Why The Hell... (random rant)

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.

Snowbird! Welcome back! Long time no read.

I trust life in the great state of Missouri is treating you well?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Mxsmanic" wrote


What's wrong with their attitude?

Typically they have not only simulated the destruction of a number of
aircraft, but are completely unaware of the aspects of aviation that occur
before takeoff and after landing. It takes time and effort to get them
understand neither is an option in real aviation.

There are other people who are excited by risk.

This seems to be a favorite theme of yours. In my experience, such people
tend to favor more extreme activities such as parachuting or mountain
climbing, over flying They tend to be discouraged by what they call
"restrictive rules" of aviation. For most pilots, in my experience, the
fascination of flying is something quite remote from the thrill-seeking
behavior you describe.

But I recall that this theme has been discussed at length here recently, so
obviously it would be a waste of time for me to continue repeating what
other aviators have already said. Have a nice day.

"Jay Honeck" wrote ...

Snowbird! Welcome back! Long time no read.

I trust life in the great state of Missouri is treating you well?
--

Hi Jay,
I'm sorry but it seems that this is a case of two persons with the same
nickname.

But thank you anyway for the warm welcome, which is a good example of the
great spirit you bring to this newsgroup.

Snowbird writes:

Typically they have not only simulated the destruction of a number of
aircraft, but are completely unaware of the aspects of aviation that occur
before takeoff and after landing. It takes time and effort to get them
understand neither is an option in real aviation.

Some people use simulators precisely because they are aware of all the useless
overhead in real aviation and prefer to avoid it. I know that's the key
reason for me.

I rather doubt that any intelligent person would question the utility of
avoiding a crash in real aviation.

This seems to be a favorite theme of yours.

It's a favorite theme of the FAA, too, one of a group of characteristics that
one finds frequently among pilots who have accidents.

The FAA isn't the only organization to notice this, however.

In my experience, such people
tend to favor more extreme activities such as parachuting or mountain
climbing, over flying They tend to be discouraged by what they call
"restrictive rules" of aviation.

But some of them do become pilots, behaving long enough to get the license,
and then they ignore the rules and take serious risks. Additionally, this
character defect exists in degrees, and so it might be mild enough not to
interfere with getting a license, but severe enough to encourage a pilot to
take risks that will eventually get him killed.

For most pilots, in my experience, the
fascination of flying is something quite remote from the thrill-seeking
behavior you describe.

It's a question of personality. Note that people who are fascinated by
physical sensations are only one step away from the thrillseekers.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote

Some people use simulators precisely because they are aware of all the
useless
overhead in real aviation and prefer to avoid it. I know that's the key
reason for me.

Perhaps, but you are missing a huge part of the flying experience, and I
don't mean the physical sensation part that you always focus on.

It's a question of personality. Note that people who are fascinated by
physical sensations are only one step away from the thrillseekers.

You need to understand that the experience of actual flight can be
stimulating mentally as well as physically, and that the mental stimulation
can also be the major factor. You also need to understand that the mental
stimulation you get from a sim is not the same as the mental stimulation you
get from actual flight - I do both, and I also know countless pilots who do
as well, and they all would totally agree with that statement. See if you
can find a single pilot who has done both, and who will agree with your
assertion that simulation - and especially PC simulation - is mentally the
same experience as actual flight.

For most people, seeing a picture of the Grand Canyon is a far cry from
actually being there looking at it, and yet they are physically the same
experience.

BDS

BDS writes:

Perhaps, but you are missing a huge part of the flying experience, and I
don't mean the physical sensation part that you always focus on.

It's still cost-effective. I get most of the experience at only a fraction of
the cost, and without the overhead of the parts that aren't fun.

You need to understand that the experience of actual flight can be
stimulating mentally as well as physically, and that the mental stimulation
can also be the major factor.

Sure, although some of the most mentally stimulating parts also happen to be
parts that can be effectively simulated (such as instrument flight).

You also need to understand that the mental
stimulation you get from a sim is not the same as the mental stimulation you
get from actual flight - I do both, and I also know countless pilots who do
as well, and they all would totally agree with that statement.

You need to understand that the stimulation of real flight may well be
_different_ from that of a simulator, but it is not necessarily _better_.

For example, I don't enjoy being jostled by turbulence until I throw up.
That's one possible experience of real aviation that I can do without. It's
never an issue in simulation.

For most people, seeing a picture of the Grand Canyon is a far cry from
actually being there looking at it, and yet they are physically the same
experience.

I've done both, and the main difference I saw was that the canyon is in three
dimensions when you look at it in person. Otherwise it looks like a picture.
Others in my party felt the same way. It wasn't worth hours of driving and
staying in a fleabag hotel at highway-robbery rates, and all the other
overhead associated with visiting, and so I never went back.

I would like a better simulation of the canyon in MSFS, though. But I suppose
that would just slow down the frame rates.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote

For example, I don't enjoy being jostled by turbulence until I throw up.

Me either. Although I have to say that the only time I ever felt even
slightly airsick it wasn't due to turbulence - a bad hot dog that I ate for
lunch combined with the sun beating down on me and in my eyes on the flight
home was to blame for it.

BDS

BDS writes:

Me either. Although I have to say that the only time I ever felt even
slightly airsick it wasn't due to turbulence - a bad hot dog that I ate for
lunch combined with the sun beating down on me and in my eyes on the flight
home was to blame for it.

Statistically, the incidence of motion sickness in aircraft is very low; the
figures I've seen are around 0.1%. It's common enough that FAs see it often,
but the chances of an individual becoming airsick on a flight are pretty slim.
I have a weak stomach and I've never gotten sick on an aircraft, even in
substantial turbulence. On a 747, though, there's a pretty good chance that a
few people will get sick in turbulence.

On the other hand, if I have a migraine or headache, I can get very sick very
quickly if things jostle around a lot, unless I'm the one driving (or
piloting).

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Alan Gerber writes:

Yikes! What if that one instrument goes tango uniform? It's a good
thing
there's always a compass to fall back on, then! :-)

Large airliners have a great deal of redundancy, and that helps. Contrast
this with things like a G1000 in a small plane, which has no redundancy at
all.

What if the failure isn't in the instrument, but in a sensor? Would that
warrant practice analogous to partial panel, or are there enough
redundant
sensors that it wouldn't be worth it?

Airliners often do have redundant sensors as well.

For those who aren't paying close attention, we've switched mid-paragraph
from redundant airline cockpits to small GA planes with glass panels.

The latter are much riskier than the former.


And since we all know you have never flown or even worked on a 747, your
reference are?

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
writes:

I think we're working with different definitions of training. The
first officer, especially in the beginning, is still learning the
job. And training how to do the captain's job takes place largely in
the right seat.

But he is not learning to fly, not even the aircraft in question. His
"training" is company procedures and policies.

The number of hours spent is the simulator is dwarfed by the time
spent learning while working in the right seat.

More specifically, the number of hours spent in the simulator is dwarfed
by
the time spent in the right seat. However, the simulator time is pure
training. The right-seat time is just work, and getting used to aspects
of
the job unrelated to flight per se.


And you read all this where???