Why The Hell... (random rant)

"Nomen Nescio" wrote ...

You do realize that MX is an emotionally disturbed individual has has
never flown in a small plane and thinks that Microsoft Flight Sim is
real, don't you?


Well, he's an interesting personality. He was active in the rec.photo groups
around 2003 . Interestingly, over there he was opposed to new technology and
was heavily against the then-new digital cameras, while here he advocates
total reliance on electronic digital systems in aircraft. A surprising
change of attitude.

I won't go any further diagnosing Mx. But I do use MS Flight Sim sometimes
myself, mainly to rehearse the VFR route and approach to airports I haven't
visited before. It's a good tool for that. But for getting the feel of
flying most of the other sims I've tried are better. Too bad none of them
can replicate that feeling when the seat suddenly drops away from you in a
bump ;-)

"Snowbird" wrote in
.fi:


"Nomen Nescio" wrote ...

You do realize that MX is an emotionally disturbed individual has has
never flown in a small plane and thinks that Microsoft Flight Sim is
real, don't you?


Well, he's an interesting personality. He was active in the rec.photo
groups around 2003 . Interestingly, over there he was opposed to new
technology and was heavily against the then-new digital cameras, while
here he advocates total reliance on electronic digital systems in
aircraft. A surprising change of attitude.

I won't go any further diagnosing Mx. But I do use MS Flight Sim
sometimes myself, mainly to rehearse the VFR route and approach to
airports I haven't visited before. It's a good tool for that. But for
getting the feel of flying most of the other sims I've tried are
better. Too bad none of them can replicate that feeling when the seat
suddenly drops away from you in a bump ;-)




Try and get a ride in NASA's VMS (Verticle Motion Simulator). It will
let you feel the bump and even some G's. I saw it in action on a tour (no,
I didn't get to ride on it) and it was awesome. Think of a full motion
simulator which, in addition to pitch, roll, and yaw can also move 60'
vertically, 40' forward/backward and 8' side-to-side. To simulate Gs in a
turn, they slowly lower the "cab" and pull it back to the rear-most
position. Then when they pitched the cab down and rolled it in the
direction of the turn while simultaneously moving it forward and raising it
at a pretty rapid pace. (They were practicing a shuttle arrival at KSC.)

They have one motion base and several cabs. The cabs can be
configured independently of the motion base. NASA has simulated blimps,
helicopters, fighters, transport aircraft, and the space shuttle with the
VMS by simply changing the cab.

If you ever get to the San Francisco area, try and get a tour at NASA
AMES at Moffett Field (KNUQ).

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

On Apr 6, 4:38 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Kev writes:
Lots of people flew across the Atlantic with sometimes
just a compass, and they easily recognized the coast of England /
France / whatever with their bare old eyes ;-)

Just a compass? No charts or other aids at all?

A chart over nothing but water is useless :-)

It's true that if you start at certain latitudes and fly due east, you'll
eventually hit some part of Europe. That's essentially just throwing darts,
however.

Yes, but in this case, it worked. The point was, just a compass is
all you need sometimes.

However, the discussion is about compass and magnetic navigation.
Charts are a given part of navigation.

Kev

Snowbird writes:

That's your opinion then. I can speak from my own experience, I've been in
that situation a few times and the magnetic compass has been a great help.

In a jet airliner? (That was the aircraft being discussed.)

I'll grant that it would be okay in a tiny aircraft with just you as
passenger. It would be as bad as nothing at all in the case of a large
airliner with hundreds of people aboard.

Of course without training and practical experience in using the magnetic
compass, its value is limited. But using it happens to be included in the
pilot's license curriculum, and for a reason.

How often do pilots practice flying with just a compass once they've obtained
their licenses?

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

george writes:

I remember flying 'partial panel' under the hood where the compass was
an essential part of the scan..
and its unbreakable (unless you hang a magnet off it)

Or turn on the air conditioning.

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

Snowbird writes:

How is this relevant to the topic? Has anyone here questioned the need for
charts (except when flying in familiar areas) ?

It has been asserted that a compass alone is sufficient. But it's not. You
need charts or other sources of information in order to make a compass useful.

While one method of using a compass alone has been given here, it would only
be useful in populated areas. If you're truly out in the wilderness, it won't
help.

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

Snowbird writes:

Interestingly, over there he was opposed to new technology and
was heavily against the then-new digital cameras, while here he advocates
total reliance on electronic digital systems in aircraft.

No, I do not. If you examine my posts here, you'll find that I'm opposed to
extremes. I'm opposed to relying entirely on systems such as GPS or
computerized glass cockpits, and I'm also opposed to the romantic notion that
somehow a mere compass is going to get you out of trouble if more complex
instrumentation fails.

In other words, moderation is best in all things. You cannot fly safely with
just a compass. You also run a risk of flying unsafely if you rely entirely
on a fancy navigation system that is not proven 100% reliable, such as GPS.

To stay safe, you must recognize that anything can fail--and you must also
recognize that something as crude as a compass is really no more useful than
nothing at all, so you must not assume that having a compass makes you any
safer.

A corollary of this is that you must always verify that everything in your
aircraft is working. If you think you can get by with malfunctioning
equipment, then you don't need that equipment to begin with. If you normally
need it and it is malfunctioning and you choose to fly anyway, you may never
come back.

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

writes:

Not to real pilots, sim pilots maybe, but not real pilots.

A lot of sailors died that way. Airmen are no more immortal than sailors.

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

Kev writes:

A chart over nothing but water is useless :-)

"No charts or other aids."

Yes, but in this case, it worked. The point was, just a compass is
all you need sometimes.

That's not a risk I'd want to take.

And Lindbergh did have charts. Ironically, he had bought them at a boat shop,
and they were nautical charts, but they did the job.

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

CJ writes:

Uh, no. What Ron Natalie said was:

"The engine in just about every airplane out there runs just freaking fine
without any electrical power consumed nor delivered to the rest of the
aircraft."

It's an accurate statement - that's probably what confused you.

"Without any electrical power consumed." And before you say it, "nor"
excludes the remainder of the sentence (unlike "or").

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