Getting confused with ATC order...Violation?

Mxsmanic wrote:

And if I discover that I don't like it?

Don't do it again.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

JB writes:

You are absolutely wrong on this. In some cases, dead wrong.
External distractions (real life turbulence, watching the restricted
airspace around you, overlapping ATC comms, other planes buzzing all
around etc etc etc) can turn a decent student pilot into a panicked
ball of jelly wondering how he will clean up his pants if/when he
lands safely.

Following your logic, any distraction can do this, which means that no
amount of simulation OR real-life experience can be of any use, since
there will always be unexperienced distractions waiting to cause
trouble.

But if all distractions are not qualitatively unique, then a single
distraction of any kind will suffice to simulate all others, in which
case both simulation and real-world experience will suffice as well,
without running the entire (infinite) gamut of possible distractions.

When ATC talks, you can get so flustered that you don't
know what they said. Been there, done that. That will never, ever,
ever happen to you sitting at the monitor killing time before Sesame
Street comes on.

It happens in simulation all the time, just like real life.


You're a moron. You can't compare simulation to real life until
you've done both. You can do a lot with simulation, but not everything.
You just sit alone at home and let the autopilot on MSFS fly the airplane
while you stare at the monitor and stroke your joystick. You know
absolutely nothing about the real world of flying and you don't want to
learn. No wonder you've been such a failure in life, Anthony.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Nomen Nescio writes:

"Most" ain't good enough.

Sure it is. If it were not, then real life wouldn't be good enough
either, since real life never exhausts all the possibilities.


You're a ****ing nitwit, Anthony.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Larry Dighera writes:

Without intending to join the chorus, I respectfully submit, that you
have no concept of the joyous experience you are missing. Trust me.


I think it depends on what you want to get out of aviation. Clearly,
many private pilots get enjoyment out of bouncing around in a tiny
airplane. They probably enjoy roller-coasters, too (whereas I do
not).

Anthony, you don't want to get anything out of aviation. For you,
aviation is just a game played on MSFS. That can be fun, but it is NOT
flying and you have deluded yourself into thinking it is. You should move
to a mental institution because you need help.

A new student pilot flying solo is at last free to wander in the
third dimension unconstrained as the vast majority of Earth bound
souls are. He soars from the surface of the Earth, and effortlessly
guides his light aircraft higher with such nimble agility, that the
machine mentally melds into his nervous system in a rapture of pure
Zen integration of spirit, mind and machine. He was born with wings,
and is as skillful and free as Bach's Jonathan. The pilot's visceral
reaction to the sights, sounds, smells, and kinesthetic cacophony's
endless bombardment of sensory input result in a unique ambiance that
is aviation. The pilot's post-flight consciousness is clear and
refreshed as though just squeegeed, and the world is a bright,
cheerful home indeed. Although he walks the same flat plane at the
juncture of atmosphere and terra as his fellows, he carries the
knowledge and experiences of the joy of flight, and the power to soar
at will.

Not quite as poetic as _High Flight_ or as direct as _One Six Right_,
but a respectable effort.

Get out to the closest uncontrolled field (I visited one north of
Othus in 2000*) at which is based an Air France Aero Club. Beg a
ride with one of the members on a fair Saturday morning. You'll
thank me.

And if I discover that I don't like it?

Then stop. But you will know the difference between playing MSFS and
flying. You don't do it because your too chicken ****. You're afraid
you'll be force to recognize that all your pontifications about flying in
the usenet newsgroups were pure bull ****, just like you.

People fly that way in France because the environment is so
restrictive that they have no other options. All they can do, from
what I've understood, is putter around in tiny airplanes at tiny
airfields, as they are effectively barred from anything more
complicated or comfortable.

You're understanding is wrong. Just like you.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

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

writes:

It isn't the real MX.

Actually, it was, in this case.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2

iQA/AwUBR/qCjxv8knkS0DI6EQJJ0QCg/NvbgoaVlFmSAuu8gS/0D/C4fsUAn22g
GSBAXJELnJJvkBp2gGmRO4lJ
=noZB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Who give a ****. Whether you, Anthony, or an imposter, it is still
pure, unadulterated bull ****.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Dave Doe writes:

Pretend, being the operative word.

Pretending is extremely important to using simulators successfully.
If you cannot pretend--if you cannot suspend disbelief--you cannot
really profit from the simulator. Conversely, if you can do these
things, using a simulator can be extremely useful experience.

Only kids have plausable dualistic minds. Perhaps that's you. The
rest of us have grown up.

It's a function of intelligence more than age. The ability to adopt a
different viewpoint and voluntarily and selectively disregard aspects
of reality or fantasy at will is very closely correlated with
intelligence, as it requires considerable cognitive capacity. Animals
have less intelligence and virtually no imaginations, for example, and
thus could never make much use of simulators.

Enhanced, being the operative word there.

Yes.

It's not reality, and you *cannot* escape that.

Well, yes, you can. That's the whole idea. I've already explained
the principle above.

To do so - and you
should be put in a mental asylum - no longer being able to
distinguish between reality and fantasy is considered by good
psychologists to dangerous.

The inability to distinguish between reality and fantasy has nothing
to do with the ability to adopt either frame of reference.

Things like literary fiction and cinema depend on this ability, and it
is widely held and uncorrelated with mental illness. It is, in fact,
a function of intelligence, not insanity, as I've explained.

It most certainly is not!

Because you say so? ATC is extremely easy to simulate realistically
compared to other aspects of flying.

You fly a sim and yet are unable to "put yourself in the seat" -
that's counter to your argument in the first place. (It's a sim, and
you're telling me you can't simulate it - pathetic really).

I can put myself wherever I see fit in simulation, sometimes with
varying success (depending on the desired viewpoint and the type of
simulation). There are some aspects that I find more attractive and
enjoyable than others. An advantage of simulation is that I have a
choice.

It is obvious, Anthony, that you are the product of simulated sex and
only imagines you have a life. And, given how badly you've done in your
imagined life, your imagination is severley deficient.

In article ,
says...
Dave Doe writes:

Pretend, being the operative word.

Pretending is extremely important to using simulators successfully. If you
cannot pretend--if you cannot suspend disbelief--you cannot really profit from
the simulator. Conversely, if you can do these things, using a simulator can
be extremely useful experience.

Only kids have plausable dualistic minds. Perhaps that's you. The rest
of us have grown up.

It's a function of intelligence more than age. The ability to adopt a
different viewpoint and voluntarily and selectively disregard aspects of
reality or fantasy at will is very closely correlated with intelligence, as it
requires considerable cognitive capacity. Animals have less intelligence and
virtually no imaginations, for example, and thus could never make much use of
simulators.

Enhanced, being the operative word there.

Yes.

It's not reality, and you *cannot* escape that.

Well, yes, you can. That's the whole idea. I've already explained the
principle above.

No what you explained is *my* argument - not yours. But thanks anyway.

You explaind that pretending reality, and that imagination
reality. (My points).

*Imagining* crossing a busy road may well be beneficial to your
survival. But it is *NOT* reality - the mind cannot percieve of all the
possiblities - there are too many variables and it is possible you may
not imagine the one possibility that ends up killing you. (How many
times have you crossed a one way street and NOT looked the other way -
because many people do just that and take it for granted). Which also
has advantages too - it is not good to imagine some situations for *too*
long - you may make a decision that is too late.

The short of it is, flying a sim is so far removed from the experience
of the real thing, that pilots are still required (thank fuk) to fly the
real thing when training.

This DOES apply to ATC comms too. Being on your sim (as you've never
flown the real thing) your mind *CANNOT* imagine what it would really be
like, you can only assume and guess and imagine.

Have you simulated (or even imagined) smoke coming out the heater vents?
Does your simulator simulate that?

What about a low setting sun, does it really dazzle you? Do you use the
visor much in the simulator?

Have you simulated dropping a cellphone on the floor and it bounces down
by the rudder pedals somewhere? (Would you consider that to be a
potential problem?)

Simulator:
a device, instrument, or piece of equipment designed to reproduce the
essential features of something, e.g. as an aid to study or training.




It most certainly is not!

Because you say so? ATC is extremely easy to simulate realistically compared
to other aspects of flying.

By itself, yes. However (and surely you can imagine this), to properly
gain a picture of, for example and in context of this discussion, an ATC
comms failure/breakdown, you need to imagine what could happen in
reality. I can think of many examples. You can't. And until you fly
the real thing you never will (you're just guessing).

You fly a sim and yet are unable to "put yourself in the seat" - that's
counter to your argument in the first place. (It's a sim, and you're
telling me you can't simulate it - pathetic really).

I can put myself wherever I see fit in simulation, sometimes with varying
success (depending on the desired viewpoint and the type of simulation).
There are some aspects that I find more attractive and enjoyable than others.
An advantage of simulation is that I have a choice.

So not taking up my challenge, even though you don't *really* have to
get your wallet out, or drive to the field, or even do pre-take-off
checks - you could actually setup the sim in about ONE MINUTE. OK.

Anyway, doesn't sound anything like real flying to me. eg. you say
"varying success". Well... you crash a plane in *real life* - you don't
walk away from it (very few do). I would put it do you that if you knew
you were going to crash (and very probably die) you'd be feeling very
differently to the same situation in the simulator. Your not *really*
scared, you're not *really* thinking I have just four more seconds
before I go in; more you're probably resigned to that fate and thinking
well I buggered that up, oh well... RESET.

But hey you say you can accurately simulate and imagine reality. OK,
question then, have you *ever* crashed a plane in the simulator? (sounds
like you have).

If so - why?, how? - you're DEAD! - how you could have let that EVER
happen?

--
Duncan

Dave Doe writes:

The short of it is, flying a sim is so far removed from the experience
of the real thing, that pilots are still required (thank fuk) to fly the
real thing when training.

That is somewhat a legacy of the past; it won't always be that way. Flying a
large airliner, for example, is sufficiently different from flying a small
plane that there isn't necessarily a clear advantage to compelling prospective
pilots to do the latter before the former. With the increasing demand for
pilots, particularly outside developed countries, training specific to
commercial flying with simulators alone will inevitably become common practice
in the future.

This DOES apply to ATC comms too.

So how do air traffic controllers manage to handle communications without any
piloting experience?

Being on your sim (as you've never
flown the real thing) your mind *CANNOT* imagine what it would really be
like, you can only assume and guess and imagine.

Speak for yourself. What I can imagine might be quite different from what you
can imagine.

I'm reminded of an article I read once on the reaction of a primitive tribe
when it was shown images of itself in a movie. The tribe members were unable
to interpret the images because they were flat, and they apparently lacked the
ability to set aside this difference in order to extract some utility from the
movie (or they were unwilling to use it).

Have you simulated (or even imagined) smoke coming out the heater vents?

No. How does smoke get into the heater vents in a Baron?

Does your simulator simulate that?

No.

What about a low setting sun, does it really dazzle you?

Yes, you can simulate that, but I usually have it turned off.

Have you simulated dropping a cellphone on the floor and it bounces down
by the rudder pedals somewhere?

I don't use cell phones while operating vehicles.

Would you consider that to be a potential problem?

Not for someone who keeps the cell phone stowed during flight.

Simulator:
a device, instrument, or piece of equipment designed to reproduce the
essential features of something, e.g. as an aid to study or training.

Yes.

By itself, yes. However (and surely you can imagine this), to properly
gain a picture of, for example and in context of this discussion, an ATC
comms failure/breakdown, you need to imagine what could happen in
reality.

Actual breakdowns and failures are too rare to worry about. The simulation
normally concentrates on just communicating information properly. You can do
that with a pair of walkie-talkies, and of course it's all the easier to
conduct with a flight simulator.

So not taking up my challenge, even though you don't *really* have to
get your wallet out, or drive to the field, or even do pre-take-off
checks - you could actually setup the sim in about ONE MINUTE. OK.

I don't really have any money for it, and I have no transportation, and the
only type of flying I could do isn't entirely congruent with the types I like
to simulate. The avionics I have in my simulated Baron and Bonanza, for
example, are far too expensive for flying clubs to afford--heck, they often
can't afford either of these aircraft to begin with. Flying some lame little
fabric-and-wood airplane by the seat of my pants with just a compass, in and
out of some dirt strip, really doesn't appeal to me. I'm scarcely interested
at all in physical sensations.

Anyway, doesn't sound anything like real flying to me.

It depends on what type of flying you are simulating. There are many kinds of
flying.

Well... you crash a plane in *real life* - you don't
walk away from it (very few do).

I see quite a few accidents in the NTSB database that do not result in loss of
life or sometimes even any injury at all.

I would put it do you that if you knew
you were going to crash (and very probably die) you'd be feeling very
differently to the same situation in the simulator.

So? The objective is not to simulate crashes, it is to simulate flight.
Avoid mistakes and you can generally avoid crashes.

Your not *really* scared, you're not *really* thinking I have just four
more seconds before I go in; more you're probably resigned to that fate
and thinking well I buggered that up, oh well... RESET.

Some people aren't scared in real life. In life-or-death situations fear is
often deferred, such that people remain relatively level-headed up to and
including the crash. If they survive, they may be terrified afterwards and
may even go into a state of shock, but they'll stay clear-headed until the
crash. Of course, people who react in this way are more likely to survive to
begin with. Apprehension does get the adrenalin going and can help one to
handle emergencies, but abject fear and panic usually lead to bad things.

But hey you say you can accurately simulate and imagine reality.

In certain respects, yes. That's what simulation is all about. The simulator
isn't very good at simulating crashes, but the entire idea is to avoid
crashes, not to simulate them.

OK, question then, have you *ever* crashed a plane in the simulator?

Occasionally--just a few days ago, in fact. If it's a serious simulation
session, it's quite stressful. It the most recent case, at the end of an
uneventful flight, I became overconfident with my onboard TAWS and lost
situational awareness after making a poor decision to switch runways at the
last moment. With a 6-knot wind on the ground, I decided to stop the
straight-in approach for which I was already aligned, and attempt a right
downwind for the opposite runway. However, it was completely dark and I could
see nothing outside the airport, and although I knew there was rising terrain
nearby, I pressed on. To avoid terrain that I couldn't see, I turned to base
almost abeam the threshold of the runway and tried to scoot in. I also spent
too much time looking at the TAWS to see if I was clear of terrain. In my
preoccupation with doing this, I had left the AP on heading hold, and when I
saw that and disengaged it, naturally I rolled abruptly to one side. I
couldn't see the runway behind me nor could I see the terrain, and the sudden
turn caused me to lose altitude dangerously. The TAWS did indeed warn me of
terrain, but by that time it was too late, and I stalled in the darkness well
short of the runway and hit the side of the mesa.

Of course, you don't die in a simulation, but if you take your flying
seriously, the knowledge that you would surely be dead in real life and the
reflection on your flying skills that this represents is already quite a blow.
On the other hand, if you dismiss it all as just a game and a simulation, you
learn nothing, your ego is preserved, and when and if you're in the same
situation in real life one day, you die.

If so - why?, how? - you're DEAD! - how you could have let that EVER
happen?

Yes, I ask myself the same thing. When one is simulating for "fun," it
doesn't matter, but when the objective is serious simulation, it is a sobering
and humbling experience. And unlike pilots who have more ego than brains, I
do not claim that some sort of vague difference between the simulator and real
life caused the crash--it was pilot error, pure and simple, and it would have
happened in exactly the same way in real life, only with more permanent
consequences.

Huh?? I'm a reasonably smart guy, but your incoherent blabbering
makes absolutely no sense at all.

They say if you turn a chimp loose on a keyboard, you will eventually
get Shakespeare. Keep at it Anthony, you're not quite there yet.


On Apr 7, 4:16*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

Following your logic, any distraction can do this, which means that no amount
of simulation OR real-life experience can be of any use, since there will
always be unexperienced distractions waiting to cause trouble.

But if all distractions are not qualitatively unique, then a single
distraction of any kind will suffice to simulate all others, in which case
both simulation and real-world experience will suffice as well, without
running the entire (infinite) gamut of possible distractions.

JB wrote:

They say if you turn a chimp loose on a keyboard, you will eventually
get Shakespeare.

I think it's "War and Peace". That would be Tolstoy. Chimps can't dig
Shakespeare. :-)))


--
Dudley Henriques