This should settle it!

On 2007-04-16 08:43:33 -0700, "Mark T. Dame" said:

Mxsmanic wrote:
Mark T. Dame writes:

Note, however, we are talking about real simulators and flight training
devices (or at worst PCATDs, which have even more restrictions), not
games like MS Flight Simulator.

You do yourself a disservice by underestimating "games" like MSFS. It's a bad
attitude for a pilot to have--one of the danger signs.

Interesting. I'm a dangerous pilot because I don't think Microsoft
Flight Simulator has much value in real world pilot training. By that
logic, I should be able to race a Formula One race car because I've
played Grand Turismo... Or maybe I can be an astronaut because I used
to be really good at Lunar Lander. They're both based on real physics
and real vehicle performance just like MSFS, so they must be good
training devices...

That fact is that your insistence that MSFS is a more valuable training
aid than it really is makes me glad that you aren't flying a real plane.

(Dammit, I'm feeding the trolls again. Somebody smack me.)


-m

SMACK!

(Still, I want to see where AC 60-22 - Aeronautical Decision Making -
even mentions Microsoft Flight Simulator, let alone the part where it
says that refusing to use it is one of the hazardous attitudes.)
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

TheSmokingGnu wrote:
Mark T. Dame wrote:
(Dammit, I'm feeding the trolls again. Somebody smack me.)

*Smack!*

Thanks. I needed that.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame
## CP-ASEL, AGI
## insert tail number here
## KHAO, KISZ
"One of the best ways to measure people is to watch the way they
behave when something free is offered."
-- Ann Landers

C J Campbell wrote:

(Still, I want to see where AC 60-22 - Aeronautical Decision Making -
even mentions Microsoft Flight Simulator, let alone the part where it
says that refusing to use it is one of the hazardous attitudes.)

It must be under Antiauthority. But what do I know. I'm not a
Certified MSFS Pilot.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame
## CP-ASEL, AGI
## insert tail number here
## KHAO, KISZ
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I
didn't know."
-- Mark Twain

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

muff528 wrote:

"Oz Lander" wrote in message
...
http://overtheairwaves.com/

I refer to the first article on this page.

--
Oz Lander.
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong.


From the article-
"Fortunately for the good guys, FAR 61.65(e) limits the use of flight
simulators to 10 or 20 out of the required 40 hours required for the
instrument rating. This means that the instrument student must actually fly
a real airplane for a minimum of 20 to 30 hours in either simulated or
actual instrument conditions."

Now, I'm not a pilot (real or imagined) but I'm surprised that ANY simulator
time is credited toward the actual "40 hours required for the instrument
rating".

I would think that the simulator would be a good tool to acclimate the
student to the environment prior to making the requisite 40 hours of

actual flight time but not to replace flying time. (Is simulator time
credited hour-for-hour?)

I would like to point out that (and most pilots here already
know this) X-Plane has been approved by the FAA for training towards
an Airline Transport certificate, when used in a full motion simulator.

Not MSFS. X-Plane.

Details about this are at http://www.x-plane.com/FTD.html .

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGI7BMyBkZmuMZ8L8RAv07AJ9CWBLcSEcAcb4iEcqI3k ExfeUYTACgjrVj
h0hf4Jre3/lwnzealXbYJPs=
=jqLg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
Just as simulation have a role, so do view limiting devices. But there's
nothing that's a *perfect* simulation for flying in IMC. That really
needs to be part of IFR training.

I read a book a few years back titled "Weekend Pilot". Some guy bought a
Cessna 120 or 140 (don't remember which) and took lessons in it. I believe
this was during the 1950's or 1960's.

When he described the instrument training, he said the instructor covered
the inside of the cockpit with orange cellophane, and had the student wear
blue glasses (it may have been blue cellophane and orange glasses) .
According to the author, this effectively blinded him to the outside world,
while allowing him to still see the instruments.

It sounded like a workable situation. Has anyone ever heard of this actually
being done? And, if so, why isn't it done now?

When he described the instrument training, he said the instructor covered
the inside of the cockpit with orange cellophane, and had the student wear
blue glasses (it may have been blue cellophane and orange glasses) .
According to the author, this effectively blinded him to the outside world,
while allowing him to still see the instruments.

It sounded like a workable situation. Has anyone ever heard of this actually
being done? And, if so, why isn't it done now?

I have heard of this as an air force technique. It may be effective,
but it seems to be a pain in the neck to actually accomplish, and it
does reduce (somewhat) the view for the safety pilot.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I would like to point out that (and most pilots here already
know this) X-Plane has been approved by the FAA for training towards
an Airline Transport certificate, when used in a full motion simulator.

Not MSFS. X-Plane.

Details about this are at http://www.x-plane.com/FTD.html .

You know it's bad when you have to correct yourself!

Not only is it for the Airline Transport Certificate, but also
for an Instrument Rating, and Commercial Certificate. Additionally, not
only has the FAA approved this but Transport-Canada has as well.

Details about this are at the above link as well.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGI8BPyBkZmuMZ8L8RAsa0AJ4t3v4Q40tzPIoJUQYbOM xF0+NgrQCfckt7
CvxVi2kas9GthhPI+wJz8bo=
=tV+k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Mxsmanic,

My attitude won't get me killed.


That remains to be seen. Your life isn't too thrilling as it is, as you
repeat again and again in your blog. And the cause - surprise - may
well be your attitude.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:50:19 +0000, Steve Foley wrote:

It sounded like a workable situation.

Since I've never found a perfectly comfortable view-limiting device, I do
like the idea at least conceptually. Since I fly w/o anti-icing, it's
tough to maintain currency during the period of the year when the icing
level is below the runway w/o sticking something over my face. And I
don't especially like that.

But I don't see that this does anything to improve the realism of these
devices with regard to those illusions or visual efforts I mentioned
earlier. Am I missing this?

- Andrew

On Apr 16, 12:15 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
My attitude won't get me killed.


You assume that spending every waking hour on your simulator game, or
on usenet, is risk free...

Let me suggest it isn't, if you consider your BMI and triglicerides
level...