Boarding with engines running

Mxsmanic wrote:
The nearest airport is about 15 miles away.

********, Europe's covered in airports. My money's still with the bog
theory.

I presume you don't live in Europe.

No, I live in LA, where everything is 4 times as expensive as it is in
other parts of the country, and 5 times what it cost to make.

And what are my friends going to do while I'm flying?

Enjoy the scenery?
Have a conversation with you?
Take the controls for a bit, to give 'em a taste for flight?
Enjoy the destination?

Unfortunately, it's much more than putting a name and address on a form.

Oh sure, there's space for things like your height, and weight, age,
that sort of thing. Not like you have to sign in blood or anything.

But the medical doesn't address
fitness, it addresses a long list of imaginary issues.

Does too, and those "imaginary" issues will become quite real and
apparent if you happen to have one in the middle of executing pilotary
duties. Thus, we have medical screening, which for private licenses and
GA aircraft, is about as menial as one can get (hardly more than a
bog-standard physical).

That proves my point. Most people don't rent or have fractional ownership of
their cars.

Every car under lease is rented from the car company, and every car
financed through a loan company is equitable to a fractional ownership
(in that you own your portion of the car so far paid).

Besides, many fractional ownerships get you access to a fleet of
hundreds of ready-to-fly machines, all over the country. I doubt anyone
keeps that many cars around.

Pulling negative Gs at altitude would greatly increase that probability.

Thus why most flight is conducted at bog-standard 1G, worry-wart.

But the real risk is that of an accident.

So utterly minimal with healthy piloting technique that it's hardly
worth considering.

After three hours or so, it's time to go again, depending on many variables.

You wouldn't want to sit still for three hours anyway.

Except that they aren't, as IFR flight proves, and as the accidents of pilots
flying in IMC without special training amply demonstrates.

Not only are your enumerations vastly overstated, what it "proves" is
that stress and unfamiliarity with proper procedure kills far more
people that out-of-the-blue accidents do. Thus, training programs strive
to teach applicable techniques, and even go so far as to put students
INTO those kinds of situations, so they can experience them personally
(and so be a less stressful situation, should it occur).

In any case, the vast majority of unqualified pilots do their civic duty
and stay well clear of things they're not supposed to be in.

Not only are the
largely unnecessary, but they are often worse than unnecessary, because they
are distracting and misleading.

You say again, having never felt them or used them.

I have felt them myself. I've been in a plane, just not at the controls. But
the whole plane moves, not just the cockpit.

Passenger flights in a jet don't count, dear. Airline pilots are paid to
make the flight as smooth and unperturbed as possible (as all pilots
strive for). You would **** yourself at the real workload to keep a
plane doing what it's supposed to do.

That depends on the flying environment. It's a lot more numbers and formulas
than seat of the pants.

I do not share this romantic illusion.

Tell me, then what roll rate is required for a 737-800 to roll wings
level at 250 knots and 10,000 feet on a heading of 030 with a wind from
the south at 10 knots, as the plane turns on standard rate west to east?

With certain key omissions. A perfect simulation of reality would not be a
simulation, nor would it serve much purpose.

Sounds like you need to look "simulation" up again.

What good, then, does a full-motion simulator serve to an airline pilot
practicing catastrophic failure scenarios? Surely, he doesn't need to
know what the plane will feel like it's doing? He could much more easily
reach the correct switches in the correct time and order if the deck
weren't gallaphanting about? When practicing in-cabin fires, it's much
too bothersome to use simulated smoke; how else could people see those
little guidance lights in the aisles to find the exits?

Hypocrisy, thy name is Manic.

Try me. I wouldn't mind a few hours in a 737 simulator. Specifically, a
737-800. I'm working on the 747-400.

What's the seventh step in the Engine out-In flight checklist?

Then why do so many of them crash?

That's the point. THEY DON'T. Hundreds upon thousands of GA flights
begin and end without any incident whatsoever.

Well, at least you made me smile.

That's what I do.

In contrast, I could have easily predicted the tone and perhaps even the words
of your post. I'm used to it.

Consistency's a bitch, innit?

If such predication was actually possible, you will have understood the
meaning of my post, digested it's particularly chosen verbiage, and
taken the long walk off a short pier you so desperately deserve. Since,
in point of fact, you did not, I will take that to mean that both A):
You didn't really get it, and B): you can't really predict my posts, and
are thus, once again, proven a feckless liar.

TheSmokingGnu

On Feb 26, 4:50 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
lots of stuff

You are, by far, the best troll I have ever seen. Well Done.

Cheers,

Al, who spends $100 an hour to fly, without a medical and with
virtually no paperwork.

Flying is a challenge in simulation, too. I'm surprised by how many people
cannot successfully take off or land in a simulator. This includes some

Then I think your simulator does not really simulate flying of an
airplane properly. I cannot consider a simulator to be worth anything
if a real life pilot cannot fly it without any problems. That is the
test of any simulator and seems like your sim fails it quite badly.

pilots, or at least the ones who have become dependent on physical sensations
(tin-can pilots and the like).

What is a tin-can pilot?

Simulation only works if you take it seriously.

Yes, but what you are talking about is not simulation of flying
because according to you, real life pilots cannot takeoff or land in
your simulator.

things. It's hard to appreciate the beauty of the Rocky Mountains when you
are hurtling towards them uncontrollably.

The simulator does not depict the beauty of the Rocky Mountains in any
way. I have hiked all over the Rockies and its not possible to
replicate that beauty of Romo in a simulator with fake images. When I
get a chance I will fly around the Rockies too but only in a real
airplane.

In my view, if my pulse is racing and I'm sweating, I've failed as a pilot.

Maybe so but that is how we learn to become better real life pilots.
Its an educational process and it never ends which is why its so
highly valued.

Little Endian writes:

Then I think your simulator does not really simulate flying of an
airplane properly.

It does, but sometimes minor differences throw people off, especially if
they've come to depend on them. A good pilot, however, can adapt very
quickly. The most obvious differences in this respect are somewhat different
control mechanisms and a slightly different visual experience.

I cannot consider a simulator to be worth anything
if a real life pilot cannot fly it without any problems.

If real-life pilots could fly simulators without any problems, you wouldn't
need simulators.

What is a tin-can pilot?

A pilot who has experience only with small general-aviation aircraft.

Yes, but what you are talking about is not simulation of flying
because according to you, real life pilots cannot takeoff or land in
your simulator.

Some can, some can't. On a good machine with appropriate controls, they
should all be able to do it, or something is wrong.

The simulator does not depict the beauty of the Rocky Mountains in any
way.

It's not a scenery simulator.

I have hiked all over the Rockies and its not possible to
replicate that beauty of Romo in a simulator with fake images.

It's not a hiking simulator, either.

Maybe so but that is how we learn to become better real life pilots.

No, that is how one discovers that he is a poor pilot, or that he is in a
situation that he will not survive.

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

It does, but sometimes minor differences throw people off, especially if
they've come to depend on them. A good pilot, however, can adapt very
quickly. The most obvious differences in this respect are somewhat different
control mechanisms and a slightly different visual experience.

You are not a pilot.
You do not understand the social interactions on the radio (or on this
forum, evidently).
You do not understand how to flare on landing (Even your beloved
Commercial pilots will tell you the flare is a purely 'seat-of-the-
pants' action... there's a reason autoland sucks),
You do not understand a basic traffic pattern
You do not understand how wear and tear effects and airplane.
You do not understand the thrill of looking down a runway.
You do not understand the beauty of watching the sun set over your
town.

All that you understand is how to push buttons and turn knobs in a
program made up in Redmond to get it to do what you want it to do.
Simulation is worthless without reality, you reject the reality of
flying, then what point is the simulation? To you, Flight simulator
is no better than any other roll playing game, and arbitrary set of
rules to master... Without the passion, thrill, or experience of
actually being up there in the clouds, its completely and utterly
meaningless.

Some can, some can't. On a good machine with appropriate controls, they
should all be able to do it, or something is wrong.

You have no basis for saying that, because you don't know what its
like to fly... They are two fundamentally different actions - one is
providing inputs to a logical system which makes an approximation of
how those inputs would effect a 'virtual' aircraft and provides a
profoundly limited (Narrow-View and audio only) feedback and the other
is controlling a machine as it physically carries you through the
sky...

Simply because the tables and rough physics models of the logical
system provide a rough enough approximation of the aircraft behavior
that they can be useful for learning aircraft systems and procedures
does NOT make the simulation experience anything near actually letting
yourself loose with the world as your playground.

It's not a scenery simulator.

Actually, the problem (at least with MSFS) is that it is - the great
majority of the computing power going into your MSFS game is driving
the graphics and rendering, not the flight model. MSFS actually has a
notoriously BAD flight model, and there's only so much you can do with
pre-rendered flight physics tables.

You put WAY too much faith in the authenticity of your simulation.

MSFS is a GAME. It is not flying. you are not a pilot. If you want to
learn from pilots, fine... if you want to tell us how to experience
our passion in life based on what your GAME is telling you, get lost.

No, that is how one discovers that he is a poor pilot, or that he is in a
situation that he will not survive.

Non-sequitor.

Mxsmanic wrote in
news
Little Endian writes:

Then I think your simulator does not really simulate flying of an
airplane properly.

It does, but sometimes minor differences throw people off, especially
if they've come to depend on them. A good pilot, however, can adapt
very quickly. The most obvious differences in this respect are
somewhat different control mechanisms and a slightly different visual
experience.

I cannot consider a simulator to be worth anything
if a real life pilot cannot fly it without any problems.

If real-life pilots could fly simulators without any problems, you
wouldn't need simulators.

What is a tin-can pilot?

A pilot who has experience only with small general-aviation aircraft.

Yes, but what you are talking about is not simulation of flying
because according to you, real life pilots cannot takeoff or land in
your simulator.

Some can, some can't. On a good machine with appropriate controls,
they should all be able to do it, or something is wrong.

The simulator does not depict the beauty of the Rocky Mountains in
any way.

It's not a scenery simulator.

I have hiked all over the Rockies and its not possible to
replicate that beauty of Romo in a simulator with fake images.

It's not a hiking simulator, either.

Maybe so but that is how we learn to become better real life pilots.

No, that is how one discovers that he is a poor pilot, or that he is
in a situation that he will not survive.


Good lord, how big an idiot are you anyway?



Bertie

Wow MX, and you wonder why you infuriate this board so much.

I think the biggest fact that your missing here is that for us 'real
pilots', flying is among the greatest and most visceral passions in
our lives... The piloting community is linked primarily by passion
and emotion for our past-time, not simply policy and procedure.

Why else do you think we dedicate such a high percentage of our lives
resources to one hobby?

Yes.

In my case, I consider going to and from the airport to be boring. I consider
not being close to home at the end of a flight to be hugely inconvenient. I
consider paying $250 an hour for each hour of flight to be very stressful. I
consider having to spend thousands of dollars and trudge through endless
paperwork just to be allowed to fly to be unacceptably onerous. I consider a
requirement that one be in Olympic condition to get a license to be an
unnecessary burden. I consider the inaccessibility of ownership of an
aircraft to be a major disappointment. I consider the possibility of being
killed to be an uncomfortably high risk. I consider the absence of bathrooms
on some aircraft to be a major inconvenience.

And right here you have just proved that you 'don't get it'... People
here do not value your opinion because, quite frankly, why should they
listen to some cocky 'arm-chair pilot' who is telling them how to do
what they eagerly and willingly accept each and every one of the
inconveniences and risks you mention to do because it simply means
that much to them? You have just admitted that you don't have the
passion for flight, stop telling us that we shouldn't either.

These are some of the reasons why I fly in simulation. Simulation preserves
most of the parts I like, while eliminating the parts I don't.

I flew flight simulators from the time I was 8 until I was 23.
Simulators are _sorry_ excuses for reality, that is a simple truth.
ALL they are good for is teaching some of the more mundane aspects of
aviation in a sterile, passionless environment. If those pedantic
details are all that interests you about aviation... well, I'm sorry.
But you absolutely need to understand that there is far more why we
fly than anything that can be portrayed in simulation...

Lots of people engage in simulation of lots of things, for similar reasons.
Many people engage in combat simulations, for example, because real combat has
too many disadvantages.

People take their combat simulations pretty damn far (airsoft,
paintball) because combat simulations suffer the same lack of
'experience' that flight simulations do.

Flying is a challenge in simulation, too. I'm surprised by how many people
cannot successfully take off or land in a simulator. This includes some
pilots, or at least the ones who have become dependent on physical sensations
(tin-can pilots and the like).

Its not about the challenge, its about simply 'being up there' with
all of the rights, privileges, and responsibilities entitled therein.

Simulation only works if you take it seriously.

I'll even go so far as to say that people who consistently treat simulation as
mere gaming may also treat real flight the same way, because this has its
basis in their personality. The same type of personality that blows off
checklists in simulation because "it's not real life, anyway," may also do the
same thing in real life, with some similar dismissal as rationalization.

That is a tremendously arrogant assumption for someone who has already
shown that he has absolutely no concept as to what motivates private
pilots.

Reality might also be the least desirable part of the experience.

How would you know?

How can you not see how tremendously infuriating it is to those of us
who willingly and happily spend a third of our lives resources flying
for the passion and meaning it brings our lives to have some 'kid'
with no comprehension of why we do it constantly second guessing and
trying to one-up us?

If you would keep your postings to simple questions and
clarifications, that would be one thing, but then to completely
discount the entire reason that we do it in the first place? And you
wonder why this board is so rude to you.

I find a racing pulse to be a distraction. There is much about flying to
appreciate, and having one's thoughts clouded by adrenalin ruins many of those
things. It's hard to appreciate the beauty of the Rocky Mountains when you
are hurtling towards them uncontrollably.

No, it costs more in real life than in a simulator simply because it is real
life, and the expensive parts cannot be deleted.

I'm surprised so many people mention the danger of flying as an attraction.
They must be high in testosterone. Personally, I think that if you feel
yourself at risk or in danger while flying, you're doing something wrong.


So you are a thrillseeker. Quite a few GA pilots seem to be thrillseekers.
But we know what the safety experts say about them, don't we?

In my view, if my pulse is racing and I'm sweating, I've failed as a pilot.

You mistake the simple passion of experience for some form of
irrational thrillseeking. Pilot's don't fly because its dangerous,
pilots fly because they can FLY... There really is no other way to
describe it...

Actually:

Consider this MX- To us, it feels like you are an intentionally deaf
(earplugged) person arguing with us about the sound of a symphony.
Sure, you can understand an learn all of the instruments, their
ranges, the music theory behind them, and you might even be able to
compose a few interesting pieces. You can get a lot 'in simulation',
and much of it is even admirable knowledge.

That said, you continue to argue with those of us who enjoy listening
to music about the value of ACTUALLY EXPERIENCING the music. If you
simply wanted to learn music theory that is one thing, but instead,
you actually cast judgment about the value of experiencing the very
act for which you have a passion for the mundane theory. Of course
we're going to think you're an arrogant prick- until you take the
earplugs out of your ears and go have a listen to the experience of
aviation, you've completely lost the forest for the trees.

I hope airline pilots don't feel this way.

I never picked up professional photography out of fear for loosing my
passion for it. Similarly, I would never fly professionally out of a
similar fear.

It is the passion that drives us, it is the experience that drives
us. There is nothing more beautiful than experiencing our world from
the heavens, everything else is just details.

Nice analysis, but he just ignores stuff that he doesn't like.

Yes, it's great to be welcoming, receptive, open minded, and polite, as some
people have pointed out, but he will never respond in kind. He's also hard
to ignore, since his volume of posts tends to overwhelm the NG.

The fact is that he only looks at things from his own close minded, self
centered, and narrow perspective. He pretends to want to learn, but his
attitudes preclude any meaningful interchange of ideas.

He does not work, and can not seem to hold a job, yet he blames this on the
economy and a variety of other external factors.

He is actually a pretty pathetic character- kind of a lost dog that you feel
sorry for, but when you reach out a helping hand, the dog bites you.

Unfortunately, the lost dog continues to hang around and won't go away, and
worse he ruins the NG with his ****.

I just wish he'd get a real (not simulated) life and find some other
interests so he wouldn't spend all of his waking hours polluting RAP.