"Rolling" to ATC

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 14:36:23 -0700, Newps wrote:



Mxsmanic wrote:


Mxsmanic writes:


Newps writes:


Exactly. Playing.

Yes, that's what I said.


No, that's not what I said. The referenced post was simulated.


The goal of simulation is to perfectly simulate reality. Mission
accomplished.

Welll... a simulation is never perfect. If it were it'd be reality.
There for no simulation can be perfect as it'd no longer be a
simulation.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Thanks- I also coach and play hockey as well as fly.

Viperdoc wrote:
Thanks- I also coach and play hockey as well as fly.


Alllllright! I'm a referee, used to coach and my son is a junior in
high school and plays for his school. I can't be bothered on Friday and
Saturday nights if the Gophers are on.

In article ,
A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

P.S. I would love to see you and Steven McNicoll throw down.
that would be a riot. Perhaps Jay or Sam S. could play Judge Mills Lane
as the referee.

I wouldn't want to see it, but my money would be on Steven.

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

On Feb 6, 10:58 am, "Morgans" wrote:
"Duncan (NZ)" wrote

Ground controllers - w' the exception of taxi intructions, typically
we'd read that back. Otherwise an acknowlegement is fine.

Advisory service, ie, Information, you'd just read back the QNH.

Tower and Control - you copy back the lot (they wanna know you've got it
right).

Interesting. I had no idea that there were that many differences.
--
Jim in NC

I had no idea either!!! I guess with us being on the other side of
the world, we have developed different ways of doing some things...

There's a couple of other differences that spring to mind as I type
this - our flight levels start at 13,000 feet versus 18000 in the
US.. It is 18000, right??

And we use the English Q codes and the US doesn't.. We use QNH for
our altimeter setting, and QFE for altimeter setting that makes the
field elevation zero.

And I am sure there are other differences..

And of course our runways are generally a lot shorter and mostly
grass, which can be tricky if you are used to long sealed runways..

Which is what we are supposed to do, although I have been for a very
scary flight in a Cherokee Charger at Raglan where the dude made no
radio calls the whole trip, did no run-up, climbed with the stall
warning lit up the whole way up, on a very very rough day, did his
circuit the wrong direction, then slammed it on the runway and skidded
sideways to a stop. I think he was quite pleased with himself..

Don't worry, the same thing happens at Wigram too - in fact there's a
dude there that's gonna get his arse busted one day by CAA (someone will
complain), or... he'll take someone out. When *he* wants to fly, he
just cranks it up and rolls away (no runway req'd! - just nails it.


Everywhere you go there has to be a cowboy doesn't there!

One of our (former) club members got busted once for doing a loop in a
172.. Within sight of the airfield!!

And my favourite one was the Indian taxi driver who owned a light
aircraft of some description here a few years back... A couple of
weeks after he was seen taxiing in with two small children sitting in
the cargo area, he had some engine problems after coming back from
maintenance. Apparently it sounded like he was trying to clear a
fouled plug but when our chief looked up he was taking off.. With an
engine running rough. He dragged it's arse over the fence and it
settled into a paddock on the other side of the main road.. And he
had to pick the only field with stuff in it from dozens of clear
ones.. Wrote the plane off didn't he... And he had such a bad
reputation nobody would give him a rating on the Cherokee 140 he
bought to replace it.

And then he came to the maintenance shop I worked at and had several
thousand dollars of work done on the 140, and didn't pay the bill
until they took him to debt collection a year later...

Oh, he was the same guy who's original plane had a CSU, and when he
dropped in one day he admitted he had no idea what the blue lever did,
he just kept it pushed fully forward

He is the sort of pilot who gives the lot of us a bad name!

Just got back from practice- my son is a squirt, and I'm one of the
assistant coaches. We have play downs this weekend (do these sound
familiar?), but unfortunately I'll be in San Diego for a meeting.

It was actually warmer inside the rink than outside tonight, with the OAT
hovering at -4degrees. With two to three practices and at least one to two
games on the weekends it cuts into the flying time. However, we try to fly
to his games, even if it's only a 15 minute ride. Of course going to the
distant tournaments really becomes more fun- and I usually commute by plane
rather than drive.

Was it a big transition going from squirt to checking? My son isn't very
big, so I'm concerned about him getting crushed.

"Viperdoc" wrote in message
...
Just got back from practice- my son is a squirt, and I'm one of the
assistant coaches. We have play downs this weekend (do these sound
familiar?), but unfortunately I'll be in San Diego for a meeting.

It was actually warmer inside the rink than outside tonight, with the OAT
hovering at -4degrees. With two to three practices and at least one to two
games on the weekends it cuts into the flying time. However, we try to fly
to his games, even if it's only a 15 minute ride. Of course going to the
distant tournaments really becomes more fun- and I usually commute by
plane rather than drive.

Was it a big transition going from squirt to checking? My son isn't very
big, so I'm concerned about him getting crushed.


Since no one is allowed to hit them anymore, make him a goaltender.

Jay B

Roger writes:

Welll... a simulation is never perfect. If it were it'd be reality.

Correct. Simulation approaches but does not attain this objective.
In practice, simulation can be perfect for a given subset of the
reality to be simulated, but not for all of it. Thus, you can have a
simulator that perfectly simulates some (possibly large) subset of the
reality of flying, but no simulator covers everything. The usual goal
is to create a simulation that covers a subset useful for the purpose
for which the simulation is being used. For example, an
instrument-flight simulator may perfectly simulate the behavior of
instruments, and this may fulfill the purpose of the simulator, even
though other aspects of the reality of flying are not simulated.

In general, many aspects of reality are not worth simulating, and some
are even undesirable in some cases. For example, you would not design
a simulator that kills the pilot in the event of a simulated crash.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:

Roger writes:


Welll... a simulation is never perfect. If it were it'd be reality.


Correct. Simulation approaches but does not attain this objective.
In practice, simulation can be perfect for a given subset of the
reality to be simulated, but not for all of it. Thus, you can have a
simulator that perfectly simulates some (possibly large) subset of the
reality of flying, but no simulator covers everything. The usual goal
is to create a simulation that covers a subset useful for the purpose
for which the simulation is being used. For example, an
instrument-flight simulator may perfectly simulate the behavior of
instruments, and this may fulfill the purpose of the simulator, even
though other aspects of the reality of flying are not simulated.

In general, many aspects of reality are not worth simulating, and some
are even undesirable in some cases. For example, you would not design
a simulator that kills the pilot in the event of a simulated crash.

Anthony, why would it be undesirable were you to kill yourself in a
simulator crash?

Rip