Sad day for Mxsmanic

"-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!!

"-b-" wrote
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!!


You must be new here.

In article ,
says...



"-b-" wrote
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!!


You must be new here.



From what I'm seeing, I take that as a compliment.

"-b-" wrote in message
...
In article ,

says...



"-b-" wrote
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!!


You must be new here.



From what I'm seeing, I take that as a compliment.


From what we are seeing, that's not what was intended.

In article , #$$9#@%%%.^^^ says...



"-b-" wrote in message
...
In article ,

says...



"-b-" wrote
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!!


You must be new here.



From what I'm seeing, I take that as a compliment.


From what we are seeing, that's not what was intended.



Intentions may be obscure, arguments explicit. The latter being weak.

"-b-" wrote in message
...
In article , #$$9#@%%%.^^^ says...



"-b-" wrote in message
...
In article ,

says...



"-b-" wrote
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!!


You must be new here.



From what I'm seeing, I take that as a compliment.


From what we are seeing, that's not what was intended.



Intentions may be obscure, arguments explicit. The latter being
weak......an you extremely stupid.

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.