Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 17:07:17 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:

What is a unmanned aerial vehicle, that thing they call a drone? You
gotta be great with a sim to fly that!

Oh, great. The Starmaker. And inviting Iraq-war controversy.

I have a feeling this thread just went from bad to much, much worse.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:02:30 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

Wingnut writes:

Do you honestly think someone with a *commercial* license won't
typically be well past that "not experienced enough to be humble"
stage?

Often, but not always.

"Often" is good enough for me.

In your ever-so-humble opinion perhaps.

Without instruction, a non-pilot--or a pilot without experience in
type--would be in very hot water.

Nobody said otherwise.

Er, horizon? Altimeter?

That's probably what he'd be asking himself. The AI had pretty colors
that are easy to spot, but the rest is not so obvious. He might spot the
standby AI and altimeter, but those aren't the instruments to watch.

The last time I checked, the altimeter is quite important when flying
(and doubly so when landing!). The horizon is generally easily
recognized, typically to a first approximation a circle that's half blue
and half some other color. Important to know the plane's orientation,
both pitch and roll (while the compass gives you yaw, the third
rotational degree of freedom).

Wingnut writes:

"Often" is good enough for me.

It has not been good enough to prevent crashes.

The last time I checked, the altimeter is quite important when flying
(and doubly so when landing!).

It is called a _standby_ altimeter for a reason, although it presumably works
even when other instruments are working.

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.

On Jun 25, 7:47*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Bob Myers writes:
Frankly - no, you don't.

Since you don't know the extent of my knowledge, you are not in a position to
assess it. So why not talk about aviation instead?

YES WE DO KNOW THE EXTENT OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE TO ASSESS IT

FACT: YOU NEVER FLEW A REAL PLANE

FACT:: YOU HAVE NO REAL WORLD KNOWLEDGE.

The fact is you outright lie when you say you fly. YOU DON'T FLY!!!!
HELLOOOO. YOU SIMULATE FLYING.

FACT: SIMULATION IS THE EXTENT OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE

On Jun 26, 2:21*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

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.

Wrong again.
No matter what the aircraft is there are basics.

You demonstrate that you have terms which do not equate to what we
actually do.
Sure your word salad looks impressive but that's all it is just word
salad.
But if you had actually learnt to fly in a real aeroplane (even a
Cessna) you would know that

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Bob Myers writes:

Frankly - no, you don't.

Since you don't know the extent of my knowledge, you are not in a position
to
assess it. So why not talk about aviation instead?

I think that quite a few of the people who have read your postings over the
past few years have a good idea of the extent of your knowledge. My own view
is that you know a little about a lot of subjects, which is dangerous. But,
clearly, you have no in-depth knowledge of anything and in your own view you
have never ever been wrong.
--
JohnT

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

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.

But you know them all because you play a computer game?
--
JohnT

Mxsmanic wrote:
Bob Myers writes:

But the simulator experience you're talking about is absolutely
meaningless without real-world flight experience.

I don't share that opinion, nor is it widely held.

In fact, it's possible to pursue simulation as an end in itself. It
does have certain advantages that real flight does not.

For that matter, the "simulator" in your case really isn't one.
It's a computer game, something which is VERY far removed from
what the airlines call a simulator.

Clearly, it's been a long time since you last used a desktop
simulator.

Wrong again. And to think that you were just complaining
that *I* had no idea what *you* knew. Mr, Pot, meet
Mr. Kettle.

MSFS is a computer game. It is by no stretch of the imagination
a "flight simulator" in the sense of something that would actually
be useful for flight instruction, except possibly re some very
basic procedures training.


The U.S. military disagrees with you, and has for the past decade
(that is, through several versions of MSFS). So do many pilots,
flight schools, and instructors.

No, they don't disagree with me at all. I know what they're using that game
for
- do you? And just how many pilot certificates have been awarded based
on MSFS hours, do you think?


Bob M.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Bob Myers writes:

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.

I have some insight into it, but what it feels like is not terribly
important.

And that, more than anything else you have said, sums up
quite neatly why you have no idea what you're talking about
here.

Bob M.

On 26/06/10 01:47, Mxsmanic wrote:
Hatunen writes:

Do you suppose your typical lieutenant taking simulator training
will be allowed to become a tank commander without actually ever
having been in a tank?

It's certainly conceivable, but I don't know if it is actually done.

Do you know, I do believe the idiot thinks he's right.

Which is possibly the scariest thing I have thought in a very long time...

--
William Black

These are the gilded popinjays and murderous assassins of Perfidious
Albion and they are about their Queen's business. Any man who impedes
their passage does so at his own peril.