I'm not a real Pilot?

"Roger" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:41:10 -0400, "Dudley Henriques"
wrote:

Which reminds me. I wonder if that person would consider the guys
flying for "Air America" back in the 60's and 70's as not real pilots
flying toys.

A Commercial Pilot friend of mine, Kenny Verdon, went over to fly with Air
America. We never heard from him again. He's still over there somewhere in
Laos under some wreckage in the mountains. We heard he was missing, but
little else came back down through the AA grape vine.
Tough work!
Dudley

Mike 'Flyin'8' wrote:
Night landings are a whole different story... I felt I was behind the
plane the whole time and always felt too low. Wierd. Bummer, I guess
I need more practice. :-)


My VFR approaches are always high and steep by choice. At night, for the
reasons you mention, I fly the VASI just to be safe.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Tim writes:

How is ego or humiliation involved at all?

It shouldn't be, but with pilots it often is. That's one of the problems with
aviation (it seems to afflict a lot of vehicle sports, though).

It is highly unlikely that a person who never flew/piloted an aircraft
before could land one successfully.

True, but only because such a person is unlikely to know anything about it.
However, a person who has flown in simulation _does_ know something about it,
and that changes the probabilities.

There is a reason it takes about 10 to 30 hours of instruction to
land a single engine plane.

Two to four days of practice, you mean?

It takes practice in a sim, too.

There are also enough people
flying small planes who have used "flight simulators" prior to taking
lessons. I have never, ever heard of someone who could land a plane
right from the start. It just does not happen.

I've heard of it, but it's rare. Obviously, such people have a natural talent
for flying. Most people don't have much of a natural talent, but anyone can
learn to fly, with or without talent. Only those with exceptional natural
ability would be able to fly without training.

Of course this applies to all sorts of activities, not just flying. And
conversely, flying is no exception to this rule.

Granted, 10 to 20 hours is not a lot of time and just about anyone can
be taught how to do it.

Yes.

Given that, how would anyone get an ego issue from flying?

It is surprising how fragile the foundations of ego can be sometimes. The
more fragile they are, the more violently an individual will defend them.

I am not sure where you get that crap about pilots having
huge egos. Is this from real experience, or just from postings on the
internet?

Both.

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

Sylvain writes:

You made the choice of going there.. I was there in the first place (well,
in the close neighborhood) and made the choice to move away from it. One
of us flies, the other doesn't. We live with the consequences of our
choices.

Flying didn't really play a part in my decision.

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

Dave Doe writes:

That doesn't sound too bad - consider that in that you get 50+ hours of
*real* flying.

Sorry, but flying in some junky tin can around the airfield is just not worth
$340 an hour to me.

The money could be better spent on simulation. At least then I get a lot more
bang for the buck.

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

Walt writes:

Dudley was being pretty darn nice to you, my friend. But that's a
pretty snarky remark.

Not for someone who is permanently scratched off the list after failing a
medical. I should think that people who are very much into flying, of all
people, would understand that.

You really need to realize who have tried to be your friends on this
list.

I'm not trying to make friends or enemies. I just discuss aviation. This is
not a social club.

I remember a few months ago when there was a thread on navigation, and
I explained how pressure pattern navigation works and how it could
complement celestial navigation (from my KC-135 days a few decades
ago). You actually seemed appreciative of the information, even though
it doesn't really apply to current-day technology.

I'm always interested in learning things.

Unfortunately, you don't show that very often. There is a LOT of
experience to draw from on this list, anything from GA to airlines to
military, and all are willing to help.

I've seen mostly abuse on this list. Fortunately, I have a great deal of
patience, and I continue to look for the occasional nuggets.

Oh, well. FWIW, I spent a couple of hours tonight flying a Piper
Archer in FS9 from BZN, up the Madison River valley, past Ennis, over
Virginia City to the Jefferson River valley, crash and dash at Dillon,
followed I-15 to Butte, then over Homestake Pass and back to BZN where
I landed safely. I had just downloaded a bunch of scenery enhancements
for FS9 and wanted to see what they looked like.

The scenery enhancements (FSGenesis) looks great, and it was fun
flying from the comfortable chair of my office, beer just an arm's
length away, and flying over places I fly in an Archer in real life.
Not the same, but still fun.

Like I said, it's a question of bang for the buck. A simulator may not be the
same as real life, but it costs hundreds of times less, too. You actually get
more for your money from simulation.

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

wrxpilot writes:

I've used MSFS off and on since I was a teenager, and I used it
extensively during my instrument training. It saved me a lot of money
for learning instrument procedures, and it was a great tool. But
nothing about MSFS *makes* one a REAL pilot. I'm a newbie pilot with
a fresh commercial certificate and a still wet instrument rating. But
from the little bit of trudging around the skys I've done, there's no
way to simulate the real thing. I've "flown" level D airlines sims
before, and they don't even compare to flying around in a real C172.

Everyone knows, however, that if you haven't flown an airliner, you're not a
real pilot. A C172 doesn't count--or does it?

The "real" qualifier is a moving target, depending on whom you're talking to,
and who you are. I don't know that having a few hours in a C172 would count
much among 747 pilots. Everyone wants someone else to look down upon.

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

Dudley Henriques writes:

I once had a non pilot charter pax ask me before the flight why we charged
so much money for our services. I told him he could make the flight one of
two ways. We could walk out to the airplane together, get in, and I'd do the
flying, or I could show him the airplane and he was welcome to try it by
himself.

The high salaries of some airline pilots are mostly high for historical
reasons. It's best not to look too closely at how much they are actually
worth.

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

Aluckyguess writes:

Who cares what anyone thinks.
When I meet an ATP I usually say oh you're a real pilot and we laugh.

A better distinction would be professional vs. amateur. An amateur pilot
flies when he wants to; a professional pilot flies when he is told to.

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

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Tim writes:

How is ego or humiliation involved at all?

It shouldn't be, but with pilots it often is. That's one of the
problems with aviation (it seems to afflict a lot of vehicle sports,
though).

It is highly unlikely that a person who never flew/piloted an
aircraft before could land one successfully.

True, but only because such a person is unlikely to know anything
about it. However, a person who has flown in simulation _does_ know
something about it, and that changes the probabilities.


You donn't know ****.

Givne the choice, I'd give a bullfrog preference over you to take
instructions.

Bertie