GA is priceless

Mxsmanic,

I've learned it a lot better than many non-IR pilots.

Even if that were true (you're conveniently forgetting the requirement for
basic instrument instruction in the PPL, which you have not gone through and
which is the very foundation of any "instrument flight"), what's the
relevance with regard to your statement that you "have learned instrument
flight"? You still haven't.


Notice that last little word, "flight".
Learning instrument flight involves FLYING. You haven't. Period.

I've simulated, which is good enough.

It's not good enough by anybody's standards except your own. So it is not
good enough by a long shot. The authorities, not you, make the rules
regarding what constitutes "instrument flight" (your choice of words, not
mine, so you're going to be held by it).

Yes, and ironically they aren't always very realistic. Just
certified.

How would you know? Have you used them? And even if you did, how would you
know how realistic they are? And it doesn't matter anyway, since, as I said
above, YOU are not the one deciding what is "instrument flight".

And no sensible person would say that you can learn instrument
flight only on one of those sims.

Why not?

Because. It's the way certification of instrument rated pilots works. A
simple matter of definition.

I'm not the one who seems to be emotional about it. It's not a
problem for me. I know what I've learned, and it is considerable.

Why are you making life so hard for yourself and your fellow humans? Are you
really that incapable of normal human-to-human interaction?

Of course you have learned a considerable amount about flying. Nobody in
their right mind on this group has ever doubted that, not even those that
have attacked you. You know way more than the average layman, and in some
areas you know more than some pilots. The effort you have put into learning
this is admirable.

BUT the point is this: You have in no way and nowhere nearly the
qualification to say you have "learned instrument flight". There are strict
and clear definitions regarding what that statement means and what it
requires. You don't fulfil those requirements by a long shot. Many here do.
And you DO offend them by claiming you have the requirement without really
having it, because they have put a lot of effort and money into getting it -
and they are just as proud of their knowledge as you are. So why not show a
little respect? You'd be met with respect in turn. And you'd be telling the
truth about your qualifications instead of just making them up.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Mxsmanic wrote:
I've learned it a lot better than many non-IR pilots.

How do you know?

Learning instrument flight involves FLYING. You haven't. Period.

I've simulated, which is good enough.

How do you know? Plenty of people thought they knew it well enough in
the simulator.

Brian

john smith wrote:
No he won't in the non full-motion sim, because he won't have that
"motion" that induces him to move the controls. As one example, the
feeling of falling backwards when leveling off from a climb. The sim
pilot is in steady one-G all the time.



I have been waiting for this opportunity!

You don't get "the leans" sitting in a chair playing MSFS!

Exactly!

Bdl,

How do you know?


It's not about knowing. There's a clear definition of "instrument flight". What MX has done is not it.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:

snip

Remember speed bumps aren't meant to help car drivers,
they're meant to help pedestrians as a defence _against_ ruthless
drivers. Works. Incidentally the Dutch word is "drempel", reminiscent
of the sound a car makes when driving over one.

Regards


It took us a few days to realize they are called "Sleeping Policemen" in the
Bahamas. Every time we saw a warning sign we wondered if there was a donut
shop nearby....

--
Frank....H

Jay Honeck wrote:

As to lynching traffic engineers....First in line are the ones who have
forgotten about flashing yellows.


snip

So, every night, on my way home from the hotel, I sit at a stoplight
waiting for my little left turn arrow, while the light is green and
there is NO traffic coming toward me. The wait can be over a minute,
which doesn't sound like much -- but if you multiply the amount of
gas/time I've wasted there over the last four years, and then multiply
THAT times the number of other drivers that turn left at that
intersection, I'll bet we have wasted enough $$$ to keep the Iowa City
Airport funded for a year...

If it's a regular (round) green light can't you go when it's clear? Or
perhaps your complaint is actually about "straight arrows"? ;-)

--
Frank....H

(b) Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, a
driver, after stopping as required by subdivision (a), facing a
steady circular red signal, may turn right, or turn left from a
one-way street onto a one-way street.

When this law was introduced in Wisconsin, way back in the early 1980s,
I took advantage of it and turned left on red from a one-way street
onto another one-way street -- and was IMMEDIATELY pulled over and
ticketed.

My vociferous protestations that the turn was legal eventually led to a
shift supervisor coming to the scene, and verifying that I was, indeed,
correct. I had the pleasure of watching the cop tear up my ticket, and
apologize for inconveniencing me... ;-)

Unfortunately, this law won't help the new situation with the
ever-more-ubiquitous "left turn only" arrows.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

If it's a regular (round) green light can't you go when it's clear? Or
perhaps your complaint is actually about "straight arrows"? ;-)

Nope. Through traffic has its own signal light. Left turners must
wait (interminably) for a dedicated green arrow -- even though there is
NO traffic coming at us.

It's absurd, and becoming ever-more-common here in Iowa.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Mxsmanic wrote:
Thomas Borchert writes:

By no definition except your own, which is utterly irrelevant, have you
learned instrument flight.

I've learned it a lot better than many non-IR pilots.

Notice that last little word, "flight".
Learning instrument flight involves FLYING. You haven't. Period.

I've simulated, which is good enough.

Yes, I know there are sims that can be logged as flight time. They
involve elaborate certification to get that status.

Yes, and ironically they aren't always very realistic. Just
certified.

Most of that certification makes sure the experience is similar
enough to flying to count.

No, it doesn't. It makes sure that certain details match reality,
while ignoring the rest. The simulation may be highly unrealistic
overall.

And sometimes an absence of certification simply means that nobody was
willing to jump through the hoops necessary to obtain it.

And no sensible person would say that you can learn instrument
flight only on one of those sims.

Why not?

You don't even have access to one.

Where did I describe my access?

You haven't learned flight. Not any kind. It seems to be a problem for
you. Get over it.

I'm not the one who seems to be emotional about it. It's not a
problem for me. I know what I've learned, and it is considerable.

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

It is probably easier to fly a little spam can than the exercises you
describe flying different aircraft on the sim. As the AOPA likes to
say in their GA Serving (up) America website: anyone can do it and it
will save you alot of time in your travels. It is true that most
anyone that wants to can fly. Even convicted drug dealers are eligible
to obtain PPLs. See article below:

http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional...st=alabamanews

If your
computer is going to be non-deterministic, it cannot be an accurate
simulation.

In Process Explorer (for Windows 98 - if you use XP it's built in) there
is an option to set the priority of a program to "real time". While
this is probably not sufficient for certification, it may address the issue.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.