ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight

Sam Spade writes:

The different is you are a trained, *certificated* pilot.

The more I read here, the less the training and certification seems to
represent.

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

Sam Spade writes:

Well, not exactly, at least for FAA-approved flight simulation.

I don't need FAA approval.

Lots of folks who know a WHOLE lot more than you do who work for the FAA
and other nations' aviation authorities that would strongly disagree
with you.

They have their egos, too. But no doubt there are people who know a lot more
than I do. It's unfortunate that so few of them post to this newsgroup.

It is not even a good game.

That's probably true, although I'm not a very good judge of games. It lacks
many of the characteristics of a good game.

PC simulator is an oxymoron in the world of compentent aviation operations.

Hardly. PC simulators are useful just as other simulators are useful. It
depends on what you require.

There are some PC training programs that have some value, such as the
Elite product line.

Elite looks interesting and I'm sure it's very useful for the purposes for
which it is intended. It's an example of very specialized simulation, whereas
MSFS is much more generalized. Overall, the more you try to simulate
accurately, the less accurately any specific area of the simulation will be,
unless you have unlimited hardware capabilities.

Unfortunately, the Elite software is very expensive and it apparently requires
a hardware key. The basic software is already $499. The FAA approval applies
only to specialized hardware and software, which is ten times more expensive.

All of that is a lot to pay for something that is only very slightly more
accurate than MSFS in a few domains. But if someone gave me one I wouldn't
turn it down.

MSFS is useless, for specific reasons I have
previously mentioned to you and which you have chosen to ignore in your
usual ignorant (if not stupid) manner.

I don't lend much credence to emotional overgeneralizations. "Useless" is so
obviously incorrect that it is not worth addressing.

Was that in a 48 Desoto?

No, a Baron 58, my favorite tin can.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Sam Spade writes:


The different is you are a trained, *certificated* pilot.


The more I read here, the less the training and certification seems to
represent.


Again, a glittering generality unsupported by speficics. It appears to
me you wouldn't know whether any technical assertion made on this forum
is right or wrong.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Sam Spade writes:


Well, not exactly, at least for FAA-approved flight simulation.


I don't need FAA approval.


Lots of folks who know a WHOLE lot more than you do who work for the FAA
and other nations' aviation authorities that would strongly disagree
with you.


They have their egos, too. But no doubt there are people who know a lot more
than I do. It's unfortunate that so few of them post to this newsgroup.

Egos were worked out of full-motion flight simulators long ago. There
is just too much money and safety involved.


It is not even a good game.


That's probably true, although I'm not a very good judge of games. It lacks
many of the characteristics of a good game.


PC simulator is an oxymoron in the world of compentent aviation operations.


Hardly. PC simulators are useful just as other simulators are useful. It
depends on what you require.

They are training devices, at best. You keep saying "simulator." Try
saying "flight simulator," then try finding out what ""flight simulator"
means.


There are some PC training programs that have some value, such as the
Elite product line.


Elite looks interesting and I'm sure it's very useful for the purposes for
which it is intended. It's an example of very specialized simulation, whereas
MSFS is much more generalized. Overall, the more you try to simulate
accurately, the less accurately any specific area of the simulation will be,
unless you have unlimited hardware capabilities.


Elite actually models winds aloft correctly, unlike the crude,
unsophisticated, incorrectly written code for MSFS.

Unfortunately, the Elite software is very expensive and it apparently requires
a hardware key. The basic software is already $499. The FAA approval applies
only to specialized hardware and software, which is ten times more expensive.

All of that is a lot to pay for something that is only very slightly more
accurate than MSFS in a few domains. But if someone gave me one I wouldn't
turn it down.

Slightly more accurate? You just don't get it. When are you going to
be finished "checking out" the fundamental errors in MSFS I provided to
you here several weeks ago?


MSFS is useless, for specific reasons I have
previously mentioned to you and which you have chosen to ignore in your
usual ignorant (if not stupid) manner.


I don't lend much credence to emotional overgeneralizations. "Useless" is so
obviously incorrect that it is not worth addressing.


Was that in a 48 Desoto?


No, a Baron 58, my favorite tin can.


What are your FAA ratings and total flight time?

Sam Spade writes:

Again, a glittering generality unsupported by speficics.

The number of mistakes made here by self-proclaimed "real pilots" has
surprised me somewhat, although I realize that many of them are very low-time
pilots whose experience has been limited to tiny tin cans under VFR. Often
their biggest mistake is in believing that their experience represents all
experience.

It appears to
me you wouldn't know whether any technical assertion made on this forum
is right or wrong.

The fact that I do is one reason why I'm so wary of the answers I receive.
And the more vehemently a poster insists upon the correctness of his answers,
the more likely he is to be wrong.

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

Sam Spade writes:

Egos were worked out of full-motion flight simulators long ago. There
is just too much money and safety involved.

Not according to what I've heard from instructors and pilots who use them.
They are so realistic, in fact, that the same ego problems that plague
real-life cockpits tend to carry over into the simulators. The fact that most
pilots are being watched or tested in a simulator may induce them to behave a
bit more, but that is all.

They are training devices, at best.

They can be training devices if your objective is to fly a real aircraft. If
you don't care about flying real aircraft, they can be ends in themselves.

You keep saying "simulator." Try
saying "flight simulator," then try finding out what ""flight simulator"
means.

A flight simulator is merely one type of simulator.

Elite actually models winds aloft correctly, unlike the crude,
unsophisticated, incorrectly written code for MSFS.

Elite models the ergonomics of the cockpit very poorly indeed, and specialized
hardware is only a slight improvement.

Slightly more accurate?

Yes, slightly more accurate. For every increase in accuracy you get with the
Elite, you lose something. It depends on what you want. It definitely looks
interesting for IFR, but I don't see what it adds for the rest.

You just don't get it. When are you going to
be finished "checking out" the fundamental errors in MSFS I provided to
you here several weeks ago?

When you quantify them in test scenarios that can be carried out with
precision.

What are your FAA ratings and total flight time?

No FAA ratings, as I don't fly the real aircraft and don't need any ratings.

Total flight time is in the thousands of hours; I don't have specific numbers
as every reinstall of the software, etc., resets the counters. I do recall
studying basic ground school textbooks at the age of around eight, and I was
playing with toy airplanes long before that, so the interest in aviation has
proven quite durable. The only actual aircraft in which I've flown (as a
passenger) have been passenger jets, mostly 737s.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:

The fact that I do is one reason why I'm so wary of the answers I receive.
And the more vehemently a poster insists upon the correctness of his answers,
the more likely he is to be wrong.


You just described yourself.

Mxsmanic wrote:


The fact that I do is one reason why I'm so wary of the answers I receive.
And the more vehemently a poster insists upon the correctness of his answers,
the more likely he is to be wrong.


As they say in court, "Objection, your honor! That is an assertion of a
fact not entered into evidence."

Also, you lamented that the FAA doesn't participate here. Well, there
are two ATC controllers who also are pilots that hang out here. But,
they do it primarily because of their advocation.

If you knew anything about the FAA you would know they would not have
any official presence on this, or any other user forum. First, it is
not part of anyone's job decription at the FAA and, second, very few of
those folks would ever do anything more than they have to.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Sam Spade writes:


Egos were worked out of full-motion flight simulators long ago. There
is just too much money and safety involved.


Not according to what I've heard from instructors and pilots who use them.
They are so realistic, in fact, that the same ego problems that plague
real-life cockpits tend to carry over into the simulators. The fact that most
pilots are being watched or tested in a simulator may induce them to behave a
bit more, but that is all.

You lost me. I thought you were speaking of egos in flight simulator
design.


You keep saying "simulator." Try
saying "flight simulator," then try finding out what ""flight simulator"
means.


A flight simulator is merely one type of simulator.

Not so in the realm of flight training.


Elite actually models winds aloft correctly, unlike the crude,
unsophisticated, incorrectly written code for MSFS.


Elite models the ergonomics of the cockpit very poorly indeed, and specialized
hardware is only a slight improvement.


Slightly more accurate?


Yes, slightly more accurate. For every increase in accuracy you get with the
Elite, you lose something. It depends on what you want. It definitely looks
interesting for IFR, but I don't see what it adds for the rest.


You just don't get it. When are you going to
be finished "checking out" the fundamental errors in MSFS I provided to
you here several weeks ago?


When you quantify them in test scenarios that can be carried out with
precision.

Yeah, right.


What are your FAA ratings and total flight time?


No FAA ratings, as I don't fly the real aircraft and don't need any ratings.

Total flight time is in the thousands of hours; I don't have specific numbers
as every reinstall of the software, etc., resets the counters. I do recall
studying basic ground school textbooks at the age of around eight, and I was
playing with toy airplanes long before that, so the interest in aviation has
proven quite durable. The only actual aircraft in which I've flown (as a
passenger) have been passenger jets, mostly 737s.


You are so full of ****.

Sam Spade writes:

You lost me. I thought you were speaking of egos in flight simulator
design.

Oh. I don't know anything about that. I suppose it's no different from egos
in other types of software design.

Not so in the realm of flight training.

Even for flight training, there are multiple types of simulators. But not
everyone uses simulators to train for something else.

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