A question from a lurker

I am not a pilot but have the greatest respect for those you are.

I am not a pilot either, but I am a former student--and plan to return and
finish up in the foreseeable future.

Most here wish to share their pleasure with non-pilots and I thank you for
your posts. But some wish to maintain an elitist group. Perhaps that
elitist
behaviour reduces the support you may have from non-pilot members of the
community when facing the current FAA proposals.

The pilots I have met in New Zealand are respectful and always willing to
answer even stupid questions.

Same here. However, Mxsmanic has managed to infuriate a large number,
perhaps even a majority, of pilots, former pilots, future pilots, student
pilots, etc.

I was introduced to flight sim in 1998 by an airline pilot who had an
elaborate setup that he said improved his skills. I lost interest after a
year or so but he maintains an expensive, powerful system. Flight Sim is
not
an evil threat to real aviation and may promote an empathy for real
aviation
issues.

Flight Simulators, including MSFS, are usefull tools--especially for
procedure training and practice. However, the low end simulators, such as
MSFS, do have some "interesting" limitations.

I recently had an opportunity to play with an MSFS setup, although I did not
have the oportunity to start by reading the manual or even asking some of
the most rudementary questions first. It only gradually became clear that
the aircraft was a Beechcraft King Air--so, of course, I crashed.

However, my point in mentioning my little comedy of errors is to illustrate
a limitation of the MSFS modeling. I believed, incorrectly, that I was
flying a trainer--and flew it much too slow. In fact, I was flying it in a
stalled condition; but the plane remained quite responsive in roll, and
steep turns didn't seem to affect it at all. I didn't spin it in, as I
richly deserved, but ... :-(

I am often interested in the answers to the questions of Mxsmaniac but the
elitists here would rather deride. There are probably other non-fliers
lurking who are too scared to ask for fear of getting the Mxsmaniac
treatment. Yes, I know he has offended some.

Some????

Do pilots follow the white lines on taxi-ways or swing wide as
truck/trailer
drivers must do? Are they just a night aid?

Richard


Most of us, here and on R.A.S, either fly or flew small aircraft--where the
pilot sits approximately on the CG and the wheelbase is quite short.
Therefore, our primary concern is wing tip clearange on the parking ramp.

Much larger and heavier aircraft may have an additional need to keep the
wheels on the full strength portion of the pavement--which may or may not be
the entire paved surface. A study of airport markings and signage is in
order, and some may vary with location--for example, taxiway center lines in
the USA are yellow.

There are pilots here who fly large aircraft, and who therefore know the
correct procedures for taxiing, but they may be too annoyed to respond since
they would be instructing Mxsmanic as well. IMHO, they are correct, since
everyone who has reason to move large aircraft has access to specific
instruction.

As a little added background, Richard, you are undoubtedly aware that one of
the MSFS views allows you to watch as an observer following behind your
aircraft. It is rather obvious that you know who was taxiing his private
737 that way in the similar thread, unless he has moved up to something
bigger.

Remember my most important point: I doubt that anyone here actually flies
large aircraft unless they are paid to do so!

Peter

On Mar 31, 8:48 pm, "Peter Dohm" wrote:


There are pilots here who fly large aircraft, and who therefore know the
correct procedures for taxiing, but they may be too annoyed to respond since
they would be instructing Mxsmanic as well. IMHO, they are correct, since
everyone who has reason to move large aircraft has access to specific
instruction.

Peter, this is a very insightful post you have made. You are wise
beyond your experience level. You are the only one so far who has made
reference to what we call the load bearing surface of taxiways. The
main reason for overstearing is to keep the MLG on this load bearing
surface.At smaller airports, it also keeps the engines over the
taxiway where there is less FOD, snowbanks, etc..
I have to respectfully disagree with you on the MX issue. He is only
one poster, and is easily ignored. The problem is all the other self
appointed aviation experts on this list that chase most experienced
people off. A good case in point is a thread I saw a few months ago
about an airline crew experiencing a near midair. This story was
obviously fabricated (The OP later admited it was), and yet the people
who pointed this out were flamed by the self appointed experts, some
even AFTER the OP admited the story was embelished. Another good
example is the threads dealing with aerodynamics. Here is where alot
of the EXPERTS beleager stuff well beyond the point of anything having
to do with the actual flying of an aircraft. When someone DOES post a
correct answer, the experts often ignore it and just keep on arguing.
For kicks I have looked at the "View Profile" function and this makes
it easy to see if a guy has ever had anything useful to add.Sadly, it
is these types who make people decide that they have better things to
do with their time.
Hope you get back to it soon.
KB


Peter

There are pilots here who fly large aircraft, and who therefore know the
correct procedures for taxiing, but they may be too annoyed to respond
since
they would be instructing Mxsmanic as well. IMHO, they are correct,
since
everyone who has reason to move large aircraft has access to specific
instruction.

Peter, this is a very insightful post you have made. You are wise
beyond your experience level. You are the only one so far who has made
reference to what we call the load bearing surface of taxiways. The
main reason for overstearing is to keep the MLG on this load bearing
surface.At smaller airports, it also keeps the engines over the
taxiway where there is less FOD, snowbanks, etc..
I have to respectfully disagree with you on the MX issue. He is only
one poster, and is easily ignored. The problem is all the other self
appointed aviation experts on this list that chase most experienced
people off. A good case in point is a thread I saw a few months ago
about an airline crew experiencing a near midair. This story was
obviously fabricated (The OP later admited it was), and yet the people
who pointed this out were flamed by the self appointed experts, some
even AFTER the OP admited the story was embelished. Another good
example is the threads dealing with aerodynamics. Here is where alot
of the EXPERTS beleager stuff well beyond the point of anything having
to do with the actual flying of an aircraft. When someone DOES post a
correct answer, the experts often ignore it and just keep on arguing.
For kicks I have looked at the "View Profile" function and this makes
it easy to see if a guy has ever had anything useful to add.Sadly, it
is these types who make people decide that they have better things to
do with their time.
Hope you get back to it soon.
KB


I had completely forgotten the infamous exploding transformer case. As a
former avionics tech, I must say that story had more holes than a large
block of Lorraine Swiss Cheese!

Thanks for the complement, and I will get back to flying as soon as
practical.

Peter