I give up, after many, many years!

On May 18, 8:36*am, terry wrote:
On May 18, 11:01*pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote: Third, and most likely alternative: he's just stupid.

MX is many things. Persistent, stubborn, blunt, thick-skinned, willing to
argue that black-eyed-peas are really black-eyed-beans, yes. * Occasionally
annoying, often entertaining (mostly because of the responses he obtains),
always willing to come back for more. *He's like a Weebil that won't fall
down.

But stupid? * I don't think so.
--

I agree , definately not stupid, probably well above average IQ .A
vertible human sponge of information. But sadly lacking the social
skills necessary to function in any meaningful way to be be able to do
anything useful with the knowledge he has soaked up. *The problem with
getting all of your information from books *and the internet as
distinct from actually doing anything in real life is that you just
dont know what you dont know. *You and I could read 100 books on
neurosurgery but we would realise from our other life experiences that
it would be futile to get into an argument with a neurosurgeon on how
to perform a labotomy. *But not our Anthony, he just doesnt have the
life experience outside his virtural existance to realise just how
little he really knows about anything. Its sad really. *I wish I could
help him, its a shame some local pilot hasnt tried to take him under
their wing and give him a taste of real life.
Terry

Umm...no.

You started out this paragraph in defense of Mx, and then make a
retraction midway through:

You write:

A
vertible human sponge of information. But sadly lacking the social
skills necessary to function in any meaningful way to be be able to do
anything useful with the knowledge he has soaked up.

Then you write:

But not our Anthony, he just doesnt have the
life experience outside his virtural existance to realise just how
little he really knows about anything

So first you imply that he knows much (relatively speaking). Then you
imply that he knows little (relatively speaking).

Which is it?

As far as social graces go, assuming that he is correct on some
things, which I must clearly state, I do not know, and is verbally
abused by those who disagree with him, then who is lacking in social
grace.

I too have met some freakishly bright people in my life, some with
multiple advanced degress from top university, and those people will
often listen to utter jibberish by a 17 or 18 year-old about things
that they have being doing research about for 30+ years, and not
insult that person, not once. To give you an example...ahem...

In electrical engineering, there are formulas that govern what happens
to a slab of plastic if it is lubricated and placed between two metal
place, a voltage being applied to the plates. The slab will have a
tendency to move. One can make artificial muscles from this, which
would aid the prosthetic word considerably.

Anyhow, one day while studying these formulas, I became so excited
about the potential for artificial muscles, I bounced around the EE
department at my university, until I found on prof who was expert in
this type of technology. He sat quietly, probably a good 10-12 minutes
behind his desk, as I ranted about the design (flaw) and the
mathematics (also flawed), and just smiled. After I finished, I said,
"Ok, I guess you're smiling because my math is flawed but..." and he
reaches down, grabs a magazine, tosses it into my lap, and on front
cover, there is picture of Japanese researchers, making artificial
muscles, using exact same method, but different types of metals.

Here you have, a giant in the field, listening to someone who is so
green that he botches the Biot-Savart Law, not being condescending,
not interrupting me saying, "You got it all wrong, dummy", just
smiling. I never pursued the idea, but I will never forget that Prof.

If experienced pilots, especially in real life, would adopt this
attitude, young pilots would be more inclined to finish flight
training, I think.

There is also another option, which one pilot at my flight school
refused to use, which is, when asked something that is not understood,
like the internals of VOR tranmitter/receiver, to simply say, "I don't
know."

-Le Chaud Lapinn-

writes:

Airliners us FULL MOTION sims, not a desktop MSFS. HUGE difference.

One of the reasons why full-motion sims work is that it's very easy to fool
human senses. Remember, full-motion sims don't actually go anywhere, but to
the people inside, they certainly feel as though they do.

To equate a desktop MSFS to any type of IMC flying is reckless IMHO.

One advantage to MSFS is that it forces you to use instruments in IMC.
Depending heavily on instruments isn't necessarily an advantage for VFR, but
it's very important for IFR.

To not depend on senses and totally rely on instruments without an
expectation that **they could fail** is reckless.

Not at all. If you're unwilling to put complete trust in your instruments,
you shouldn't be flying IFR. If they fail, well, you might never get back
home.

If you fly a real
plane, you should know this. Nobody expects the unexpected to happen,
but if you fly your plane like **it could happen** then you are better
prepared. I call it an insurance policy that you hope you don't have
to cash in.

Given the fact that losing instruments in IMC is extraordinarily dangerous, it
would be better advised to take care to minimize the chances that they will
fail than to fantasize that it will be possible to fly and land safely without
them if they do fail.

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

Here you have, a giant in the field, listening to someone who is so
green that he botches the Biot-Savart Law, not being condescending,
not interrupting me saying, "You got it all wrong, dummy", just
smiling. I never pursued the idea, but I will never forget that Prof.

If experienced pilots, especially in real life, would adopt this
attitude, young pilots would be more inclined to finish flight
training, I think.

The problem is that the vast majority of pilots aren't even remotely "giants
in their field." A true world-class expert has nothing to prove to anyone and
isn't likely to be insecure, but a low-time pilot with more ego than
competence is likely to be very insecure and very eager to prove that he knows
more than other people do. It's not limited to aviation, of course.

There is also another option, which one pilot at my flight school
refused to use, which is, when asked something that is not understood,
like the internals of VOR tranmitter/receiver, to simply say, "I don't
know."

A person has to be pretty secure to be able to say that. Many people aren't.

writes:

Don't care what you think, I care what other students see and want to
be sure they know what you say is WRONG.

Smart students will look things up, rather than believe you or me. If they
look things up, they'll find out who's right, although it's not really
important to keep score.

On Sun, 18 May 2008 10:45:29 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
wrote:



Here you have, a giant in the field, listening to someone who is so
green that he botches the Biot-Savart Law, not being condescending,
not interrupting me saying, "You got it all wrong, dummy", just
smiling. I never pursued the idea, but I will never forget that Prof.

The problem here is that we *DID* that with him. Last year. To
extrapolate your story with him, what he proceeds to then do is tell
the Prof. that the Prof. is wrong and because he read it in a book
somwhere and played with a computer game that the Prof.'s real world
experience and knowledge is inaccurate. That's when the Prof. would
have told him to leave and find someone else to annoy. That's what
we've been attempting to do, but he won't listen. The Prof. would
have called campus police by now.

Peter Clark writes:

The problem here is that we *DID* that with him. Last year. To
extrapolate your story with him, what he proceeds to then do is tell
the Prof. that the Prof. is wrong and because he read it in a book
somwhere and played with a computer game that the Prof.'s real world
experience and knowledge is inaccurate.

Whom do you have in mind when you say Prof? Are there world-renowned giants
in the field of aviation participating in these threads?

Low-time pilots who fly one hour a month with the ink still wet on their
licenses don't count as giants in the field.

On May 18, 1:29*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

Given the fact that losing instruments in IMC is extraordinarily dangerous, it
would be better advised to take care to minimize the chances that they will
fail than to fantasize that it will be possible to fly and land safely without
them if they do fail.

Ummm, there was no fantasy about what happened to me on Friday.

And it's not extraordinary dangerous to lose your HI and DG if you
take the proactive approach in the what if scenario.while flying. I
am here to prove that.

We practice this in our Instrument air training, but you don't know it
since you never have taken flying lessons.

On May 18, 1:33*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

Smart students will look things up, rather than believe you or me.

Smart students get in real airplanes and will be able to confirm
everything I have posted..

Last I knew there was no requirement for a license to play MSFS nor is
there any formal training courses nor does it replace getting in a
real C152 or C172 for training..

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:lMVXj.169277$yE1.70867@attbi_s21:

Third, and most likely alternative: he's just stupid.

MX is many things. Persistent, stubborn, blunt, thick-skinned, willing
to argue that black-eyed-peas are really black-eyed-beans, yes.
Occasionally annoying, often entertaining (mostly because of the
responses he obtains), always willing to come back for more. He's
like a Weebil that won't fall down.

But stupid? I don't think so.

You're both ****ing idiots.

wrote:


While I would love to say it's my piloting skills, it really starts
with the quality training I received from the get go. I just took my
training to heart.

Might be helpful to you to go up with another instructor who is more
experienced at confusing your rear-end sensations while under the hood
with failed instruments. You might change your mind about how dependable
they are. The change in those sensations might give you some information
in the initial instant of change, but after that they are more likely to
confuse you to death. I would suggest that if you are doing a proper
instrument scan you shouldn't need any physical sensations, except for
being able to see the instruments.

Seems to me that, in an effort to pummel the idiot MX, people are
getting too hot under the collar and backing themselves into corners.