I give up, after many, many years!

Buster Hymen wrote in
02:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote in
:

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
news:4df208ad-4920-4f77-93c1-
:

On May 17, 9:30 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: "Jay Honeck"

What people are asserting here is 180 degrees different from
what
I read in all the literature. You cannot fly by the seat of
your
pants.
You can't fly based on sensations. They are too unreliable.
Conversely, you can fly without sensations, as long as you have
visual and/or instrument information.

You're a moron. You're not competent to read with
comprehension.
Anthony, you don't know **** from shinola.

Presuming we're talking about IFR flight, what, precisely, do you
find incorrect in MX's paragraph, above?

Many years ago, on a bet, I did a pretty fair 4 point
roll.......BLINDFOLDED! I got lunch and a half dozen beers out of
the
deal.

A plane is flown by sensations. In the short term, it's quite
reliable. In the long term, slight errors start to compound and
need
to be eliminated by squaring things up with the instruments or
horizon. When you catch an updraft coming over a ridge, do you wait
for the altimeter to tell you you're climbing? Or do you slightly
lower the nose based on FEELING the additional lift?
How about landing. Are you FLYING visually or by feel? Do you NEED
to
look at the airspeed indicator to tell if you're trending faster or
slower? I fly by feel. I orient myself visually, either looking out
the window or looking at the instruments. I navigate visually. But
I
FLY by feel. Humans are hard wired with a decent inertial nav.
system. MX is a few wires short of a complete circuit.

I pretty much agree with MX, the human inertial nav
is clumsy, we didn't have the evolution of birds.
An example is a "spiral dive", it's actually quite benign
from the standpoint of inertial inputs, it's better to use
instruments.
Ken

Like you could.


Bertie




You're a moron!



You're a moron!


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote in
:

Buster Hymen wrote in
02:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote in
:

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
news:4df208ad-4920-4f77-93c1-
:

On May 17, 9:30 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: "Jay Honeck"

What people are asserting here is 180 degrees different from
what
I read in all the literature. You cannot fly by the seat of
your
pants.
You can't fly based on sensations. They are too unreliable.
Conversely, you can fly without sensations, as long as you have
visual and/or instrument information.

You're a moron. You're not competent to read with
comprehension.
Anthony, you don't know **** from shinola.

Presuming we're talking about IFR flight, what, precisely, do you
find incorrect in MX's paragraph, above?

Many years ago, on a bet, I did a pretty fair 4 point
roll.......BLINDFOLDED! I got lunch and a half dozen beers out of
the
deal.

A plane is flown by sensations. In the short term, it's quite
reliable. In the long term, slight errors start to compound and
need
to be eliminated by squaring things up with the instruments or
horizon. When you catch an updraft coming over a ridge, do you wait
for the altimeter to tell you you're climbing? Or do you slightly
lower the nose based on FEELING the additional lift?
How about landing. Are you FLYING visually or by feel? Do you NEED
to
look at the airspeed indicator to tell if you're trending faster or
slower? I fly by feel. I orient myself visually, either looking out
the window or looking at the instruments. I navigate visually. But
I
FLY by feel. Humans are hard wired with a decent inertial nav.
system. MX is a few wires short of a complete circuit.

I pretty much agree with MX, the human inertial nav
is clumsy, we didn't have the evolution of birds.
An example is a "spiral dive", it's actually quite benign
from the standpoint of inertial inputs, it's better to use
instruments.
Ken

Like you could.


Bertie




You're a moron!



You're a moron!


Bertie

Sorry, Bertie. That last response was meant for Ken "****head" Tucker, the
wannabe mother ****er.

Buster Hymen wrote in
02:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote in
:

Buster Hymen wrote in
02:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote in
:

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
news:4df208ad-4920-4f77-93c1-
:

On May 17, 9:30 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: "Jay Honeck"

What people are asserting here is 180 degrees different from
what
I read in all the literature. You cannot fly by the seat of
your
pants.
You can't fly based on sensations. They are too unreliable.
Conversely, you can fly without sensations, as long as you
have visual and/or instrument information.

You're a moron. You're not competent to read with
comprehension.
Anthony, you don't know **** from shinola.

Presuming we're talking about IFR flight, what, precisely, do
you find incorrect in MX's paragraph, above?

Many years ago, on a bet, I did a pretty fair 4 point
roll.......BLINDFOLDED! I got lunch and a half dozen beers out of
the
deal.

A plane is flown by sensations. In the short term, it's quite
reliable. In the long term, slight errors start to compound and
need
to be eliminated by squaring things up with the instruments or
horizon. When you catch an updraft coming over a ridge, do you
wait for the altimeter to tell you you're climbing? Or do you
slightly lower the nose based on FEELING the additional lift?
How about landing. Are you FLYING visually or by feel? Do you
NEED
to
look at the airspeed indicator to tell if you're trending faster
or slower? I fly by feel. I orient myself visually, either
looking out the window or looking at the instruments. I navigate
visually. But
I
FLY by feel. Humans are hard wired with a decent inertial nav.
system. MX is a few wires short of a complete circuit.

I pretty much agree with MX, the human inertial nav
is clumsy, we didn't have the evolution of birds.
An example is a "spiral dive", it's actually quite benign
from the standpoint of inertial inputs, it's better to use
instruments.
Ken

Like you could.


Bertie




You're a moron!



You're a moron!


Bertie

Sorry, Bertie. That last response was meant for Ken "****head"
Tucker, the wannabe mother ****er.


Heh heh, too bad, I was hoping for a "no, you're a moron" marathon.


Bertie

schrieb:

So you will keep on posting your nonsense.

and you keep on replying to him and thus keep up the noise.

#m

On Sun, 11 May 2008 11:33:33 -0400, Jay Somerset
wrote:

I give up -- not flying -- but subscribing to this NG. It is just too
riddled with crap and backbiting, to the point that it carries little
if any useful exchange of interest to active pilots. It isn't worth
the effort any more, even with multiple kill files.

So good riddance to 90+% of the posts, and the few idiots who have
managed to spoil the NG over the past couple of years, and farewell to
those few remaining sensible contributors. I admire your patience and
tolerance. Mine have given out!


My, my! After browsing through more than a hundred replies in this
thread, I can see why the OP has abandoned this NG. With the
exception of 2 or 3 posters that stayed on topic, the rest of the
thread is proof positive that Jay was wise to quit this NG.
Scrooge McDuck

writes:

As has happened so many times in the past, your tunnel vision along
with your black and white viewpoint lead you to make pronouncements
that are not only wrong but laughable.

Show the errors.

Nomen Nescio writes:

A plane is flown by sensations.

Explain autopilots.

When you catch an updraft coming over a ridge, do you wait for the altimeter
to tell you you're climbing? Or do you slightly lower the nose based on
FEELING the additional lift?

I look out the window and/or check the instruments to see what has changed.

How about landing. Are you FLYING visually or by feel? Do you NEED to look
at the airspeed indicator to tell if you're trending faster or slower?

Yes.

I fly by feel. I orient myself visually, either looking out the window or looking
at the instruments. I navigate visually. But I FLY by feel.

How many seconds can you fly by feel before you get into trouble.

writes:

That sensation tells you that you are coordinated, which is the point.

No, it does not. Other things can produce the same sensation. You have no
way of knowing which movement produced the sensation unless you cross-check
against instruments or the world outside the window.

The sensation in real airplanes allows you to fly more precisely and
safer.

The sensation in real airplanes gives some pilots a false sense of security.

A blazingly stupid comment that shows you know nothing about real
flight.

I'll ask again: Can you fly safely with your eyes closed, relying only on
sensations, and selectively ignoring or accepting the sensations you feel?

It only takes a couple of hours in a real airplane to learn to interpret
what they are and what they mean.

Sometimes it takes an accident to learn that you can't trust those sensations.

That's not what the "literature" says.

That's exactly what it says. Trust your instruments, ignore your sensations.

On May 16, 11:04*pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
There has to be something that a simulator can offer that does not
require the instructor to be present.

Much depends on the level of your simulator. *If you have something like our
Penguin (see it hehttp://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm)
you can learn a lot. *If you're flying a mouse in front of your laptop, not
so much.

Hah...I must have come full circle.

Last year, when I decided to get into flying, everything was new, and
so I just went to Google and jumped in, then took ground school, etc.

Your link you give is one of the first one's I saw. I remember
thinking, "That simulator is soooo coool...and the idea of a flying-
themed hotel. Maybe one day..."

Going to reread your site, now that I have some idea of what I'm
looking at.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

As has happened so many times in the past, your tunnel vision along
with your black and white viewpoint lead you to make pronouncements
that are not only wrong but laughable.

Show the errors.


The character string "mxsmanic" in the "From" field for a post indicates
that what follows is a gross error.

Show that it doesn't. If you can't, you're a moron.