Sad day for Mxsmanic

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Flight simulators have a legal definition under 14CFR.

That legal definition doesn't apply to anyone except the FAA, and affects only
simulators that claim to be approved by the FAA for logging hours.

Wrong again as apparently you don't know what the term "flight simulator"
means.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

Wrong again as apparently you don't know what the term "flight simulator"
means.

Who is constrained to abide by FAA rules, exactly?

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Wrong again as apparently you don't know what the term "flight simulator"
means.

Who is constrained to abide by FAA rules, exactly?

Look it up.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

Look it up.

I already have. The FAA has jurisdiction over practically no one, with the
exception of pilots and other people who work in the aviation industry.

Thus, anyone can build and/or fly a flight simulator, with or without
recognition or approval from the FAA. Microsoft and X-Plane have already done
so, of course.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Look it up.

I already have. The FAA has jurisdiction over practically no one, with the
exception of pilots and other people who work in the aviation industry.

No, you didn't since what you say is puerile and not relevant to the
discussion anyway.

Thus, anyone can build and/or fly a flight simulator, with or without
recognition or approval from the FAA. Microsoft and X-Plane have already done
so, of course.

Sure anyone can build or fly a flight simulator, but that wasn't the issue.

Neither Microsoft nor X-Plane claim to be doing so; both claim to be
marketing a game.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

If it can help to quell the semantic battle, here's what Richard Collins has to
say about the matter, in a Nov 2006 article on instrument instruction :

"When we were writing about learning to fly, it was suggested that a private
pilot course should be completed before starting training to get an idea of
what is coming. That is an equally good idea before you begin instrument
training. This is a far more complex endeavor and a pilot needs to go through
an instrument rating ground course to get a feel for that complexity. An
inexpensive PC airplane program, like Microsoft Flight Simulator or X-Plane
(both available from Amazon), might also help in scoping out what is involved.
These are not flight training devices but they can be useful in looking at
procedures. An advance look at instrument training and flying might make it
seem like the greatest and most fun challenge you can find, or it might seem a
bit much. If the latter is the case, you might want to fly VFR for a while and
then revisit the instrument course".

To paraphrase, the programs are not completely without usefulness, but they are
not simulators. Of course, you could always write to FLYING to contest this
point of view. You could demand that he publish a retraction. Many pilots write
to him, but most with less than twenty thousand or so hours refrain from going
to head with someone so clearly more experienced (not to mention the fact that
he has the broadest readership base in all of aviation). He also has something
of a reputation for not suffering fools gently. Your call . . .








In article ,
says...


writes:

Look it up.

I already have. The FAA has jurisdiction over practically no one, with the
exception of pilots and other people who work in the aviation industry.

Thus, anyone can build and/or fly a flight simulator, with or without
recognition or approval from the FAA. Microsoft and X-Plane have already done
so, of course.

"-b-" wrote

To paraphrase, the programs are not completely without usefulness, but
they are
not simulators.

That's not what he said, he said they weren't "flight training devices".
The FAA has a definition for what qualifies as a "flight training device",
or FTD. They do not have one for "simulator". Webster does, and MSFS seems
to fit that very general definition: "A device, data processing system, or
computer program for representing features of the behavior of a physical or
abstract system."

Notice it doesn't say "all features" or "exact behavior" because those are
qualitative. MSFS is indeed a flight simulator, albeit a poor one.

In article ,
says...



"-b-" wrote

To paraphrase, the programs are not completely without usefulness, but
they are
not simulators.

That's not what he said, he said they weren't "flight training devices".
The FAA has a definition for what qualifies as a "flight training device",
or FTD. They do not have one for "simulator". Webster does, and MSFS seems
to fit that very general definition: "A device, data processing system, or
computer program for representing features of the behavior of a physical or
abstract system."

Notice it doesn't say "all features" or "exact behavior" because those are
qualitative. MSFS is indeed a flight simulator, albeit a poor one.



Yours is the very definition of an out of context post.
MX has made it clear that he is not interested in the FAA's definition of a
simulator or fligght training device, but focuses on its functionalities.
Collins cites functionalities to circumscribe the usefulness of these devices,
and you comme back to FAA definitions!! Let's call in Kafka to clarify!!

Tim wrote:

"-b-" wrote

To paraphrase, the programs are not completely without usefulness, but
they are
not simulators.

That's not what he said, he said they weren't "flight training devices".
The FAA has a definition for what qualifies as a "flight training device",
or FTD. They do not have one for "simulator". Webster does, and MSFS seems
to fit that very general definition: "A device, data processing system, or
computer program for representing features of the behavior of a physical or
abstract system."

Notice it doesn't say "all features" or "exact behavior" because those are
qualitative. MSFS is indeed a flight simulator, albeit a poor one.

Actually the FAA does have definitions for simulators and other training
devices in Part 60.

A couple of huge differences between the games and a real simulator is
that a real simulator has all real switches and buttons that operate,
not pictures on a display activated by a mouse and force feedback on
the controls.

PCATD's, i.e. a flight simulator game with enough hardware to qualify
for instrument procedures training, are covered elsewhere.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
writes:

Wrong again as apparently you don't know what the term "flight simulator"
means.

Who is constrained to abide by FAA rules, exactly?

Relax, no one gives a **** about how you fly your desk.