Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

On May 20, 2:33*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
gatt writes:
The physical sensations allow a pilot to be proactive rather than
reactive.

Not under IFR.

How do you know since MSFS does not give you physical feedback?

Besides the above is WRONG. IFR means Instrument Flight Rules which
is different then IMC.

On May 20, 3:00*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

I don't need physical feedback in MSFS, because IFR is all about flying by
instruments alone.

WRONG.

Do you get leans in MSFS? Do you get spatially disoriented in MSFS

On May 20, 2:59*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

What makes Dudley right is his understand of the importance of relying on
instruments and not sensations.

Show me where I say I rely on sensations AND NOT INSTRUMENTS.

You won't which makes you WRONG above.

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:


Well, that was an interesting one. It was in Panama.Copa airlines, I
think.
You've got it pretty much right. The skipper was the chief pilot and
the FO was the greenest in the company, so there would have been a steep
cockpit gradient. IOW the FO would have been a bit reluctant to speak
out. Also, being a Latino cutlure, and paternal in it's roots, there is
an even stronger reluctance to criticise one's superiors. Maternal
societies produce behavior patterns more condusive to what we would call
good CRM.
/snip/

If that's the one I'm thinking about, the Captain was also a relatively
low time pilot. He was a celebrated military hero in his country, but
actually had just a few hours in fighters, and a few in Hercs. Then,
after military retirement, *bam*, chief pilot of a "major" airline, with
about 1000 total time. And yes, the -200 does have a very sporting roll
rate, which certainly exacerbated the situation.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

A Lieberman writes:

One thing for sure, we are not robots, and don't do the same thing,
but that's the human side of us.

Some human sides lead to safety; others lead to danger.


You don't have a human side, you moron.

We take pleasure in flying, as we do in driving, but we use both
airplane and car to get to other places.

IMC is a defined condition -- that specific sequence of words has in
the context of flight in the US means something to pilots. That you
choose to ignore its meaning demonstrates something unpleasant about
you.

As for a sim flight taking as long to get somewhere as one in a real
airplane? What an odd mind you have. When we arrive somewhere we are
actually there. We can meet with friends who live there, dine with
them, play golf, whatever.





Your statement that it takes as long On May 20, 3:31 pm, Mxsmanic
wrote:
Tina writes:
You might have noticed it takes a LONG time in a sim to arrive at a
real destination.

It takes the same amount of time in the sim that it takes in real life.

It's not often we climb aboard our airplane without
wanting to actually, after a flight, be in a different place.

Do you fly for travel, or do you fly for the sake of flying?

There are a few real life issues your simming may not correctly
represent. For example, one can fly in IMC and have excellent
visibility and outside reference. IMC does NOT mean being in the
clouds.

IMC that does not include impaired visibility is a legal construct and not
relevant to this discussion.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Tina writes:

You might have noticed it takes a LONG time in a sim to arrive at a
real destination.

It takes the same amount of time in the sim that it takes in real
life.


BULL ****. You don't get anyware in real time in a sim. Only an infantile
moron would think that a sim goes anywhere.

It's not often we climb aboard our airplane without
wanting to actually, after a flight, be in a different place.

Do you fly for travel, or do you fly for the sake of flying?

Many of us fly for both reasons. We enjoy flying AND we want to go
somewhere. If we didn't, we'd just play with a sim. But we want to go
somewhere. Only a moron like you confuses simming with real flying.

There are a few real life issues your simming may not correctly
represent. For example, one can fly in IMC and have excellent
visibility and outside reference. IMC does NOT mean being in the
clouds.

IMC that does not include impaired visibility is a legal construct and
not relevant to this discussion.


In this case, IMC means "Ignoramus Mxsmanic Claims".

You really don't know **** from shinola. You lack the real world
experience to differentiate **** from shinola. All you do is regurgite
whatever character string you find that you half-wittedly think matches
what's being discussed.

A Lieberman wrote in
:

On May 20, 2:31*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

IMC that does not include impaired visibility is a legal construct
and not

relevant to this discussion.

WRONG.



Just remeber that when it comes to Anthony, IMC = "Ignoramus Mxsmanic
Claims".

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

terry writes:

Next time you go there Mx do you reckon you could get me a souvenir
cloth badge, Ive been collecting them for years, and I havent got
KLAX. I'll pay of course and add $5 for your trouble. Was that the
2 or 4 seat sim?

It was the Baron, with club-style seating.


You really set up four seats in your sim? What a doofus.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Mxsmanic wrote in
news
Steve Foley writes:

You also tried to 'fly' from KTEX to KASE, slammed into a mountain , and
lived.

That was VFR.


Now you're saying that crashing while VFR is non-fatal, but crashing while
IFR is. In your case, IMC = Ignoramus Mxsmanic Claims.



--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)