Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC

Thomas Borchert writes:

Actually, no, it doesn't. The word "for" is to be avoided because it sound
the same as "four". It sounds like many airline pilots (just like "twelve
hundred" or "with you"), but professional it is not.

Which airline do you fly for, again?

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

Nomen Nescio writes:

Uh, gee, Einstein, a real rudder DOES control flight path.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. It rotates the aircraft
about its yaw axis, which can have a number of different effects,
depending on the situation.

There is in MSFS. There isn't in real life. My guess is that MSFS merely
uses a random number generator to add a degree or 2 of bank or pitch.
Real turbulence can throw a plane up or down a few hundred ft in seconds.
Turbulence in MSFS has NO effect on altitude.

It does when I encounter it.

One of the reasons is the useless rudder modeling.

No, I think the main reasons are that some pilots depend excessively
on physical sensations, and become disoriented without them. Also,
some depend a lot on a large field of vision, which most simulator
configurations don't provide.

Here's a test you can do yourself.
Fly straight and level.
Look at your heading.
Now feed in full rudder (pick a direction) and hold the wings level (this
is critical).
After doing this for couple minutes or so, release the rudder. Again, always keeping
the wings level (any bank at all will screw up the test).
Now look at the heading. If you did this perfectly, the heading will be exactly
the same. Now check your flight path. You'll see that it's a straight line.
With a real rudder, your heading will change significantly and your flight
path will not be a straight line.

I did it. The plane turns (reluctantly), and the flight path curves.
The heading changes. And the wings were level, because I turned on the
wing leveling function in the autopilot, which forces them to stay
level (it was using quite a bit of aileron to keep them level, but
they did not budge).

So MSFS apparently passes the test.

BTW, The rudder responses are reasonably accurate in "x-plane" so
there's no reason MSFS couldn't model it properly. But that does not
change the fact that it's not.

It seems to work fine on my copy of MSFS. Rather like your rudder
test.

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

Mxsmanic,

Which airline do you fly for, again?


Are you determined to make a complete idiot of yourself now? But I'm
glad to see it is possible to penetrate that armor you've conveniently
constructed around your sorry self.

GA aircraft and airlines use the same radio frequencies. They are
required to use the same phrases in their radio work. So I don't need
to fly for an airline to make qualified statements about radio work. I
have been educated in radio work in just the same way as an airline
pilot. You haven't. So take the advice of another poster: STFU and take
notes!

FWIW, the part I mentioned is easily obtainable by reading the AIM or
the Pilot-Controller-Glossary, which you have been pointed to, but are
too lazy to read. Instead, you prefer to try making silly personal
attacks. You're a lying troll.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Nomen Nescio writes:

Uh, gee, Einstein, a real rudder DOES control flight path.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. It rotates the aircraft
about its yaw axis, which can have a number of different effects,
depending on the situation.

Staying within the context of this discussion vis-a-vis rudder input alone
and your statement above, can you describe when it does and does not affect
flight path and in which aircraft this is true? What are the number of
different effects it can have and what situations do they occur in.

BDS writes:

Staying within the context of this discussion vis-a-vis rudder input alone
and your statement above, can you describe when it does and does not affect
flight path and in which aircraft this is true? What are the number of
different effects it can have and what situations do they occur in.

There are many different possibilities. In the experiment suggested
to me, I held the wings level (via the autolevel function of the
autopilot), applied full right rudder, and the aircraft yawed and
gradually changed heading. The ground track was a segment of a circle
(depending on how long I held the rudder). Supposedly MSFS can't do
this, but it did.

Adjusting the rudder yaws the aircraft. In ordinary level flight,
this will tend to cause the aircraft to enter a turn. The asymmetric
lift resulting from the yaw will tend to push the aircraft into a bank
in the same direction as the rudder is turning the aircraft, and
aerodynamic forces on the rest of the aircraft will assist this.

The rudder can also be used to compensate for other forces acting
about the yaw axis. It can be used to compensate for crosswinds or
engine torque. It can be used to establish and maintain coordinated
turns. And so on.

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

While this thread is obviously degenerating to your base level of illogic
and circular reasoning, I can tell you that your statement "anyone competent
to flying can probably can land (an Extra) virtually blindfolded" is
laughingly untrue.

Landing a tailwheel airplane is a distinctly different challenge compared to
a tricycle gear plane. I have close to 1000 hours in tailwheel planes, and I
(along with any other pilot of tailwheel aircraft) will tell you that it
takes a lot more attention to land these planes, particularly in gusting
crosswind conditions.

The Extra is harder in some ways, because it lands fast and sinks rapidly,
with no forward visibility. On the other hand the controls (especially the
rudder) remain effective even at low airspeeds. Once on the runway it is
very stable, and does not hop around like a Pitts.

The reason why people are alienated by your posts are the ridiculous
pronouncements like the one quoted above, which are illogical conclusions
based on no meaningful experience or reasoning. Get a clue.

Mxsmanic wrote:
bdl writes:


The realism is very striking. That doesn't make it REAL, however.


As long as the realism is striking, it doesn't have to be real. The
whole purpose of simulation is realism without reality, after all.

In the context of aviation the purpose of simulation is to faithfully
duplicate the aircraft flight deck, panels and systems, motion, and
outside visual references so that pilot qualification in the simulator
translates into pilot qualification in the aircraft.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

I guess a lot of pilots like all those strong physical sensations.
There doesn't seem to be much of an intellectual component to their
enjoyment, and they seem to regard the brain work parts as necessary
evils rather than as enjoyable in themselves. This may be relatively
specific to GA pilots, though.

It's insulting diatribe like this that convinces me that contrary to what
Jose and Jay seem to think, Mx is not here to learn but rather to provoke.

He is always the first to resort to insults when he has nowhere else to go
in the argument. Why else would he make comments like the above along with
such things as "GA pilots are incompetent", "people in the USA have no
courage, only ego", etc., etc.

Not once have I seen him admit that he might be mistaken, and that in itself
is very telling.

In article ,
john smith wrote:


It believe it is based on the instrument requirement (?) of 500 fpm rate
of descent.

That's the absolute minimum descent rate; more typical is a 3-degree
(roughly 300 feet per nautical mile) descent. ATC is expecting a normal
rate of descent for your particular type of airplane to achieve that.

In a spamcan doing 90 knots groundspeed, 500fpm is about right. In a
typical jet doing 450 knots over the ground, that's going to be more
like 2300 feet per minute. (Groundspeed in knots * 5 will give you a
pretty good target to achieve a 3 degree descent.)

Mxsmanic wrote:

If your instructor shouts, you need a new instructor.


I remember preparing to takeoff from a training hill in a hang glider
and when I started running, then wind direction slightly changed and I
started hesitating and thought about aborting run. An instructor
started shouting "Run, run you bloody stupid f***d!" . And a lot of
other unpleasant words in a split second. I ran, took off Ok and landed
well.

When I came back, I thanked her for saving me from possibly broken arm
or leg (no kidding) and unpleasant time spent in hospital, never mind
bent aluminium.

You have no clue, do you?