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

BDS writes:

Well, then that conflicts with what another poster said which I believe was
that MSFS allowed you to yaw the nose without any heading change.

Yes, it does.

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

Newps writes:

You still haven't listed one time when the rudder does not change flight
path.

A forward slip.

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

"Barney Rubble" wrote in
:

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.

Only way the troll will go away is for us not to answer him.....

Allen

Newps writes:

There is never a case where it doesn't change flight path.

Landing in a crosswind.

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

Mark Hansen writes:

It is changing the flight path the aircraft would have taken had you
not applied the rudder.

It is also maintaining the flight path that you originally intended.

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

Nomen Nescio writes:

Won't work that way. The wing leveler won't keep the wings level in
that situation.

You are telling me things that are manifestly untrue when I actually
try them, which wastes my time.

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

Alexey Goldin writes:

If this statement about MSFS behavior is true, it is impossible to
simulate soaring flight in MSFS. I have no experience with MSFS --- is
this the case? Never mind simulated flying under cumulonimbus or in
virga --- exactly the case where you do not want to do it for real...

MSFS includes a glider. I have no glider experience so I cannot
comment on its realism.

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

Sam Spade writes:

In the context of aviation the purpose of simulation is to faithfully
duplicate the aircraft flight deck, panels and systems, motion, and
outside visual references so that pilot qualification in the simulator
translates into pilot qualification in the aircraft.

No. Simulation reproduces specific aspects of the real world with
specific levels of accuracy and realism. No simulation reproduces
everything perfectly. Some simulators reproduce certain things
perfectly. There is no one size that fits all, nor is it necessary
for all simulators to reproduce everything.

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

Paul kgyy writes:

If you want a better feel for what actually goes on than you will ever
get via newsgroup, take a couple of United flights and listen to the
ATC channel - it can be much more entertaining than the movie at times.

I didn't know it was possible to do that. I haven't flown in a long
time. I'm surprised nobody has forbidden it as "useful to
terrorists."

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

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:




Not often. For the most, visual approaches are used over ILS
approaches. When cleared for the visual approach, you won't be using
autoland, as you won't be on an ILS approach, regardless of if you join
the localizer and track it. You're still on the visual approach.


That just isn't so. Jet aircraft are required to remain on, or above,
the ILS G/S whether on an ILS approach or on a visual approach. At the
company I worked for, failure to tune and identify the ILS for a visual
approach to an ILS runway was a check-ride bust.

As to autoland, most of them are down in good weather for proficiency
and to maintain certification of the airborne equipment. Autolands can
(and are) even be practiced on visual approaches provided the ILS is
intercepted prior to the PFAF.