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

Sam Spade wrote:

I missed the center frequencies. To get a good flavor of the east high
and low LA frequenices you would need a volunteer in Barstow and one
somewhere in the Ontario area. ;-)

Is that where their antenna farms or just the facilities are located?

--
Peter

On 01/05/07 09:58, Sam Spade wrote:
Newps wrote:



Mxsmanic wrote:


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



Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.


There is never a case where it doesn't change flight path.

Not so. When an engine fails on a multi, a lot of rudder is required.
Skillfully done, the application of a lot of rudder is mandatory to
maintain the desired flight path.

It is changing the flight path the aircraft would have taken had you
not applied the rudder.

TxSrv wrote:
But I have trouble
believing the typical ATC would regularly spend off-hours directing
nonpilots in a make-believe IFR environment.

So do I.

I also have trouble believing very many real pilots would bother to
participate in that whole shebang.

How do you know that they aren't just agreeing with you in the hope that you
will go away? Seems much more plausible based on your current performance.

Transpose mxsmanic with moron to reach the whining, live in the dark,
trolling buffoon.

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

How do you know who is honest and who is lying?

By knowing their overall personalities.

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

She flies it to get away from you....

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Wade Hasbrouck writes:

I would like to see him tell Patty Wagstaff that her airplane is just a
"fun" plane and not a "serious" plane. :-)

I was talking about the MSFS model of the plane, not the plane itself.

I'm sure Patty Wagstaff considers it fun; otherwise, why would she fly
it?

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

Nomen Nescio wrote:
different.
In MSFS, maintain normal climb pitch, and speed, and you will
always climb. Maintain normal descent pitch and you will always
descend. Independent of MSFS "turbulence". Any 10 hr REAL pilot
already knows that this is not true in a real plane.


If this statement about MSFS behavior is true, it is impossible to
simulate soaring flight in MSFS. I have no experience with MSFS --- is
this the case? Never mind simulated flying under cumulonimbus or in
virga --- exactly the case where you do not want to do it for real...

I saw simulated soaring flight in X-plane, so at least some programs
probably do it more properly...

Peter R. wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:


I missed the center frequencies. To get a good flavor of the east high
and low LA frequenices you would need a volunteer in Barstow and one
somewhere in the Ontario area. ;-)


Is that where their antenna farms or just the facilities are located?


It would be where the remote transmitter/receivers would be located.
(aka "RCO" remote communications outlet.)

I am approximating the location of these two RCOs. Stay tuned.

Mark Hansen wrote:

On 01/05/07 09:58, Sam Spade wrote:

Newps wrote:



Mxsmanic wrote:


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



Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.


There is never a case where it doesn't change flight path.

Not so. When an engine fails on a multi, a lot of rudder is required.
Skillfully done, the application of a lot of rudder is mandatory to
maintain the desired flight path.


It is changing the flight path the aircraft would have taken had you
not applied the rudder.

That is like saying a localizer changes the flight path on an ILS.

Nomen Nescio wrote: brevity snip/groups adjusted
Falcon 4.0 is like that for me. Does it actually behave like a F-16?
I dunno. It behaves like a PLANE and that's important to me, although
there are a few things I've noticed that I would bet are quite
different in a real F-16. But I don't care because I am trying to learn
the GAME and be good at the GAME. Since I'll probably never get
a chance to fly, or even fly in, an F-16, the differences just don't matter
to me (although I did get to sit in one and embarrass my wife by making
jet noises and shouting "Fox one").
I enjoy it for what it is and have no delusions that I really know
how to fly an F-16. And if a REAL F-16 pilot told me about what it was like to
fly a REAL F-16, I wouldn't be arguing about the differences in the
Falcon 4.0 flight models..........I'd STFU and take notes.

Now that's funny!

Falcon 3.0 was advertised as the declassified version of the software
used to train NG pilots. I have no idea how realistic it remained, but
it was real enough to make me sweat and hold my breath as I struggled
to not have my ass shot out of the sky.

I don't remember exactly what year I purchased it, but the machine I
first ran it on was a 486/25 (in DOS).

THAT... was one kickass game!
http://www.f4hq.com/default.php?page=default
-----

- gpsman

Paul kgyy wrote:
If you want a better feel for what actually goes on than you will ever
get via newsgroup, take a couple of United flights and listen to the
ATC channel - it can be much more entertaining than the movie at times.

i love that "channel". It's really fun being able to say to the person
you're flying with "i can predict the future. Check it out, we're gonna
turn left in about 3 seconds"

just like at work i always listen to the DFW stream...
http://www.caesimuflite.com/atcindex1.html