GA is priceless

Orval Fairbairn writes:

I don't know where MX gets hid info, but transport category are
certificated to 3.3g max, 4.9g ultimate loading (standard category).

I had the maneuvering limits in mind. With flaps retracted, for the
737, the positive limit is 2.5 Gs.

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

Thomas Borchert writes:

Then what are you doing here?

Some people here occasionally provide good, thorough answers. It's
worth the noise, which I'm very good at ignoring.

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

Neil Gould writes:

Why would you care?

I was just calling your bluff, knowing that you would not be able to
answer the question.

With someone like me, it's best not to say anything like "X exists"
unless you are prepared to describe it.

There are no incorrect parts of the simulation. Prove me wrong.

It is not conjecture that you lack flight experience, as you have stated
that fact many times.

True.

It is not conjecture that you can not confirm your notion of probability,
because, among many other factors, you don't like to meet people in real
life (again, your own statement).

Sorry, but not only is this conjecture, but it is also irrelevant. I
don't see how meeting people has anything to do with the accuracy of
MSFS simulation.

Just because your attacks lack a specific target ...

What attacks?

You have not answered my question: Why do you persist in personal
attacks?

For example, you stated: "I have found that GA pilots are the least
informed and competent of all pilots."

It is an accurate generalization, as far as I know. And it is to be
expected, given the requirements for various types of piloting.

It is not insignificant that, regardless of your opinion
of GA pilots, the worst of them are more and better informed than you are
about flying real airplanes.

Here again, this is conjecture. I find it worrisome that so many
self-described GA pilots cannot answer my questions, or give
demonstrably incorrect answers, or cannot even agree on an answer
among themselves. Clearly, if they were truly all well informed,
these things would be improbable.

You feel the need to make such comments, and
in response, I point them out to readers of this NG.

You feel the need to concentrate your discussion and attacks on me. I
feel the need to discuss aviation. When you are ready to discuss
aviation also, let me know. I am not interested in discussing you.

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

This makes it hard to tell whether Mx is here to learn, or not. I think
he is, and is just not very good at the necessary social skills.

Well put.

While I admit that I don't understand MX, I also don't understand the
ire he draws out of so many (normally) level-headed folks. He's just
not *that* annoying, and is occasionally enlightening.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I also don't understand the
ire he draws out of so many (normally) level-headed folks.

I think it's because when Mx clumsily questions the answers he gets from
pilots, those pilots take it personally as a hit to their ego.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I also don't understand the
ire he draws out of so many (normally) level-headed folks.

I think it's because when Mx clumsily questions the answers he gets from
pilots, those pilots take it personally as a hit to their ego.

Dang, I wouldn't have lasted two hours here, if I took stuff like that
personally....
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jose writes:

I think it's because when Mx clumsily questions the answers he gets from
pilots, those pilots take it personally as a hit to their ego.

Ego ... it is a difficult concept.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:

Jay Honeck writes:

The "complexity" of GA is a myth that has been foisted upon the general
public by the "big-watch" pilots who simply LOVE to flaunt how cool
they are under pressure.

No, the complexity of aviation--including general aviation--is a
reality, for better or for worse.

Just compare the instrument panel in just about any cockpit with the
instrument panel in just about any automobile, and this becomes
obvious. The most complex automobiles have roughly the same number of
dials as the simplest aircraft.

The lack of dials isn't really a good measure. My friends dump truck has
more dials than my Cessna. He drives on the same roads as my car. Does that
mean driving a dump truck is more complex than flying?

snip


Some pilots exaggerate the complexity of flying, just as some pilots
attach mystical significance to actual experience in a real aircraft
(as opposed to simulation). However, flying is still complex enough
even without these exaggerations.

It's also, BTW, one of the major reasons GA is floundering. Too many
people think they're not "good enough" to be a pilot.

It's only one of many reasons. The cost of flying in time and money
puts off a great many people, as do medical requirements and safety
issues.

Why? Quite frankly, too many of us love to portray the steely-eyed
God-pilot, laughing in the face of death and pressing on to our final
destination at all costs -- it makes picking up chicks easier.

Are there still women falling for that?

I wish.....


snip

This involved:

1. Pre-flighting the plane (a walk around, with oil and fuel checks)
2. Loading the plane
3. Starting the plane
4. Programming two GPS's
5. Taking off, and turning to course.
6. Climbing to altitude
7. Following the course (as if we need it -- I've done this flight a
hundred times) to Racine.
8. Land.


snip


Going there in a car involves:


What happened to checking tire pressures, oil and fuel levels, and lights?
Just because it's largely not done doesn't mean a "predrive" inspection
isn't a good idea. In fact, it's usually mentioned in the owner's manual.
You did read that didn't you?

1. Loading the car.
2. Starting the car.
3. Driving onto the highway and following the signs.

Which signs? Last time we went by car there were no signs that said
"Grandma's House". IOW, we had to navigate too.

You also left out the part where you had to apply skills/techniques like
merging, judging braking distances, and general car control at freeway
speeds.

4. Pulling into a parking place.

Judging by our lot here at work it's a lot tougher than you make it out to
be...... ;-)



As you can see, it's a lot easier than flying.

I agree it's easier but...... If we treated driving the same we treated
flying it would appear more complex.


I'll give you this: The TRAINING to become a pilot is difficult -- and
commercial piloting is, of course, a WHOLE different kettle of fish.
They must fly in all weather, into difficult airports -- whereas I get
to choose the times, places and weather in which I fly.

Training is obstacle enough already. And if flying isn't complex, why
is the training so complex and difficult?


I don't suggest that flying and driving are equal in complexity. I do think
that people tend to gloss over some of the complexity in driving, at least
in driving well. We drive so much that some of the skills needed become so
ingrained that we don't consider them anymore.

And to use training as the yardstick isn't fair either. Driver's Ed doesn't
include map reading skills, lost procedure skills, or anything else that
has to do with navigation.

Far less time is spent on regulations. Even less is spent on regulations
that have might have changed recently [1].

Pilots spend considerable time learning communications procedures.
Apparently the Drivers Ed equivalent has been eliminated altogether as I
haven't seen much proper use of turn signals in quite a while.

Emergency procedures do not get practiced. We are told to "steer into a
skid" but we never practice it. Same with threshold braking, even in todays
world of ABS it is still worth doing.

No (formal) mention of weather is included in Drivers Ed. Particularly,
there is nothing taught about ice and fog.

Systems are largely untouched. Pilots are taught about fuel systems,
electrics, etc. even though there is little they can do about them while
airborne. Besides knowing how to change tanks, there is probably little
value to actual flying in me knowing how my fuel system's plumbing minutia.

As the old saying goes, flying is much more intolerant of error than
driving. We tolerate bad driving, much of which is due to inattention, to
the point where we believe it is so much easier than something that
requires constant attention to be done well.

Perhaps if we started investigating car accidents and issuing final cause
and recommendations like the NTSB does we would cut down on them. Of course
that would make driving more complex.

[1] An example that illustrates the different mind sets that leads to much
of what this discussion is all about:

An intersection near us that was a two way stop was recently rebuilt as a
roundabout. A good idea since the traffic, both in and out of the
intersection, was about equal. The drawback of course is that few of the
drivers using it have the first clue about how a roundabout is supposed to
work.

If driving were treated the same as flying there would be a campaign to
educate the drivers in proper use of the roundabout. I drive in Europe and
so I know you're supposed to yield to traffic in the roundabout and signal
your exit from it. I get mad when I see someone miss-using it, but I really
can't expect folks around here to know this because there has been zero
effort to explain it to them.



--
Frank....H

Mxsmanic wrote:
BucFan writes:

Site the statute please.

You can look this up in about eight seconds on Google, but the statute
in California is the California Vehicle Code, Division 11, Chapter 7,
Article 1, Section 22350, Basic Speed Law.

You are, of course, wrong.

Section 22350 says that "No person shall drive a vehicle upon
a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having
due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface
and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which
endangers the safety of persons or property."

OK, so that establishes that it's illegal to drive faster than a speed
which is reasonable and prudent. It does NOT establish that it
is LEGAL to drive at any reasonable and prudent speed, if your
reasonable and prudent speed exceeds the speed established
by other law.

In particular, it doesn't override section 22349, which says
"Except as provided in Section 22356, no person may drive
a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 65 miles
per hour. ... Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
person may drive a vehicle upon a two-lane, undivided
highway at a speed greater than 55 miles per hour unless
that highway, or portion thereof, has been posted for a
higher speed by the Department of Transportation or
appropriate local agency upon the basis of an engineering
and traffic survey."

Nor does it override section 22356, which says (paraphrased)
that the department of transportation may, after conducting
an engineering traffic study, raise the speed limit to 70
mph on designated sections of freeways, but that no person
shall drive faster than 70 MPH on any highway under
any conditions.

Some of California's speed limits are prima facie,
meaning that you may be able to get away with
exceeding them if you can convince the judge that
your speed was reasonable and prudent. But the
55, 65, and 70 mph limits quoted above are
absolute.

The law you cited never gives you the right to
exceed an absolute speed limit, regardless of
how safe the conditions were. In fact, that
law means that you may be charged with
speeding in California even while travelling well
UNDER the posted speed limit, if conditions are such
that the posted speed limit would be unreasonable
or imprudent.

All the California vehicle code is available online
at http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/vctoc.htm

On 2 Jan 2007 05:56:31 -0800, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

I give up: What's a PIO?

Pilot Induced Oscillation. It's usually something that happens during
the landing flare, but can happen on a short-coupled aircraft in any
phase of flight. I wasn't aware that a Bonanza was in that category,
but apparently it is.

It's more of a short coupled pilot that airplane.:-))
A lot of pilots get used to responses of a Cherokee or 172 and for
some reason lean to rely on the VSI to stay level. That doesn't work
in the Bo which is much quicker in response. Where as if they see the
VSI showing a climb in the Cherokee and correct the Bo is quick enough
they can end up 180 degrees out of phase which makes for an
interesting ride. I usually start out by saying, "Remember, the VSI
is a *trend* instrument".

Isn't it bad for your aircraft to put it through 2 G stresses?

The Deb is utility category when loaded properly.
2Gs. Loop entry in the G-III is or can be around 5.:-)) Or a little
more if you want to do two with one on top of the other. Of course
entry speed is a bit higher at 350 MPH.

BTW one of the things I enjoyed out of 16R was seeing an old Ford Tri
motor (think it was a Ford) doing a "low altitude" loop


Planes are built to handle it.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com