*********A DEFENCE FOR MXMORAN***********

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Close enough to be safe and satisfy the tower, since in real life those
are the relevant criteria and no one cares about putting error bars on
the number.

In other words, you don't actually know if you measured 3 miles correctly or
not, so there's really no basis for claiming that you did so.

Of course I do; the tower is the final arbiter of whether or not I was
in the right place, and the real tower with the real controller was
satisfied.

Real controllers in real towers are not shy about telling pilots they
are in the wrong place.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In article ,
says...
Dave Doe writes:

Why do you think an exact figure is important?

Hmm. So precision is all important when it comes to discrediting simulation,
but suddenly isn't a big deal when it comes to pilots flying the real thing?

I didn't say that, why do you?

A five-foot difference makes a sim inaccurate, but 25 feet is good for a
pilot?

I didn't say that, why do you?

How can both of these things be true simultaneously?

Why don't you answer the question I put to you.

--
Duncan

writes:

It is just irrelevant.

Exactly.

writes:

Of course I do; the tower is the final arbiter of whether or not I was
in the right place, and the real tower with the real controller was
satisfied.

So did they tell you exactly how far you were? If so, how close were you? If
not, how can you make any statements about accuracy with no clear idea of what
accuracy is required?

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
writes:

It is just irrelevant.

Exactly.

Yeah, exactly like yourself.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
writes:

Of course I do; the tower is the final arbiter of whether or not I was
in the right place, and the real tower with the real controller was
satisfied.

So did they tell you exactly how far you were? If so, how close were you?
If
not, how can you make any statements about accuracy with no clear idea of
what
accuracy is required?

It's kind of like your presence on this group, it's totally insignificant.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

It is just irrelevant.

Exactly.

I'm all aglow that you've realized your sim "experience" is irrelevant.

You've made real progress.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Of course I do; the tower is the final arbiter of whether or not I was
in the right place, and the real tower with the real controller was
satisfied.

So did they tell you exactly how far you were? If so, how close were you? If
not, how can you make any statements about accuracy with no clear idea of what
accuracy is required?

I'll type this real slow so you have a better chance of understanding
the concepts involved, though you may still have to read it several
times to understand.

ATC, i.e. the real controller in the real tower, is the final arbiter,
judge, referee, umpire, authority, and decider of the required accuracy
of any manuever.

Real ATC does not provide "scores" because we are not playing a game.

If the accuracy of a manuever by a real pilot in a real airplane satisfies
the accuracy requirements of the real ATC controller, nothing is said about
the manuever.

If the accuracy of a manuever by a real pilot in a real airplane does
NOT satisfy the accuracy requirements of the real ATC controller, the
real pilot is informed of his error.

Since I received no feedback from the tower on the accuracy of my manuever,
the final arbiter, judge, referee, umpire, authority, and decider of the
required accuracy was satisfied.

QED.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

I'll type this real slow so you have a better chance of understanding
the concepts involved, though you may still have to read it several
times to understand.

The speed at which you type it has no effect on the speed at which I read it,
since I will see it only after you've entirely finished typing it.

If the accuracy of a manuever by a real pilot in a real airplane satisfies
the accuracy requirements of the real ATC controller, nothing is said about
the manuever.

If a pilot doesn't know the accuracy of his maneuver, it doesn't make much
sense for him to boast about it.

Since I received no feedback from the tower on the accuracy of my manuever,
the final arbiter, judge, referee, umpire, authority, and decider of the
required accuracy was satisfied.

Nothing obligates controllers to say anything when they are dissatisfied with
a pilot's performance, and indeed, as long as there is no influence on their
assigned tasks, they tend to remain silent.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

I'll type this real slow so you have a better chance of understanding
the concepts involved, though you may still have to read it several
times to understand.

The speed at which you type it has no effect on the speed at which I read it,
since I will see it only after you've entirely finished typing it.

The went right over the top of your head, didn't it?

One wonders if you would pass the Turing test.

If the accuracy of a manuever by a real pilot in a real airplane satisfies
the accuracy requirements of the real ATC controller, nothing is said about
the manuever.

If a pilot doesn't know the accuracy of his maneuver, it doesn't make much
sense for him to boast about it.

You will never hear a pilot boasting about the accuracy of his maneuver
in normal flying because the whole concept is rediculous.

Normal flying is pass/fail.

Even on the practical test where there are objective criteria such as
holding +/- 100 feet in altitude you will not hear any numbers from the
examiner; all you will hear is pass/fail.

About the only place in real aviation where you will hear accuracy numbers
is in games (Gasp!! Yes, real pilots do play games) such as spot landing
contests.

Accuracy numbers, i.e. scores, are for games, which is probably why you
seem to be obsessed by the subject.

snip ignorant babble


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.