"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Maxwell writes:

There is no possible way to explain the value of actual experience.

Yeah, right.

Yeah right what? If you have a problem with that statement, then let's here
it.


If a person can't understand the difference in fantasy and reality,
or simply refuses to do so, there is nothing you can do to enlighten
them.

Yes. Even when you point out to them that they can't seem to substantiate
their imaginings, they persist in believing in them, as I've already
explained.


We believe in what we have actually experienced. We have actually been
there, done it, and learned from the actual experience. We didn't simulate
it and imagine it. Most of us have actually flown light and heavy aircraft,
as well as the machines that simulate them. We are not the ones imagining
here, you are.

Then find a way to certify your age for us.

Hard as it may be to believe, age is not a factor here.


Any hard evidence, because I'm still a long way from convinced.

My guess is you are a 10 or 12 year old intellectual.

Over the years I've found that people who agree with me usually assume
that
I'm close to their age. People who don't agree with me always think I'm
much
younger or older. Whether they are correct or not is purely a roll of the
dice.


Got any personal references? Where are they?

Because the value you seem to place on actual
experience, strongly suggests you are not old enough to have any
experience
with anything, much less something as complex as piloting an aircraft.

I place a considerable value on experience, but I don't accept "experience
is
the difference" as an isolated assertion in itself. Any assertion that
cannot
be substantiated is suspect.

None of us get paid to substantiate anything to you or anyone else. If you
ask for advice and then insist on challenging it, the burden is on your
shoulders to find data that proves it wrong. Not on ours to prove it
correct. That is the value I personally find in the Usenet. It's a public
forum. If someone gives me poor advice, someone is usually handy to provide
data to the contrary. The advice you have been given by so many, is being
scrutinized by hundreds, if not thousands of people. If your position on the
value of simulation was so well founded, you would have a lot more
supporters I can assure you. There are far too many people here that use
simulation for all it can possibly offer them, to insist they all simply
have a negative attitude towards them. The actual flying experience just
gives them the added perspective to realize, that no matter how
sophisticated simulators become someday, it will never be a complete
substitute for all actual experience. An excellent training tool, yes. But a
complete replacement for actual experience, no way.


The only pattern I see in anyone's participation in your posts, is your
complete denial of reality as opposed to your perception of it.

Whereas nobody else here could possibly have that problem, eh?


Well if your assumptions are correct, where are all your supporters?

I'm not trying to flame you, or argue with you. I just see you ask questions
that very clearly indicate lack of experience, and would be happy to help
you understand. But like the rest of us, I have no intention of writing an
800 page novel to convince you of the simplest concepts. Acceleration
forces, vertigo and knowing that making a wrong decision could cost you your
life - have never been effectively dealt with in simulators. And they not
only contribute to, but can actually multiply pilot workload to the point
you overlook some of the simplest and most routine tasks. Tasks that can
cost you your life. That's why full motion cockpits, parabolic displays,
sounds and vibrations are so valuable to simulators. They do everything
possible to detach a pilots thoughts from the fact he is not flying the real
thing, and help induce stress and pilot workload. Even an opportunity to
practice procedures that just can't be safely done on a training flight. But
no mater how good they become, they will never be able to stress you out
like the real thing. Because deep down inside the pilot will always know
it's a simulation. And that will always make one of the many differences in
actual and simulated experience. And that's a very big difference you simply
refuse to accept.

But that's only one difference. When indeed addressing all the critical
differences between actual flight experience and today's simulators would be
a worthy topic of an entire book. But what's the use. If you really want to
argue your position from a strong stand point, part with half the cost of a
new computer, and take a few of flying lessons. Even learning to solo in a
simple aircraft is hardly beyond anyone's budget. It the US it's very
comparable to the cost of a new PC. Much less all the gear required to
outfit a decent home simulator as well. And a fraction of the investment a
lot of very patient people here have made, in fruitlessly helping you
understand the difference. If you ever do, I seriously doubt we would ever
hear from you again. At least under your current moniker. You would quickly
realize the difference, and the weakness of your current perceptions.

But you just what to debate. When what you should be offering not me, but
all those that have come before me, is a sincere amount of gratitude. For
taking so many hours of their time to help you understand something you
could easily realize with a minimal investment on your part. They care
enough about people and aviation, to welcome those without the benefit of
their experience. And like it or not you owe it to them, to accept their
advice for the questions you ask, or leave their forum in peace.


Good day.