If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
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. |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
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. |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
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? |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
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. |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
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. |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
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. |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
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. |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
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 ****. |
#180
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Handling Characteristics of the Flight Design CTSW | John | Piloting | 9 | March 14th 07 03:38 AM |
American Flight 191 - Recovery Procedure | Rick Umali | Piloting | 17 | November 5th 06 03:35 AM |
Angel Flight fuel discounts | John Doe | Piloting | 4 | January 20th 06 01:24 PM |
Passenger attempts to hijack American Eagles flight | C J Campbell | Piloting | 5 | January 11th 04 04:04 PM |
American Safety Flight Systems seat belts -- Help! | Paul Millner | Owning | 1 | July 7th 03 10:10 PM |