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

Mxsmanic wrote:
B A R R Y writes:

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

Many real pilots play with MSFS all the time.


A friend of mine is a pilot for an international cargo carrier, and he
does play with MSFS. He just loves to fly a 747 off of a grass strip
that is about half a mile from his (real) house. The grass strip is in
the MSFS database, so he uses it. (I guess it beats pretending to drive
to the airport.)

So, at least one professional pilot likes to _PLAY_ with MSFS.

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

Many real pilots play with MSFS all the time.


A friend of mine is a pilot for an international cargo carrier, and he
does play with MSFS. He just loves to fly a 747 off of a grass strip
that is about half a mile from his (real) house. The grass strip is in
the MSFS database, so he uses it. (I guess it beats pretending to drive
to the airport.)

So, at least one professional pilot likes to _PLAY_ with MSFS.

Could be amusing. Tthose sim engines are virtually imune to FOD; and the
wing tips can slice through trees like they were never there ... bfg

Peter

Mxsmanic wrote:

Since you cannot test the real aircraft that high, you have no
way of knowing whether the simulation is accurate or not.

Brilliant. How do we get there in the first place? What
limiters do you suppose in a normally-aspirated,
piston-engine A/C would prevent us? Barring extraordinary
ridge lift in winter-cold air, and maybe that would be
insufficient, how do we get to FL 300 like I've done in MSFS
in a 172? Possible only with slew. And what's that silly
MSFS phugoid thing all about in this rarefied air? It's
program code; not reality.

F--

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Ross writes:

Nope, this was the real multi million $ American Airline simulator in
Ft. Worth Texas at their training center. I do not suspect they you
MSFS.

Sometimes it can be surprising what runs on the back end.

As someone who's been flying them every six months for a decade, and
*instructing* in them for several years, it wouldn't be surprising at
all. And as Mr. Space correctly points out, there's not so much as a
snippet of Microsoft code running those $12 MM simulators.

They run custom-designed simulator software, running on banks of
computers. They can communicate with the actual, physical avionics that
are the same as those installed in the aircraft. (Very, very different
from painting graphics on what amounts to a matte painting that looks
somewhat like a cockpit.) They also mimic the physical sensations,
which are *critical* in coming anywhere close to completely simulating
flight.

I've played MSFS, I've spent hundreds of hours in full-motion
simulators, and I've flown thousands of hours in transport aircraft.
Until you have done more than one of the above, you ARE NOT QUALIFIED to
make comparisons amongst them.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message Do you often need a different altitude from
the one you filed?
Perhaps for fuel considerations, or headwinds, or something?

Often times our actual weight will be slightly different from the flight
planned weight requiring 2000' up or down for fuel optimization. Turbulence
is another reason to change altitudes, sometimes 10000' or more. A 2000'
change in altitude usually doesn't make enough difference in headwinds to
justify the increased fuel burn of changing altitudes. Sometimes we are just
plain stuck at an inefficient altitude because of same direction traffic.

So what do they say in this telephone call?

Along the lines of 'Now you know- don't do it again".

I would have thought that altitude and track would both be about
equally important.

They are both important, however altitude leeway is +/-300' whereas airways
have .5 to 4 miles of leeway.

D.

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
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.

Let's split hairs- I am aware of the Flying Tigers' accident. However,
'four' followed by 'twelve' is hard to confuse. 'four one two thousand'
doesn't make sense either. Professionals are admonished to be concise and
efficient in their transmissions. In that sense, and because Maniac did say
that he was already issued the crossing restriction, "Leaving FL290" would
be better.

D.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

I know they aren't stupid.

How do you know this?

Gig 601XL Builder wrote: groups adjusted
Mxsmanic wrote:

MSFS includes a glider. I have no glider experience so I cannot
comment on its realism.


POST OF THE MONTH.

Lol!

What are the odds of a conclusion that seems rational emanating from
that keyboard?
-----

- gpsman

In article ,
"Viperdoc" wrote:

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.

Aww heck, landings are assured. Surviving the landing is a different matter

:-)

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Capt.Doug wrote:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
So it would probably be best to set the MCP to prevent any descent
until I'm cleared, then?


MCP = max continuous power? Sorry- not familiar with the term as used on an
FMS. The important thing is to not set the altitude hold for descent until
cleared by ATC.

Mode Control Panel