Simulators

[Birdog]

The discussion on simulators was interesting in many aspects. Since being
grounded some 20 years ago (medical), I've tried substitutes - radio control
and computer simulators - and found them sorely lacking, if not downright
boring. However, while playing with the simulator, I could not help but
grieve that it was not available back in the days when I was burning time
and fuel in IFR training - basically learning to scan the instruments until
it became virtually instinctive. So, while I get a little peeved when a
computer jock starts arguing with active pilots, their questions sometimes
elicit interesting discussions, and I do think these $75.00 programs have a
valuable (and cheap) place in flight training.

While ground-bound for two decades, I still love any discussion of flying!

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
"Birdog" > wrote:

> The discussion on simulators was interesting in many aspects. Since being
> grounded some 20 years ago (medical), I've tried substitutes - radio control
> and computer simulators - and found them sorely lacking, if not downright
> boring. However, while playing with the simulator, I could not help but
> grieve that it was not available back in the days when I was burning time
> and fuel in IFR training - basically learning to scan the instruments until
> it became virtually instinctive. So, while I get a little peeved when a
> computer jock starts arguing with active pilots, their questions sometimes
> elicit interesting discussions, and I do think these $75.00 programs have a
> valuable (and cheap) place in flight training.
>
> While ground-bound for two decades, I still love any discussion of flying!

I tend to agree with the above. Simulators are what got me into flying
for real, even if they taught me some habits to unlearn. And clearly
they're useful for certain things, even if they're not the high-fidelity
monsters our friend thinks they are.

I apologize if the question is unwelcome, but if your medical grounding
was due to something that didn't really make you unsafe, have you
considered flying gliders? They're a lot of fun, and no medical is
required. Of course some people don't enjoy that sort of thing, and
nothing against them, as everybody has different tastes. But I just
thought I'd mention in, on the off chance that you'd like it, hadn't
thought of it, and are able.

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

[[email protected]]

Low cost sims would be a lot more useful if they came with a
instructor and a curriculum.

Let me justify that. With many home sim programs, A lot of people
learn to land right on the edge of Dead Man's Curve, without some
instruction or evaluation. Ie a controlled crash at very low speed
with no flare. If its a game, thats fine, and you can get the 172
onto the carrier that way. But it may be doing many a disservice.
It would be nice, if included in the cost of the software, you could
upload a file to have your flight constructively evaluated by a human

Steve Roberts

[Mxsmanic]

Birdog writes:

> The discussion on simulators was interesting in many aspects. Since being
> grounded some 20 years ago (medical), I've tried substitutes - radio control
> and computer simulators - and found them sorely lacking, if not downright
> boring.

How far have you gone with simulation, and what type of flying did you do
before you were grounded?

There's a very wide range between the simplest flight simulation (which would
probably be Google Earth or the Easter egg inside, I think, Excel), and the
best certified, full-motion simulators used for loggable training and
practice. It depends mainly on how much money you want to put into it. The
more you spend, the greater the realism.

The degree to which you can gain satisfaction from simulation depends also on
what part of flying you like best. If physical sensations are the best part
for you, it's going to be hard to get that from simulation. If procedures are
the part you like, you can simulate that pretty effectively.

What medical condition grounded you?

Also, do you ever fly with someone else as PIC?

> However, while playing with the simulator, I could not help but
> grieve that it was not available back in the days when I was burning time
> and fuel in IFR training - basically learning to scan the instruments until
> it became virtually instinctive. So, while I get a little peeved when a
> computer jock starts arguing with active pilots, their questions sometimes
> elicit interesting discussions, and I do think these $75.00 programs have a
> valuable (and cheap) place in flight training.

Would you expect a computer jock to get peeved when pilots start talking about
computers?

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Ash writes:

> ... have you considered flying gliders? They're a lot of fun, and
> no medical is required.

Really? (I've never looked.) That seems odd ... isn't an incapacitated pilot
in a glider in just as much danger as he would be in a powered aircraft? And
can't he still hit things and injure people and property on the ground? I
thought that was the whole idea behind requiring medicals.

> Of course some people don't enjoy that sort of thing, and
> nothing against them, as everybody has different tastes.

What do you think of glider simulations in MSFS?

I've heard that there are some add-on gliders for MSFS that are greatly
superior to the default (as there are for powered aircraft), but I haven't
looked into it as I've not felt very attracted to gliding. Gliding seems to
be mostly a visceral and visual experience, both of which are weak points of
desktop simulators.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Low cost sims would be a lot more useful if they came with a
> instructor and a curriculum.
>
> Let me justify that. With many home sim programs, A lot of people
> learn to land right on the edge of Dead Man's Curve, without some
> instruction or evaluation. Ie a controlled crash at very low speed
> with no flare. If its a game, thats fine, and you can get the 172
> onto the carrier that way. But it may be doing many a disservice.
> It would be nice, if included in the cost of the software, you could
> upload a file to have your flight constructively evaluated by a human

Most simmers won't be flying a real aircraft, so the differences between the
simulation and real life are not necessarily important (although that depends
on the simmer's viewpoint, as some are more rigorous about realism than
others). And, since nobody is likely to climb out of his easy chair and into
a cockpit without instruction and certification, one can assume that the
differences would be identified and compensated for by anyone who really wants
to fly an aircraft in the real world.

What mystifies me is the knee-jerk reaction of some pilots to the mere
suggestion that simulation is anything like real life. I can only assume that
they invest a great deal of their self-esteem in flying, and are very insecure
about anything that might hint that any other activity is even remotely close
to flying. They like to believe that they are special, and anything that
seems to erode that illusion in their eyes disturbs them.

As I've said before, the more experience pilots have, the less they tend to
foam at the mouth in fury when simulation is brought up. Simulation is not
identical to real life, but it's not a waste of time, either. The truth is in
between. Moderation is best in all things.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Low cost sims would be a lot more useful if they came with a
>> instructor and a curriculum.
>>
>> Let me justify that. With many home sim programs, A lot of people
>> learn to land right on the edge of Dead Man's Curve, without some
>> instruction or evaluation. Ie a controlled crash at very low speed
>> with no flare. If its a game, thats fine, and you can get the 172
>> onto the carrier that way. But it may be doing many a disservice.
>> It would be nice, if included in the cost of the software, you could
>> upload a file to have your flight constructively evaluated by a human
>
> Most simmers won't be flying a real aircraft, so the differences between
> the
> simulation and real life are not necessarily important (although that
> depends
> on the simmer's viewpoint, as some are more rigorous about realism than
> others). And, since nobody is likely to climb out of his easy chair and
> into
> a cockpit without instruction and certification, one can assume that the
> differences would be identified and compensated for by anyone who really
> wants
> to fly an aircraft in the real world.
>
> What mystifies me is the knee-jerk reaction of some pilots to the mere
> suggestion that simulation is anything like real life. I can only assume
> that
> they invest a great deal of their self-esteem in flying, and are very
> insecure
> about anything that might hint that any other activity is even remotely
> close
> to flying. They like to believe that they are special, and anything that
> seems to erode that illusion in their eyes disturbs them.
>
> As I've said before, the more experience pilots have, the less they tend
> to
> foam at the mouth in fury when simulation is brought up. Simulation is
> not
> identical to real life, but it's not a waste of time, either. The truth
> is in
> between. Moderation is best in all things.

To the contrary, you just can't stand it because your PC can never make you
a pilot.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Ash writes:
>
>> ... have you considered flying gliders? They're a lot of fun, and
>> no medical is required.
>
> Really? (I've never looked.) That seems odd ... isn't an incapacitated
> pilot
> in a glider in just as much danger as he would be in a powered aircraft?
> And
> can't he still hit things and injure people and property on the ground? I
> thought that was the whole idea behind requiring medicals.
>
>> Of course some people don't enjoy that sort of thing, and
>> nothing against them, as everybody has different tastes.
>
> What do you think of glider simulations in MSFS?
>
> I've heard that there are some add-on gliders for MSFS that are greatly
> superior to the default (as there are for powered aircraft), but I haven't
> looked into it as I've not felt very attracted to gliding. Gliding seems
> to
> be mostly a visceral and visual experience, both of which are weak points
> of
> desktop simulators.

Everything seems odd to you, you have never experienced any facet of real
life.

Get out of your cave.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

>
> Would you expect a computer jock to get peeved when pilots start talking
> about
> computers?

Yeah, so STFU.

[Birdog]

"Mike Ash" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Birdog" > wrote:
>
>> The discussion on simulators was interesting in many aspects. Since being
>> grounded some 20 years ago (medical), I've tried substitutes - radio
>> control
>> and computer simulators - and found them sorely lacking, if not downright
>> boring. However, while playing with the simulator, I could not help but
>> grieve that it was not available back in the days when I was burning time
>> and fuel in IFR training - basically learning to scan the instruments
>> until
>> it became virtually instinctive. So, while I get a little peeved when a
>> computer jock starts arguing with active pilots, their questions
>> sometimes
>> elicit interesting discussions, and I do think these $75.00 programs have
>> a
>> valuable (and cheap) place in flight training.
>>
>> While ground-bound for two decades, I still love any discussion of
>> flying!
>
> I tend to agree with the above. Simulators are what got me into flying
> for real, even if they taught me some habits to unlearn. And clearly
> they're useful for certain things, even if they're not the high-fidelity
> monsters our friend thinks they are.
>
> I apologize if the question is unwelcome, but if your medical grounding
> was due to something that didn't really make you unsafe, have you
> considered flying gliders? They're a lot of fun, and no medical is
> required. Of course some people don't enjoy that sort of thing, and
> nothing against them, as everybody has different tastes. But I just
> thought I'd mention in, on the off chance that you'd like it, hadn't
> thought of it, and are able.

Diabetes got me. I have flown in gliders (once - not PIC). I dunno - you
can't really go anywhere in a glider, and somehow the thrust, the engine
noise and vibration were a part of the mystique. Just didn't pull my chain.
Academic now anyhow - I'm 82 years old.

[Birdog]

> wrote in message
...
> Low cost sims would be a lot more useful if they came with a
> instructor and a curriculum.
>
> Let me justify that. With many home sim programs, A lot of people
> learn to land right on the edge of Dead Man's Curve, without some
> instruction or evaluation. Ie a controlled crash at very low speed
> with no flare. If its a game, thats fine, and you can get the 172
> onto the carrier that way. But it may be doing many a disservice.
> It would be nice, if included in the cost of the software, you could
> upload a file to have your flight constructively evaluated by a human
>
> Steve Roberts

Irrelevant, in my opinion. You can't any more learn to fly with a simulator
than you could with radio controlled models. They're both toys.

[Birdog]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Birdog writes:
>
> What medical condition grounded you?
>
> Also, do you ever fly with someone else as PIC?

Three years ago I checked out in a 150 (NOT solo) and followed that up with
an hour in a AT-6. I was rusty as hell, and could not perform the simlplest
aerobatics with any simblance of precision.

> Would you expect a computer jock to get peeved when pilots start talking
> about
> computers?

I talked about that in a sense in the original post. Simulators are
obviously fun for the non-pilot, but they are still just toys. Flying, at
least to me, was all about sensations. I can't imagine sweaty palms, white
knuckles and heavy breathing on a night IFR approach in variable winds, in
front of a computer screen.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Mike Ash writes:
>
> > ... have you considered flying gliders? They're a lot of fun, and
> > no medical is required.
>
> Really? (I've never looked.) That seems odd ... isn't an incapacitated pilot
> in a glider in just as much danger as he would be in a powered aircraft? And
> can't he still hit things and injure people and property on the ground? I
> thought that was the whole idea behind requiring medicals.

Gliders are usually lighter than other small planes (my glider is about
average and weighs 800 pounds with me in it) so the potential for damage
is considerably less. Gliders carry no fuel, so there is essentially no
risk of fire. Gliders almost never fly over densely populated areas, so
the probability of crashing into something valuable is considerably
less. Glider pilots carry passengers much less frequently, and almost
always carry one at a time, so the risk to passengers is much less.

So no, an incapacitated glider pilot is much less of a danger.

> > Of course some people don't enjoy that sort of thing, and
> > nothing against them, as everybody has different tastes.
>
> What do you think of glider simulations in MSFS?
>
> I've heard that there are some add-on gliders for MSFS that are greatly
> superior to the default (as there are for powered aircraft), but I haven't
> looked into it as I've not felt very attracted to gliding. Gliding seems to
> be mostly a visceral and visual experience, both of which are weak points of
> desktop simulators.

The last time I used MSFS was version 4, I think, where everything was
still flat-shaded polygons and there were a grand total of three
airports available, one of which was Meigs Field where the default
start. So I have no direct experience with MSFS's glider simulation.

I do have some direct experience with X-Plane's glider simulation, and
it's total crap. I mean, it's OK for just flying around, but the
simulation of thermals is junk and the ridge lift doesn't work very
well. The tow simulation is ridiculous. The audio variometer, the single
most useful instrument in the plane, is completely broken.

And then there are generic simulator problems too, that MSFS will share
even if it fixes all of those (which it probably doesn't). The field of
view is ridiculously narrow, which makes everything difficult, but
especially screws up landing. (I spend the last third or so of my
downwind leg looking over my shoulder, for example, with quick glances
back at the instruments.) When thermalling, the jolts in the ass are
very helpful in finding the center and of course there's no way to get
those.

The most damning thing about it, though, is that it's just not any fun.
Being out over the countryside 30 miles from home, working lift so you
can make it back, is *fun*. Simulating being out over the countryside 30
miles from home is just boring.

If you're going to try glider sims, try one of the specialized ones such
as Silent Wings or Condor. While they can't fix the inherent poor field
of view or lack of kicks in the ass or the lack of fun, they at least
get the other stuff right.

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

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Would you expect a computer jock to get peeved when pilots start talking about
> computers?

I would, if they started acting like they knew better than actual
computer people.

I've heard pilots say a lot of really silly things about computers. And
why wouldn't they? It's not what they know. However, all of the pilots I
know who don't know much about computers *know* that they don't know
much about computers, so when they say silly things they say it in such
a way as to be open to correction. Which sometimes I provide, when I
think it'll be informative, and sometimes I don't, when I think it's
better to just let it be.

You can bet that if some pilot who had never written a line of code in
his life showed up at the airport and started lecturing me on Python and
Perl and first-class functions and all the rest, even though he clearly
had no idea of what he was talking about, I'd get ****ed off.
Fortunately this has not happened, and I don't expect it to.

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

[BT]

We've got 86+ year old glider pilots.. granted they started flying in the
1940s or 50s.
Don't tell a glider pilot he can't get anywhere when 300km cross countries
are the norm out here.

Roger on the diabetes.. depending on the severity and control one has over
the condition. One can still fly gliders or light sport aircraft.. has your
doctor or family taken away your auto driver's license? If so.. then perhaps
one should not be in a glider.

B

"Birdog" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Ash" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Birdog" > wrote:
>>
>>> The discussion on simulators was interesting in many aspects. Since
>>> being
>>> grounded some 20 years ago (medical), I've tried substitutes - radio
>>> control
>>> and computer simulators - and found them sorely lacking, if not
>>> downright
>>> boring. However, while playing with the simulator, I could not help but
>>> grieve that it was not available back in the days when I was burning
>>> time
>>> and fuel in IFR training - basically learning to scan the instruments
>>> until
>>> it became virtually instinctive. So, while I get a little peeved when a
>>> computer jock starts arguing with active pilots, their questions
>>> sometimes
>>> elicit interesting discussions, and I do think these $75.00 programs
>>> have a
>>> valuable (and cheap) place in flight training.
>>>
>>> While ground-bound for two decades, I still love any discussion of
>>> flying!
>>
>> I tend to agree with the above. Simulators are what got me into flying
>> for real, even if they taught me some habits to unlearn. And clearly
>> they're useful for certain things, even if they're not the high-fidelity
>> monsters our friend thinks they are.
>>
>> I apologize if the question is unwelcome, but if your medical grounding
>> was due to something that didn't really make you unsafe, have you
>> considered flying gliders? They're a lot of fun, and no medical is
>> required. Of course some people don't enjoy that sort of thing, and
>> nothing against them, as everybody has different tastes. But I just
>> thought I'd mention in, on the off chance that you'd like it, hadn't
>> thought of it, and are able.
>
> Diabetes got me. I have flown in gliders (once - not PIC). I dunno - you
> can't really go anywhere in a glider, and somehow the thrust, the engine
> noise and vibration were a part of the mystique. Just didn't pull my
> chain. Academic now anyhow - I'm 82 years old.
>

[george]

On Mar 9, 8:16*am, "BT" > wrote:
> We've got 86+ year old glider pilots.. granted they started flying in the
> 1940s or 50s.
> Don't tell a glider pilot he can't get anywhere when 300km cross countries
> are the norm out here.

Not every-one has a Silver "C"

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Ash writes:

> You can bet that if some pilot who had never written a line of code in
> his life showed up at the airport and started lecturing me on Python and
> Perl and first-class functions and all the rest, even though he clearly
> had no idea of what he was talking about, I'd get ****ed off.

I've been lectured in this way, and not necessarily or merely by pilots, but I
don't get angry over it.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Mike Ash writes:
>
> > You can bet that if some pilot who had never written a line of code in
> > his life showed up at the airport and started lecturing me on Python and
> > Perl and first-class functions and all the rest, even though he clearly
> > had no idea of what he was talking about, I'd get ****ed off.
>
> I've been lectured in this way, and not necessarily or merely by pilots, but I
> don't get angry over it.

Well good for you.

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

[[email protected]]

Birddog wrote
> Irrelevant, in my opinion. You can't any more learn to fly with a simulator
> than you could with radio controlled models. They're both toys.

I will agree that MSFS on a home PC is a toy and that X-plane is a
close second in the "From Santa with Love" department.


As for totally useless, I must respectfully disagree.

What I'm working on is vastly different and the company is owned by
pilots with engineering degrees. We're taking the "toy" out of it. We
will also train the IP to use it, provide a course of study for the
student, and pull the IP in to the factory once a year for a
recertification on the use of the unit. We'll also be able to score
the student AND THE IP over a internet connection. Its good for 3
hours out of the minimum 40. That turns into 2 more hours the student
can spend in the real aircraft, without drastic increases in the cost
of the license.

Teachers have a rule, to determine if a teaching method is useful.It
says: "A goal or objective in the classroom must be observable and
measurable". That is one of the many missing parts in the desktop
toys, when it comes to being useful to a student.

Steve

[[email protected]]

Mike Ash wrote:
>
> If you're going to try glider sims, try one of the specialized ones such
> as Silent Wings or Condor. While they can't fix the inherent poor field
> of view or lack of kicks in the ass or the lack of fun, they at least
> get the other stuff right.

While its not 100%, grab a old throwaway PC, put it on your left
and slightly behind you, and network it to the primary computer. You
can set it to slave off the forward PC, and set the view angle to
whatever you desire. It makes a world of difference in judging the
final, there is shareware to do it for MSFS, and it is built into
X=Plane. Its a kluge, but it works. I imagine the glider sims can
will support that or a Matrox TripleHead2Go setup as well.

Steve

[george]

On Mar 9, 8:45*am, george > wrote:
> On Mar 9, 8:16*am, "BT" > wrote:
>
> > We've got 86+ year old glider pilots.. granted they started flying in the
> > 1940s or 50s.
> > Don't tell a glider pilot he can't get anywhere when 300km cross countries
> > are the norm out here.
>
> Not every-one has a Silver "C"

In reading that I better say that I know 300km is the distance for a
Gold 'C' and they're fairly rare even here

[Mike Ash]

In article
>,
wrote:

> Mike Ash wrote:
> >
> > If you're going to try glider sims, try one of the specialized ones such
> > as Silent Wings or Condor. While they can't fix the inherent poor field
> > of view or lack of kicks in the ass or the lack of fun, they at least
> > get the other stuff right.
>
> While its not 100%, grab a old throwaway PC, put it on your left
> and slightly behind you, and network it to the primary computer. You
> can set it to slave off the forward PC, and set the view angle to
> whatever you desire. It makes a world of difference in judging the
> final, there is shareware to do it for MSFS, and it is built into
> X=Plane. Its a kluge, but it works. I imagine the glider sims can
> will support that or a Matrox TripleHead2Go setup as well.

That'll help. Of course, I'd really need a third one, too, positioned a
bit higher so that I can see the runway in a turn. And then another pair
for the right side for right-hand patterns. And the whole works would
*still* be just a small fraction of the enormous field of view I get in
the real thing.

I'm sure that with the appropriate application of money you could make
things a lot better, but it'll still be a pale shadow of reality, and in
the end I'd rather spend the money on flying. Just getting a decent
realistic set of controls would probably cost a couple month's worth of
tows, let alone a whole new computer.

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

[[email protected]]

Depends on how creative you are, one of my friends has 9 monitors and
9 computers from a university auction, arranged around a desk.
Its crazy, but a heck of improvement on a single monitor. If you dig,
cheap computers are out there by the skid loads from corporate and
government upgrades.

Steve

[a[_3_]]

On Mar 9, 12:24*am, Clark > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > writes:
>
> >> Low cost sims would be a lot more useful if they came with a
> >> instructor and a curriculum.
>
> >> * Let me justify that. *With many home sim programs, A lot of people
> >> learn to land right on the edge of Dead Man's Curve, without some
> >> instruction or evaluation. *Ie *a controlled crash at very low speed
> >> with no flare. * If its a game, thats fine, and you can get the 172
> >> onto the carrier that way. But it may be doing many a disservice.
> >> It would be nice, if included in the cost of the software, you could
> >> upload a file to have your flight *constructively evaluated by a human
>
> > Most simmers won't be flying a real aircraft, so the differences between
> > the simulation and real life are not necessarily important (although
> > that depends on the simmer's viewpoint, as some are more rigorous about
> > realism than others). *And, since nobody is likely to climb out of his
> > easy chair and into a cockpit without instruction and certification, one
> > can assume that the differences would be identified and compensated for
> > by anyone who really wants to fly an aircraft in the real world.
>
> > What mystifies me is the knee-jerk reaction of some pilots to the mere
> > suggestion that simulation is anything like real life. *I can only
> > assume that they invest a great deal of their self-esteem in flying, and
> > are very insecure about anything that might hint that any other activity
> > is even remotely close to flying. *They like to believe that they are
> > special, and anything that seems to erode that illusion in their eyes
> > disturbs them.
>
> Wrong again butterball. Stop assuming and try to learn a little bit. Pilots
> don't have a knee jerk reaction against simulations. People in general do
> have a knee jerk reaction to reject claims from ignorant people such as
> yourself who claim to have knowledge when they obviously don't.
>
> > As I've said before, the more experience pilots have, the less they tend
> > to foam at the mouth in fury when simulation is brought up. *Simulation
> > is not identical to real life, but it's not a waste of time, either.
> > The truth is in between. *Moderation is best in all things.
>
> You wouldn't know the truth if it rose up and bit you on the ass. As for
> moderation, well, you'd better learn to practice it if you're going to
> preach it little boy. I suggest you start by not posting on usenet for the
> next 12 months.
>
> --
> ---
> there should be a "sig" here- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Moderation in all things, he said, but rap is not included. He, a non-
pilot, is I tjhink the second most frequent poster here. His is
winning the 'pay attention to me' game.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Ash writes:

> I'm sure that with the appropriate application of money you could make
> things a lot better, but it'll still be a pale shadow of reality ...

The best simulators are much more than just a pale shadow, but as you surmise,
they are expensive.

> Just getting a decent
> realistic set of controls would probably cost a couple month's worth of
> tows, let alone a whole new computer.

I can get the entire set-up for the cost of roughly three hours of rental of a
real aircraft.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Ash writes:
>
>> I'm sure that with the appropriate application of money you could make
>> things a lot better, but it'll still be a pale shadow of reality ...
>
> The best simulators are much more than just a pale shadow, but as you
> surmise,
> they are expensive.
>
>> Just getting a decent
>> realistic set of controls would probably cost a couple month's worth of
>> tows, let alone a whole new computer.
>
> I can get the entire set-up for the cost of roughly three hours of rental
> of a
> real aircraft.

And a sex toy for half the cost of a real girlfriends dinner.

This is not a sim group, dumb ass. Find a group that give a ****.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Ash writes:
>
>> You can bet that if some pilot who had never written a line of code in
>> his life showed up at the airport and started lecturing me on Python and
>> Perl and first-class functions and all the rest, even though he clearly
>> had no idea of what he was talking about, I'd get ****ed off.
>
> I've been lectured in this way, and not necessarily or merely by pilots,
> but I
> don't get angry over it.

That's because you are mentally ill.

[Ross]

Mike Ash wrote:
> In article >,
> "Birdog" > wrote:
>
>> The discussion on simulators was interesting in many aspects. Since being
>> grounded some 20 years ago (medical), I've tried substitutes - radio control
>> and computer simulators - and found them sorely lacking, if not downright
>> boring. However, while playing with the simulator, I could not help but
>> grieve that it was not available back in the days when I was burning time
>> and fuel in IFR training - basically learning to scan the instruments until
>> it became virtually instinctive. So, while I get a little peeved when a
>> computer jock starts arguing with active pilots, their questions sometimes
>> elicit interesting discussions, and I do think these $75.00 programs have a
>> valuable (and cheap) place in flight training.
>>
>> While ground-bound for two decades, I still love any discussion of flying!
>
> I tend to agree with the above. Simulators are what got me into flying
> for real, even if they taught me some habits to unlearn. And clearly
> they're useful for certain things, even if they're not the high-fidelity
> monsters our friend thinks they are.
>
> I apologize if the question is unwelcome, but if your medical grounding
> was due to something that didn't really make you unsafe, have you
> considered flying gliders? They're a lot of fun, and no medical is
> required. Of course some people don't enjoy that sort of thing, and
> nothing against them, as everybody has different tastes. But I just
> thought I'd mention in, on the off chance that you'd like it, hadn't
> thought of it, and are able.
>

I am not sure about gliders, but folks said that I should go to LSA.
However, I believe you still have to self certify and the condition I
have will not let me fly my CPSEL/IA privileges, nor would I be able to
certify that I am fit to fly LAS.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold :(
KSWI

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Mike Ash writes:
>
> > I'm sure that with the appropriate application of money you could make
> > things a lot better, but it'll still be a pale shadow of reality ...
>
> The best simulators are much more than just a pale shadow, but as you surmise,
> they are expensive.

I doubt any such "best simulators" exist for gliders. And if they did,
they'd cost more than the real thing.

> > Just getting a decent
> > realistic set of controls would probably cost a couple month's worth of
> > tows, let alone a whole new computer.
>
> I can get the entire set-up for the cost of roughly three hours of rental of a
> real aircraft.

The "entire thing" as in six monitors and computers to drive them all?
Which aircraft?

My marginal cost for flying is gas to drive to the airport and around
$32 for the tow. If I were renting a club plane instead of flying my own
I'd pay about $24/hour on top of those. As it is, the cost of ownership
is pretty much entirely fixed regardless of how much I fly. Lately,
amortizing the per-flight costs over the flight time, I've been paying
roughly $25/hour total.

Given the rental prices you've cited in the past, "three hours" is
probably around $600. That is several months of my flying budget, just
as I said.

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

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Ross > wrote:

> I am not sure about gliders, but folks said that I should go to LSA.
> However, I believe you still have to self certify and the condition I
> have will not let me fly my CPSEL/IA privileges, nor would I be able to
> certify that I am fit to fly LAS.

Here is the text of the actual regulation, 61.53b:

> (b) Operations that do not require a medical certificate. For operations
> provided for in §61.23(b) of this part, a person shall not act as pilot in
> command, or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember,
> while that person knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that
> would make the person unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner.

There's no specification as to which conditions make a person unable to
operate the aircraft in a safe manner. While one might presume that the
same conditions that would disqualify you from real medical would
disqualify you here, I don't believe that is stated explicitly anywhere.

Practically speaking, it's up to you. IF (big if) you personally believe
that you would be safe with your condition despite the FAA's belief
otherwise, you can fly gliders. My understanding is that LSA is the same
as long as you haven't actually flunked a medical exam.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Ash writes:

> The "entire thing" as in six monitors and computers to drive them all?

You mentioned only a new computer and a decent set of controls.

> My marginal cost for flying is gas to drive to the airport and around
> $32 for the tow. If I were renting a club plane instead of flying my own
> I'd pay about $24/hour on top of those. As it is, the cost of ownership
> is pretty much entirely fixed regardless of how much I fly. Lately,
> amortizing the per-flight costs over the flight time, I've been paying
> roughly $25/hour total.

Sounds like gliders are a lot less expensive than powered aircraft.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Ash writes:
>
>> The "entire thing" as in six monitors and computers to drive them all?
>
> You mentioned only a new computer and a decent set of controls.
>
>> My marginal cost for flying is gas to drive to the airport and around
>> $32 for the tow. If I were renting a club plane instead of flying my own
>> I'd pay about $24/hour on top of those. As it is, the cost of ownership
>> is pretty much entirely fixed regardless of how much I fly. Lately,
>> amortizing the per-flight costs over the flight time, I've been paying
>> roughly $25/hour total.
>
> Sounds like gliders are a lot less expensive than powered aircraft.

Gee, I wonder why. Must be some kind of Anti-Mxsmanic campaign.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Mike Ash writes:
>
> > The "entire thing" as in six monitors and computers to drive them all?
>
> You mentioned only a new computer and a decent set of controls.

That's not true. I also mentioned a more comprehensive setup. I asked
the question because I wasn't sure which one you were referring to.

> > My marginal cost for flying is gas to drive to the airport and around
> > $32 for the tow. If I were renting a club plane instead of flying my own
> > I'd pay about $24/hour on top of those. As it is, the cost of ownership
> > is pretty much entirely fixed regardless of how much I fly. Lately,
> > amortizing the per-flight costs over the flight time, I've been paying
> > roughly $25/hour total.
>
> Sounds like gliders are a lot less expensive than powered aircraft.

Your powers of perception are truly astounding.

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