Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane

Hatunen writes:

Your computer chair bounces?

No, but the view out the window and the instruments tell me all that I need to
know. Vision is the most important sense in flying by far.

... which makes it clear I am talking about PC simulators.

PC simulators do a good job, too.

You've never flown a plane. I have.

Thank you for proving my point.

The physical sensations can be important when they occur, as they can
distract from clear thinking.

Yes, but much of their effect is a function of personality as well.

A stall simulated on a PC can not ever accurately
convey the, um, thrill, of a full stall (especially your first
full stall as a student pilot) as you keep pulling back on the
yoke/joystick pointing the noise higher and higher as the stall
warning screams and then, WHAM!, the nose of the plane is pointed
downward, seemingly straight down at the ground, gaining speed
rapidly.

Yes, I know. But I'm not a thrillseeker, and I don't need thrills to learn how
to fly.

The first time I did tht for my isntructor it scared the
crap out of me.

Did you know what to expect?

Hatunen writes:

Well, my instructor, who insisted on teaching spins to me
although no longer required for certification said there weren't
any more real pilots.

It's a judgment call. Spin practice is no longer required because more pilots
were dying from spins during training than were dying from spins during flight
thereafter. The cure was worse than the disease. So the emphasis was shifted
to avoiding spins, rather than recovering from them, at least for PPLs.

I guess you don't have to know how to recover from a spin if you
don't spin.

Exactly. It's safer to practice avoiding spins, but to only learn the theory
of spin recovery.

Like an add-on dual monitor?

No. Look up TrackIR.

I fail to see how a PC can
realistically give the sensation of an instrument panel over two
feet across.

See above.

Unless your computer chair can bounce up and down and lean left
and right, it's not the same.

As I've said, a lot of private pilots seem to give physical sensations
priority over everything else. But there's a lot more to flying than a
roller-coaster ride. I don't care much for the physical sensations myself,
although takeoff and landing are kind of pleasant if they are smooth.

writes:

The view looks like a flat screen and there is no peripherial view.

Look up TrackIR.

The physical sensations of a downdraft are real in real airplanes and you
have to learn to deal with them to fly real airplanes.

That's about 0.000001% of what you have to learn to deal with to fly
airplanes, and a great deal of what you have to learn (the great majority, in
fact) has nothing to do with physical sensations.

Maybe if you're puttering around in a biplane you might depend a lot on
sensations. But in a 747 you don't use them at all. Large aircraft are flown
by the numbers, for the most part.

Yes spins are still taught, they are just not a requirement for private.

So spins are not taught for a PPL, QED.

Sure if you have a 360 degree wrap around display.

No, you can also have a display that changes what it shows based on your head
movements. It works extremely well.

Do you?

I don't care enough about the virtual cockpit view to use such add-ons. I can
"turn my head" left and right with a twist of the joystick if I need to look
around. I fly in IMC a fair amount so often there's nothing to look at except
the instrument panel.

Since it is all on a small (compared to even a C150 panel) 2 dimensional flat
screen, only someone delusional could not immediately tell it is a display.

It can fool both pilots and non-pilots. Sims have come a long way since the
old days.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

True, and in most cases, if the aircraft are anywhere near similar, a reading
of the aircraft manual will suffice for that.

Why would reading the manual be sufficient, but simulation not?

There you go making stuff up again and misrepresenting what people have said.

What I said was "..if the aircraft are anywhere near similar, a reading of
the aircraft manual will suffice for that."

Where did I say anything about simulators?

But more to the point that you tried to diverge to, if reading the manual
is sufficient, why would you then need a simulator of any kind?


And I've actually done that, have you?

Yes, I have.

Are you deliberately lying or are you in another of your delusional states?

You have said time and again you have never flown any airplane, much less
a different model after a read of the manual for the new airplane.

And before you go off on some other tangent about how safe it is to fly
an aircraft one has never flown before based only on a read of the manual,
in both cases there was an instructor aboard and in both cases all the
instructor did was ask me to demonstrate things.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Sure it does, including the feeling of falling when the stall breaks and
the increased G load as you pull out.

It doesn't simulate motion. Motion is only one small part of flying.

The G changes are a big part of a stall and something one needs to learn
to essentially ignore which can only be done by actually doing it.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
Hatunen writes:

Your computer chair bounces?

No, but the view out the window and the instruments tell me all that I need to
know. Vision is the most important sense in flying by far.

Delusional babble.

It is important to learn how to handle ALL the sensory inputs, especially
the ones that tend to cause you to redo your breakfast.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
Hatunen writes:

Well, my instructor, who insisted on teaching spins to me
although no longer required for certification said there weren't
any more real pilots.

It's a judgment call. Spin practice is no longer required

Wrong.

Spins are not required for private and below.

snip delusional babble about small, flat screens looking just like a real
airplane panel


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

The view looks like a flat screen and there is no peripherial view.

Look up TrackIR.

I have.

It is still a flat screen and there is no peripherial view.

To say otherwise is a lie or a delusion.

The physical sensations of a downdraft are real in real airplanes and you
have to learn to deal with them to fly real airplanes.

That's about 0.000001% of what you have to learn to deal with to fly
airplanes, and a great deal of what you have to learn (the great majority, in
fact) has nothing to do with physical sensations.

It is a lot more than 0.000001% of what you have to learn and you have to
learn it to fly real airplanes.

snip delusional babble about how realistic small, flat screes with no
peripheral view are


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

But more to the point that you tried to diverge to, if reading the manual
is sufficient, why would you then need a simulator of any kind?

You wouldn't, but a simulator is more fun.

You have said time and again you have never flown any airplane, much less
a different model after a read of the manual for the new airplane.

I simply meant that I've actually read the manufacturer's documentation for
the 747 (well, parts of it).

writes:

The G changes are a big part of a stall and something one needs to learn
to essentially ignore which can only be done by actually doing it.

You can ignore it without any prior practice. It's a question of personality
and mood and mindset.