My wife getting scared

With a little research you'll find otherwise qualified pilots use sims
before flying a different type aircraft. I seem to remember some
airlines allow ATRs to learn about a new type on a sim then fly as
first officer. This is a far cry from taking someone with zero time,
however, and offering them any level of control of an airplane.

These sims are elaborate, have operators outside to control the
experience, and cost many happy meals an hour to run.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
BDS writes:

Well, besides idling which you mentioned, what other ways were you
speaking
of?

I don't know. However, I don't exclude possibilities just because I'm not
aware of them.

Of course it is, but how does this have a negative affect on the
simulation
of an engine out?

It's unrealistic.

OK, so does that mean you still consider a sim to be ideal for
practicing
engine outs regardless of whether it is full motion or not?

There's an ideal sim for any purpose, but no sim is ideal for every
purpose.

So, in other words, when you make such wide and sweeping pronouncements like
you so often do and did again in this case, you really don't know what
you're talking about, eh?

BDS

We have learned, with respect to Mx, that some dogs like to be kicked.

Tina wrote:
We have learned, with respect to Mx, that some dogs like to be kicked.

Interesting also to me as a VERY amateur Psychologist (Flight Instructor
you know :-) is the fact that even though a forum like this one can be
totally aware that it's being "had", the threads involving this person
and those like him are some of the longest if not THE longest threads to
be found on said forums.
I find this truly a fascinating aspect of Usenet.

--
Dudley Henriques

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

BDS writes:

"or something"?

I presume there are multiple ways to simulate engine failure,
depending on how much realism one is prepared to sacrifice.

How is it different?

The engine hasn't actually failed, and in particular an idling engine
is very different from a stopped engine.


How ouwl dyou know fjukkwit?

You have never done it.

Ever.



Why does this require a full-motion sim?

It doesn't, but many people here believe that anything that isn't
moving isn't realistic.


Lessee, that would be you and..

that's pretty much it..


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

BDS writes:

Well, besides idling which you mentioned, what other ways were you
speaking of?

I don't know. However, I don't exclude possibilities just because I'm
not aware of them.




Bwawhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhhahwhahwhahhwha hwhhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwh
ahwhahhwhahhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhah whahwhahwh!

Uou're ON today!

Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Shirl writes:

Mxsmanic wrote:
What is the difference in danger level?

You're kidding, right?

No, I'm calling your bluff, successfully.


No, you aren't.



The subject had nothing to do with airliners, so I'm not even going
to go there.

See above.

To clarify, we are talking specifically about simulated engine
failure practice, not other types of emergencies.

My comments still apply.


No, they don't.



But yes, it absolutely IS true that what is second nature *on the
ground* may be different in flight.

Not for someone who knows how to use a simulator correctly.

Which certainly wouldn't be you.

In any case it's stil incorrect.


Part of a successful simulation is in the mind of the pilot.



No it isn't, but given the state of your mind I can see how you might
think this.






Stating your opinions as fact don't make them
any more valid than anyone else's.

The same is true for you, only I don't depend on attacks on your
personality to support my arguments.


You don't have arguments.

You have bull****, period.


Bertie

wrote in news:1192103436.206133.45630@
57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:

With a little research you'll find otherwise qualified pilots use sims
before flying a different type aircraft. I seem to remember some
airlines allow ATRs to learn about a new type on a sim then fly as
first officer. This is a far cry from taking someone with zero time,
however, and offering them any level of control of an airplane.

These sims are elaborate, have operators outside to control the
experience, and cost many happy meals an hour to run.






And they are still only toys tha ape flight.


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote:
I'm talking about all pilots. I cannot speak for you.

There are a lot of things and people you can't speak for,
but you do anyway.

wrote:
With a little research you'll find otherwise qualified pilots use sims
before flying a different type aircraft. I seem to remember some
airlines allow ATRs to learn about a new type on a sim then fly as
first officer. This is a far cry from taking someone with zero time,
however, and offering them any level of control of an airplane.

These sims are elaborate, have operators outside to control the
experience, and cost many happy meals an hour to run.

All true, but again, we weren't talking about airline pilots...we were
discussing how often GA pilots practice simulated engine failures
between BFRs, which then drifted to whether sim engine failure practice
is more/less like "the real thing" than in-flight simulated engine
failure practice. I was referring to single-engine aircraft (though I
don't think I specified that anywhere).