Sad day for Mxsmanic

"-b-" wrote in message
...
In article ,

says...



"-b-" wrote
Yours is the very definition of an out of context post.
MX has made it clear that he is not interested in the FAA's definition
of
a
simulator or fligght training device, but focuses on its
functionalities.
Collins cites functionalities to circumscribe the usefulness of these
devices,
and you comme back to FAA definitions!! Let's call in Kafka to clarify!!


You must be new here.



From what I'm seeing, I take that as a compliment.


From what we are seeing, that's not what was intended.

"Ibby" wrote in message
...
***********************************
You might as well give it up with this person, too. It is more likely that
you will have a real 747 qualified pilot on board, than you would likely
find a simmer with the kind of "practiced" on the 747. This one will never
concede, either.
--
Jim in NC

Jim

Believe me I'm nowhere near as bad as MX!!!

Are you saying that all that I have learnt and 'practiced' bears no
correlation to the systems and controls of a real 747-400 because it
does. I have watched a lot of real tutorial dvds (not talking about
little flyby clips on Youtube, but official licensed products on the
747 and 767 flightdecks). The position and behavior of EVERY switch
whether it on the overhead panel, radio panel, Mode Control Panel, the
glass cockpit, the FMC do EXACTLY as the real thing does. I know if I
press 'this' the aircraft will do 'that'. A full procedural checklist
MUST be followed (as per the real thing) for engine start including
APU, ground power, setting pumps to Aux and Auto, turning off packs
etc I know for FACT that if I was to sit down in a 747-400 flightdeck
(forgetting all this emergency landing issue) I could name a huge
majority of the switches, tell you where they are located and the
effect they have on the flight thus giving me some form of advantage
to that of a person who has never been on a flight deck OR used a
simulator/game.

I have openly stated it's a training aid and can successfully
compliment flight training for procedures and navigation flight
planning etc. I know it's not the be-all-and-end all tool that will
give you a PPL after a weeks use which is were MX falls short off. I
know there is a LOT more to learn about the dynamics of flight,
weather systems, regulations etc etc. I know alot of real life pilots
who use it and some are actually prominant members on this forum (but
keep quite), there are those with PPL's, instructors, a retired A320
captain and a retired Gulf War veteran who flew rotaries in the Gulf.
When I took my first flying lesson I felt I could have solo'd, laugh
as you may, but the controls, throttle, pitching, descending, straight
and level flight, torque effects of the prop had ALL been experienced
by me in the sim so I already knew how to compensate for them. I was
turning to certain bearings, climbing/descending to set altitudes,
trimming the aircraft, maintaining set speeds - ALL on my first lesson
and ALL picked up entirely from the sim. As I've already said we all
need real lessons too but the sim CAN help as it has already done for
me.

Ibby

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really, and how was your landing?

Tim wrote:

"-b-" wrote

To paraphrase, the programs are not completely without usefulness, but
they are
not simulators.

That's not what he said, he said they weren't "flight training devices".
The FAA has a definition for what qualifies as a "flight training device",
or FTD. They do not have one for "simulator". Webster does, and MSFS seems
to fit that very general definition: "A device, data processing system, or
computer program for representing features of the behavior of a physical or
abstract system."

Notice it doesn't say "all features" or "exact behavior" because those are
qualitative. MSFS is indeed a flight simulator, albeit a poor one.

Actually the FAA does have definitions for simulators and other training
devices in Part 60.

A couple of huge differences between the games and a real simulator is
that a real simulator has all real switches and buttons that operate,
not pictures on a display activated by a mouse and force feedback on
the controls.

PCATD's, i.e. a flight simulator game with enough hardware to qualify
for instrument procedures training, are covered elsewhere.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"-b-" wrote in message
...
In article , #$$9#@%%%.^^^ says...



"-b-" wrote in message
...
In article ,

says...



"-b-" wrote
Yours is the very definition of an out of context post.
MX has made it clear that he is not interested in the FAA's definition
of
a
simulator or fligght training device, but focuses on its
functionalities.
Collins cites functionalities to circumscribe the usefulness of these
devices,
and you comme back to FAA definitions!! Let's call in Kafka to
clarify!!


You must be new here.



From what I'm seeing, I take that as a compliment.


From what we are seeing, that's not what was intended.



Intentions may be obscure, arguments explicit. The latter being
weak......an you extremely stupid.

"-b-" wrote in message
...
In article , #$$9#@%%%.^^^ says...



"-b-" wrote in message
...
In article , #$$9#@%%%.^^^ says...



"-b-" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,

says...



"-b-" wrote
Yours is the very definition of an out of context post.
MX has made it clear that he is not interested in the FAA's
definition
of
a
simulator or fligght training device, but focuses on its
functionalities.
Collins cites functionalities to circumscribe the usefulness of
these
devices,
and you comme back to FAA definitions!! Let's call in Kafka to
clarify!!


You must be new here.



From what I'm seeing, I take that as a compliment.


From what we are seeing, that's not what was intended.



Intentions may be obscure, arguments explicit. The latter being
weak......an you extremely stupid.

Intentions become more explicit, arguments weaker.

Geez,,,,,you're almost as astute as Mixie himself. You simmers are all
alike.

"-b-" wrote in message
...

Simulation is not the question here, but your own inability to grasp the
subjet at hand is most disconcerting, and would certainly not be conducive
to safe piloting skills.


Like a simmer would know.

If it can help to quell the semantic battle, here's what Richard Collins has to
say about the matter, in a Nov 2006 article on instrument instruction :

"When we were writing about learning to fly, it was suggested that a private
pilot course should be completed before starting training to get an idea of
what is coming. That is an equally good idea before you begin instrument
training. This is a far more complex endeavor and a pilot needs to go through
an instrument rating ground course to get a feel for that complexity. An
inexpensive PC airplane program, like Microsoft Flight Simulator or X-Plane
(both available from Amazon), might also help in scoping out what is involved.
These are not flight training devices but they can be useful in looking at
procedures. An advance look at instrument training and flying might make it
seem like the greatest and most fun challenge you can find, or it might seem a
bit much. If the latter is the case, you might want to fly VFR for a while and
then revisit the instrument course".

To paraphrase, the programs are not completely without usefulness, but they are
not simulators. Of course, you could always write to FLYING to contest this
point of view. You could demand that he publish a retraction. Many pilots write
to him, but most with less than twenty thousand or so hours refrain from going
to head with someone so clearly more experienced (not to mention the fact that
he has the broadest readership base in all of aviation). He also has something
of a reputation for not suffering fools gently. Your call . . .








In article ,
says...


writes:

Look it up.

I already have. The FAA has jurisdiction over practically no one, with the
exception of pilots and other people who work in the aviation industry.

Thus, anyone can build and/or fly a flight simulator, with or without
recognition or approval from the FAA. Microsoft and X-Plane have already done
so, of course.

In article ,
says...



"-b-" wrote

To paraphrase, the programs are not completely without usefulness, but
they are
not simulators.

That's not what he said, he said they weren't "flight training devices".
The FAA has a definition for what qualifies as a "flight training device",
or FTD. They do not have one for "simulator". Webster does, and MSFS seems
to fit that very general definition: "A device, data processing system, or
computer program for representing features of the behavior of a physical or
abstract system."

Notice it doesn't say "all features" or "exact behavior" because those are
qualitative. MSFS is indeed a flight simulator, albeit a poor one.



Yours is the very definition of an out of context post.
MX has made it clear that he is not interested in the FAA's definition of a
simulator or fligght training device, but focuses on its functionalities.
Collins cites functionalities to circumscribe the usefulness of these devices,
and you comme back to FAA definitions!! Let's call in Kafka to clarify!!

In article ,
says...



"-b-" wrote
Yours is the very definition of an out of context post.
MX has made it clear that he is not interested in the FAA's definition of
a
simulator or fligght training device, but focuses on its functionalities.
Collins cites functionalities to circumscribe the usefulness of these
devices,
and you comme back to FAA definitions!! Let's call in Kafka to clarify!!


You must be new here.



From what I'm seeing, I take that as a compliment.

Just go look it up! writes:

Which instantly and reinforces the fact that you know *nothing*
because even the PMDG and LDS simulations all include the automatic
disconnect which happens when enough force is excerted on the control
column, a-la what would happen when the pilots keel over on it, or
grab it to execute a TCAS commanded evasive manuver (obviously in
addition to the AP disco button).

What makes you believe that an incapacitated pilot would hit the yoke with
enough force to disengage the autopilot? "Airplane" is a Hollywood work of
fiction, not real life.