KCHD to KMYF

writes:

So would be NYL if it were a VORTAC as shown by FlightPrep and it would
be a shorter VOR to VOR route, if it existed, and you wouldn't be on V66,
you would be close to it.

That doesn't answer my question. BZA is right on V66, it's part of the airway.
NYL is a few miles away. Even if NYL were a VORTAC, why would you route your
flight off-airway over NYL, instead of staying on the airway and overflying
BZA? Especially since NYL is in a MOA, and BZA is not. And the semi-direct
route KCHD.NYL.KMYF is actually slightly over 2 miles longer than the route
KCHD.BZA.KMYF. It doesn't make sense.

Oh well ... time to fly again. I have two Citations parked at KSAN; I guess I
could fly one back to Sky Harbor. My route would be POGGI2 IPL J18 MOHAK
GEELA3, like so many other flights by others, although I'm sure you'd
disapprove. I've flown the route by following Interstate 8 sometimes (not in a
Citation), but it's tedious. A C152 is really slow and doesn't let you rest
for a moment (no autopilot), but I did that once, just for practice. I'll have
to think about it.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Oh well ... time to fly again. I have two Citations parked at KSAN; I guess I
could fly one back to Sky Harbor. My route would be POGGI2 IPL J18 MOHAK
GEELA3, like so many other flights by others, although I'm sure you'd
disapprove. I've flown the route by following Interstate 8 sometimes (not in a
Citation), but it's tedious. A C152 is really slow and doesn't let you rest
for a moment (no autopilot), but I did that once, just for practice. I'll have
to think about it.

Yep, time to sit back in the chair in your room in front of the computer
screen and delude yourself into believing you are flying.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

Yep, time to sit back in the chair in your room in front of the computer
screen and delude yourself into believing you are flying.

That's what simulation is all about. Try it.

When you watch a movie, you delude yourself into believing that what's
happening on the screen is real ... otherwise it's impossible to enjoy the
movie. So do you refuse to watch movies because they aren't real?

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Yep, time to sit back in the chair in your room in front of the computer
screen and delude yourself into believing you are flying.

That's what simulation is all about. Try it.

It is the deluding yourself part that make you "special".

When you watch a movie, you delude yourself into believing that what's
happening on the screen is real ... otherwise it's impossible to enjoy the
movie. So do you refuse to watch movies because they aren't real?

Are you insane?

Did your mother never teach you the difference between real and pretend?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In article ,
says...

Oh well ... time to fly again. I have two Citations parked at KSAN; I guess I
could fly one back to Sky Harbor.


If I were you I'd fly BOTH Citations. It's safer - that way if anything unsafe
happens to one, you can just "be" in the other one!

Do you have a Life Simulator? Maybe MSLS?
How many hours do you have in that?

VOR-DME writes:

If I were you I'd fly BOTH Citations. It's safer - that way if anything unsafe
happens to one, you can just "be" in the other one!

The simulator doesn't allow that. Besides, flying a Citation X single-pilot is
quite a handful already.

In article ,
says...


The simulator doesn't allow that. Besides, flying a Citation X single-pilot
is
quite a handful already.


Slow and safe, eh?
Does your toy tell you that the Citation X is not single-pilot certified?
Would you knowingly initiate a flight single-pilot in an aircraft that
requires two crew? That would be illegal and unsafe. Or, as you are fond
of saying, "Bad things happen..." Crew coordination and CRM are what it’s all
about flying a plane like the "X" and something tells me you would not be well
versed in these skills!

Or perhaps the toy simply puts you where you belong, in passenger mode, so you
can look out the window. In the lower portion of the screen you can see a fake
glass of champagne. Maybe way up in the corner of the screen you can just make
out a locked door. That’s the door that non-pilots like yourself never get to
see the other side of.

VOR-DME writes:

Does your toy tell you that the Citation X is not single-pilot certified?

Microsoft Flight Simulator doesn't include a Cessna Citation among its
aircraft. It's only available as an add-on (from at least two companies).

Would you knowingly initiate a flight single-pilot in an aircraft that
requires two crew?

Not in real life--that would be illegal and unsafe, as you observe. But I do
it cheerfully in simulation. I don't have much choice with the version of MSFS
I'm using. FSX allows two people to share a cockpit but I wouldn't want to do
that.

Crew coordination and CRM are what it’s all
about flying a plane like the "X" and something tells me you would not be well
versed in these skills!

Nothing tells you that. It's simply something you'd like to believe.

How many hours do you have in the Citation X, by the way?

Maybe way up in the corner of the screen you can just make
out a locked door. That’s the door that non-pilots like yourself never get to
see the other side of.

I don't think the cockpit door locks, but it might. I just leave the door
open.

Your attempts to belittle me are predicated upon some false assumptions about
my own attitudes towards aviation and simulation. As a result, you are wasting
your time engaging in them. I don't fly to bolster my own self-esteem, nor do
I see flying as doing that, in real life or in simulation. It's just a fun
activity.

In article ,
says...


Your attempts to belittle me are predicated upon some false assumptions about
my own attitudes towards aviation and simulation. As a result, you are
wasting
your time engaging in them.


For once I fully agree with you, in that I am wasting my time.
Just to be clear with you, I did not, as you believe, criticize your initial
response simply "because it was you" and everyone wants to pick on you. Matter
of fact, I almost always avoid any temptation to respond to you, as I already
know you have no interest in genuine discussion, are only here to attempt to
belittle others of far greater merit than yourself, and turn every
conversation into vituperative drivel. Despite this knowledge, I chose to
respond as someone was writing for advice, and I felt the response you gave
was uninformed, incomplete and a disservice to the contributor who asked the
question, and who may not know that you don’t know anything of what you speak.

I am satisfied you have once again demonstrated your staggering ignorance of
"the way things work" in a very large number of posts in this thread, as well
as your wholesale intellectual dishonesty in an unending stream of
self-contradictions and passive-aggressive attacks. I am truly not interested
in the type of dead-end, semantic quagmire that discourse with you always
entails, and further it is a huge disservice to the group, to whom I offer my
apology. As stated, I only got involved this time because of the uninformed
advice you offered another, as if you knew something, and with that I am going
to take your excellent advice and stop wasting my time.

Again, to RAP, my apology. I’ll try not to let it happen again.

VOR-DME writes:

Just to be clear with you, I did not, as you believe, criticize your initial
response simply "because it was you" and everyone wants to pick on you.

Right.

Actually, most people don't want to pick on me, but those who do are unable to
control themselves.

Despite this knowledge, I chose to
respond as someone was writing for advice, and I felt the response you gave
was uninformed, incomplete and a disservice to the contributor who asked the
question, and who may not know that you don’t know anything of what you speak.

I could have given any response, and you would have taken issue with it.

I've previously cut and pasted text from undeniably reliable sources in posts
of my own to this newsgroup, just to see what happens, and invariably the
treehouse club feels obliged to take issue with them, even though I'm
repeating something word for word from another source, one before which they'd
readily genuflect had the post been under the original source's name (people
who are mean towards those whom they consider inferior also tend to be
exceedingly obsequious towards those whom they consider superior). This proved
that they were attacking the messenger, not the message, despite all their
claims to the contrary.

I am satisfied you have once again demonstrated your staggering ignorance of
"the way things work" in a very large number of posts in this thread, as well
as your wholesale intellectual dishonesty in an unending stream of
self-contradictions and passive-aggressive attacks. I am truly not interested
in the type of dead-end, semantic quagmire that discourse with you always
entails, and further it is a huge disservice to the group, to whom I offer my
apology. As stated, I only got involved this time because of the uninformed
advice you offered another, as if you knew something, and with that I am going
to take your excellent advice and stop wasting my time.

You've spent a lot of time criticizing me, and very little addressing the OP's
question, which rather belies your claim.

Again, to RAP, my apology. I’ll try not to let it happen again.

It will happen again. It always does. I know the pattern well.

Perhaps if this group were less a battle of egos among a small group of
testosterone-soaked males, and more a discussion of a love of aviation, the
noise level would be lower. But this phenomenon exists in just about every
discussion venue I've ever seen, so I'm not optimistic.