MXSMANIC - The posts don't add up

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Neil Gould writes:

Intro flights are typically well below $100.

I've already logged nearly a hundred hours in my simulated Baron, for
far less money than that.

But you have not flown for even one minute. 30 minutes in the air is worth
hundreds of hours behind a game.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
et...

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Neil Gould writes:

Intro flights are typically well below $100.

I've already logged nearly a hundred hours in my simulated
Baron, for far less money than that.

But you have not flown for even one minute. 30 minutes in the
air is worth hundreds of hours behind a game.


Not to encourage the village idiot, but you are completely wrong.

Tell that to the military which makes extensive use of simulators. The Navy
uses MSFS to train new pilots.

"The Navy says that students who use Flight Simulator achieve "significantly
higher flight scores and fewer below-average and unsatisfactory flight
scores" than those who don't."

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi.../prod0006.html

"Have you heard of Herb Lacy? In 1998, the ensign and U.S. Naval Academy
graduate saw a lifelong dream fulfilled when he was accepted into Naval
flight training. But Lacy, who had never flown an airplane, found himself at
a disadvantage in the extremely competitive program?many of his classmates
had previously received flight instruction, and some were certificated
pilots.

Lacy decided to level the playing field. He bought a copy of Microsoft's
Flight Simulator 98 and used software tools to create a representation of
the Beech T34C Mentor in which he would learn to fly. Lacy even added local
landmarks near Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, Texas, to help him with
situational awareness. He spent more than 40 hours flying the customized
simulator before climbing into a Mentor cockpit.

His efforts were so successful that not only did Lacy graduate near the top
of his class, but the Navy investigated the idea of using computer gaming
software for training. An experiment showed that when pilot trainees
practiced with Flight Simulator, 54 percent more received above-average
flight scores. So the Navy decided to issue Flight Simulator 98?modified
with a software shell, much like Lacy's version to all of its flight
students."

http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/future0004.html

Recently, Tom Conner posted:

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
et...

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Neil Gould writes:

Intro flights are typically well below $100.

I've already logged nearly a hundred hours in my simulated
Baron, for far less money than that.

But you have not flown for even one minute. 30 minutes in the
air is worth hundreds of hours behind a game.


Not to encourage the village idiot, but you are completely wrong.

Tell that to the military which makes extensive use of simulators.
The Navy uses MSFS to train new pilots.

(rest snipped for brevity)

Sorry, but it's your usage of the example that is completely wrong. The
Navy is not using MSFS *in lieu* of flight training, the point under
discussion here. MSFS can be quite useful as an adjunct to flight
training, and none of us have disagreed with that. In such usage, you can
simply chuckle at those things that MSFS gets wrong and move on. Without
flight training, you wind up with the kinds of notions and questions that
have been posted here recently.

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
. ..
Recently, Tom Conner posted:

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
et...

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Neil Gould writes:

Intro flights are typically well below $100.

I've already logged nearly a hundred hours in my simulated
Baron, for far less money than that.

But you have not flown for even one minute. 30 minutes in the
air is worth hundreds of hours behind a game.


Not to encourage the village idiot, but you are completely wrong.

Tell that to the military which makes extensive use of simulators.
The Navy uses MSFS to train new pilots.

(rest snipped for brevity)

Sorry, but it's your usage of the example that is completely wrong. The
Navy is not using MSFS *in lieu* of flight training, the point under
discussion here.

The poor reading comprehension skills of posters on this group never ceases
to amaze me. Nobody said the Navy is using MSFS in lieu of flight training.
I was responding to the completely wrong statement that "30 minutes in the
air is worth hundreds of hours behind a game."

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:47:41 GMT, "Tom Conner"
wrote:


"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
Recently, Tom Conner posted:

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
et...

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Neil Gould writes:

Intro flights are typically well below $100.

I've already logged nearly a hundred hours in my simulated
Baron, for far less money than that.

But you have not flown for even one minute. 30 minutes in the
air is worth hundreds of hours behind a game.


Not to encourage the village idiot, but you are completely wrong.

Tell that to the military which makes extensive use of simulators.
The Navy uses MSFS to train new pilots.

(rest snipped for brevity)

Sorry, but it's your usage of the example that is completely wrong. The
Navy is not using MSFS *in lieu* of flight training, the point under
discussion here.

The poor reading comprehension skills of posters on this group never ceases
to amaze me. Nobody said the Navy is using MSFS in lieu of flight training.
I was responding to the completely wrong statement that "30 minutes in the
air is worth hundreds of hours behind a game."

Except that I don't agree that the statement is "completely wrong." I
think the ratio is off, but I agree with both points of view.
Experience in the air is very different from experience in a simulator
and simulator experience isn't directly substitutable for flight
experience. However, many organizations have been using simulators for
years to augment training and, used properly, simulators can
accelerate training in specific areas and save a lot of fuel.

Now, can't we all get along?

RK Henry

Recently, Tom Conner posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
Sorry, but it's your usage of the example that is completely wrong.
The Navy is not using MSFS *in lieu* of flight training, the point
under discussion here.

The poor reading comprehension skills of posters on this group never
ceases to amaze me. Nobody said the Navy is using MSFS in lieu of
flight training. I was responding to the completely wrong statement
that "30 minutes in the air is worth hundreds of hours behind a game."

If that was the only comment you were responding to, then you should have
clipped the rest. The inclusion of other comments implies that you were
responding to *the post*, not some fragment therein, and it is quite
reasonable that a reader would assume as much. Reading comprehension is
helped by clear messages.

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
news
Recently, Tom Conner posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
Sorry, but it's your usage of the example that is completely
wrong. The Navy is not using MSFS *in lieu* of flight training,
the point under discussion here.

The poor reading comprehension skills of posters on this group never
ceases to amaze me. Nobody said the Navy is using MSFS in lieu of
flight training. I was responding to the completely wrong statement
that "30 minutes in the air is worth hundreds of hours behind a game."

If that was the only comment you were responding to, then you should
have clipped the rest. The inclusion of other comments implies that you
were responding to *the post*, not some fragment therein, and it is quite
reasonable that a reader would assume as much. Reading comprehension is
helped by clear messages.


Okay. This is the entire post I responded to:

"
Intro flights are typically well below $100.

I've already logged nearly a hundred hours in my simulated
Baron, for far less money than that.

But you have not flown for even one minute. 30 minutes in the
air is worth hundreds of hours behind a game.
"

Again, reading comprehension in this group is abysmal. I wonder if it
carries over to the pilot population in general?

Recently, Tom Conner posted:

Okay. This is the entire post I responded to:

"
Intro flights are typically well below $100.

I've already logged nearly a hundred hours in my simulated
Baron, for far less money than that.

But you have not flown for even one minute. 30 minutes in the
air is worth hundreds of hours behind a game.
"

Again, reading comprehension in this group is abysmal. I wonder if it
carries over to the pilot population in general?

Is it?

1) We are not mind readers. We can only base our understanding on what you
choose to present.

2) Although you now state that the above is the "entire post" you
responded to, it includes a comment to a previous post (mine regarding the
cost of intro flights). Therefore, it was reasonable to think that my
comment is somehow relevant. My comment had to do with the benefits of
actual flight experience in comparison to *only* sim time, as that is the
underlying subject of this thread.

3) It is reasonable to presume that responders to a thread are on-topic,
unless otherwise clarified. The original topic was established with the
comment, "While no mention has been made of a physical issue that would
prevent him from working, he has not made that a point as to why he will
not fly planes..." Your post was about people who *do* fly planes, and
thus my comment distinguishing between the original subject and your new
topic is apparently a correct interpretation.

4) According to your above statement, my comment is not relevant to your
point at all, and should have been excluded from your excerpt. Instead,
you went further and tied your post to the original topic with your
comment, "Not to encourage the village idiot..." To make matters worse,
you included my comment *again* in your current message. So, what about my
comment were you responding to, given that I don't see anything regarding
the cost of intro lessons?

If that is your idea of clear writing, then it's a small wonder that you
think that others can't read.

Neil

Neil Gould writes:

Sorry, but it's your usage of the example that is completely wrong. The
Navy is not using MSFS *in lieu* of flight training, the point under
discussion here.

That is not the point under discussion. Few simulators are suitable
for use in place of actual flight in the simulated aircraft. None
that don't include motion would be suitable.

Without
flight training, you wind up with the kinds of notions and questions that
have been posted here recently.

Whereas with flight training, you become convinced that you know the
answers and never bother to ask.

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

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

Sorry, but it's your usage of the example that is completely wrong.
The Navy is not using MSFS *in lieu* of flight training, the point
under discussion here.

That is not the point under discussion.

AFICT, it's still about you not flying anything real. When and where did
that discussion change (your claim doesn't count)?

Few simulators are suitable
for use in place of actual flight in the simulated aircraft. None
that don't include motion would be suitable.

Wrong, yet again. Pilots don't require motion to be able to use simulators
for many, if not most aviation scenarios. I can tell you that my time in a
Link trainer was not nearly as useful as my time in non-motion simulators
available today.

Without
flight training, you wind up with the kinds of notions and questions
that have been posted here recently.

Whereas with flight training, you become convinced that you know the
answers and never bother to ask.

Wrong, yet again. You have to learn the answers to the elementary
questions you're asking well prior to getting a certificate, and in our
flight school, well before you can even solo.

Neil