it was to
>>> keep her on the RWY during the landing run. Can someone with no or FS
>>> experience only do it safely? From the experience I doubt it ...
>> Someone with FS experience would at least know what all that "whole lot of
>> switches" actually does.
>
>
> Bull****. Not even the G1000 in MSX is even close to complete.
>
>
Come on. F1 - F12. How many more switches can there be on a A320?
T

[a[_3_]]

On Feb 24, 12:27*pm, Tman > wrote:
> a wrote:
>
> * Now, consider for a moment> those circumstances where both pilots were rendered unable to fly. The
> > most probable thing is probably some very serious physical accident in
> > the cockpit. It would not be 'neat', would it? The call would be for
> > someone who can fly a very likely crippled airplane, with no "stop-
> > reset-start" provision.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. *It could be from the in-flight beverages / snacks --
> if they're shared at the front office. *I never eat the peanuts on
> Southwest, just so I can be standy in such an event. *A few hours in
> piston singles, eh that'll help.
> T

You may want to consider having some of those olives that are
marinated in a clear fluid as a preflight prep if you are believing
not eating peanuts will help. That has to be way out on the likely
distribution curve.

Now, if I was in an airplane that was undergoing a dual pilot failure
and an overweight guy stood up and said "I am MX, and I'll take over"
I'd be wanting some of those olives myself.

I'm reminded of that old joke about a man collapsing and a woman
bending over to help, only to be pushed aside by a (MX-like) character
who said "stand back, I am trained as a first responder." She said
"Good, when you get to that part that says call a doctor, I'll be
right here."

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 22, 8:28*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Mike Ash writes:
> > The bit in the article where he talks about a simmer being asked to land
> > a passenger plane after the pilots have been debilitated is pretty
> > funny. Absolutely no mention whatsoever of the difficulty or
> > improbability of actually pulling off such a feat. It is simply assumed
> > that it could be done.
>
> It can easily be done.
>
> Large commercial transports are heavily automated, and most flights are
> conducted under computer control for most of their durations. *With the
> automation in operation, no particular flying skill is required to keep the
> aircraft flying, and since the automation can also land the aircraft, no
> particularly flying skill is required for landing, either.
>
> Because of this, any person of reasonable intelligence who can follow
> instructions precisely can land an airliner, with help over the radio from a
> pilot.

I teach glass cockpit training and I see very intelligent, experienced
pilots have lots of trouble working with the automation. In fact I
have *never* encountered a pilot who thought it was easier to fly with
the automation than to fly on old steam gauges.

-Robert, CFII

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote

> and ya all keep feeding the idio^qtroll, not enough, you also start a
> thread only for him.
>
> and then folks jump in and wonder why the group is dying.

Amen. Small surprise, indeed.

But, they say he is entertaining. Sigh.
--
Jim in NC

[Mike Ash]

In article
>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> On Feb 22, 8:28*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > Mike Ash writes:
> > > The bit in the article where he talks about a simmer being asked to land
> > > a passenger plane after the pilots have been debilitated is pretty
> > > funny. Absolutely no mention whatsoever of the difficulty or
> > > improbability of actually pulling off such a feat. It is simply assumed
> > > that it could be done.
> >
> > It can easily be done.
> >
> > Large commercial transports are heavily automated, and most flights are
> > conducted under computer control for most of their durations. *With the
> > automation in operation, no particular flying skill is required to keep the
> > aircraft flying, and since the automation can also land the aircraft, no
> > particularly flying skill is required for landing, either.
> >
> > Because of this, any person of reasonable intelligence who can follow
> > instructions precisely can land an airliner, with help over the radio from a
> > pilot.
>
> I teach glass cockpit training and I see very intelligent, experienced
> pilots have lots of trouble working with the automation. In fact I
> have *never* encountered a pilot who thought it was easier to fly with
> the automation than to fly on old steam gauges.

To be fair, that's a biased sample, as you're working with people who
already have flying skill, so naturally they'll find flying to be the
easy part. Somebody with a whole lot of experience with electronic
gadgets but little experience with flying may not have that same
experience. I'd expect a computer geek who has never touched real flight
controls to have an easier time following instructions on button-pushing
than control-handling, although he may well have a tough time of both,
and I still have little confidence in the ultimate outcome unless
somebody actually tries it and proves otherwise.

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

[[email protected]]

Mike Ash > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>> On Feb 22, 8:28?pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> > Mike Ash writes:
>> > > The bit in the article where he talks about a simmer being asked to land
>> > > a passenger plane after the pilots have been debilitated is pretty
>> > > funny. Absolutely no mention whatsoever of the difficulty or
>> > > improbability of actually pulling off such a feat. It is simply assumed
>> > > that it could be done.
>> >
>> > It can easily be done.
>> >
>> > Large commercial transports are heavily automated, and most flights are
>> > conducted under computer control for most of their durations. ?With the
>> > automation in operation, no particular flying skill is required to keep the
>> > aircraft flying, and since the automation can also land the aircraft, no
>> > particularly flying skill is required for landing, either.
>> >
>> > Because of this, any person of reasonable intelligence who can follow
>> > instructions precisely can land an airliner, with help over the radio from a
>> > pilot.
>>
>> I teach glass cockpit training and I see very intelligent, experienced
>> pilots have lots of trouble working with the automation. In fact I
>> have *never* encountered a pilot who thought it was easier to fly with
>> the automation than to fly on old steam gauges.
>
> To be fair, that's a biased sample, as you're working with people who
> already have flying skill, so naturally they'll find flying to be the
> easy part. Somebody with a whole lot of experience with electronic
> gadgets but little experience with flying may not have that same
> experience. I'd expect a computer geek who has never touched real flight
> controls to have an easier time following instructions on button-pushing
> than control-handling, although he may well have a tough time of both,
> and I still have little confidence in the ultimate outcome unless
> somebody actually tries it and proves otherwise.

There's also the psychological issue that most people think without
constant "tending" of the airplane by both the pilots and air traffic
control, an airplane will fall out of the sky.

Your average person would likely be paralyzed by fear if told they had
to land the airplane.

Then there is the practical issue of finding someone who can tell a
totally ignorant person how to find the necessary buttons to push
and what to enter entirely from memory for a given random aircraft
type. There is a reason for type training by airlines.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[ManhattanMan]

wrote:

Has nobody thought of who is going to tune the funking radio to someone to
give the newbie driver instructions?

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 22, 11:59*am, John Godwin > wrote:
> It seems as if Microsoft is pulling the plug on MS Flight Simulator.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7902468.stm
>
> --

To be honest its a bit sad. I certainly don't have time to do all the
real flying I need to do (I have a waiting list of students) much less
time to play with the computer. However, I remember as a youth getting
version 2.0 of MSFS and playing with that. Back then the graphics were
just little white lines and you reallyl didn't know you were at an
airport until you overran it. However, the simulation was ok and the
gauges looked cool to me.

The funny thing with flight simulators is that they work so hard to
make them realistic in look, visuals etc. In truth that is about the
least important aspect of a real simulator.

-Robert

[[email protected]]

ManhattanMan > wrote:
> wrote:
>
> Has nobody thought of who is going to tune the funking radio to someone to
> give the newbie driver instructions?

Good point.

While it is highly likely that an airliner's radios will already be
tuned to ATC, the odds are about zero that there will by anyone around
at the ATC end with any knowledge of the cockpit layout of a random
airliner.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[-b-]

In article >,
says...

>
>I'm reminded of that old joke about a man collapsing and a woman
>bending over to help, only to be pushed aside by a (MX-like) character
>who said "stand back, I am trained as a first responder." She said
>"Good, when you get to that part that says call a doctor, I'll be
>right here."


Not even a joke really.
My dad WAS a doctor, and he was called to the scene of an accident one day. A
worker had fallen off a roof, and possibly broken his back or neck. When my dad
got there, there was a guy in a sort of khaki uniform giving orders, telling
everyone what to do, and preparing to pick the patient up. When my dad went to
the patient to perform some basic workup, to find the extent of his injuries,
he was pushed away by the guy in charge, who told him he had the situation
"under control". Not being one to be brushed away like that he asked the
identity of the man in uniform - he was a local milk deliveryman. The dairy had
decided only a short time earlier it would improve their "patriotic" image to
have their drivers dress in nearly military garb. Maybe MX's dad?

[Steve Foley[_4_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

>
>> I do not accept your conjecture as proof.
>
> Likewise.
>

So to summarize:

I have first hand knowledge of what needs to be done. I contend it cannot be
done, and as evidence, I offer that it has never been done.

You have read about the activity, and contend that it can be done. As
evidence you offer that you have read about the activity and contend that it
can be done.

Mighty compelling argument.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2009-02-23, > wrote:
> RSTS/E, RSX-11, RT-11, TOPS-10, TOPS-20, VMS...
>
> PDP-6, PDP-8, PDP-10, PDP-11, VAX...

All of those are emulated, and the smaller PDPs and VAXen aren't all
that hard to come by as actual hardware. (I even have a MicroVAX of my own).
The old IBM systems are emulated by Hercules (so EBCDIC is also something
that's available in an emulated system).

While not every hole will be filled, any system that has a modicum of
popularity will be emulated, especially the type of machine people had
at home in large numbers. For example, the Sinclair Spectrum (a popular
1980s 8 bit system in the UK) is emulable on most modern platforms from
the Nintendo DS and Wii to a 64 bit UltraSPARC server, and almost the
entire software catalogue of well over 10,000 items of software is
avaialable on modern media.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[good grief]

> wrote in message
...
> ManhattanMan > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>> Has nobody thought of who is going to tune the funking radio to someone
>> to
>> give the newbie driver instructions?
>
> Good point.
>
> While it is highly likely that an airliner's radios will already be
> tuned to ATC, the odds are about zero that there will by anyone around
> at the ATC end with any knowledge of the cockpit layout of a random
> airliner.
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Don't need a effing radio. All you need is access to usenet. You can log on
to r.a.p. and get more advice than you need. That'll probably get you close
enough to the ground to pull off SOME kind of landing........for better or
worse. Just remember, there's a planet out there and it's headed straight
for you!

[Mike Ash]

In article
>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> On Feb 22, 11:59*am, John Godwin > wrote:
> > It seems as if Microsoft is pulling the plug on MS Flight Simulator.
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7902468.stm
> >
> > --
>
> To be honest its a bit sad. I certainly don't have time to do all the
> real flying I need to do (I have a waiting list of students) much less
> time to play with the computer. However, I remember as a youth getting
> version 2.0 of MSFS and playing with that. Back then the graphics were
> just little white lines and you reallyl didn't know you were at an
> airport until you overran it. However, the simulation was ok and the
> gauges looked cool to me.

I wouldn't worry. While MS may have hit the point of diminishing
returns, there is still certainly a place in the market for simulators.
X-Plane is going to get a huge boost from this, and I'll bet than one or
two new simulators will be popping up to fill the void.

> The funny thing with flight simulators is that they work so hard to
> make them realistic in look, visuals etc. In truth that is about the
> least important aspect of a real simulator.

When your goal is simply to sell as many $50 copies as possible, those
aspects are extremely important. :)

Mike

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

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
wrote:

> Mike Ash > wrote:
> > To be fair, that's a biased sample, as you're working with people who
> > already have flying skill, so naturally they'll find flying to be the
> > easy part. Somebody with a whole lot of experience with electronic
> > gadgets but little experience with flying may not have that same
> > experience. I'd expect a computer geek who has never touched real flight
> > controls to have an easier time following instructions on button-pushing
> > than control-handling, although he may well have a tough time of both,
> > and I still have little confidence in the ultimate outcome unless
> > somebody actually tries it and proves otherwise.
>
> There's also the psychological issue that most people think without
> constant "tending" of the airplane by both the pilots and air traffic
> control, an airplane will fall out of the sky.
>
> Your average person would likely be paralyzed by fear if told they had
> to land the airplane.

Yes, I had nearly the exact same thought. Even if (big if) a simmer had
all the knowledge from his PC experience, would he be able to perform
when his life and a couple hundred other lives are on the line?

Really, I think that he probably would. Humans tend to step up in a
crisis more than fall apart. But it's certainly important, and not a
given by any means.

> Then there is the practical issue of finding someone who can tell a
> totally ignorant person how to find the necessary buttons to push
> and what to enter entirely from memory for a given random aircraft
> type. There is a reason for type training by airlines.

Yeah, I think the ease of this is overstated. You have to start talking
to somebody on the ground and communicate the gravity of the situation.
THEY then have to figure out who to talk to, who has to figure out, etc.
Eventually you're going to need a team of at least two people on the
ground, I figure, one of whom is an experienced pilot and the other a
person who can translate the pilot talk into something the simmer can
understand. (Experts aren't always good at explaining things to laymen,
even well-read laymen, alas.) And I figure they're going to have to
actually be *in* an identical airplane, or a simulator with an identical
cockpit, so that they can properly remember where everything is. And
then they have to talk the guy down.

All of this has to happen before the poor *******s up in the air run out
of fuel and die. Can even this much be done, much less the actual
talking-through-the-landing part? I'm doubtful myself. If anyone with
airline logistics experience would like to weigh in, I'd love to hear
about the practicality of simply finding the people and equipment from
someone who knows.

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

[Darkwing]

"Mike Ash" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> >,
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>> On Feb 22, 11:59 am, John Godwin > wrote:
>> > It seems as if Microsoft is pulling the plug on MS Flight Simulator.
>> >
>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7902468.stm
>> >
>> > --
>>
>> To be honest its a bit sad. I certainly don't have time to do all the
>> real flying I need to do (I have a waiting list of students) much less
>> time to play with the computer. However, I remember as a youth getting
>> version 2.0 of MSFS and playing with that. Back then the graphics were
>> just little white lines and you reallyl didn't know you were at an
>> airport until you overran it. However, the simulation was ok and the
>> gauges looked cool to me.
>
> I wouldn't worry. While MS may have hit the point of diminishing
> returns, there is still certainly a place in the market for simulators.
> X-Plane is going to get a huge boost from this, and I'll bet than one or
> two new simulators will be popping up to fill the void.


I did see that X-Plane is now sold at Best Buy, that alone has to help
sales.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Maxwell wrote:
>
> MSFS is so much like really flying, they have to consider the aging fleet.
> Sooner or later we are going to start seeing structural code failures in
> versions that have not been properly maintained.

OK... Now that _is_ a funny...

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Steve Foley wrote:
>
> No it cannot. It would end in disaster.
>

Not if they set "realism" to low... <G>

The switch is right next to the eject button in a Baron. I'm sure it's
in a similar spot in any "real" aircraft.

That's what Sully did! He slid the Airbus "realism" slider to low,
which made for an easy landing on the Hudson River.

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> As usual you miss the point entirely. You claimed that nothing was required
> but flipping a few switches and such. Go out and stop an aircraft and then
> come back and tell us all how easy it was.

Done. Just apply the brakes.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> I have first hand knowledge of what needs to be done.

So do I.

> I contend it cannot be done, and as evidence, I offer that
> it has never been done.

Lightning cannot strike my house, because it never has.

[Mxsmanic]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:

> Bull****. Not even the G1000 in MSX is even close to complete.

I'm not sure what MSX is. In MSFS, G1000 simulations vary in accuracy with
the source. The Reality XP simulations of Garmin 430 and 530 units are
complete and accurate, at least. (I don't use a G1000 and I have no interest
in doing so.)

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> I teach glass cockpit training and I see very intelligent, experienced
> pilots have lots of trouble working with the automation. In fact I
> have *never* encountered a pilot who thought it was easier to fly with
> the automation than to fly on old steam gauges.

But the person in the cockpit in this scenario would not be a pilot.

Steam gauges don't fly the plane. Automation doesn't replace the gauges.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> There's also the psychological issue that most people think without
> constant "tending" of the airplane by both the pilots and air traffic
> control, an airplane will fall out of the sky.

Not everyone believes that.

> Your average person would likely be paralyzed by fear if told they had
> to land the airplane.

I seriously doubt that. Most people aren't quite that irrational, especially
under pressure.

> Then there is the practical issue of finding someone who can tell a
> totally ignorant person how to find the necessary buttons to push
> and what to enter entirely from memory for a given random aircraft
> type. There is a reason for type training by airlines.

You can put the instructor in a sim, and it's not hard to locate the buttons.

[Mxsmanic]

ManhattanMan writes:

> Has nobody thought of who is going to tune the funking radio to someone to
> give the newbie driver instructions?

Typically the radio is already tuned to an appropriate ATC frequency.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> While it is highly likely that an airliner's radios will already be
> tuned to ATC, the odds are about zero that there will by anyone around
> at the ATC end with any knowledge of the cockpit layout of a random
> airliner.

People with such knowledge can be found extraordinarily fast.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Ash writes:

> All of this has to happen before the poor *******s up in the air run out
> of fuel and die.

Incapacitation of the pilots does not drain fuel from the tanks.

> Can even this much be done, much less the actual
> talking-through-the-landing part? I'm doubtful myself. If anyone with
> airline logistics experience would like to weigh in, I'd love to hear
> about the practicality of simply finding the people and equipment from
> someone who knows.

It seems to be pretty easy to find S&R, fire equipment, and military
interception on short notice; why would it be hard to find an instructor?

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> The funny thing with flight simulators is that they work so hard to
> make them realistic in look, visuals etc. In truth that is about the
> least important aspect of a real simulator.

For airliner simulators, it is extremely important, since hand-flying the
aircraft is often quite low in priority, whereas accurate execution of
procedures is near the top.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> While it is highly likely that an airliner's radios will already be
>> tuned to ATC, the odds are about zero that there will by anyone around
>> at the ATC end with any knowledge of the cockpit layout of a random
>> airliner.
>
> People with such knowledge can be found extraordinarily fast.

Yeah, sure they can.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> ManhattanMan writes:
>
>> Has nobody thought of who is going to tune the funking radio to someone to
>> give the newbie driver instructions?
>
> Typically the radio is already tuned to an appropriate ATC frequency.

However said frequency is hardly appropriate for spontaneous flight
instruction and the people in the ATC facility are generally nowhere
near where any pilots are.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 27, 10:42*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:
> > The funny thing with flight simulators is that they work so hard to
> > make them realistic in look, visuals etc. In truth that is about the
> > least important aspect of a real simulator.
>
> For airliner simulators, it is extremely important, since hand-flying the
> aircraft is often quite low in priority, whereas accurate execution of
> procedures is near the top.

I don't find that whether the trees look like lumps of green or have
leaves on them makes one bit of difference to a real simulator.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Mike Ash writes:
>
>> All of this has to happen before the poor *******s up in the air run out
>> of fuel and die.
>
> Incapacitation of the pilots does not drain fuel from the tanks.
>
>> Can even this much be done, much less the actual
>> talking-through-the-landing part? I'm doubtful myself. If anyone with
>> airline logistics experience would like to weigh in, I'd love to hear
>> about the practicality of simply finding the people and equipment from
>> someone who knows.
>
> It seems to be pretty easy to find S&R, fire equipment, and military
> interception on short notice; why would it be hard to find an instructor?

In what fantasy world does this happen?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> There's also the psychological issue that most people think without
>> constant "tending" of the airplane by both the pilots and air traffic
>> control, an airplane will fall out of the sky.
>
> Not everyone believes that.

Wrong yet again; most people do in fact believe that.

>> Your average person would likely be paralyzed by fear if told they had
>> to land the airplane.
>
> I seriously doubt that. Most people aren't quite that irrational, especially
> under pressure.

Having seen the reactions people who have actually been trained to
respond in pressure situations, I can assure you that it is true.

>> Then there is the practical issue of finding someone who can tell a
>> totally ignorant person how to find the necessary buttons to push
>> and what to enter entirely from memory for a given random aircraft
>> type. There is a reason for type training by airlines.
>
> You can put the instructor in a sim, and it's not hard to locate the buttons.

How many realistic sims down to the switch position level for any given
random aircraft do you thing exist in the world given they cost millions
of dollars?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Clark writes:
>
>> As usual you miss the point entirely. You claimed that nothing was
>> required
>> but flipping a few switches and such. Go out and stop an aircraft and
>> then
>> come back and tell us all how easy it was.
>
> Done. Just apply the brakes.

Good job dumb ass, you have just proven yourself incorrect.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> I have first hand knowledge of what needs to be done.
>
> So do I.
>
>> I contend it cannot be done, and as evidence, I offer that
>> it has never been done.
>
> Lightning cannot strike my house, because it never has.

Bull****, you have never proven anything but your ability to wonder around
for years in a clueless daze.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> While it is highly likely that an airliner's radios will already be
>> tuned to ATC, the odds are about zero that there will by anyone around
>> at the ATC end with any knowledge of the cockpit layout of a random
>> airliner.
>
> People with such knowledge can be found extraordinarily fast.

Only in your delusion.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Ash writes:
>
>> All of this has to happen before the poor *******s up in the air run out
>> of fuel and die.
>
> Incapacitation of the pilots does not drain fuel from the tanks.
>
>> Can even this much be done, much less the actual
>> talking-through-the-landing part? I'm doubtful myself. If anyone with
>> airline logistics experience would like to weigh in, I'd love to hear
>> about the practicality of simply finding the people and equipment from
>> someone who knows.
>
> It seems to be pretty easy to find S&R, fire equipment, and military
> interception on short notice; why would it be hard to find an instructor?

Are you really that stupid?

Do you have a staffed, 24 hour Flight Instructor Department next to the
local Fire Department in France? Do they drive emergency vehicles? Slide
down poles?

You're a hopeless twit.

[Varactor]

On Feb 28, 7:35*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:
> > Bull****. Not even the G1000 in MSX is even close to complete.
>
> I'm not sure what MSX is. *In MSFS, G1000 simulations vary in accuracy with
> the source. *The Reality XP simulations of Garmin 430 and 530 units are
> complete and accurate, at least. *(I don't use a G1000 and I have no interest
> in doing so.)

How do you know that if you haven't used a G1000?

Cheers

[Mxsmanic]

Varactor writes:

> How do you know that if you haven't used a G1000?

By reading the descriptions of the simulations.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> However said frequency is hardly appropriate for spontaneous flight
> instruction and the people in the ATC facility are generally nowhere
> near where any pilots are.

That is easily remedied by putting an experienced instructor pilot on
frequency.

In the case of smaller aircraft, non-pilots (and pilots) have occasionally
been assisted by air traffic controllers who had piloting experience.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Do you have a staffed, 24 hour Flight Instructor Department next to the
> local Fire Department in France? Do they drive emergency vehicles? Slide
> down poles?

ATC has telephones.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Having seen the reactions people who have actually been trained to
> respond in pressure situations, I can assure you that it is true.

I have also seen these reactions, and they do not match your assertion.

> How many realistic sims down to the switch position level for any given
> random aircraft do you thing exist in the world given they cost millions
> of dollars?

Quite a few ... and you only need one.

[Mxsmanic]

-b- writes:

> It's so easy, any monkey can do it. The only humans who are functionally
> incapable of performing these simple tasks are pilots themselves, because their
> intelligence is so impaired they cannot even realize they are the least capable
> of doing their own job . . .

It's unwise to lump all pilots together. There are pilots who are too stupid
to handle the complexity of a large airliner, of course, but they are a
minority. Flying an airliner isn't sufficiently different from flying a small
airplane that someone too stupid to handle the former would be likely to be
competent in the latter.

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> I don't find that whether the trees look like lumps of green or have
> leaves on them makes one bit of difference to a real simulator.

That's not the important part. The important part is that everything in the
cockpit must look as it does in real life, since much of the training (in the
case of airline pilots, for example) is intended to reinforce procedures that
are intimately connected to the ergonomy of the flight deck. It wouldn't do
to train pilots for engine failures on take-off using simulator cockpits that
have controls in positions different from those of the real thing--it would
defeat the entire purpose of the training, in fact. So these aspects are very
important.

What is outside the window, in contrast, is usually not important in these
types of simulations, although some things, such as airport surfaces, must be
accurately simulated.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> However said frequency is hardly appropriate for spontaneous flight
>> instruction and the people in the ATC facility are generally nowhere
>> near where any pilots are.
>
> That is easily remedied by putting an experienced instructor pilot on
> frequency.

Point totally missed.

It would be highly unlikely that there would be an experienced instructor
pilot within 50 miles of an ATC facility nor do ATC facilities keep
a list of phone numbers of experienced instructor pilots, much less a list
sorted by various airliner types.

> In the case of smaller aircraft, non-pilots (and pilots) have occasionally
> been assisted by air traffic controllers who had piloting experience.

Smaller aircraft aren't airliners; you are in a hole and trying to get
out by changing the subject.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Do you have a staffed, 24 hour Flight Instructor Department next to the
>> local Fire Department in France? Do they drive emergency vehicles? Slide
>> down poles?
>
> ATC has telephones.

True, but what they don't have is a list of qualified airline pilots
and their phone numbers.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
>> I don't find that whether the trees look like lumps of green or have
>> leaves on them makes one bit of difference to a real simulator.
>
> That's not the important part. The important part is that everything in the
> cockpit must look as it does in real life, since much of the training (in the
> case of airline pilots, for example) is intended to reinforce procedures that
> are intimately connected to the ergonomy of the flight deck. It wouldn't do
> to train pilots for engine failures on take-off using simulator cockpits that
> have controls in positions different from those of the real thing--it would
> defeat the entire purpose of the training, in fact. So these aspects are very
> important.

Which is why such simulators are built from real airplane parts with
real switches and consoles and cost millions.

> What is outside the window, in contrast, is usually not important in these
> types of simulations, although some things, such as airport surfaces, must be
> accurately simulated.

Nonsense.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Having seen the reactions people who have actually been trained to
>> respond in pressure situations, I can assure you that it is true.
>
> I have also seen these reactions, and they do not match your assertion.

I highly doubt someone who is admittedly afraid of just about everything
in life has been in many life or death situations, if any at all.

>> How many realistic sims down to the switch position level for any given
>> random aircraft do you thing exist in the world given they cost millions
>> of dollars?
>
> Quite a few ... and you only need one.

Quite a few amounts to a very small number scattered about the globe
and ATC has no phone list of such simulators, much less a list sorted
by aircraft type, and the numbers of people qualified to run such a
simulator.

You are delusional.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> It would be highly unlikely that there would be an experienced instructor
> pilot within 50 miles of an ATC facility nor do ATC facilities keep
> a list of phone numbers of experienced instructor pilots, much less a list
> sorted by various airliner types.

Rest assured, they can find lots of people very quickly. You greatly
underestimate the capabilities and sophistication of the parties involved in
such circumstances.

> Smaller aircraft aren't airliners; you are in a hole and trying to get
> out by changing the subject.

There's nothing to get out of. As I've said, instructors are easy to find.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> True, but what they don't have is a list of qualified airline pilots
> and their phone numbers.

They don't need it. They can contact the airline, which can find a qualified
pilot very quickly.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Quite a few amounts to a very small number scattered about the globe
> and ATC has no phone list of such simulators, much less a list sorted
> by aircraft type, and the numbers of people qualified to run such a
> simulator.

I'm reminded of a cartoon in which someone picks up a phone, dials a number,
and hears "U.S. Government, may I help you?"

ATC doesn't need phone lists of simulators or airline pilots or anything of
the kind.

Even I can find an instructor pilot in a few minutes with a few calls. Air
traffic control facilities can do the same thing, only much faster and much
more easily.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Which is why such simulators are built from real airplane parts with
> real switches and consoles and cost millions.

Yes.

[-b-]

Aah yes - the famous MXS mantra.
It's so easy, any monkey can do it. The only humans who are functionally
incapable of performing these simple tasks are pilots themselves, because their
intelligence is so impaired they cannot even realize they are the least capable
of doing their own job . . .

This posted to a pilot's forum, intermixed with angelic "who-me?" rhetoric.
Anyone detect passive-aggressive intent here?

To quote Frost :
What but Design - design to appall
If design govern in a brain so small. . .

Lamentable.
Find a doctor - it's urgent . . .




In article >,
says...

>
>It's actually easier to land an airliner than it is to land a small aircraft,
>because small aircraft usually have only limited automation, just as small
>aircraft pilots usually have no clue about how large airliners work, and tend
>to assume that everything flies like their Cessnas.

[Varactor]

On Feb 28, 3:14*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Varactor writes:
> > How do you know that if you haven't used a G1000?
>
> By reading the descriptions of the simulations.

Ohhh sure that's a reliable evaluation. What did they say: "perfect
simulation of the G1000" What was the G1000 pixel resolution and
update rate?

Cheers

[a[_3_]]

On Feb 28, 6:30*am, Varactor > wrote:
> On Feb 28, 3:14*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > Varactor writes:
> > > How do you know that if you haven't used a G1000?
>
> > By reading the descriptions of the simulations.
>
> Ohhh sure that's a reliable evaluation. What did they say: "perfect
> simulation of the G1000" What was the G1000 pixel resolution and
> update rate?
>
> Cheers

Has there been instances where arguments of MX v anyone have been
resolved, except in the mind of the person typing the last message?

Do as Obama did during the primaries -- look down on the combantants
and watch the others chase their tails.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> It would be highly unlikely that there would be an experienced instructor
>> pilot within 50 miles of an ATC facility nor do ATC facilities keep
>> a list of phone numbers of experienced instructor pilots, much less a list
>> sorted by various airliner types.
>
> Rest assured, they can find lots of people very quickly. You greatly
> underestimate the capabilities and sophistication of the parties involved in
> such circumstances.

Delusional babble.

>> Smaller aircraft aren't airliners; you are in a hole and trying to get
>> out by changing the subject.
>
> There's nothing to get out of. As I've said, instructors are easy to find.

More delusional babble.

You've spent way too much time watching movies and playing games.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> True, but what they don't have is a list of qualified airline pilots
>> and their phone numbers.
>
> They don't need it. They can contact the airline, which can find a qualified
> pilot very quickly.

Yeah, sure they can, on both counts.

You are delusional.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Quite a few amounts to a very small number scattered about the globe
>> and ATC has no phone list of such simulators, much less a list sorted
>> by aircraft type, and the numbers of people qualified to run such a
>> simulator.
>
> I'm reminded of a cartoon in which someone picks up a phone, dials a number,
> and hears "U.S. Government, may I help you?"
>
> ATC doesn't need phone lists of simulators or airline pilots or anything of
> the kind.
>
> Even I can find an instructor pilot in a few minutes with a few calls. Air
> traffic control facilities can do the same thing, only much faster and much
> more easily.

So ATC facilities have magic telephones?

Give it a try and see if you can find someone qualified to run a simulator
for a Boeing 757.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Which is why such simulators are built from real airplane parts with
>> real switches and consoles and cost millions.
>
> Yes.

Good, you agree what you posted is nonsense.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Mike Ash writes:
>
> > All of this has to happen before the poor *******s up in the air run out
> > of fuel and die.
>
> Incapacitation of the pilots does not drain fuel from the tanks.

The *engines turning* drains the fuel from the tanks. In other words
there is a strict time limit on all of these activities.

> > Can even this much be done, much less the actual
> > talking-through-the-landing part? I'm doubtful myself. If anyone with
> > airline logistics experience would like to weigh in, I'd love to hear
> > about the practicality of simply finding the people and equipment from
> > someone who knows.
>
> It seems to be pretty easy to find S&R, fire equipment, and military
> interception on short notice; why would it be hard to find an instructor?

Your stupidity never ceases to amaze. All of the people you list in the
first clause are in positions that are staffed and on-call and prepared
to respond. Instructors are not emergency responders.

It seems to be pretty easy to get an ambulance on short notice, why
would it be hard to find a painter?

Airports don't keep instructors sitting around on call ready to leap
into action at a moment's notice the way they do S&R, firemen, and
military interceptors.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Varactor writes:

> Ohhh sure that's a reliable evaluation. What did they say: "perfect
> simulation of the G1000"

No.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Ash writes:

> The *engines turning* drains the fuel from the tanks. In other words
> there is a strict time limit on all of these activities.

That time limit is not changed by incapacitation of the pilots.

> Airports don't keep instructors sitting around on call ready to leap
> into action at a moment's notice the way they do S&R, firemen, and
> military interceptors.

They don't have to be on call.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> So ATC facilities have magic telephones?

No, but they have people with useful qualifications who can think fast when
problems arise.

> Give it a try and see if you can find someone qualified to run a simulator
> for a Boeing 757.

I'm two telephone calls away from such a person. I'm sure ATC centers are
much closer.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Good, you agree what you posted is nonsense.

No, I agree that the simulators under discussion are built largely with real
parts and cost millions of dollars, although I didn't think that was in
dispute to begin with.

[Mxsmanic]

-b- writes:

> Therefore we can rest assured that his posts will be devoid of any significance
> other than thinly disguised arrogance and disdain for those who have taken the
> initiative to learn something. This is an extremely retrograde position, and
> indicative of a very disturbed personality.

So a simmer is unqualified to discuss flying, but a pilot is qualified to
diagnose psychological disorders? Explain the seeming contradiction here.

> As for aeronautical considerations - he would do as well to get into long-range
> weather forecasting.

There are a lot of people predicting the weather 100 years from now who are no
more qualified to do so than I am.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Mike Ash writes:

>> Airports don't keep instructors sitting around on call ready to leap
>> into action at a moment's notice the way they do S&R, firemen, and
>> military interceptors.
>
> They don't have to be on call.

If they aren't, it will take hours to find them.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> So ATC facilities have magic telephones?
>
> No, but they have people with useful qualifications who can think fast when
> problems arise.

Babble.

>> Give it a try and see if you can find someone qualified to run a simulator
>> for a Boeing 757.
>
> I'm two telephone calls away from such a person. I'm sure ATC centers are
> much closer.

Yeah, sure.

A real Boeing 757 simulator, not a PC toy.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> If they aren't, it will take hours to find them.

It only takes a few minutes.

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> You've never flown so have no knowledge of flying.

I've flown in simulation, which is very close to flying in real life, and I've
studied a lot, so I know quite a bit about flying.

> Everyone who reads your posts is exposed to a psychological
> disorder.

Even if that were true, it would not qualify them to diagnose it.

If using a simulator doesn't qualify one to fly for real, then it can only be
more true that not having any exposure to psychology would guarantee that a
person could not diagnose psychological disorders.

[Mxsmanic]

-b- writes:

> Didn't catch the contradiction here. . .

I didn't expect that you would; had you seen the contradiction, you would not
have made the original post.

> I didn't realize there wer "a lot" of such wizards, but I guess I'm not
> surprised.

Wherever there is grant money, there are "wizards."

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> True, but what they don't have is a list of qualified airline pilots
>> and their phone numbers.
>
> They don't need it. They can contact the airline, which can find a
> qualified
> pilot very quickly.

What make you think so, dumb ass?

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> If they aren't, it will take hours to find them.
>
> It only takes a few minutes.

You guess at everything, don't you?

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Quite a few amounts to a very small number scattered about the globe
>> and ATC has no phone list of such simulators, much less a list sorted
>> by aircraft type, and the numbers of people qualified to run such a
>> simulator.
>
> I'm reminded of a cartoon in which someone picks up a phone, dials a
> number,
> and hears "U.S. Government, may I help you?"
>
> ATC doesn't need phone lists of simulators or airline pilots or anything
> of
> the kind.
>
> Even I can find an instructor pilot in a few minutes with a few calls.
> Air
> traffic control facilities can do the same thing, only much faster and
> much
> more easily.

You're a liar.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> So ATC facilities have magic telephones?
>
> No, but they have people with useful qualifications who can think fast
> when
> problems arise.
>
>> Give it a try and see if you can find someone qualified to run a
>> simulator
>> for a Boeing 757.
>
> I'm two telephone calls away from such a person. I'm sure ATC centers are
> much closer.

You're one push button away from the orderlies.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> -b- writes:
>
>> It's so easy, any monkey can do it. The only humans who are functionally
>> incapable of performing these simple tasks are pilots themselves, because
>> their
>> intelligence is so impaired they cannot even realize they are the least
>> capable
>> of doing their own job . . .
>
> It's unwise to lump all pilots together. There are pilots who are too
> stupid
> to handle the complexity of a large airliner, of course, but they are a
> minority. Flying an airliner isn't sufficiently different from flying a
> small
> airplane that someone too stupid to handle the former would be likely to
> be
> competent in the latter.

Says the moron with "zero" experience with either.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> -b- writes:
>
>> Therefore we can rest assured that his posts will be devoid of any
>> significance
>> other than thinly disguised arrogance and disdain for those who have
>> taken the
>> initiative to learn something. This is an extremely retrograde position,
>> and
>> indicative of a very disturbed personality.
>
> So a simmer is unqualified to discuss flying, but a pilot is qualified to
> diagnose psychological disorders? Explain the seeming contradiction here.

We all have experience with you.


>
>> As for aeronautical considerations - he would do as well to get into
>> long-range
>> weather forecasting.
>
> There are a lot of people predicting the weather 100 years from now who
> are no
> more qualified to do so than I am.

That because you are both simply guessing, and both capable of believing
anything you imagine.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Clark writes:
>
>> You've never flown so have no knowledge of flying.
>
> I've flown in simulation, which is very close to flying in real life, and
> I've
> studied a lot, so I know quite a bit about flying.

Liar, you have no clue about real life.

>
>> Everyone who reads your posts is exposed to a psychological
>> disorder.
>
> Even if that were true, it would not qualify them to diagnose it.
>
> If using a simulator doesn't qualify one to fly for real, then it can only
> be
> more true that not having any exposure to psychology would guarantee that
> a
> person could not diagnose psychological disorders.

That would only make sense to someone with your illness.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Good, you agree what you posted is nonsense.
>
> No, I agree that the simulators under discussion are built largely with
> real
> parts and cost millions of dollars, although I didn't think that was in
> dispute to begin with.

You're a dumb ass.

[Mxsmanic]

-b- writes:

> I was an arrogant son-of-a-bitch before I learned to fly.

Learning to fly would not necessarily aggravate that characteristic, although
people with such personalities tend to become unsafe pilots.

[Mxsmanic]

-b- writes:

> The very voice of experience!

Mostly research rather than experience.

> If you're so keenly interested in aviation, take some flight
> lessons, for God's sake.

That isn't practical at the moment.

> Today you sit around in a French café with your pals telling them you
> would be perfectly able to land an airliner and that you know more about
> aviation than most pilots.

I don't go to cafés, and I don't have pals.

> If you take some lessons, by the time you solo in the lowly
> Champ or C152 (and you will get there) you will have, if nothing
> else, dispelled the notion that you would be capable of landing
> an airliner!

Since these are not airliners, flying in them would tell me nothing about my
ability or inability to land an airliner.

[-b-]

The saddest part in all of this is that MX is not even a good simmer.
His responses indicate that he has a poor grasp of how simulation is used in
training, and what factors make for good transfer of simulation-learned
techniques to the real flight environment. This is particularly disheartening
because he claims to be a good reader, yet there are volumes published on the
subject.

By for the best thing he could do to improve (or at least initiate) the
pertinence of his posts would be to take some hours of real flight instruction.
Yet he has made his abhorrence of aviation and his disdain for anything real
sufficiently clear, that we can be sure he will never do so.

Therefore we can rest assured that his posts will be devoid of any significance
other than thinly disguised arrogance and disdain for those who have taken the
initiative to learn something. This is an extremely retrograde position, and
indicative of a very disturbed personality.

As for aeronautical considerations - he would do as well to get into long-range
weather forecasting. A year or so ahead. He would have as good a chance of
hitting on something true as his present blather on operations of aircraft.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I don't go to cafés, and I don't have pals.

What a surprize.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> If they aren't, it will take hours to find them.
>
> It only takes a few minutes.

Wrong again, though it is to be expected from someone with zero life
experience.

Having been involved in many a call up to people who are SUPPOSED to
be reachable and seen the actual results, I feel I am very qualified
to say you are full of **** when you say you can reach people in
a "few minutes" who have zero obligation to be available.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Mike Ash writes:
>
> > The *engines turning* drains the fuel from the tanks. In other words
> > there is a strict time limit on all of these activities.
>
> That time limit is not changed by incapacitation of the pilots.

Never, ever said it was. All I ever said was that there is a time limit.
Anything beyond that is your demented imagination.

> > Airports don't keep instructors sitting around on call ready to leap
> > into action at a moment's notice the way they do S&R, firemen, and
> > military interceptors.
>
> They don't have to be on call.

They need to be in a position where they can be found and called in,
with enough time left over to find an identical airplane (or equivalent
simulator) and talk the guy down.

I'm not saying it can't be done. But it is a challenge and it has not
been demonstrated that it can be reliably overcome. I've never said that
it's impossible, merely that it has not been demonstrated to be
possible, and the gleeful self-assurance demonstrated by both yourself
and the author of the article in question are therefore not backed up by
reality.

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

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
wrote:

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
> >
> >> If they aren't, it will take hours to find them.
> >
> > It only takes a few minutes.
>
> Wrong again, though it is to be expected from someone with zero life
> experience.
>
> Having been involved in many a call up to people who are SUPPOSED to
> be reachable and seen the actual results, I feel I am very qualified
> to say you are full of **** when you say you can reach people in
> a "few minutes" who have zero obligation to be available.

Yeah, seriously.

You're doing well if you can get paramedics to your house within five
minutes even if you're in the middle of a life threatening emergency and
live within spitting distance of a hospital.

Getting J. Random Instructor on the phone in a few minutes from a
standing start? You'll be lucky if you're even talking to the right
department at the airline by that point, and really lucky if they
actually believe that you're serious.

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

[a[_3_]]

On Feb 28, 7:00*pm, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
>
> >> If they aren't, it will take hours to find them.
>
> > It only takes a few minutes.
>
> Wrong again, though it is to be expected from someone with zero life
> experience.
>
> Having been involved in many a call up to people who are SUPPOSED to
> be reachable and seen the actual results, I feel I am very qualified
> to say you are full of **** when you say you can reach people in
> a "few minutes" who have zero obligation to be available.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Suicide hot line: "Your call is very important to us, and will be
answered in the order it was received. Estimated wait time, etc"

[-b-]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>-b- writes:
>
>> Therefore we can rest assured that his posts will be devoid of any
significance
>> other than thinly disguised arrogance and disdain for those who have taken
the
>> initiative to learn something. This is an extremely retrograde position, and
>> indicative of a very disturbed personality.
>
>So a simmer is unqualified to discuss flying, but a pilot is qualified to
>diagnose psychological disorders? Explain the seeming contradiction here.

Didn't catch the contradiction here. . .

>
>> As for aeronautical considerations - he would do as well to get into
long-range
>> weather forecasting.
>
>There are a lot of people predicting the weather 100 years from now who are no
>more qualified to do so than I am.


I didn't realize there wer "a lot" of such wizards, but I guess I'm not
surprised. The point remains that their revelations will have no more and no
less pertinence than your own, purportedly aviation-related posts.

[-b-]

I was an arrogant son-of-a-bitch before I learned to fly.
That's many years ago now, but I recall watching all those guys and gals in
their 172's thinking I'd be into a KingAir before they even got certificated.
Guess what happened instead - I actually learned something! First thing I
learned was how much I didn't know. You are light-years away from that and
moving at lightspeed toward the dark end. That would be a great new pseudo for
you by the way "LightSpeedToward Darkness". Can we get that enacted right
away?

More on what I learned - the immense satisfaction of mastering the thing -
never master, but every day less and less a slave. Far too humbling a
satisfaction for the likes of you to assimilate. Of course I never came
anywhere near your abyss of pride and ignorance. Perhaps you really are at
lightspeed and there is no recovery possible.

Today I still don't have my KingAir, but I have a 182T and I'm just enthralled
at what a capable airplane it is! I hate to gloat about it, but I'm really
happy not to be in the deep rut you're in. You know you're in deep trouble.
Find professional help.

[Mike Ash]

In article
>,
a > wrote:

> On Feb 28, 7:00*pm, wrote:
> > Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > > writes:
> >
> > >> If they aren't, it will take hours to find them.
> >
> > > It only takes a few minutes.
> >
> > Wrong again, though it is to be expected from someone with zero life
> > experience.
> >
> > Having been involved in many a call up to people who are SUPPOSED to
> > be reachable and seen the actual results, I feel I am very qualified
> > to say you are full of **** when you say you can reach people in
> > a "few minutes" who have zero obligation to be available.
> >
> Suicide hot line: "Your call is very important to us, and will be
> answered in the order it was received. Estimated wait time, etc"

Even 911 lines sometimes get backed up and force people to wait for
minutes before talking to someone, and that's a service where people
call in routinely and for which any given call has a significant
probability of lives being at stake. And somehow it's going to be
trivial to get similar response time to on-call police and paramedics
when the necessary people aren't even on call? Funny and ludicrous.

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

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Wrong again, though it is to be expected from someone with zero life
> experience.
>
> Having been involved in many a call up to people who are SUPPOSED to
> be reachable and seen the actual results, I feel I am very qualified
> to say you are full of **** when you say you can reach people in
> a "few minutes" who have zero obligation to be available.

Your experience is not necessarily more representative than mine.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Ash writes:

> Never, ever said it was. All I ever said was that there is a time limit.

There's always a time limit. But it will typically be extremely generous
compared to the time required to find a qualified instructor.

> They need to be in a position where they can be found and called in,
> with enough time left over to find an identical airplane (or equivalent
> simulator) and talk the guy down.

Unless they live at the North Pole, it shouldn't take too long.

> I'm not saying it can't be done. But it is a challenge and it has not
> been demonstrated that it can be reliably overcome.

Just getting a large number of airplanes to land safely in poor weather
conditions is a substantial challenge, but air traffic controllers meet that
challenge daily. The mere fact that it might seem insurmountably difficult to
you doesn't mean that it would be difficult for others.

> I've never said that it's impossible, merely that it has not been
> demonstrated to be possible ...

Since it has not been demonstrated, asserting that it is difficult has no
greater empirical basis than asserting that it is easy, at best.

> ... and the gleeful self-assurance demonstrated by both yourself
> and the author of the article in question are therefore not backed up by
> reality.

Neither is it invalidated by reality.

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> You've played a game and claim it's more than that.

It's a simulation, not a game. Games have objectives, and prizes, and
arbitrary rules.

> You've never flown but claim to know about it.

You don't have to fly to know about it. That's what books are for.

> No body will believe your claims no matter how many times you
> repeat them.

Some have already believed me, but their minds were less clouded by emotion
and more firmly ruled by intellect.

> Sorry little boy but it's way past time for you to
> grow up and admit it.

See above.

> As usual, you can't follow an argument so you make up non-sense.

The logic is impeccable.

> Folks deal with your abnormal psychology every time you post here.

The abnormality I see is not in me. I'm not sure why, but USENET gives voices
to those who would normally remain silently at the bottom of the bell curve.

> After about ten of your posts just about anyone is qualified
> to diagnose your problem.

If that were true, then, logically, after reading about ten posts here from
pilots, I'd be qualified to fly a real airplane.

[-b-]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>-b- writes:
>
>> I was an arrogant son-of-a-bitch before I learned to fly.
>
>Learning to fly would not necessarily aggravate that characteristic, although
>people with such personalities tend to become unsafe pilots.

The very voice of experience!
If you're so keenly interested in aviation, take some flight lessons, for God's
sake. Today you sit around in a French café with your pals telling them you
would be perfectly able to land an airliner and that you know more about
aviation than most pilots.

If you take some lessons, by the time you solo in the lowly Champ or C152 (and
you will get there) you will have, if nothing else, dispelled the notion that
you would be capable of landing an airliner!

You are running at lightspeed away from any knowledge of anything.

[Mxsmanic]

-b- writes:

> Easy and cheap - even where you live.

No, unfortunately it is not. A pilot's license with an instrument rating, for
example, would cost $20,000 to $40,000, according to pilots and instructors
I've talked to.

> Can't fool me.

No need.

> I'm afraid I'm not surprised. . .

Why are you afraid?

> Completely mistaken - couldn't be further from the truth - as usual.

Try it, and you'll see.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> writes:
>
> > Wrong again, though it is to be expected from someone with zero life
> > experience.
> >
> > Having been involved in many a call up to people who are SUPPOSED to
> > be reachable and seen the actual results, I feel I am very qualified
> > to say you are full of **** when you say you can reach people in
> > a "few minutes" who have zero obligation to be available.
>
> Your experience is not necessarily more representative than mine.

Yes it is.

He's a pilot. You are not.

See the difference?

--
Duncan

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> He's a pilot.

For which airline?

[-b-]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>-b- writes:
>
>> If you're so keenly interested in aviation, take some flight
>> lessons, for God's sake.
>
>That isn't practical at the moment.

Easy and cheap - even where you live. Can't fool me.

>
>> Today you sit around in a French café with your pals telling them you
>> would be perfectly able to land an airliner and that you know more about
>> aviation than most pilots.
>
>I don't go to cafés, and I don't have pals.

I'm afraid I'm not surprised. . .


>
>> If you take some lessons, by the time you solo in the lowly
>> Champ or C152 (and you will get there) you will have, if nothing
>> else, dispelled the notion that you would be capable of landing
>> an airliner!
>
>Since these are not airliners, flying in them would tell me nothing about my
>ability or inability to land an airliner.

Completely mistaken - couldn't be further from the truth - as usual.


Get help - before we have to read about you in the next hostage crisis,
charitably releasing the last pre-schoolers before taking his own life. . .
Take advantage of the world-famous French medical system and get into
something that can save some of those preschoolers as well as yourself.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
> > He's a pilot.
>
> For which airline?

Does it matter? Maybe no airline, he's still a pilot.

--
Duncan

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> Does it matter? Maybe no airline, he's still a pilot.

It matters a lot, since airline pilots are worlds different from mere private
pilots. It's the difference between someone trained in CPR and a
neurosurgeon.

[Varactor]

On Mar 1, 5:53*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Varactor writes:
> > Ohhh sure that's a reliable evaluation. What did they say: "perfect
> > simulation of the G1000"
>
> No.

So its not accurate then is it...

LOL

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
> > Does it matter? Maybe no airline, he's still a pilot.
>
> It matters a lot, since airline pilots are worlds different from mere private
> pilots. It's the difference between someone trained in CPR and a
> neurosurgeon.

I'd value your opinion, if you were I pilot, but you're not - so I
don't.

--
Duncan

[a[_3_]]

On Mar 1, 2:26*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Mike Ash writes:
> > Never, ever said it was. All I ever said was that there is a time limit..
>
> There's always a time limit. *But it will typically be extremely generous
> compared to the time required to find a qualified instructor.
>
> > They need to be in a position where they can be found and called in,
> > with enough time left over to find an identical airplane (or equivalent
> > simulator) and talk the guy down.
>
> Unless they live at the North Pole, it shouldn't take too long.
>
> > I'm not saying it can't be done. But it is a challenge and it has not
> > been demonstrated that it can be reliably overcome.
>
> Just getting a large number of airplanes to land safely in poor weather
> conditions is a substantial challenge, but air traffic controllers meet that
> challenge daily. *The mere fact that it might seem insurmountably difficult to
> you doesn't mean that it would be difficult for others.
>
> > I've never said that it's impossible, merely that it has not been
> > demonstrated to be possible ...
>
> Since it has not been demonstrated, asserting that it is difficult has no
> greater empirical basis than asserting that it is easy, at best.
>
> > ... and the gleeful self-assurance demonstrated by both yourself
> > and the author of the article in question are therefore not backed up by
> > reality.
>
> Neither is it invalidated by reality.

MX wrote


> Just getting a large number of airplanes to land safely in poor weather
> conditions is a substantial challenge, but air traffic controllers meet that
> challenge daily. The mere fact that it might seem insurmountably difficult to
> you doesn't mean that it would be difficult for others.
>
I would point out controllers get a large number of airplanes to land
safely. All they do is provide seperation so the pilots can land the
airplanes safely.

[a[_3_]]

On Mar 1, 4:11*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dave Doe writes:
> > Does it matter? *Maybe no airline, he's still a pilot.
>
> It matters a lot, since airline pilots are worlds different from mere private
> pilots. *It's the difference between someone trained in CPR and a
> neurosurgeon.

That is really funny. "I, having simulated being a neurosurgeon, am
more qualified than you, having been trained in CPR, to work on this
person whose heart has stopped beating."

See the difference?

[Mxsmanic]

Varactor writes:

> So its not accurate then is it...

No, it's not. Fortunately, I'm not interested in the G1000.

[Mxsmanic]

a writes:

> That is really funny. "I, having simulated being a neurosurgeon, am
> more qualified than you, having been trained in CPR, to work on this
> person whose heart has stopped beating."
>
> See the difference?

No.

[Mxsmanic]

a writes:

> I would point out controllers get a large number of airplanes to land
> safely. All they do is provide seperation so the pilots can land the
> airplanes safely.

Before they did that, some pilots never got the opportunity to land.

Seventy years ago, just flying into clouds could spell the end of a commercial
flight.

[a[_3_]]

On Mar 1, 5:24*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> a writes:
> > That is really funny. "I, having simulated being a neurosurgeon, am
> > more qualified than you, having been trained in CPR, to work on this
> > person whose heart has stopped beating."
>
> > See the difference?
>
> No.

A valid analogy defeats you? I suspect you do not do well on tests.

[a[_3_]]

On Mar 1, 5:25*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> a writes:
> > I would point out controllers get a large number of airplanes to land
> > safely. All they do is *provide seperation so the pilots can land the
> > airplanes safely.
>
> Before they did that, some pilots never got the opportunity to land.
>
> Seventy years ago, just flying into clouds could spell the end of a commercial
> flight.

What part of "so pilots can land the planes safely" did you not
understand? Reading comprehension problems too? You'd be an
interesting case study for one of my undergrad students who is trying
to find her way through the DSM.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Clark writes:
>
>> You've played a game and claim it's more than that.
>
> It's a simulation, not a game. Games have objectives, and prizes, and
> arbitrary rules.

Utter, babbling nonsense.

The vast majority of games that are played by normal people (not on TV
or in casinos) have no prizes.

MSFS has objectives and arbitrary rules.

All of life has arbitrary rules.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Wrong again, though it is to be expected from someone with zero life
>> experience.
>>
>> Having been involved in many a call up to people who are SUPPOSED to
>> be reachable and seen the actual results, I feel I am very qualified
>> to say you are full of **** when you say you can reach people in
>> a "few minutes" who have zero obligation to be available.
>
> Your experience is not necessarily more representative than mine.

You have no such experience.

To have had such experience, you would have had to belong to some sort
of organization, and you have repeatedly said you don't interact with
other people.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dave Doe writes:
>
>> He's a pilot.
>
> For which airline?

There you go, trying to change the subject again because you are in a hole
and can't get out.

The subject was how long does it take to contact people, even when the
people are SUPPOSED to be available and reachable; airlines have nothing
to do with the subject.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> To have had such experience, you would have had to belong to some sort
> of organization, and you have repeatedly said you don't interact with
> other people.

Club membership is not required to get things done. Clubs are often mainly
for the insecure.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> MSFS has objectives and arbitrary rules.

Examples?

[Mxsmanic]

-b- writes:

> I think it would take you much more, because of your attitude
> problems.

Attitude is not a problem for me, and typically I do reasonably well at
training of this kind.

[Mxsmanic]

VOR-DME writes:

> Why do you talk to pilots?

I'm interested in aviation.

> I thought that was a waste of time. . .

Not if they are good pilots.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> "I'm qualified to psychologically assess the characteristics of unsafe pilots"

Actually, I just repeat the assessments of people who are indeed qualified to
make them. These people have identified personality characteristics that
correlate highly with unsafe flying.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> I don't know if there's a name for the disorder that compels
> people the constantly argue with a mentally deficient asshole
> on usenet, though.

Personal attacks correlate well with insecurity and (relatively) low
intelligence.

[Varactor]

On Mar 1, 11:25*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> a writes:
> > I would point out controllers get a large number of airplanes to land
> > safely. All they do is *provide seperation so the pilots can land the
> > airplanes safely.
> Not
> Before they did that, some pilots never got the opportunity to land.
>
> Seventy years ago, just flying into clouds could spell the end of a commercial
> flight.

The no visual reverence problem was solved by Sperry eighty years ago.

Cheers

[a[_3_]]

On Mar 1, 2:25*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Nomen Nescio writes:
> > I don't know if there's a name for the disorder that compels
> > people the constantly argue with a mentally deficient asshole
> > on usenet, though.
>
> Personal attacks correlate well with insecurity and (relatively) low
> intelligence.

Oh? Care to cite a professional reference? Would you characterize Sec
of State Clinton that way? Or McCain?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> MSFS has objectives and arbitrary rules.
>
> Examples?

If you don't understand that, you have major brain wiring problems.

OK, 2 trivial examples, not crashing the airplane is an objective
and every place has fuel that fills the tanks to the top in zero time
when you get near the gas pump is an arbitrary rule.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> To have had such experience, you would have had to belong to some sort
>> of organization, and you have repeatedly said you don't interact with
>> other people.
>
> Club membership is not required to get things done. Clubs are often mainly
> for the insecure.

There you go trying to change the subject again because you got yourself
in a hole and can't get out.

I said nothing about clubs, I said oraganization, and in fact my
experiences with contacting people have nothing to do with clubs.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
>> Does it matter? Maybe no airline, he's still a pilot.
>
> It matters a lot, since airline pilots are worlds different from mere
> private
> pilots. It's the difference between someone trained in CPR and a
> neurosurgeon.

How would you know, you have no experience with any of the four?

The sum total of all your experience is simply how to exist without actually
living.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>a writes:
>
>> That is really funny. "I, having simulated being a neurosurgeon, am
>> more qualified than you, having been trained in CPR, to work on this
>> person whose heart has stopped beating."
>>
>> See the difference?
>
> No.

Then you unknowingly admit to the whole world that you are clueless. Your
entire existence is merely academic , and you possess no actual experience
with anything except, I assume, eating and ****ting.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> To have had such experience, you would have had to belong to some sort
>> of organization, and you have repeatedly said you don't interact with
>> other people.
>
> Club membership is not required to get things done. Clubs are often
> mainly
> for the insecure.

No, you are in serious need of club membership to the human race. We
interact with each other, share actual experiences with each other, and
learn from each other.

You unwillingness to join this club is the sole reason you are unable to do
such things as making a living, flying and having sex.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> MSFS has objectives and arbitrary rules.
>
> Examples?

All of it's rules are objective and arbitrary, you ignorant ass. It's just a
game.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> I don't know if there's a name for the disorder that compels
>> people the constantly argue with a mentally deficient asshole
>> on usenet, though.
>
> Personal attacks correlate well with insecurity and (relatively) low
> intelligence.

Is that why you come hear and launch personal attacks against pilots, while
hiding behind the veil of discussing aviation?

Your presence here is nothing more than a personal attack on actual pilots.

You don't come here to discuss aviation, because you insist you are always
right. There is no discussion. You are simply coming here to teach something
you know nothing about.

[a[_3_]]

On Mar 1, 2:59*pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > writes:
>
> >> MSFS has objectives and arbitrary rules.
>
> > Examples?
>
> All of it's rules are objective and arbitrary, you ignorant ass. It's just a
> game.

Doesn't the vendor indicate it's a game?

[Steve Foley[_4_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> I have first hand knowledge of what needs to be done.
>
> So do I.
>

You have stated in the past that you did not.


>> I contend it cannot be done, and as evidence, I offer that
>> it has never been done.
>
> Lightning cannot strike my house, because it never has.

You're slipping. You forgot to snip the words 'evidence' and 'offer' to my
statement sound as stupid as yours.

Thank you for playing. Please try again.

[Beauciphus]

"-b-" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> >,

>>> > Examples?
>>>
>>> All of it's rules are objective and arbitrary, you ignorant ass. It's
>>> just a
>>> game.
>>
>>Doesn't the vendor indicate it's a game?
>
> The vendor, Microsoft, lists Flight Simulator as a "computer game".
> This from its first version through the last.
>

Even MX agrees: (From his blog)

"In my own case, I tend to prefer simulation games, such as Flight
Simulator, or The Sims 2, or Second Life."

[-b-]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>-b- writes:
>
>> Easy and cheap - even where you live.
>
>No, unfortunately it is not. A pilot's license with an instrument rating, for
>example, would cost $20,000 to $40,000, according to pilots and instructors
>I've talked to.


I think it would take you much more, because of your attitude problems. You
would also need a medical, and this might be disqualifying for you. But getting
to solo is typically done where you live for less than $2000. This alone would
be enough for you to understand what a fool you've been. . .


>
>> Can't fool me.
>
>No need.
>
>> I'm afraid I'm not surprised. . .
>
>Why are you afraid?
>
>> Completely mistaken - couldn't be further from the truth - as usual.
>
>Try it, and you'll see.


Try what? Flying?
Why not you try reading? You claim to de "research" yet you are not even
capable of following a logical thread through more than two iterations. You
blat out stupid, nonsensical things.

[-b-]

Anyway, we have to admit it is possible to do.
I've personally seen it done. Karen Black did it in 1975. In a 747 no less.
You just talk on the radio, and the guy tells you what buttons to press.
When it comes time to land, this guy jumps out of a heliciopter and climbs in
the cockpit to land the plane.

And that, as MX explains, is "as real as it gets". . .

[Mxsmanic]

Varactor writes:

> The no visual reverence problem was solved by Sperry eighty years ago.

Then why do pilots still crash regularly after entering IMC?

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> You have stated in the past that you did not.

Times change.

[Mxsmanic]

-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.

I'm sure that more traditional avionics are available for those willing to pay
for them. I'm not willing to entrust my life to a single unproven ball of
software.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> OK, 2 trivial examples, not crashing the airplane is an objective
> and every place has fuel that fills the tanks to the top in zero time
> when you get near the gas pump is an arbitrary rule.

Nothing requires you to avoid crashing your airplane, so that is not an
objective. I've seen people deliberately crash airplanes again and again in
the sim.

The gas pump isn't a rule, any more than a mountain is a rule.

[Mxsmanic]

-b- writes:

> The vendor, Microsoft, lists Flight Simulator as a "computer game".
> This from its first version through the last.

Calling it a game avoids a lot of liability.

[VOR-DME]

In article >,
says...
>

>
>No, unfortunately it is not. A pilot's license with an instrument rating, for
>example, would cost $20,000 to $40,000, according to pilots and instructors
>I've talked to.
>

Why do you talk to pilots? I thought that was a waste of time. . .
Fact I'm sure it's a waste of their time.

[Mxsmanic]

-b- writes:

> Says Who?

Say my instructors.

> But you have never had any training of this kind!

Well, yes, I have.

[Mxsmanic]

VOR-DME writes:

> What chance do I have of making your list of "good pilots"?

I don't know anything about you, but what little I've seen in your posts does
not flatter you.

[Mxsmanic]

-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.

[Mxsmanic]

a writes:

> Would you characterize Sec of State Clinton that way? Or McCain?

I don't know enough about either of them to speculate.

[Mike Ash]

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.

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

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> OK, 2 trivial examples, not crashing the airplane is an objective
>> and every place has fuel that fills the tanks to the top in zero time
>> when you get near the gas pump is an arbitrary rule.
>
> Nothing requires you to avoid crashing your airplane, so that is not an
> objective. I've seen people deliberately crash airplanes again and again in
> the sim.

Then their objective in the game is to crash the airplane.

Nothing requires you to hit the ball in baseball either, yet it is
generally an objective of the game.

People's objectives in playing games can be pretty loosse, which is one
of the reasons they are called "games" and not called "real life".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> -b- writes:
>
>> The vendor, Microsoft, lists Flight Simulator as a "computer game".
>> This from its first version through the last.
>
> Calling it a game avoids a lot of liability.

Such as truth in advertising prosecution.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[a[_3_]]

On Mar 2, 3:54*am, -b- > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>
>
> >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.
>
> I completely disagree. You give him far too much credit.
> I don't think he's a master of much, and I don't think his intellectual
> dishonesty fools much of anyone. You make it sound like he's sly and
> resourceful - I see him as slow, dumb and cumbersome. Getting the better of him
> intellectually is extremely easy, and his lame attempts at recovery are
> transparent to all. He rarely makes a successful rejoinder to any challenge,
> and contradicts himself repeatedly. I cannot recall any instance in which he
> has made anyone other than himself look like an idiot.
>
>
>
>
>
> >--
> >Mike Ash
> >Radio Free Earth
> >Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

With respect, I'd urge you to not underestimate MX. I have not tested
him, but judging from the level of his responses I'd judge a
conventional IQ test would find him in the 125 area. That is not to
say his social skills or human interaction skills are advanced -- they
are not.

[a[_3_]]

On Mar 2, 5:07*am, -b- > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>
>
> >With respect, I'd urge you to not underestimate MX. I have not tested
> >him, but judging from the level of his responses I'd judge a
> >conventional IQ test would find him in the 125 area. That is not to
> >say his social skills or human interaction skills are advanced -- they
> >are not.
>
> 125's not much. . .
> Certainly far from sufficient to substantiate the profile he's trying to cut
> here. He's out of his depth and running naked.
>
> Quite a few contributors here who can better that score and better him - and
> do, regularly, while making tuna salad in the background.

I'm well aware of that. Never the less, mischaracterizing him
diminishes the person doing that. He may be a standard deviation or
more to the good side of normal in IQ, but far to the other side in
other important social characteristics.

That's just my opinion, of course, but I do have some training and
professional experience in that area.



to his level.

[Morgans[_2_]]

> I see him as slow, dumb and cumbersome. Getting the better of him
> intellectually is extremely easy, and his lame attempts at recovery are
> transparent to all. He rarely makes a successful rejoinder to any
> challenge,
> and contradicts himself repeatedly. I cannot recall any instance in which
> he
> has made anyone other than himself look like an idiot.

Yet, does this slow him down, or keep him from posting? Not that I have
ever seen.

So, I put the question to you. Who is the idiot?

The idiot posting the nonsense, or the idiot continually responding?

One can not help it.

The other one can.

Is that clue enough?
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

-b- writes:

> Well, you could at least take a chance - because as soon as you quit the
> application you get your life back!

Since I wouldn't trust it in real life, I don't trust it in simulation.

> Technical question : What part of G1000 is unproven, and where's the "ball"?

All of it, unfortunately.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Then their objective in the game is to crash the airplane.

Everyone has objectives when playing a game or using a simulator, but
simulators do not have objectives built in, whereas games do.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Such as truth in advertising prosecution.

It's much more of a simulator than a game, but there are no objective
definitions that allow the distinction to be unambiguously made, so truth in
advertising wouldn't be an issue.

[Mxsmanic]

-b- writes:

> You don't recall much, do you?

I have an average recall.

> Oh by the way - why did you dutifully reproduce the preceding text, but wipe
> out the part about schizophrenia? Mental illness is not a subject you like to
> talk about, is it?

Mental illness has no relevance to this discussion.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Then their objective in the game is to crash the airplane.
>
> Everyone has objectives when playing a game or using a simulator, but
> simulators do not have objectives built in, whereas games do.

Nonsense, virtually no equipment of any game has an objective built in,
the objective is established by playing a particular game.

There are no objectives built into a baseball or a baseball bat and either
can be used to play the game of baseball or be used for many other things.

Playing MSFS is no different in essence than tieing a bedsheet to your
neck and pretending to be Superman.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Such as truth in advertising prosecution.
>
> It's much more of a simulator than a game, but there are no objective
> definitions that allow the distinction to be unambiguously made, so truth in
> advertising wouldn't be an issue.

Wrong, the FAR's define what constitutes a simulator, and MSFS doesn't
meet the definition.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> writes:
>
> > Then their objective in the game is to crash the airplane.
>
> Everyone has objectives when playing a game or using a simulator, but
> simulators do not have objectives built in, whereas games do.

Games without built-in objectives are common enough that there's a name
for the genre: "sandbox games".

Just because MSFS is a sandbox game doesn't mean it's not a game.

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

[-b-]

In article >,
says...


>Attitude is not a problem for me,

Says Who?
Anyway I'm really happy to hear that - for some reason I was woirried
this would not be the case.

The medical might be more of a problem though.
Phenothiazines have not yet made the approved drug list, and the
psychoses are generally disqualifying.


and typically I do reasonably well at
>training of this kind.

But you have never had any training of this kind!

So you wouldn't know, would you?

If you had, you would not say the stupid things you do!

Your mind is going, Dave.
You can feel it, Dave.

Time to sing that song about "Daisy" MX?

[-b-]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>On Mar 1, 2:59*pm, "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote:
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > writes:
>>
>> >> MSFS has objectives and arbitrary rules.
>>
>> > Examples?
>>
>> All of it's rules are objective and arbitrary, you ignorant ass. It's just a
>> game.
>
>Doesn't the vendor indicate it's a game?

The vendor, Microsoft, lists Flight Simulator as a "computer game".
This from its first version through the last.

[VOR-DME]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>VOR-DME writes:
>
>> Why do you talk to pilots?
>
>I'm interested in aviation.
>
>> I thought that was a waste of time. . .
>
>Not if they are good pilots.

What chance do I have of making your list of "good pilots"?
(Please answer something like "not much" just to show the entire world
how far down the toilet is your head).

[-b-]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Varactor writes:
>
>> So its not accurate then is it...
>
>No, it's not. Fortunately, I'm not interested in the G1000.

But G1000 is so generalized that now you can no longer buy a small or
medium plane without it. That's going to leave you without an airplane,
isn't it, Pretty soon you're going to be left on the ground, poor fellow,
because you couldn't keep up with the times!

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Wrong, the FAR's define what constitutes a simulator ...

The FARs only define simulation for the purpose of logging hours thereon. I
don't think the builders or car or ship simulators, or even the builders of
most flight simulators, really care about what the FAA says.

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> And in the past you have stated that you have objectives, arbitrary rules,
> and prizes for your use of MSFS.

My use and the design of the program are two different things, although I
don't recall any prizes.

> It's a game and you have already admitted it. Why deny it?

It's a simulator. Why deny it?

> Horse****. You can learn about concepts in books, boy. You learn about
> flying by doing it.

You can learn about flying either way. Some people are good at understanding
things when they are shown them in person and their hands are held, but are
poor at reading and understanding things on their own. I can use either
method, however.

> Horse**** again boy. You can repeat you claims all you want but they will
> nver be true.

Then that must also be true for your claims. If you believe it is not,
explain why.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Wrong, the FAR's define what constitutes a simulator ...
>
> The FARs only define simulation for the purpose of logging hours thereon. I
> don't think the builders or car or ship simulators, or even the builders of
> most flight simulators, really care about what the FAA says.

Bunch of off topic nonsense.

The topic was truth in advertising and calling a flying game a flight
simulator.

Since flight, and only flight, simulators have a legal definition, calling
something a flight simulator that is not is false advertising.

All the flight simulator game sellers are quite explicit in saying what
they are selling is a game.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Clark writes:
>
>> And in the past you have stated that you have objectives, arbitrary rules,
>> and prizes for your use of MSFS.
>
> My use and the design of the program are two different things, although I
> don't recall any prizes.
>
>> It's a game and you have already admitted it. Why deny it?
>
> It's a simulator. Why deny it?

Flight simulators have a legal definition under 14CFR.

MSFS doesn't qualify as a flight simulator which is why it is explicitly
called a flight simulation GAME by its maker.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[-b-]

In article >,
says...

>> If you're so keenly interested in aviation, take some flight
>> lessons, for God's sake.
>
>That isn't practical at the moment.

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.

To date I am not aware of any paranoid schizophrenics' piloting associations,
but hey, where there's a will . . .

[-b-]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>-b- writes:
>
>> Says Who?
>
>Say my instructors.

Instructors of what?
Bull**** and advanced mental illness?


>
>> But you have never had any training of this kind!
>
>Well, yes, I have.

No you have not.
You just told us this is "not practical" at the moment.
Five minutes of memory getting to you?

Your mind is going, Dave. . .
You can feel it, Dave. . .

Sing the "Daisy" song, MX. . .

[-b-]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>-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.


You don't recall much, do you?
Oh by the way - why did you dutifully reproduce the preceding text, but wipe
out the part about schizophrenia? Mental illness is not a subject you like to
talk about, is it?

[VOR-DME]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>VOR-DME writes:
>
>> What chance do I have of making your list of "good pilots"?
>
>I don't know anything about you, but what little I've seen in your posts does
>not flatter you.


I hear flushing sounds . . .

[-b-]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>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.

I completely disagree. You give him far too much credit.
I don't think he's a master of much, and I don't think his intellectual
dishonesty fools much of anyone. You make it sound like he's sly and
resourceful - I see him as slow, dumb and cumbersome. Getting the better of him
intellectually is extremely easy, and his lame attempts at recovery are
transparent to all. He rarely makes a successful rejoinder to any challenge,
and contradicts himself repeatedly. I cannot recall any instance in which he
has made anyone other than himself look like an idiot.


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

[-b-]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>-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.
>
>I'm sure that more traditional avionics are available for those willing to pay
>for them. I'm not willing to entrust my life to a single unproven ball of
>software.


Well, you could at least take a chance - because as soon as you quit the
application you get your life back! But I guess that's not getting much back,
is it?

Technical question : What part of G1000 is unproven, and where's the "ball"?

[-b-]

In article >,
says...

>
>With respect, I'd urge you to not underestimate MX. I have not tested
>him, but judging from the level of his responses I'd judge a
>conventional IQ test would find him in the 125 area. That is not to
>say his social skills or human interaction skills are advanced -- they
>are not.


125's not much. . .
Certainly far from sufficient to substantiate the profile he's trying to cut
here. He's out of his depth and running naked.

Quite a few contributors here who can better that score and better him - and
do, regularly, while making tuna salad in the background.

[-b-]

In article >,
says...

>>
>> Quite a few contributors here who can better that score and better him - and
>> do, regularly, while making tuna salad in the background.
>
>I'm well aware of that. Never the less, mischaracterizing him
>diminishes the person doing that.


You're beginning to sound like him.
Unravel his twisted argument to reveal its fallacies, and it reflects badly on
yourself. Are we talking Kharma here?!

His intention is to feign superiority, yet his intellect is insufficient to
attain it. Deer in the headlights.

I'm not mischaracterizing him in the least by saying he's just not quite as
smart as he thinks, and rather less than some others here. He's used to
walking into situations in which he's more articulate than others - this time
he blew it. Everyone has to meet their match.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The topic was truth in advertising and calling a flying game a flight
> simulator.
>
> Since flight, and only flight, simulators have a legal definition, calling
> something a flight simulator that is not is false advertising.

That's not the way the law works.

Claiming that a flight simulator can be used to log hours or for training
recognized by the FAA when the simulator has not been certified by the FAA for
these purposes is indeed fraud, but simply calling it a flight simulator is
entirely legal and is not at all false advertising.

> All the flight simulator game sellers are quite explicit in saying what
> they are selling is a game.

No, they are not. Visit the Web site for X-Plane, which tries hard to give
the impression that their simulator is certified by the FAA. (In fact,
X-Plane can be _part of_ a certified simulator, but you cannot just download
it and log the hours.)

Microsoft calls it a game so that they won't be sued. X-Plane comes from a
small company (mostly from one person, in fact), and is a lot more "flexible"
in its description.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Flight simulators have a legal definition under 14CFR.

That legal definition doesn't apply to anyone except the FAA, and affects only
simulators that claim to be approved by the FAA for logging hours.

[-b-]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>On Mar 2, 5:07*am, -b- > wrote:
>> In article
>,
>> says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >With respect, I'd urge you to not underestimate MX. I have not tested
>> >him, but judging from the level of his responses I'd judge a
>> >conventional IQ test would find him in the 125 area. That is not to
>> >say his social skills or human interaction skills are advanced -- they
>> >are not.
>>
>> 125's not much. . .
>> Certainly far from sufficient to substantiate the profile he's trying to cut
>> here. He's out of his depth and running naked.
>>
>> Quite a few contributors here who can better that score and better him - and
>> do, regularly, while making tuna salad in the background.
>
>I'm well aware of that. Never the less, mischaracterizing him
>diminishes the person doing that. He may be a standard deviation or
>more to the good side of normal in IQ, but far to the other side in
>other important social characteristics.
>
>That's just my opinion, of course, but I do have some training and
>professional experience in that area.
>


Since you're a professional - I have a close family member who is a severe
Asperger's case, with a significant touch of dissociation, just like MX. His
conventional IQ has been measured at over 160. He's able to bull**** his way
through almost everything, with a tone strikingly similar to MX's. It's the
"almost" that hurts, though. He's in jail now - ran out of bull**** and reality
hit like a brick wall at mach 2. That's where MX is headed. He's out of his
depth here, and since his intentions are disingenuous no one is going to have
any pity for him.

[Steve Foley[_4_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> -b- writes:
>
>> Says Who?
>
> Say my instructors.
>
>> But you have never had any training of this kind!
>
> Well, yes, I have.

So does MX really think that Rod Machado is truly giving him flight
instruction, courtesy of Bill Gates, or has he really found his way to the
airport?

In any event, he's missed out on a great resource. When I was taking primary
instruction, I had the benefit of asking all my stupid questions on these
newsgroups, without being told to go F myself.

I think he's burned that bridge. I find that very satisfying.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> You have stated in the past that you did not.
>
> Times change.

But you haven't.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> -b- writes:
>
>> Well, you could at least take a chance - because as soon as you quit
>> the
>> application you get your life back!
>
> Since I wouldn't trust it in real life, I don't trust it in simulation.
>
>> Technical question : What part of G1000 is unproven, and where's the
>> "ball"?
>
> All of it, unfortunately.

Why would you care, all you ever fly is your desk.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Varactor writes:
>
>> The no visual reverence problem was solved by Sperry eighty years ago.
>
> Then why do pilots still crash regularly after entering IMC?

They don't, dumb ass, that's a rare occurrence.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> The topic was truth in advertising and calling a flying game a flight
>> simulator.
>>
>> Since flight, and only flight, simulators have a legal definition,
>> calling
>> something a flight simulator that is not is false advertising.
>
> That's not the way the law works.
>
> Claiming that a flight simulator can be used to log hours or for training
> recognized by the FAA when the simulator has not been certified by the FAA
> for
> these purposes is indeed fraud, but simply calling it a flight simulator
> is
> entirely legal and is not at all false advertising.
>
>> All the flight simulator game sellers are quite explicit in saying what
>> they are selling is a game.
>
> No, they are not. Visit the Web site for X-Plane, which tries hard to
> give
> the impression that their simulator is certified by the FAA. (In fact,
> X-Plane can be _part of_ a certified simulator, but you cannot just
> download
> it and log the hours.)
>
> Microsoft calls it a game so that they won't be sued. X-Plane comes from
> a
> small company (mostly from one person, in fact), and is a lot more
> "flexible"
> in its description.

No they don't, dumb ass. It's because unlike you, Microsoft realizes it only
a game. Unlike you, they deal with reality.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Flight simulators have a legal definition under 14CFR.
>
> That legal definition doesn't apply to anyone except the FAA, and affects
> only
> simulators that claim to be approved by the FAA for logging hours.

Sorry you can't deal with reality, but defining what constitutes a flight
simulator is the FAA's job, not yours wanna be.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> -b- writes:
>
>> You don't recall much, do you?
>
> I have an average recall.
>
>> Oh by the way - why did you dutifully reproduce the preceding text, but
>> wipe
>> out the part about schizophrenia? Mental illness is not a subject you
>> like to
>> talk about, is it?
>
> Mental illness has no relevance to this discussion.

Sure it is, mental illness is relevant to any discussion with you. You have
no grasp on reality.

[Tim[_1_]]

No, and yet the same players keep at it. Makes me wonder more about them
than MX actually.


"a" > wrote

Has there been instances where arguments of MX v anyone have been
resolved, except in the mind of the person typing the last message?

Do as Obama did during the primaries -- look down on the combantants
and watch the others chase their tails.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>a writes:
>
>> Would you characterize Sec of State Clinton that way? Or McCain?
>
> I don't know enough about either of them to speculate.

Then for the same reason you should not speculate about aviation.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

>> All the flight simulator game sellers are quite explicit in saying what
>> they are selling is a game.
>
> No, they are not. Visit the Web site for X-Plane, which tries hard to give
> the impression that their simulator is certified by the FAA. (In fact,
> X-Plane can be _part of_ a certified simulator, but you cannot just download
> it and log the hours.)

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.

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".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Flight simulators have a legal definition under 14CFR.
>
> That legal definition doesn't apply to anyone except the FAA, and affects only
> simulators that claim to be approved by the FAA for logging hours.

Wrong again as apparently you don't know what the term "flight simulator"
means.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[a[_3_]]

On Mar 2, 6:10*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > The topic was truth in advertising and calling a flying game a flight
> > simulator.
>
> > Since flight, and only flight, simulators have a legal definition, calling
> > something a flight simulator that is not is false advertising.
>
> That's not the way the law works.
>
> Claiming that a flight simulator can be used to log hours or for training
> recognized by the FAA when the simulator has not been certified by the FAA for
> these purposes is indeed fraud, but simply calling it a flight simulator is
> entirely legal and is not at all false advertising.
>
> > All the flight simulator game sellers are quite explicit in saying what
> > they are selling is a game.
>
> No, they are not. *Visit the Web site for X-Plane, which tries hard to give
> the impression that their simulator is certified by the FAA. *(In fact,
> X-Plane can be _part of_ a certified simulator, but you cannot just download
> it and log the hours.)
>
> Microsoft calls it a game so that they won't be sued. *X-Plane comes from a
> small company (mostly from one person, in fact), and is a lot more "flexible"
> in its description.

Taken from the Microsoft web site.

open quotes

Flight Simulator X immerses you in a beautifully rich and realistic
world with dozens of aircraft and interactive Missions for a
completely new and innovative gaming experience. Free Flight lets you
fly anywhere in the world, from your hometown airport to the most
exotic places you’ve ever dreamed of.

Gamers and simmers of all ages and skill levels feel firsthand what
it’s like to be an aviator traveling the globe solo or online with
others.


close quotes

QED

[a[_3_]]

On Mar 2, 3:22*pm, a > wrote:
> On Mar 2, 6:10*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > writes:
> > > The topic was truth in advertising and calling a flying game a flight
> > > simulator.
>
> > > Since flight, and only flight, simulators have a legal definition, calling
> > > something a flight simulator that is not is false advertising.
>
> > That's not the way the law works.
>
> > Claiming that a flight simulator can be used to log hours or for training
> > recognized by the FAA when the simulator has not been certified by the FAA for
> > these purposes is indeed fraud, but simply calling it a flight simulator is
> > entirely legal and is not at all false advertising.
>
> > > All the flight simulator game sellers are quite explicit in saying what
> > > they are selling is a game.
>
> > No, they are not. *Visit the Web site for X-Plane, which tries hard to give
> > the impression that their simulator is certified by the FAA. *(In fact,
> > X-Plane can be _part of_ a certified simulator, but you cannot just download
> > it and log the hours.)
>
> > Microsoft calls it a game so that they won't be sued. *X-Plane comes from a
> > small company (mostly from one person, in fact), and is a lot more "flexible"
> > in its description.
>
> Taken from the Microsoft web site.
>
> open quotes
>
> Flight Simulator X immerses you in a beautifully rich and realistic
> world with dozens of aircraft and interactive Missions for a
> completely new and innovative gaming experience. Free Flight lets you
> fly anywhere in the world, from your hometown airport to the most
> exotic places you’ve ever dreamed of.
>
> Gamers and simmers of all ages and skill levels feel firsthand what
> it’s like to be an aviator traveling the globe solo or online with
> others.
>
> close quotes
>
> QED- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Simmer? "Bubbling gently, or to be in a state of suppressed anger or
excitement." Not quite up to a full boil. Perfect!

[-b-]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>In article >,
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> writes:
>>
>> > Then their objective in the game is to crash the airplane.
>>
>> Everyone has objectives when playing a game or using a simulator, but
>> simulators do not have objectives built in, whereas games do.
>
>Games without built-in objectives are common enough that there's a name
>for the genre: "sandbox games".
>
>Just because MSFS is a sandbox game doesn't mean it's not a game.
>


It's what you make of it really.
I used it during my instrument training to practice holds and approaches.
It's a very poor simulator, in that it does a poor job of emulating the
response of the airplane, but it was - ever so slightly - better than
nothing.

I think it's safe to assume that most users fly it as a game, landing
747's at Kai-Tek when in reality they would not be able to hold heading
and altitude in a C152, but that doesn't exclude that it can have some
limited usefulness in training. It is definitely not adequate for ab
initio airplane training, and it would not be possible to move with any
substantive success from MSFS to an airplane of any type, because it does
too poor a job of emulating the airplane, however if you already know how
to fly it is possible to go the other way - from airplane to MSFS, because
what you already know allows you to compensate some of the insufficiencies
of the program, and well just ignore others.

I gave it to my 9 -year old nephew after I was done with it. He's older
now, and I think he flies fighter jets with it. I don't think he is under
the illusion he could fly any airplane for real.

[Ibby]

All

I'm gonna step in here and actually 'defend' some of MX's comments (I
can't believe I'm doing this).
Yes he can be a pain in the arse on this and other forums but some of
his comments do bear some form of
'sense'. How MANY of you who denounce what the 'simulator' does have
actually USED it with quality
payware addons aircraft? Just because it doesn't cost 100million,
doesn't have a hydraulic platform and isn't
accredited as a licensed training aid by the FAA (or whoever) does not
mean it doesn't have a purpose. Sure it
CAN be used casually as a GAME but can also be used to supplement any
real life training.

MS Flight Simulator in it's default (out of the box) infancy is pretty
useless and Microsoft have themselves to
blame it's demise for bringing the title into the 'Games' range. I've
been using it for 5 years now and will
defend it's merits in aiding and supplementing flight training. Sure
it will NEVER takeover from real life
training but it DOES help!!

There are many software vendors who make extremely accurate and highly
detailed aircraft which can be
purchased seperately and can cost more than FSX itself. Perhaps the
leading supplier is PMDG who have
accurately modelled the 737NG-600/700/800/900, the MD11 and the Queen
of the Skies 747-400. ALL these
aircraft come with at least 95% of ALL systems modelled. If you just
used the 'default' aircraft I would whole
heartidly DEFEND everone of you in critising FSX as these are
extremely basic and most systems are not
modelled or very poorly so.

Here are two of the most detailed and respected aircrafts available:
http://www.precisionmanuals.com/priv/pages/prod/fsx/744x.html
http://www.precisionmanuals.com/priv/pages/prod/fsx/md11.html

PMDG have REAL qualified commercial pilots on their team with years of
experience respective to the
particular aircraft they are designing. They help in the modelling of
the systems and flight dynamics etc.
I have the PMDG 747-400 which models everything from the Primary
Flight Display, the Navigation Display,
EICAS and all its associated warnings and status displays for engines,
fuel, hydraulics, doors, electrical etc.
EFIS with Map, Approach, Plan and VOR modes of display, decision
heights and Baro pressure can be
entered too, the Mode Control Panel is fully functional with Heading
Select, IAS/MACH Speed Control, Flight
Level Change, VS, altitute, bank angles, Flight Director, Approach and
Localiser capture switches, VNAV and
LNAV are also all modelled. Fuel systems, hydraulics, pressurisation,
autopilot, autothrottle systems, the
FMC is also FULLY functional and incorporates the latest AIRAC Cycles
(903 current) containing all
navigational waypoints, VORS, NDBs, SIDS, STARS etc etc. Full routes
can be programmed with
corresponding DEP/ARR routes, speed and altitude contraints can be
inputed, INIT/REF can be entered with
Zero Fuel Rate, Gross WEIGHT, COST INDEXES, T/O Thrust derates, Climb
Thrust Derates etc etc and
generate the correct wet or dry V1, VR and V2 speeds. VNAV can be
controlled for climb, cruise and descent whether it
ECON (based on Cost Index) mode or manual, Fixes can be added, Holds
can be programmed, Route and
Legs pages can be shown on the FMS and if the EFIS is set to PLAN
routes can be stepped through on the ND
like the real thing. Inertial Reference System is functional and GPS
giving accurate global positioning.

Real life start up procedures HAVE to be followed to enable it to
start from a Cold and Dark status from
initially enabling the battery switch, through to demand pumps, egine
driven pumps, fuel control switches,
bleed air switches etc etc the list is endless. Failure to carry out
the procedures in the correct order will fail to
start the aircraft.

What I DO know is that if I sat down in a real life simulator I WOULD
know how to operate a large proportion
of its systems. I DO know how to read the PFD with it's speed tapes,
compass rose, pitch bars, mode
annunciator. I DO know that on takeoff the aircraft will pitch the
nose down at 1000AGL (or a manual entry in
the FMC) and start to increase in speed, I know that flaps will be
retracted when their limit speed is indicated
in the PFD, I DO know that when I select Flaps 5 that the engine
thrust will change from Take Off Thrust to
Climb thrust. I DO know all the effects the MCP will have over the
automated route in the FMC. I DO know
how the use the ND, I DO know how to programme the FMC and the effects
of most of the pages. I DO know
how to set up a Standard Terminal Arrival with transitions in the FMC
and enter ILS frequencies and radials.

If this 'Game' was SO pathetic then how is the above possible? I know
the effects of moving the yoke, rotating
the yoke controls the ailerons and also produces yaw which is why the
rudder should be used at the
commencement of a turn (coordinated turns). I know pulling back or
pushing controls the elevator control surfaces
at the tail of the aircraft. I know the effects of using the elevator
trim in controlling a constant climb or descent or for level
flight. I know that Pitch controls airspeed and thrust controls
attitude.

This 'humble and pathetic game' taught me all that and when I stepped
into a REAL Cessna last year to begin
my flight training it was ALL very familiar. I knew what every gauge
did, every dial, I knew how to tune the
radios and Nav radios, I knew how to tune a VOR and intercept and
track a radial, I know about DME etc too and NDB's.

I knew that if I gently pulled back on the yoke the aircraft would
pitch up, the altitude would increase and the
airspeed would decrease. I knew that if I rolled the aircraft my
heading would change and the aircraft would
yaw and start to descend as we lose lift under the wings due to the
position of the ailerons and I would have to
pull back a little on the yoke to produce a level turn.
Again ALL learnt from MS Flight Simulator.

As MX was saying airliners ARE following an Active Route in the FMC
for 90% of their flight and this, subject to
complications or standard ATC restrictions, requires very little
input. Sure you'd be ****ting your pants IRL
but ATC COULD assist you in bringing the aircraft down via the MCP and
clearing the skies of any conflicting traffic. Headings can be given
to vector you,
speed intermissions and altitude and VS speeds can bring it down all
via the autopilot. The NAV/RAD page
on the FMC can easily be setup as instructed and the aircraft can be
vectored by ATC on an intercept course
for an ILS CAT3 runway with autoland with all three autopilots
enabled. The 747-400 has autoland
capabilities with LAND3, Rollout and Flare armed. Spoilers can be
armed and Autobrakes which will bring the aircraft
to a complete stop. Yes hand flying a descent profile would be next
to impossible for a novice but MX is
refering to autoland capabilities of the majority of aircraft.

There are MANY pilots both in the general aviation and commercial
fields who use FS to supplement their knowledge and
enjoyment of aviation so could you fine people please give us a bit of
slack. MX has unfortunately destroyed
ANY credibility the sim has but insinuating it's the be-all and end-
all and all that's required to become a real
life pilot which it isn't.

All I'm demonstrating is that it CAN help even a novice to understand
the complexities of aviation as it did for
myself so deserves some credit rather than simply be denounced as a
game like some shoot em up.

Ibby

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Ibby" > wrote in message news:bacb5831-cd8b-4726-bfc1-

It's not about MSFS, it's about MX.

However, since MSFS is the only experience MX has, it gets a bad name by
default.

There are groups for games and simulation, and if discussing MSFS was MX's
real motive, that's where he would be.

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.

[BeechSundowner]

On Mar 2, 6:19*pm, Ibby > wrote:

> The NAV/RAD page
> on the FMC can easily be setup as instructed and the aircraft can be
> vectored by ATC on an intercept course

> Ibby

Lbby,

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

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.

Flight attendant calls into the cockpit, plane is still on the descent
profile and no answer. FA, decides it's an emergency, beats the
living daylights out fo the cockpit door to gain access (after all
it's locked from the inside) finds the bodies. Passengers seeing this
starts panicking. The FA's in turn have enough wits about them after
finding the dead bodies call into the cabin is there anybody in the
plane that is a pilot. Plane now descending through 15000 feet.

You raise your hand, the FA wisks you in the front seat, you now
descending through 10000 feet. Remember, jets don't descent at the
cozy rate of 500 fpm.

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?????

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.

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.

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?

I can say with experience and working with the Garmin 430 simulator on
my computer and using the Garmin 430 in my plane, that the simulator
isn't the real deal. Clicking on the knob to tune the radio, moving
my mouse just a little bit without my head turnign ain't the real
deal.

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. what page
is the approach plate on, is it the big knob or little knob. Oh yeah,
still need to scan my instruments to stay upright. Dang it, can't
pull the manual out, I am flying a plane!

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!!)

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Wrong again as apparently you don't know what the term "flight simulator"
> means.

Who is constrained to abide by FAA rules, exactly?

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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).

It doesn't work like you see in the movies, nor does it work like a Sundowner,
for that matter (I presume this is the aircraft with which you are familiar).

> Flight attendant calls into the cockpit, plane is still on the descent
> profile and no answer. FA, decides it's an emergency, beats the
> living daylights out fo the cockpit door to gain access (after all
> it's locked from the inside) finds the bodies.

Depending on jurisdiction and airline and aircraft, there may be a digital
code that the lead FA can enter to open the door to the cockpit.

> You raise your hand, the FA wisks you in the front seat, you now
> descending through 10000 feet. Remember, jets don't descent at the
> cozy rate of 500 fpm.

They also don't descend below the altitude set on the MCP. The descent will
stop at the altitude cleared by ATC.

> 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?

Absolutely. And the FMC need not necessarily even be used, since it's
possible to follow vectors and configure the aircraft for landing without it.

Of course, pilot incapacitation specifically during descent is even less
likely than pilot incapacitation in general.

> 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?????

As I've said, this isn't a Sundowner.

It's pretty straightforward to configure most airliners for autoland. It can
be done by following a few simple instructions. Interaction with the FMC may
or may not be required.

The aircraft can be partially configured as soon as a runway is assigned.
This would likely occur after contact with approach controllers. If it isn't
already in place when the pilots are incapacitated, it's easy to enter.

> Please think of the human adrenalin factor. Iceman we are not.....

Adrenalin is not a problem.

> 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. But you could find them easily with a bit of help from someone over
the radio.

I'm not a pilot, but I could probably find the knobs much more easily than
you, since I'm actually familiar with the cockpits of several airliners.

> The stuff is massive to comprehend under a simulated environment
> without the danger of buying the farm.

No, it's not, at least for someone of normal intelligence.

You vastly overestimate the difficulty of flying, particularly flying that
involves the manipulation of systems rather than yoke and rudder. Landing an
airliner is a matter of procedures (particularly autolanding) rather than
seat-of-the-pants barnstorming.

> 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.

I agree, since it sounds like you've never studied it at all, and it certainly
doesn't work like the tiny little plane that you fly.

But, hopefully, you could follow instructions and land the airliner, just like
anyone else. You would not need any previous experience with flying, just the
ability to do as you are told. If you attempted to hand-fly the airplane on
the mistaken assumption that your limited experience with a tiny plane would
enable you to do this, however, you might get into trouble.

> 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?

No, I don't think so, not at all. People yell and scream in the movies; most
people aren't like that in real life, in emergency situations (in any group
there might be a screamer, but that's normally an exception to the rule).

> I can say with experience and working with the Garmin 430 simulator on
> my computer and using the Garmin 430 in my plane, that the simulator
> isn't the real deal.

What are the differences? Garmin's simulators work just like the real
thing--that's the whole idea.

> 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. what page
> is the approach plate on, is it the big knob or little knob. Oh yeah,
> still need to scan my instruments to stay upright. Dang it, can't
> pull the manual out, I am flying a plane!

What does this have to do with landing an airliner?

> MSFS will NEVER simulate the real deal of push, pulling, turning,
> tuning ir twisting any aircraft avionics.

It doesn't have to. Everyone today has years of experience in turning knobs
and manipulating other controls. A non-pilot wouldn't have experience in
operating flight controls of an airliner, but fortunately that would not be
required.

> 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!!)

That might be true in your tiny plane, but rest assured, in an airliner, the
autopilot will indeed maintain level flight, and much, much more.

> As I have posted many, many times, and I have used MSFS X.

With which add-ons?

> Flying an approach on the computer just doesn't simulate the physical
> sensations of IMC.

You don't need physical sensations. In fact, you're supposed to ignore
physical sensations in 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.

I've been in IMC in aircraft many times. It didn't change my perspective on
clouds.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> 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.

If you are going to post to a real aviation group instead of a sim group,
at least learn the language.

A PCATD is not a flight simulator.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

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

Look it up.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.