I give up, after many, many years!

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Did you read my post? Did you forget the fact my vacuum system wasn't
working? How can I trust the instruments?

You don't need vacuum for electric instruments.

Once again you're totally clueless. Your Directional Gyro is vacuum
driven. If you only needed electric instruments to fly, your primary
instruments wouldn't be pitot-static. If you have an electrical
problem, bus failure or inflight fire, you might lose all your
electrical instruments.


If you have no instruments and you're in IMC, you have a big problem.

Only if you don't know how to use your radios and know which senses to
trust.

Not when the vacuum system is broke. I just experienced it
yesterday.

Don't fly IFR until it's fixed.

The problem likely happened while he was in flight. In the real world,
you don't get to hit "ALT" and fiddle with your settings until things works.

Ah, why do I bother with you? You ask questions just to contradict
literally everybody who answers them regardless of the experience they
have or the official sources they quote.


-c

Mxsmanic wrote:
A Lieberman writes:

Flying by sensation Jay. To make a blank statement you cannot fly in
IMC by sensations is flat out wrong.

It's entirely right. You cannot trust sensations in IMC. You must trust your
instruments.

GRAVITY IS NOT A SENSATION.

While you have to ignore SOME sensations while flying inside a cloud,
some sensations give you warning of impending danger.

The instruments do a better job of that, and they are consistent and reliable.


That's right. Instruments never fail, and gravity is prone to error.

gatt writes:

GRAVITY IS NOT A SENSATION.

So?

That's right. Instruments never fail, and gravity is prone to error.

Your physical sensations will fail on every single flight into IMC. The
instruments will not. Trust your instruments. If you cannot entrust your
life to your instruments, don't fly in IMC.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

gatt writes:

GRAVITY IS NOT A SENSATION.

So?

That's right. Instruments never fail, and gravity is prone to error.

Your physical sensations will fail on every single flight into IMC

Nope, wrong, fjukkwit.


Bertie

On May 17, 9:30*am, A Lieberman wrote:
Listening to your engine is a secondary airspeed ***TREND***
indicator. *Ignore that, and you will be in more of a boatload of
trouble when your vacuum system goes belly up. *Hearing my engine
while under partial panel procedures probably was the sense that made
my life exponentially easier, and the last I know of, hearing is a
sense or a sensation..

I never expected a simulator to replace physical feedback in a real
cockpit, but this last paragraph is interesting because noticed that,
in a sim, it is a lot easier to fly if the engine can be heard. Many
time I have fumble to find the voice control because information was
lacking.

But as mentioned, I only use a Sim for theory, not physical feedback.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

I never expected a simulator to replace physical feedback in a real
cockpit, but this last paragraph is interesting because noticed that,
in a sim, it is a lot easier to fly if the engine can be heard. Many
time I have fumble to find the voice control because information was
lacking.

I've noticed the same thing, but it's no surprise. Often there is no direct
indication of what the engine(s) is doing on the visible instruments, and
there is no motion in the sim. That, coupled with the delay inherent in the
response of many engines and the delay in the airframe's reaction, makes it
easier to fly if the engine can be heard. Fortunately, MSFS handles engine
sounds in a fairly consistent and predictable way.

On May 17, 2:54*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
*Fortunately, MSFS handles engine
sounds in a fairly consistent and predictable way.

So, in this case the simulator fails in teaching the real world as
engine sounds are not consistent or predictable. Take a XC in a REAL
plane over a rural area, and you will KNOW what I am talking about.

Sim won't do it.

A Lieberman writes:

So, in this case the simulator fails in teaching the real world as
engine sounds are not consistent or predictable.

They are very consistent and predictable. So much so that they can be used
for analysis of accidents.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Often there is no direct
indication of what the engine(s) is doing on the visible instruments, and
there is no motion in the sim.

Wrong again, asshole.
You don't know **** from shinola.

On May 18, 7:54*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
*Fortunately, MSFS handles engine
sounds in a fairly consistent and predictable way.

Yep, consistently unrealistic, with no prop noise at all.

Cheers.