Sad day for Mxsmanic

"-b-" wrote in message

What "simmers" do or don't know is highly variable, and finally of little
consequence compared to pilots, whose testosterone-driven judgement has
been
implicated in a large number of accidents, which could have been avoided.

MX, put your sock back on....

sheesh....plonk
--
Jim in NC

In article , #$$9#@%%%.^^^ says...



"-b-" wrote in message
...
In article ,

says...



"-b-" wrote
Yours is the very definition of an out of context post.
MX has made it clear that he is not interested in the FAA's definition
of
a
simulator or fligght training device, but focuses on its
functionalities.
Collins cites functionalities to circumscribe the usefulness of these
devices,
and you comme back to FAA definitions!! Let's call in Kafka to clarify!!


You must be new here.



From what I'm seeing, I take that as a compliment.


From what we are seeing, that's not what was intended.



Intentions may be obscure, arguments explicit. The latter being weak.

In article , #$$9#@%%%.^^^ says...



"-b-" wrote in message
...
In article , #$$9#@%%%.^^^ says...



"-b-" wrote in message
...
In article ,

says...



"-b-" wrote
Yours is the very definition of an out of context post.
MX has made it clear that he is not interested in the FAA's definition
of
a
simulator or fligght training device, but focuses on its
functionalities.
Collins cites functionalities to circumscribe the usefulness of these
devices,
and you comme back to FAA definitions!! Let's call in Kafka to
clarify!!


You must be new here.



From what I'm seeing, I take that as a compliment.


From what we are seeing, that's not what was intended.



Intentions may be obscure, arguments explicit. The latter being
weak......an you extremely stupid.

Intentions become more explicit, arguments weaker.

In article , #$$9#@%%%.^^^ says...



"-b-" wrote in message
...
In article , #$$9#@%%%.^^^ says...



"-b-" wrote in message
.. .
In article , #$$9#@%%%.^^^ says...



"-b-" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,

says...



"-b-" wrote
Yours is the very definition of an out of context post.
MX has made it clear that he is not interested in the FAA's
definition
of
a
simulator or fligght training device, but focuses on its
functionalities.
Collins cites functionalities to circumscribe the usefulness of
these
devices,
and you comme back to FAA definitions!! Let's call in Kafka to
clarify!!


You must be new here.



From what I'm seeing, I take that as a compliment.


From what we are seeing, that's not what was intended.



Intentions may be obscure, arguments explicit. The latter being
weak......an you extremely stupid.

Intentions become more explicit, arguments weaker.

Geez,,,,,you're almost as astute as Mixie himself. You simmers are all
alike.



Simulation is not the question here, but your own inability to grasp the
subjet at hand is most disconcerting, and would certainly not be conducive
to safe piloting skills.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really, and how was your landing?

I wasn't allowed to land on my first lesson and I would doubt anyone
is but I'm sure your hoping to compare my first lesson to how I, or a
complete novice with zero aircraft experience, would land a commercial
airliner. Landing a small Cessna 152 (with NO AUTOPILOT) requires
manual control of pitch and throttle to retain the required descent
rate and localiser following. Landing an airliner can all be done via
the Autoland system with the press of a few buttons. It doesn't have
to be done manually, you do NOT have to control the yoke or touch the
thrust levers until on the ground. MOST real life landings are done
with this method with the pilot perhaps only disconnecting the
autopilot and autothrottle systems a few hundred feet above ground
level when the aircraft is already established and configured for the
descent path i.e. descent rate, airspeed and lateral position. His
hands will of course remain on the control column and thrust levels in
case he needs to press the TOGA button on the thrust lever in case of
a Go-Around etc.

If a novice or even a PPL pilot had to hand fly an airliner and land
it yes it would more than likely result in disaster but less likely
with the highly technical automation systems available today in the
Next Generation Boeings.

Ibby

In article , #$$9#@%%%.^^^ says...



"-b-" wrote in message
...

Simulation is not the question here, but your own inability to grasp the
subjet at hand is most disconcerting, and would certainly not be conducive
to safe piloting skills.


Like a simmer would know.



What "simmers" do or don't know is highly variable, and finally of little
consequence compared to pilots, whose testosterone-driven judgement has been
implicated in a large number of accidents, which could have been avoided.

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 09:35:37 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Just go look it up! writes:

Which instantly and reinforces the fact that you know *nothing*
because even the PMDG and LDS simulations all include the automatic
disconnect which happens when enough force is excerted on the control
column, a-la what would happen when the pilots keel over on it, or
grab it to execute a TCAS commanded evasive manuver (obviously in
addition to the AP disco button).

What makes you believe that an incapacitated pilot would hit the yoke with
enough force to disengage the autopilot? "Airplane" is a Hollywood work of
fiction, not real life.

Because unlike you I've been there and know it only takes 15-20lb of
pressure to disconnect the autopilot? The postulated scenario is well
within reason that the system would have disconnected, "Airplane" or
not.

Hell, the theroy is that Eastern Airlines flight 401 crashed because
the Captain bumped the yoke while just turning to talk to the copilot
and didn't know he had changed modes. It happened.

You don't even understand the basics of the systems that you
supposedly simulate "just like real life" and come here and try and
tell real pilots who use this stuff day in and day out that you know
more than them, because playing MSFS is a suitable substitute for real
world experience and knoweldge? I knew it was a mistake to put an
expiration date on your entry in my killfile.

Time to reveal an amazing secret! You have been the unwitting first subject
of the all-new MX-SIM 1.0! That's right - It's easy to be MX! You too can be
MX!

Here's a hint for starters : Discard all thread orientation - this is direct
action! Favor form over content. Respond word-to-word, without respect to
context. Throw in a few three-dollar words to remain aloof. Insinuate
generously and insult directly where needed ("unsafe pilot" remarks serve as
slaps in the face - use them generously). Use PC to feign contact with the
real world (male, testosterone, emotions over intellect ) Use copy and paste
functions to invoke these facile expressions repeatedly - (Function keys in
MX-SIM 1.0 invoke these stock phrases automatically). Above all, remain aloof
- the real subject of the discussion is secondary, even inconsequential.
Deriding and insulting other contributors is the only objective.

International Secret technique revealed!!
This intellectually advanced tactic is derived from the French "Orpheus"
theater piece by Jean Anouillh : "It's easy to appear sophisticated. You just
have to think of nothing. This is within the grasp of every woman . . ."

"Every woman", that was in 1945 - today it can be YOU! The tactic is
precisely to think of nothing! Insulting the adversary, on the basis of the
syntax of the preceding post, is the only objective. This is certain to drive
any well-meaning contributor up the wall, because they would like to advance
toward an understanding, a conclusion or a dialog, but with the patented MXS
technique all of these are non-starters. Use their natural good intentions
against them! Take advantage of their desire to offer helpful dialog and
information to insult and deride them. Frustrate their attempts to foster
dialog by responding only to specific syntactic phrases. These are only a few
of the techniques you will learn in the all-new MX-SIM 1.0 package!

This simple "Amway" technique has proven so successful that usenet
contributors the world over believe that its users have intellectual
resources far above their actual capacity! That's right! You don't need any
brain at all to be MX! You too can say anything you want, directly contradict
what you said the very same day making it look as though it was someone else
who was inconsistent. Imagine the satisfaction of insulting world renowned
experts in any field - things you know nothing about - and leaving them
stupefied, dumbfounded by your gratuitous insults! This result can be yours
with the new MX-SIM 1.0 package!!

I'm so convinced of the effectiveness of this new package that I'm going to
offer you another free tip! Avoid any sense of compassion or empathy! These
defects will weaken your argument. The original MXS was an extreme Asperger's
Syndrome sufferer - a mental disease in which empathy becomes completely
impossible and which, as a result, drastically alters human interactions.
Well guess what - that total lack of emotional empathy is often misconstrued
by well-meaning victims as intellectual superiority! You can actually make
people think you are hundreds of times smarter than you really are, simply by
making it clear that you don't give a s*** about them or anyone else, and
simply focusing on words!!

But I've given enough away - Now it's up to you. To benefit form a COMPLETELY
FREE SPECIAL FIRST EDITION OFFER of MXS-SIM 1.0, send $100 to :

THE MENTAL HEALTH FOUNDATION
P.O. BOX 322
ALBANY, N.Y. 12201


Proceeds will go toward therapy for MXSMANIC, and it's going to take a lot!!






In article ,
says...



"-b-" wrote in message

What "simmers" do or don't know is highly variable, and finally of little
consequence compared to pilots, whose testosterone-driven judgement has
been
implicated in a large number of accidents, which could have been avoided.

MX, put your sock back on....

sheesh....plonk


--
Jim in NC

Just go look it up! writes:

Because unlike you I've been there and know it only takes 15-20lb of
pressure to disconnect the autopilot?

Why would incapacitated pilots be exerting pressure on the yoke?

You don't even understand the basics of the systems that you
supposedly simulate "just like real life" and come here and try and
tell real pilots who use this stuff day in and day out ...

Virtually nobody here uses this stuff day in and day out. Most of the pilots
here are low-time private pilots, although they might fancy themselves
captains of the sky.

... that you know more than them, because playing MSFS is a suitable
substitute for real world experience and knoweldge?

When it comes to airliner systems, it's a lot more informative than the
baseless speculation I'm seeing from tin-toy pilots here. And I add research
to that, which apparently is also a very rare practice among many posters
here.

You don't learn these systems by trial and error in the aircraft.

Hell, the theroy is that Eastern Airlines flight 401 crashed because
the Captain bumped the yoke while just turning to talk to the copilot
and didn't know he had changed modes. *It happened.


I cannot see how you wouldn't know the autopilot has been disconnected
as there is a very loud audible warning when this occurs as well as a
warning master switch above the PFD that the pilot cannot miss on
737/747 aircraft and I'm sure Airbus have it too

Ibby