GA is priceless

And to use training as the yardstick isn't fair either. Driver's Ed doesn't
include map reading skills, lost procedure skills, or anything else that
has to do with navigation.

That's because you can pull over. In a plane, you can't. But point made.

Emergency procedures do not get practiced. We are told to "steer into a
skid" but we never practice it.

I wonder if it would make a difference. Neutral question.

No (formal) mention of weather is included in Drivers Ed. Particularly,
there is nothing taught about ice and fog.

I don't see anything hazardous that is not obvious. The same is not
true in aviation. We are held away from death by nothing but a blast of
air.

If driving were treated the same as flying there would be a campaign to
educate the drivers in proper use of the roundabout.

The most important thing is to =stay= in the roundabout until you
=know=, with sufficient lead time, where you get out.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 22:09:58 +0100
Mxsmanic wrote:

There are no incorrect parts of the simulation. Prove me wrong.

Places like FlightSafety International spend a lot of money getting
certification on their full motion, level-D flight simulators. That
testing includes verifying the flight model, controls, sounds, motion
response, and visual representation is as close to the original as a
simulation can be. Even things like screen vibration from the sound
harmonics in the Osprey simulator have held up certification.

I seriously doubt Microsoft puts anywhere near the effort required to
represent true flight characteristics in their consumer products. If
the flight characteristics were correct in MSFS, then why doesn't
FlightSafety just run MSFS on the back-end and certify that way? I'm
certain it would cost less for them to leverage the consumer product
pricing than to write new software in-house.

Doug

--
For UNIX, Linux and security articles
visit http://SecurityBulletins.com/

On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 17:50:33 +0100
Mxsmanic wrote:

H. Adam Stevens writes:

Cuter than a bug.

And about the same size, too, from the looks of the photos.

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

You mean this photo? It sure demonstrates the threat GA poses to
exclude it from the ADIZ FRZ... The CT looks like it'll eat you up and
spit you out. ;-)

http://flightdesign.com/__jpeg.php?i...l=3&logo_inv=1

Doug

--
For UNIX, Linux and security articles
visit http://SecurityBulletins.com/

Recently, Jose posted:

How would people wanting
to ridicule Mx prevent such an explanation...

It adds noise. I have found that he responds (slowly) to careful,
focused discussion which teases out the roots of his misconception or
miscommunication. However, this is hard to see if a great percentage
of the comments to him and about him are designed to ridicule. I
will also add that the pilots here ridiculing him have made aviation
comments that are also not very accurate or perceptive. (I've seen,
and even made, such errors myself in other unrelated threads, so
this is not unique to Mx).

Mx's noise doesn't seem to be intended that way. It is just the
natural result of a headstrong attitude. However, those who ridicule
him make noise that =is= intended to be noise. It hides what signal
there is, and that is also intentional.

This makes it hard to tell whether Mx is here to learn, or not. I
think he is, and is just not very good at the necessary social skills.

Thanks for the explanation, Jose. While I agree with some of your
observations, I don't agree with your conclusion. I don't think it's very
hard to tell when someone is trying to learn vs. trying to disrupt, and
the repeated attempts to disrupt are met with disdain, also a "natural
result" when confronted with such behavior.

Neil

writes:

Section 22350 says that "No person shall drive a vehicle upon
a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having
due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface
and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which
endangers the safety of persons or property."

Yes, I know.

OK, so that establishes that it's illegal to drive faster than a speed
which is reasonable and prudent.

See above.

It does NOT establish that it is LEGAL to drive at any
reasonable and prudent speed, if your reasonable and prudent
speed exceeds the speed established by other law.

But in many cases there is no other governing law, in which case any
reasonable and prudent speed is legal.

In particular, it doesn't override section 22349, which says
"Except as provided in Section 22356, no person may drive
a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 65 miles
per hour. ... Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
person may drive a vehicle upon a two-lane, undivided
highway at a speed greater than 55 miles per hour unless
that highway, or portion thereof, has been posted for a
higher speed by the Department of Transportation or
appropriate local agency upon the basis of an engineering
and traffic survey."

Yes, I know. Those are two special circumstances.

Nor does it override section 22356, which says (paraphrased)
that the department of transportation may, after conducting
an engineering traffic study, raise the speed limit to 70
mph on designated sections of freeways, but that no person
shall drive faster than 70 MPH on any highway under
any conditions.

I've read all these, thanks.

Some of California's speed limits are prima facie,
meaning that you may be able to get away with
exceeding them if you can convince the judge that
your speed was reasonable and prudent. But the
55, 65, and 70 mph limits quoted above are
absolute.

I know.

The law you cited never gives you the right to
exceed an absolute speed limit, regardless of
how safe the conditions were. In fact, that
law means that you may be charged with
speeding in California even while travelling well
UNDER the posted speed limit, if conditions are such
that the posted speed limit would be unreasonable
or imprudent.

Yes. I know. I've done this research. In fact, I did most of it
years ago.

You said I was wrong about something, but you haven't said what it is.
Where was I wrong?

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

Doug Spencer writes:

Places like FlightSafety International spend a lot of money getting
certification on their full motion, level-D flight simulators. That
testing includes verifying the flight model, controls, sounds, motion
response, and visual representation is as close to the original as a
simulation can be. Even things like screen vibration from the sound
harmonics in the Osprey simulator have held up certification.

I'm glad to hear that. What are the specific flaws in MSFS?

Certification doesn't mean the closest possible approach to real life
overall. It means an acceptably close approach to real life in
certain domains for which certification has been sought.

I seriously doubt Microsoft puts anywhere near the effort required to
represent true flight characteristics in their consumer products.

Microsoft didn't invent Flight Simulator, and it has a long tradition
of gradually improving simulation.

What are the specific flaws in the MSFS simulation?

If the flight characteristics were correct in MSFS, then why doesn't
FlightSafety just run MSFS on the back-end and certify that way?

If MSFS has flaws, why can't you name them?

I'm certain it would cost less for them to leverage the consumer product
pricing than to write new software in-house.

I don't see why they have to write their own software. For all I
know, they may be running MSFS. It would be kind of sad to reject it
just out of religious belief.

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

Frank....H writes:

The lack of dials isn't really a good measure. My friends dump truck has
more dials than my Cessna. He drives on the same roads as my car. Does that
mean driving a dump truck is more complex than flying?

Maybe, if all else is equal.

What happened to checking tire pressures, oil and fuel levels, and lights?

That stops at the end of Driver's Ed, I think.

And I'm sure that, for some pilots at least, preflight stops when they
get their license.

Just because it's largely not done doesn't mean a "predrive" inspection
isn't a good idea. In fact, it's usually mentioned in the owner's manual.
You did read that didn't you?

I always do.

Which signs?

The big ones by the road that indicate directions. They don't have
those in the sky.

You also left out the part where you had to apply skills/techniques like
merging, judging braking distances, and general car control at freeway
speeds.

Nothing like entering a traffic pattern around a busy untowered
airport.

I agree it's easier but...... If we treated driving the same we treated
flying it would appear more complex.

And almost nobody would ever die in a car.

Emergency procedures do not get practiced. We are told to "steer into a
skid" but we never practice it.

My high school did that, if you took the advanced classes.

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

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

Why would you care?

I was just calling your bluff, knowing that you would not be able to
answer the question.

You know nothing other than I'm unwilling to answer your question. Every
pilot who has used MSFS, including a pilot who is a MSFS MVP has told you
that there are significant differences between its behavior and real
flying. This is just one more example, and to us, it isn't a problem worth
discussing. So, why would anyone here be motivated to provide you with
such details?

It is not conjecture that you can not confirm your notion of
probability, because, among many other factors, you don't like to
meet people in real life (again, your own statement).

Sorry, but not only is this conjecture, but it is also irrelevant.

No conjecture required. You have to meet people -- a significant number of
GA pilots in this case -- in order to assess their probable behaviors or
attitudes. You have done neither, therefore you can't possibly verify the
probability you tried to infer.

Just because your attacks lack a specific target ...

What attacks?

See this:

For example, you stated: "I have found that GA pilots are the least
informed and competent of all pilots."

It is an accurate generalization, as far as I know. And it is to be
expected, given the requirements for various types of piloting.

Your "knowledge" is based on no training and/or real experience, so as far
as you know isn't very far at all. Such comments are simply attacks on GA
pilots in a group populated by GA pilots.

It is not insignificant that, regardless of your opinion
of GA pilots, the worst of them are more and better informed than
you are about flying real airplanes.

Here again, this is conjecture.

No conjecture required. I simply stated the obvious; we fly, you do not,
ergo we are better informed about what it takes to fly than you are.

Neil

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 03:23:14 +0100
Mxsmanic wrote:

I'm glad to hear that. What are the specific flaws in MSFS?

For one thing, to pass certification at level-D, your model has to be
deterministically "hard" real-time to process inputs and outputs in a
particular set time. This doesn't mean merely having a fast CPU and
memory, this means that an interrupt to the system is handled within a
known and specified time period with no overage.

Without a hard real-time response, the flight model cannot be
accurately portrayed at all times. QED

Doug

--
For UNIX, Linux and security articles
visit http://SecurityBulletins.com/

"Roger" wrote

As to age: After retiring, Joyce got me started in figure skating. I
picked up most of the moves far faster than all but two of the kids in
the classes. It took me about a year to learn to do a good scratch
spin that was fast, prolonged and controllable.

FIGURE SKATING?

You doing a good scratch spin is something I might pay money to see! g

Not that I have anything against guys skating, or anything, but I just can't
imagine you skating. Sorry! g
--
Jim in NC