MS Flight Sim

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:




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.



I use Netscape as my news reader. Do you know how to kill a pest on
that platform?

I don't have a clue.

Sam Spade wrote:
I use Netscape as my news reader. Do you know how to kill a pest on
that platform?

I don't have a clue.


No idea. I know how to filter with my software but have no clue with Netscape
either. Surely there's a way.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

On Mar 1, 9:53 am, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com
wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:
I use Netscape as my news reader. Do you know how to kill a pest on
that platform?

Which client? I have an older version of Communicator that bundles
Netscape's Mail and News clients, running on a Unix box. Haven't used
it in years, but can check if needed.

I don't have a clue.

No idea. I know how to filter with my software but have no clue with Netscape
either. Surely there's a way.

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

If you're using Thunderbird, you can 'kill' a thread, but that might
be overkill. Filtering is straightforward:

Select message from plonkee-to-be
Message - Create Filter from Message

Then it just becomes an issue of managing those that continue to feed
the obsession by replying, e.g. deciding which of those must be
plonked.

HTH...

Regards,
Jon

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.

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 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.


Not even close. MSFS is a marginally useful training tool. I use it
sometimes to practice an approach. But to say that it is flying defies
credibility.

As for your endorsement of the rec.aviation.* favorite troll, I could
not care less. I haven't read a post by him months. It makes for a
better experience.

KC

"Kevin Clarke" wrote in message news:T3BFh.7673
MSFS is a marginally useful training tool. I use it sometimes to practice
an approach. But to say that it is flying defies credibility.


I offered the following definition of "flying" in my previous post:

"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."

What's your definition?

Dennis

Dennis Johnson wrote:

I offered the following definition of "flying" in my previous post:

"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."

What's your definition?

Dennis



I've never given this much thought. I have been through stages of this
stuff in my long career:

1. F-100 fligher simulator, without motion. The Air Force indeed called
it a simulator because the cockpit was a real F-100, aerodynamics, etc,
but there was no visual nor any way to really to takeoffs or landings.
(I was not a USAF pilot, rather an elisted guy who had a lot of access
to the simulator; i.e. simulator technican with private pilot's license).

2. Air Force C-11, similar to a T-33 with ILS, DME Zero Reader, etc.
Great navigation and flight procedures trainer. No autopilot so it had
to be hand-flown.

3. "Demo" or some such name, no motion, large single-engine trainer.
Sort of like a Beaver. Can't remember the name of the bird but the
pilot-rated desk jockys flew it 4 hours a month to maintain flight pay.

4. Classic Link C-3.

5. Went with the airline when they had non-motion simulators, which were
approved for only a portion of Part 121 training. The nitty-gritty had
to be done in the actual airplane.

6. Then, Level D simulators with full motion, approved visual, and were
used for all training, including rating ride. Also, for all proficiency
checks, etc.

7. Retired and have taken several ICCs in ATDs, which I found very
effective for that purpose.

Of all these, what came to the closest to flying to me? The Level D
flight simulators, no question about it. But, even they lack a lot of
what really happens in the real world of flying the actual aircraft they
simulate.

"Dennis Johnson" wrote in message
. ..

"Kevin Clarke" wrote in message news:T3BFh.7673
MSFS is a marginally useful training tool. I use it sometimes to practice
an approach. But to say that it is flying defies credibility.


I offered the following definition of "flying" in my previous post:

"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."

What's your definition?

Dennis

Uh, actually being airborne.

Allen writes:

Uh, actually being airborne.

So a balloon would count?

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Allen writes:


Uh, actually being airborne.


So a balloon would count?

Duh. Can you not parse "airborne". You should try balloon simulation,
Anthony. Given your inexhaustable supply of hot air, you should be a
natural.

Dennis Johnson wrote:
"Kevin Clarke" wrote in message news:T3BFh.7673
MSFS is a marginally useful training tool. I use it sometimes to practice
an approach. But to say that it is flying defies credibility.


I offered the following definition of "flying" in my previous post:

"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."

What's your definition?
You have to be in the air at the very least. Not sitting in front of a
TV with a bag of cheetohs.

KC


Dennis