Why don't voice radio communications use FM?

Emily writes:

Have you ever been in a full size, full motion, transport catergory
aircraft simulator?

Too expensive, and it also requires freedoms that have now been taken
away.

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

Emily writes:

Oh, can't afford $150 for an hour of flight time?

No.

Please. Your toy simulator and computer cost way more than that.

The simulator cost about $39. The computer cost more, but it serves
many purposes besides flight simulation, which is strictly a
leisure-time activity (even if it is among my favorites).

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

Grumman-581 writes:

It has it's place, but it's not the real thing... I would have to admit
though, learning how to fly a real plane made me a lot better on
MSFS...

Conversely, MSFS can also make you better at flying a real plane,
although pilots are often strangely reluctant to admit this.

Perhaps MSFS could get you a bit familiar with instrument
procedures and as such save a bit of actual aircraft time, but you
still need actual flight time with an instructor to be able to be
competent in actual instrument flight...

Perhaps, but I don't plan to fly an actual plane. I'd prefer a
full-motion simulator if given the choice. Simulators don't crash.

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

Roger (K8RI) writes:

You get sick and fly the airplane.

That's what I feared. With a simulator, I stop the sim and lie down
(although sim flight hasn't made me sick so far).

After about 15 minutes the nausea went away to be replaced by the most
GAWD AFFUL head ache I can remember. An hour and 8 minutes after
entering the crap we popped out the side of a bigggg cumulus with
nothing but clear sky ahead. I turned around and looked up, and up,
and up, then scrunched down in the seat so I could look up even
farther. My remark: "We just came out of that!" Instructor's bored
sounding remark: "Sorta looks that way."

See above. If I don't like the weather on a sim, I change it. In
heavy turbulence things bounce around a lot, but of course I can't
feel it.

I think they were all on the one flight I took. :-)) It was the 6:30
AM flight out of Denver for Cleveland (737). We hit the jet stream
interface right after breakfast. There were only a couple of empty
seats. Seams like it was only one and all but about 10 of us got sick.

Ick.

As a pilot you aren't even allowed to take Dramamine. Which after
flying home from Marysville KS my wife marked "That Dramamine is
wonderful stuff!".

It would have to be a drug that doesn't influence cerebration.
Unfortunately, there are no anti-nausea drugs in this category that I
know of.

Which reminds me ... are you allowed to take stuff for headaches when
you fly? I get migraines and I always have OTC stuff with me, mostly
acetaminophen and aspirin but some OTC remedies here contain small
amounts of codeine. Antihistamine sometimes works well but that would
be out of the question when flying because it makes one sleepy and
inattentive (analgesics don't generally do this).

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

Roger (K8RI) writes:

When I had ISDN and then DSL my Internet bill would have paid for a
lot more flying than that and in a high performance retract to boot!

How many hours? I can fly a sim whenever I'm free; I'd go broke
trying to fly a real aircraft for even a fraction of that time.

When I was in college studying CS at age 47 to 50 my phone bill was
close to $300 a month just so I could get my home work done and I
wasn't even on the Internet then although I used to get into the
boards at different colleges.

I still think that pales in comparison to flying. Around here getting
a private pilot's license costs around $16,000, and that's without
taking into account the time required or related expenses (such as the
need for a car).

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

Thomas Borchert writes:

You got a car?

No.

House?

No.

Air Condition?

A small portable one, about ten years old.

PC?

No. I don't own the PCs I use.

All require similar amounts of money.

A house for the price of a PC? Where can I find that?

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

Dave Stadt writes:

No, you are into MSFS which is a toy.

Then it should be good for simulating most small private planes, since
they are toys as well.

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

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 07:28:36 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

RK Henry writes:


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?

In one common exercise, referred to as Recovery from Unusual
Attitudes, the instructor, or eventually a FAA-designated pilot
examiner, will ask the hooded student to look down or conceal his
eyes. With the student unable to see what is going on, the instructor
will take the airplane through a series of maneuvers calculated to
disrupt the student's inner ear equilibrium. Once that has been
accomplished, the student is asked to look at the instruments and take
over control the airplane. Immediately, the student will notice that
the airplane's attitude is seriously out of whack. He has to recognize
what's wrong and fix it. The challenge is complicated by the fact that
the previous maneuvering has given rise to inner ear equilibrium
sensations that conflict with the instruments. He may level the wings
but still have a sensation that the airplane is continuing to roll. He
may bring the nose to the horizon but experience a sensation that the
airplane is continuing to pitch up or down.

It's a little like the game that kids play of sitting in an office
chair and spinning round and round until they're dizzy. Great fun when
you're a kid, not so much fun if the sensations trick you into taking
improper actions with the airplane. You just have to learn to ignore
the sensation through sheer mental willpower.

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?

The thing is, the instruments should be trusted over the sensations of
the inner ear, but they can't be trusted completely. Another facet of
instrument training is understanding the limitations of the
instruments. One example is precession errors. All gyroscopic
instruments exhibit this behavior to some extent. You may roll into an
intensive series of maneuvers and after rolling level may discover
that the attitude gyro no longer indicates "up." It's slightly tilted.
From the other instruments, you deduce that it's the AI that is wrong
and that the airplane is actually level. The AI will right itself
after a short time, but you have to understand the instrument in order
to not be tricked into following its incorrect indication in the
meantime. Similarly, most of us fly airplanes in which we have to
reset the directional gyro regularly to keep it in agreement with the
magnetic whiskey compass. Otherwise it eventually drifts off to
indicate some heading that has little basis in reality.

And then sometimes the instruments perversely decide to fail. During
instrument training, expect the instructor to pull out a piece of
paper, or a suction cup thingy, to cover one, or more, or maybe even
all of the instruments. Then instead of looking at the attitude gyro,
you're deducing the state of your airplane based on what's left,
including airspeed, changes in altitude, and maybe even just sound.
You'll then be asked to perform some maneuvers to demonstrate your
ability to compensate for the lost information.

Instrument flying doesn't come from the instrument panel, it comes
from between the pilot's ears. It's a mental process, which is why so
many people seem to find it so difficult. It isn't about making the
instruments do something, it's about making the airplane do something.
It's about challenging the forces of nature and prevailing, and
celebrating your triumph with your beverage of choice at some pleasant
spot hundreds of miles from where you started. It's about seeing and
doing things you've never done before.

Which raises an interesting question: Who here has seen a glory?

RK Henry

Mxsmanic,

A simulator (which MSFS is not) doesn't come close.

It comes very close indeed.


How in the world would you know?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Emily,

See, I have patience with people who don't know any better, but zero for
people who refuse to learn.


You nailed it. The way this guy refuses to accept anything from others and
to recognize the (tight) boundaries of his knowledge is really, well,
unusual.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)