Why don't voice radio communications use FM?

Dave Stadt writes:

Thanks for providing that information. Guess I'll sell the airplane and go
play with my simulator.

It's a personal choice, and a matter of economics. If you have lots
of money and time, being a real pilot becomes more practical, if that
interests you.

Believe what you want but MSFS is a toy and nothing more.

Believe what you want, but MSFS is a simulator.

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

RK Henry writes:

No, you can't. Feeling the movement is entirely the point.

That's a matter of individual preference. For instrument flight,
feeling the movement is not only unnecessary, but potentially
hazardous, if it distracts attention from what the instruments are
saying.

If you could fly the airplane by reference to the instruments
without feeling movement, then instrument training would be easy.

It is.

But it doesn't work like that in the real world. The airplane
inherently imparts accelerations that are inconsistent with the
indications of the instruments.

Which ones?

Part of the training process is learning to ignore the
sensations and trust the instruments.

That rather conflicts with the preceding statement, doesn't it? If
the instruments don't accurately indicate accelerations, why trust
them?

It can be very difficult for the untrained pilot to make this
mental adjustment in the seconds before making a crater in the
ground, which is why getting the training beforehand is so important.

Like I said, the idea is to trust the instruments.

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

"Grumman-581" writes:

No, real instrument flying is learning to believe what the instruments are
telling you even though your body is telling you something completely
different... I remember in one of my first instrument lessons (in actual
solid IMC) that even though I had the instruments perfectly centered for
straight and level flight, my butt was telling that I was in a turn... If I
had followed my feelings, I would have probably ended up in a descending
spiral...

The opposite can also happen. I have heard that people who have spent
years in simulation and then decide to go for a pilot's license tend
to spend too much time watching the instruments (although that depends
to some extent on what type of simulation they've been doing).

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

Roger (K8RI) writes:

Although the sim can do a very nice job of ... well... simulating an
IFR cross country and even approach there are a number of things
missing, part of which are psychological and part physical. I love
rolling into a steep turn and feeling 2Gs pulling me down.

I can understand that, but I usually hate strong physical sensations,
so it probably would not please me at all. I stay off
roller-coasters, for example.

I love doing a loop (not in the Deb) while maintaining positive G forces all
the way around. It's almost as if the earth makes a loop around me.

That is definitely not on my list of desired experiences--although
I've done it in simulation (while watching from a safe distance).

I have a great respect for the airplane, the weather, ATC, and a
certain amount of unpredictability in all. I've had ATC give me a
vector for traffic avoidance and then forget me. I've had them clear
me for a circle to land right in front of departing traffic, and I've
had them tell me to follow the plane ahead when I couldn't see the
wingtips on the Deb. I've also flown directly over automated stations
reporting clear and I was in solid IMC.

That's another reason why I don't feel a need for real-world flight.
Too much room for human error (besides my own).

It's difficult to describe the feeling of breaking out of the clouds
just above MDA in rain to find the runway right where the instruments
said it would be after a long cross country.

That much can be largely simulated, and I like that experience.
Sometimes I fly for hours in zero visibility, just to see if the
instruments can be trusted, and they always can. If I'm not where I
expect, I did something wrong.

Of course, my life is not at stake in a simulator, but I don't need
that kind of risk to make the experience enjoyable.

The knowledge that if
the runway isn't visible at the MAP I will have to "go around" and
either try again, or go to some other airport is a part of the
challenge I find exhilarating.

Which is good, because you cannot simply stop the simulation if you
are landing for real. Even if you are tired or frustrated or not
feeling well.

Also IRL (for those who don't sim that is sim language for "In real
life") ATC makes mistakes, pilots make mistakes and it's up to you to
maintain situational awareness. You have to know if what ATC just told
you is correct, or what you just told ATC is going to tell them what
they want and need to know.

ATC makes mistakes in simulation, but it's a bug in the software, not
a simulation of the real world, so you have to try to ignore it. It
seems like every other aircraft is told to "go around" in MSFS, but I
doubt that ATC would be that careless in real life.

I love flying VFR on clear days when it seems you can see forever, but
those days are rare here in the central Great Lakes. One of the most
beautiful trips I ever took was IFR where I ended up between layers.
It looked like a scene out of a sci-fi movie with the clouds above and
below tied together with randomly spaced columns of cloud, Then there
were the random small clouds floating around while the whole scene was
lit with a fluorescent green light.

Some scenes are interesting to see. Recent versions of simulators
have become very good at producing convincing skies and weather. In
some cases, the sim sky can easily be mistaken for the real thing.
The same cannot be said of ground detail, which is manifestly computer
generated on close examination (photo realism is possible but
expensive, and it's not really necessary for most sim applications).

I guess the easiest way to sum it up: I like siming, but I love flying
IRL.

You must be independently wealthy and retired if you can actually
afford to fly in real life. And even then, it's unlikely that you
have your own 737 that you can fly around whenever you're in the mood.

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

Larry Dighera writes:

If you want to fly military aircraft, you're out of luck
unless you started at age 20 and ...

Not really ...

I was thinking mainly of state-of-the-art fighters and bombers, or
other expensive and sensitive aircraft.

I've been told by several military pilots that they really like
trainers, though, and would choose those for their personal aircraft
if they could.

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

B A R R Y writes:

Explain how you can tell the difference on the telephone.

The telephone is often better than 4 kHz, and you can also infer from
surrounding sounds; sick is a word, but fick is not. If it's only 4
kHz, there are some sounds that you won't hear, period.

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

Mxsmanic,

If you could fly the airplane by reference to the instruments
without feeling movement, then instrument training would be easy.

It is.


Listen. For the past week or so people have constantly tried to tell
you that you might want to be more careful talking about things you
have no clue about. Why don't you take a hint?

How dare you judge how difficult instrument training is right after
having explained that you have never flown?

You must be truly dense.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Mxsmanic,

It's also the most frustrating. Hours to get to the airport, hours to
get past the paranoia of incompetent security staff, another hour to
get aboard, another hour waiting to leave the gate, a short period in
the air with tons of traffic all around, above, and below you, and
then another couple of hours at the other end.

Coudln't agree less. If, after that "short period in the air", I arrive
6000 miles from where I usually live, the exitment is all worth it. But
I take it you're not much into real life.

All of this is avoided in simulation. You start the engines and go.
When you are done, you stop.

What's simulation got to do with flying?

Do you drive?

Not if I can avoid it.

Well, what can I say. You live a weird life.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Mxsmanic,

You must be independently wealthy and retired if you can actually
afford to fly in real life.


That's just more bull****. Try visiting your local airport and have a
look around.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 00:37:41 GMT, Jose
wrote:

What ever happened to the old distinction that was made between
Gliders and Sail planes?

What is the distinction?

Way back and it may have been just here in the states, but gliders
were un powered planes that were towed behind others and then cut
loose to "glide" back to earth as in the troop gliders at Normandy.

Sail planes on the other hand had the ability to "sail" in the air.
They, like sail boats could turn on a dime, and use the wind and
updrafts to their advantage.

IOW sail planes could make use of thermals, and ridge currents to stay
aloft for a long time while gliders could not.,

Some times I still see the distinction made even in news reports, but
to most people sail planes are just gliders. I think it has been a
good 20 to 30 years since that distinction was commonly used. It was
pretty common when I started flying, but that was in 63.




Jose
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com