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

Mxsmanic wrote:

Newps writes:


You still haven't listed one time when the rudder does not change flight
path.


A forward slip.


BZZT, try again.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Newps writes:


There is never a case where it doesn't change flight path.


Landing in a crosswind.


Steeeeeerike two.

Amazing. Anyone knows about possibility for killfile in Google groups?


Mxsmanic wrote:
Alexey Goldin writes:

When I came back, I thanked her for saving me from possibly broken arm
or leg (no kidding) and unpleasant time spent in hospital, never mind
bent aluminium.

She could have accomplished the same without shouting or swearing.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
You should "simulate" the look of fright from your wife sitting next to
you with a look of fear when you acknowledge keeping your speed up.
She's sitting over there imagining a jet that's going to ram you.

I'm not married, nor do I simulate marriage.

It's a joke. Christ...

Separation does not change because visual approaches are in use. It
remains the same unless visual separation is used. This is independent
of any type of approach clearance.

Thanks, I appreciate the correction.

Mxsmanic wrote:
B A R R Y writes:

I also have trouble believing very many real pilots would bother to
participate in that whole shebang.

Many real pilots play with MSFS all the time.


A friend of mine is a pilot for an international cargo carrier, and he
does play with MSFS. He just loves to fly a 747 off of a grass strip
that is about half a mile from his (real) house. The grass strip is in
the MSFS database, so he uses it. (I guess it beats pretending to drive
to the airport.)

So, at least one professional pilot likes to _PLAY_ with MSFS.

I also have trouble believing very many real pilots would bother to
participate in that whole shebang.

Many real pilots play with MSFS all the time.


A friend of mine is a pilot for an international cargo carrier, and he
does play with MSFS. He just loves to fly a 747 off of a grass strip
that is about half a mile from his (real) house. The grass strip is in
the MSFS database, so he uses it. (I guess it beats pretending to drive
to the airport.)

So, at least one professional pilot likes to _PLAY_ with MSFS.

Could be amusing. Tthose sim engines are virtually imune to FOD; and the
wing tips can slice through trees like they were never there ... bfg

Peter

Mxsmanic wrote:

Since you cannot test the real aircraft that high, you have no
way of knowing whether the simulation is accurate or not.

Brilliant. How do we get there in the first place? What
limiters do you suppose in a normally-aspirated,
piston-engine A/C would prevent us? Barring extraordinary
ridge lift in winter-cold air, and maybe that would be
insufficient, how do we get to FL 300 like I've done in MSFS
in a 172? Possible only with slew. And what's that silly
MSFS phugoid thing all about in this rarefied air? It's
program code; not reality.

F--

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Ross writes:

Nope, this was the real multi million $ American Airline simulator in
Ft. Worth Texas at their training center. I do not suspect they you
MSFS.

Sometimes it can be surprising what runs on the back end.

As someone who's been flying them every six months for a decade, and
*instructing* in them for several years, it wouldn't be surprising at
all. And as Mr. Space correctly points out, there's not so much as a
snippet of Microsoft code running those $12 MM simulators.

They run custom-designed simulator software, running on banks of
computers. They can communicate with the actual, physical avionics that
are the same as those installed in the aircraft. (Very, very different
from painting graphics on what amounts to a matte painting that looks
somewhat like a cockpit.) They also mimic the physical sensations,
which are *critical* in coming anywhere close to completely simulating
flight.

I've played MSFS, I've spent hundreds of hours in full-motion
simulators, and I've flown thousands of hours in transport aircraft.
Until you have done more than one of the above, you ARE NOT QUALIFIED to
make comparisons amongst them.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic wrote:
A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

And it's up to you to find it, not be spoonfed it.

I was showing the insignificance of such statements.

And the result ended up with you showing your lack of
proaction and initiative. Like I said, no-one is going to spoonfeed you
things like this when they are asked commonly both in the real and
virtual world. In short, your question is an FAQ. The answers are
already posted in this and many other places. It is up to you to go
look for it. You're not on scholarship around here. you want to do what
those in the real world are doing? Read up and Study it. That's what
they do, that's how they learn it, that's how they do it.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFnugtyBkZmuMZ8L8RAlV4AJ44+7XgkZ7XlB7MqkfgGl ky5i5apgCdGIL0
3SHmMm/6ZiMMOXM1K5xqLu8=
=CFxH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----