On Simulators as assist to IFR training.

[Tman[_2_]]

[Gosh I hope this doesn't start a ridiculous thread]. xoxo.

Anyways, I'm working on my IFR ticket. I'm about 12 hours simulated and
actual instrument time in a real airplane, and able to put in about
another hour in a week. No problem "flying" the plane on the
instruments, but I find that putting everything together often results
in too much workload, and in particular, I feel I get a little rusty
with only an hour a week. But that's all I can fit in given the wx, a
job, and availability of a safety pilot or CFII...

Also, something happens when I put that hood on and fly that detracts
about 40 IQ points. I can figure heading reciprocals and for that
matter some trig in my head no sweat here on my chair. But tell me to
"hold on the 235 radial, right turns" and the GPS is saying I'm so many
degrees, miles to that VOR, and watch your six-pack of instruments,
while briefing for that NDB approach at the end of the hold; well I get
stumped and think like an inch a hour. I'm finding that regular
practice a few times a week is making that all better.

Any thoughts on simulators relative to ASA IP Trainer to keep in the
thought process and procedure of doing what I need to do?

I use ASA IP Trainer -- it seems quite good, but the product appears to
be very unsupported. The simulation experience -- visuals and control,
kinda sucks. It is nice however, in particular, the "CFII" behind the
scenes on ASA expects methodical precision more than any human
instructor which helps enforce the rhythm. E.g. if you set the
intercept radial before setting the timer (who cares, right), you'll get
a pile of crap about it and have to back up and do it in the right sequence.

My question: Can anyone contrast this with MSFS or XPlane for this
purpose? I'd be willing to invest in something better, but I don't have
the time to poke around for another simulator unless I know it will be
an improvement.

Thanks!
Tman

[Paul H]

I use ASA's On Top v9 trainer because it's inexpensive and provides a
good training environment - i.e. you can set the winds, do a random
fail on instruments and other components, etc. I have the rating but
use it to help maintain proficiency when I can't get out in the plane
regularly enough in realy IMC.

I've heard good reports about both MSFS and Xplane but haven't used
them. I've tried MSFS but find all the scenery just superfluous to
flying in clouds.

The one thing you don't get is comm experience - there is a Comm DVD
that's available through Sporty's to practice various types of ATC
communication, and I recommend it.

[Robert M. Gary]

I think that being in the airplane knocks a lot of IQ points off for
most of us. Its just a very distracting environment. If you can get
the procedures down with the simulator and then try to get some actual
I think that would help. It seems like there is a lot going on but
there are a lot of patterns to what is happening. I find that its
great for students to just go out and hold in IMC for 30 minutes too.
We tend to focus so much on approaches but you'll actually log most of
your IMC in cruise.

-Robert, CFII

On Mar 3, 7:19*am, Tman > wrote:
> [Gosh I hope this doesn't start a ridiculous thread]. xoxo.
>
> Anyways, I'm working on my IFR ticket. *I'm about 12 hours simulated and
> actual instrument time in a real airplane, and able to put in about
> another hour in a week. *No problem "flying" the plane on the
> instruments, but I find that putting everything together often results
> in too much workload, and in particular, I feel I get a little rusty
> with only an hour a week. *But that's all I can fit in given the wx, a
> job, and availability of a safety pilot or CFII...

[Mxsmanic]

Paul H writes:

> The one thing you don't get is comm experience - there is a Comm DVD
> that's available through Sporty's to practice various types of ATC
> communication, and I recommend it.

You can get superlative comm experience by joining VATSIM or IVAO, which
allows you to simulate flights with real people providing ATC by voice that
corresponds precisely to the real thing.

[Ibby]

> My question: *Can anyone contrast this with MSFS or XPlane for this
> purpose? *I'd be willing to invest in something better, but I don't have
> the time to poke around for another simulator unless I know it will be
> an improvement.
>
> Thanks!
> Tman


Tman
Not wanting to get into an ear bashing here as I know what a lot of
the guys here think of simulators ;-( but with the right add-on
software and hardware (flight controllers and yokes) coupled with FSX
it can be benificial i.e a good payware aircraft (you can get a huge
range and possibly the one you are training in like Cessnas,
Beechcraft and Pipers for G.A.) and a good weather generating program
like Real Environment Xtreme or Active Sky X helps immensely allowing
you to download current METARS or set your own conditions manually.
You can download a demo of FSX which is just around St Maarten area
and runs for 30mins to give you a TINY glimpse of what it can do. I
will STRESS though that 2 substantial patches have been released since
the demo was launched two years ago witch address performance issues
on low-mid specification pcs. FSX requires the latest fastest pc you
can get your hands on due to the cpu load required. The demo also has
their basic aircraft and environments which can be enhanced
substantially if you put the money into buying add-ons. Built in ATC
leaves a lot to be desired but virtual ATC is available with the likes
of VATSIM when logged onto their servers

Ibby

[Ibby]

On Mar 3, 7:22*pm, Paul H > wrote:
> I use ASA's On Top v9 trainer because it's inexpensive and provides a
> good training environment - i.e. you can set the winds, do a random
> fail on instruments and other components, etc. *I have the rating but
> use it to help maintain proficiency when I can't get out in the plane
> regularly enough in realy IMC.

I've just been looking at that programme and must say it doesn't seem
to do anything that MSFS does.
http://store.tailwinds.com/on-top-ifr-flight-simulators.html

I'm sure its good but believe like a lot of software titles if you
stick a 'commercial' genre to a piece of software you can seriously
inflate the price. I use Autocad in my line of work and because it's
commercial Autodesk can charge £3000+ for the privilage of using it.
FSX models IFR fairly well and again with a good flight planning
program has a lot to offer for half the price. I'd really be
interested to know why some software titles are more supported than
others in official training.

Most payware aircraft, particularily the big airliners, can generate
1000s of potential faults from engine failure to instrumentation
problems with a procedural checklist to be followed to rectify the
problem (if possible)

Ibby

[Mxsmanic]

-b- writes:

> "Precisely" is unfortunately a relative term.

Try it and see.

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> Try flying a real aircraft and see.

What does that have to do with ATC? I'm already better at radio
communications than many private pilots are.

[Mxsmanic]

-b- writes:

> If I posted this it's because I've tried and seen - quite enough.

Really? How long have you been a member of VATSIM? Which pilot client do you
prefer?

> It is fortunate for passengers that you are not in charge of their
> safety. This task is left to professionals, who are required to have
> regular contact with the world of the living.

That is unlikely to ever be tested, but I think you would be most unpleasantly
surprised.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Clark writes:
>
>> Try flying a real aircraft and see.
>
> What does that have to do with ATC? I'm already better at radio
> communications than many private pilots are.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Clark writes:
>
>> Try flying a real aircraft and see.
>
> What does that have to do with ATC? I'm already better at radio
> communications than many private pilots are.

I suppose you are better at sex than most people that actually get laid too.

[-b-]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Paul H writes:
>
>> The one thing you don't get is comm experience - there is a Comm DVD
>> that's available through Sporty's to practice various types of ATC
>> communication, and I recommend it.
>
>You can get superlative comm experience by joining VATSIM or IVAO, which
>allows you to simulate flights with real people providing ATC by voice that
>corresponds precisely to the real thing.

"Precisely" is unfortunately a relative term.
Misinterpretion by pretentious, testosterone-driven simulator pilots usually
results in death.

[-b-]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>-b- writes:
>
>> "Precisely" is unfortunately a relative term.
>
>Try it and see.

Quaint, but inadequate.
If I posted this it's because I've tried and seen - quite enough.


It is fortunate for passengers that you are not in charge of their
safety. This task is left to professionals, who are required to have
regular contact with the world of the living.

[-b-]

In article >,
says...
>
>

>
>> It is fortunate for passengers that you are not in charge of their
>> safety. This task is left to professionals, who are required to have
>> regular contact with the world of the living.
>
>That is unlikely to ever be tested, but I think you would be most unpleasantly
>surprised.

I am relieved that this is unlikely.

[-b-]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Clark writes:
>
>> Try flying a real aircraft and see.
>
>What does that have to do with ATC? I'm already better at radio
>communications than many private pilots are.

Your posts prove otherwise.

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> More horse****. You've never used an avaiation radio and therefore your claim
> is baseless.

I don't have to use a radio to be good at it. It's just talk.

[Mxsmanic]

-b- writes:

> Your posts prove otherwise.

I haven't discussed ATC communications here, nor have I provided any examples.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Clark writes:
>
>> More horse****. You've never used an avaiation radio and therefore your
>> claim
>> is baseless.
>
> I don't have to use a radio to be good at it. It's just talk.

When you fly a desk, everything is just talk.
Talk is all you are.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> -b- writes:
>
>> Your posts prove otherwise.
>
> I haven't discussed ATC communications here, nor have I provided any
> examples.

Oh contrar, you are a very good specimen of a bad example.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Clark writes:
>
>> More horse****. You've never used an avaiation radio and therefore your claim
>> is baseless.
>
> I don't have to use a radio to be good at it. It's just talk.

Actually, I believe this.

Most people being socially integrated into the world get mic fright from
the fear of doing something wrong and embarassing themselves in front
of everyone listening to the radio.

Being a totally anti-social misfit with no regard for other people
and having so much arrogance that you don't believe you could ever
be wrong would eliminate that problem.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[a[_3_]]

On Mar 4, 4:09*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Paul H writes:
> > The one thing you don't get is comm experience - there is a Comm DVD
> > that's available through Sporty's to practice various types of ATC
> > communication, and I recommend it.
>
> You can get superlative comm experience by joining VATSIM or IVAO, which
> allows you to simulate flights with real people providing ATC by voice that
> corresponds precisely to the real thing.

As a matter of general interest, there are a number of sites that
offer real links to real time ATC communications. If a novice wants
experience, he or she can listen in, assume the identity of an
aircraft, and practice keeping up with instructions issued to it. That
is real, not sim.

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> There are never any problems with radios and audio systems, everything is
> always crystal clear and all requests and instructions are perfectly
> understood. Riiiight! Okey dokey. Have fun in your dream world.

Real-world ratios are clearer than simulated radios, most of the time.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Clark writes:
>
>> There are never any problems with radios and audio systems, everything is
>> always crystal clear and all requests and instructions are perfectly
>> understood. Riiiight! Okey dokey. Have fun in your dream world.
>
> Real-world ratios are clearer than simulated radios, most of the time.

Oh yeah, we all know that's correct. ;) ;) ;)

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Clark writes:
>
>> There are never any problems with radios and audio systems, everything is
>> always crystal clear and all requests and instructions are perfectly
>> understood. Riiiight! Okey dokey. Have fun in your dream world.
>
> Real-world ratios are clearer than simulated radios, most of the time.

And you know this because of your extensive time in real airplanes?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Clark writes:
>
> > There are never any problems with radios and audio systems, everything is
> > always crystal clear and all requests and instructions are perfectly
> > understood. Riiiight! Okey dokey. Have fun in your dream world.
>
> Real-world ratios are clearer than simulated radios, most of the time.

Really? Why would simulated radios use such terrible technology?

I've never used VATSIM or anything of the sort, but I've used many VoIP
technologies such as Skype, TeamSpeak, and others. They *all* have much
better quality that any aircraft radio I've used. Simply understanding
what the other guy said more than 50% of the time takes some practice
and attention with a typical aircraft radio, at least in my experience.

Why do VATSIM and the other ATC simulators use such bad technology? Are
they trying to simulate the poor quality of aircraft radios and
overshooting?

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

[a[_3_]]

On Mar 6, 5:24*pm, Mike Ash > wrote:
> In article >,
>
> *Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > Clark writes:
>
> > > There are never any problems with radios and audio systems, everything is
> > > always crystal clear and all requests and instructions are perfectly
> > > understood. Riiiight! Okey dokey. Have fun in your dream world.
>
> > Real-world ratios are clearer than simulated radios, most of the time.
>
> Really? Why would simulated radios use such terrible technology?
>
> I've never used VATSIM or anything of the sort, but I've used many VoIP
> technologies such as Skype, TeamSpeak, and others. They *all* have much
> better quality that any aircraft radio I've used. Simply understanding
> what the other guy said more than 50% of the time takes some practice
> and attention with a typical aircraft radio, at least in my experience.
>
> Why do VATSIM and the other ATC simulators use such bad technology? Are
> they trying to simulate the poor quality of aircraft radios and
> overshooting?
>
> --
> Mike Ash
> Radio Free Earth
> Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

It would be amusing to have MX copy a real clearance, wouldn't it?
Maybe not from JFK but a smaller airport. Want to bet there would be
several "say again's", followed by the delivery guy saying something
like "read my lips".

Of course in rebuttal MX would say something either about the quality
of the radio, or of the guy giving the clearance. FWIW, I do wonder if
bad audio quality is required in aviation radios?

[Mike Ash]

In article
>,
a > wrote:

> It would be amusing to have MX copy a real clearance, wouldn't it?
> Maybe not from JFK but a smaller airport. Want to bet there would be
> several "say again's", followed by the delivery guy saying something
> like "read my lips".

I'm sure it would be amusing. However, it would also probably be amusing
to make me do it, too. Excluding some training I did at a towered
airport many years ago, and which is now all forgotten, I think I've
talked to ATC exactly once in my flying career. As a glider pilot, there
just isn't any call for it. My radio experience would probably help
somewhat, but we're not exactly copying clearances on the local CTAF!

> Of course in rebuttal MX would say something either about the quality
> of the radio, or of the guy giving the clearance. FWIW, I do wonder if
> bad audio quality is required in aviation radios?

My guess is that it's just limited by the technology. Air-band radios
use AM with not a whole lot of power output, and I imagine that's
limiting. If we could start from scratch with a nice modern digital
protocol I imagine it would be a lot better. But as with many things,
legacy rules. It doesn't help any that the aircraft radio market is
miniscule, so we don't get to benefit from economies of scale the way,
say, the cell phone market does.

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

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> And you know this because of your extensive time in real airplanes?

I know in from listening to both real radios and simulated radios. Sitting in
an airplane doesn't have any magic effect on their quality.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Ash writes:

> Really? Why would simulated radios use such terrible technology?

Well, for one thing, they simulate VHF reception, dropping a lot of audio
bandwidth in the process. But they also suffer from poor microphones, network
delays, and so on. So the audio quality can be pretty bad sometimes, just as
in real life. In simulation, it's VoIP, which has sources of problems that
are different from radios, but often with comparable audio effects.

Most of the time, the quality of both is very similar, which works out well,
since it's supposed to be a simulation of real life.

> I've never used VATSIM or anything of the sort, but I've used many VoIP
> technologies such as Skype, TeamSpeak, and others. They *all* have much
> better quality that any aircraft radio I've used. Simply understanding
> what the other guy said more than 50% of the time takes some practice
> and attention with a typical aircraft radio, at least in my experience.

Maybe you've only used crummy radios.

> Why do VATSIM and the other ATC simulators use such bad technology? Are
> they trying to simulate the poor quality of aircraft radios and
> overshooting?

Sometimes, yes, but VoIP has its own limitations. You can turn off the VHF
simulation, but then it sounds a lot more like something you'd hear from a CD
or an FM radio station, which isn't necessarily realistic compared to an
aviation radio.

[Mxsmanic]

a writes:

> It would be amusing to have MX copy a real clearance, wouldn't it?

I do it all the time, and it's easy once you're used to it.

> Maybe not from JFK but a smaller airport. Want to bet there would be
> several "say again's", followed by the delivery guy saying something
> like "read my lips".

It would actually be something like "Readback is correct."

Of course, many private pilots cannot copy a clearance correctly, if they
aren't already used to doing so.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Ash writes:

> My guess is that it's just limited by the technology. Air-band radios
> use AM with not a whole lot of power output, and I imagine that's
> limiting. If we could start from scratch with a nice modern digital
> protocol I imagine it would be a lot better. But as with many things,
> legacy rules. It doesn't help any that the aircraft radio market is
> miniscule, so we don't get to benefit from economies of scale the way,
> say, the cell phone market does.

The aviation market is also very heavily regulated, which slows change and
raises prices. (That does not mean that safety-motivated regulations are
bad--I'm just making an observation.)

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> On another note, at least you admit your radio "challenges." Too bad mxy
> can't deal with the fact that he has no clue when it comes to real world
> activities.

I do very well when it comes to radio. Indeed, I could be very useful to a
private pilot unfamiliar with ATC, since I know exactly what to say and expect
and he most likely does not.

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> How would you know?

By listening to both.

> You've never used a real world radio.

I've listened to them regularly.

Sometimes people here are really reaching. Do you really think that I need a
radio on my desk in order to hear what a radio sounds like?

That's a bit like people who say you can't judge a digital photo unless you
have the camera that took it.

[a[_3_]]

On Mar 7, 3:16*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> a writes:
> > It would be amusing to have MX copy a real clearance, wouldn't it?
>
> I do it all the time, and it's easy once you're used to it.
>
> > Maybe not from JFK but a smaller airport. Want to bet there would be
> > several "say again's", followed by the delivery guy saying something
> > like "read my lips".
>
> It would actually be something like "Readback is correct."
>
> Of course, many private pilots cannot copy a clearance correctly, if they
> aren't already used to doing so.

Youn have never heard "Readback is correct" from a real controller
over the radio in response to your readback of the issued flight plan
that was based on a flight plan you filed. . Never.You can type the
type, but never copied a clearance in a cockpit, nor ever flew it.
You, pretending, have no basis on which to compare reality.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Clark > wrote:

> At least you talk on CTAF. I took a glider ride with a local club and was
> amazed they didn't even bother with a radio. They fly in an area with 7
> flight schools within a 10 mile radius. I didn't go back to get my glider
> ticket...

That is unfortunate, both that they don't talk and that you didn't go
back (although I can understand why you didn't!). We fly out of a public
airport with a fair amount of other traffic. While legally we could be
silent on the radio, it wouldn't be smart, and it would also put us in
hot water with the airport management. Club policy *requires* a working
radio in any glider that flies with us.

> On another note, at least you admit your radio "challenges." Too bad mxy
> can't deal with the fact that he has no clue when it comes to real world
> activities.

I believe the term for a pilot who doesn't know his own limitations is
"dead". The term for a simmer who doesn't know his own limitations is
"annoying". So he can get away with it.

> >> Of course in rebuttal MX would say something either about the quality
> >> of the radio, or of the guy giving the clearance. FWIW, I do wonder if
> >> bad audio quality is required in aviation radios?
> >
> > My guess is that it's just limited by the technology. Air-band radios
> > use AM with not a whole lot of power output, and I imagine that's
> > limiting. If we could start from scratch with a nice modern digital
> > protocol I imagine it would be a lot better. But as with many things,
> > legacy rules. It doesn't help any that the aircraft radio market is
> > miniscule, so we don't get to benefit from economies of scale the way,
> > say, the cell phone market does.
>
> It's an interesting problem. Some days I've talked to folks 70+ miles away
> and had it be crystal clear. Other days, well, it's not so good. For local
> airport control the system is great and I have no complaints. Talking to
> center while on long x-country out west can be another story all-together.
>
> "Dakota 8089V, roger, report <snap, pop, BING>"
>
> "Say again, read you weak and staticy, 89V"
>
> "Dak <crackle, zzzit> er"
>
> "Roger center, report EHVER, 89V"
>
> There's a lot to be said about radio free Colorado...

Yep, sometimes the reception can be *too* good. Like any small airport,
the one where I fly shares a frequency with other airports some distance
away, and their traffic can often be heard. Nothing like having some
charter pilot flying in to the big airport 50 miles south droning on and
on about where he's going to pick up his passengers and is the rental
car there yet and he's going to need so much fuel and so forth when I'm
trying to do my landing checklist. Sometimes, once I'm away from the
airport area, I'll just switch off the radio altogether.

And then sometimes you can't hear the guy when he's two miles away. We
had a persistent problem with the radio in our tow plane for a while
where the thing was just weak. I believe we replaced literally every
component in the system before we finally got it back to being
acceptable.

All part of the fun, I suppose. I figure that you need to enjoy or at
least appreciate funky equipment if you really want to get the most out
of being a pilot.

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

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> And you know this because of your extensive time in real airplanes?
>
> I know in from listening to both real radios and simulated radios. Sitting in
> an airplane doesn't have any magic effect on their quality.

Nope, no magic involved, the effects are well known.

Being at altitude means you hear a lot more than you ever hear on the
ground; all the static crashes, all the other airplanes for a hundred
or so miles and all the precipitation static.

Then there is the plain old noise that no headset ever totally eliminates.

And to top it off, there is the equipement itself which is well baked
and vibrated which tends to put it in less than hi-fi quality.

Yeah, you know all about it from sitting in your easy chair.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Mike Ash writes:
>
>> My guess is that it's just limited by the technology. Air-band radios
>> use AM with not a whole lot of power output, and I imagine that's
>> limiting. If we could start from scratch with a nice modern digital
>> protocol I imagine it would be a lot better. But as with many things,
>> legacy rules. It doesn't help any that the aircraft radio market is
>> miniscule, so we don't get to benefit from economies of scale the way,
>> say, the cell phone market does.
>
> The aviation market is also very heavily regulated, which slows change and
> raises prices. (That does not mean that safety-motivated regulations are
> bad--I'm just making an observation.)

Nonsense, the aviation radio service is no more regulated than any other
public safety radio service.

Aviation radios are expensive mostly because of the economies of scale and
the harsh environment in which they operate which increases the cost to
make them reliable.

How many years have you spent simming being in an avionics shop to reach
your conclusions?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[george]

On Mar 8, 12:32*am, a > wrote:
> On Mar 7, 3:16*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > a writes:
> > > It would be amusing to have MX copy a real clearance, wouldn't it?
>
> > I do it all the time, and it's easy once you're used to it.
>
> > > Maybe not from JFK but a smaller airport. Want to bet there would be
> > > several "say again's", followed by the delivery guy saying something
> > > like "read my lips".
>
> > It would actually be something like "Readback is correct."
>
> > Of course, many private pilots cannot copy a clearance correctly, if they
> > aren't already used to doing so.
>
> Youn have never heard "Readback is correct" from a real controller
> over the radio in response to your readback of the issued flight plan
> that was based on a flight plan you filed. . Never.You can type the
> type, but never copied a clearance in a cockpit, nor ever flew it.
> You, pretending, have no basis on which to compare reality.

He doesn't know that before you have a PPL in your pocket you have to
have a Radio Rating..
Is it just my impression or is MX getting crazier ?

[a[_3_]]

On Mar 7, 2:45*pm, george > wrote:
> On Mar 8, 12:32*am, a > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 3:16*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > > a writes:
> > > > It would be amusing to have MX copy a real clearance, wouldn't it?
>
> > > I do it all the time, and it's easy once you're used to it.
>
> > > > Maybe not from JFK but a smaller airport. Want to bet there would be
> > > > several "say again's", followed by the delivery guy saying something
> > > > like "read my lips".
>
> > > It would actually be something like "Readback is correct."
>
> > > Of course, many private pilots cannot copy a clearance correctly, if they
> > > aren't already used to doing so.
>
> > Youn have never heard "Readback is correct" from a real controller
> > over the radio in response to your readback of the issued flight plan
> > that was based on a flight plan you filed. . Never.You can type the
> > type, but never copied a clearance in a cockpit, nor ever flew it.
> > You, pretending, have no basis on which to compare reality.
>
> He doesn't know that before you have a PPL in your pocket you have to
> have a Radio Rating..
> Is it just my impression or is MX getting crazier ?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I think he's not getting crazier, he's getting what he does not get in
real life: attention. Those who respond give his opinions more weight
than they deserve. Here he can and does engage and provoke his
superiors (in personal economics, aviation experience, and so on) when
very few of us, should we be in close proximity (slumming?) would
spend much time talking with him. He would be ignored by most of us.
He has, you see, won.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Clark > wrote:

> Nothing like getting someone's life history, err well, their entire plan of
> action for the near future over the radio. On a recent quiet Sunday afternoon
> I just couldn't resist and asked if the long winded feller was gonna take a
> picture too.

Speaking of which, I eventually decided that when they're doing that and
I need to start making calls, I'd just start making them, and too bad
about stepping on his transmission. (Flying a glider, I don't have a lot
of time in the pattern to wait for him to get done counting out the
individual parcels in his baggage compartment.) The way I figure it,
since he's 50 miles away, my transmission will be really weak down where
he is, so it won't interfere. And likewise, my transmission will
overpower his at my airport, so the people who need to hear me will hear
me.

The question I have for the group is this: does that actually make
sense, or am I just making up a load of baloney and messing with these
poor guys' radio calls?

> > All part of the fun, I suppose. I figure that you need to enjoy or at
> > least appreciate funky equipment if you really want to get the most out
> > of being a pilot.
> >
> I'm kinda liken' my funky equipment these days. My CFII frequently forgets
> how the radios are set up so he gets this puzzled look and has to stop and
> work through it. Keeps him humble I say. It's all fun until I go into brain
> lock after a couple hours under the hood and make the same error...

My favorite incident of this nature was a couple of years ago when my
club took our primary trainer to another airport for a camp. I was
descending out of wave with my instructor, and had an idea: unlike the
home field, this airport had an ASOS (how fancy!), so let's actually
listen in to find out what the winds were like before we land!

So I reach down to the radio and start turning the knobs and... nothing.

"Hey Bob, how do you change the frequency on this thing?"

"Um... you tried turning the frequency knobs? I dunno...."

Turned out *neither* of us had ever changed the frequency on this radio,
always leaving it to our local CTAF all the time.

(Afterwards I discovered that this particular radio was built around the
idea of programmable channels. One knob, which I hadn't noticed at the
time, switches between 10 or so different channels. A red button, when
held down, allows the tuning knobs to adjust the currently selected
channel. Nifty, but not exactly intuitive!)

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

[[email protected]]

Mike Ash > wrote:
> In article >,

> Speaking of which, I eventually decided that when they're doing that and
> I need to start making calls, I'd just start making them, and too bad
> about stepping on his transmission. (Flying a glider, I don't have a lot
> of time in the pattern to wait for him to get done counting out the
> individual parcels in his baggage compartment.) The way I figure it,
> since he's 50 miles away, my transmission will be really weak down where
> he is, so it won't interfere. And likewise, my transmission will
> overpower his at my airport, so the people who need to hear me will hear
> me.
>
> The question I have for the group is this: does that actually make
> sense, or am I just making up a load of baloney and messing with these
> poor guys' radio calls?

Yeah, it is about right though a hetrodyne (the squeal from two people
at once) MIGHT be heard on the ground, but if you can't hear the ground
on the far end it is unlikely they will hear you.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> a writes:
>
> > It would be amusing to have MX copy a real clearance, wouldn't it?
>
> I do it all the time, and it's easy once you're used to it.
>
> > Maybe not from JFK but a smaller airport. Want to bet there would be
> > several "say again's", followed by the delivery guy saying something
> > like "read my lips".
>
> It would actually be something like "Readback is correct."
>
> Of course, many private pilots cannot copy a clearance correctly, if they
> aren't already used to doing so.

In REALITY it is rare to hear that. If the readback is correct, nothing
needs to be said. If it's wrong, then a correction is in order.

On what basis do you say "It would actually be something like "Readback
is correct."" ?

Is that in your sim program, or actual real flight?

--
Duncan

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Mike Ash writes:
>
> > Really? Why would simulated radios use such terrible technology?
>
> Well, for one thing, they simulate VHF reception, dropping a lot of audio
> bandwidth in the process. But they also suffer from poor microphones, network
> delays, and so on. So the audio quality can be pretty bad sometimes, just as
> in real life. In simulation, it's VoIP, which has sources of problems that
> are different from radios, but often with comparable audio effects.
>
> Most of the time, the quality of both is very similar, which works out well,
> since it's supposed to be a simulation of real life.
>
> > I've never used VATSIM or anything of the sort, but I've used many VoIP
> > technologies such as Skype, TeamSpeak, and others. They *all* have much
> > better quality that any aircraft radio I've used. Simply understanding
> > what the other guy said more than 50% of the time takes some practice
> > and attention with a typical aircraft radio, at least in my experience.
>
> Maybe you've only used crummy radios.
>
> > Why do VATSIM and the other ATC simulators use such bad technology? Are
> > they trying to simulate the poor quality of aircraft radios and
> > overshooting?
>
> Sometimes, yes, but VoIP has its own limitations. You can turn off the VHF
> simulation, but then it sounds a lot more like something you'd hear from a CD
> or an FM radio station, which isn't necessarily realistic compared to an
> aviation radio.

**** your full of ****. But OK, prove me wrong, and post some links to
some actual ATC recordings to provide evidence of your statement.

--
Duncan

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Clark writes:
>
> > On another note, at least you admit your radio "challenges." Too bad mxy
> > can't deal with the fact that he has no clue when it comes to real world
> > activities.
>
> I do very well when it comes to radio. Indeed, I could be very useful to a
> private pilot unfamiliar with ATC, since I know exactly what to say and expect
> and he most likely does not.

How do you know that?

Pleae remind me again, how many hours flight do you have under your
belt? (I'm quite happy to accept small figures (<10)).

--
Duncan

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Clark writes:
>
> > How would you know?
>
> By listening to both.
>
> > You've never used a real world radio.
>
> I've listened to them regularly.
>
> Sometimes people here are really reaching. Do you really think that I need a
> radio on my desk in order to hear what a radio sounds like?
>
> That's a bit like people who say you can't judge a digital photo unless you
> have the camera that took it.

There's one small problem in your logic. You don't know what you are
talking about, since you have not done it (no, it's not the same as
listening to an ATC frequency capable radio receiver).

--
Duncan

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> How do you know that?

Because I've learned it and practiced it. Why is this so hard to accept?

Learning radio communication is not a matter of trial and error. It's a
matter of reading the procedures and executing them, like so much of aviation.

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> My CFII frequently forgets how the radios are set up so he
> gets this puzzled look and has to stop and work through it.

I thought that was impossible for Real Pilots. Once you fly in a Real Plane,
you magically know it all, just as you know nothing if you don't fly in a Real
Plane. Right?

> It's all fun until I go into brain
> lock after a couple hours under the hood and make the same error...

So either you aren't a Real Pilot, or being a Real Pilot confers no magic
competency that cannot be otherwise acquired.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Nonsense, the aviation radio service is no more regulated ...

I said the aviation market, not the aviation radio service.

[Mxsmanic]

a writes:

> Youn have never heard "Readback is correct" from a real controller
> over the radio in response to your readback of the issued flight plan
> that was based on a flight plan you filed.

That's because I haven't asked any real controllers for a clearance. But they
say it regularly, rest assured.

> Never.You can type the type, but never copied a clearance in a
> cockpit, nor ever flew it.

I have indeed done that, in simulation. And I do it better than some people
here do.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> In REALITY it is rare to hear that. If the readback is correct, nothing
> needs to be said. If it's wrong, then a correction is in order.

In reality, I hear it all the time. It has been that way for decades.

> On what basis do you say "It would actually be something like "Readback
> is correct."" ?

Sometimes it's "readback correct" (without "is").

> Is that in your sim program, or actual real flight?

Both. Real-world controllers say it, computer-generated controllers in MSFS
say it, and VATSIM controllers say it.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> But OK, prove me wrong, and post some links to
> some actual ATC recordings to provide evidence of your statement.

Which statement?

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> Now try to comprehend just a little bit. What you have listened to is not the
> reception you get in an aircraft. Recordings from a base station that you
> hear in the internet are not the same as what one hears while airborne.

I've listened to cockpit recordings as well.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> There's one small problem in your logic. You don't know what you are
> talking about, since you have not done it (no, it's not the same as
> listening to an ATC frequency capable radio receiver).

I've listened to airborne receivers as well.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
>> How do you know that?
>
> Because I've learned it and practiced it. Why is this so hard to accept?
>
> Learning radio communication is not a matter of trial and error. It's a
> matter of reading the procedures and executing them, like so much of
> aviation.

No you haven't. Once again you have simply played a game and confused
fantasy with reality. The only thing you seem capable of.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Clark writes:
>
>> My CFII frequently forgets how the radios are set up so he
>> gets this puzzled look and has to stop and work through it.
>
> I thought that was impossible for Real Pilots. Once you fly in a Real
> Plane,
> you magically know it all, just as you know nothing if you don't fly in a
> Real
> Plane. Right?
>
>> It's all fun until I go into brain
>> lock after a couple hours under the hood and make the same error...
>
> So either you aren't a Real Pilot, or being a Real Pilot confers no magic
> competency that cannot be otherwise acquired.

Reread this, it proves you are nothing more than a dumb assed, wanne be
troll

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>a writes:
>
>> Youn have never heard "Readback is correct" from a real controller
>> over the radio in response to your readback of the issued flight plan
>> that was based on a flight plan you filed.
>
> That's because I haven't asked any real controllers for a clearance. But
> they
> say it regularly, rest assured.
>
>> Never.You can type the type, but never copied a clearance in a
>> cockpit, nor ever flew it.
>
> I have indeed done that, in simulation. And I do it better than some
> people
> here do.

What a whining wanna be. You're pathetic.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
>> In REALITY it is rare to hear that. If the readback is correct, nothing
>> needs to be said. If it's wrong, then a correction is in order.
>
> In reality, I hear it all the time. It has been that way for decades.
>
>> On what basis do you say "It would actually be something like "Readback
>> is correct."" ?
>
> Sometimes it's "readback correct" (without "is").
>
>> Is that in your sim program, or actual real flight?
>
> Both. Real-world controllers say it, computer-generated controllers in
> MSFS
> say it, and VATSIM controllers say it.

And we all say "you're a looser, get lost".

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
>> But OK, prove me wrong, and post some links to
>> some actual ATC recordings to provide evidence of your statement.
>
> Which statement?

Any of yours, wanna boi.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Clark writes:
>
>> Now try to comprehend just a little bit. What you have listened to is not
>> the
>> reception you get in an aircraft. Recordings from a base station that you
>> hear in the internet are not the same as what one hears while airborne.
>
> I've listened to cockpit recordings as well.

I'm sure you hear all kinds of voices.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
>> There's one small problem in your logic. You don't know what you are
>> talking about, since you have not done it (no, it's not the same as
>> listening to an ATC frequency capable radio receiver).
>
> I've listened to airborne receivers as well.

Why, you can't argue with them?

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
wrote:

> Mike Ash > wrote:
> > In article >,
>
> > Speaking of which, I eventually decided that when they're doing that and
> > I need to start making calls, I'd just start making them, and too bad
> > about stepping on his transmission. (Flying a glider, I don't have a lot
> > of time in the pattern to wait for him to get done counting out the
> > individual parcels in his baggage compartment.) The way I figure it,
> > since he's 50 miles away, my transmission will be really weak down where
> > he is, so it won't interfere. And likewise, my transmission will
> > overpower his at my airport, so the people who need to hear me will hear
> > me.
> >
> > The question I have for the group is this: does that actually make
> > sense, or am I just making up a load of baloney and messing with these
> > poor guys' radio calls?
>
> Yeah, it is about right though a hetrodyne (the squeal from two people
> at once) MIGHT be heard on the ground, but if you can't hear the ground
> on the far end it is unlikely they will hear you.

Good point. Thanks!

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

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Nonsense, the aviation radio service is no more regulated ...
>
> I said the aviation market, not the aviation radio service.

The aviation radio (i.e. what was being discussed) MARKET is not regulated
at all.

Radio equipment manufactured to be used in particular SERVICE (as
defined by the FCC) has to meet the techical standards of the SERVICE.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
> >
> >> Nonsense, the aviation radio service is no more regulated ...
> >
> > I said the aviation market, not the aviation radio service.
>
> The aviation radio (i.e. what was being discussed) MARKET is not regulated
> at all.

I said the aviation market, not the aviation radio market.

If you feel compelled to criticize me, at least have the courtesy to criticize
what I actually write, rather than what you'd like to imagine that I've
written. This will save time for both of us.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> > writes:
>> >
>> >> Nonsense, the aviation radio service is no more regulated ...
>> >
>> > I said the aviation market, not the aviation radio service.
>>
>> The aviation radio (i.e. what was being discussed) MARKET is not regulated
>> at all.
>
> I said the aviation market, not the aviation radio market.

RADIO was what was being discussed.

You seem to have problems with the concept of logical flow in discussions.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> RADIO was what was being discussed.

But it isn't what I said, and there was a reason for that. I was referring to
aviation in general, not just aviation radio.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
> > In REALITY it is rare to hear that. If the readback is correct, nothing
> > needs to be said. If it's wrong, then a correction is in order.
>
> In reality, I hear it all the time. It has been that way for decades.

On your simulator.

> > On what basis do you say "It would actually be something like "Readback
> > is correct."" ?
>
> Sometimes it's "readback correct" (without "is").
>
> > Is that in your sim program, or actual real flight?
>
> Both. Real-world controllers say it, computer-generated controllers in MSFS
> say it, and VATSIM controllers say it.

No they don't. It's pretty damn rare actually, in real life. It maybe
that way in MSFS, but it's not that way in real ATC.

--
Duncan

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> RADIO was what was being discussed.
>
> But it isn't what I said, and there was a reason for that. I was referring to
> aviation in general, not just aviation radio.

You seem to have problems with logical flow in discussions.

Or are you deliberately try to obfuscate issues?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> Here's the simple explanation for you: things can be much more complicated
> than you can imagine based on playing with the toy simulator.

Simulators can be a lot more complex than you seem to believe.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> On your simulator.

On my simulator, and in real life.

> No they don't. It's pretty damn rare actually, in real life. It maybe
> that way in MSFS, but it's not that way in real ATC.

We must be listening to different controllers.

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> Well aren't you just special. Now try it in real life.

The cockpit recordings _are_ real life.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Clark writes:
>
>> Here's the simple explanation for you: things can be much more
>> complicated
>> than you can imagine based on playing with the toy simulator.
>
> Simulators can be a lot more complex than you seem to believe.

No, complexity is relative to size of your world, pin head.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> > writes:
>> >
>> >> Nonsense, the aviation radio service is no more regulated ...
>> >
>> > I said the aviation market, not the aviation radio service.
>>
>> The aviation radio (i.e. what was being discussed) MARKET is not
>> regulated
>> at all.
>
> I said the aviation market, not the aviation radio market.
>
> If you feel compelled to criticize me, at least have the courtesy to
> criticize
> what I actually write, rather than what you'd like to imagine that I've
> written. This will save time for both of us.

Why, there so often no difference, since you are so clueless.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> RADIO was what was being discussed.
>
> But it isn't what I said, and there was a reason for that. I was
> referring to
> aviation in general, not just aviation radio.

No you're not, you're doing your usual hat dance.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
>> On your simulator.
>
> On my simulator, and in real life.
>
>> No they don't. It's pretty damn rare actually, in real life. It maybe
>> that way in MSFS, but it's not that way in real ATC.
>
> We must be listening to different controllers.

You are clueless.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Clark writes:
>
>> Well aren't you just special. Now try it in real life.
>
> The cockpit recordings _are_ real life.

And your perspective is fantasy, are you starting to get a
grip................no.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic , You should know God ended the existence of the ACES team
and FSX because YOU post to newsgroups.

Steve

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> But you aren't there in real life.

That doesn't matter, since the recordings came directly from real life.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Mxsmanic , You should know God ended the existence of the ACES team
> and FSX because YOU post to newsgroups.

No, Microsoft did it because it is being incompetently managed.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Clark writes:
>
>> But you aren't there in real life.
>
> That doesn't matter, since the recordings came directly from real life.

You delusion is vibrant and well.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Mxsmanic , You should know God ended the existence of the ACES team
>> and FSX because YOU post to newsgroups.
>
> No, Microsoft did it because it is being incompetently managed.

Sorry, but we don't have time for you explanation of that fantasy either.

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> Here's a hint for you: the listener needs to be under the same set of
> circumstances as the pilot for the listener to understand what it's really
> like.

No, he doesn't. The tests used in many jurisdictions to measure ICAO English
competency for controllers and pilots, for example, include only real-life
recordings, without any "set of circumstances."

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> I'm not testing for ICAO.

That is probably wise.

> I'm explaining to you that your simulations and recordings are
> not the same as being there.

You are asserting, not "explaining." Your assertions are baseless.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

>
> You are asserting, not "explaining." Your assertions are baseless.

As is your entire existence.

[Tony]

On Mar 10, 8:26*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Clark writes:
> > I'm not testing for ICAO.
>
> That is probably wise.
>
> > I'm explaining to you that your simulations and recordings are
> > not the same as being there.
>
> You are asserting, not "explaining." *Your assertions are baseless.

Man, you sure know how to get attention with your wit. What a troll.