Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

Tina wrote:
Well, let's remember it takes one example to refute an absolutist
argument.

There is not a rated pilot here who will argue with this: In IMC or
VMC, he or she, relies very much on the sensation of the reduction of
yoke pressure for trimming the airplane.


Correct.

Of course that doesn't mean you don't monitor the instruments in the
meantime. Nobody has suggested that, but Anthony keeps trying to argue
that strawman.

The physical sensations allow a pilot to be proactive rather than
reactive. Anthony doesn't understand this, of course, because he hasn't
done it.

-c

gatt writes:

The physical sensations allow a pilot to be proactive rather than
reactive.

Not under IFR.

On May 20, 2:33*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
gatt writes:
The physical sensations allow a pilot to be proactive rather than
reactive.

Not under IFR.

How do you know since MSFS does not give you physical feedback?

Besides the above is WRONG. IFR means Instrument Flight Rules which
is different then IMC.

A Lieberman writes:

How do you know since MSFS does not give you physical feedback?

The law requires it.

Besides the above is WRONG. IFR means Instrument Flight Rules which
is different then IMC.

I wrote IFR because I meant IFR, not IMC.

Mxsmanic wrote in
news
A Lieberman writes:

How do you know since MSFS does not give you physical feedback?

The law requires it.

Besides the above is WRONG. IFR means Instrument Flight Rules which
is different then IMC.

I wrote IFR because I meant IFR, not IMC.


Ok, fjukktard, cite the FAR which requires MSFS to give physical feedback.

Do you ever know what you mean?