MS Flight Sim As a Training Tool

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

mike regish writes:

Unless IFR, the instruments are only a backup and verification tool.
You keep your wings level by looking at the wingtips. You hold
altitude by developing a sight picture over the nose. You briefly
scan your instruments to verify and refine altitude and heading.

And you don't depend on sensations.

Why on Earth are you continually trying to exclude sight (and sound) from
"sensations"? They are, indeed, human sensory inputs and flying aircraft
of any type is absolutely dependent on them.

-------------------------------------------------------
American Heritage Dictionary
sen·sa·tion (sn-sshn) Pronunciation Key
n.

Neil Gould writes:

Why on Earth are you continually trying to exclude sight (and sound) from
"sensations"?

Flying is dependent on sight, but not much else.

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

--
--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com writes:

From other threads it is very clear that this person lacks basic pilotage
skills and has to rely on the gauges to navigate. He also doesn't seem to
understand how someone gets disoriented in the air. And, with some
effort, I
could probably find other shortcomings with his skills.

Or you could contribute to the thread.

I think I did.


Clearly "learn yourself flying" from MSFS isn't working.

A lot of real pilots can't land an aircraft in MSFS. Does that mean
that flying in MSFS is more difficult than flying a real aircraft, or
less?


It only stands to reason that if the simulation matched what you experienced
in the real world, then if you could land a real airplane, you could land
the simulation. So, if what you wrote is true (a lot of real pilots can't
land an aircraft in MSFS) - I would take it to mean that MSFS is not
duplicating a "real" aircraft very well. Which is more or less difficult
would then be function of which one you are the most familier with.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

Why on Earth are you continually trying to exclude sight (and sound)
from "sensations"?

Flying is dependent on sight, but not much else.

Your admission that flying is dependent on sensation basically underscores
the fact that all of your previous posts to the contrary are (not
surprisingly), completely wrong. I am really glad that you are making so
many absurd statements as this, as real students won't fall for this crap,
and will know that their training is supplying good information about the
realities of flying.

Neil

Thats would be a long 3000 mile flight for me, If I'm ever back in the
midwest I'll try to stop by, but right now I'm trying to follow more
southerly pursuits.

Jay Honeck wrote:
I will not agree with you, however, in saying that a sim flight model
can be close to the real thing, it's a great piece of entertainment and
can be faily engaging, but let's be honest, it just doesn't act the
same in MSFS as it would in real life, it can be misleadingly close,
but it's not the same.

Well, I can only offer an invitation to come fly the Kiwi.

If, after pulling up to the gas pumps (really!) at little Sylvania
Field (C89) in Racine County, WI, having just sweated your way through
a cross-wind landing on that 30-foot-wide, 2300-foot-long runway,
(after taking a lakefront-tour of Racine), you *still* think that this
thing isn't as real as it gets (outside of an airplane) -- I'll buy the
beer.

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Um...I thought that was what I was saying.

I also use sound more than my tach.

mike


"Neil Gould" wrote in message
et...
Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

mike regish writes:

Unless IFR, the instruments are only a backup and verification tool.
You keep your wings level by looking at the wingtips. You hold
altitude by developing a sight picture over the nose. You briefly
scan your instruments to verify and refine altitude and heading.

And you don't depend on sensations.

Why on Earth are you continually trying to exclude sight (and sound) from
"sensations"? They are, indeed, human sensory inputs and flying aircraft
of any type is absolutely dependent on them.

-------------------------------------------------------
American Heritage Dictionary
sen·sa·tion (sn-sshn) Pronunciation Key
n.

A perception associated with stimulation of a sense organ or with
a specific body condition: the sensation of heat; a visual sensation.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^

Trying to shift the context of the responses you've been given only makes
you look worse, because you aren't fooling any "real aircraft" pilots.

Neil

Wrong.

mike

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Neil Gould writes:

Why on Earth are you continually trying to exclude sight (and sound) from
"sensations"?

Flying is dependent on sight, but not much else.

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

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com writes:

It only stands to reason that if the simulation matched what you experienced
in the real world, then if you could land a real airplane, you could land
the simulation.

Yes.

So, if what you wrote is true (a lot of real pilots can't land an aircraft
in MSFS) ...

That's what many real pilots have said to me, although I haven't
actually observed this firsthand.

... I would take it to mean that MSFS is not duplicating a "real" aircraft
very well.

It could simply mean that something they normally depend on to fly or
land the plane (such as sensations, or certain types of visual
information) is missing in the sim.

The interesting point here is that, if they truly depend on sensations
or vision to fly, they will never be able to fly by instruments alone.
I should think that an experienced instrument pilot would be able to
land any aircraft in MSFS fairly quickly, with only a few trial runs.
Someone who depends on sensations and (to a lesser extent) vision
might not be able to do this. If someone in the latter category ever
gets caught in IMC while flying for real, he's doomed.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com writes:

It only stands to reason that if the simulation matched what you experienced
in the real world, then if you could land a real airplane, you could land
the simulation.

Yes.

So, if what you wrote is true (a lot of real pilots can't land an aircraft
in MSFS) ...

That's what many real pilots have said to me, although I haven't
actually observed this firsthand.

... I would take it to mean that MSFS is not duplicating a "real" aircraft
very well.

It could simply mean that something they normally depend on to fly or
land the plane (such as sensations, or certain types of visual
information) is missing in the sim.

The interesting point here is that, if they truly depend on sensations
or vision to fly, they will never be able to fly by instruments alone.
I should think that an experienced instrument pilot would be able to
land any aircraft in MSFS fairly quickly, with only a few trial runs.
Someone who depends on sensations and (to a lesser extent) vision
might not be able to do this. If someone in the latter category ever
gets caught in IMC while flying for real, he's doomed.

But the point you are missing is that none of the pilots of single
engine planes ( the vast majority of the posters here ) land a plane by
instruments alone. Instrument rated pilots use the instruments to get
down to a low level but land using visual and sensory cues. Only the
big iron pilots land without those cues and then they don't land the
plane, it lands itself.

John Theune writes:

But the point you are missing is that none of the pilots of single
engine planes ( the vast majority of the posters here ) land a plane by
instruments alone.

It sounds like they hardly ever use instruments at all.

Instrument rated pilots use the instruments to get down to a low
level but land using visual and sensory cues. Only the
big iron pilots land without those cues and then they don't land the
plane, it lands itself.

Only the very last part of the flight is visual. The rest is by
instruments. But it doesn't sound like there are too many regular IFR
pilots here, since they all seem to rely on seat-of-the-pants flying.
Hmm.

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