Sad day for Mxsmanic

Mxsmanic wrote:
Robert M. Gary writes:

I don't find that whether the trees look like lumps of green or have
leaves on them makes one bit of difference to a real simulator.

That's not the important part. The important part is that everything in the
cockpit must look as it does in real life, since much of the training (in the
case of airline pilots, for example) is intended to reinforce procedures that
are intimately connected to the ergonomy of the flight deck. It wouldn't do
to train pilots for engine failures on take-off using simulator cockpits that
have controls in positions different from those of the real thing--it would
defeat the entire purpose of the training, in fact. So these aspects are very
important.

Which is why such simulators are built from real airplane parts with
real switches and consoles and cost millions.

What is outside the window, in contrast, is usually not important in these
types of simulations, although some things, such as airport surfaces, must be
accurately simulated.

Nonsense.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Having seen the reactions people who have actually been trained to
respond in pressure situations, I can assure you that it is true.

I have also seen these reactions, and they do not match your assertion.

I highly doubt someone who is admittedly afraid of just about everything
in life has been in many life or death situations, if any at all.

How many realistic sims down to the switch position level for any given
random aircraft do you thing exist in the world given they cost millions
of dollars?

Quite a few ... and you only need one.

Quite a few amounts to a very small number scattered about the globe
and ATC has no phone list of such simulators, much less a list sorted
by aircraft type, and the numbers of people qualified to run such a
simulator.

You are delusional.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

It would be highly unlikely that there would be an experienced instructor
pilot within 50 miles of an ATC facility nor do ATC facilities keep
a list of phone numbers of experienced instructor pilots, much less a list
sorted by various airliner types.

Rest assured, they can find lots of people very quickly. You greatly
underestimate the capabilities and sophistication of the parties involved in
such circumstances.

Smaller aircraft aren't airliners; you are in a hole and trying to get
out by changing the subject.

There's nothing to get out of. As I've said, instructors are easy to find.

writes:

True, but what they don't have is a list of qualified airline pilots
and their phone numbers.

They don't need it. They can contact the airline, which can find a qualified
pilot very quickly.

writes:

Quite a few amounts to a very small number scattered about the globe
and ATC has no phone list of such simulators, much less a list sorted
by aircraft type, and the numbers of people qualified to run such a
simulator.

I'm reminded of a cartoon in which someone picks up a phone, dials a number,
and hears "U.S. Government, may I help you?"

ATC doesn't need phone lists of simulators or airline pilots or anything of
the kind.

Even I can find an instructor pilot in a few minutes with a few calls. Air
traffic control facilities can do the same thing, only much faster and much
more easily.

writes:

Which is why such simulators are built from real airplane parts with
real switches and consoles and cost millions.

Yes.

Aah yes - the famous MXS mantra.
It's so easy, any monkey can do it. The only humans who are functionally
incapable of performing these simple tasks are pilots themselves, because their
intelligence is so impaired they cannot even realize they are the least capable
of doing their own job . . .

This posted to a pilot's forum, intermixed with angelic "who-me?" rhetoric.
Anyone detect passive-aggressive intent here?

To quote Frost :
What but Design - design to appall
If design govern in a brain so small. . .

Lamentable.
Find a doctor - it's urgent . . .




In article ,
says...


It's actually easier to land an airliner than it is to land a small aircraft,
because small aircraft usually have only limited automation, just as small
aircraft pilots usually have no clue about how large airliners work, and tend
to assume that everything flies like their Cessnas.

On Feb 28, 3:14*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Varactor writes:
How do you know that if you haven't used a G1000?

By reading the descriptions of the simulations.

Ohhh sure that's a reliable evaluation. What did they say: "perfect
simulation of the G1000" What was the G1000 pixel resolution and
update rate?

Cheers

On Feb 28, 6:30*am, Varactor wrote:
On Feb 28, 3:14*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

Varactor writes:
How do you know that if you haven't used a G1000?

By reading the descriptions of the simulations.

Ohhh sure that's a reliable evaluation. What did they say: "perfect
simulation of the G1000" What was the G1000 pixel resolution and
update rate?

Cheers

Has there been instances where arguments of MX v anyone have been
resolved, except in the mind of the person typing the last message?

Do as Obama did during the primaries -- look down on the combantants
and watch the others chase their tails.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

True, but what they don't have is a list of qualified airline pilots
and their phone numbers.

They don't need it. They can contact the airline, which can find a qualified
pilot very quickly.

Yeah, sure they can, on both counts.

You are delusional.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.