Extended full-power in small pistons

Viperdoc writes:

An airplane will keep flying without a PFD, all of which require backup.

An airplane without any instruments will fly perfectly well. It's the pilot
who becomes the problem when instruments fail.

In your limited opinion it is iffy technology, but it doesn't matter anyway,
since you'll never use it other than in a game.

True, that's one of the advantages of simulation. I'm not betting my life on
inadequately tested software.

Because the premise of your question was incorrect, and you are a non
sequitor.

Then why do you suggest that others answer the question? This seems
inconsistent.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

That's because I'm not a troll.

And you've never had a blog either.

Both are false statements.

Michael Ash writes:

If your fancy glass cockpit fails you either go back to looking out the
window or you revert to steam-gauge instrements. In either case, the
failure is at worst an annoyance.

A lot of pilots are forgetting how to revert to anything. If the glass fails,
they die.

If your engine fails in the wrong circumstances then you die.

See above.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

A lot of pilots are forgetting how to revert to anything. If the glass
fails,
they die.

Nope. Never happens.

Michael Ash writes:

Not all of it is done by the computer. The pilots still have to know how
the stuff works and how to run it. It is largely to the point where they
can push the lever and get the power, but not 100%. If you believe
otherwise, just look at the circumstances surrounding the recent 777 crash
at Heathrow. The computers didn't save those pilots from a dual flameout
on short final.

So what was the cause? Has a final report come out?

I really have to wonder if you realize just how unbelievably insulting
that statement is.

To whom?

Your obsession with people's "purpose" is bizarre and nonsensical.

Purpose is what motivates behavior. It's hard to overemphasize its
importance.

Anything you do while piloting an airplane is "flying", whether it's
cruisng steadily or endlessly fiddling with the engine levers.

So going to the toilet or galley qualifies as flying? In that case, I have
flown airplanes.

So, I ask you: what does one have to do in order for "flying" to be their
purpose? And why should anyone care?

Why do you ask the question if you don't know why anyone should care?

writes:

You suspect incorrectly.

Enlighten me.

Viperdoc writes:

How would you know- have you ever flown one?

The miracle of photography, which eliminates the need to see everything in the
world in person.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

The increased reliability of car engines comes from materials and new
technologies, such as better valves and seats, better spark plugs, and
electronic ignition.

Yes, engineering.

To some degree, but not mechanical engineering which is what you stated and
snipped.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
John Smith writes:

... and electronic control. Electronic parts are usually much more
reliable than mechanical parts.

But when they are combined with software, the opposite may prove to be true.

And it may not, which makes your post pointless.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
Viperdoc writes:

An airplane will keep flying without a PFD, all of which require backup.

An airplane without any instruments will fly perfectly well. It's the pilot
who becomes the problem when instruments fail.

A ridiculous, childish line of reasoning.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.