Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Sam,


In a Level D simulator in 121 opertions



And the connection to MSFS is?

Zero

TxSrv wrote:

Microsoft Games Development Team are the real gurus;

Actually one of them pretty much told him he was full of sh!t.

Sam Spade writes:

Man, why do you continue to be so arrogant when you don't understand how
to read FARs?

Why don't you just quote the relevant text from the beginning?

Look for the little ****---- that I have placed a couple of times as
highlighting.

Found it, thanks. I note, however, that some parts of 91.129
specifically mention Class D, while others do not. The implication of
this is that only the parts that do not mention Class D explicitly
will apply in other airspaces. Part (e):

(e) Minimum Altitudes. When operating to an airport in Class D airspace,
each pilot of ...

explicitly mentions Class D airspace, and thus would not appear to
apply to other airspaces.

How do you know that this part applies to all airspaces? The
distinction between parts mentioning Class D and those not mentioning
it appears to be deliberate.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Thus, while there may not be much practical reason to simulate the
aircraft at that altitude, since it is physically possible for it to
be at that altitude, it is also possible to simulate it at that
altitude. However, if nobody ever tests the aircraft for real at that
altitude, any simulation of its behavior there remains a matter of
speculation and unverifiable.

Why is the service ceiling of a 172 set so low then? Is it your
contention that if a B-29 dropped a 172 (i.e. "slew") from FL300 it
would continue to fly?

That its engine would somehow magically find enough oxygen to feed the
normally aspirated engine?

You'll construct anything in your mind to maintain your fantasy won't
you?

Mxsmanic wrote:
Sam Spade writes:


Man, why do you continue to be so arrogant when you don't understand how
to read FARs?


Why don't you just quote the relevant text from the beginning?

Because I chose not to.




Found it, thanks. I note, however, that some parts of 91.129
specifically mention Class D, while others do not. The implication of
this is that only the parts that do not mention Class D explicitly
will apply in other airspaces. Part (e):


(e) Minimum Altitudes. When operating to an airport in Class D airspace,
each pilot of ...


explicitly mentions Class D airspace, and thus would not appear to
apply to other airspaces.

How do you know that this part applies to all airspaces? The
distinction between parts mentioning Class D and those not mentioning
it appears to be deliberate.


The provisions of 91.129 apply to Class B and C airspace unless there is
something in the Class B or C rules that *clearly* countermands some
part of 91.129

In the case of Class C ATC can waive appropriate requirements of 91.129;
in Class B it doesn't say that.

With the issue of remaining on, or above the ILS G/S in VFR, ATC would
never waive that.

Sam Spade writes:

Because I chose not to.

And I chose to regard your assertion with suspicion in consequence.

The provisions of 91.129 apply to Class B and C airspace unless there is
something in the Class B or C rules that *clearly* countermands some
part of 91.129

According to whom?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Neil Gould writes:

Why would anyone be upset over a non-issue? I'm certainly not.

Of course.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

bdl writes:

Why is the service ceiling of a 172 set so low then?

Because it cannot climb in any useful way above a certain altitude,
and it's not a high-performance aircraft.

Is it your contention that if a B-29 dropped a 172 (i.e. "slew") from FL300 it
would continue to fly?

I don't really know. I think it probably would, but it would be
pretty unstable.

That its engine would somehow magically find enough oxygen to feed the
normally aspirated engine?

It doesn't need an engine to fly.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

Of course, it is a non-issue for those of us that actually fly.

You seem to be pretty upset over it.

Why would anyone be upset over a non-issue? I'm certainly not.

Neil

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Sam Spade writes:

In those $10 million simulators it sure as Hell ain't windows.

I don't know...

And that would be the key point. I *do* know. I operate them for a
living, doing airline training in them.

... Windows
might well be used for certain functions, as it would lower
implementation costs if the OS is suitable for the purpose (writing a
custom operating system is very expensive).

Hence the $12 MM pricetag for a typical Level D simulator, and the
nearly $1000/hour you'll pay to fly it.

But one
cannot use just anything, because the more exotic the OS, the more
expensive the development carried out for it.

Yes. Which is why a full-motion simulator is not available for $69 at
CompUSA.