Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane

The Starmaker wrote:

Bob Myers wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:


Tell us: does the simulator simulate a stall?

Yes.

No. The little airplane you see on the screen may stall, but
you have absolutely no insight at all into what a stall *feels*
like.

Bob M.

ever seen a plane crash where every single person died except two people lived?

the two people were married.

On Jun 26, 3:17*pm, " wrote:
On Jun 26, 1:01*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:

So my word would be not to over emphasize the value of MSFS as a
training tool, but to be careful not to under emphasize the program's
uses either.

I have always agreed with you Dudley for what it's worth. *When used
as a TOOL, it's an outstanding training aid as I have said time after
time for learning instrumentation values, *IFR procedures and system
failures.

But it MUST be used in concurrence with a qualified instructor, not
like what Mx proposes it does. *It doesn't simulate the actual feed
back of an airplane needed to be learned to safely fly a plane. *It
doesn't replace the full motion simulator or a real plane. *There
won't be a day that I can see one can take lessons on MSFS, walk out
to their favorite flight school and safely fly a real plane.

Realism, yes, MSFS looks real, key thing is looks.

Feels real, I can't say it will ever do that as long as you work on a
flat screen monitor using a function key or mouse to look around the
sides for peripheral vision. *Mx is sadly mistaken to think that MSFS
is just like being in a cockpit of a real C172, citation and so on.

I hesitate to say it as I REALLY don't want to get in the ring with
the Mx thing but I will say that if his comment is that MSFS in ANY
capacity can take the place of the actual aircraft for training
purposes, I would have to professionally disagree with him on that
basis alone.
DH

On Jun 27, 1:35*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
george writes:
No matter what the aircraft is there are basics.

It takes a lot more than basics to fly a 747. *In a Cessna 152, there isn't
much else beyond the basics, but in a large commercial airliner, almost
everything is beyond the basics.

A pilot's license does not confer instant knowledge of all systems and all
details of all aircraft. A good pilot knows this.

That is why we have ratings.
You -do- understand what I mean by ratings?

wrote:

On Jun 26, 1:01 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:

So my word would be not to over emphasize the value of MSFS as a
training tool, but to be careful not to under emphasize the program's
uses either.

I have always agreed with you Dudley for what it's worth. When used
as a TOOL, it's an outstanding training aid as I have said time after
time for learning instrumentation values, IFR procedures and system
failures.

But it MUST be used in concurrence with a qualified instructor, not
like what Mx proposes it does. It doesn't simulate the actual feed
back of an airplane needed to be learned to safely fly a plane. It
doesn't replace the full motion simulator or a real plane. There
won't be a day that I can see one can take lessons on MSFS, walk out
to their favorite flight school and safely fly a real plane.

You can fly a real plane, you just don't have to get into one...

On Jun 27, 9:05*am, Dudley Henriques wrote:

I hesitate to say it as I REALLY don't want to get in the ring with
the Mx thing but I will say that if his comment is that MSFS in ANY
capacity can take the place of the actual aircraft for training
purposes, I would have to professionally disagree with him on that
basis alone.
DH

Sadly with him its an all or nothing world.
I came from an age where people learnt to fly on instruments in a Link
trainer

On Jun 26, 6:15*pm, george wrote:
On Jun 27, 9:05*am, Dudley Henriques wrote:

I hesitate to say it as I REALLY don't want to get in the ring with
the Mx thing but I will say that if his comment is that MSFS in ANY
capacity can take the place of the actual aircraft for training
purposes, I would have to professionally disagree with him on that
basis alone.
DH

Sadly with him its an all or nothing world.
I came from an age where people learnt to fly on instruments in a Link
trainer

Me too. The old ANT-18. I even ran the crab off the table once when
the instructor left the room to get a cup of coffee :-)) I've
forgotten much of the Morse code but those A's and N's will stick in
my craw forever :-)))
Dudley Henriques

george writes:

That is why we have ratings.

How so?

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:43:14 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques
wrote:

On Jun 26, 6:15*pm, george wrote:

I came from an age where people learnt to fly on instruments in a Link
trainer

Me too. The old ANT-18. I even ran the crab off the table once when
the instructor left the room to get a cup of coffee :-)) I've
forgotten much of the Morse code but those A's and N's will stick in
my craw forever :-)))

You wouldn't have that problem if you had just stayed on course.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Jun 26, 9:15*pm, Hatunen wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:43:14 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques

wrote:
On Jun 26, 6:15 pm, george wrote:
I came from an age where people learnt to fly on instruments in a Link
trainer

Me too. The old ANT-18. I even ran the crab off the table once when
the instructor left the room to get a cup of coffee :-)) *I've
forgotten much of the Morse code but those A's and N's will stick in
my craw forever :-)))

You wouldn't have that problem if you had just stayed on course.

--
* ************** DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* ** * * * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * * * *
* ** My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

I hate steady increasing tones :-)

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 04:21:38 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

Wingnut writes:
"Often" is good enough for me.
It has not been good enough to prevent crashes.

Occasionally a company apparently insufficiently screens its employees to
keep out idiots. Nothing to do with what we were discussing.

Important to know the plane's orientation, both pitch and roll (while
the compass gives you yaw, the third rotational degree of freedom).

It's also important to know the current stall angle, the angle of
attack, the flight path vector, the airspeed and altitude trends, the
V-speeds, the upper and lower airspeed limits, the current track, the
current route, the current vertical profile, the current heading, the
expected top of descent, and about a zillion other things that a private
pilot isn't likely to see in a tiny Cessna.

And there goes the Cessna strawman again. When, exactly, did the subject
morph from being a commercial pilot to being a private pilot, by the way?