GA is priceless

I don't understand how (normally) level headed folks can NOT get irked.

We can get irked, but we choose not to irk others with our irkedness.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

One who chooses to
repeatedly exhibit behavior that elicits such responses is not that
dissimilar to someone who finds themselves in frequent bar fights; they
are not innocent victims of the abuse they receive.

Neither is the rest of the bar innocent.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Nomen Nescio writes:

How? You're scared to get in a real plane.

In a full-motion simulator.

I doubt you'd pass the psychological requirements.

I wasn't aware of any psychological requirements.

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

On 4 Jan 2007 14:51:28 -0800
"bdl" wrote:


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

And?

And maybe you are wrong as well. Until you actually do "instrument
flight" in a real airplane with real clouds, you wouldn't know.


When I was doing my initial training for my private, I was lucky enough
to have the opportunity to do a flight to 10,000 ft with a CFII during
minimum VFR (just over 3 miles visibility, unlimited ceiling)
conditions due to mist. With the slant to see the ground at nearly 2
miles up, we couldn't see anything around us and were effectively on an
IFR flight in contact with Center, though technically in VFR
conditions.

Even though we had completely smooth conditions at the time, there was
a world of difference in realizing your only way out of the white bubble
you are floating in is your instruments versus flying in similar
conditions in the simulator. Things like the vibration of the engine,
the forces the plane exerts in level and banking flight, and the
actuality of it cannot be fully replicated in a PC simulator. It was a
very eerie experience that would be good for VFR pilots to see for
themselves. The hood and the simulator don't replicate the experience
well at all.

After flying in near actual instrument conditions, it is easy to see
where a VFR pilot, even one with simulator experience but without real
world experience, could lose control of the plane in short order.
Continued VFR flight into instrument conditions is a top cause of
accidents according to the Nall report. Throw in some turbulence and
some distractions and you have a completely different experience from
the safety of a simulator.

Doug

--
For UNIX, Linux and security articles
visit http://SecurityBulletins.com/

bdl writes:

And maybe you are wrong as well. Until you actually do "instrument
flight" in a real airplane with real clouds, you wouldn't know.

Maybe. But I've always been quite good at evaluating myself.

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

In article , Wolfgang Schwanke
wrote:


That shows that people in your area are not accustomed to speed bumps
and view them as a "novelty". That is foremost a cultural problem. It
doesn't show they're useless, because they work elsewhere. Over here
they're installed in front of most schools and in many residential
areas. It really does help to keep the traffic away or at least slow
down, when signs alown won't do it because drivers choose to ignore
them. So if they insist to speed out of neglect, they can be forced to
slow down. Remember speed bumps aren't meant to help car drivers,
they're meant to help pedestrians as a defence _against_ ruthless
drivers. Works. Incidentally the Dutch word is "drempel", reminiscent
of the sound a car makes when driving over one.

Regards

All speedbumps do is create small zones of confusion wrt how fast a car
will go. Some cars will virtually stop while other can take the bump at
speed. In between the speedbumps drivers will still speed and may
actually go faster to make up time for being unnecessarily delays by
the useless speedbumps

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Doug Spencer wrote:
After flying in near actual instrument conditions, it is easy to see
where a VFR pilot, even one with simulator experience but without real
world experience, could lose control of the plane in short order.
Continued VFR flight into instrument conditions is a top cause of
accidents according to the Nall report. Throw in some turbulence and
some distractions and you have a completely different experience from
the safety of a simulator.

Exactly my point Dough.

I had a similar flight for my night cross-country when doing my PPL
(moderate turbulence below 12000, strong winds, snow(!) and of course
night).

I could see lights below but because of the extreme sideways ground
track due to the winds It was all i could do to keep the plane level.
I kept wanting to turn it so that the pretty lights below me were
traveling in the "right" direction.

Mxsmanic wrote:
bdl writes:

And maybe you are wrong as well. Until you actually do "instrument
flight" in a real airplane with real clouds, you wouldn't know.

Maybe. But I've always been quite good at evaluating myself.

Not having any instrument flight experience you are not qualified to
evaluate your instrument flying ability.

Just like I'm not qualified to judge my aerobatic ability by being able
to loop the 747 in MSFS.

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)

Mxsmanic,

I wasn't aware of any psychological requirements.


Figures.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)