Re: *********A DEFENCE FOR MXMORAN***********

[BeechSundowner]

On Mar 3, 5:15*am, Ibby > wrote:

> First priority is NOT talking to ATC but retaining control of the
> aircraft. *If it is decending rapidly the FIRST button I would engage
> is Altitude Hold which will start the aircraft to level out. *This can
> be easily reached without moving the Pilot or FO. *The pilots can be
> moved in a moment and ATC can be contacted once you have 'control'.

Again, don't forget that human part. I have no clue where the
altitude hold is. You may know from the hours and hours of sim
experiences, but in the real world, you expect me to find a button
that will automatically level the plane. There are billions of
buttons to look at.

> The radios are more than likely already tuned to the nearest
> controller. *The major part of the FMC will now be 'unimportant' as
> you will no longer be required to continue on your planned route. *The
> Mode Control Panel (the buttons and dials on the glareshield) take
> precedence over the FMC. *For the FMC to control the flight director
> two buttons require engaging - LNAV (Lateral Navigation) which

I drive a single engine land airplane. You think I have any clue what
you are talking about? You are in a jetliner plane about to buy the
farm. No common Joe, or even a pilot like myself will be there to
"save the day" All the simulation in the world won't take away the
vast array of gauges and dials, and buttons for me to find the
altitude hold button in a reasonable time. Imagine yourself over the
radio talking to someone and saying find the altitude hold button and
guiding them to the right place? Oh yeah we talk in a walkie talkie
world, which slows down communications. Only one person talks at one
time. You think John Q public knows this? IF THEY EVEN find the PTT
button!


> I agree and stated before the majority of us would literally be
> crapping ourselves. *The sim DOES help however in understanding the
> 'digitised' controls and knobs. *When I took my first flying lesson in
> a Cessna 152 (yes basic in comparision) but it was exactly the same as
> the payware aircraft I bought for the sim. *

It doesn't for me when I am in an emergency situation trying to save
my skin in a plane I never sat in the front seat.. Too many buttons,
remember for me to find that right button you want me to push, pull or
twist? I fly a Sundowner, which has a vast array of buttons to a non
pilot. Could / would they know where my autopilot is by description.
I seriously doubt it!

> As stated before the majority of the FMC is obsolete and the aircraft
> can be controlled via the MCP and the autopilot. *ATC will quite often
> vector a pilot with differing headings, speed restrictions and
> altitude constraints to that on the FMC flightplan but in most cases
> the PIC will use the MCP to make these temporary changes. *

Uhh, I am in a plane totally unfamiliar. You will instruct me to use
the MCP. I have no clue what that is. I have fear for my life, you
think you would be able to walk me through which panel is the MCP? I
doubt it. Remember, the audience you are talking to is a non pilot in
the emergency situation we are talking about. You wouldn't say push a
button on the MCP. You would say it in plain English and describe it
in plain English.

> When APP is pressed all 3 autopilots are engaged and thus the autoland
> is armed. ATC can instruct you to reduce your airspeed via the control
> knob and extend the flaps, landing gear can be lowered and landing
> lights and strobes switched on prior to Flaps 20 with continual
> slowing using the autothrottle system and further extension of the
> flaps.

ATC seperates traffic. Remember, I am descending through 10000 feet,
time is not on my side. I don't think they will know what control
knob for me to push, pull or push, and even if they did, they just
can't point to it, they would need to be able to describe it precisely
within the 1000's of other knobs that sit in front of me.

> That's how the simulator can help. *They have 'big' knobs and 'little'
> knobs as per the real aircraft

But remember the vast array of buttons and knobs. You have to find
the component first! I never been in a 747.

Let me give you a real deal example of how something electronic can
draw a brain fart, and I posted my experiences. I was in a plane with
a Garmin 330 transponder. Transponder was not sending the right
altitude. I did not know how to stop Mode C. Something very simple
became a major traffic hazard around me.

On my transponder, I have a on setting where it will transmit Mode A,
not C. Easy enough for me to do. Now, I tell you stop my mode C by
twisting the knob from alt to on. Would you be able to figure that
out in the vast array of gauges, buttons and knobs? You have never
been in my plane and all your vast knowlege of a 747 is now tossed out
the window. I would suspect, eventually you will find it from your
simulation knowlege, but the average non pilot will have no clue what
or where the transponder is much less turn a knob from alt to on.

> > As I have posted many, many times, and I have used MSFS X. *
>
> Did you use payware aircraft or the default as there can be a world of
> difference depending on the vendor

You are missing my point. All the simulation in the world doesn't
help me when the rubber meets the road. Simulation is great for
learning procedures. It will not save my skin in a 747. As stated
earlier, the plane in the approach phase probably has not been
configured for autoland. I doubt anybody would be able to tell John Q
public which panel to look at to set it up for autoland in the short
time before the farm is bought..

> *I'm
> NOT a qualified pilot and have never flown yet in IMC conditions. *I
> agree hand flying an aircraft in the simulator in IMC can be difficult
> as you have zero sensation of movement.

You have it backwards..... It's the sensation of movement that will
make you a lawn dart and learning to ignore that sensation of movement
is the key.

MSFS makes simulated IMC a walk in the park on my computer. I have
never gotten the leans from MSFS.

Again, talk to a pilot that is instrument rated. Until you do so, you
have no clue what flying is all about just on what you say above..

[Mxsmanic]

BeechSundowner writes:

> Again, don't forget that human part. I have no clue where the
> altitude hold is. You may know from the hours and hours of sim
> experiences, but in the real world, you expect me to find a button
> that will automatically level the plane. There are billions of
> buttons to look at.

No, there are only a dozen or so, and they are clearly marked, and all you
need is someone to tell you where to look.

In this case, it's pretty easy: Look along the top of the glare shield until
you find the word ALT, then look down until you find the word HOLD, and press
that button.

I suppose it might seem complex to the pilot of a tiny plane, but it's not
really that difficult.

> I drive a single engine land airplane. You think I have any clue what
> you are talking about?

No, I don't. And it's really hard to comment on things that one doesn't have
a clue about, isn't it?

> You are in a jetliner plane about to buy the farm.

No. Incapacitation of the pilots does not cause the plane to crash. This
isn't a Piper Cub.

You may wish to review the accident report for Helios Airways Flight 522,
which illustrates what happens when the pilots are both incapacitated in a
modern airliner.

> No common Joe, or even a pilot like myself will be there to
> "save the day" All the simulation in the world won't take away the
> vast array of gauges and dials, and buttons for me to find the
> altitude hold button in a reasonable time.

Anyone of reasonable intelligence can find it within seconds when told where
to look (and eventually even if not told).

> Imagine yourself over the
> radio talking to someone and saying find the altitude hold button and
> guiding them to the right place?

Very easy.

> Oh yeah we talk in a walkie talkie world, which slows down communications.

How?

> Only one person talks at one time.

In a normal conversation, only one person talks at one time.

> It doesn't for me when I am in an emergency situation trying to save
> my skin in a plane I never sat in the front seat.. Too many buttons,
> remember for me to find that right button you want me to push, pull or
> twist? I fly a Sundowner, which has a vast array of buttons to a non
> pilot. Could / would they know where my autopilot is by description.
> I seriously doubt it!

I don't. But perhaps we move in different circles.

> Uhh, I am in a plane totally unfamiliar. You will instruct me to use
> the MCP. I have no clue what that is. I have fear for my life, you
> think you would be able to walk me through which panel is the MCP? I
> doubt it.

Well, if you happen to be the one who replaces the pilots, I suppose the
flight is doomed, based on what you are saying. But a lot of other people
could handle it. Do not assume that everyone shares your handicaps.

> You wouldn't say push a
> button on the MCP. You would say it in plain English and describe it
> in plain English.

Find ALT along the top edge of the instrument panel, near the middle. Just
below that is a button marked HOLD. Press that.

Elapsed time: 2 seconds.

> ATC seperates traffic. Remember, I am descending through 10000 feet,
> time is not on my side.

Once you press ALT HOLD, you are not descending any more.

> I don't think they will know what control knob for me to push, pull
> or push, and even if they did, they just can't point to it, they would
> need to be able to describe it precisely within the 1000's of other
> knobs that sit in front of me.

Do you panic easily? I could explain to a ten-year-old where to find the
button, and he'd find it and press it without any difficulty. (In fact, I've
seen ten-year-olds following instructions quite well in full-motion sims.)

> But remember the vast array of buttons and knobs.

The array is not vast, and everything is clearly marked, precisely to make it
all easy to figure out.

> I never been in a 747.

So I've surmised.

> Let me give you a real deal example of how something electronic can
> draw a brain fart, and I posted my experiences. I was in a plane with
> a Garmin 330 transponder. Transponder was not sending the right
> altitude. I did not know how to stop Mode C. Something very simple
> became a major traffic hazard around me.

Not knowing how to operate the equipment in your aircraft sounds like a FAR
violation to me.

> On my transponder, I have a on setting where it will transmit Mode A,
> not C. Easy enough for me to do. Now, I tell you stop my mode C by
> twisting the knob from alt to on. Would you be able to figure that
> out in the vast array of gauges, buttons and knobs?

Sure.

> You have never been in my plane and all your vast knowlege of a 747
> is now tossed out the window.

All I need is someone who knows the inside of your plane.

> I would suspect, eventually you will find it from your
> simulation knowlege, but the average non pilot will have no clue what
> or where the transponder is much less turn a knob from alt to on.

That's why someone else has to tell him this.

> You are missing my point.

You're not answering the question, which I assume means that you haven't used
any payware aircraft. So you've never been in a real 747, you've never used a
decent simulator of a 747, and you apparently have not read anything on the
747. And yet you're arguing about whether or not someone can land it.

Why is it okay for you to comment on such things with so little knowledge
thereof, if it isn't okay for me to comment on them with a much better
knowledge base?

> All the simulation in the world doesn't help me when the rubber meets
> the road.

Simulation helps a great deal. Simulation saves lives, in fact, by allowing
pilots to practice things that would be too rare or expensive or dangerous to
practice in real life.

> Simulation is great for learning procedures. It will not save my skin
> in a 747.

It would probably save mine.

> As stated
> earlier, the plane in the approach phase probably has not been
> configured for autoland. I doubt anybody would be able to tell John Q
> public which panel to look at to set it up for autoland in the short
> time before the farm is bought.

It's not hard to configure for autoland.

> You have it backwards..... It's the sensation of movement that will
> make you a lawn dart and learning to ignore that sensation of movement
> is the key.

When you are in a sim that doesn't move, you learn very quickly to depend on
instruments alone.

> Again, talk to a pilot that is instrument rated. Until you do so, you
> have no clue what flying is all about just on what you say above..

I'm talking to a pilot who largely admits having no clue about 747s, but that
doesn't stop him from talking about them.

[Mxsmanic]

Ibby writes:

> I fully appreciate in IMC conditions you
> use your instruments fully and don't rely on what you can/cannot see
> outside.

Sensations are largely useless in VMC, too. They are not any more reliable
just because visibility is good. The reality is that you depend upon your
eyes in VMC. Close your eyes and fly by the seat of your pants alone, and
you'll be in trouble soon enough.

> A big question asked by both myself
> and MX is have those on here who have tried MSFS done it with good
> quality commercial addon aircraft which are COMPLETELY different to
> that which comes as standard on an FSX installation.

I seriously doubt it.

> The default 747
> is total **** and a kid could operate it compared to the highly
> complex PMDG models.

It took me about two hours to figure out how to start a 737 with the PMDG
model. Most of that time was spent reading manuals. Fortunately, now I can
do it from memory, most of the time (the 747, 767, and 737 all have
differences that can get confusing, so I have to fly them all periodically to
maintain some semblance of currency).

[Mxsmanic]

BeechSundowner writes:

> Yes, you are right in the above about reaching for a switch and and
> keeping the plane level, but there is more to it. Your inner ear
> balance gets messed up inside a cloud.

The aircraft's avionics don't, however, and so, once you press the button,
you're straight and level, no matter what sensations you might feel.

Large airliners tend to move very sedately, also, so the sensations are far
less noticeable.

> I will keep
> repeating, IMC in a cloud is something to be experienced. Depending
> on what you like (or not like), you would never look at MSFS the
> same. MSFS is only a 2D world once you get the opportunity to touch a
> cloud

How much IFR have you flown in MSFS?

Everything outside the window in a real aircraft is 2D, except during take-off
and landing. Depth perception only works out to a distance of 100 feet or so.
Everything else is flat.

> Defending the use and benefits to learn what each instruments do, and
> learning IFR procedures, I absolutey agree with you. Defending the
> use and learning how to fly an airplane, land an airplane on MSFX,
> sorry, the two just don't intertwine.

Knowing what the instruments do and knowing IFR procedures is a huge part of
flying the airplane. In fact, it's most of the job for commercial air
transports. Airliners are hardly ever even flown by hand, and they are never
flown under VFR.

> Nobody will learn how to land an airplane on MSFX.

Some people will, but they have to start with an open mind.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> BeechSundowner writes:
>
>> Again, don't forget that human part. I have no clue where the
>> altitude hold is. You may know from the hours and hours of sim
>> experiences, but in the real world, you expect me to find a button
>> that will automatically level the plane. There are billions of
>> buttons to look at.
>
> No, there are only a dozen or so, and they are clearly marked, and all you
> need is someone to tell you where to look.

Wrong, try again.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Virgin-Atlantic-Airways/Boeing-747-4Q8/0314046/L/

Not shown are the dozens of switches and buttons on the overhead
panel.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[a[_3_]]

On Mar 4, 10:54*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> BeechSundowner writes:
> > Yes, you are right in the above about reaching for a switch and and
> > keeping the plane level, but there is more to it. *Your inner ear
> > balance gets messed up inside a cloud.
>
> The aircraft's avionics don't, however, and so, once you press the button,
> you're straight and level, no matter what sensations you might feel.
>
> Large airliners tend to move very sedately, also, so the sensations are far
> less noticeable.
>
> > I will keep
> > repeating, IMC in a cloud is something to be experienced. *Depending
> > on what you like (or not like), you would never look at MSFS the
> > same. *MSFS is only a 2D world once you get the opportunity to touch a
> > cloud
>
> How much IFR have you flown in MSFS?
>
> Everything outside the window in a real aircraft is 2D, except during take-off
> and landing. *Depth perception only works out to a distance of 100 feet or so.
> Everything else is flat.
>
> > Defending the use and benefits to learn what each instruments do, and
> > learning IFR procedures, I absolutey agree with you. *Defending the
> > use and learning how to fly an airplane, land an airplane on MSFX,
> > sorry, the two just don't intertwine.
>
> Knowing what the instruments do and knowing IFR procedures is a huge part of
> flying the airplane. *In fact, it's most of the job for commercial air
> transports. *Airliners are hardly ever even flown by hand, and they are never
> flown under VFR.
>
> > Nobody will learn how to land an airplane on MSFX.
>
> Some people will, but they have to start with an open mind.

MX wrote


> Everything outside the window in a real aircraft is 2D, except during take-off
> and landing. Depth perception only works out to a distance of 100 feet or so.
> Everything else is flat.
>
which is true enough IF ONE IS STATIONARY. If one is moving distance
and depth estimations are actually pretty easy. Even golfers can
estimate to within a fractional club (that would be about 10 or 15
feet) at distances out to two hundred yards or so, and pilots with
suitable experience see their landscape unfolding in what amounts to
three D. Fly over a mountain ridge then a valley and claim it's not
seen as 3D.

[Darkwing]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> BeechSundowner writes:
>
>> Yes, you are right in the above about reaching for a switch and and
>> keeping the plane level, but there is more to it. Your inner ear
>> balance gets messed up inside a cloud.
>
> The aircraft's avionics don't, however, and so, once you press the button,
> you're straight and level, no matter what sensations you might feel.
>
> Large airliners tend to move very sedately, also, so the sensations are
> far
> less noticeable.
>


Man you're awesome, tell us more!

[Darkwing]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Ibby writes:
>
>> I fully appreciate in IMC conditions you
>> use your instruments fully and don't rely on what you can/cannot see
>> outside.
>
> Sensations are largely useless in VMC, too. They are not any more
> reliable
> just because visibility is good. The reality is that you depend upon your
> eyes in VMC. Close your eyes and fly by the seat of your pants alone, and
> you'll be in trouble soon enough.
>
>> A big question asked by both myself
>> and MX is have those on here who have tried MSFS done it with good
>> quality commercial addon aircraft which are COMPLETELY different to
>> that which comes as standard on an FSX installation.
>
> I seriously doubt it.
>
>> The default 747
>> is total **** and a kid could operate it compared to the highly
>> complex PMDG models.
>
> It took me about two hours to figure out how to start a 737 with the PMDG
> model. Most of that time was spent reading manuals. Fortunately, now I
> can
> do it from memory, most of the time (the 747, 767, and 737 all have
> differences that can get confusing, so I have to fly them all periodically
> to
> maintain some semblance of currency).

Damn you're delusional.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Wrong, try again.
>
> http://www.airliners.net/photo/Virgin-Atlantic-Airways/Boeing-747-4Q8/0314046/L/

Looks just like the sim.

> Not shown are the dozens of switches and buttons on the overhead
> panel.

That's okay, I know what they are and what they do already.

[Mxsmanic]

a writes:

> which is true enough IF ONE IS STATIONARY. If one is moving distance
> and depth estimations are actually pretty easy.

If they were easy, then a lot less time would be spent in pilot training
warning pilots about how deceptive visual cues can be, and a lot less time
would be spent teaching various clever ways to try to estimate distances.

> Even golfers can
> estimate to within a fractional club (that would be about 10 or 15
> feet) at distances out to two hundred yards or so, and pilots with
> suitable experience see their landscape unfolding in what amounts to
> three D. Fly over a mountain ridge then a valley and claim it's not
> seen as 3D.

It's not seen as 3D. As I've said, depth perception only works to up to 100
feet or so. The rest depends on visual cues that may or may not be accurate.
Pilots who have misinterpreted the cues have regularly crashed and died.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Wrong, try again.
>>
>> http://www.airliners.net/photo/Virgin-Atlantic-Airways/Boeing-747-4Q8/0314046/L/
>
> Looks just like the sim.
>
>> Not shown are the dozens of switches and buttons on the overhead
>> panel.
>
> That's okay, I know what they are and what they do already.

Yeah, so what?

I noticed you snipped the part where you were wrong, i.e. where you stated
there were only a dozen of so switches and buttons.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[BeechSundowner]

On Mar 4, 2:15*pm, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
>
> >> Wrong, try again.
>
> >>http://www.airliners.net/photo/Virgin-Atlantic-Airways/Boeing-747-4Q8....
>
> > Looks just like the sim.
>
> >> Not shown are the dozens of switches and buttons on the overhead
> >> panel.
>
> > That's okay, I know what they are and what they do already.
>
> Yeah, so what?
>
> I noticed you snipped the part where you were wrong, i.e. where you stated
> there were only a dozen of so switches and buttons.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

It's been two hours staring at that screen (NOT) and I am still
looking for the altitude hold button LOL I'za along with the 100's of
passengers would have been dead 118 minutes ago looking for that durn
thing.

Is it a button, toggle switch, twist knob or what? Gee, imagine ATC
describing to me where to look as gravity's unyielding force is
applied against the airplane current course.

MAY DAY, MAY DAY!!! Oh dang it, ATC hung up the phone because John
Q pilot like myself didn't know where the altitude hold button was.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Yeah, so what?

So I'm better informed than most of the people arguing with me.

> I noticed you snipped the part where you were wrong, i.e. where you stated
> there were only a dozen of so switches and buttons.

It depends on which part of the panel you are looking at. Should I count
everything back to the cockpit door?

[Mxsmanic]

-b- writes:

> Fortunately, safe pilots are not so brazen. Instead of testosterone to assert
> knowledge, they rely on documentation and they cross-check.

They can do that with simulation alone.

[Mxsmanic]

-b- writes:

> No time is spent teaching pilots "clever ways to estimate distances"
> as this would be inconsistent with safety.

How else do they determine distances?

> No one can reguilarly crash and die.

True. It's a different pilot each time.

[Mxsmanic]

-b- writes:

> Sensorial clues supported by visual clues are quite different from the former
> without the latter, as is widely recognized in the pertinent literature. Close
> your eyes in VMC, and you're not really in VMC anymoe, are you. . .

If physical sensations were useful, you'd be able to fly with your eyes
closed. The fact that you cannot demonstrates that they are not useful.

About the best one can say about physical sensations is that they may alert
you to the fact that something has changed. That isn't terribly useful,
though, especially if you have kept your situational awareness to begin with.

> Not to worry - people regularly get confused when presented with tasks they
> do not comprehend.

It's a recall task, not a comprehension task, and few people have perfect
recall.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Yeah, so what?
>
> So I'm better informed than most of the people arguing with me.

Yeah, sure you are.

>> I noticed you snipped the part where you were wrong, i.e. where you stated
>> there were only a dozen of so switches and buttons.
>
> It depends on which part of the panel you are looking at.

Hardly.

Your statement was obvious nonsense from looking at the picture of
a real airplane.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
-b- > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> >
> >
> >-b- writes:
> >
> >> No time is spent teaching pilots "clever ways to estimate distances"
> >> as this would be inconsistent with safety.
> >
> >How else do they determine distances?
>
> By instruments. That's what they're there for.
> But this is news to many non-pilots, who in the face of all evidence fail
> to comprehend simple realities.

Funny, I've determined distance many times in planes with no
distance-determining instruments. An eye is fine for estimating, or a
map plus landmarks for larger distances. (My index finger is about 4
nautical miles wide on a sectional.) Although I was never really
explicitly taught any of these techniques, just picking them up by
immersion.

I have a GPS unit with my on most of my flights lately, but I don't
trust it, and make sure that I can still safely fly (which requires
determining distances!) should it fail.

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

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> -b- writes:
>
> > Sensorial clues supported by visual clues are quite different from the
> > former
> > without the latter, as is widely recognized in the pertinent literature.
> > Close
> > your eyes in VMC, and you're not really in VMC anymoe, are you. . .
>
> If physical sensations were useful, you'd be able to fly with your eyes
> closed. The fact that you cannot demonstrates that they are not useful.

What a colossally stupid thing to say.

"If the sense of balance were useful, you'd be able to walk around
safely with your eyes closed. The fact that you cannot demonstrates that
it is not useful."

There's a big difference between useful and sufficient.

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

[a[_3_]]

On Mar 5, 1:47*am, -b- > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>
>
> >-b- writes:
>
> >> No time is spent teaching pilots "clever ways to estimate distances"
> >> as this would be inconsistent with safety.
>
> >How else do they determine distances?
>
> By instruments. That's what they're there for.
> But this is news to many non-pilots, who in the face of all evidence fail
> to comprehend simple realities.
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -i

Well, not quite. "Extend your downwind a mile" is obeyed sans
instruments, ditto how far from the runway you fly your downind, or
when center announces traffic in visual conditions. In all cases we
poor two slobs who are farther away than the MX imposted 100 feet
somehow manage to muddle thru. He is confusing 3D stationary observer
perceptions with the real world we operate in. Ocular depth preception
that depends on the distance between our ours is one kind. The other
kind depends on what's between our ears, and among other things it's
sometimes called situational awareness. That is very much 3D, by the
way.

[Ibby]

> Not shown are the dozens of switches and buttons on the overhead
> panel.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Apart from lighting controls the overhead panel isn't required much
during flight and only necessary for pre-flight and engine start. It
of course requires monitoring with fuel systems being configured for
tank/engine when required but apart from that no real input from the
pilot. Most of the work is via the MCP on the glareshield and the FMC

Ibby

[Ibby]

> It's been two hours staring at that screen (NOT) and I am still
> looking for the altitude hold button LOL *I'za along with the 100's of
> passengers would have been dead 118 minutes ago looking for that durn
> thing.

See the '10000' on the MCP (the linear panel along the length of the
window)
Below that is a knob rotate it left to assign a lower altitude and
right to increase, below this knob is a button which clearly says
'HOLD'
There is also a 'HOLD' button below Heading too which means the
aircraft can retain a set heading or altitude whilst you change to the
next desired, pressing Heading Select will result in the aircraft
turning at a time of your choosing rather than the second you touch
the knob and VS (Vertical Speed) switch will start the aircraft
climbing or descending at a choosen rate when this is pressed too.

Ibby

[Ibby]

> Your statement was obvious nonsense from looking at the picture of
> a real airplane.

Afraid MX is correct on this one. The overhead panel on 737's and
747's handle the IRS's (Inertial Referencing System, these are like
GPS), Hydraulics Systems, Battery and Electrical power system, fuel
control systems, engine autostart systems and continuous ignition if
visible moisture is present,anti-ice, pressurisation and air
conditioning systems, fire control system and internal and external
lighting controls. They do NOT control the atitude and etc of the
aircraft and require little input after takeoff. The Flight
Management Computer controls the majority of the flight by taking
control of the autopilot and autothrottle systems. The Mode Control
Panel which has 13 buttons, 4 knobs and 2 switches for the Flight
Director and Autothrottle are really all that is required for input to
manually over-ride the active flightplan in the FMC.

Airline pilots use this method when vectored into an airport by ATC,
or when given specific headings to follow or altitude and speed
restrictions

Ibby

[Ibby]

> > No one can reguilarly crash and die.
>
> True. *It's a different pilot each time.

Sorry but that is funny observation ;-)

Ibby

[[email protected]]

Ibby > wrote:
>
>> Your statement was obvious nonsense from looking at the picture of
>> a real airplane.
>
> Afraid MX is correct on this one.

His original statement was there are only a dozen or so switches and
buttons.

If you look at the entire panel, there are a lot more then that.

> The overhead panel on 737's and
> 747's handle the IRS's (Inertial Referencing System, these are like
> GPS), Hydraulics Systems, Battery and Electrical power system, fuel
> control systems, engine autostart systems and continuous ignition if
> visible moisture is present,anti-ice, pressurisation and air
> conditioning systems, fire control system and internal and external
> lighting controls. They do NOT control the atitude and etc of the
> aircraft and require little input after takeoff. The Flight
> Management Computer controls the majority of the flight by taking
> control of the autopilot and autothrottle systems. The Mode Control
> Panel which has 13 buttons, 4 knobs and 2 switches for the Flight
> Director and Autothrottle are really all that is required for input to
> manually over-ride the active flightplan in the FMC.
>
> Airline pilots use this method when vectored into an airport by ATC,
> or when given specific headings to follow or altitude and speed
> restrictions
>
> Ibby

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Ibby > wrote:
>
>> Not shown are the dozens of switches and buttons on the overhead
>> panel.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> Apart from lighting controls the overhead panel isn't required much
> during flight and only necessary for pre-flight and engine start. It
> of course requires monitoring with fuel systems being configured for
> tank/engine when required but apart from that no real input from the
> pilot. Most of the work is via the MCP on the glareshield and the FMC
>
> Ibby

No one said it was required during flight.

The point of contention is how many switches and buttons are present
and have to be looked at to find a particular one, not what they do.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

>
> I'm talking to a pilot who largely admits having no clue about 747s, but
> that
> doesn't stop him from talking about them.

As opposed to a dumb assed, non-pilot that has no clue about a 747.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Yeah, so what?
>
> So I'm better informed than most of the people arguing with me.
>
>> I noticed you snipped the part where you were wrong, i.e. where you
>> stated
>> there were only a dozen of so switches and buttons.
>
> It depends on which part of the panel you are looking at. Should I count
> everything back to the cockpit door?

God you're stupid.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> -b- writes:
>
>> Fortunately, safe pilots are not so brazen. Instead of testosterone to
>> assert
>> knowledge, they rely on documentation and they cross-check.
>
> They can do that with simulation alone.

Prove it moron.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

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

> Some people will, but they have to start with an open mind.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaa, says the poster child for those with a closed mind.

There goes another irony meter.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

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


> It's not seen as 3D. As I've said, depth perception only works to up to
> 100
> feet or so. The rest depends on visual cues that may or may not be
> accurate.
> Pilots who have misinterpreted the cues have regularly crashed and died.

Prove it dumb ass.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Ibby writes:
>
>> I fully appreciate in IMC conditions you
>> use your instruments fully and don't rely on what you can/cannot see
>> outside.
>
> Sensations are largely useless in VMC, too. They are not any more
> reliable
> just because visibility is good. The reality is that you depend upon your
> eyes in VMC. Close your eyes and fly by the seat of your pants alone, and
> you'll be in trouble soon enough.
>
>> A big question asked by both myself
>> and MX is have those on here who have tried MSFS done it with good
>> quality commercial addon aircraft which are COMPLETELY different to
>> that which comes as standard on an FSX installation.
>
> I seriously doubt it.
>
>> The default 747
>> is total **** and a kid could operate it compared to the highly
>> complex PMDG models.
>
> It took me about two hours to figure out how to start a 737 with the PMDG
> model. Most of that time was spent reading manuals. Fortunately, now I
> can
> do it from memory, most of the time (the 747, 767, and 737 all have
> differences that can get confusing, so I have to fly them all periodically
> to
> maintain some semblance of currency).

You don't fly anything but a desk, retard.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's a recall task, not a comprehension task, and few people have perfect
> recall.

You're living proof of that!

[[email protected]]

I've worked on approved PCATDs with 85 x 185 degree visuals and
10-12 bit flight controls. Ive got news for you simmers. Without
experiencing the motion that occurs in turbulence or periodic cross
winds, you don't much of a chance of dealing with them correctly when
they happen. Your instinct from years of driving cars is to turn into
the gust immediately, when the best course of action is to let the
aircraft self correct, then put it back on the average course as
needed. Of course if it flips the wing too far over you have to start
to correct. Its a judgement call that has to be learned, and its not
easy.

I have a friend who takes me up on long cross countries, and while
the sim helps on nav and dealing with the overwhelming visuals, it
does not prepare you to deal with the false motion cues your ears and
eyes can generate. You'll be too fixated on single instruments with no
scan patterns And I'm used to sims with 6 projectors and seamless
visual integration and good flight models.

How can I say this with confidence ? I'm trying to transition
from far better sims then you guys have access to to the real thing. I
need to fix my health some more to pass the medical. While my
"instructor" credits me with a wonderful basic set of nav skills, I'm
constantly "busted" for getting fixated and for overcontrolling as
well as excessive dive/climb rates. I'd like to see you guys correctly
adjust a heading knob and center the needle on the CDI on the first
shot Especially knowing 200 or so lives are depending on you doing it
right while keeping one hand on the yoke. Its not easy, especially if
your trying to talk while doing it.

Steve

[Maxwell[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> I've worked on approved PCATDs with 85 x 185 degree visuals and
> 10-12 bit flight controls. Ive got news for you simmers. Without
> experiencing the motion that occurs in turbulence or periodic cross
> winds, you don't much of a chance of dealing with them correctly when
> they happen. Your instinct from years of driving cars is to turn into
> the gust immediately, when the best course of action is to let the
> aircraft self correct, then put it back on the average course as
> needed. Of course if it flips the wing too far over you have to start
> to correct. Its a judgement call that has to be learned, and its not
> easy.
>
> I have a friend who takes me up on long cross countries, and while
> the sim helps on nav and dealing with the overwhelming visuals, it
> does not prepare you to deal with the false motion cues your ears and
> eyes can generate. You'll be too fixated on single instruments with no
> scan patterns And I'm used to sims with 6 projectors and seamless
> visual integration and good flight models.
>
> How can I say this with confidence ? I'm trying to transition
> from far better sims then you guys have access to to the real thing. I
> need to fix my health some more to pass the medical. While my
> "instructor" credits me with a wonderful basic set of nav skills, I'm
> constantly "busted" for getting fixated and for overcontrolling as
> well as excessive dive/climb rates. I'd like to see you guys correctly
> adjust a heading knob and center the needle on the CDI on the first
> shot Especially knowing 200 or so lives are depending on you doing it
> right while keeping one hand on the yoke. Its not easy, especially if
> your trying to talk while doing it.
>
> Steve

Exactly right Steve just as these folks, primarily MX, have been told so
many times before. But these guys would never let actual experience
interfere with their desired perception of reality. Absolutely nothing is
too difficult for a person that never has to actually do it.

This group is primarily made up of actual pilots, that are obviously a bit
above the norm on computer literacy. When these "kids", for lack of a better
word, show up assuming that none of us has any experience with PC based
flight simulation, they might as well stamp "STUPID" on their foreheads. But
Mx, and the occasional supporter from the sim groups, are a dedicated group.
In fact, their persistence does little more than strongly suggest they are
very young and inexperienced at a lot of things. Any real pilot can listen
to one talk as see major contradictions in their statements with what pilots
have learned from experience. The gust factors you mentioned, vertigo,
sudden weightlessness from turbulence, changes in engine/wind noise with
your ears pop, are just the beginning of a very long list of things they can
not, and do not, want to understand.

[-b-]

In article >,
says...


>If they were easy, then a lot less time would be spent in pilot training
>warning pilots about how deceptive visual cues can be, and a lot less time
>would be spent teaching various clever ways to try to estimate distances.

Your resaerch has obviously led you astray. No time is spent teaching pilots
"clever ways to estimate distances" as this would be inconsistent with safety.
All information is presented in a way that precludes such estimations. In light
of your misconceptions, it is indeed fortunate that you are not a pilot, as you
would clearly be a dangerous one.
>
>
>It's not seen as 3D. As I've said, depth perception only works to up to 100
>feet or so. The rest depends on visual cues that may or may not be accurate.
>Pilots who have misinterpreted the cues have regularly crashed and died.

No one can reguilarly crash and die. That is a one time event. Life differs
from simulation. Death also.

[-b-]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Ibby writes:
>
>> I fully appreciate in IMC conditions you
>> use your instruments fully and don't rely on what you can/cannot see
>> outside.
>
>Sensations are largely useless in VMC, too. They are not any more reliable
>just because visibility is good. The reality is that you depend upon your
>eyes in VMC. Close your eyes and fly by the seat of your pants alone, and
>you'll be in trouble soon enough.

I'm afraid you are once again quite mistaken.
Sensorial clues supported by visual clues are quite different from the former
without the latter, as is widely recognized in the pertinent literature. Close
your eyes in VMC, and you're not really in VMC anymoe, are you. . .
>

>It took me about two hours to figure out how to start a 737 with the PMDG
>model. Most of that time was spent reading manuals. Fortunately, now I can
>do it from memory, most of the time (the 747, 767, and 737 all have
>differences that can get confusing, so I have to fly them all periodically to
>maintain some semblance of currency).

Not to worry - people regularly get confused when presented with tasks they
do not comprehend. Sometimes this can be fatal.

[-b-]

In article >,
says...
>
>
writes:
>
>> Wrong, try again.
>>
>>
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Virgin-Atlantic-Airways/Boeing-747-4Q8/0314046/L
/
>
>Looks just like the sim.
>
>> Not shown are the dozens of switches and buttons on the overhead
>> panel.
>
>That's okay, I know what they are and what they do already.

Fortunately, safe pilots are not so brazen. Instead of testosterone to assert
knowledge, they rely on documentation and they cross-check.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> I've worked on approved PCATDs with 85 x 185 degree visuals and
> 10-12 bit flight controls. Ive got news for you simmers. Without
> experiencing the motion that occurs in turbulence or periodic cross
> winds, you don't much of a chance of dealing with them correctly when
> they happen. Your instinct from years of driving cars is to turn into
> the gust immediately, when the best course of action is to let the
> aircraft self correct, then put it back on the average course as
> needed. Of course if it flips the wing too far over you have to start
> to correct. Its a judgement call that has to be learned, and its not
> easy.
>
> I have a friend who takes me up on long cross countries, and while
> the sim helps on nav and dealing with the overwhelming visuals, it
> does not prepare you to deal with the false motion cues your ears and
> eyes can generate. You'll be too fixated on single instruments with no
> scan patterns And I'm used to sims with 6 projectors and seamless
> visual integration and good flight models.
>
> How can I say this with confidence ? I'm trying to transition
> from far better sims then you guys have access to to the real thing. I
> need to fix my health some more to pass the medical. While my
> "instructor" credits me with a wonderful basic set of nav skills, I'm
> constantly "busted" for getting fixated and for overcontrolling as
> well as excessive dive/climb rates. I'd like to see you guys correctly
> adjust a heading knob and center the needle on the CDI on the first
> shot Especially knowing 200 or so lives are depending on you doing it
> right while keeping one hand on the yoke. Its not easy, especially if
> your trying to talk while doing it.
>
> Steve

Exactly right Steve just as these folks, primarily MX, have been told so
many times before. But these guys would never let actual experience
interfere with their desired perception of reality. Absolutely nothing is
too difficult for a person that never has to actually do it.

This group is primarily made up of actual pilots, that are obviously a bit
above the norm on computer literacy. When these "kids", for lack of a better
word, show up assuming that none of us has any experience with PC based
flight simulation, they might as well stamp "STUPID" on their foreheads. But
Mx, and the occasional supporter from the sim groups, are a dedicated group.
In fact, their persistence does little more than strongly suggest they are
very young and inexperienced at a lot of things. Any real pilot can listen
to one talk as see major contradictions in their statements with what pilots
have learned from experience. The gust factors you mentioned, vertigo,
sudden weightlessness from turbulence, changes in engine/wind noise with
your ears pop, are just the beginning of a very long list of things they can
not, and do not, want to understand.

[-b-]

In article >,
says...
>
>

>> Not to worry - people regularly get confused when presented with tasks
they
>> do not comprehend.
>
>It's a recall task, not a comprehension task, and few people have perfect
>recall.

Recall comes with repeated experience. Your present confusion is therfore
understandable, as is your present condition as a dangerous element in any
airplane.

[-b-]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>-b- writes:
>
>> No time is spent teaching pilots "clever ways to estimate distances"
>> as this would be inconsistent with safety.
>
>How else do they determine distances?

By instruments. That's what they're there for.
But this is news to many non-pilots, who in the face of all evidence fail
to comprehend simple realities.
>

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Your statement was obvious nonsense from looking at the picture of
> a real airplane.

Not necessary. I can just look in the sim.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> I've worked on approved PCATDs with 85 x 185 degree visuals and
> 10-12 bit flight controls. Ive got news for you simmers. Without
> experiencing the motion that occurs in turbulence or periodic cross
> winds, you don't much of a chance of dealing with them correctly when
> they happen. Your instinct from years of driving cars is to turn into
> the gust immediately, when the best course of action is to let the
> aircraft self correct, then put it back on the average course as
> needed. Of course if it flips the wing too far over you have to start
> to correct. Its a judgement call that has to be learned, and its not
> easy.

I'm sure it's difficult for some people.

> You'll be too fixated on single instruments with no
> scan patterns And I'm used to sims with 6 projectors and seamless
> visual integration and good flight models.

I scan instruments thoroughly. That's easy to learn in a sim.

> I'd like to see you guys correctly
> adjust a heading knob and center the needle on the CDI on the first
> shot Especially knowing 200 or so lives are depending on you doing it
> right while keeping one hand on the yoke. Its not easy, especially if
> your trying to talk while doing it.

I don't talk when flying. Maybe that's the problem.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Ash writes:

> "If the sense of balance were useful, you'd be able to walk around
> safely with your eyes closed. The fact that you cannot demonstrates that
> it is not useful."

I have no trouble walking with my eyes closed. The vestibular system is
designed for that. It's not designed for flying, however.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Your statement was obvious nonsense from looking at the picture of
>> a real airplane.
>
> Not necessary. I can just look in the sim.

Exactly the point, pin head. Keep looking at your game, and dreaming of
reality.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> I've worked on approved PCATDs with 85 x 185 degree visuals and
>> 10-12 bit flight controls. Ive got news for you simmers. Without
>> experiencing the motion that occurs in turbulence or periodic cross
>> winds, you don't much of a chance of dealing with them correctly when
>> they happen. Your instinct from years of driving cars is to turn into
>> the gust immediately, when the best course of action is to let the
>> aircraft self correct, then put it back on the average course as
>> needed. Of course if it flips the wing too far over you have to start
>> to correct. Its a judgement call that has to be learned, and its not
>> easy.
>
> I'm sure it's difficult for some people.
>
>> You'll be too fixated on single instruments with no
>> scan patterns And I'm used to sims with 6 projectors and seamless
>> visual integration and good flight models.
>
> I scan instruments thoroughly. That's easy to learn in a sim.
>
>> I'd like to see you guys correctly
>> adjust a heading knob and center the needle on the CDI on the first
>> shot Especially knowing 200 or so lives are depending on you doing it
>> right while keeping one hand on the yoke. Its not easy, especially if
>> your trying to talk while doing it.
>
> I don't talk when flying. Maybe that's the problem.

How would you know moron, you don't fly. You have no clue.

[-b-]

In article
>,
says...
>
>
>
>> > No one can reguilarly crash and die.
>>
>> True. *It's a different pilot each time.
>
>Sorry but that is funny observation ;-)
>


For some of us, an attempt to recover from a stupid mistake does not
qualify as an "observation".

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Ash writes:
>
>> "If the sense of balance were useful, you'd be able to walk around
>> safely with your eyes closed. The fact that you cannot demonstrates that
>> it is not useful."
>
> I have no trouble walking with my eyes closed. The vestibular system is
> designed for that. It's not designed for flying, however.

Doesn't seem to help you with perceptions of reality.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Your statement was obvious nonsense from looking at the picture of
>> a real airplane.
>
> Not necessary. I can just look in the sim.

And see that your statement was obvious nonsense.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I don't talk when flying. Maybe that's the problem.

Unless one is flying an ultralight over a corn field in Nebraska, one
HAS to talk while flying a real airplane.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[-b-]

In article
>,
says...
>
>
>
>> Your statement was obvious nonsense from looking at the picture of
>> a real airplane.
>
>Afraid MX is correct on this one. The overhead panel on 737's and
>747's handle the IRS's (Inertial Referencing System, these are like
>GPS),

Some of us appear to have a very abbreviated sense of what is "right"
To posit that an airliner's Inertial Navigation System is "kinda like
GPS" is akin to stating that the aileron controls work like a steering
wheel! Neither approximation will get the ship safely to port.

Yours is a dangerous and irresponsible contribution.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Mike Ash writes:
>
> > "If the sense of balance were useful, you'd be able to walk around
> > safely with your eyes closed. The fact that you cannot demonstrates that
> > it is not useful."
>
> I have no trouble walking with my eyes closed. The vestibular system is
> designed for that. It's not designed for flying, however.

Pray tell, how do you avoid running into walls, falling down stairs,
getting hit by cars, etc. when you do that?

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

[Darkwing]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Ash writes:
>
>> "If the sense of balance were useful, you'd be able to walk around
>> safely with your eyes closed. The fact that you cannot demonstrates that
>> it is not useful."
>
> I have no trouble walking with my eyes closed. The vestibular system is
> designed for that. It's not designed for flying, however.

You're so amazing!

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Unless one is flying an ultralight over a corn field in Nebraska, one
> HAS to talk while flying a real airplane.

There are many situations in which no radio contact with anyone is required.
Indeed, a communications radio itself is not an absolute requirement.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Example: I flew to KSBD Saturday and was told to enter on a 3 mile
> final. Knowing the runway is about 2 miles long, I aimed for a spot
> about one and a half runway lengths out. You only need enough accuracy
> to maintain separation from other traffic.

So how close were you to the specified three miles?

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Ash writes:

> Pray tell, how do you avoid running into walls, falling down stairs,
> getting hit by cars, etc. when you do that?

The question is one of equilibrium, not obstacle avoidance. There are no
stairs, walls, or cars in the air.

It is possible to walk competently for an indefinite period with one's eyes
closed. It is not possible to fly competently for any significant period with
eyes closed.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Unless one is flying an ultralight over a corn field in Nebraska, one
>> HAS to talk while flying a real airplane.
>
> There are many situations in which no radio contact with anyone is required.
> Indeed, a communications radio itself is not an absolute requirement.

There are very few places in the US where flying a certified airplane
without a radio is both legal and a wise thing to do, which is why
people with things like old Champs with no electrical system usually
have a handheld.

Sure, with proper planning, one could legally cross the entire country
without a radio, but it would be immensely stupid to do it.

Your absolutist nonsense is just that; nonsense in the real world where
there is no reset button.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Example: I flew to KSBD Saturday and was told to enter on a 3 mile
>> final. Knowing the runway is about 2 miles long, I aimed for a spot
>> about one and a half runway lengths out. You only need enough accuracy
>> to maintain separation from other traffic.
>
> So how close were you to the specified three miles?

Close enough to be safe and satisfy the tower, since in real life those
are the relevant criteria.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Mike Ash writes:
>
>> Pray tell, how do you avoid running into walls, falling down stairs,
>> getting hit by cars, etc. when you do that?
>
> The question is one of equilibrium, not obstacle avoidance. There are no
> stairs, walls, or cars in the air.
>
> It is possible to walk competently for an indefinite period with one's eyes
> closed. It is not possible to fly competently for any significant period with
> eyes closed.

Turn on the autopilot.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Ash writes:
>
>> Pray tell, how do you avoid running into walls, falling down stairs,
>> getting hit by cars, etc. when you do that?
>
> The question is one of equilibrium, not obstacle avoidance. There are no
> stairs, walls, or cars in the air.
>
> It is possible to walk competently for an indefinite period with one's
> eyes
> closed. It is not possible to fly competently for any significant period
> with
> eyes closed.

Really, and when was the last time you tried that, retard?

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Mike Ash writes:
>
> > Pray tell, how do you avoid running into walls, falling down stairs,
> > getting hit by cars, etc. when you do that?
>
> The question is one of equilibrium, not obstacle avoidance. There are no
> stairs, walls, or cars in the air.
>
> It is possible to walk competently for an indefinite period with one's eyes
> closed. It is not possible to fly competently for any significant period with
> eyes closed.

No, the question is whether "you can't rely on this sense alone" is
equivalent to "this sense is not useful". Walking consists of a LOT more
than staying upright. Close your eyes next time you're walking down the
street and see how long it takes you to get hit by a bus. Clearly you
need your eyes. And yet, your sense of balance is still useful. So it is
with physical sensations in VMC.

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

[[email protected]]

On Mar 5, 9:27

And now, for something entirely different!

What you don't know about, I have to measure for a living. You fly
code that is barely close to a PCATD. Thats a joke approval wise. You
answer about 10 questions in a 5-10 page document, and you promise to
get reapproval if you make hardware or flight model changes to the
unit. A busy guy from the local FSDO comes out and test flys it for
about 30 minutes to sign you off. Its a formality at best. There are
small minutae in the rules for the quality of the visuals, and how the
flight model has to handle, but no specs on how tight the timing loops
in the software must match the real aircraft.

IN MS, you are always about 150-200 mS , ie one tenth to two tenths
of a second or more behind the flight model on the visuals, and your
flight model is updating every 16.76 ms, and that is tied to the
monitor vertical refresh rate, which is one of the few accurate
timing sources on a PC platform under windows. In fact window's
timing varies all over the place. As a result, they have to do a lot
of fudges in the code to smooth things out. From the 1978 Skyhawk
manual, 65 KIAS is the recommended speed for just about everything.
One knot is 1.68 feet per second. So at 65 knots your doing 109
feet per second. A 200 mS error at 109 feet per second is 22 feet
on the runway distance or roughly 5 feet on a 3 degree glide slope.
So your +/- 10 feet visually off or below the runway in software at
any given time right as your wheels hit.

Lets recalculate that for a F18. FAS.org claims 134 knots
approach, your moving 226 feet per second, and on a 3' glide slope
thats 11 feet. Since your always at least 200 mS behind, you have a
potential error of +/- 22 feet at that airspeed and that update rate.
Moral of the story, FS is helping you land with a software fudge,
because the granularity of your visual corrections is very rough as
you get close to the ground. In a real aircraft, there are cables and
servosystems, they react nearly instantly, but there is no software
fudge on a manual landing. Yet in MSFS, even a 10 year old kid can
hit the edge of the stripes on the runway time after time, because
the visual update rates must be slowed close to the ground. The math
says it has to be, or you would miss the deck by some multiple of 22
feet. IN a real aircraft, there is no 22 foot vertical fudge. Plus
that doesn't include the average human's .1 second reaction rate.

How do we measure that 200 mS delay?, there are a couple of ways.
You can command a max roll on the stick and measure the time to the
aircrafts maximum roll rate analysing the video on a tape frame by
frame. Or you can have a switch on the stick, a special pixel
programmed to flip from black to white, and a digital timer with a
photosensor. I know for a fact the delay on FS04 is roughly 150 mS
minimum from max command input to a visual change. That is a measured
value. FS10 will be no faster, its a hardware thing.

So if we put you in a real aircraft, you've been trained to
compensate for a time lag on all your reactions. That is a Bad thing.

Next up, lets talk about your feel for the controls.

You invariably have a 8 bit control resolution on your joystick,
ie your stick position is one possible position in 256 available.
So lets say your joystick swings +/- 20 degrees, that means you need
to move your stick 7 degrees before the software even notices it. You
move a real yoke 7 degrees and your gonna really be rolling or
pitching. So your already trained to overcontrol if we plop you in
that 747 cockpit. Oh and it gets worse. To smooth things out, you'll
find that in slow flight MS and other simulators condition you to
jerk the controls quite a bit to get motion started in the above
mentioned landing mode. Its control law smoothing, and its done to
make you feel comfortable as you approach the ground, otherwise with
that 200 mS lag, you'd come darn close grinding a wing tip into the
ground from the roll error every time. The real aircraft, other then
control system friction and cable stretching, has unlimited
resolution, and the flight response shows it.

MS does a lot of fudging to make your flight smooth and landings easy.
The real thing doesn't. Heck, with those errors how do you think
people can catch the wire in carrier landings on consumer sim
software, time after time? The answer is the flight model code is
doing it for you. Especially when landing.

Still think you'd make it if we stuck you a in a real plane alone?
Odds are you'd lead or lag in time so much on the landing you'd
break the gear or cartwheel. Your conditioned to do it by the code and
the system timing and control resolution.

I'm curious, is your sim set up so one PC runs the flight model and
controls and the other does the visuals? Or do you just have one
machine and one graphics card? . Because we need one dedicated flight
model machine just to get rid of the lag. And we use 10 bit controls,
and I'm being asked for more resolution.

Oh, dont get me started on flight models. Look at a real Bell 206.
It does have horizontal stabilizers, does it not? If you look closely
the airfoil is inverted on them. Well, most flight models put them in
as flat planes. This causes the aircraft to oscillate in pitch as the
airspeed increases. It took a long while to figure out that the guy
who did the flight model was wrong on that.

In one very popular sim, the rotorcraft model is a cessna 172 body
with a rotor added and the wing removed, and the tail rotor and main
rotors are defined as a thrusters. Because their is no rotor disk in
the form of a wing , Ground effect does not show up on approach.

Your basic sim software is very unlike the real thing.

Steve

[Jon]

On Mar 5, 9:33*pm, wrote:
> On Mar 5, 9:27
>
> *And now, for something entirely different!
> [snip for brevity]

Great post, Steve!

> * Your basic sim software is very unlike the real thing.

Indeed. The Human Factors group here has done extensive research which
bears this out.

Regards,
Jon

"This will end your Windows session. Would you like to play another
game?"

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> So if we put you in a real aircraft, you've been trained to
> compensate for a time lag on all your reactions. That is a Bad thing.

I don't anticipate that it would be a problem. There's more variation from
one specific aircraft to another, even of the same model, than there is in
what you describe. It would be interesting to see how many real-world pilots
could touch down consistently with 5-foot accuracy.

> Next up, lets talk about your feel for the controls.

See above.

What you are essentially saying is that driving one car doesn't allow you to
drive any others, because they all have a different control feel and different
timing. Obviously, in the real world, that isn't the case. Small differences
are easy to compensate for.

It is true that if you are a skilled aerobatic pilot, and you move abruptly
from one specific aircraft to another and then attempt maneuvers that require
extremely precise control, you might have a problem. But normal flying
doesn't require that--which is a good thing, because otherwise you'd be
risking your life just changing from one Cessna 152 to another.

> ... that means you need to move your stick 7 degrees before the
> software even notices it.

Not my joystick.

> Oh and it gets worse. To smooth things out, you'll
> find that in slow flight MS and other simulators condition you to
> jerk the controls quite a bit to get motion started in the above
> mentioned landing mode.

I don't have to jerk the controls to get motion started. Are we really
talking about the same sim?

> Its control law smoothing, and its done to
> make you feel comfortable as you approach the ground, otherwise with
> that 200 mS lag, you'd come darn close grinding a wing tip into the
> ground from the roll error every time. The real aircraft, other then
> control system friction and cable stretching, has unlimited
> resolution, and the flight response shows it.

In other words, the real aircraft is a lot easier to fly. So if I can fly
successfully in a sim with all its limitations, I can certainly do it in real
life, where those limitations don't exist. If I can fly and compensate for
delays and smoothing and what-not in a sim, I can certainly fly when no
compensation is needed.

Perhaps that helps explain why so many pilots who can fly competently in real
life cannot successfully land in the sim.

> MS does a lot of fudging to make your flight smooth and landings easy.
> The real thing doesn't. Heck, with those errors how do you think
> people can catch the wire in carrier landings on consumer sim
> software, time after time? The answer is the flight model code is
> doing it for you. Especially when landing.

In the past, the carrier was massively oversized; I don't know if that is
still the case, as I don't attempt to land on carriers.

> Still think you'd make it if we stuck you a in a real plane alone?

Yes.

> Odds are you'd lead or lag in time so much on the landing you'd
> break the gear or cartwheel. Your conditioned to do it by the code and
> the system timing and control resolution.

The conditioning is not strong and is easy to overcome. Human beings are very
flexible.

> I'm curious, is your sim set up so one PC runs the flight model and
> controls and the other does the visuals? Or do you just have one
> machine and one graphics card?

The latter.

> In one very popular sim, the rotorcraft model is a cessna 172 body
> with a rotor added and the wing removed, and the tail rotor and main
> rotors are defined as a thrusters. Because their is no rotor disk in
> the form of a wing , Ground effect does not show up on approach.

I don't fly rotary-wing aircraft as a general rule, but I've heard that MSFS
does a respectable job.

> Your basic sim software is very unlike the real thing.

So is yours. But it still does the job.

You underestimate the ability of people to compensate for the differences you
describe. And the differences you describe are in some cases smaller than the
real-world random differences with which a pilot would have to cope.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Close enough to be safe and satisfy the tower, since in real life those
> are the relevant criteria.

What was the exact figure? 3.2 miles? 3.0004 miles? 4.5 miles?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> And if it doesn't move, the movement relative to the nose of the aircraft
> is, wait for it, zero.

In the sim, I have the nose of the aircraft turned off most of the time, but I
can see what is moving with respect to the screen borders, which serves the
same purpose (MSFS also provides a guide that you can optionally put on the
screen, if you need it).

[Maxwell[_2_]]

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

Complete denial in the face of complete explanation.

You have proven yourself certifiable, beyond any reasonable doubt.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Close enough to be safe and satisfy the tower, since in real life those
>> are the relevant criteria.
>
> What was the exact figure? 3.2 miles? 3.0004 miles? 4.5 miles?

You clearly answered that one yourself, dumb ass.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Close enough to be safe and satisfy the tower, since in real life those
>> are the relevant criteria.
>
> What was the exact figure? 3.2 miles? 3.0004 miles? 4.5 miles?

Close enough to be safe and satisfy the tower, since in real life those
are the relevant criteria and no one cares about putting error bars on
the number.

No one but an anal retentive buffoon would ask such an asinine question.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> And if it doesn't move, the movement relative to the nose of the aircraft
>> is, wait for it, zero.
>
> In the sim, I have the nose of the aircraft turned off most of the time, but I
> can see what is moving with respect to the screen borders, which serves the
> same purpose (MSFS also provides a guide that you can optionally put on the
> screen, if you need it).

Whoopee!!! It went right over your head, didn't it?

In a real airplane you don't have screen borders, a nose you can turn off,
or a "guide" you can turn on.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
wrote:

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
> >
> >> Close enough to be safe and satisfy the tower, since in real life those
> >> are the relevant criteria.
> >
> > What was the exact figure? 3.2 miles? 3.0004 miles? 4.5 miles?
>
> Close enough to be safe and satisfy the tower, since in real life those
> are the relevant criteria and no one cares about putting error bars on
> the number.
>
> No one but an anal retentive buffoon would ask such an asinine question.

Especially since the second figure requires an accuracy of SIX INCHES,
something no instrument comes even close to. Even WAAS-augmented GPS
only gets you about three feet, or five times worse, and the
*guaranteed* accuracy is more like 25 feet.

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

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> writes:
>
> > Close enough to be safe and satisfy the tower, since in real life those
> > are the relevant criteria.
>
> What was the exact figure? 3.2 miles? 3.0004 miles? 4.5 miles?

Why do you think an exact figure is important?

If you were a real pilot, you'd know the answer, and wouldn't post such
a silly question.

--
Duncan

[[email protected]]

Its Quiz time MX!

Lets get serious, your a serious simmer, answer the questions!

What motherboard do you use?, what processor do you have ?, What
graphics card do you use?

Which yoke or joystick do you use? Model number?

What is the diagonal size of your monitor?

Do you have rudder pedals?

Whose flight model and terrain model do you use?

What aircraft do you like to fly?

And the biggie , How much memory on the motherboard?


I'll get you started, Graphics Machines:

IBM8400 @ 2.4 ghz, 6 of them in parallel.
Nvidia 8900 Series, 6 of them.
4 gig of ram minimum.
custom made, custom made , custom made, and custom for all the rest.

5 XGA resolution projectors.
One 17" diagonal LCD for the instrument panel.

Flight processor on a hotter machine I cant discuss because of ND.

Flight model by career aerospace engineer. Also under ND.

Steve

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Close enough to be safe and satisfy the tower, since in real life those
> are the relevant criteria and no one cares about putting error bars on
> the number.

In other words, you don't actually know if you measured 3 miles correctly or
not, so there's really no basis for claiming that you did so.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Ash writes:

> Especially since the second figure requires an accuracy of SIX INCHES,
> something no instrument comes even close to. Even WAAS-augmented GPS
> only gets you about three feet, or five times worse, and the
> *guaranteed* accuracy is more like 25 feet.

So a sim that is five or 25 feet off isn't so bad, eh?

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> Why do you think an exact figure is important?

Hmm. So precision is all important when it comes to discrediting simulation,
but suddenly isn't a big deal when it comes to pilots flying the real thing?

A five-foot difference makes a sim inaccurate, but 25 feet is good for a
pilot?

How can both of these things be true simultaneously?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> In a real airplane you don't have screen borders, a nose you can turn off,
> or a "guide" you can turn on.

I know (although actually you can put something on the windshield that can
work in a similar way).

The point is the validity of finding the spot that doesn't move, not the
reference that you use to do it. Hopefully you wouldn't be lost in the sim if
you had no aircraft nose to use as a reference.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Dave Doe writes:
>
> > Why do you think an exact figure is important?
>
> Hmm. So precision is all important when it comes to discrediting simulation,
> but suddenly isn't a big deal when it comes to pilots flying the real thing?
>
> A five-foot difference makes a sim inaccurate, but 25 feet is good for a
> pilot?
>
> How can both of these things be true simultaneously?

Because they're in different situations. One is talking about altitude
above the runway right as you're touching down, where the TOTAL distance
may only be five feet, and the other is talking about distance from the
runway where the TOTAL distance is three miles.

In other words, it's percentage that counts, not absolute accuracy. Five
feet wrong over the runway can mean you're off by 1000%. 25 feet wrong
when you're three miles away means you're off by 0.16%.

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

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Mike Ash writes:
>
>> Especially since the second figure requires an accuracy of SIX INCHES,
>> something no instrument comes even close to. Even WAAS-augmented GPS
>> only gets you about three feet, or five times worse, and the
>> *guaranteed* accuracy is more like 25 feet.
>
> So a sim that is five or 25 feet off isn't so bad, eh?

It is just irrelevant.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Close enough to be safe and satisfy the tower, since in real life those
>> are the relevant criteria and no one cares about putting error bars on
>> the number.
>
> In other words, you don't actually know if you measured 3 miles correctly or
> not, so there's really no basis for claiming that you did so.

Of course I do; the tower is the final arbiter of whether or not I was
in the right place, and the real tower with the real controller was
satisfied.

Real controllers in real towers are not shy about telling pilots they
are in the wrong place.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> In a real airplane you don't have screen borders, a nose you can turn off,
>> or a "guide" you can turn on.
>
> I know (although actually you can put something on the windshield that can
> work in a similar way).

And this relates to you being unable to understand that "zero movement"
means "stationary" in what way?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
> > Why do you think an exact figure is important?
>
> Hmm. So precision is all important when it comes to discrediting simulation,
> but suddenly isn't a big deal when it comes to pilots flying the real thing?

I didn't say that, why do you?

> A five-foot difference makes a sim inaccurate, but 25 feet is good for a
> pilot?

I didn't say that, why do you?

> How can both of these things be true simultaneously?

Why don't you answer the question I put to you.

--
Duncan

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> It is just irrelevant.

Exactly.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Of course I do; the tower is the final arbiter of whether or not I was
> in the right place, and the real tower with the real controller was
> satisfied.

So did they tell you exactly how far you were? If so, how close were you? If
not, how can you make any statements about accuracy with no clear idea of what
accuracy is required?

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> It is just irrelevant.
>
> Exactly.

Yeah, exactly like yourself.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Of course I do; the tower is the final arbiter of whether or not I was
>> in the right place, and the real tower with the real controller was
>> satisfied.
>
> So did they tell you exactly how far you were? If so, how close were you?
> If
> not, how can you make any statements about accuracy with no clear idea of
> what
> accuracy is required?

It's kind of like your presence on this group, it's totally insignificant.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> It is just irrelevant.
>
> Exactly.

I'm all aglow that you've realized your sim "experience" is irrelevant.

You've made real progress.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Of course I do; the tower is the final arbiter of whether or not I was
>> in the right place, and the real tower with the real controller was
>> satisfied.
>
> So did they tell you exactly how far you were? If so, how close were you? If
> not, how can you make any statements about accuracy with no clear idea of what
> accuracy is required?

I'll type this real slow so you have a better chance of understanding
the concepts involved, though you may still have to read it several
times to understand.

ATC, i.e. the real controller in the real tower, is the final arbiter,
judge, referee, umpire, authority, and decider of the required accuracy
of any manuever.

Real ATC does not provide "scores" because we are not playing a game.

If the accuracy of a manuever by a real pilot in a real airplane satisfies
the accuracy requirements of the real ATC controller, nothing is said about
the manuever.

If the accuracy of a manuever by a real pilot in a real airplane does
NOT satisfy the accuracy requirements of the real ATC controller, the
real pilot is informed of his error.

Since I received no feedback from the tower on the accuracy of my manuever,
the final arbiter, judge, referee, umpire, authority, and decider of the
required accuracy was satisfied.

QED.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> I'll type this real slow so you have a better chance of understanding
> the concepts involved, though you may still have to read it several
> times to understand.

The speed at which you type it has no effect on the speed at which I read it,
since I will see it only after you've entirely finished typing it.

> If the accuracy of a manuever by a real pilot in a real airplane satisfies
> the accuracy requirements of the real ATC controller, nothing is said about
> the manuever.

If a pilot doesn't know the accuracy of his maneuver, it doesn't make much
sense for him to boast about it.

> Since I received no feedback from the tower on the accuracy of my manuever,
> the final arbiter, judge, referee, umpire, authority, and decider of the
> required accuracy was satisfied.

Nothing obligates controllers to say anything when they are dissatisfied with
a pilot's performance, and indeed, as long as there is no influence on their
assigned tasks, they tend to remain silent.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> I'll type this real slow so you have a better chance of understanding
>> the concepts involved, though you may still have to read it several
>> times to understand.
>
> The speed at which you type it has no effect on the speed at which I read it,
> since I will see it only after you've entirely finished typing it.

The went right over the top of your head, didn't it?

One wonders if you would pass the Turing test.

>> If the accuracy of a manuever by a real pilot in a real airplane satisfies
>> the accuracy requirements of the real ATC controller, nothing is said about
>> the manuever.
>
> If a pilot doesn't know the accuracy of his maneuver, it doesn't make much
> sense for him to boast about it.

You will never hear a pilot boasting about the accuracy of his maneuver
in normal flying because the whole concept is rediculous.

Normal flying is pass/fail.

Even on the practical test where there are objective criteria such as
holding +/- 100 feet in altitude you will not hear any numbers from the
examiner; all you will hear is pass/fail.

About the only place in real aviation where you will hear accuracy numbers
is in games (Gasp!! Yes, real pilots do play games) such as spot landing
contests.

Accuracy numbers, i.e. scores, are for games, which is probably why you
seem to be obsessed by the subject.

<snip ignorant babble>


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ibby]

>
> His original statement was there are only a dozen or so switches and
> buttons.

No, I believe his original statement related to those buttons which
are required for the pilot to manually control the aircraft and over
ride the active route in the Flight Management Computer and those
buttons are on the Mode Control Panel which is a portion of the panel
above the 'glass cockpit' and below the window. The overhead panel
and many other panels are NOT required during the majority of flight,
they are for pre-flight and engine starts. The majority of the
console between the pilot and his first officer are for radio,
navigation radios, TCAS, transponders, weather tracking controls,
autobrakes, passenger signs etc.

I keep posting this typical approach and landing of a real 747-400.
Whilst the FMC has the active route ATC require the pilot to retain
certain headings, altutude and speeds which are ALL entered via these
'dozen or so switches', watch it and you will see. This isn't coming
from my perspective or MXs but Boeings
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ShBOtPiuNM

Ibby

[Ibby]

> Some of us appear to have a very abbreviated sense of what is "right"
> To posit that an airliner's Inertial Navigation System is "kinda like
> GPS" is akin to stating that the aileron controls work like a steering
> wheel! Neither approximation will get the ship safely to port.
>
> Yours is a dangerous and irresponsible contribution.

The IRS system IS a system that provides positioning data of the
aircraft to the Flight Management Computer but is not as accurate as
modern GPS so my comments stand correctly. They perform the SAME
function but GPS use is more common now.
The 747-400 uses both an IRS and GPS data. NOTAMS will display which
countries are GPS certified. The Pilot must configure the Flight
Management Computer when flying over these countries so that the the
IRS positions aren't updated with an innaccurate GPS position

Ibby

[[email protected]]

Ibby > wrote:
>
>>
>> His original statement was there are only a dozen or so switches and
>> buttons.
>
> No, I believe his original statement related to those buttons which
> are required for the pilot to manually control the aircraft and over
> ride the active route in the Flight Management Computer and those
> buttons are on the Mode Control Panel which is a portion of the panel
> above the 'glass cockpit' and below the window. The overhead panel
> and many other panels are NOT required during the majority of flight,
> they are for pre-flight and engine starts. The majority of the
> console between the pilot and his first officer are for radio,
> navigation radios, TCAS, transponders, weather tracking controls,
> autobrakes, passenger signs etc.

I believe the original discussion was about someone with no clue
finding the correct button to push to do a particular thing amongst
ALL the buttons one would see.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

Ibby writes:

> The IRS system IS a system that provides positioning data of the
> aircraft to the Flight Management Computer but is not as accurate as
> modern GPS so my comments stand correctly. They perform the SAME
> function but GPS use is more common now.

The IRS is more accurate over short distances and times, but the GPS is much
more accurate over long distances and times, whence the utility of using both.

> The 747-400 uses both an IRS and GPS data. NOTAMS will display which
> countries are GPS certified. The Pilot must configure the Flight
> Management Computer when flying over these countries so that the the
> IRS positions aren't updated with an innaccurate GPS position

GPS accuracy is not country-dependent, since it is a space-based system. I've
never heard of GPS certification for countries; can you point me to a typical
NOTAM for this?

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> I'll type this real slow so you have a better chance of understanding
>> the concepts involved, though you may still have to read it several
>> times to understand.
>
> The speed at which you type it has no effect on the speed at which I read
> it,
> since I will see it only after you've entirely finished typing it.
>
>> If the accuracy of a manuever by a real pilot in a real airplane
>> satisfies
>> the accuracy requirements of the real ATC controller, nothing is said
>> about
>> the manuever.
>
> If a pilot doesn't know the accuracy of his maneuver, it doesn't make much
> sense for him to boast about it.
>
>> Since I received no feedback from the tower on the accuracy of my
>> manuever,
>> the final arbiter, judge, referee, umpire, authority, and decider of the
>> required accuracy was satisfied.
>
> Nothing obligates controllers to say anything when they are dissatisfied
> with
> a pilot's performance, and indeed, as long as there is no influence on
> their
> assigned tasks, they tend to remain silent.

Clearly clueless, you have no idea.

[Ibby]

> I believe the original discussion was about someone with no clue
> finding the correct button to push to do a particular thing amongst
> ALL the buttons one would see.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes that is correct Jim but then it very quickly changed because of
everyones attitude towards MX (rightly so at times) stating that his
aquired 'familiarisation' of a certain aircraft through a simulator/
game would have NO bearing on what sat forefore you on the real
flightdeck and this is where I stepped in to partially agreeing with
MX's views (not his methods of response as others here just talk back
in the same manner). I personally have FSX, a default installation is
pretty **** for aircraft systems and flightdecks to put it bluntly.
The default 747 bears virtually NO similarity to what is on a real 747
flightdeck with hardly anything modelled and most switches having NO
effect. Good quality payware aircraft like PMDG 747-400X HAS a
photorealistic 3D Cockpit which you can look around with the right pc
hardware (TrackIR). Every button, every switch, every panel, every
display on the glass cockpit IS the same as the real one. You can
Google for real images till your heart is content or use the official
Boeing sites or the likes of Airliners.net to compare sim to real.
Most ppl on this forum just denounce it bears ZERO resemblence to the
real flightdecks for which they model yet somehow the Trades
Description Act has yet to be brought in and these Vendor's prosecuted
for 'pretending' they bear a similarity.

Ibby

[Ibby]

> GPS accuracy is not country-dependent, since it is a space-based system. *I've
> never heard of GPS certification for countries; can you point me to a typical
> NOTAM for this?

I am quoting from Angle of Attacks comprehensive video guide on the
FMC's POS REF page.
They state that the 'GPS NAV (ENABLE) button (Line Select 5 Right)
toggles the GPS position (default is on) 'as some countries do not
meet certain standards for GPS navigation', 'the GPS will then try to
correct an accurate IRS position with an inaccurate GPS position,
knowing what countries this happens in are part of the NOTAMS that a
pilot would get in his pre-flight with dispatch'. I wasn't aware of
this either so it would need looking into if you're curious

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Ibby" > wrote in message
news:37ca905f-4782-461c-9453->
> Yes that is correct Jim but then it very quickly changed because of
> everyones attitude towards MX (rightly so at times) stating that his
> aquired 'familiarisation' of a certain aircraft through a simulator/
> game would have NO bearing on what sat forefore you on the real
> flightdeck and this is where I stepped in to partially agreeing with
> MX's views (not his methods of response as others here just talk back
> in the same manner). I personally have FSX, a default installation is
> pretty **** for aircraft systems and flightdecks to put it bluntly.
> The default 747 bears virtually NO similarity to what is on a real 747
> flightdeck with hardly anything modelled and most switches having NO
> effect. Good quality payware aircraft like PMDG 747-400X HAS a
> photorealistic 3D Cockpit which you can look around with the right pc
> hardware (TrackIR). Every button, every switch, every panel, every
> display on the glass cockpit IS the same as the real one. You can
> Google for real images till your heart is content or use the official
> Boeing sites or the likes of Airliners.net to compare sim to real.
> Most ppl on this forum just denounce it bears ZERO resemblence to the
> real flightdecks for which they model yet somehow the Trades
> Description Act has yet to be brought in and these Vendor's prosecuted
> for 'pretending' they bear a similarity.
>

You're even more lame than Mxie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Ibby" > wrote in message
...


As the blind leads the blind.

[Mxsmanic]

Ibby writes:

> I am quoting from Angle of Attacks comprehensive video guide on the
> FMC's POS REF page.
> They state that the 'GPS NAV (ENABLE) button (Line Select 5 Right)
> toggles the GPS position (default is on) 'as some countries do not
> meet certain standards for GPS navigation', 'the GPS will then try to
> correct an accurate IRS position with an inaccurate GPS position,
> knowing what countries this happens in are part of the NOTAMS that a
> pilot would get in his pre-flight with dispatch'. I wasn't aware of
> this either so it would need looking into if you're curious

I suspect Angle of Attack (which I have for the 767) has got something wrong
or isn't stating something clearly. While it is possible to jam GPS locally,
in the absence of jamming, the accuracy of GPS is the same just about
everywhere, although it declines slightly near the poles (but not over any
specific country).

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Ibby writes:
>
>> I am quoting from Angle of Attacks comprehensive video guide on the
>> FMC's POS REF page.
>> They state that the 'GPS NAV (ENABLE) button (Line Select 5 Right)
>> toggles the GPS position (default is on) 'as some countries do not
>> meet certain standards for GPS navigation', 'the GPS will then try to
>> correct an accurate IRS position with an inaccurate GPS position,
>> knowing what countries this happens in are part of the NOTAMS that a
>> pilot would get in his pre-flight with dispatch'. I wasn't aware of
>> this either so it would need looking into if you're curious
>
> I suspect Angle of Attack (which I have for the 767) has got something
> wrong
> or isn't stating something clearly. While it is possible to jam GPS
> locally,
> in the absence of jamming, the accuracy of GPS is the same just about
> everywhere, although it declines slightly near the poles (but not over any
> specific country).

None of which ever moves in relationship to your basement/flight deck.

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in message
...
> In fact, their persistence does little more than strongly suggest they are
> very young and inexperienced at a lot of things.

Actually, the average age of the members of that group would probably be
older than here.
Crash Lander

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"-b-" > wrote in message
...

> For some of us, an attempt to recover from a stupid mistake does not
> qualify as an "observation".

Considering that the pilots here are so fantastic they never make mistakes,
how could it be anything more than an observation?
Crash Lander

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Crash Lander" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in message
> ...
>> In fact, their persistence does little more than strongly suggest they
>> are very young and inexperienced at a lot of things.
>
> Actually, the average age of the members of that group would probably be
> older than here.
> Crash Lander

Do you mean the sim and game groups?

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in message
...
>
> "Crash Lander" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In fact, their persistence does little more than strongly suggest they
>>> are very young and inexperienced at a lot of things.
>>
>> Actually, the average age of the members of that group would probably be
>> older than here.
>> Crash Lander
>
> Do you mean the sim and game groups?

The Sim group.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Crash Lander" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Crash Lander" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In fact, their persistence does little more than strongly suggest they
>>>> are very young and inexperienced at a lot of things.
>>>
>>> Actually, the average age of the members of that group would probably be
>>> older than here.
>>> Crash Lander
>>
>> Do you mean the sim and game groups?
>
> The Sim group.

Yeah, I don't doubt that. I was referring to Mx and his occasional follower.

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in message
...
>>>> Actually, the average age of the members of that group would probably
>>>> be older than here.
>>>> Crash Lander
>>>
>>> Do you mean the sim and game groups?
>>
>> The Sim group.
>
> Yeah, I don't doubt that. I was referring to Mx and his occasional
> follower.


Ibby is no 'follower' of Mx by any stretch.
I have known him for years. He is no kid.
Crash Lander