Sad day for Mxsmanic

No you're not, dumb ass, you have never left your desk.

I think he means as a passenger ;-(

Ibby

"BeechSundowner" wrote

As I have posted many, many times, and I have used MSFS X. Flying an
approach on the computer just doesn't simulate the physical sensations
of IMC. Not sure if you ever been in IMC, not even sure if you are a
pilot, but if you never been in IMC, please talk to a IA rated pilot
and ask him to take you up. You will never look at a cloud the same
way.
***********************************
You might as well give it up with this person, too. It is more likely that
you will have a real 747 qualified pilot on board, than you would likely
find a simmer with the kind of "practiced" on the 747. This one will never
concede, either.
--
Jim in NC

Varactor writes:

You think they do when IR?

No, I think they do when they are not instrument-rated. Most private pilots
do not have an IR.

The point being, of course, that inadequate familiarity and practice with
instrument procedures, and/or inadequate equipment on board the aircraft, can
lead to problems.

writes:

Look it up.

I already have. The FAA has jurisdiction over practically no one, with the
exception of pilots and other people who work in the aviation industry.

Thus, anyone can build and/or fly a flight simulator, with or without
recognition or approval from the FAA. Microsoft and X-Plane have already done
so, of course.

***********************************
You might as well give it up with this person, too. *It is more likely that
you will have a real 747 qualified pilot on board, than you would likely
find a simmer with the kind of "practiced" on the 747. *This one will never
concede, either.
--
Jim in NC

Jim

Believe me I'm nowhere near as bad as MX!!!

Are you saying that all that I have learnt and 'practiced' bears no
correlation to the systems and controls of a real 747-400 because it
does. I have watched a lot of real tutorial dvds (not talking about
little flyby clips on Youtube, but official licensed products on the
747 and 767 flightdecks). The position and behavior of EVERY switch
whether it on the overhead panel, radio panel, Mode Control Panel, the
glass cockpit, the FMC do EXACTLY as the real thing does. I know if I
press 'this' the aircraft will do 'that'. A full procedural checklist
MUST be followed (as per the real thing) for engine start including
APU, ground power, setting pumps to Aux and Auto, turning off packs
etc I know for FACT that if I was to sit down in a 747-400 flightdeck
(forgetting all this emergency landing issue) I could name a huge
majority of the switches, tell you where they are located and the
effect they have on the flight thus giving me some form of advantage
to that of a person who has never been on a flight deck OR used a
simulator/game.

I have openly stated it's a training aid and can successfully
compliment flight training for procedures and navigation flight
planning etc. I know it's not the be-all-and-end all tool that will
give you a PPL after a weeks use which is were MX falls short off. I
know there is a LOT more to learn about the dynamics of flight,
weather systems, regulations etc etc. I know alot of real life pilots
who use it and some are actually prominant members on this forum (but
keep quite), there are those with PPL's, instructors, a retired A320
captain and a retired Gulf War veteran who flew rotaries in the Gulf.
When I took my first flying lesson I felt I could have solo'd, laugh
as you may, but the controls, throttle, pitching, descending, straight
and level flight, torque effects of the prop had ALL been experienced
by me in the sim so I already knew how to compensate for them. I was
turning to certain bearings, climbing/descending to set altitudes,
trimming the aircraft, maintaining set speeds - ALL on my first lesson
and ALL picked up entirely from the sim. As I've already said we all
need real lessons too but the sim CAN help as it has already done for
me.

Ibby

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Look it up.

I already have. The FAA has jurisdiction over practically no one, with the
exception of pilots and other people who work in the aviation industry.

No, you didn't since what you say is puerile and not relevant to the
discussion anyway.

Thus, anyone can build and/or fly a flight simulator, with or without
recognition or approval from the FAA. Microsoft and X-Plane have already done
so, of course.

Sure anyone can build or fly a flight simulator, but that wasn't the issue.

Neither Microsoft nor X-Plane claim to be doing so; both claim to be
marketing a game.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Varactor writes:

You think they do when IR?

No, I think they do when they are not instrument-rated. Most private pilots
do not have an IR.

The point being, of course, that inadequate familiarity and practice with
instrument procedures, and/or inadequate equipment on board the aircraft, can
lead to problems.

No, your point was to attempt to take a shot at the real pilots you hate
so much.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 04:59:33 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:

BeechSundowner writes:

Imagine you in seat 20F. The plane you are in is inbound for LAX.
The plane is descending through 25000 feet. Sudden lurch in the
plane, due to the front row passengers (AKA pilot and copilot) keels
over dead.

Since the aircraft is on autopilot, there will be no lurch, unless CWS or CWP
are enabled by control movements (depends on the aircraft).

Which instantly and reinforces the fact that you know *nothing*
because even the PMDG and LDS simulations all include the automatic
disconnect which happens when enough force is excerted on the control
column, a-la what would happen when the pilots keel over on it, or
grab it to execute a TCAS commanded evasive manuver (obviously in
addition to the AP disco button).

"-b-" wrote

To paraphrase, the programs are not completely without usefulness, but
they are
not simulators.

That's not what he said, he said they weren't "flight training devices".
The FAA has a definition for what qualifies as a "flight training device",
or FTD. They do not have one for "simulator". Webster does, and MSFS seems
to fit that very general definition: "A device, data processing system, or
computer program for representing features of the behavior of a physical or
abstract system."

Notice it doesn't say "all features" or "exact behavior" because those are
qualitative. MSFS is indeed a flight simulator, albeit a poor one.

"-b-" wrote
Yours is the very definition of an out of context post.
MX has made it clear that he is not interested in the FAA's definition of
a
simulator or fligght training device, but focuses on its functionalities.
Collins cites functionalities to circumscribe the usefulness of these
devices,
and you comme back to FAA definitions!! Let's call in Kafka to clarify!!


You must be new here.