TheSmokingGnu writes:

The counter-example being, of course, that even high-time regular
heavy-iron pilots find the loss of feeling in the control column in
modern fly-by-wire aircraft so disruptive and unnerving that the
engineers had to design systems to emulate them, leading someone more
prone to contemplation to perhaps consider kinesthetics more important
than not.

Except that this isn't true. Feel and feedback are not hugely important and
one can easily become used to their absence. Simulating them in a large
aircraft is mostly a matter of convenience for pilots--not necessity. Indeed,
since the "feel" varies greatly from one aircraft to another, irrespective of
whether or not it is real or simulated, the habituation to control feel isn't
very transferable.

Whereas, one points out, you have not even seen that.

It's only a tiny dot on the aviation landscape, and I don't consider it
important. Most pilots have never seen anything from most cockpits. That
isn't much of a handicap.

Why say that?

Because it's true.

Provide some examples, lest you fall into your own trap of
incompleteness in objective.

The obsessions with sensation and control feel, issues that are highly
specific to certain types of aviation (such as small aircraft). The
preoccupation with VFR and VMC over IFR and IMC. The cluelessness with
respect to complex avionics and navigation systems. The acceptance of engine
failures as an unavoidable fact of life (most airline pilots go through their
entire careers without ever seeing an engine failure). And so on.

Perhaps, again, that other pilots in the group actually do know little
of the specific aircraft, and choose to refrain from making
pronouncements and edicts of procedure and performance, based on the
knowledge of their ignorance, instead of barging into threads where they
would only succeed in mucking things up with incorrect information and
speculation.

Nothing prevents them from studying to reduce their ignorance.

See the first above.

See an Airbus.

Some understand how to live within their means while enjoying their
passion, and others simply look in from the outside and stir the pot in
the hopes of becoming a part of the community.

Some people have resources, and some don't. And enjoying a passion doesn't
necessarily have anything to do with joining a "community" (boys' club).

And yet others pretend about it all.

So I've noticed, but that is their prerogative.

Provided by other posters, which that hypothetical contemplatieur would
note you have not chosen to respond to, and that is: positive stability
brought on by wing dihedral (which, one also notes, is a feature of BOTH
Boeing and Airbus wings: why make an active system to compensate for
what can be designed out with passive engineering?).

The reason for using an active system is that it improves maneuverability.
The drawback is that the aircraft has a tendency to depart from controlled
flight if the computers fail. That's Airbus. It's not Boeing (as far as I
know, with respect to civilian aircraft).

Here we part with the third person (which, noted, you enjoy referring to
yourself with).

No, I was simply continuing the style of the posts to which I responded, to
reduce ambiguity.

Netiquette demands at least a thank-you or acknowledgment of receipt.

Netiquette is an illusion. And in any case, I'm not interested in courtesy
rituals. Those who require the ego boost of some expression of gratitude need
not reply. Sharing knowledge should be its own reward.

Translation: I assault posters with incessant questions, even about
objective, immutable topics, in order to frustrate further conversation
or to provide some tangible ethical or moral response to which I can
cling and make incorrect, hurtful, baseless assertions. I consider
myself superior over all others, even those with a clearly higher
understand or better experience.

No. That is the perception that some have of it, but they allow their
emotions to rule, which is a bad thing in itself. People who are slaves to
their emotions are highly vulnerable and easy to manipulate. It's not good to
have large segments of the population with this handicap.

Of which you refuse to enumerate when issued questions or inquiry (which
inevitably leads to doubt of veracity).

There is no need to enumerate them. Others can do their own research and
learn for themselves whether or not I'm right. It's surprising how rarely
they do this.

No, to spare the uninitiated of misplaced trust.

Why would anyone trust a name on a screen?

You fail to understand the difference between understanding and
knowledge (used in this vernacular).

Which vernacular?

There is a fundamental dichotomy between third-party repetition
of information, and a statement of fact.

No, they are independent.

Even you must recognize that much of your writing comes off as though
you have real, first-party knowledge of a topic, when in truth you are
either re-stating another's or your own interpretation of subjective fact.

I leave verification as an exercise for the reader. And if I seem to have
real, first-party knowledge of a topic, that may well be correlated with the
fact that I am often right.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.