MS Flight Sim

"scott moore" wrote in message
. ..
Flying with flight sim is like sex with a magazine.

Which is still better than no sex at all.

Steve S wrote:
"scott moore" wrote in message
. ..
Flying with flight sim is like sex with a magazine.

Which is still better than no sex at all.



Replace "still better than" with "equal to", and you have
it right.

scott moore wrote:
Dennis Johnson wrote:
Greetings,

I think those who are arguing that flying MS Flight Sim isn't really
"flying" are on the losing side of the argument. Flying is flying, I
don't care if it's a Cub without an electrical system or a computer
running MS Flight Sim. As far as general procedures go, MS Flight Sim
gives a great workout, and for instrument procedures, it's terrific.

Flying with flight sim is like sex with a magazine.

Top 10 ways flight simulator is like sex with a magazine:

10. If you are "white knuckling it", you're doing it wrong.

9. Very little commitment is involved. You can change magazines
(airplanes) quickly.

8. It requires little in the way of mechanical aids.

7. It's very unlikely to lead to the real thing anytime soon.

6. Talking about the experience with others generally is not a good
idea, unless of course they do it, too. In which case its just a bit
weird.

5. Its best done alone.

4. The view is basically 2d.

3. The cost is low.

2. The excitement of it is all up to your imagination.

(drumroll..........)

1. If you think they are equal or even similar, chances are great
you have not experienced either.

"Dennis Johnson" wrote in message
. ..
Greetings,

I think those who are arguing that flying MS Flight Sim isn't really
"flying" are on the losing side of the argument. Flying is flying, I don't
care if it's a Cub without an electrical system or a computer running MS
Flight Sim. As far as general procedures go, MS Flight Sim gives a great
workout, and for instrument procedures, it's terrific.

It's a "Survey Sim" and is mediocre at best. Because of the broad expanse
of aircraft offered, it can't possibly fully model all aspects of each
aircraft in full fidelity. I may be wrong, but I've always understood that
that's why software like Elite or On Top devote 95% of the screen to the
panel? So that maximum processor cycles can be devoted to getting the most
fluid and precise response from the instruments?

If a person is sitting in front of an instrument panel manipulating
controls whose performance is based on aerodynamic principles, that's
flying. It might be flying a simulator, but it's still flying.

I must respectfully disagree. Flying requires action - reaction on three
axis'. Manipulating pixels in 2D (IMO) is not flying.

I think it's in our best interest to welcome anyone to this newsgroup who
is interested in aviation.

I wholeheartedly agreee. And if "The Albatross" were sincerely interested
in aviation, he'd be welcomed with open arms. As it stands, he has made it
crystal clear that he considers the experiences and collective wisdom of the
aviation community to be suspect, flying is nothing more than a hobby to be
enjoyed by the idle rich and GA aircraft are death traps.

Personally, I'm impressed with Mxsmanic's commitment to mastering
instrument procedures.

OMFG!! I guess I missed those posts while shoveling through the rest of his
cross-posted tripe.

I'll bet he could put many of us to shame.

That's a bet I'd be more than happy to take.

Give the guy a break.

Just as soon as he:
- Learns to say Thank You
- Actually listens to and attempts to learn from what others post
- Learns to say Thank You
- Stops refuting absolutely every last piece of information he's offered
- Learns to say Thank You
- Stops pronouncing that he knows better than those that "have the T-Shirt"
- Learns to say Thank You
- Stops belittling GA on GA-centric newsgroups
- Learns to say Thank You
- Stops pronouncing MSFS as the be all and end all of flight simulators
- Learns to say Thank You
- Starts using Google, FAA, AOPA, EAA, etc. websites of his own volition
- Learns to say Thank You
- Goes and takes an Intro Flight
- Learns to say Thank You

In case you didn't get it there, Sparky... It ain't so much the material as
it is the attitude.

Posting to aviation-specific newsgroups and decrying flying in general (and
GA in specific), then asking the pilot community to spoon feed him answers
(readily avialable from thousands of sources on the web) just so he can
dismiss the answers and dump on those making the effort to answer is, IMO,
the very definition of "Trolling."

In short: **** Him...

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

Jay Beckman writes:

It's a "Survey Sim" and is mediocre at best. Because of the broad expanse
of aircraft offered, it can't possibly fully model all aspects of each
aircraft in full fidelity.

Then you might want to rethink the praise that people heap upon X-Plane, which
does exactly that.

In fact, the number of models is almost uncorrelated with the fidelity of the
modeling. It's more a matter of budget than capacity.

I may be wrong, but I've always understood that
that's why software like Elite or On Top devote 95% of the screen to the
panel? So that maximum processor cycles can be devoted to getting the most
fluid and precise response from the instruments?

More likely they are intended to provide practice for instrument flight, which
is what such simulators do best. So scenery isn't very important.

I must respectfully disagree. Flying requires action - reaction on three
axis'. Manipulating pixels in 2D (IMO) is not flying.

You have six or more axes to manipulate in a PC simulator. And flying by the
seat of the pants is not the sum total of flight.

I wholeheartedly agreee. And if "The Albatross" were sincerely interested
in aviation, he'd be welcomed with open arms. As it stands, he has made it
crystal clear that he considers the experiences and collective wisdom of the
aviation community to be suspect, flying is nothing more than a hobby to be
enjoyed by the idle rich and GA aircraft are death traps.

Your statements reveal more than you realize. They reveal, in particular,
that you don't care about someone who is sincerely interested in aviation.
You care about someone who agrees with you and your friends unconditionally,
because your ego is more important than passing whatever knowledge you have on
to others. The experiences and collective wisdom of the aviation community at
large are not very suspect, but you do not even begin to remotely represent
this community, and the experiences and collective "wisdom" of your club, such
as it is, pale in comparison and are often highly suspect.

USENET is filled with people who want to be experts but aren't. I listen, but
I verify. And I ask people to support their statements. If they cannot do
so, it's pretty likely that they are wrong, no matter how much they fume and
cuss and stamp their feet.

OMFG!! I guess I missed those posts while shoveling through the rest of his
cross-posted tripe.

I suspect that your attention was diverted by your emotional reaction.

That's a bet I'd be more than happy to take.

Be careful what you wish for.

Just as soon as he:
- Learns to say Thank You
- Actually listens to and attempts to learn from what others post
- Learns to say Thank You
- Stops refuting absolutely every last piece of information he's offered
- Learns to say Thank You
- Stops pronouncing that he knows better than those that "have the T-Shirt"
- Learns to say Thank You
- Stops belittling GA on GA-centric newsgroups
- Learns to say Thank You
- Stops pronouncing MSFS as the be all and end all of flight simulators
- Learns to say Thank You
- Starts using Google, FAA, AOPA, EAA, etc. websites of his own volition
- Learns to say Thank You
- Goes and takes an Intro Flight
- Learns to say Thank You

It's interesting to note that all but one of these statements relate to
maintaining the egos of you and your friends, and some of them are incorrect
as well. Only one (taking an intro flight) is actually related to learning
about aviation.

So learning about aviation isn't what you want. You want an ego boost. But
you won't get that from me. Sorry.

In case you didn't get it there, Sparky... It ain't so much the material as
it is the attitude.

Exactly. You care about the attitude; I care about the material. I have no
time to pander to fragile egos.

Posting to aviation-specific newsgroups and decrying flying in general (and
GA in specific), then asking the pilot community to spoon feed him answers
(readily avialable from thousands of sources on the web) just so he can
dismiss the answers and dump on those making the effort to answer is, IMO,
the very definition of "Trolling."

I haven't done that.

In short: **** Him...

Your maturity and calm are commendable. QED.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Mar 1, 12:16 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Jay Beckman writes:
It's a "Survey Sim" and is mediocre at best. Because of the broad expanse
of aircraft offered, it can't possibly fully model all aspects of each
aircraft in full fidelity.

Then you might want to rethink the praise that people heap upon X-Plane, which
does exactly that.

Wouldn't know a thing about X-Plane...have never tried it. But since
it too is a survey sim, I'm fairly confident the same things apply.
I've read that it crunches numbers differently/better than FS (which
is "table based") but it still isn't flying.

In fact, the number of models is almost uncorrelated with the fidelity of the
modeling. It's more a matter of budget than capacity.

Don't care if it's due to budget or capacity. It still lacks
fidelity. It does not model every aspect of every plane offered.

I may be wrong, but I've always understood that
that's why software like Elite or On Top devote 95% of the screen to the
panel? So that maximum processor cycles can be devoted to getting the most
fluid and precise response from the instruments?

More likely they are intended to provide practice for instrument flight, which
is what such simulators do best. So scenery isn't very important.

It's exactly what it's meant for...scenery doesn't matter at all.

I must respectfully disagree. Flying requires action - reaction on three
axis'. Manipulating pixels in 2D (IMO) is not flying.

You have six or more axes to manipulate in a PC simulator. And flying by the
seat of the pants is not the sum total of flight.

It is in visual flight. No feel, no action, no reaction. And by the
same token, no feel, no action, nothing to fool your senses in IMC
either. Feel (whether required or something to be discounted) is
still a key component of RL flying. It can be your friend or it can
kill you but it cannot be ignored nor discarded.

I wholeheartedly agreee. And if "The Albatross" were sincerely interested
in aviation, he'd be welcomed with open arms. As it stands, he has made it
crystal clear that he considers the experiences and collective wisdom of the
aviation community to be suspect, flying is nothing more than a hobby to be
enjoyed by the idle rich and GA aircraft are death traps.

Your statements reveal more than you realize. They reveal, in particular,
that you don't care about someone who is sincerely interested in aviation.

Actually, those who know me know that I am a devout worshiper at the
high alter of flight. I've been an aviation buff all my life (well
before I earned my wings) and I extoll it's virtues to any and all who
will listen. I make every effort to offer my non-flying friends the
opportunity to ride along in the hope that they will catch the bug and
want to get their own certificate.

You care about someone who agrees with you and your friends unconditionally, because your ego is more important than passing whatever knowledge you have on to others.

Couldn't be more wrong. See above. As for ego, when it comes to
being a pilot, I have 147 hours of total flight time. There are
pilots on these boards with over 10,000 hours + ... the difference
between you and me is that I know when to shut my mouth, open my ears
and listen. Doesn't mean I have to agree or believe everything they
post but it doesn mean that they deserve their due by shear weight of
numbers. It's called respect. A concept with which you are so
obviously unfamiliar with.

The experiences and collective wisdom of the aviation community at large are not very suspect, but you do not even begin to remotely represent this community, and the experiences and collective "wisdom" of your club, such
as it is, pale in comparison and are often highly suspect.

So that's what this is all about, eh? You feel left out of the club?
There's an easy way to join. Oh, but I forgot, you hate to fly. Oh
well...

USENET is filled with people who want to be experts but aren't. I listen, but I verify.

No you don't. You argue, defy and generally **** on anyone and
everyone. You **** *on* people and they tell you to **** *off.*
Seems fair to me.

And I ask people to support their statements.

And when they do, you **** on them some more.

If they cannot do so, it's pretty likely that they are wrong, no matter how much they fume and cuss and stamp their feet.

Yet you persist in asking questions which generally be unanswerable in
a forum populated largely by GA pilots? Do you really thing you'll
get operational details for a 747-400 from a group that is
predominently concerned with Cessnas, Pipers and the like? Your
yelling "Fire" in an empty theatre and that makes it oh so easy for
you to cast out your little pearls of disdain, "I guess no one here
knows anything..." Who's stamping their little feet in this case, eh?

OMFG!! I guess I missed those posts while shoveling through the rest of his cross-posted tripe.

I suspect that your attention was diverted by your emotional reaction.

Wow, thanks for bringing me back to center. I really need to control
those irrational outbursts directed at completely anonymous people. I
really hate when I do that. *Sigh*, we all have our crosses to bear.

That's a bet I'd be more than happy to take.

Be careful what you wish for.

I want a pony. Howzat?

Just as soon as he:
- Learns to say Thank You
- Actually listens to and attempts to learn from what others post
- Learns to say Thank You
- Stops refuting absolutely every last piece of information he's offered
- Learns to say Thank You
- Stops pronouncing that he knows better than those that "have the T-Shirt"
- Learns to say Thank You
- Stops belittling GA on GA-centric newsgroups
- Learns to say Thank You
- Stops pronouncing MSFS as the be all and end all of flight simulators
- Learns to say Thank You
- Starts using Google, FAA, AOPA, EAA, etc. websites of his own volition
- Learns to say Thank You
- Goes and takes an Intro Flight
- Learns to say Thank You

It's interesting to note that all but one of these statements relate to maintaining the egos of you and your friends, and some of them are incorrect as well. Only one (taking an intro flight) is actually related to learning about aviation.

Really? You mean you couldn't learn anything from aviation web
sites? From the FAA, AOPA and/or EAA? From the information provided
by other, more experienced pilots? From Google's own archive? So
none of these are sources of information where you could learn? Hmmm,
maybe the internet really is over rated...I'm crushed.
And there you go with the ego thing again... How, praytell, is it
possible to maintain this mythical "club" you carry on about when
usenet is the most egalitarian communcicative device ever conceived?
No one has said you can't post here. You are free to do as you
please...but so is everyone else. If you are perceived as being a
pariah, or if you feel particularly persecuted, then perhaps you
should look inward before lashing out. People are free to say and do
as they please, but they are not exempt from the consequences of their
words or deeds.

So learning about aviation isn't what you want. You want an ego boost. But you won't get that from me. Sorry.

Again with the ego boost? I think your issue is becoming more and
more clear. You realize don't you that you could be the second coming
of Wilbur Wright, but unless you've walked the walk, all the talk in
the world is never going to earn you one iota of respect here so long
as you continue to boast, brag and otherwise browbeat people here
without ever having moved even an inch off Terra Firma as a pilot?
Seriously, if you want to be Cock of the Rock, you need to take your
act where someone gives a damn.

In case you didn't get it there, Sparky... It ain't so much the material as
it is the attitude.

Exactly. You care about the attitude; I care about the material. I have no time to pander to fragile egos.

I coun't four specific references to ego. Anyone else see one I
missed? Seems to me that in an attempt to hold up some kind of a
mirror to the aviation newsgroups, you're holding it backwards.
That's the one and only thing I find utterly fascinating about this
entire episode and it occurs with absolute unfailing repetition. The
closer that people come to the root cause of your motivation, the
louder you squawk.

Posting to aviation-specific newsgroups and decrying flying in general (and
GA in specific), then asking the pilot community to spoon feed him answers
(readily avialable from thousands of sources on the web) just so he can
dismiss the answers and dump on those making the effort to answer is, IMO,
the very definition of "Trolling."

I haven't done that.

Yes. Yes you have. You, my friend are the 21st century, electronic
equivalent of the little brother that no ones wants to let tag along.
"Look At Me...Look At Me...Look At Me...Aw c'mon guys, won't anyone
pay attention at all??!!!???"


In short: **** Him...

Your maturity and calm are commendable. QED.

Why thank you. They happen to be two of my best traits!

Jay B writes:

Don't care if it's due to budget or capacity. It still lacks
fidelity. It does not model every aspect of every plane offered.

Why do you require that every aspect of every plane be modeled?

It's exactly what it's meant for...scenery doesn't matter at all.

There you have it, then. No sense spending many processor cycles and screen
space on scenery if you don't need it.

It is in visual flight.

No, it's not. That's why it's called "visual" flight, and not "tactile"
flight. If you cannot see in visual flight, you crash, no matter what
sensations you feel. Conversely, if you can see in visual flight, you don't
need sensations.

It can be your friend or it can
kill you but it cannot be ignored nor discarded.

I don't see how it can be your friend, since it's useless and misleading
unless you also have visual input or instruments to actually give you the
information you need. And you can most definitely ignore it, otherwise
instrument flight wouldn't be possible.

Actually, those who know me know that I am a devout worshiper at the
high alter of flight. I've been an aviation buff all my life (well
before I earned my wings) and I extoll it's virtues to any and all who
will listen. I make every effort to offer my non-flying friends the
opportunity to ride along in the hope that they will catch the bug and
want to get their own certificate.

That's not what I said. I said that you don't care about someone who is
interested in aviation, not that you aren't interested in it yourself.

As for ego, when it comes to being a pilot, I have 147 hours of total
flight time. There are pilots on these boards with over 10,000 hours +
... the difference between you and me is that I know when to shut
my mouth, open my ears and listen.

The difference between you and me is 147 hours. The difference between you
and the other pilots of whom you speak is 9,853 hours. In other words, you're
essentially a non-pilot on this scale, just like me. But I suppose you'll
claim that the first hour makes all the difference, and the other 9,999 hours
are unimportant.

Doesn't mean I have to agree or believe everything they
post but it doesn mean that they deserve their due by shear weight of
numbers. It's called respect. A concept with which you are so
obviously unfamiliar with.

I respect people who have demonstrated their worthiness of respect. I don't
respect anyone by default, and numbers and credentials don't count, as I long
ago discovered that they are only very loosely correlated with things worthy
of respect. You can have 9000 hours of experience, or you can have 100 hours
ninety times over.

So that's what this is all about, eh? You feel left out of the club?

No, I'm not interested in clubs. I'm interested in aviation. If anything,
having to join a club just to fly would put me off.

No you don't. You argue, defy and generally **** on anyone and
everyone.

I argue because I have often verified, and found discrepancies for which I
need explanations. I question answers and expect the answers to be
substantiated. If someone simply says "because I say so," I know that he
doesn't know what he is talking about.

And when they do, you **** on them some more.

No. They don't support the statements, in the majority of cases. Instead,
they become emotional and angry, and insist that I must believe them just
because they said so. The more I uncover their actual ignorance of the topic,
the more irritated and aggressive they become. But I am not distracted by
this, as I've seen it thousands of times before.

Yet you persist in asking questions which generally be unanswerable in
a forum populated largely by GA pilots?

I was hoping there would be more pilots of other types. There still may be.
The handful of vocal posters aren't necessarily representative, they're just
loud.

Do you really thing you'll get operational details for a 747-400 from
a group that is predominently concerned with Cessnas, Pipers and the like?

I haven't found a more likely group on USENET. Do you know of one?

Wow, thanks for bringing me back to center. I really need to control
those irrational outbursts directed at completely anonymous people.

It's often just a question of practice, although personality plays a role.

Really?

Yes.

You mean you couldn't learn anything from aviation web
sites? From the FAA, AOPA and/or EAA?

Ah, I suppose that applies. I only glanced at the list once your intent
became apparent. So that's two out of all statements. Why is every other
statement "Learns to say Thank You"? What does that have to do with aviation?

From the information provided by other, more experienced pilots?

Like pilots with a staggering 147 hours, you mean? Three weeks of experience?

And there you go with the ego thing again... How, praytell, is it
possible to maintain this mythical "club" you carry on about when
usenet is the most egalitarian communcicative device ever conceived?

It isn't. That's part of what irritates the people who want to do so. They
come to believe that a newsgroup is their turf, and then when they are
reminded that anyone can use USENET and all are equal, they become irritated.

No one has said you can't post here. You are free to do as you
please...but so is everyone else.

Thank goodness.

If you are perceived as being a
pariah, or if you feel particularly persecuted, then perhaps you
should look inward before lashing out.

I don't care how I'm perceived. I just like to discuss aviation.

Again with the ego boost?

Yes. Most of the conflicts boil down to that to some extent.

You realize don't you that you could be the second coming
of Wilbur Wright, but unless you've walked the walk, all the talk in
the world is never going to earn you one iota of respect here ...

I don't care about getting respect here. I don't have an ego to maintain. I
just come here to discuss aviation.

... so long as you continue to boast, brag and otherwise browbeat
people here without ever having moved even an inch off Terra Firma
as a pilot?

Whereas, say, 147 hours would change everything (the next 10,000 wouldn't
matter, though).

Seriously, if you want to be Cock of the Rock, you need to take your
act where someone gives a damn.

See above. The way I'm perceived is unimportant. What is important is
discussions of aviation.

I coun't four specific references to ego.

Yes; ego is a problem for many here. It's the source of many conflicts.
People lash out when their egos are bruised, and if their egos are bigger than
their accomplishments, they become very emotional indeed.

Why thank you. They happen to be two of my best traits!

We all have good points. I'm told that they are among mine as well.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Mar 1, 11:58 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Jay B writes:
Don't care if it's due to budget or capacity. It still lacks
fidelity. It does not model every aspect of every plane offered.

Why do you require that every aspect of every plane be modeled?

I don't. You're the one who claims that MSFS properly reflects RL
flight. However, I don't know how you can draw that conclusion
without any RL experience with which to compare.

It's exactly what it's meant for...scenery doesn't matter at all.

There you have it, then. No sense spending many processor cycles and screen
space on scenery if you don't need it.

What about contact approaches and circle to land approaches?

It is in visual flight.

No, it's not. That's why it's called "visual" flight, and not "tactile" flight. If you cannot see in visual flight, you crash, no matter what sensations you feel. Conversely, if you can see in visual flight, you don't need sensations.

Spoken like a true devotee of life in 2D. If you ever do go up for
real, you'll very quickly find that you can find a use for all five
senses.

It can be your friend or it can kill you but it cannot be ignored nor discarded.

I don't see how it can be your friend, since it's useless and misleading unless you also have visual input or instruments to actually give you the information you need. And you can most definitely ignore it, otherwise
instrument flight wouldn't be possible.

But in the end, feel is still there (as either the expected force
resultant from your direct action (I bank, I turn, I feel the pressure
in my butt...) or as the force you properly interpret via the
instruments (I feel pressure in my butt...why?) Either way, you
aren't flying in a vaccuum.

Actually, those who know me know that I am a devout worshiper at the
high alter of flight. I've been an aviation buff all my life (well
before I earned my wings) and I extoll it's virtues to any and all who
will listen. I make every effort to offer my non-flying friends the
opportunity to ride along in the hope that they will catch the bug and
want to get their own certificate.

That's not what I said. I said that you don't care about someone who is
interested in aviation, not that you aren't interested in it yourself.

Read what I wrote again: "I make every effort to offer my non-flying
friends the opportunity to ride along in the hope that they will catch
the bug and want to get their own certificate." If that isn't
extending myself for others who may (or may not) be interested in
aviation, then I don't know what is.

As for ego, when it comes to being a pilot, I have 147 hours of total
flight time. There are pilots on these boards with over 10,000 hours +
... the difference between you and me is that I know when to shut
my mouth, open my ears and listen.

The difference between you and me is 147 hours. The difference between you
and the other pilots of whom you speak is 9,853 hours. In other words, you're
essentially a non-pilot on this scale, just like me.

All I need separate you from me is the .9 hours I logged on my first
lesson in October, 2004.

But I suppose you'll claim that the first hour makes all the difference

Atta Boy Kreskin...

and the other 9,999 hours are unimportant.

Again, this is where you miss the entire point. To me, the other
9,999 hours are supremely important. If a 10,000+ hour pilot speaks,
I shut mouth and become all ears. Does it matter if I immediately
take everything they say at face value? Of course not. But, unlike
you, I *know* I don't have the piloting chops to stand there and call
bull**** to his/her face. If nothing else, that's just simply rude.

Doesn't mean I have to agree or believe everything they
post but it doesn mean that they deserve their due by shear weight of
numbers. It's called respect. A concept with which you are so
obviously unfamiliar with.

I respect people who have demonstrated their worthiness of respect.

Great. And conversely, the world at large reserves the right to
respond as it sees fit to those who are not.

I don't respect anyone by default, and numbers and credentials don't count, as I long ago discovered that they are only very loosely correlated with things worthy of respect.

Do you have this same lack of respect for all authority figures? You
gonna tell a Cop he's full of ****? A Dentist when he's up to his
elbows in your mouth? How about a surgeon who has a vital internal
organ in his hand at that particular moment? You gonna ask to see his
diploma? Or would you rather quote some obscure passage from Grey's
Anatomy?

You can have 9000 hours of experience, or you can have 100 hours ninety times over.

Did you come up with that yourself or did you read it somewhere?

So that's what this is all about, eh? You feel left out of the club?

No, I'm not interested in clubs. I'm interested in aviation. If anything, having to join a club just to fly would put me off.

No you don't. You argue, defy and generally **** on anyone and everyone.

I argue because I have often verified, and found discrepancies for which I need explanations. I question answers and expect the answers to be substantiated. If someone simply says "because I say so," I know that he
doesn't know what he is talking about.

I dare you to go into the Google Archive and find five things that
you've been told (quote the posts) that were later found to be
incorrect in the FARs (quote the regulation.) You've never been a
student pilot, but one of the most important things you learn: You
don't have to know it cold, but you need to know how/where to look it
up. Thing one with most of the poeple here is that you simply will
not do the legwork required to get the knowledge. You don't have to
take anything that anyone tells you as vertias, but for GOD'S SAKE go
crack a book or hit any of the hundreds (if not thousands) of websites
devoted to the dissemination of the information you seek.

And when they do, you **** on them some more.

No. They don't support the statements, in the majority of cases. Instead, they become emotional and angry, and insist that I must believe them just because they said so.

And to a person, every last one of them has said (in effect): If you
don't believe me, here's a book, URL, DVD, other "person / place /
thing" you can consult. There are things in aviation that are
universal truths as well as sources of information that (while open to
interpretation) are considered the last word. The FARs are a perfect
example. Yeah, some of it doesn't make a whole lot of sense and some
of it is contradictory and suspect...but it doesn't change the fact
that if your interpretation doesn't match that of "The Man" when he
comes to visit, you're probably screwed. This is a dicotomy that,
IMO, you just have to learn to live with.

The more I uncover their actual ignorance of the topic, the more irritated and aggressive they become. But I am not distracted by this, as I've seen it thousands of times before.

Ignorance is defined as: "A Lack Of Knowledge." You, by your status
as a non-pilot, are as ignorant (note the lower case "i") as one can
possbily be about piloting because you've never piloted an aircraft of
any kind. Doesn't matter if you can quote the FAR/AIM chapter and
verse. You are not a pilot, therefore you are ignorant about being a
pilot. You can cure your ignorance on most subjects in the same
manner that I cured mine...read. But until you actually control an
aircraft in flight, you will always be ignorant about being a pilot.
QED back at ya...

Yet you persist in asking questions which generally be unanswerable in a forum populated largely by GA pilots?

I was hoping there would be more pilots of other types. There still may be.

If you had even half the sense you claim to have, the tenor of posts
should tell you that their aren't very many heavy-iron pilots here so
asking those types of questions is simply a way to allow you to sit
there and feel smug. There's an old saying (it pertains to military
flying but it fits here too...):

"If someone is a fighter (airline) pilot, don't worry, they'll tell
you. If they aren't, don't embarrass them by asking..."

The handful of vocal posters aren't necessarily representative, they're just loud.

The only reason someone "shouts" is because they think the other
person isn't listening. Don't know about you, but I usually don't
need to be told something more than once before it sinks in.

Do you really thing you'll get operational details for a 747-400 from a group that is predominently concerned with Cessnas, Pipers and the like?

I haven't found a more likely group on USENET. Do you know of one?

Two actually: rec.aviation.questions and rec.aviation.answers.

Wow, thanks for bringing me back to center. I really need to control those irrational outbursts directed at completely anonymous people.

It's often just a question of practice, although personality plays a role.

ZOOM

You mean you couldn't learn anything from aviation web sites? From the FAA, AOPA and/or EAA?

Ah, I suppose that applies. I only glanced at the list once your intent became apparent. So that's two out of all statements. Why is every other statement "Learns to say Thank You"? What does that have to do with aviation?

It simply serves to point out that you don't value the information
you're being provided with (not just due respect) but with any respect
at all. I've looked and I don't see a single post from you (good, bad
or indifferent) where you've shown any appreciation whatsoever for the
time and effort that people here taken.

We've had many non-pilots post here (and by here I mean
rec.aviation.*) and by and large they've all received answers from
others. But, unlike you, they know that they are "ignorant" about
being a pilot. It's simple really. If you were to start just one
post with: "I'm not a pilot but..." or "I've noticed something in
MSFS and I'm wondering if you pilots could help me with..." or maybe
even just "Does X happen in real life...?"

Once upon a time it was called "knowing your place." I'll just refer
back to what I said about me Vs a 10,000 hour pilot. I don't have to
agree, but it's just plain rude to say you know better when chances
are, you don't.

From the information provided by other, more experienced pilots?

Like pilots with a staggering 147 hours, you mean? Three weeks of experience?

Dunno what you want me to say there bucko. It's 147 hours of real
flight that you don't have. You can make all the essoteric arguements
you want. Toss out all the little latin phrases, make your bombastic
and utterly increadible statements of fact about your Barons and 747s
but in the end, I have 147 hours and counting...and you have???

And there you go with the ego thing again... How, praytell, is it
possible to maintain this mythical "club" you carry on about when
usenet is the most egalitarian communcicative device ever conceived?

It isn't. That's part of what irritates the people who want to do so. They
come to believe that a newsgroup is their turf, and then when they are
reminded that anyone can use USENET and all are equal, they become irritated.

Your wrong. People get irritated because an ignorant person has the
unmittigated gaul to post things that make them seem as if they are
what they are not. You can not have it both ways. You can not
attempt to pass yourself off on the one hand as a pilot, then turn
right around and make disparaging comments about aviation. You're so
obviously not a pilot (because a real pilot will not make the kind of
statements about flying that you make) that you simply will never gain
any degree of credability here. Don't care how much you bitch, moan,
whine, complain, cojole, beg, plead, browbeat, implore, agree, deny or
obfuscate. Your cover is blown and It's simply not possible.

No one has said you can't post here. You are free to do as you please...but so is everyone else.

Thank goodness.

If you are perceived as being a pariah, or if you feel particularly persecuted, then perhaps you should look inward before lashing out.

I don't care how I'm perceived. I just like to discuss aviation.

So you keep saying...

Interesting that you snipped my sentence relating to how people are
not immune from the consequences of their actions. It's ok for anyone
to post whatever they want, so long as they agree with you right?
Everyone's out of step but my Johnny..."

Again with the ego boost?

Yes. Most of the conflicts boil down to that to some extent.

You realize don't you that you could be the second coming
of Wilbur Wright, but unless you've walked the walk, all the talk in
the world is never going to earn you one iota of respect here ...

I don't care about getting respect here. I don't have an ego to maintain. I
just come here to discuss aviation.

So you keep saying...

... so long as you continue to boast, brag and otherwise browbeat
people here without ever having moved even an inch off Terra Firma
as a pilot?

Whereas, say, 147 hours would change everything (the next 10,000 wouldn't
matter, though).

Don't really care what you think on the matter. I know that even my
measly 147hrs has made a change in me like nothing else short of the
rapture could possibly affect. In a way, I actually feel sort of
sorry for you that you'll never experience it yourself. And we both
know I'm right...you never will. I was a wannabee for 43 years but I
had the balls to do more than just wish.

Seriously, if you want to be Cock of the Rock, you need to take your act where someone gives a damn.

See above. The way I'm perceived is unimportant. What is important is
discussions of aviation.

So you keep saying...

I coun't four specific references to ego.

Yes; ego is a problem for many here.

Yourself excepted, of course...

It's the source of many conflicts. People lash out when their egos are bruised, and if their egos are bigger than their accomplishments, they become very emotional indeed.

And you are able to determine that someones ego is bigger than their
deeds, how? And I mean specifically in these forums, in print, in
black and white. I don't think anyone else here has ever said that
they "don't fly in real life" then post about flying their Baron, et
al... My God, talk about Pot, Kettle, Black. You have the temmerity
to say that people here have egos bigger than their accomplishments
while you try to come off like Sky King backed by exactly ZERO actual
experience.

Man, you've either got balls the size of Kansas or else you suffer
from the most screaming form of reality disconnect as is possible to
have.

(Seems Anthony would make a good politician... Very convenient of him
to just completely omit my comments about him being the electronic
version of the little brother that can't come play with the big boys.
Guess that one hit a little too close to home.)

Why thank you. They happen to be two of my best traits!

We all have good points. I'm told that they are among mine as well.

So you keep saying...

Jay Beckman wrote:
"Dennis Johnson" wrote in message
. ..

Greetings,

I think those who are arguing that flying MS Flight Sim isn't really
"flying" are on the losing side of the argument. Flying is flying, I don't
care if it's a Cub without an electrical system or a computer running MS
Flight Sim. As far as general procedures go, MS Flight Sim gives a great
workout, and for instrument procedures, it's terrific.


It's a "Survey Sim" and is mediocre at best. Because of the broad expanse
of aircraft offered, it can't possibly fully model all aspects of each
aircraft in full fidelity. I may be wrong, but I've always understood that
that's why software like Elite or On Top devote 95% of the screen to the
panel? So that maximum processor cycles can be devoted to getting the most
fluid and precise response from the instruments?


If a person is sitting in front of an instrument panel manipulating
controls whose performance is based on aerodynamic principles, that's
flying. It might be flying a simulator, but it's still flying.


I must respectfully disagree. Flying requires action - reaction on three
axis'. Manipulating pixels in 2D (IMO) is not flying.


I think it's in our best interest to welcome anyone to this newsgroup who
is interested in aviation.


I wholeheartedly agreee. And if "The Albatross" were sincerely interested
in aviation, he'd be welcomed with open arms. As it stands, he has made it
crystal clear that he considers the experiences and collective wisdom of the
aviation community to be suspect, flying is nothing more than a hobby to be
enjoyed by the idle rich and GA aircraft are death traps.


Personally, I'm impressed with Mxsmanic's commitment to mastering
instrument procedures.


OMFG!! I guess I missed those posts while shoveling through the rest of his
cross-posted tripe.


I'll bet he could put many of us to shame.


That's a bet I'd be more than happy to take.


Give the guy a break.


Just as soon as he:
- Learns to say Thank You
- Actually listens to and attempts to learn from what others post
- Learns to say Thank You
- Stops refuting absolutely every last piece of information he's offered
- Learns to say Thank You
- Stops pronouncing that he knows better than those that "have the T-Shirt"
- Learns to say Thank You
- Stops belittling GA on GA-centric newsgroups
- Learns to say Thank You
- Stops pronouncing MSFS as the be all and end all of flight simulators
- Learns to say Thank You
- Starts using Google, FAA, AOPA, EAA, etc. websites of his own volition
- Learns to say Thank You
- Goes and takes an Intro Flight
- Learns to say Thank You

In case you didn't get it there, Sparky... It ain't so much the material as
it is the attitude.

Posting to aviation-specific newsgroups and decrying flying in general (and
GA in specific), then asking the pilot community to spoon feed him answers
(readily avialable from thousands of sources on the web) just so he can
dismiss the answers and dump on those making the effort to answer is, IMO,
the very definition of "Trolling."

In short: **** Him...

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ


Some of the add-on aircraft are quite authentic. I fly a Cardinal and
got the Dream Flight Cardinal and it does a very good job of modeling
the real airplane.

Dave Reinhart

Dennis Johnson wrote:
I think it's in our best interest to welcome anyone to this newsgroup who is
interested in aviation. Personally, I'm impressed with Mxsmanic's
commitment to mastering instrument procedures. I'll bet he could put many
of us to shame.

Give the guy a break.


Into the crapper you go with him. If you think that about him, anything you
think about anything else is bound to be ****. He's had more than enough time
over the months to change his ways; he's not interested. That's fine. His
dribblings don't make it to my computer. Now yours don't either.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com