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

Mxsmanic wrote:


I fly a mixture of VFR and IFR on the Baron, and mostly IFR on the
737. I also use VATSIM, the leading virtual flight network, so that I
can interact with other human pilots and controllers by radio, rather
than just interact with the computer-generated stuff provided by MSFS
when it is in offline mode.

All in all, the realism is striking, and much better than some
detractors like to believe.


I don't think you understand the aerodynamics of the real world. MSFS
has great scenery but the aircraft and the atmosphere modeling are
terribly wrong in MSFS.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mxsmanic ]
Posted At: Thursday, January 04, 2007 3:23 AM
Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
Conversation: Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's
ATC
Subject: Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's
ATC

....

I do have a problem with transitions between automated systems and
flying by hand. Sometimes it's hard for me to keep track of what the
systems are doing and what I am doing. As a last recort I
occasionally disengage the automation entirely and fly by hand
(particularly for approaches and landings), but that is not the
objective, that's just to get on the ground safely.


So you are really using your home computer as a procedure and systems
simulator and not a flight training tool. I will agree that learning
systems and procedures are part of the flight training process (or any
training process that involves automation), but they are not as big a
part of the overall training as you seem to believe. I say that because
of your devotion to the idea that you really are doing exactly the same
thing as a professional pilot actually flying an aircraft along the same
routes.

There are a lot of freewill decisions that still take place in the
cockpit and those decisions can not be simulated.



You just can't let your instruments do everything for you
the moment you rotate.


This is another way of saying that the freewill decision process has to
be considered and you have to allocate the variables those decisions
introduce. If it were considered safe, reliable, or even desirable to
automate the entire process (as a systems simulator provides) then there
would be no flight training requirements because there would be no
pilots. True flying is involves much less systems integration and
systems management than you seem to believe. Sure, flying will always
involve some systems management -- hell we can't even fly our Super Cubs
or Taylorcraft in controlled airspace anymore without working with the
system somewhat.

My point to this post is that you seem to have the incorrect idea about
systems management and procedure memorization being the most significant
part of operating an aircraft -- that's not the way it is for the large
majority of people who fly.


You can if they work as designed. And real life comes very close to
that, although I understand most pilots fly the first part of the
departure by hand, and often landings as well.


Refer to your earlier posting about rudeness and consider that you have
no experience on which to base your comment immediately above, yet you
still have taken an authoritative position from your tone and word
choice. This is why others have suggested you consider your own
"attitude".

On 01/04/07 05:10, Sam Spade wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:


I fly a mixture of VFR and IFR on the Baron, and mostly IFR on the
737. I also use VATSIM, the leading virtual flight network, so that I
can interact with other human pilots and controllers by radio, rather
than just interact with the computer-generated stuff provided by MSFS
when it is in offline mode.

All in all, the realism is striking, and much better than some
detractors like to believe.


I don't think you understand the aerodynamics of the real world. MSFS
has great scenery but the aircraft and the atmosphere modeling are
terribly wrong in MSFS.

But of course, the marketing literature for the simulator product and
it's add-ons claim that it is realistic, so the simulator must be
correct. If there are perceived differences, it must be that the real
pilots aren't interpreting reality correctly.

;-\

Mark Hansen wrote:



But of course, the marketing literature for the simulator product and
it's add-ons claim that it is realistic, so the simulator must be
correct. If there are perceived differences, it must be that the real
pilots aren't interpreting reality correctly.

;-\

Got it! It was like being beaten up by company destructors in the
simulator every six months. Then, flying the first line trip
afterwards, with a glazed look on one's face, saying, "Darn, this stupid
airplane isn't flying like the simulator."

On 01/04/07 08:39, Sam Spade wrote:
Mark Hansen wrote:



But of course, the marketing literature for the simulator product and
it's add-ons claim that it is realistic, so the simulator must be
correct. If there are perceived differences, it must be that the real
pilots aren't interpreting reality correctly.

;-\

Got it! It was like being beaten up by company destructors in the
simulator every six months. Then, flying the first line trip
afterwards, with a glazed look on one's face, saying, "Darn, this stupid
airplane isn't flying like the simulator."

That's right - send the airplane back, as it's obviously not working
properly! ;-)

Mxsmanic wrote:

All in all, the realism is striking, and much better than some
detractors like to believe.

The realism is very striking. That doesn't make it REAL, however. By
definition.

Mxsmanic wrote:
I have a really hard time just understanding what they are saying
sometimes. I don't know how pilots and controllers manage to
understand each other without making mistakes. Unfortunately, the
same problem exists with virtual flight networks like VATSIM (but for
different reasons).

If you were in "real" IMC it's even worse (at least until you develop
some practice and learn to keep the picture in your head). Always
seems like ATC is telling you to do something just as you are in the
middle of something else.

Brian

bdl wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:


All in all, the realism is striking, and much better than some
detractors like to believe.


The realism is very striking. That doesn't make it REAL, however. By
definition.

The topography is striking. The realizm is zip.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Anyway, the FMC normally controls lateral and vertical navigation and
the throttle, and optimizes all in order to attain its preprogrammed
path, altitude, and speed.

Is the FMC flying or are you? I'm not an airline pilot, so I'll go
ahead and ask the question (please real world answers only) is the FMC
the boss or is the pilot? If the FMC says optimal is such and such,
but ATC says do this, doesn't the airline pilot do what ATC says? I
always assumed that a FMS in a modern airliner was just a souped up
version of my Garmin 430. I.e. it has a plan, but what I get is ALWAYS
different. Even when I try to "guess" ahead of time.

In the world of simulation, we rarely have heavy traffic, so I only
occasionally get speed restrictions. They are not too hard to
respect, usually--just setting a different speed in the FMC is often
sufficient.

Yet another difference between your simulated world and the real world,
huh? Does the lack of heavy traffic make you a better simulated pilot?

Probably, but it seems so easy to misunderstand that I should think it
would be very mistake prone. I read back almost every instruction I
get to ATC just to make sure that I've understood it.

Two words, "Say again"

If you want to get a glimpse into real world ATC, take a look at Don
Brown's columns at Avweb
(http://www.avweb.com/news/sayagain/193881-1.html)

Sam Spade wrote:
bdl wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:


All in all, the realism is striking, and much better than some
detractors like to believe.


The realism is very striking. That doesn't make it REAL, however. By
definition.

The topography is striking. The realizm is zip.

And the topography wasn't that striking till they fixed the bridges...