Primary training in a Hi Perf complex acft

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

They don't do primary training in a jet airliner, you moron.

Only because it is not conventional to do so; but there is no technical
obstacle that prevents it.


Yes, there is.


bertie

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

Yes, there is.

What obstacle is that?

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Bertie the Bunyip writes:

Yes, there is.

What obstacle is that?


The obstacle is called experience, real experience in a broad range of
aircraft. And until you get it, you will never understand any of this,
unless you someday learn to enrich your knowledge with the advice shared
with you by most of the members of this group, instead of practicing your
denial skills simply because reality doesn't support your desires.

I have flown several sims, and found them very realistic, useful and
enjoyable. But again, until you have actually experienced flying a broad
range of real aircraft, you will never have the ability to understand just
how unrealistic your questions and assumptions are.

Actually I'm very surprised. You sound like a very intelligent person, and
have obviously spent a great deal of time reading and flying your sim. But
why you are having such a terrible time understanding the concept of actual
hands on experience strongly suggests - you are somewhere in the
neighborhood of 10 to 12 years old, have a serious problem understanding
concepts beyond the written word, are simply a troll that enjoys the damage
he does to an otherwise very useful forum, or some combination of the three.

But whatever the reason, you have no grasp in how ignorant you prove
yourself to at least 98% of this group, who have the experience and
understanding you so desperately lack.

Maxwell writes:

The obstacle is called experience, real experience in a broad range of
aircraft.

No, that's not it. The reality is that there isn't any particular obstacle
.... that's why nobody has described what the imaginary "obstacles" are.

The rest of your post follows the standard pattern of one personal attack
after another.

You cannot make something true by repeating it over and over in a loud voice.
You cannot invalidate criticisms of your unsupported assertions by launching
continual personal attacks against the parties who make them.

If your opinions reflect reality, and they are not merely the result of
emotional desires or wholesale adoption from people you regard as unquestioned
authority figures, then you'll be able to support your opinions with
explanation and reasoning based on premises that all parties accept. If your
opinions do not reflect reality, you will have no way of supporting them, and
if you hold those opinions very dear, you will become upset and attack anyone
who questions them.

This is fairly fundamental to human behavior and forms a very reliable
pattern. The only way to escape it is to think for yourself, instead of
believing what others say without question, and to base all your opinions and
facts and reasoning, and not on feelings and emotions.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Maxwell writes:

The obstacle is called experience, real experience in a broad range of
aircraft.

No, that's not it. The reality is that there isn't any particular
obstacle
... that's why nobody has described what the imaginary "obstacles" are.

There is no possible way to explain the value of actual experience. If a
person can't understand the difference in fantasy and reality, or simply
refuses to do so, there is nothing you can do to enlighten them.


The rest of your post follows the standard pattern of one personal attack
after another.

You cannot make something true by repeating it over and over in a loud
voice.
You cannot invalidate criticisms of your unsupported assertions by
launching
continual personal attacks against the parties who make them.

Then find a way to certify your age for us. My guess is you are a 10 or 12
year old intellectual. Because the value you seem to place on actual
experience, strongly suggests you are not old enough to have any experience
with anything, much less something as complex as piloting an aircraft.


If your opinions reflect reality, and they are not merely the result of
emotional desires or wholesale adoption from people you regard as
unquestioned
authority figures, then you'll be able to support your opinions with
explanation and reasoning based on premises that all parties accept. If
your
opinions do not reflect reality, you will have no way of supporting them,
and
if you hold those opinions very dear, you will become upset and attack
anyone
who questions them.

Same answer as above.


This is fairly fundamental to human behavior and forms a very reliable
pattern. The only way to escape it is to think for yourself, instead of
believing what others say without question, and to base all your opinions
and
facts and reasoning, and not on feelings and emotions.


The only pattern I see in anyone's participation in your posts, is your
complete denial of reality as opposed to your perception of it.

Maxwell writes:

There is no possible way to explain the value of actual experience.

Yeah, right.

If a person can't understand the difference in fantasy and reality,
or simply refuses to do so, there is nothing you can do to enlighten
them.

Yes. Even when you point out to them that they can't seem to substantiate
their imaginings, they persist in believing in them, as I've already
explained.

Then find a way to certify your age for us.

Hard as it may be to believe, age is not a factor here.

My guess is you are a 10 or 12 year old intellectual.

Over the years I've found that people who agree with me usually assume that
I'm close to their age. People who don't agree with me always think I'm much
younger or older. Whether they are correct or not is purely a roll of the
dice.

Because the value you seem to place on actual
experience, strongly suggests you are not old enough to have any experience
with anything, much less something as complex as piloting an aircraft.

I place a considerable value on experience, but I don't accept "experience is
the difference" as an isolated assertion in itself. Any assertion that cannot
be substantiated is suspect.

The only pattern I see in anyone's participation in your posts, is your
complete denial of reality as opposed to your perception of it.

Whereas nobody else here could possibly have that problem, eh?

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

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Maxwell writes:

There is no possible way to explain the value of actual experience.

Yeah, right.

If a person can't understand the difference in fantasy and reality,
or simply refuses to do so, there is nothing you can do to enlighten
them.

Yes. Even when you point out to them that they can't seem to
substantiate their imaginings, they persist in believing in them, as
I've already explained.

Then find a way to certify your age for us.

Hard as it may be to believe, age is not a factor here.

My guess is you are a 10 or 12 year old intellectual.

Over the years I've found that people who agree with me usually assume
that I'm close to their age. People who don't agree with me always
think I'm much younger or older. Whether they are correct or not is
purely a roll of the dice.

Because the value you seem to place on actual
experience, strongly suggests you are not old enough to have any
experience with anything, much less something as complex as piloting
an aircraft.

I place a considerable value on experience,

No, you don't



bertie

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Maxwell writes:

There is no possible way to explain the value of actual experience.

Yeah, right.

Yeah right what? If you have a problem with that statement, then let's here
it.


If a person can't understand the difference in fantasy and reality,
or simply refuses to do so, there is nothing you can do to enlighten
them.

Yes. Even when you point out to them that they can't seem to substantiate
their imaginings, they persist in believing in them, as I've already
explained.


We believe in what we have actually experienced. We have actually been
there, done it, and learned from the actual experience. We didn't simulate
it and imagine it. Most of us have actually flown light and heavy aircraft,
as well as the machines that simulate them. We are not the ones imagining
here, you are.

Then find a way to certify your age for us.

Hard as it may be to believe, age is not a factor here.


Any hard evidence, because I'm still a long way from convinced.

My guess is you are a 10 or 12 year old intellectual.

Over the years I've found that people who agree with me usually assume
that
I'm close to their age. People who don't agree with me always think I'm
much
younger or older. Whether they are correct or not is purely a roll of the
dice.


Got any personal references? Where are they?

Because the value you seem to place on actual
experience, strongly suggests you are not old enough to have any
experience
with anything, much less something as complex as piloting an aircraft.

I place a considerable value on experience, but I don't accept "experience
is
the difference" as an isolated assertion in itself. Any assertion that
cannot
be substantiated is suspect.

None of us get paid to substantiate anything to you or anyone else. If you
ask for advice and then insist on challenging it, the burden is on your
shoulders to find data that proves it wrong. Not on ours to prove it
correct. That is the value I personally find in the Usenet. It's a public
forum. If someone gives me poor advice, someone is usually handy to provide
data to the contrary. The advice you have been given by so many, is being
scrutinized by hundreds, if not thousands of people. If your position on the
value of simulation was so well founded, you would have a lot more
supporters I can assure you. There are far too many people here that use
simulation for all it can possibly offer them, to insist they all simply
have a negative attitude towards them. The actual flying experience just
gives them the added perspective to realize, that no matter how
sophisticated simulators become someday, it will never be a complete
substitute for all actual experience. An excellent training tool, yes. But a
complete replacement for actual experience, no way.


The only pattern I see in anyone's participation in your posts, is your
complete denial of reality as opposed to your perception of it.

Whereas nobody else here could possibly have that problem, eh?


Well if your assumptions are correct, where are all your supporters?

I'm not trying to flame you, or argue with you. I just see you ask questions
that very clearly indicate lack of experience, and would be happy to help
you understand. But like the rest of us, I have no intention of writing an
800 page novel to convince you of the simplest concepts. Acceleration
forces, vertigo and knowing that making a wrong decision could cost you your
life - have never been effectively dealt with in simulators. And they not
only contribute to, but can actually multiply pilot workload to the point
you overlook some of the simplest and most routine tasks. Tasks that can
cost you your life. That's why full motion cockpits, parabolic displays,
sounds and vibrations are so valuable to simulators. They do everything
possible to detach a pilots thoughts from the fact he is not flying the real
thing, and help induce stress and pilot workload. Even an opportunity to
practice procedures that just can't be safely done on a training flight. But
no mater how good they become, they will never be able to stress you out
like the real thing. Because deep down inside the pilot will always know
it's a simulation. And that will always make one of the many differences in
actual and simulated experience. And that's a very big difference you simply
refuse to accept.

But that's only one difference. When indeed addressing all the critical
differences between actual flight experience and today's simulators would be
a worthy topic of an entire book. But what's the use. If you really want to
argue your position from a strong stand point, part with half the cost of a
new computer, and take a few of flying lessons. Even learning to solo in a
simple aircraft is hardly beyond anyone's budget. It the US it's very
comparable to the cost of a new PC. Much less all the gear required to
outfit a decent home simulator as well. And a fraction of the investment a
lot of very patient people here have made, in fruitlessly helping you
understand the difference. If you ever do, I seriously doubt we would ever
hear from you again. At least under your current moniker. You would quickly
realize the difference, and the weakness of your current perceptions.

But you just what to debate. When what you should be offering not me, but
all those that have come before me, is a sincere amount of gratitude. For
taking so many hours of their time to help you understand something you
could easily realize with a minimal investment on your part. They care
enough about people and aviation, to welcome those without the benefit of
their experience. And like it or not you owe it to them, to accept their
advice for the questions you ask, or leave their forum in peace.


Good day.

"Maxwell" wrote in
:


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Maxwell writes:

The obstacle is called experience, real experience in a broad range
of aircraft.

No, that's not it. The reality is that there isn't any particular
obstacle
... that's why nobody has described what the imaginary "obstacles"
are.

There is no possible way to explain the value of actual experience.

Not to you, anyway..


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote in
.130:

"Maxwell" wrote in
:


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Maxwell writes:

The obstacle is called experience, real experience in a broad
range
of aircraft.

No, that's not it. The reality is that there isn't any particular
obstacle
... that's why nobody has described what the imaginary "obstacles"
are.

There is no possible way to explain the value of actual experience.

Not to you, anyway..

Sorry, disregard, friendly fire. Thought it was a funny thing for maniac
to say..

Bertie