If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:26:18 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote: Hatunen writes: Nor can it realistically simulate the feeling of aiming the plane at a real runway and trying your best to grease the wheels on, but instead coming in a bit high and trying to force the plne down to the runway without bouncing too much. Actually it does that rather well. Your computer chair bounces? As us8ual you deleted an important part of my post.... "In some fairness, it should be said that some computer simulators perform pretty well, but it also has to be said that a simulation on a PC can never be very realistic. It is far different sitting in a real cockpit with a real yoke and real pedals operating real ailerons, elevators and rudders." .... which makes it clear I am talking about PC simulators. A PC can never simulate that feeling in the pit of your stomache when teh plane hits a downdraft and loses 2000 feet just like that. Like many private pilots, you think of flight in terms of physical sensations. This is only one of many possible interpretations, however. You've never flown a plane. I have. The physical sensations can be important when they occur, as they can distract from clear thinking. A stall simulated on a PC can not ever accurately convey the, um, thrill, of a full stall (especially your first full stall as a student pilot) as you keep pulling back on the yoke/joystick pointing the noise higher and higher as the stall warning screams and then, WHAM!, the nose of the plane is pointed downward, seemingly straight down at the ground, gaining speed rapidly. The first time I did tht for my isntructor it scared the crap out of me. (The plane itself is important here; our old Piper J-3 would snap a stall break like you wouldn't believe, real Six Flags sort of thing, while the Cessnas are a bit more forgiving, and some light planes are designed to not break in a stall at all but to simply lsoe altitude.) A PC can not give you the feel of a plane as it is slowed to stall speen with the stall warning blaring and the plane shuddering a little. Andalthough they no longer teach it, a PC cannot simulate the quiet but scary feeling f being in a spin and the slight panic as you try to bring it out of that spin. Since they no longer teach it, doesn't that mean that there are no longer any Real Pilots? How can you know anything about a spin without spinning in a real aircraft? And the PC can not simulate the visual context of a real plane where the instruments are spread out; you'd have to keep your nose pretty close to the monitor to simulate this. Actually, the PC can do this, with the right add-ons. As to Mixie's apparent idea that somehow his PC is a good emulation of a big-time simulator, where the cockpit layout is very close to the appearance of the craft's real cockpit and where the hydraulics on the simulator can create most of the bumps and jerks of real flight, that is downright ludicrous. I guess you haven't been flying or simming much recently. The cockpit layout of the sim is realistic enough that you may not recognize it as a sim at first glance. It's not difficult to display photo-realistic visuals, after all. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:26:18 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote: Hatunen writes: Andalthough they no longer teach it, a PC cannot simulate the quiet but scary feeling f being in a spin and the slight panic as you try to bring it out of that spin. Since they no longer teach it, doesn't that mean that there are no longer any Real Pilots? How can you know anything about a spin without spinning in a real aircraft? Well, my instructor, who insisted on teaching spins to me although no longer required for certification said there weren't any more real pilots. I guess you don't have to know how to recover from a spin if you don't spin. And the PC can not simulate the visual context of a real plane where the instruments are spread out; you'd have to keep your nose pretty close to the monitor to simulate this. Actually, the PC can do this, with the right add-ons. Like an add-on dual monitor? I fail to see how a PC can realistically give the sensation of an instrument panel over two feet across. As to Mixie's apparent idea that somehow his PC is a good emulation of a big-time simulator, where the cockpit layout is very close to the appearance of the craft's real cockpit and where the hydraulics on the simulator can create most of the bumps and jerks of real flight, that is downright ludicrous. I guess you haven't been flying or simming much recently. The cockpit layout of the sim is realistic enough that you may not recognize it as a sim at first glance. It's not difficult to display photo-realistic visuals, after all. Unless your computer chair can bounce up and down and lean left and right, it's not the same. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
Hatunen writes: But you're still required to actually fly a plane to get certified. That is a regulatory rather than a practical restriction. And you only need a very small number of hours of flight in a real aircraft. In the future, I suspect that pilots will be trained without any time in a real aircraft, mainly to save money. Delusional. Tell us: does the simulator simulate a stall? Yes. Sure it does, including the feeling of falling when the stall breaks and the increased G load as you pull out. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
Hatunen writes: Nor can it realistically simulate the feeling of aiming the plane at a real runway and trying your best to grease the wheels on, but instead coming in a bit high and trying to force the plne down to the runway without bouncing too much. Actually it does that rather well. Delusional. The view looks like a flat screen and there is no peripherial view. A PC can never simulate that feeling in the pit of your stomache when teh plane hits a downdraft and loses 2000 feet just like that. Like many private pilots, you think of flight in terms of physical sensations. The physical sensations of a downdraft are real in real airplanes and you have to learn to deal with them to fly real airplanes. A PC can not give you the feel of a plane as it is slowed to stall speen with the stall warning blaring and the plane shuddering a little. Andalthough they no longer teach it, a PC cannot simulate the quiet but scary feeling f being in a spin and the slight panic as you try to bring it out of that spin. Since they no longer teach it, doesn't that mean that there are no longer any Real Pilots? How can you know anything about a spin without spinning in a real aircraft? Wrong. Yes spins are still taught, they are just not a requirement for private. And the PC can not simulate the visual context of a real plane where the instruments are spread out; you'd have to keep your nose pretty close to the monitor to simulate this. Actually, the PC can do this, with the right add-ons. Sure if you have a 360 degree wrap around display. Do you? As to Mixie's apparent idea that somehow his PC is a good emulation of a big-time simulator, where the cockpit layout is very close to the appearance of the craft's real cockpit and where the hydraulics on the simulator can create most of the bumps and jerks of real flight, that is downright ludicrous. I guess you haven't been flying or simming much recently. The cockpit layout of the sim is realistic enough that you may not recognize it as a sim at first glance. It's not difficult to display photo-realistic visuals, after all. Since it is all on a small (compared to even a C150 panel) 2 dimensional flat screen, only someone delusional could not immediately tell it is a display. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
Hatunen writes:
Your computer chair bounces? No, but the view out the window and the instruments tell me all that I need to know. Vision is the most important sense in flying by far. ... which makes it clear I am talking about PC simulators. PC simulators do a good job, too. You've never flown a plane. I have. Thank you for proving my point. The physical sensations can be important when they occur, as they can distract from clear thinking. Yes, but much of their effect is a function of personality as well. A stall simulated on a PC can not ever accurately convey the, um, thrill, of a full stall (especially your first full stall as a student pilot) as you keep pulling back on the yoke/joystick pointing the noise higher and higher as the stall warning screams and then, WHAM!, the nose of the plane is pointed downward, seemingly straight down at the ground, gaining speed rapidly. Yes, I know. But I'm not a thrillseeker, and I don't need thrills to learn how to fly. The first time I did tht for my isntructor it scared the crap out of me. Did you know what to expect? |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
Hatunen writes:
Well, my instructor, who insisted on teaching spins to me although no longer required for certification said there weren't any more real pilots. It's a judgment call. Spin practice is no longer required because more pilots were dying from spins during training than were dying from spins during flight thereafter. The cure was worse than the disease. So the emphasis was shifted to avoiding spins, rather than recovering from them, at least for PPLs. I guess you don't have to know how to recover from a spin if you don't spin. Exactly. It's safer to practice avoiding spins, but to only learn the theory of spin recovery. Like an add-on dual monitor? No. Look up TrackIR. I fail to see how a PC can realistically give the sensation of an instrument panel over two feet across. See above. Unless your computer chair can bounce up and down and lean left and right, it's not the same. As I've said, a lot of private pilots seem to give physical sensations priority over everything else. But there's a lot more to flying than a roller-coaster ride. I don't care much for the physical sensations myself, although takeoff and landing are kind of pleasant if they are smooth. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
Hatunen writes: Your computer chair bounces? No, but the view out the window and the instruments tell me all that I need to know. Vision is the most important sense in flying by far. Delusional babble. It is important to learn how to handle ALL the sensory inputs, especially the ones that tend to cause you to redo your breakfast. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
Hatunen writes: Well, my instructor, who insisted on teaching spins to me although no longer required for certification said there weren't any more real pilots. It's a judgment call. Spin practice is no longer required Wrong. Spins are not required for private and below. snip delusional babble about small, flat screens looking just like a real airplane panel -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:45:01 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
Wingnut writes: So, you're sayign that flight experience is irrelevant to flying an aircraft? That depends on the experience, and the aircraft. Flight experience in a Cessna 152 Ah, the Cessna 152 strawman again. I was wondering when that would show up. First sentence of non-quoted text as it just so happens -- which means one of my co-workers owes me ten bucks. :-) Just as experience in driving a Yugo doesn't necessarily help in driving a Formula 1 car. Experience driving versus never having sat behind a wheel should make some difference. It's plain old common sense! A person with experience in a Cessna 152 still has none in a 747, and so he will not necessarily be any more useful in a 747 cockpit than a non-pilot would. There will be some commonalities. Zero experience in a plane will make you worse than having had some experience. I don't claim you'd be proficient; just that you wouldn't actually be *less* capable than someone who knew *nothing*. Again, common sense. Pilots of small private aircraft who believe that they could just slip into a 747 cockpit and fly it are just as naive as non-pilots who believe the same thing. First of all, we weren't talking "pilots of small private aircraft", at least not until you came along and introduced that particular strawman. Second, they may not be able to do a good job, but the total non-pilot will surely do a worse job. Except in your earlier, specific scenario of being talked through a procedure from the ground, where anyone with basic comprehension skills will probably do about as well. (Someone with piloting experience might more quickly be able to find and recognize particular controls or instrument readouts though, and will be able to understand a more compact jargon, so he may be a bit faster though other than that only as good as the quality of the ground instructions.) I don't think anyone here has claimed that. Though the less someone knows about operating an aircraft, the poorer their odds. Yes. I've heard many people claim this, however, and it only shows that they are uninformed. Someone who says that "the less experience a person has at a skilled task, the poorer their odds of completing it successfully" is "uninformed"? In what universe? In the one where I live there is this thing called a "learning curve". It climbs steeply at first, then bends over, but it's monotonic increasing, and it indicates task performance as a function of experience. Performance improves with experience, slowing down and eventually plateauing. For some things (e.g. Tic-Tac-Toe) it plateaus fast and low; for others (e.g. chess) it plateaus much more slowly and higher, because the thing being learned is more complicated. But it does not actually dip down at any point. Since this basic fact (learning curves are monotonic increasing) is disputed by you, I'm forced to conclude that you're insane and thus not really worth debating with any further. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 05:01:37 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:
On Jun 20, 4:30Â*am, Wingnut wrote: On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:11:10 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote: All this is just a fancy way of saying that prior experience in a Cessna 150 might not matter in a 767 Who said anything about a Cessna? The original post said she had experience as a *commercial* pilot. That tends to mean something a bit bigger than just a personal aircraft. I believe the lady herself said during a TV interview that her experience was restricted to light aircraft. The type "Cessna" was mentioned. This statement, if true, remains irrelevant. Learning curves are monotonic increasing. She cannot be actually worse than someone with zero piloting experience and is probably at least slightly better. Furthermore, the original post to this thread did not state anything of the sort, only that she had a commercial pilot's license, which as another person pointed out normally includes non-zero experience with larger craft. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Leftist Kamakazi pilot Joe Stack, who crashed his airplane intoFederal building in Austin TX, like both Evleths, had been a severe andchronically suffering "Bush Derangement Syndrome" sufferer for years. | O'Donovan, PJ | Europe | 7 | February 27th, 2010 05:30 AM |
free realestate helps... | realestate | USA & Canada | 0 | August 31st, 2006 09:18 AM |
Aussie Pilot Found Dead in Airplane | Fly-by-Night | Air travel | 29 | March 12th, 2005 07:34 PM |
Co-pilot fell ill ,pilot lands solo | scuffler | Asia | 4 | March 12th, 2004 10:14 AM |
HAL Helps TAs Who Lost Houses In Fires! | Ray Goldenberg | Cruises | 0 | January 1st, 2004 03:21 PM |