Getting confused with ATC order...Violation?

In article ,
says...
Dave Doe writes:

Pretend, being the operative word.

Pretending is extremely important to using simulators successfully. If you
cannot pretend--if you cannot suspend disbelief--you cannot really profit from
the simulator. Conversely, if you can do these things, using a simulator can
be extremely useful experience.

Only kids have plausable dualistic minds. Perhaps that's you. The rest
of us have grown up.

It's a function of intelligence more than age. The ability to adopt a
different viewpoint and voluntarily and selectively disregard aspects of
reality or fantasy at will is very closely correlated with intelligence, as it
requires considerable cognitive capacity. Animals have less intelligence and
virtually no imaginations, for example, and thus could never make much use of
simulators.

Enhanced, being the operative word there.

Yes.

It's not reality, and you *cannot* escape that.

Well, yes, you can. That's the whole idea. I've already explained the
principle above.

No what you explained is *my* argument - not yours. But thanks anyway.

You explaind that pretending reality, and that imagination
reality. (My points).

*Imagining* crossing a busy road may well be beneficial to your
survival. But it is *NOT* reality - the mind cannot percieve of all the
possiblities - there are too many variables and it is possible you may
not imagine the one possibility that ends up killing you. (How many
times have you crossed a one way street and NOT looked the other way -
because many people do just that and take it for granted). Which also
has advantages too - it is not good to imagine some situations for *too*
long - you may make a decision that is too late.

The short of it is, flying a sim is so far removed from the experience
of the real thing, that pilots are still required (thank fuk) to fly the
real thing when training.

This DOES apply to ATC comms too. Being on your sim (as you've never
flown the real thing) your mind *CANNOT* imagine what it would really be
like, you can only assume and guess and imagine.

Have you simulated (or even imagined) smoke coming out the heater vents?
Does your simulator simulate that?

What about a low setting sun, does it really dazzle you? Do you use the
visor much in the simulator?

Have you simulated dropping a cellphone on the floor and it bounces down
by the rudder pedals somewhere? (Would you consider that to be a
potential problem?)

Simulator:
a device, instrument, or piece of equipment designed to reproduce the
essential features of something, e.g. as an aid to study or training.




It most certainly is not!

Because you say so? ATC is extremely easy to simulate realistically compared
to other aspects of flying.

By itself, yes. However (and surely you can imagine this), to properly
gain a picture of, for example and in context of this discussion, an ATC
comms failure/breakdown, you need to imagine what could happen in
reality. I can think of many examples. You can't. And until you fly
the real thing you never will (you're just guessing).

You fly a sim and yet are unable to "put yourself in the seat" - that's
counter to your argument in the first place. (It's a sim, and you're
telling me you can't simulate it - pathetic really).

I can put myself wherever I see fit in simulation, sometimes with varying
success (depending on the desired viewpoint and the type of simulation).
There are some aspects that I find more attractive and enjoyable than others.
An advantage of simulation is that I have a choice.

So not taking up my challenge, even though you don't *really* have to
get your wallet out, or drive to the field, or even do pre-take-off
checks - you could actually setup the sim in about ONE MINUTE. OK.

Anyway, doesn't sound anything like real flying to me. eg. you say
"varying success". Well... you crash a plane in *real life* - you don't
walk away from it (very few do). I would put it do you that if you knew
you were going to crash (and very probably die) you'd be feeling very
differently to the same situation in the simulator. Your not *really*
scared, you're not *really* thinking I have just four more seconds
before I go in; more you're probably resigned to that fate and thinking
well I buggered that up, oh well... RESET.

But hey you say you can accurately simulate and imagine reality. OK,
question then, have you *ever* crashed a plane in the simulator? (sounds
like you have).

If so - why?, how? - you're DEAD! - how you could have let that EVER
happen?

--
Duncan

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 03:14:28 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
Fake Mx Post.

On Apr 7, 4:11 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 03:14:28 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

Fake Mx Post.

An mx sim huh

george wrote:
On Apr 7, 4:11 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 03:14:28 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

Fake Mx Post.

An mx sim huh

Check the Path headers - the forged post appearing to come from me came
from albasani.net. My posts originate from Supernews.

Note that the forger has just enough knowledge of Usenet to not use Google
Groups, which includes an NNTP-Posting-Host header.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Dave Doe writes:

No, you *know* you're flying a simulation, and the brain *knows*
that, and you *know* you can't get into *real* trouble.

Actually, intelligent people are able to get past this. Anyone who is
completely unable to forget that he is engaging in a simulation will
have a hard time getting any utility out of simulation at all.
Fortunately, like Method actors, smart simulator users do not
constantly tell themselves that it's a simulation but instead try to
pretend that it's real. When they do this successfully the usefulness
of the simulation is hugely enhanced.

One sees this problem in other domains where cognitive deficits exist.
A smart user of a video game will mentally set aside the unrealistic
aspects of the game and embrace the realistic ones, allowing for a
fuller virtual experience. A stupid user sees only what is actually
there, and cannot mentally bridge any gaps or overlook any anomalies,
and so no matter how much he plays the game, he never gets much out of
it.

Additionally, like most sim folk, you've probably done things very
differently from the real world (eg. you've mentioned you've flown
heavies). Well in real life, you start off doing a PPL. You don't
progress until you've done that.

That is irrelevant for purposes of ATC. However, as it happens, I
flew small aircraft in the sim first.

for eg, picture this: you've done 6 or 7 hours on your PPL.
"Yesterday" you did your first solo. "Today" you are on your own
(taxying out and everything) and doing your second solo session,
flying in a grass circuit in a busy aerodrome that has a parallel RWY
that heavies and other traffic are using.

I wouldn't normally fly at a busy aerodrome with seven hours of
experience, especially solo. I also don't like grass runways. You
don't say what type of aircraft you have in mind, but it sounds like
some sort of pokey little tin can that I wouldn't want to fly, not
even for training.

There are a couple other students (presumably) in the grass circuit
with you; you are happy that you are spacing yourself well and happy
with your touch-n-goes.

I wouldn't want to be in the grass circuit. I want pavement. I don't
want to fly with the po'folk.

Your hour's up and you advise full-stop on your downwind call. ATC
clear you "left base, number 2, 36, report sighting 73 on short
final". You read back and report traffic in sight. You fly a longer
downwind for the sealed RWY and turn base. You hear the 73 cleared
to land. You hear a call to other traffic, you're mentioned, and
they are number 3 (it's another 73). Then ATC call you are ask you
to keep your speed up.

I ask ATC for a precise speed restriction, and accept or refuse based
on what I consider that I can safely maintain. "Keep your speed up" is
vague and means nothing to me.

Getting nervous? You see on your base leg the #1 73's about to taxy
off the RWY, and looking to your right, you see the other 73's
powerful landing lights in the distance. Your begin your turn to
final, you were 70kts on base, but being told to "hurry it up" you've
pushed the nose forward and not taken more flaps.

I fly only a Baron and a Bonanza, and neither will be at 70 knots on
base. I won't be in a position where I have to "hurry it up" because
I won't accept speed restrictions that might make the flight unsafe.

You turn to final early as you're now
fast, at 450 AGL (you feel OK about that), your AS is now nearly
90kts. You hear ATC advising the 73 they're now #2 (to you). You're
now levelling a bit, power off, grabbing flaps, and configuring for
your approach and flare. (Did you remember carb heat? - oh well).
You're 150 AGL, speed's good, full flap. What's your next move?

Ninety knots is fine. I had full flaps long ago, so I'm not grabbing
them now. I have fuel injection. I descend to the runway, flare, and
touch down, and I turn at the next available taxiway after
decelerating.

You're imposing a long list of conditions that you've chosen
unilaterally. I don't accept those conditions, as I've explained
above. One of the advantages of simulation is that it's not
constrained by money issues, which means that I don't have to fly tin
cans over grass runways at barely above walking speed.


You don't fly, period, fjukktard.



Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:



Actually, intelligent people are able to get past this.

Gee, Anthony. Now you've broadcast to the whole world why you will
never fly or, in fact, never make an intelligent post to a usenet
newsgroup. You just aren't an intelligent person!

On Apr 6, 9:14 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

I fly only a Baron and a Bonanza, and neither will be at 70 knots on base. I
won't be in a position where I have to "hurry it up" because I won't accept
speed restrictions that might make the flight unsafe.

You really, really don't know what you're talking about.

You fly neither.



Dan McCormack

writes:

You really, really don't know what you're talking about.

Show the errors, if any.