Simulators

Mxsmanic wrote:

Flight is flight.

Nope, flight means leaving the ground.

Since my last post, I've flown three times:

Nope, you sat in a chair in front of a PC running MSFS.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:

The role of simulation in training and research continues to increase. If it
were not realistic, this would not be the case.

Bull****.

While realism in training using simulation is desirable, simulation is used
because it is either cheaper than the real thing or too dangerous to do the
real thing.

You are delusional.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

VOR-DME wrote:
I am dubitative of the pertinence of one’s expertise
in simulation ... /snip/

In Snooker playing circles, I believe this is called
"putting on the English..." :-)

Brian W

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

A real airplane doesn't have a mouse to click or keyboard sequences to look
out the side windows.

So?

So it invalidates your contention that a pilot trained to fly a real C-172
could just sit down and fly a MSFS C-172 because the simulation is so
realistic.

The simulation is not realistic for many reasons and the pilot would need
MSFS specific training to make a lot of stuff work.

MSFS does not taxi like a real airplane, none of the
physical forces feel like a real airplane, none of the panel controls work
like a real airplane, and having a monitor in front of me looks nothing
like the view in a real airplane.

Real airplanes do not taxi alike, either.

MSFS does not taxit like any real airplane.

A MSFS C-172 does not taxi like a real C-172, nor do any of the other
MSFS airplanes I've tryed.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:

There are instructors who have never flown. You can become an instructor
without flying, as I recall. Do you dismiss them as well?

Only for a subset of things that do not require actual flight to teach,
such as how to do real flight planning.

You might want to look up such a person.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On May 16, 12:21*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
a writes:
Rather defensive, aren't you?

Not at all. Just making an observation.

You, having no PIC (actual) have little real world aviation
experience to draw on. "I read" or "I simulated" does not carry much
credibility, and to those ignorant but eager to learn of the realities
of general aviation would be prudent to consider the source of advice
and/or teachings.

There are instructors who have never flown. You can become an instructor
without flying, as I recall. Do you dismiss them as well?

Your pontifications are sometimes right, other times
wrong.

How often right, and how often wrong?

The reactions those statements draw help the inexperienced
reader evaluate them.

The smart reader always verifies everything he sees on USENET by some other
means.

I've gotten useful ideas from this newsgroup, but not from you. Some
suggestions I've posted have become part of other aviator's
checklists, and that's a nice form of payback. I suspect it's a reward
you don't often get, but I could be wrong.

Actually, I provide instruction in other venues, and that seems to work quite
well. There are far fewer dorks when there's no anonymity.

MXwrote


There are instructors who have never flown. You can become an
instructor
without flying, as I recall. Do you dismiss them as well?

I would dismiss as laughable anyone who presented themselves as a
certified flight instructor who had never flown as PIC. That is not
the sort of person I'd like instructing in spin recovery. There may
be areas in aviation where in instructor is not required to be
certified as a pilot, this pilot has found no need in some 3245 hours
TT for such 'instruction'.

It is the rare 800 mile trip where an M20J does not offer better door
to door time than does an airliner, and in the return trip, where on
leaves when ready rather than on an airliner's schedule the difference
is even greater. The only down side is a concluding dinner will not
include wine for me..

By the way, here's a question for other executives who might be
reading this: who does not agree with "18 holes of golf will tell you
more about a man's character than a 6 hour interview"? If I am
interviewing a mid to high level executive who is otherwise competent
and he mentions he plays golf, we're off to my club.

To MX: Son, you're way too defensive. And (in my humble opinion) taking this
MS simulator much too seriously. There's absolutely nothing wrong with
sim-flying as a harmless hobby. But you're trying to interlace it with the
real thing too rigidly, and thin out the dividing line. Real pilots get lost
and lose their planes, and sometimes their ass, in a farmer's cornfield.
Flatlanders too frequently fly into mountain sides in setting up IFR
approaches too low in mountainous country ( we once had three that flew into
the same mountain in a fairly short period). Pilots die as a result of major
lapses in judgement. I'm not saying that's part of the appeal, but it tends
to sharpen attention, and increase the heart rate. I think that difference
is why you attract some criticism. You do, however, stir up conversation
with some of your comments.

As to "avoiding" having to recover from unusual attitudes, etc., that is
what learning to fly is all about. Every pilot that has ever solo'd has
balooned on round-out, or had a puff of wind baloon you at near stall speed
on landing. You're expected to recover instantly and without a drop of sweat
or a seconds thought. How about you inadvertently come in too close behind a
big transport, and wing tip vortex rolls you upside down 30 feet off the
runway? Something I have experienced many times during training sessions -
you're doing a climbing turn, say to the right, air speed in marginal and
coordination is sloppy. Suddenly the top wing looses lift and the plane
whips violently to the left, and you find yourself nearly vertical and
inverted? (I never could intentionally duplicate this, but I didn't try too
hard, anyone want to explain?). Don't tell me these things never happen to a
seasoned pilot. With proper training, these things become incidents, not
disasters. And panic creates disasters.

I have entered two posts, and am delighted at the responses. Just goes to
show - post something of aeronotical interest and you wake up the pilots
here. Let's keep it up!

writes:

Only for a subset of things that do not require actual flight to teach,
such as how to do real flight planning.

Hardly anything requires actual flight to teach.

You might want to look up such a person.

Or maybe I should become one.

writes:

So it invalidates your contention that a pilot trained to fly a real C-172
could just sit down and fly a MSFS C-172 because the simulation is so
realistic.

A lot of pilots manage to do this. What's their secret?

The simulation is not realistic for many reasons and the pilot would need
MSFS specific training to make a lot of stuff work.

Hardly. A lot of pilots can just sit in front of it and fly it.

MSFS does not taxit like any real airplane.

That depends on the aircraft.

A MSFS C-172 does not taxi like a real C-172, nor do any of the other
MSFS airplanes I've tryed.

Exactly which aircraft have you tried?

birdog writes:

To MX: Son, you're way too defensive.

I don't have to be defensive, since I'm not offended.

Pilots die as a result of major lapses in judgement. I'm not saying
that's part of the appeal, but it tends to sharpen attention, and
increase the heart rate.

If a pilot needs fear of death to fly correctly and safely, he has a serious
psychological problem. And if the risk of death is part of the appeal of
flying for him, he also has a serious problem. Both of these are highly
correlated with poor piloting.

Don't tell me these things never happen to a
seasoned pilot. With proper training, these things become incidents, not
disasters. And panic creates disasters.

How do you train for things that are inherently very dangerous?