KCHD to KMYF

On May 6, 4:30*pm, george wrote:
On May 6, 8:37*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

VOR-DME writes:
A Cessna 152 is really easy to fly. I don't think it would be a problem for
me. However, it's too slow for my tastes (usually).

Riiiight.
And how many hours do you have on type ?

I wonder if those sims allow you to land
on 2 wheels in a crosswind.(like i did today)

---
Mark

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.

writes:

Then it doesn't simulate turbulence does it?

Yes, it does. You can see the effect on instruments and on the view out the
window. Some fancy configurations with motion bases linked to the sim will
actually move, but most people don't go to that extreme with home sims.

VOR-DME writes:

It would floor you.

Believe what you will. Flying an airplane is not that difficult for me. I
suppose it might be difficult for others.

Sorry to hear about the "bad things" that happen. Must be very distressing.

It can be, if you take your flight simulation seriously, as I do.

Now you are challenging real pilots about their experience?

I'll take that as a "no."

As a matter of fact, I regularly fly single-pilot IFR.

In which jet?

My comments are from experience, which is why the inappropriateness
and incorrectness of your own jumped out at me.

Beware of experience. Good experience is valuable, bad experience is
dangerous.

VOR-DME writes:

Rather than challenging real-world pilots about their own level of experience,
a bit more humility would have incited you to ask how many real pilots also
have experienced MSFS, and what their observations are.

There are a lot of fragile egos in this group, most of them highly vocal in
their attempts to protect their self-esteem.

For me, flying is a fun activity, not a crutch to support or protect the ego.
Thus, comments about "humility" mean nothing to me, because this is something
that affects the ego in my view. I feel sorry for people who must depend on
their piloting experience to reinforce their sense of self-worth. I also think
that people like this make poor pilots, because the self-esteem issues may
cloud their judgement.

Anyway, people in this category invariably dismiss MSFS. I do know real-world
pilots who think it's great (not as great as flying a real plane, of course,
but still the next best thing), but they don't have ego issues. They just like
to fly.

What simulation gives you depends on what you want to get from it. You can
sit around the house and pine for the next hour you'll be able to fly in a
rented plane, or you can enjoy your spare time between real flights using
simulation.

I've already explained the analogy with movies. It's also a bit like watching
sports on TV. Some people like to watch sports when they are not
participating; there are even people who only like to watch, and never
participate. Is there something wrong with that? I don't think so. Watching
something isn't as fun as doing it in simulation, in my opinion, but more
people watch sports than simulate them.

I’m sure there are
many present who have experienced this quirky simulation game, as I have. I
certainly cannot boast your own level of experience with it (wouldn’t admit it
if I could) but I have a huge advantage over you in that I had already been
flying airplanes (as well as real simulators) for years before I ever tried
MSFS, which allows me to discern what works and what doesn’t - something you
can only surmise or guess at.

It's the imagined advantage that is important to you, isn't it? It's
important to think that you are somehow "better" than I am, isn't it?

Most ego-handicapped pilots are extremely wary of developing any interest in
simulation, for reasons already mentioned above. They don't investigate the
game much because of this fear. It is possible, however, to improve the
simulation by orders of magnitude at low cost (not that the basic simulation
isn't enjoyable or realistic).

MSFS is reasonably useful and fun for IFR recurrent training, tracking VOR’s
and airways, intercepts, etc. It is less useful for GPS navigation, as the
mock Garmin unit they propose is extremely feature-poor, and lacks many of the
pages and options pilots use every day.

Thank you for demonstrating the point I just made. Most serious simmers have
forgotten how to even look at the default GPS unit in the sim. And many larger
aircraft have no GPS units like this.

Perhaps these is why you resort
automatically to older VOR’s and airways, and consider ADS-B to be fiction,
because you have never seen what a real GPS does.

No, I resort to airway because that's how aircraft are flown in real life. In
several of the aircraft I fly on the sim, we use flight management systems,
anyway, as in real life.

It is reasonably good at numbers flying, although the numbers are always "off"
a bit for any type of aircraft purportedly being flown, so you’ll just have to
learn the numbers for your MSFS install as if it were another plane. Probably
varies from one MSFS install to another, but then airplanes vary from one
another as well.

The numbers don't vary by installation, but yes, they do vary by airplane, as
in real life. How accurate the simulation is depends on how much care has been
put into the aircraft model. The default aircraft are reasonably accurate
(especially on a fast PC), but are simplified somewhat to avoid discouraging a
large chunk of the user base. Add-on aircraft (from some companies--it depends
on their chosen emphasis) do not compromise in this way.

Landing MSFS is really hilarious, and is so far removed from landing any
airplane that it really only teaches you, well how to land MSFS.

Again, it depends on the airplane--and on the realism sliders, which some
users never touch.

The main problem real pilots have with MSFS, especially those who fly small
aircraft VFR, is that there are no motion cues. However, it's easy to adapt.
As long as the machine is reasonably fast, a real pilot can learn to land well
in a few minutes.

It is much harder to land than any real plane ...

Depends on how fast the machine is, and how dependent the pilot is on motion
cues. Obviously an experienced IFR pilot has a great advantage here.

What it is also really poor at is airplane control, particularly pitch
control.

That depends on the controls you use, and the speed of the PC.

Flying a real King Air (or just about any other plane) in cruise and
rolling into a standard-rate turn, one rarely requires much pitch correction.
A quick glance at the VSI will tell you if you need some pitch input (or more
likely, whether you are already over-correcting) but unless you are holding
the turn for a long time very little input is needed. In the MSFS model of the
same plane (and other planes as well) as you roll into a standard rate turn
the airplane falls out of the sky! You have to haul back on it and add power
to maintain altitude. So it’s good for a laugh (games are made to have fun)
but it’s not a high-fidelity simulation.

I've never flown the King Air. These days, I don't fly any of the default
aircraft. Most serious simmers don't.

writes:

He actually thinks that MSFS looks as real as my videos I have posted
these past few years (his words).

I am regularly surprised by how real MSFS looks, given that it's just a
desktop simulator. And I don't use the scenery add-ons that some simmers use,
except for airports.

Dunno about you but when simming, I really never did an approach
briefing and a few other steps required in a real plane in the clag
that simply is not replicated on a desktop simulator.

I have. It improves the experience. Of course, the advantage to simulation is
that you can skip this if you're not in the mood.

I stress desktop as a full motion sim is as real as it gets as you
have physical interaction based on your inputs. This is simply not
there with a joystick, keyboard and mouse as you brought you in your
King Air example..

I know from your past posts that you depend a great deal on motion; apparently
that's an important part of the flying experience for you. You even rely on it
too much for IFR, as I recall, which may lead to unpleasantness one day.

I have said the same thing you have time over time with Mx, for
learning the procedures needed to operate in the IFR environment, MSFS
will do great, and I will even go as far as say it does great when you
simulate a vacuum or some other systems failure, but when the rubber
meets the road, MSFS is just exactly what you describe it as and that
is a game.

It's unfortunate that you have this attitude. You're depriving yourself of
much enjoyment.

Do you ever go to the movies or watch sports on TV?

I have used MSFS to mentally get myself ready for an approach at an
airport I never been to so I can get the fixes stamped into my simple
mind ...

Good!

Flying the skies as we do isn't as simple as escape and start over.
Bad things happen in the skies, not MSFS. Worst thing that happens in
MSFS is you push escape and start over (or even resume from a fix
where things didn't go as you expected)

As I've said, it depends on how seriously you take your simulation. If you're
not good at taking it seriously, or if you don't want to, you learn
considerably less from it.

I asked Mx a direct question but he never answers. My lastest
question is what does he use for flight planning. If history repeats
itself, he won't answer.

I believe I said that I use NACO charts and plates and online aviation weather
reports. That's good enough for simulation--I have no legal requirement to use
specially certified sources.

writes:

A while back you were saying the Victor airways do have published minimum
altitudes.

They do, but these altitudes are shown only on IFR charts, not sectionals.

Jim Logajan writes:

In my sectionals the Legend says:

"Class E Airspace exists at 1200' AGL unless otherwise designated as
shown above."

together with:

"Class E Airspace low altitude Federal Airways are indicated by center
line."

So a Federal Airway is Class E, and between the text quoted above from
the Sectional Legend and the airspace markings on it, the base altitude
of the Victor airway appears "published" to me. Pick a spot on any airway
and you should be able to determine the base of Class E that marks its
base.

Where can I find the MEA of V134 between PACES and SLOLM on the sectional
chart?

Anyway, according to Rod Machado's Private Pilot Handbook, the base of
Class E is raised along many Victor airways in mountainous regions in
order to avoid terrain from blocking VOR signals, not so as to avoid
obstacles to flight.

The base of Class E is is not necessarily the minimum altitude for an airway
within that airspace.

However, there may be some confusion here. If you fly VFR, all you have to do
is stay clear of terrain and obstacles, which you can do most of the time by
just looking out the window. The sectional will give you an idea of terrain
beneath you, although if you are looking at the sectional for this information
in flight, you're probably not in VMC any more. The sectionals don't actually
indicate the altitudes that you must fly, though--you have to infer this from
other information on the chart.

If you fly IFR, you must maintain minimum altitudes on airways, and you cannot
find these on the sectionals (the sectionals don't give any minimum altitudes
for airways). Instead, you look at an IFR chart, which does indicate the
minimum altitude for each portion of an airway. The IFR minimums are usually
more generous than you might fly when under VFR.

In good weather in areas with high altitudes, I may fly VFR in order to be
able to avoid the generous MEAs that would be required for IFR (and thereby
avoid the need for oxygen). In mountainous areas, though, this advantage must
be balanced against the specific risks of mountain flying.

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.

writes:

I gave you the answer above......

You cannot plan for things you don't know about. Not even a Real Pilot can do
that, except in the movies.