Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane

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.

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.

Not to a qualified pilot of the aircraft in question. In fact, almost
everything I named is on one or two displays in a large jet, and of course a
pilot of such is expected to know what they are and where they are.

JohnT writes:

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

I know a lot of them from flight simulation. And a Cessna 152 pilot who has
flown only that aircraft and never does simulation or study of any other
aircraft will not know about them.

Bob Myers writes:

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

Only for people who love sensations and mistakenly believe that sensation is
all of flying.

Bob Myers writes:

MSFS is a computer game.

It's a simulation, which is why Microsoft killed it. The market for simulators
is very small. The market for games is very large.

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.

As I've said, it is widely used as a learning and training aid.

No, they don't disagree with me at all. I know what they're using that game
for do you?

Yes.

And just how many pilot certificates have been awarded based
on MSFS hours, do you think?

None. In every jurisdiction I know of, you have to have hours in a real
aircraft to get a pilot certificate, at least currently. That may change in
the future, but even then the requirement will be for full-motion simulators,
not desktop simulators.

JohnT writes:

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.

No more than I do of theirs. I can recognize many mistakes when I see them,
but that doesn't necessarily indicate the extent of a person's knowledge. In
some cases, you can tell; in other cases, you cannot.

Most people I interact with here are only interested in talking about me,
which makes it difficult to assess their knowledge unless they get something
clearly wrong. They do make some impressive claims, but claims in cyberspace
are nothing but background noise.

My own view is that you know a little about a lot of subjects, which
is dangerous.

Some people flying know only a little about the subject, too, which is far
more dangerous.

On Jun 26, 8:39*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Bob Myers writes:
MSFS is a computer game.

It's a simulation, which is why Microsoft killed it. The market for simulators
is very small. The market for games is very large.

WRONG. Guess you can't even speak for Microsoft correctly.

http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulatorx/

READ THE URL. It says GAMES. What part of that do you not
understand??????????

writes:

READ THE URL. It says GAMES.

A game does not incur liability. A simulation does. Additionally, games have
broader appeal than simulators. However, MSFS has always been a simulation,
from its earliest days. That's one of the things that limited its market,
since gamers quickly lose interest in something that doesn't have prizes,
goals, action and adventure, etc.

FSX moved slightly towards games, with more eye candy and "missions" to please
the kiddies, but a total rewrite would have been required to truly make the
product a game. Microsoft, in its increasing lack of wisdom, therefore killed
development on the product and fired the development team.

On Jun 26, 12:58*pm, " wrote:
On Jun 26, 8:39*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

Bob Myers writes:
MSFS is a computer game.

It's a simulation, which is why Microsoft killed it. The market for simulators
is very small. The market for games is very large.

WRONG. *Guess you can't even speak for Microsoft correctly.

http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulatorx/

READ THE URL. *It says GAMES. *What part of that do you not
understand??????????

Lord, you'll NEVER know how I absolutely HATE to chime in on this
thread again. 235 postings back and forth, everybody shouting at
everybody else with the same old tired song. Man, I mean you guys
might actually be going for a Usenet record here :-))))))))))))))))
Kidding aside, about MSFS; there's a right and a wrong to what's being
said about it. As someone who actually worked with Microsoft on the
program as a realism and fidelity advisor I can speak to the issues at
hand directly.
Respectfully submitted of course, and with deference to others
opinions that might vary, MSFS is neither as bad as some have said
here, nor is it as good as others have stated here. Actually, the
program is sort of in the middle of it all.
As the program exists out of the box, as far as real world aviation
training and usage goes, the sim has excellent use as an introductory
and sales tool for the training community. Later on, the program has
some limited uses as a cross country, procedures, and instrument
procedures tool if used PROPERLY and under the direct supervision of a
certificated flight or ground instructor.
I've always recommended that if the program is indeed present during
the student pre-solo period, that it be NOT used between the period of
first dual and solo due to the importance of actual aircraft visual
cues and actual control pressure vs response interfacing the student
with the exact aircraft being used for training. During this period,
the use of the sim can actually be detrimental and flatten the
learning curve.
As for reality, accuracy, and authenticity of the program to actual
aircraft, there are limitations as the program exists due to various
reasons, among them the need by Microsoft to keep the performance of
the program within certain parameters for a targeted end user sales
demographic. The depth of fidelity and depth of accuracy of ANY
aircraft flight model and systems simply isn't a requirement of the
program as designed and marketed.
NOW, all this having been said, I can tell you with certainty as I am
working on these programs as we speak, that there are after market
developers out here designing flight models for add on aircraft for
FSX that will define a paradigm shift in fidelity and accuracy in the
program. As we speak, I am working on a P51D for FSX that will be
using code outside the base sim engine and based on exact aircraft
performance data that will come extremely close to being good enough
to use as an additional tool in checking someone out in a P51D.
The accuracy and system fidelity is so deep on this add on that
systems AND the aircraft act dynamically in a standard atmosphere
reflecting all temps and pressures associated with flying in that
atmosphere.
Even this falls a bit short of actual realism as using pressure
altitude defines a performance limit not associated with density
altitude in a non standard atmosphere.
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.
Dudley Henriques

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.

On 26/06/10 14:36, Mxsmanic wrote:
JohnT writes:

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

I know a lot of them from flight simulation. And a Cessna 152 pilot who has
flown only that aircraft and never does simulation or study of any other
aircraft will not know about them.

How can I put this...

If I was in an aircraft and the choice was between you and someone who
had actually flown a real aircraft... If you got too pushy you'd be out
the door son...

--
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.