GA is priceless

Mxsmanic wrote:
True, but for many types of aviation, this is irrelevant. Instrument
flying doesn't require it; indeed, you're supposed to be _independent_
of motion when flying on instruments (so to some extent a lack of
motion can be useful).

Useful to keeping the dirty side down, but that just hilights one of
the ways simulation is different than real flying, right? The MSFS
simulation doesn't provide the (misleading) physical cues that ARE
there in instrument flight. The fluid in your ears isn't tumbling, you
instinctively "know" which side is right side up, etc.

I flew simulators from the very first sim on the Apple and pretty much
every version to MSFS 9 today. I new some of the developers from that
company (name escapes me) in hampaign that used to make the product
before MS bought them (An aside, one of my fraternity brothers had a
job in QA. His entire job was to slew to various airports and verify
that the radio frequencies worked at that location....) I'ts amazing
how much of the real world we've been able to compress into off the
shelf consumer class hardware.

I used to love it. I did the vatsim thing etc. I twondered how pilots
such as Kennedy could "lose it" on a night flight. I intellectually
knew about spatial disorientation, and that the cure was to just "be"
on the gagues. But it wasn't until I actually DID it, in a real
airplane, with real mass/inertia, real turbulence, etc, that I found
out it was nothing like my imagination or my experience in the sims.

I remember reading an article within the last couple of years on IMC
flying about a instructor and a student pilot with respect to control
forces. I believe it was called something like "the unseen hand of
god". it was a good article that mentioned the control forces we as
pilots will exert on control wheels simply by gripping the yoke too
hard. And we won't even REALIZE that we're putting those forces into
the system. The plane will feel like someone ELSE is flying it. I.e.,
the unseen hand of god.

The solution of course is to simply relax. But our eyes giving us
different cues than our bodies make that hard to do. We have instincts
built into us. Feeling like your falling (less than 1 g) causes you to
try to "hold on".

I've never been able to recreate that feeling in a sim. I have a hard
time recreating it in the airplane with a hood on. It's not the same
as being able to see the clouds whizzing past your windscreen.

The best I've been able to explain entering IMC is like when you first
dive into a pool. The world you were in changes. The rules of gravity
seem to change, your senses change, etc. It's funny, I find myself
holding my breath when I do it in my real airplane in real clouds.

As a computer engineer, I've often sketched out in my mind an add on to
MSFS or otherwise that would change the flight models to recreate that
"unseen hand of god". Something akin to random control inputs forcing
the pilot to concentrate and disregard his physical cues of sitting
straight and level.

I, like Jay, do not belittle your questions on the group. I don't
consider you to be a troll. Just someone that wants more information
about the real world of aviation. I do think its strange when you ask
questions, and when the answer doesn't seem orrespond to your simulated
worldview you seem to take issue with reality instead of the
simulation.

And while the whole "simming vs. reality" superiority argument is
subjective anyway, it is also simply silly. If you want to represent
yourself as an experienced pilot because you have thousands of hours on
simulated barons or boeing business jets, then great, have at it.

I'm going to be one of the rare ones on here and say DON'T go get a
real flight. I'm not sure how you'd react to an actual comparison.

Brian

bdl writes:

Useful to keeping the dirty side down, but that just hilights one of
the ways simulation is different than real flying, right?

It is one way in which some simulations are different. But this
difference can be good rather than bad, if you are trying to learn
instrument flight.

I used to love it. I did the vatsim thing etc. I twondered how pilots
such as Kennedy could "lose it" on a night flight. I intellectually
knew about spatial disorientation, and that the cure was to just "be"
on the gagues. But it wasn't until I actually DID it, in a real
airplane, with real mass/inertia, real turbulence, etc, that I found
out it was nothing like my imagination or my experience in the sims.

We all have our personalities to deal with. But we don't all react in
the same ways.

As a computer engineer, I've often sketched out in my mind an add on to
MSFS or otherwise that would change the flight models to recreate that
"unseen hand of god". Something akin to random control inputs forcing
the pilot to concentrate and disregard his physical cues of sitting
straight and level.

But that would not be like real life. If a pilot is unconsciously
moving the controls, he'll do that on the sim, too.

I do think its strange when you ask
questions, and when the answer doesn't seem orrespond to your simulated
worldview you seem to take issue with reality instead of the
simulation.

I've been burned innumerable times throughout my life by posturing
airheads who claimed to be experts but weren't. I don't make that
mistake any more. Trust, but verify, as a politician once said. Or
better still, don't trust at all.

And one way to find out if someone is blowing smoke or actually knows
what he is talking about is to ask more questions.

And while the whole "simming vs. reality" superiority argument is
subjective anyway, it is also simply silly. If you want to represent
yourself as an experienced pilot because you have thousands of hours on
simulated barons or boeing business jets, then great, have at it.

I don't think it's in the thousands, but I'm not sure.

I'm going to be one of the rare ones on here and say DON'T go get a
real flight. I'm not sure how you'd react to an actual comparison.

There's a good chance that I wouldn't like the real thing.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
It is one way in which some simulations are different. But this
difference can be good rather than bad, if you are trying to learn
instrument flight.

Since you've never learned instrument flight (i.e. flown in real-world
IMC) how would you know? I would agree with you that it's easier on
the sim. It's still demonstrates a flaw in the simulation.

But it wasn't until I actually DID it, in a real
airplane, with real mass/inertia, real turbulence, etc, that I found
out it was nothing like my imagination or my experience in the sims.

We all have our personalities to deal with. But we don't all react in
the same ways.

Rather an obtuse statement. So? You don't know how you will react
until you've done it.

But that would not be like real life. If a pilot is unconsciously
moving the controls, he'll do that on the sim, too.

No he won't in the non full-motion sim, because he won't have that
"motion" that induces him to move the controls. As one example, the
feeling of falling backwards when leveling off from a climb. The sim
pilot is in steady one-G all the time.

I've been burned innumerable times throughout my life by posturing
airheads who claimed to be experts but weren't. I don't make that
mistake any more. Trust, but verify, as a politician once said. Or
better still, don't trust at all.

I'm fine with trust but verify, but don't use evidence of how the sim
works as evidence of how the real world works.

And while the whole "simming vs. reality" superiority argument is
subjective anyway, it is also simply silly. If you want to represent
yourself as an experienced pilot because you have thousands of hours on
simulated barons or boeing business jets, then great, have at it.

I don't think it's in the thousands, but I'm not sure.

It doesn't matter if its 1 or 1000.

bdl writes:

Since you've never learned instrument flight (i.e. flown in real-world
IMC) how would you know?

Correction: I have learned instrument flight. It is true that I have
not flown in real-world IMC.

Rather an obtuse statement. So?

So it may not be accurate or appropriate to assume that others will
react as you have or would.

You don't know how you will react until you've done it.

I don't know for sure, but I do have a pretty good idea.

No he won't in the non full-motion sim, because he won't have that
"motion" that induces him to move the controls.

He'll still have the force of habit.

I'm fine with trust but verify, but don't use evidence of how the sim
works as evidence of how the real world works.

Why not? The sim is designed to mimic real life, and very often the
way the sim works is also the way the real world works.

It doesn't matter if its 1 or 1000.

It matters quite a bit.

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

Mxsmanic,

Correction: I have learned instrument flight. It is true that I have
not flown in real-world IMC.

By no definition except your own, which is utterly irrelevant, have you
learned instrument flight. Notice that last little word, "flight".
Learning instrument flight involves FLYING. You haven't. Period.

Yes, I know there are sims that can be logged as flight time. They
involve elaborate certification to get that status. Most of that
certification makes sure the experience is similar enough to flying to
count. And no sensible person would say that you can learn instrument
flight only on one of those sims. You don't even have access to one.

You haven't learned flight. Not any kind. It seems to be a problem for
you. Get over it.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert writes:

By no definition except your own, which is utterly irrelevant, have you
learned instrument flight.

I've learned it a lot better than many non-IR pilots.

Notice that last little word, "flight".
Learning instrument flight involves FLYING. You haven't. Period.

I've simulated, which is good enough.

Yes, I know there are sims that can be logged as flight time. They
involve elaborate certification to get that status.

Yes, and ironically they aren't always very realistic. Just
certified.

Most of that certification makes sure the experience is similar
enough to flying to count.

No, it doesn't. It makes sure that certain details match reality,
while ignoring the rest. The simulation may be highly unrealistic
overall.

And sometimes an absence of certification simply means that nobody was
willing to jump through the hoops necessary to obtain it.

And no sensible person would say that you can learn instrument
flight only on one of those sims.

Why not?

You don't even have access to one.

Where did I describe my access?

You haven't learned flight. Not any kind. It seems to be a problem for
you. Get over it.

I'm not the one who seems to be emotional about it. It's not a
problem for me. I know what I've learned, and it is considerable.

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

Mxsmanic,

I've learned it a lot better than many non-IR pilots.

Even if that were true (you're conveniently forgetting the requirement for
basic instrument instruction in the PPL, which you have not gone through and
which is the very foundation of any "instrument flight"), what's the
relevance with regard to your statement that you "have learned instrument
flight"? You still haven't.


Notice that last little word, "flight".
Learning instrument flight involves FLYING. You haven't. Period.

I've simulated, which is good enough.

It's not good enough by anybody's standards except your own. So it is not
good enough by a long shot. The authorities, not you, make the rules
regarding what constitutes "instrument flight" (your choice of words, not
mine, so you're going to be held by it).

Yes, and ironically they aren't always very realistic. Just
certified.

How would you know? Have you used them? And even if you did, how would you
know how realistic they are? And it doesn't matter anyway, since, as I said
above, YOU are not the one deciding what is "instrument flight".

And no sensible person would say that you can learn instrument
flight only on one of those sims.

Why not?

Because. It's the way certification of instrument rated pilots works. A
simple matter of definition.

I'm not the one who seems to be emotional about it. It's not a
problem for me. I know what I've learned, and it is considerable.

Why are you making life so hard for yourself and your fellow humans? Are you
really that incapable of normal human-to-human interaction?

Of course you have learned a considerable amount about flying. Nobody in
their right mind on this group has ever doubted that, not even those that
have attacked you. You know way more than the average layman, and in some
areas you know more than some pilots. The effort you have put into learning
this is admirable.

BUT the point is this: You have in no way and nowhere nearly the
qualification to say you have "learned instrument flight". There are strict
and clear definitions regarding what that statement means and what it
requires. You don't fulfil those requirements by a long shot. Many here do.
And you DO offend them by claiming you have the requirement without really
having it, because they have put a lot of effort and money into getting it -
and they are just as proud of their knowledge as you are. So why not show a
little respect? You'd be met with respect in turn. And you'd be telling the
truth about your qualifications instead of just making them up.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Mxsmanic wrote:
I've learned it a lot better than many non-IR pilots.

How do you know?

Learning instrument flight involves FLYING. You haven't. Period.

I've simulated, which is good enough.

How do you know? Plenty of people thought they knew it well enough in
the simulator.

Brian

Mxsmanic wrote:
Thomas Borchert writes:

By no definition except your own, which is utterly irrelevant, have you
learned instrument flight.

I've learned it a lot better than many non-IR pilots.

Notice that last little word, "flight".
Learning instrument flight involves FLYING. You haven't. Period.

I've simulated, which is good enough.

Yes, I know there are sims that can be logged as flight time. They
involve elaborate certification to get that status.

Yes, and ironically they aren't always very realistic. Just
certified.

Most of that certification makes sure the experience is similar
enough to flying to count.

No, it doesn't. It makes sure that certain details match reality,
while ignoring the rest. The simulation may be highly unrealistic
overall.

And sometimes an absence of certification simply means that nobody was
willing to jump through the hoops necessary to obtain it.

And no sensible person would say that you can learn instrument
flight only on one of those sims.

Why not?

You don't even have access to one.

Where did I describe my access?

You haven't learned flight. Not any kind. It seems to be a problem for
you. Get over it.

I'm not the one who seems to be emotional about it. It's not a
problem for me. I know what I've learned, and it is considerable.

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

It is probably easier to fly a little spam can than the exercises you
describe flying different aircraft on the sim. As the AOPA likes to
say in their GA Serving (up) America website: anyone can do it and it
will save you alot of time in your travels. It is true that most
anyone that wants to can fly. Even convicted drug dealers are eligible
to obtain PPLs. See article below:

http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional...st=alabamanews

bdl wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:


But that would not be like real life. If a pilot is unconsciously
moving the controls, he'll do that on the sim, too.



No he won't in the non full-motion sim, because he won't have that
"motion" that induces him to move the controls. As one example, the
feeling of falling backwards when leveling off from a climb. The sim
pilot is in steady one-G all the time.



I have been waiting for this opportunity!

You don't get "the leans" sitting in a chair playing MSFS!