*********A DEFENCE FOR MXMORAN***********

Beechsundowner,

I agree with a lot you are saying. I agree that putting anyone with
no experience of that type of aircraft into the flightdeck and
expecting them to know what and where each switch is would be very
difficult.

My main defense on this forum was for the Simulator and it's benefits
on learning certain aircraft. Everyone here just argues 'its a toy
for children' when in fact it's a 'tool for learning'. I know if I
sat on the flightdeck of a 747-400 i WOULD know what button to push or
knob to rotate when instructed by ATC because I have years of
'experience' yes it's on a pc but really what difference does that
make (I mean really, they are modelled in a fully 3D photorealistic
digital Virtual Cockpit in the exact same position to the real
aircraft?). I've seen commercial pilots sitting in front of large
full sized cardboard mockups of the flightdeck's panels prior to
examinations. I agree if I sat down in a Sundowner (never even heard
of one of them) it would be hard to decipher what ATC is asking me to
do. I have a lot of good quality payware aircraft on FSX from the
Cessna 152, 172, 182, 206, Twin Otter and the 744 so would only be
fairly familiar with most of their cockpit layouts but sitting in an
Airbus or even the older generation 737's without Glass Cockpits would
be challenging like you say.

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.

I think I was following on from your comment (or someone elses as too
many ppl on here) about managing to keep the aircraft straight and
level and in controlled flight when reaching across to change switches
etc. Even with TrackIR on FSX and a 24" widescreen monitor you lose
peripheral vision so the Primary Flight Display is out of view in the
sim (so you cannot see the attitude of the aircraft). Because you also
cannot 'feel' what the aircraft is doing and no outside view of the
horizon you could find yourself inadvertantly in a turn. IRL you
would know this immediately. I fully appreciate in IMC conditions you
use your instruments fully and don't rely on what you can/cannot see
outside..

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.

Again this sim has taught me a hell of a lot on instrumentation,
flight programming the FMC, how to track VOR radials, NDB's, ILS's,
SIDS and STARS. I agree there is a HELL of a lot more to learn but it
is a start and certainly an advantage to those that do not use it and
I would defend it's benefits fully. I DO know a retired commercial
Airbus A320 pilot who uses FSX and enjoys it and sees its merits
amongst other trained pilots. If you dont like using it that's your
perogative and I respect that. 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. The default 747
is total **** and a kid could operate it compared to the highly
complex PMDG models.

Ibby

On Mar 4, 5:41*am, Ibby wrote:
Beechsundowner,

I agree with a lot you are saying. *I agree that putting anyone with
no experience of that type of aircraft into the flightdeck and
expecting them to know what and where each switch is would be very
difficult.

My main defense on this forum was for the Simulator and it's benefits
on learning certain aircraft. *Everyone here just argues 'its a toy
for children' when in fact it's a 'tool for learning'.

I don't think a pilot on here will disagree that it's a tool for
learning. It's a tool for learning instrumentation (where buttons are
and how they work in relation to each other) and procedures
(particularily IFR). Anything beyond that, it's a toy.


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.

I think I was following on from your comment (or someone elses as too
many ppl on here) about managing to keep the aircraft straight and
level and in controlled flight when reaching across to change switches
etc. *

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. Those sensory feelings cannot
be ignored and you don't get this on the ground via MSFS. Look up the
term leans and IMC to get a better understanding. 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..

Again this sim has taught me a hell of a lot on instrumentation,
flight programming the FMC, how to track VOR radials, NDB's, ILS's,
SIDS and STARS. *I agree there is a HELL of a lot more to learn but it
is a start and certainly an advantage to those that do not use it and
I would defend it's benefits fully. *

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.

Nobody will learn how to land an airplane on MSFX. Nobody will come
to the rescue of a commercial airplane in the real world after playing
in MSFX. It's just just not that 2 dimensional without human factor
intervention.

-b- writes:

By instruments. That's what they're there for.

How do you determine the height of the mountain ahead of you with instruments?

How do you determine where you will touch down on the runway with instruments?

You need some pretty fancy avionics to do these things, and many aircraft lack
them.

a writes:

"Extend your downwind a mile" is obeyed sans instruments ...

So how do you do that, and how accurate are you?

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

"Extend your downwind a mile" is obeyed sans instruments ...

So how do you do that, and how accurate are you?

How accurate does he need to be?

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
-b- writes:

By instruments. That's what they're there for.

How do you determine the height of the mountain ahead of you with
instruments?

How do you determine where you will touch down on the runway with
instruments?

You need some pretty fancy avionics to do these things, and many aircraft
lack
them.

Don't worry about, your flying a desk.

Mxsmanic wrote:
a writes:

"Extend your downwind a mile" is obeyed sans instruments ...

So how do you do that, and how accurate are you?

A real pilot will know the runway length and uses that as a "yardstick"
of sorts absent an instrument that gives you the data.

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.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
-b- writes:

By instruments. That's what they're there for.

How do you determine the height of the mountain ahead of you with instruments?

A real pilot would know that you looked that up on the sectional and
planned acordingly before he/she got into the airplane.

How do you determine where you will touch down on the runway with instruments?

A real pilot would know that just by looking at the runway, where it
appears, and its movement relative to the nose of the aircraft.

None of that however has anything to do with the original subject, i.e.
determining distance.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

A real pilot would know that you looked that up on the sectional and
planned acordingly before he/she got into the airplane.

A real pilot knows that a sectional is not an instrument. The claim was that
this was done by instruments.

A real pilot would know that just by looking at the runway, where it
appears, and its movement relative to the nose of the aircraft.

For me, the part that _doesn't_ move in my field of view is the spot where I'm
going.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

A real pilot would know that you looked that up on the sectional and
planned acordingly before he/she got into the airplane.

A real pilot knows that a sectional is not an instrument. The claim was that
this was done by instruments.

No, it was not.

The discussion was about judging distance and YOU changed the subject to
determining the height of mountains.

A real pilot would know that just by looking at the runway, where it
appears, and its movement relative to the nose of the aircraft.

For me, the part that _doesn't_ move in my field of view is the spot where I'm
going.

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

What a buffoon.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.