Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane

On Jun 25, 7:47*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Bob Myers writes:
Frankly - no, you don't.

Since you don't know the extent of my knowledge, you are not in a position to
assess it. So why not talk about aviation instead?

YES WE DO KNOW THE EXTENT OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE TO ASSESS IT

FACT: YOU NEVER FLEW A REAL PLANE

FACT:: YOU HAVE NO REAL WORLD KNOWLEDGE.

The fact is you outright lie when you say you fly. YOU DON'T FLY!!!!
HELLOOOO. YOU SIMULATE FLYING.

FACT: SIMULATION IS THE EXTENT OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Bob Myers writes:

Frankly - no, you don't.

Since you don't know the extent of my knowledge, you are not in a position
to
assess it. So why not talk about aviation instead?

I think that quite a few of the people who have read your postings over the
past few years have a good idea of the extent of your knowledge. My own view
is that you know a little about a lot of subjects, which is dangerous. But,
clearly, you have no in-depth knowledge of anything and in your own view you
have never ever been wrong.
--
JohnT

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

It's also important to know the current stall angle, the angle of attack,
the
flight path vector, the airspeed and altitude trends, the V-speeds, the
upper
and lower airspeed limits, the current track, the current route, the
current
vertical profile, the current heading, the expected top of descent, and
about
a zillion other things that a private pilot isn't likely to see in a tiny
Cessna.

But you know them all because you play a computer game?
--
JohnT

Mxsmanic wrote:
Bob Myers writes:

But the simulator experience you're talking about is absolutely
meaningless without real-world flight experience.

I don't share that opinion, nor is it widely held.

In fact, it's possible to pursue simulation as an end in itself. It
does have certain advantages that real flight does not.

For that matter, the "simulator" in your case really isn't one.
It's a computer game, something which is VERY far removed from
what the airlines call a simulator.

Clearly, it's been a long time since you last used a desktop
simulator.

Wrong again. And to think that you were just complaining
that *I* had no idea what *you* knew. Mr, Pot, meet
Mr. Kettle.

MSFS is a computer game. It is by no stretch of the imagination
a "flight simulator" in the sense of something that would actually
be useful for flight instruction, except possibly re some very
basic procedures training.


The U.S. military disagrees with you, and has for the past decade
(that is, through several versions of MSFS). So do many pilots,
flight schools, and instructors.

No, they don't disagree with me at all. I know what they're using that game
for
- do you? And just how many pilot certificates have been awarded based
on MSFS hours, do you think?


Bob M.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Bob Myers writes:

No. The little airplane you see on the screen may stall, but
you have absolutely no insight at all into what a stall *feels*
like.

I have some insight into it, but what it feels like is not terribly
important.

And that, more than anything else you have said, sums up
quite neatly why you have no idea what you're talking about
here.

Bob M.

On 26/06/10 01:47, Mxsmanic wrote:
Hatunen writes:

Do you suppose your typical lieutenant taking simulator training
will be allowed to become a tank commander without actually ever
having been in a tank?

It's certainly conceivable, but I don't know if it is actually done.

Do you know, I do believe the idiot thinks he's right.

Which is possibly the scariest thing I have thought in a very long time...

--
William Black

These are the gilded popinjays and murderous assassins of Perfidious
Albion and they are about their Queen's business. Any man who impedes
their passage does so at his own peril.

JohnT writes:

But you know them all because you play a computer game?

I know a lot of them from flight simulation. And a Cessna 152 pilot who has
flown only that aircraft and never does simulation or study of any other
aircraft will not know about them.

Bob Myers writes:

And that, more than anything else you have said, sums up
quite neatly why you have no idea what you're talking about
here.

Only for people who love sensations and mistakenly believe that sensation is
all of flying.

Bob Myers writes:

MSFS is a computer game.

It's a simulation, which is why Microsoft killed it. The market for simulators
is very small. The market for games is very large.

It is by no stretch of the imagination
a "flight simulator" in the sense of something that would actually
be useful for flight instruction, except possibly re some very
basic procedures training.

As I've said, it is widely used as a learning and training aid.

No, they don't disagree with me at all. I know what they're using that game
for do you?

Yes.

And just how many pilot certificates have been awarded based
on MSFS hours, do you think?

None. In every jurisdiction I know of, you have to have hours in a real
aircraft to get a pilot certificate, at least currently. That may change in
the future, but even then the requirement will be for full-motion simulators,
not desktop simulators.

JohnT writes:

I think that quite a few of the people who have read your postings over the
past few years have a good idea of the extent of your knowledge.

No more than I do of theirs. I can recognize many mistakes when I see them,
but that doesn't necessarily indicate the extent of a person's knowledge. In
some cases, you can tell; in other cases, you cannot.

Most people I interact with here are only interested in talking about me,
which makes it difficult to assess their knowledge unless they get something
clearly wrong. They do make some impressive claims, but claims in cyberspace
are nothing but background noise.

My own view is that you know a little about a lot of subjects, which
is dangerous.

Some people flying know only a little about the subject, too, which is far
more dangerous.