Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane

On 22/06/10 14:33, Mxsmanic wrote:
William Black writes:

End of story really, she has...

That's an extremely simplistic viewpoint. It's a bit like saying that anyone
who has ever driven any type of car can automatically drive any type of road
vehicle, while simultaneously saying that anyone who hasn't been behind the
wheel of a car cannot possible know how to drive one. Both notions are
baseless.

No, it's like saying that anyone who has driven any car knows a great
deal more about driving than someone who has played driving games on a
personal computer, no matter how sophisticated.

Now I don't know about where you live, which I seem to remember is a
cupboard in Paris, but here they don't let you take your driving test
on your PC. They tend to insist that you get your arse in a car and
drive one around town to make sure you do actually know what you're doing.

Same with aircraft, they don't actually issue a pilots license to
anyone unless they actually get in an aircraft and show someone that
they can fly the bloody thing.


--
William Black

These are the gilded popinjays and murderous assassins of Perfidious
Albion and they are about their Queen's business. Any man who impedes
their passage does so at his own peril.

William Black writes:

No, it's like saying that anyone who has driven any car knows a great
deal more about driving than someone who has played driving games on a
personal computer, no matter how sophisticated.

But that is also an incorrect statement.

If only real flying experience were important, then nobody would ever use
simulators. In fact, if someone wants to fly a 747, he is better off flying a
simulator of a 747 than he is flying a Cessna 152. While the simulation isn't
the same as flying a 747 for real, it's a lot closer than the real-world
experience of a Cessna 172 would be.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
William Black writes:

No, it's like saying that anyone who has driven any car knows a great
deal more about driving than someone who has played driving games on a
personal computer, no matter how sophisticated.

But that is also an incorrect statement.

No, it is not unless the simulator is so realistic it is impossible to
tell the difference between the simulation and reality and such simulators
do not exist.

If only real flying experience were important, then nobody would ever use
simulators. In fact, if someone wants to fly a 747, he is better off flying a
simulator of a 747 than he is flying a Cessna 152. While the simulation isn't
the same as flying a 747 for real, it's a lot closer than the real-world
experience of a Cessna 172 would be.

Delusional tunnel vision.

Flying a real airplane requires a broad set of skills and knowledge which
is why in the real world the individual skills are taught in varied
environments best suited for teaching the task at hand, i.e. the cockpit of
a C172, a desk, a light twin, a 747 simulator, a real 747, to name just a few.

Each has its own part in generating the total sum of skills.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jun 22, 9:31*am, wrote:

No, it is not unless the simulator is so realistic it is impossible to
tell the difference between the simulation and reality and such simulators
do not exist.

May want to clarify this Jim to Mx levels.

MSFS is not realistic or even close to being realistic.

I'd think (I have never been in one) though a full motion simulator
probably would be as real as it gets since you get the physical
feedback not felt in a chair in front of a desktop computer

writes:

No, it is not unless the simulator is so realistic it is impossible to
tell the difference between the simulation and reality and such simulators
do not exist.

The simulator need only provide more information than no information, which
every simulator does. The simulator provides information specific to an
aircraft that real-world experience in a different aircraft does not.

Flying a real airplane requires a broad set of skills and knowledge which
is why in the real world the individual skills are taught in varied
environments best suited for teaching the task at hand, i.e. the cockpit of
a C172, a desk, a light twin, a 747 simulator, a real 747, to name just a few.

There is knowledge (and sometimes skill) specific to individual aircraft that
must be acquired before that aircraft can be successfully flown. The specifics
of a 747 are not learned by someone flying a C172.

On Jun 22, 10:26*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

There is knowledge (and sometimes skill) specific to individual aircraft that
must be acquired before that aircraft can be successfully flown. The specifics
of a 747 are not learned by someone flying a C172.

Then you apparently agree that the SPECIFICS of a 747 are not learned
using MSFS.

writes:

Then you apparently agree that the SPECIFICS of a 747 are not learned
using MSFS.

Many of the specifics of the 747 and many other aircraft can easily be learned
by "flying" the simulated versions in MSFS, and particularly by flying
high-realism add-ons. It's essentially no different from reading the manual to
learn the systems, except that it provides a kind of "hands-on" experience
that makes learning more fun.

You would not get these specifics from flying a Cessna 172, even in real life
(nor would you get them from flying only the C172 in the sim).

On Jun 22, 11:06*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

You would not get these specifics from flying a Cessna 172, even in real life
(nor would you get them from flying only the C172 in the sim).

But you never been in a real plane. How do you know this?????????

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

No, it is not unless the simulator is so realistic it is impossible to
tell the difference between the simulation and reality and such simulators
do not exist.

The simulator need only provide more information than no information, which
every simulator does. The simulator provides information specific to an
aircraft that real-world experience in a different aircraft does not.

Delusional babble.

Flying a real airplane requires a broad set of skills and knowledge which
is why in the real world the individual skills are taught in varied
environments best suited for teaching the task at hand, i.e. the cockpit of
a C172, a desk, a light twin, a 747 simulator, a real 747, to name just a few.

There is knowledge (and sometimes skill) specific to individual aircraft that
must be acquired before that aircraft can be successfully flown.

True, and in most cases, if the aircraft are anywhere near similar, a reading
of the aircraft manual will suffice for that.

And I've actually done that, have you?

The specifics
of a 747 are not learned by someone flying a C172.

True, but no one but you and your tunnel vision of what is required to fly
an airplane is saying that.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

True, and in most cases, if the aircraft are anywhere near similar, a reading
of the aircraft manual will suffice for that.

Why would reading the manual be sufficient, but simulation not?

And I've actually done that, have you?

Yes, I have.