On May 18, 11:02*am, "F. Baum" wrote:
You on the other hand , claiming that superior sense and
skill got you through an instrument failure, is just macho bravado.

Never said it got me through it, but I did say it was an additional
tool in my took kit. It was a combination of everything, not one
thing. To ignore senses or the seat of your pants in IMC is just in
my opinion not good flying. No different then landing a plane at
night when you are feeling your way down to the ground.

Got a good chuckle by what you consider a low approach, 1000ft ceiling
is VFR man .

Where did I say it was a low approach? I use 1000 foot ceilings as a
benchmark as many pilots don't or will not fly down to minimums in
actual conditions.

Thankfully, I had an instructor in my training, I did go down to ILS
minimums and have made several GPS and VOR Alpha's down to minimums on
my own without any problems.. It becomes a non event at the end, but
thrilling as you slide down the approach path. It's the end result we
all look for but it doesn't just come by tracking needles.

*Furthermore, a sim is a very usefull tool. Why do you
think the airlines use them. All of the sims that I have flown have
been harder to fly than the real A/C. Dont get me wrong, I am glad
that you made it through OK but lighten up G

Airliners us FULL MOTION sims, not a desktop MSFS. HUGE difference.
From what I gather, Jay's simulator is not a full motion sim.

To equate a desktop MSFS to any type of IMC flying is reckless IMHO.

To not depend on senses and totally rely on instruments without an
expectation that **they could fail** is reckless. If you fly a real
plane, you should know this. Nobody expects the unexpected to happen,
but if you fly your plane like **it could happen** then you are better
prepared. I call it an insurance policy that you hope you don't have
to cash in.