r.a.ifr barely alive

Benjamin Dover writes:

Really? How would you know you nitwit?

They are both simulations. MSFS simulates IFR flight (with or without IMC).
Flying under a hood in a real aircraft simulates IFR flight in IMC. But a
hood is not real IMC. If flying under a hood is useful (and it is), then
flying MSFS is also useful.

The fact is, anything other than the real thing is just a simulation; if
simulations are not useful, then that has to apply across the board, not just
to simulations that you prefer to dismiss. If MSFS is not useful, then
neither is flying under a hood, or looking at a drawing made by an instructor,
or examining illustrations in a book, or watching an instructional DVD.

Fortunately, all of these simulations _are_ useful and _will_ help with the
real thing. Some of them are a lot safer that the real thing, too--and the
slight loss of accuracy with respect to the real thing is more than
compensated by the reduced or eliminated risk of dying.

Now, you can poo-poo MSFS simulation of IFR in IMC and simply wait until you
encounter the real thing and pray that you deal with it correctly, but to me
it seems a lot smarter to go with the simulation, which will give you at least
some vague handle on the real thing, and that is surely better than nothing at
all.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Benjamin Dover writes:

Really? How would you know you nitwit?

They are both simulations. MSFS simulates IFR flight (with or without
IMC). Flying under a hood in a real aircraft simulates IFR flight in
IMC. But a hood is not real IMC. If flying under a hood is useful
(and it is), then flying MSFS is also useful.

The fact is, anything other than the real thing is just a simulation;
if simulations are not useful, then that has to apply across the
board, not just to simulations that you prefer to dismiss. If MSFS is
not useful, then neither is flying under a hood, or looking at a
drawing made by an instructor, or examining illustrations in a book,
or watching an instructional DVD.

Fortunately, all of these simulations _are_ useful and _will_ help
with the real thing. Some of them are a lot safer that the real
thing, too--and the slight loss of accuracy with respect to the real
thing is more than compensated by the reduced or eliminated risk of
dying.

Now, you can poo-poo MSFS simulation of IFR in IMC and simply wait
until you encounter the real thing and pray that you deal with it
correctly, but to me it seems a lot smarter to go with the simulation,
which will give you at least some vague handle on the real thing, and
that is surely better than nothing at all.


I'd call you a ****ing moron for that response, that would require
increasing your IQ by several thousand orders of magnitude. You are stupid
beyond belief Anthony.

Flying under the hood only simulates the inability to see out of the
window. You are still in a real airplane and experience the real
sensations of flight. It is quite different than sitting in front of a
ground based simulator.

If the first time you, by yourself, enter IMC and have never flown under
the hood, you'll have no idea of how the physical sensations can affect
you. Flying under the hood, which is done with a minimum of a safety pilot
in the seat next to you, does let you experience these sensations and how
they can misdirect you. You then learn how to counter your inborn
instincts to react to these physical sensations.

No one has poo-pooed MSFS simulation of IMC for what it is good for. It is
you, you dumb ****, who has constantly poo-pooed real pilots who have real
experience in IMC solely because their real world experience doesn't match
you inorantly misconcieved conclusions, based on misuse of a tool, of what
real IMC will be like.

I'd love to stick your pompous ass in a real airplane in IMC and see how
long you last. I'll bet you won't even last 90 seconds.

You, being the asshole you are, constantly misinterpet what every pilot in
this newsgroup has been telling you about MSFS. No pilot has said it
doesn't serve a purpose. It is a good tool for practicing instrument
procedures. But, like any tool, it can be misused, especially by those
(you Anthony) who don't understand the tool's limitations. MSFS is a
terrible tool to learn basic flying skills.

And, all your attempts to say otherwise is pure bull ****. You've never
flown an airplane. Other's in this forum who have flow for many years have
pointed out the differences. You, Anthony, can't comprehend what they are
saying because you lack the frame of reference. You're nothing but fecal
matter wired to a keyboard.

Mx, really, that is illogical even by your standards.

You are saying that "They are both simulations, therefore if one is
useful then the other is useful." Wow.

And no pilot would claim that flying under the hood is a perfect
simulation of flying in IMC. That's why when we're training for our
instrument ratings we seek out real IMC to fly in to get that
experience.

We also use simulators, including MSFS. Many pilots agree that MSFS is
useful for instrument training, particularly with regard to flying
procedures (although not with regard to learning to ignore the
physical sensations of flight in IMC).

Nobody is saying MSFS is not a useful tool. They are just saying that
since you have only experienced MSFS, whereas most of the posters here
have experienced sims, hood time and real IMC, you aren't exactly in a
strong position to opine about things.

Why do you do it? You are clearly intelligent enough to understand
that what you have written here is illogical. And yet you love to pick
holes in other people's logic. You could be a useful and well-liked
contributor to this forum if you recognized the fact that pilots who
have flown in real life do have some valuable experience that you
can't understand.

If you think flying is too risky, fine don't do it. I don't care. The
risk is not worth it to you. But it's worth it to me and no amount of
telling me that I can get the same experience in front of my PC will
persuade me otherwise, because to me it's about the freedom of going
places, not the pleasure of correctly flying a procedure (although I
enjoy that too).


On May 16, 11:01*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

They are both simulations. *MSFS simulates IFR flight (with or without IMC).
Flying under a hood in a real aircraft simulates IFR flight in IMC. *But a
hood is not real IMC. *If flying under a hood is useful (and it is), then
flying MSFS is also useful.

The fact is, anything other than the real thing is just a simulation; if
simulations are not useful, then that has to apply across the board, not just
to simulations that you prefer to dismiss. *If MSFS is not useful, then
neither is flying under a hood, or looking at a drawing made by an instructor,
or examining illustrations in a book, or watching an instructional DVD.