GA is priceless

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)

Thomas Borchert writes:

... 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" ...

I haven't forgotten it, I've just disregarded it, since if it had any
teeth, there wouldn't be so many non-IR pilots dying when they
encounter IMC.

It's not good enough by anybody's standards except your own.

My own standards are the only ones that count. However, there are
others who have similar standards, including some real-world pilots.

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).

You must be in Germany.

The authorities only make regulations and law, not reality. If you
are flying with only instruments, you are in instrument flight,
authorities or not.

How would you know? Have you used them?

I've looked into them, but I've never used them ... mainly because
they are overpriced and underfeatured (thanks to the certification).

And it doesn't matter anyway, since, as I said
above, YOU are not the one deciding what is "instrument flight".

Instrument flight is pretty self-evident. If you are using
instruments alone, it's instrument flight.

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

But that's not the same thing. Instrument _flight_ and instrument
_rating_ are not the same thing. The former is defined by the reality
of how you fly; the latter is a conceptual invention.

Why are you making life so hard for yourself and your fellow humans?

I'm not.

BUT the point is this: You have in no way and nowhere nearly the
qualification to say you have "learned instrument flight".

Try me.

There are strict and clear definitions regarding what that statement means
and what it requires.

Those definitions are arbitrary and limited in scope. The reality of
instrument flight is otherwise, no matter what the "official"
definitions might say.

You don't fulfil those requirements by a long shot. Many here do.

Very few here do.

And you DO offend them by claiming you have the requirement without really
having it ...

Offense cannot be given, only taken.

... 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.

Pride goeth before a fall.

I am not proud of what I know, but I am not unwilling to state it,
either.

So why not show a little respect?

I show respect where it is due, and even then only in extreme
moderation. People untroubled by pride do not need respect to stroke
their egos.

You'd be met with respect in turn.

I don't need respect, and I don't care whether I get it or not.

And you'd be telling the truth about your qualifications instead
of just making them up.

I don't lie.

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

Mxsmanic,

Finally, a very revealing post that explains you quite nicely. We've gotten to
the bottom of the matter.

My own standards are the only ones that count.

In that case, any discussion is moot. Among other problems, you suffer from
delusions of grandeur.

Pride goeth before a fall.

In case you didn't notice: you fell.

I don't lie.

You're a top notch liar about your qualifications. You're an imposter. You lie.
Openly and unabashedly. And you obviously don't like to be caught.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)