-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Mxsmanic wrote:
John Theune writes:
Because you have received no training nor have you passed any of the
testing required for the operation of a aircraft.
I haven studied communication with ATC, and that's all that is
required to participate in this discussion. I don't need any tests or
training in the use of flight controls, although I do have the latter
(albeit in simulation).
You're right here. You haven't studied communication with ATC.
A lot of it is depicted in the .65, which if you want to know about
communication with ATC, you should read.
You're trying to associate one type of skill with a domain to which it
is unconnected. You don't need anything other than a book to learn
ATC communication.
Wrong. Just like any science, you have two sections: Theory,
and Application. Just because you read to understand the
theory/philosophy of it, it is a different bear altogether when you see
it applied in everyday use. In this instance, you need both. One is not
good enough.
In the course of my study, I've encountered pilots saying "rolling"
when taking off, even though there seems to be no formal recognition
of this phrase. I was curious as to when and why pilots choose to use
it. I don't make a distinction between simulation and real life in
this case because they are both identical in this context.
Curious? Oh well, in for a sheep. When and why? They don't need
to for the most, and it's just a courtesy that pilots have just to give
ATC a heads up that they are rolling. Consider the following:
At KLAS, taxiway B is used to taxi outbound to runway 25R. A
pilot is taxiing outbound, #1, and Local asks him/her if they can accept
intersection A3 for departure. They respond that they can, so Local
clears them for takeoff from A3:
SWA1205, wind 250 at 3, runway at Alpha 3, cleared for takeoff.
Pilot reads that back, even though they hadn't made it to A3
yet. But when he/she gets there, turns the corner, enters the runway,
as a courtesy, he notifies the controller that he's rolling.
Nothing more than a common courtesy. Basically, If you had
thoroughly read and studied the .65R and the AIM, this question would
be a non-issue. To new students, yes, but with the number of posts here
that you have, it is understood that you are not a student, nor have
the experience to back up what you say or think is true with actual
fact.
In this case you are
asking about communication with ATC which for you is also composed of
simulation users who may or may not have received any formal training
and there is just no way of knowing if they are following the same rules
as the ATC that pilots have to deal with.
As I've already explained: (1) many of the controllers in simulation
are also controllers in real life; (2) controllers in simulation
receive training very similar to that used in real life, and generally
use the same reference materials (7110.65 in the U.S., and the AIM);
and (3) my observations here come not only from simulation but also
from listening to real ATC, and from transcripts of real ATC.
I will agree here. there are some controllers on VATSIM who are
in fact real world controllers. They (VATSIM) do use and adhere to the
same documentation and regulations that real world controllers do. Your
fault here, is that you've burst onto this scene saying that MSFS is
real, that VATSIM is real, and discredit everything else that is said
here, despite the fact that you have real pilots and controllers here.
Saying that to people who do this for a living isn't going to give you
any warm fuzzies in return. Your first impression for everyone in this
group was laughable, which is why it is hard for people to take what
you have to say as fact. Get what you give, reap what you sew.
Here again, you're trying to make a distinction that doesn't exist.
As you have said so many
times, you don't anything that is said on this group at face value,
therefor why should we?
I don't know. Why should you?
See above on give/get.
Casey is just making it clear to anyone who
happens into this thread without knowing your background to be wary of
anything you say as it's likely to be wrong.
You haven't explained why anything I say is likely to be wrong.
RTFM. You'll see why what you're saying is wrong. Sure, pilots
may say it, but it does not make what pilots say RIGHT. Pilots for the
most can say what anything they want, as long as they adhere to what
they are required to read back, FARs, and other regs. Once again, that
documentation stating that has been available for YEARS. A simple read
of those would have made this entire thread a non-issue.
Frankly, I'm amazed at how clueless many so-called pilots are here.
They argue ceaselessly with each other, and in many cases all of the
"pilots" arguing are wrong--nobody has the right answer. Sometimes
nobody has _any_ answer, just speculation and argument.
You have been blissfully ignorant that they are arguing with
YOU, not other pilots here. Once again, you've barged into here with
the "I'm right, you all are wrong" attitude, and think that the world
is going to stop and listen to you? Pilots and ATC here know the
answers to the questions you have. Hell, some non-pilots and non-ATC
here already know the answers to the questions you have. They've gone
beyond their beck and call to give you those answers, and you've
slapped them all in the face by not believing their answers, or looking
at the documentation they suggest to see the facts in black and white.
They have the experience, while you do not. They have the knowledge,
while you do not. They've spent countless hours learning, studying,
paying fees, testing, the entire gambit to get where they are and know
what they know, while you do and have not. Because of them knowing what
they do, presenting their knowledge and experience to you, and you
throwing that away, they know that answering you is a lost cause.
So you think they don't have any answers? They do. They're just
tired of trying to answer you.
It's puzzling because, on the one hand, it seems that the requirements
for becoming a pilot are fairly rigorous, and yet, on the other hand,
many people who claim to be pilots are severely misinformed.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
BL.
P.S. I would love to see you and Steven McNicoll throw down.
that would be a riot. Perhaps Jay or Sam S. could play Judge Mills Lane
as the referee.
- --
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)
iD8DBQFFx5qNyBkZmuMZ8L8RAtWTAJ9W3KuuWIVZ4n+mp4HlND TKPnOH3ACfTKkg
jTxHek8djc7vLlDNV1V2aJE=
=jj7n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----