Errors accessing FAA's Pilotweb

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

Only if you're a gamer. Normally the enjoyment of simulation requires
that
many of the same constraints that apply in the real world also be
respected in
the simulated world.

So you don't let gamers into your simulated treehouse?

On Feb 3, 9:39*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

The key restrictions simulations *don't* have are danger, cost, and
training requiremetns, which are the keys to why our friend here sits at
a desk instead of in a cockpit.

Exactly. *You get 95% of the fun with none of the hassle, depending on which
aspect of flying you prefer.

You won't convince me of that. You miss out on nearly all the
sensations of flying. When I go out to the Aeronca I smell the fresh
grass from the runway, I hear the birds. When I get in the plane I
smell the wonderful aroma of avgas and oil. I feel the wooden prop on
my hands as I give the engine its breath of life. I feel the sensation
of bounced down the grass runway and I feel the G load as I make a
quick left turn to avoid the nearby class D airspace. I see the
mountains 200 miles away on a clear and and see the snow caps on them.
I hear the 65 hp. Cont purring away.
I honestly would not have the patience to sit in from of a computer
but I love smelling the flowers as I make a low pass over the fields.
That is what flying is about to me.

-Robert

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Exactly. You get 95% of the fun with none of the hassle, depending on which
aspect of flying you prefer.

I agree with the rest of what you said, but this is ridiculous. YOU may
get 95% of the fun (although how you could tell, never having flown a
real plane, is beyond me) but that is by no means universal. The number
for me is more like 1%, which is why I've basically stopped simming
since I started flying for real. You can bet that I'm not driving 90
minutes each way and paying $30+ for tows just to make up that last five
percent!

Sims are fun, sims are useful in limited ways, but a 95% solution they
are not.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

On Feb 3, 12:39*pm, Steve Hix
wrote:
In article
,



*Jon wrote:
On Feb 3, 9:03*am, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
"Mike Ash" wrote in message

...

In article
,
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

On Feb 2, 12:27 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Robert M. Gary writes:
I guess I just don't understand simulation (I have a hard time just
finding time to mow my lawn, much less play on the computer).
However,
wouldn't the benefit of playing on the flight simulator be that you
could ignore real TFRs and fly right over the White House (land on
the
grass, etc)?

Only if you're a gamer. Normally the enjoyment of simulation requires
that
many of the same constraints that apply in the real world also be
respected
in
the simulated world.

Kind of seems like having a hot blow up doll who's realistic enough to
not want to have sex with you. If you're going to be bound by real
life restrictions why simulate?

Nah, to a non-pilot playing with a simulator, things like TFRs and weird
NOTAMs are cool and interesting challenges. There's no certificate that
can be threatened, there's no actual travel to be disrupted, so it's
just an interesting change of pace.

The key restrictions simulations *don't* have are danger, cost, and
training requiremetns, which are the keys to why our friend here sits at
a desk instead of in a cockpit.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

You forgot about the all-important "pause button" to facilitate potty-stops,
and visits to the fridge, without the dsiruption and delay associated with a
real stop enroute...

Peter * ;-)

My first long haul ride in a GA plane (Piper Aztec) was with two IFR
pilots. It tooks several days (Hanscom AFB to Lafayette, LA). I
finally understood what they meant by "running out of ass before you
run out of gas"

Coming up on 59 years of age, I no longer am so interested in flying
something with five or eight hours endurance, as I was when I was 21 and
first flying.

Darn.

I hear ya. This was back in my mid 30's. The Aztec had about a 4 hour
range at most, as I recall. The pilot always played it safe, though,
and wouldn't push anything (range, flying conditions, etc.).

Departed KBED and our first stop was in Roanoke for lunch. Afterwards,
I went to stock up at the candy machine for the next leg. Another
pilot in the room made eye contact and said words to the effect of
"It's amazing we're alive on this diet, isn't it?" Never looked at a
vending machine quite the same way since

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

The concern in this case is that you could visit a bogus site and receive
bogus information, if not necessarily malware per se (although that's also a
possibility, albeit unlikely for this type of site).

Funny, that's not what you said befo

The serious consequence of accepting a bogus certificate authority is that
your computer can be infected with malware after you have done so. If you
enjoy identity theft, credit-card fraud, or reinstalling machines to
eliminate
malware, that is your prerogative, but most people don't enjoy that.

Sure is a huge leap from "infected with malware... identity theft,
credit-card fraud" to "bogus information [for which there would be
absolutely no consequences]". I guess consistency is too much to ask
from you.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Mxsmanic wrote:
Taylor writes:

A real pilot would not use FAA's pilot web to learn about TFRs and
NOTAMs as part of an official weather briefing (verbal or electronic),
which is the only one that counts.

Real pilots use it all the time, and that is its main purpose, which is why
the site is secured with SSL.

Wrong again.

Most pilots use http://tfr.faa.gov/tfr2/list.html to get TFRs and
DUATS or similar for NOTAMS.

Your comment about SSL is just plain silly.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jon writes:

So the certificate is self-signed.

No, it just isn't in the browser database.

Yes, the certificate is self-signed.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

So, you think that a FAA site is going to steal your identity, put
bogus charges on your credit card or install malware?

No, but a bogus site might. And if it's not a SSL connection, impersonation
is easy.

Babbling nonsense.

If you are dumb enough to connect to what appears to be an FAA web site
and click on the link that says Buy Viagra Now, you get what you deserve.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Taylor wrote:
A real pilot would not use FAA's pilot web to learn about TFRs and
NOTAMs as part of an official weather briefing (verbal or electronic),
which is the only one that counts.

Not to mention the F-16 flying next to you, in an extreme nose-up slow
flight maneuver, flashing it's nav lights. G

writes:

Wrong again.

Most pilots use http://tfr.faa.gov/tfr2/list.html to get TFRs and
DUATS or similar for NOTAMS.

Why would the FAA maintain a site for pilots if pilots didn't visit it? Why
would it make it a secure site?