Stability augmentation promises to give you even less control

a writes:

I hate responding to a troll, but his statement is nonsensical when
he claims a substantially higher workload for SEL under IFR/IMC. What
increase in workload? Control by reference to instruments? Navigating?
Communicating? Changing Frequencies? Flying a predetermined route?

Yes, all of these and more.

Most of us rated for instrument flight would assert the workload is
NOT substantial ...

I'm not sure who "us" might be, but every source I've read on the topic
asserts that single-pilot IFR represents a substantial workload. And IFR in
general is a higher workload than VFR, if it's done right.

... and I, among many, prefer IFR than VFR because it is
in fact easier and certainly safer.

It's easier when you've been doing it for a long time, and it's certainly
safer when it's done right, but that doesn't mean that the workload is
trivial. This is especially true when you are flying in IMC and you actually
need IFR, as opposed to flying in clear weather and choosing IFR for logistic
reasons.

It's a matter of training, something a non-aviator would not understand.

A lot of non-aviators teach it, so they obviously understand it.

On Aug 4, 5:52*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

It's a matter of training, something a non-aviator would not understand..

A lot of non-aviators teach it, so they obviously understand it.

WRONG

A couple of you guys seem to have a real obsession with Mx and will go to
any length to try to discredit anything and everything he posts here. I
have to admit that it sometimes makes you look a little ridiculous,
especially when he's more right than wrong, and you're response is more
wrong than right.

Just because the guy isn't a pilot doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't
understand anything about aviation. I know quite a few pilots that know a
lot less than he appears to know.


wrote in message
...
On Aug 4, 5:52 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

It's a matter of training, something a non-aviator would not understand.

A lot of non-aviators teach it, so they obviously understand it.

WRONG

On Aug 5, 8:50*am, "bds" wrote:
A couple of you guys seem to have a real obsession with Mx and will go to
any length to try to discredit anything and everything he posts here. *I
have to admit that it sometimes makes you look a little ridiculous,
especially when he's more right than wrong, and you're response is more
wrong than right.

Where am I even remotely wrong in this thread????????

He is dead wrong in what he says in this thread. He needs lessons on
English if he thinks a NON aviator can understand what it takes to fly
an airplane.

I can't imagine you even agreeing with what he says. If you fly a
REAL airplane, you wouldn't have said what you did above.

On Aug 5, 2:55*pm, "Stephen!" wrote:

* In other words, without ground school I was able to not only take (and
pass) the written but also the practical.[1] *Before I even had my
introductory flight I already had an understanding of "what it takes to
fly".

[1] *My primary CFI quizzed me and determined that I was ready for the
written. *I'd spent the previous 30+ years doing 'self-study' and he
realized that trying to do ground school would be a waste of time for
both of us.

Book knowledge won't get you out of inadvertant IMC. Book knowledge
won't help you if you need to divert. If you fly far enough on a
regular basis, it's not if but when these situations will happen.
Book knowledge tells you wat to do to avoid it and how to get out of
it but doesn't allow you to experience it first hand.

Would you want to be taught by a CFI WITH ONLY MSFS experience and no
real airplane flying experience??????

I'd think and hope not! I know I would not!

Ever try to reach for something in heavy turbulence in a real plane
such as a throttle? Compare that to MSFS and then come back and lets
talk. The two doesn't compare. Ever experience leans and have to be
forced to ignore your bodily sensations. Compare that to MSFS and
then come back and lets talk.

Mx has absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE of what it takes to fly a real plane
with his ZERO PIC time and only MSFS time. ZERO, NADA. MSFS and real
world flying don't compare as he wants his readership to believe.

You can talk all the theories about what it take to fly a plane but
when the rubber meets the road, it's you that is flying the plane, not
the books. I have yet had to have a hard time reaching for my keyboard
in MSFS severe turbulence LOL yet conversly try reaching for the
throttle or tune a radio in light to moderate chop.

He talks like he flies XC's in a citation. HE SIMULATES, he doesnt'
fly. He presents himself as a pilot. He is not a pilot, he is
simulating being a pilot on a desktop computer.

He outright lies by misleading people.

'nuf said.....

writes:

Book knowledge won't get you out of inadvertant IMC. Book knowledge
won't help you if you need to divert.

Which parts of doing these things are not documented in books?

Book knowledge tells you wat to do to avoid it and how to get out of
it but doesn't allow you to experience it first hand.

So?

Mx has absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE of what it takes to fly a real plane
with his ZERO PIC time and only MSFS time. ZERO, NADA. MSFS and real
world flying don't compare as he wants his readership to believe.

What are your total hours flying, just out of curiosity?

On Aug 5, 11:02*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
Book knowledge won't get you out of inadvertant IMC. *Book knowledge
won't help you if you need to divert.

Which parts of doing these things are not documented in books?

Book knowledge tells you wat to do to avoid it and how to get out of
it but doesn't allow you to experience it first hand.

So?

Mx has absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE of what it takes to fly a real plane
with his ZERO PIC time and only MSFS time. *ZERO, NADA. *MSFS and real
world flying don't compare as he wants his readership to believe.

What are your total hours flying, just out of curiosity?

Asking for experience, flying hours, qualifications etc are a total
waste of bandwidth on Usenet. The person being challenged could be a
trained Chimp with a keyboard or the King of Siam. They could also be
quite legitimate.
The ONLY accurate measure of value on any Usenet forum is the accuracy
of the information posted proven over time. Posters are usually found
to be who they claim to be or not who they claim to be over time and
posting history based on the above.

My most interesting Usenet experience occurred when someone accused me
of NOT being Dudley Henriques as he knew Dudley Henriques and I wasn't
him.
My wife promptly answered his private email to me stating that if he
knew the real Dudley Henriques, would he be kind enough to ask him to
come home immediately as the impostor she had been living with for
over 40 years didn't like to do yard work.
DH

On Aug 5, 10:02*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
Book knowledge won't get you out of inadvertant IMC. *Book knowledge
won't help you if you need to divert.

Which parts of doing these things are not documented in books?

What difference does it make to you. You already don't take my
answers for any value.

What are your total hours flying, just out of curiosity?

What difference does it make to you. You already don't take my
answers for any value.

On Aug 6, 7:55*am, "Stephen!" wrote:
" wrote in news:ccab996d-ac27-41ee-
:

He is dead wrong in what he says in this thread. *He needs lessons on
English if he thinks a NON aviator can understand what it takes to fly
an airplane.

* I'm pretty sure you are stretching it a little here... *Care to guess
how many hours of Ground School I had when I got my PPL?

* Here's a hint: *Zero.

How many hours flying did you have ?

We didn't have (or need) 'ground schools'.
You picked up the theory as you trained and flew.

On Aug 6, 10:45*am, "Stephen!" wrote:

* Somewhere between 50 and 60. *During my training I had a bit of diffculty
with tropical weather, aircraft having proper insurance, and terrorist
attacks shutting down the airspace system that extended my time several
hours longer than it should have been.

I fooled round and didn't do my PPL until I had over 70 hours.
At the time 40 hours was the lowest time permitted