MS Flight Sim

Greetings,

I think those who are arguing that flying MS Flight Sim isn't really
"flying" are on the losing side of the argument. Flying is flying, I don't
care if it's a Cub without an electrical system or a computer running MS
Flight Sim. As far as general procedures go, MS Flight Sim gives a great
workout, and for instrument procedures, it's terrific.

If a person is sitting in front of an instrument panel manipulating controls
whose performance is based on aerodynamic principles, that's flying. It
might be flying a simulator, but it's still flying.

I think it's in our best interest to welcome anyone to this newsgroup who is
interested in aviation. Personally, I'm impressed with Mxsmanic's
commitment to mastering instrument procedures. I'll bet he could put many
of us to shame.

Give the guy a break.

Dennis

I agree that flying MSFS in IFR is really flying.

When I fly with MSFS I always fly by hand. I have settings set to full
realism. I use real approach plates. I always set visibility to the
minimum for the approach. I fly the full approach. When I am finished
I am drained.

When I fly for real I use the autopilot coupled to the GPS. I am
really just a passenger. Flying for real is much easier than MSFS.
Even hand flying the real plane is much easier the MSFS.

But that is good because when all of the fancy fails for real, I will
be glad I spent all of that time on MSFS.

Right on. Have any of you flown the blue box(Link ANT-18)? It maybe approved
but it flies like no airplane I ever flew. BUT it was a fantastic workout
for TRAINING.

"ArtP" wrote in message
...
I agree that flying MSFS in IFR is really flying.

When I fly with MSFS I always fly by hand. I have settings set to full
realism. I use real approach plates. I always set visibility to the
minimum for the approach. I fly the full approach. When I am finished
I am drained.

When I fly for real I use the autopilot coupled to the GPS. I am
really just a passenger. Flying for real is much easier than MSFS.
Even hand flying the real plane is much easier the MSFS.

But that is good because when all of the fancy fails for real, I will
be glad I spent all of that time on MSFS.

john hawkins wrote:
Right on. Have any of you flown the blue box(Link ANT-18)? It maybe approved
but it flies like no airplane I ever flew. BUT it was a fantastic workout
for TRAINING.

I thought the blue box was a Link C-3.

I held a Link Trainer Operator's rating when the Ground Instructor
Certificate had 8 possible ratings.

As you can see by the rating the CAA/FAA considered it a trainer, not a
simulator.

Dennis Johnson wrote:
Greetings,

I think those who are arguing that flying MS Flight Sim isn't really
"flying" are on the losing side of the argument. Flying is flying, I don't
care if it's a Cub without an electrical system or a computer running MS
Flight Sim. As far as general procedures go, MS Flight Sim gives a great
workout, and for instrument procedures, it's terrific.

Flying with flight sim is like sex with a magazine.

"scott moore" wrote in message
. ..
Dennis Johnson wrote:
Greetings,

I think those who are arguing that flying MS Flight Sim isn't really
"flying" are on the losing side of the argument. Flying is flying, I
don't care if it's a Cub without an electrical system or a computer
running MS Flight Sim. As far as general procedures go, MS Flight Sim
gives a great workout, and for instrument procedures, it's terrific.

Flying with flight sim is like sex with a magazine.

No more callers, we have a winner...

LOL

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

scott moore wrote:

Dennis Johnson wrote:

Greetings,

I think those who are arguing that flying MS Flight Sim isn't really
"flying" are on the losing side of the argument. Flying is flying, I
don't care if it's a Cub without an electrical system or a computer
running MS Flight Sim. As far as general procedures go, MS Flight Sim
gives a great workout, and for instrument procedures, it's terrific.


Flying with flight sim is like sex with a magazine.

The problem is that MSFS is not a flight simulator. Since Microsoft is
only making a game, they can call it what they want.

It can be useful as a nav procedures trainer provided realistic winds
are not needed as part of the training exercise. And, also, if the XP
Reality modules are included to make it do what Microsoft was unwilling
or unable to do.

On Mar 1, 9:11 am, Sam Spade wrote:
scott moore wrote:
Dennis Johnson wrote:

Greetings,

I think those who are arguing that flying MS Flight Sim isn't really
"flying" are on the losing side of the argument. Flying is flying, I
don't care if it's a Cub without an electrical system or a computer
running MS Flight Sim. As far as general procedures go, MS Flight Sim
gives a great workout, and for instrument procedures, it's terrific.

Flying with flight sim is like sex with a magazine.

The problem is that MSFS is not a flight simulator. Since Microsoft is
only making a game, they can call it what they want.

It can be useful as a nav procedures trainer provided realistic winds
are not needed as part of the training exercise. And, also, if the XP
Reality modules are included to make it do what Microsoft was unwilling
or unable to do.

Note: the following has little, if anything, to do with MSFS

Although several years old, I found http://www.faa.gov/safety/
programs_initiatives/aircraft_aviation/nsp/research/media/
Paul_Ray.rtf to be an interesting read.

Folks here in the Human Factors division are contributing to some of
the reference docos (e.g. ICAO 9625), but I was only able to get my
hands on hardcopy at this time. Will try to provide online linkage as
any becomes available.

Regards,
Jon

On Mar 1, 1:10 pm, "Jon" wrote:
On Mar 1, 9:11 am, Sam Spade wrote:



scott moore wrote:
Dennis Johnson wrote:

Greetings,

I think those who are arguing that flying MS Flight Sim isn't really
"flying" are on the losing side of the argument. Flying is flying, I
don't care if it's a Cub without an electrical system or a computer
running MS Flight Sim. As far as general procedures go, MS Flight Sim
gives a great workout, and for instrument procedures, it's terrific.

Flying with flight sim is like sex with a magazine.

The problem is that MSFS is not a flight simulator. Since Microsoft is
only making a game, they can call it what they want.

It can be useful as a nav procedures trainer provided realistic winds
are not needed as part of the training exercise. And, also, if the XP
Reality modules are included to make it do what Microsoft was unwilling
or unable to do.

Note: the following has little, if anything, to do with MSFS

Although several years old, I found http://www.faa.gov/safety/
programs_initiatives/aircraft_aviation/nsp/research/media/
Paul_Ray.rtf to be an interesting read.

Folks here in the Human Factors division are contributing to some of
the reference docos (e.g. ICAO 9625), but I was only able to get my
hands on hardcopy at this time. Will try to provide online linkage as
any becomes available.

Regards,
Jon

Note: the following continues to have nothing at all to do with MSFS,
since it's not a serious player

FAA's National Simulator Program (NSP) contains a fair amount of
material, including links to Advisory Circulars, Guidance Bulletins,
Lists of Qualified Simulators, etc.

It may be found at:

http://www.faa.gov/safety/programs_i..._aviation/nsp/


Regards,
Jon

"scott moore" wrote:


Flying with flight sim is like sex with a magazine.

Haw!

LOL of the day.