r.a.ifr barely alive

Benjamin Dover wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote in

How much IFR time do you have, MX? In the sim? Probably a couple thousand hours. I don't log it.

How much IMC time do you have?

Translation: I have a couple thousand hours playing a game but don't have
the foggiest idea what real IFR flight is like.


Meanwhile, I've killed thousands upon thousands of Germans (Japanese,
Russians, Canadians and even American) playing Battlefield 1942 and Call
of Duty online. What I hate is when some World War II veteran tries to
tell me what it was like storming a beach or charging a machine gun
bunker. They don't have a FRACTION of combat time as I do in my video game.

When I used to play Warbirds I racked up something over 500 career
kills. That's WAY more than Chuck Yeager ever shot down. What the hell
does HE know by comparison?!

;

-c

Mx, really, that is illogical even by your standards.

You are saying that "They are both simulations, therefore if one is
useful then the other is useful." Wow.

And no pilot would claim that flying under the hood is a perfect
simulation of flying in IMC. That's why when we're training for our
instrument ratings we seek out real IMC to fly in to get that
experience.

We also use simulators, including MSFS. Many pilots agree that MSFS is
useful for instrument training, particularly with regard to flying
procedures (although not with regard to learning to ignore the
physical sensations of flight in IMC).

Nobody is saying MSFS is not a useful tool. They are just saying that
since you have only experienced MSFS, whereas most of the posters here
have experienced sims, hood time and real IMC, you aren't exactly in a
strong position to opine about things.

Why do you do it? You are clearly intelligent enough to understand
that what you have written here is illogical. And yet you love to pick
holes in other people's logic. You could be a useful and well-liked
contributor to this forum if you recognized the fact that pilots who
have flown in real life do have some valuable experience that you
can't understand.

If you think flying is too risky, fine don't do it. I don't care. The
risk is not worth it to you. But it's worth it to me and no amount of
telling me that I can get the same experience in front of my PC will
persuade me otherwise, because to me it's about the freedom of going
places, not the pleasure of correctly flying a procedure (although I
enjoy that too).


On May 16, 11:01*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

They are both simulations. *MSFS simulates IFR flight (with or without IMC).
Flying under a hood in a real aircraft simulates IFR flight in IMC. *But a
hood is not real IMC. *If flying under a hood is useful (and it is), then
flying MSFS is also useful.

The fact is, anything other than the real thing is just a simulation; if
simulations are not useful, then that has to apply across the board, not just
to simulations that you prefer to dismiss. *If MSFS is not useful, then
neither is flying under a hood, or looking at a drawing made by an instructor,
or examining illustrations in a book, or watching an instructional DVD.