Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC

bdl writes:

You should "simulate" the look of fright from your wife sitting next to
you with a look of fear when you acknowledge keeping your speed up.
She's sitting over there imagining a jet that's going to ram you.

I'm not married, nor do I simulate marriage.

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

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

And it's up to you to find it, not be spoonfed it.

I was showing the insignificance of such statements.

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

bdl writes:

Another case of where simulation doesn't match real life. By giving a
visual approach clearance, separation rules change. A controller can
funnel more airplanes into the approach. Otherwise he can't have more
than one airplane on the approach at the same time.

OK, but I don't see how this distinguishes simulation from real life.

It's also one of those reasons controllers like for you to cancel in
the air for uncontrolled airports (you wouldn't know about that because
thats just "fun" flying) is because they can't let an IFR departure
while your on the approach.

Actually, I did know that. ATC does that in simulation, too.

Real world example, departing Quincy IFR one time (in VMC). Plane
takes off ahead of us on an IFR clearance. We can't take off IFR
because that plane just took off. And radar coverage at KUIN is spotty
below 5000. So I can wait on the ground until said plane gets into
radar coverage, or just depart VFR and pick up my clearance airborne.
We departed VFR.

Simulation traffic is usually low enough that this isn't a factor at
uncontrolled airports. Of course, when controllers are in short
supply, sometimes even KLAX or KORD are uncontrolled, which makes
things a bit weird.

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

Barney Rubble writes:

How do you know that they aren't just agreeing with you in the hope that you
will go away? Seems much more plausible based on your current performance.

I know they aren't stupid.

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

Ross writes:

Nope, this was the real multi million $ American Airline simulator in
Ft. Worth Texas at their training center. I do not suspect they you
MSFS.

Sometimes it can be surprising what runs on the back end.

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

Alexey Goldin writes:

When I came back, I thanked her for saving me from possibly broken arm
or leg (no kidding) and unpleasant time spent in hospital, never mind
bent aluminium.

She could have accomplished the same without shouting or swearing.

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

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

It can't get up there, the C172 has a service ceiling arount 14,000 ft.

Then how do you know how it behaves at FL250?

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

TxSrv writes:

How do you actually know they are real controllers?

I know where they work.

But I have trouble believing the typical ATC would regularly
spend off-hours directing nonpilots in a make-believe IFR
environment.

Is it also hard for you to believe that an airline pilot would spend
his off-hours flying a small private plane?

If there were many real controllers doing this, you wouldn't
have so many misconceptions about IFR, the few rigid rules
which are not to be violated, and the essential task of the
controller.

Why don't you try it, and report back here?

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

B A R R Y writes:

I also have trouble believing very many real pilots would bother to
participate in that whole shebang.

Many real pilots play with MSFS all the time.

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

TxSrv writes:

All planes, and various propulsion systems, react in the
same way to air density. The program itself could handle
this, needing only some specifics from the model file and
which it does supply for certain things. Whatever. Of the
zillion FS planes out there for download, point me toward a
normally-aspirated, piston aircraft, with certificated HP in
the model file, and which isn't a real hoot when slewed up
into the flight levels.

Since you cannot test the real aircraft that high, you have no way of
knowing whether the simulation is accurate or not.

The red knobby thingy? Besides doing little but being an
on/off switch?

It's considerably more than an on/off switch when I use it.

I dunno.

I agree.

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