On Simulators as assist to IFR training.

On Mar 4, 4:09*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Paul H writes:
The one thing you don't get is comm experience - there is a Comm DVD
that's available through Sporty's to practice various types of ATC
communication, and I recommend it.

You can get superlative comm experience by joining VATSIM or IVAO, which
allows you to simulate flights with real people providing ATC by voice that
corresponds precisely to the real thing.

As a matter of general interest, there are a number of sites that
offer real links to real time ATC communications. If a novice wants
experience, he or she can listen in, assume the identity of an
aircraft, and practice keeping up with instructions issued to it. That
is real, not sim.

Clark writes:

There are never any problems with radios and audio systems, everything is
always crystal clear and all requests and instructions are perfectly
understood. Riiiight! Okey dokey. Have fun in your dream world.

Real-world ratios are clearer than simulated radios, most of the time.

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

There are never any problems with radios and audio systems, everything is
always crystal clear and all requests and instructions are perfectly
understood. Riiiight! Okey dokey. Have fun in your dream world.

Real-world ratios are clearer than simulated radios, most of the time.

Oh yeah, we all know that's correct.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Clark writes:

There are never any problems with radios and audio systems, everything is
always crystal clear and all requests and instructions are perfectly
understood. Riiiight! Okey dokey. Have fun in your dream world.

Real-world ratios are clearer than simulated radios, most of the time.

And you know this because of your extensive time in real airplanes?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Clark writes:

There are never any problems with radios and audio systems, everything is
always crystal clear and all requests and instructions are perfectly
understood. Riiiight! Okey dokey. Have fun in your dream world.

Real-world ratios are clearer than simulated radios, most of the time.

Really? Why would simulated radios use such terrible technology?

I've never used VATSIM or anything of the sort, but I've used many VoIP
technologies such as Skype, TeamSpeak, and others. They *all* have much
better quality that any aircraft radio I've used. Simply understanding
what the other guy said more than 50% of the time takes some practice
and attention with a typical aircraft radio, at least in my experience.

Why do VATSIM and the other ATC simulators use such bad technology? Are
they trying to simulate the poor quality of aircraft radios and
overshooting?

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

On Mar 6, 5:24*pm, Mike Ash wrote:
In article ,

*Mxsmanic wrote:
Clark writes:

There are never any problems with radios and audio systems, everything is
always crystal clear and all requests and instructions are perfectly
understood. Riiiight! Okey dokey. Have fun in your dream world.

Real-world ratios are clearer than simulated radios, most of the time.

Really? Why would simulated radios use such terrible technology?

I've never used VATSIM or anything of the sort, but I've used many VoIP
technologies such as Skype, TeamSpeak, and others. They *all* have much
better quality that any aircraft radio I've used. Simply understanding
what the other guy said more than 50% of the time takes some practice
and attention with a typical aircraft radio, at least in my experience.

Why do VATSIM and the other ATC simulators use such bad technology? Are
they trying to simulate the poor quality of aircraft radios and
overshooting?

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

It would be amusing to have MX copy a real clearance, wouldn't it?
Maybe not from JFK but a smaller airport. Want to bet there would be
several "say again's", followed by the delivery guy saying something
like "read my lips".

Of course in rebuttal MX would say something either about the quality
of the radio, or of the guy giving the clearance. FWIW, I do wonder if
bad audio quality is required in aviation radios?

In article
,
a wrote:

It would be amusing to have MX copy a real clearance, wouldn't it?
Maybe not from JFK but a smaller airport. Want to bet there would be
several "say again's", followed by the delivery guy saying something
like "read my lips".

I'm sure it would be amusing. However, it would also probably be amusing
to make me do it, too. Excluding some training I did at a towered
airport many years ago, and which is now all forgotten, I think I've
talked to ATC exactly once in my flying career. As a glider pilot, there
just isn't any call for it. My radio experience would probably help
somewhat, but we're not exactly copying clearances on the local CTAF!

Of course in rebuttal MX would say something either about the quality
of the radio, or of the guy giving the clearance. FWIW, I do wonder if
bad audio quality is required in aviation radios?

My guess is that it's just limited by the technology. Air-band radios
use AM with not a whole lot of power output, and I imagine that's
limiting. If we could start from scratch with a nice modern digital
protocol I imagine it would be a lot better. But as with many things,
legacy rules. It doesn't help any that the aircraft radio market is
miniscule, so we don't get to benefit from economies of scale the way,
say, the cell phone market does.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

writes:

And you know this because of your extensive time in real airplanes?

I know in from listening to both real radios and simulated radios. Sitting in
an airplane doesn't have any magic effect on their quality.

Mike Ash writes:

Really? Why would simulated radios use such terrible technology?

Well, for one thing, they simulate VHF reception, dropping a lot of audio
bandwidth in the process. But they also suffer from poor microphones, network
delays, and so on. So the audio quality can be pretty bad sometimes, just as
in real life. In simulation, it's VoIP, which has sources of problems that
are different from radios, but often with comparable audio effects.

Most of the time, the quality of both is very similar, which works out well,
since it's supposed to be a simulation of real life.

I've never used VATSIM or anything of the sort, but I've used many VoIP
technologies such as Skype, TeamSpeak, and others. They *all* have much
better quality that any aircraft radio I've used. Simply understanding
what the other guy said more than 50% of the time takes some practice
and attention with a typical aircraft radio, at least in my experience.

Maybe you've only used crummy radios.

Why do VATSIM and the other ATC simulators use such bad technology? Are
they trying to simulate the poor quality of aircraft radios and
overshooting?

Sometimes, yes, but VoIP has its own limitations. You can turn off the VHF
simulation, but then it sounds a lot more like something you'd hear from a CD
or an FM radio station, which isn't necessarily realistic compared to an
aviation radio.

a writes:

It would be amusing to have MX copy a real clearance, wouldn't it?

I do it all the time, and it's easy once you're used to it.

Maybe not from JFK but a smaller airport. Want to bet there would be
several "say again's", followed by the delivery guy saying something
like "read my lips".

It would actually be something like "Readback is correct."

Of course, many private pilots cannot copy a clearance correctly, if they
aren't already used to doing so.