Sectional use

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Jay, one of the few people that take up for you in this newsgroup might stop
doing so.

I don't try to build fan clubs and gangs. I grew out of that a long
time ago. People should do what they feel is right.

There was nothing in your comment that could have been used to make the
distinction.

A real pilot would know.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Jay Honeck writes:

Uh oh, we've crossed an existential barrier here that is becoming
fuzzier all the time. When will virtual reality become
indistinguishable from "reality"?

It's all a matter of degree and context. Dreams often seem completely
real ... until you wake up.

Are your experiences in the sim valid, if they precisely reproduce
reality? Yes, in many respects, they are.

If they precisely produce one aspect of reality, they are identical to
reality for that aspect. That's a fundamental principle of
simulation, although it is one that many people have trouble
understanding.

However, as good as MSFS is, it simply does NOT precisely reproduce
reality, especially in the standard simmer's set up.

Which part of reality? And which reality? General aviation?
Airliners? Helicopters?

I don't know what kind of computer rig you're running flight sim on,
but from past posts I am presuming a standard PC with a joystick.

Yes. An average PC with a joystick and throttle quadrant, and pedals.

I can guarantee you that this is not a valid reproduction of flight, and
therefore invalidates your advice and observations on many aspects of
flight.

Which aspect of flight does it fail to reproduce? Your general
statement is neither valid nor invalid, because it is too general.

That said, you *might* be a good source of knowledge regarding IFR
procedures, depending on how religiously you reproduce the
experience.

I'm very diligent.

As many people have pointed out, a sim is an excellent
IFR trainer, as IFR flight is closer to "programming" than real flying
in many phases of flight.

An IFR flight is much closer to flying a jet airliner than VFR flight
is. Flying a jet airliner in commercial service is pressing VNAV and
LNAV at 2000 feet.

It won't, however, allow you to comment on the IFR flight experience
itself, since you can't possibly reproduce the "leans" that you get
when flying in the clouds, nor can you feel the actual emotional
release you get when you break out at minimums.

Actually, I know the former sensation, because it occurs in ordinary
airliners--the passengers feel exactly the same sensations as the
pilots, since they are in the same aircraft.

Basically, your contentions are invalid, and will be invalid until you
are able to afford a more advanced full-motion simulator. And even
THEN many of your observations will be invalid, simply because it's
not real.

The irony is that many people make invalid observations even after
having flown a real aircraft. It's just not that simple. Flying in a
real aircraft is not magic, and it's not the huge barrier or partition
that many people here like to believe.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Grumman-581 writes:

When you can get the same bodily (and monetary) injuries from your
mistakes in a sim that you can in reality?

Full-motion simulators can produce injuries, although they can be
programmed to avoid this (I'm surprised that they are not universally
programed to prevent injury).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder writes:



There was nothing in your comment that could have been used to make
the distinction.

A real pilot would know.

That's the problem, there are a lot of people who read this group who aren't
real pilots (you are proof of that)and they see a post where a guys writes
that he flew a 737 between LAX and PHX they think he is a real pilot and an
airline pilot at that.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

That's the problem, there are a lot of people who read this group who aren't
real pilots (you are proof of that)and they see a post where a guys writes
that he flew a 737 between LAX and PHX they think he is a real pilot and an
airline pilot at that.

What's wrong with that? Lots of real pilots do exactly that.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

That's the problem, there are a lot of people who read this group
who aren't real pilots (you are proof of that)and they see a post
where a guys writes that he flew a 737 between LAX and PHX they
think he is a real pilot and an airline pilot at that.

What's wrong with that? Lots of real pilots do exactly that.

Oh, I'm sorry. Since you have such a history of responses out of context I
thought you could deal with one yourself.

So to make it clearer add the following to my previous post.

Instead of an idiot that has never flown a real aircraft and is most likely
has mental issues. Oh, and he's fat as well.

Jay Honeck wrote:
There is a trick for drawing a line from one side of the sectional (one
airport) to the other side (an airport on toe opposite side) whan planning
a route


What's a "sectional"?

ducking!

What a giant thread! Or threat? Well, you can plan your trip using
http://www.airspace-v.com - but info you find there is /not/ official.
So you have to check other sources, too. Seems that we'll have to put
this warning somewhere on each map you find there since not all people
do care too much about their life...

virtuPIC

P.S.: No offence meant!

--
Airspace v - international hangar flying!
http://www.airspace-v.com

"virtuPIC" wrote

What a giant thread! Or threat?

What are your sending settings, that cause your posts to look so much
different on my viewer?

Are you sending in plain text, as is convention in Usenet, text groups?
--
Jim in NC