Simulators

Mxsmanic wrote:
VOR-DME writes:

Let's just try; Most people are not as dishonest as yourself.

I have a reputation for being honest to a fault.

Delusional nonsense.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On May 17, 1:13*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

I have a reputation for being honest to a fault.

SINCE WHEN IS WITHHOLDING INFORMATION such as experience HONEST???????

Mxsmanic wrote:

I never say that I fly a real airplane; I simply don't mention that it's
simulation.

The term for that is lying through ommision.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

The term for that is lying through ommision.

Omission isn't lying.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

The term for that is lying through ommision.

Omission isn't lying.

That's a lie.


http://www.choice101.com/19-lies.html#LiesOfOmission

"To lie by omission is to remain silent and thereby withhold from someone
else a vital piece (or pieces) of information. The silence is deceptive
in that it gives a false impression to the person from whom the information
was withheld. It subverts the truth; it is a way to manipulate someone
into altering their behavior to suit the desire of the person who
intentionally withheld the vital information; and, most importantly, it's
a gross violation of another person's right of self-determination."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Lying_by_omission

"One lies by omission by omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving
another person with a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to
correct pre-existing misconceptions."



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In article ,
says...
As for the FAA, I never talked
to them at all.

That assertion was your own.
I might have guessed it had no basis in fact.

VOR-DME writes:

In article ,
says...
As for the FAA, I never talked
to them at all.

That assertion was your own.

That wasn't my assertion. I said that the FAA was fooled. I didn't say that I
talked to them.

On May 17, 2:29*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
VOR-DME writes:
That is a very revealing statement. If you talk about simulated flying
experience and you do not inform the listener your experience was simulated it
simply means you are faking.

Not really. The fact that I simulate isn't necessarily relevant to the
conversation.

Nope. You're a fraud. That's what we're telling you. Over on
rec.aviation.student, the average low-time student might have NO IDEA
that you've never actually flown an aircraft, so you have no idea how
close simulation actually is to the real thing.

Furthermore, it would be trivially easy for you to go down to the
local airport and catch an intro flight around the pattern and maybe
log a little flight time, but, you don't even do that. Yet you
continue to challenge the experience and expertise of pilots, ground
instructors, flight instructors, simulator instructors, the FAA and
anybody else who contradicts your argument which, again, is based
SOLELY on what you've read somewhere or simulated.

Remember, virtually all aspects of simulation work just as the real world does ... that's the point. *Pull back on the yoke and pitch
increases. Extend the gear and drag increases. It doesn't really matter if it's simulated or real.

WRONG, AND DEADLY-WRONG. You have no idea, and to purport that you do
is dishonest. For perspective, since you dodge me: I fly C-172s in
MSFS. I fly and teach in a full-cockpit C-172 sim with a 180-
wraparound display. I fly and teach in a Cessna 172. For under $100
somebody like me--there are thousands--could show you the differences
between the three, but you choose not to do so.

Rather, you choose to insist that "virtually all aspects of simulation
work just as the real world does" even when pilots and instructors
explain otherwise. In that case, you just refute the credibility of
those people. You refer to them as "Yeager-wannabes," low time PPLs or
people who got their license to stroke their ego. You don't
acknowledge or respect guys like Dudley...you REFUTE THEM.

IFR procedures are executed in exactly the same way in simulation as they are in real life--so why mention
that it is simulation

Once again, you're profoundly wrong and you have no idea what I'm
talking about. Every IFR pilot who has ever used a flight simulator
does.

Recently I flew three people in a C-182 around Mt. St. Helens. One of
them was a geologist who had studied the mountain before the eruptions
and hadn't seen it since. We saw steam coming from the lava dome and a
herd of elk on the vast landscape of devastation.You can't simulate
that.

Last Saturday I rode backseat observing an IFR student hold a dead-on
ILS approach down to the minimums, under the hood and with the AI and
DG covered up and felt the joy of knowing that a fellow instructor's
student was a good pilot who was ready for his checkride. When we
returned we stood on the tarmac while a gleaming DC-3 rumbled past,
took off, circled the pattern and landed again. We felt the breeze
from its propwash and listened to a veteran tell us what it was like
taxiing such a large taildragger, and what it felt like to ride across
the United States, to see St. Elmo's fire on the wings, to . You can't
simulate that.

One time, a jet taxiied up, shut down, and Morgan Freeman jumped out
and chocked it himself. He flew in solo. On Sunday, a jet flew in and
within an hour, sparrows were trying to get into the downwind turbine.
I'm extremely familiar with MSFS, and you don't check belts for
tension or cowls for nests.

A B-17 comes to town and people behold it in awe, with actual tears in
their eyes. An as Pancho Barnes said it, "Some peckerwood's gotta fly
that sonofabitch, and that peckerwood is called a PILOT" And having
flown in and ridden in every position of a B-17, I can tell you with
100% authority, you CANNOT simulate that.

Joe Public comes into our FBO seeking rides in planes, not simulators.

There is a 100% probability that you will refute, discredit or dodge
my experience and perspective as both a simulator pilot and flight
instructor, and THAT is what everybody has been talking about and why
you have no allies here.

Alpha Propellerhead writes:

Over on rec.aviation.student, the average low-time student might
have NO IDEA that you've never actually flown an aircraft ...

So?

The object of these groups is discussion of aviation, not discussion of
people. So my background is irrelevant.

Furthermore, it would be trivially easy for you to go down to the
local airport and catch an intro flight around the pattern and maybe
log a little flight time, but, you don't even do that.

Actually, no, it's not trivially easy. In fact, it would be extremely
difficult, both logistically and financially.

Yet you continue to challenge the experience and expertise of pilots,
ground instructors, flight instructors, simulator instructors, the
FAA and anybody else who contradicts your argument which, again,
is based SOLELY on what you've read somewhere or simulated.

Apparently you are unaware that what I read was written by pilots, ground
instructors, flight instructors, simulator instructors, and the FAA. My
arguments are often taken directly from what they've written. Thus, there can
be no contradiction.

WRONG, AND DEADLY-WRONG. You have no idea, and to purport that you do
is dishonest. For perspective, since you dodge me: I fly C-172s in
MSFS. I fly and teach in a full-cockpit C-172 sim with a 180-
wraparound display. I fly and teach in a Cessna 172. For under $100
somebody like me--there are thousands--could show you the differences
between the three, but you choose not to do so.

I'm interested in more than just Cessna 172s, and in any case there aren't
likely to be any Cessnas near me. And, as I've said, what you suggest is
logistically and financially impossible right now.

As if that were not enough, I'm not at all convinced that a bumpy ride in a
noisy little airplane with my ears constantly popping would reinforce my
interest in aviation. And even if it did, since it could not be repeated, it
would still be a waste of time.

Rather, you choose to insist that "virtually all aspects of simulation
work just as the real world does" even when pilots and instructors
explain otherwise.

But pilots and instructors do not explain otherwise. You may be saying that,
but they don't. The only places where I see disagreements are in cyberspace
venues haunted by angry young men who would like me to believe that they are
experts in everything, despite evidence to the contrary.

In that case, you just refute the credibility of
those people. You refer to them as "Yeager-wannabes," low time PPLs or
people who got their license to stroke their ego.

Well, there has to be some reason why they obstinately insist that they are
right even when every other source I have says that they are wrong. It's
unlikely that the rest of the world is wrong, and the treehouse club is right.

You don't acknowledge or respect guys like Dudley...you REFUTE THEM.

I give everyone the same amount of respect. I acknowledge answers that appear
to be right. I argue with answers that appear to be wrong. I don't recall
Dudley being wrong as long as he talks about aviation in an objective way. Of
course, he has often been wrong about me, but if he refrained from talking
about me, that wouldn't be a problem.

Recently I flew three people in a C-182 around Mt. St. Helens. One of
them was a geologist who had studied the mountain before the eruptions
and hadn't seen it since. We saw steam coming from the lava dome and a
herd of elk on the vast landscape of devastation.You can't simulate
that.

Why would I want to? It has nothing to do with IFR procedures. Why do you
even mention it?

Last Saturday I rode backseat observing an IFR student hold a dead-on
ILS approach down to the minimums, under the hood and with the AI and
DG covered up and felt the joy of knowing that a fellow instructor's
student was a good pilot who was ready for his checkride. When we
returned we stood on the tarmac while a gleaming DC-3 rumbled past,
took off, circled the pattern and landed again. We felt the breeze
from its propwash and listened to a veteran tell us what it was like
taxiing such a large taildragger, and what it felt like to ride across
the United States, to see St. Elmo's fire on the wings, to . You can't
simulate that.

Why would I want to? I'm not interested in physical sensations. I don't
necessarily like wind in my hair.

One time, a jet taxiied up, shut down, and Morgan Freeman jumped out
and chocked it himself. He flew in solo.

And who is Morgan Freeman?

On Sunday, a jet flew in and within an hour, sparrows were trying
to get into the downwind turbine.

So? Why are you telling me these things? What does this have to do with
aviation?

I'm extremely familiar with MSFS, and you don't check belts for
tension or cowls for nests.

Not in the current version, no. It doesn't sound very enjoyable.

A B-17 comes to town and people behold it in awe, with actual tears in
their eyes.

Sheesh. Are these the same people that play One Six Right in a loop all day
long?

An as Pancho Barnes said it, "Some peckerwood's gotta fly
that sonofabitch, and that peckerwood is called a PILOT"

The name sounds vaguely familiar, but I can't place it.

And having
flown in and ridden in every position of a B-17, I can tell you with
100% authority, you CANNOT simulate that.

I don't fly a B-17, nor do I have any desire to.

Joe Public comes into our FBO seeking rides in planes, not simulators.

So?

There is a 100% probability that you will refute, discredit or dodge
my experience and perspective as both a simulator pilot and flight
instructor, and THAT is what everybody has been talking about and why
you have no allies here.

Why do I need allies? My concern is being right, not making friends.

On May 20, 4:53*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Alpha Propellerhead writes:
Over on rec.aviation.student, the average low-time student might
have NO IDEA that you've never actually flown an aircraft ...

So?

As I have PROVEN, your background is everything.

You are NOT a credible source to even comment on flying in the real
world.

Why?? You are not a CGI. You NEVER FLEW in a real plane as PIC.

Therefore your lying AND MISREPRESENTATION needs to be brought out
front and center.