Simulation isn't flying

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In December 2008 issue of Flying magazine's Left Seat column is an
article titled "The Simulator Yardstick".

The opening sentences are:

"The most frequent complaint I hear from pilots transitioning into
turbine airplanes, particularly jets, is the the simulator doesn't
fly like the airplane. All say they can fly the real airplane just
fine, but the simulator just isn't the same."

The author is not talking about a PeeCee with plastic USB controls.

He is talking about full motion simulators where the cockpit instruments,
lights, swtiches, controls, seats and everything else are from a real
airplane with 180 degree views and costing millions of dollars.

The author goes on to discuss the differences between simulation and
real flying and what can be obtained from professional level simulators.

A recommended read.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
In December 2008 issue of Flying magazine's Left Seat column is an
article titled "The Simulator Yardstick".
"The most frequent complaint I hear from pilots transitioning into
turbine airplanes, particularly jets, is the the simulator doesn't
fly like the airplane. All say they can fly the real airplane just
fine, but the simulator just isn't the same."

When the pilots can describe the exact differences that bother them, I'll
listen. It's easy to make claims without specifics.

Nevertheless, I'll read the article when it becomes available on the Web site.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
In December 2008 issue of Flying magazine's Left Seat column is an
article titled "The Simulator Yardstick".
"The most frequent complaint I hear from pilots transitioning into
turbine airplanes, particularly jets, is the the simulator doesn't
fly like the airplane. All say they can fly the real airplane just
fine, but the simulator just isn't the same."

When the pilots can describe the exact differences that bother them, I'll
listen. It's easy to make claims without specifics.

It is in the article, but you won't listen anyway.

I notice that lack of information about what is in the article on your
part doesn't slow you down on pot shots.

Post by Mxsmanic
Nevertheless, I'll read the article when it becomes available on the Web site.

Translation: I'm too poor and cheap to buy a magazine and since I'm
anti-social I have no friends from whom I could borrow a copy in spite
of my previous claims to knowing lots of pilots that agree with my
arrogant crap.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
It is in the article, but you won't listen anyway.

We'll see when the article is posted on the Web.

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
I notice that lack of information about what is in the article on your
part doesn't slow you down on pot shots.

There's a certain class of pilots who systematically reject simulation in a
knee-jerk reaction with no rational basis. Additionally, I have my doubts
about that columnist, based on some other things he has written.

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
Translation: I'm too poor and cheap to buy a magazine and since I'm
anti-social I have no friends from whom I could borrow a copy in spite
of my previous claims to knowing lots of pilots that agree with my
arrogant crap.

You're only partially correct: I am indeed poor. Also, I rather doubt that
the magazine is sold on this side of the pond, especially outside the U.K.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Mxsmanic
We'll see when the article is posted on the Web.

We already know what that outcome will be.

Post by Mxsmanic
Additionally, I have my doubts
about that columnist, based on some other things he has written.

So says the pennyless Microsoft game player about the author with thousands
of hours of real flying, lots of hours in professional simulators, and
a real job.

Post by Mxsmanic
You're only partially correct: I am indeed poor.

Most people would get off their ass and do something about the situation.

I'd suggest you start with therapy to find out why such an arrogant ass
has such a victim mentality.

[D***@yahoo.com]

Post by Mxsmanic
When the pilots can describe the exact differences that bother them, I'll
listen. It's easy to make claims without specifics.
Nevertheless, I'll read the article when it becomes available on the Web site.

I fly real airplanes. I "fly" the various CERTIFIED simulators
we use here in flight training. I have played with my son's MSFS. I
have found that (A) MSFS isn't flying; that (B) MSFS can't even be
called a "simulator;" that (C) I get bored after about five minutes
with MSFS, which does not happen with a real airplane. It's a game,
not a simulator.

Dan

[A Lieberman]

Post by Mxsmanic
When the pilots can describe the exact differences that bother them, I'll
listen.  It's easy to make claims without specifics.

I have told you the exact differences between simulation and flying a
real plane.

LOOK IT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is out there in the archives of these
groups.

Specifically leans in IMC to refresh your memory. I don't know of a
soul who gets the leans playing MSFS.

IS THAT SPECIFIC ENOUGH?????

[Mxsmanic]

Post by A Lieberman
I have told you the exact differences between simulation and flying a
real plane.

I know that you've expressed your opinions in the past. Thank you for
sharing.

Post by A Lieberman
LOOK IT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I do.

Post by A Lieberman
It is out there in the archives of these groups.

I usually look things up in other resources. Newsgroups are not very
reliable.

Post by A Lieberman
Specifically leans in IMC to refresh your memory.

I know of your belief in the overriding importance of physical sensations. I
do not share it.

Post by A Lieberman
I don't know of a soul who gets the leans playing MSFS.
IS THAT SPECIFIC ENOUGH?????

Nobody's ears pop when using MSFS, either, but I don't consider that
significant.

[A Lieberman]

Post by Mxsmanic
Nobody's ears pop when using MSFS, either, but I don't consider that
significant.

You don't????????? BAD CHOICE!!!!!!!!!!!!

LET ME TAKE YOU ON A 3000 - 4000 FPM CLIMB OR DESCENT IN A REAL
UNPRESSURIZED PLANE AND I BET YOU WON'T SAY IT'S NOT SIGNIFICANT. You
will be screaming wishing you were sitting in front of a desktop
computer.

YOU CANNOT IGNORE PHYSICAL SENSATIONS IN A REAL PLANE.

You do not get physical sensations in MSFS.

Is the above an exact difference of flying a real plane. YOU
BET!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mxsmanic]

Post by A Lieberman
LET ME TAKE YOU ON A 3000 - 4000 FPM CLIMB OR DESCENT IN A REAL
UNPRESSURIZED PLANE AND I BET YOU WON'T SAY IT'S NOT SIGNIFICANT.

I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to trust you as a pilot.

Post by A Lieberman
You will be screaming wishing you were sitting in front of a desktop
computer.

I have a better idea: Why don't I just stay in front of the desktop computer
to begin with?

Post by A Lieberman
YOU CANNOT IGNORE PHYSICAL SENSATIONS IN A REAL PLANE.

Perhaps, but you can certainly exaggerate their importance.

[Dudley Henriques]

Post by A Lieberman
YOU CANNOT IGNORE PHYSICAL SENSATIONS IN A REAL PLANE.

Just a respectful suggestion here but on the student group you might
want to differentiate between VFR flying and flying on instruments.
I'd sure hate to see a bunch of students coming away thinking this
then taking their first hour of instrument dual :-))))
Dudley Henriques

[A Lieberman]

Post by Dudley Henriques
Just a respectful suggestion here but on the student group you might
want to differentiate between VFR flying and flying on instruments.
I'd sure hate to see a bunch of students coming away thinking this
then taking their first hour of instrument dual :-))))
Dudley Henriques

Good point on the distinction of VFR vs IFR but my point directly to
Mx no matter what mode of rules we fly by, you cannot ignore physical
sensations.

Ears popping at massive climb and descent rates will affect your
ability to concentrate on your task at hand flying a REAL airplane,
and that simply doesn't happen in front of a desktop simulator. You
don't get that "distraction factor" that physical sensation CAN
INDUCE.

Mx doesn't acknowledge that getting dizzy on a steep turn can affect
your inner balance, even if it's brief because he doesn't experience
that on MSFS.

He calls it exaggeration, I call it the real world.

We may see differently on IFR handling of a plane, but surely you
can't agree with Mx that MSFS simulates flying and task management
with physical sensations tossed in, such as steep turns, turbulence,
doing a dance act barreling down a runway "right rudder right rudder"
the whole climb up.

Mx doesn't do a full motion simulator, and MSFS just doesn't simulate
even VFR flying even on control feel and inputs. After all, flying my
Sundowner handles much differently then a Cessna, and on a real plane,
you know it's different.

You can't tell me that MSFS simulates the physical sensations that the
heavier Sundowner is compared to a Cessna. Mouse doesn't simulate it,
nor does a keyboard.

[Dudley Henriques]

Post by A Lieberman

Post by Dudley Henriques
Just a respectful suggestion here but on the student group you might
want to differentiate between VFR flying and flying on instruments.
I'd sure hate to see a bunch of students coming away thinking this
then taking their first hour of instrument dual :-))))
Dudley Henriques

Good point on the distinction of VFR vs IFR but my point directly to
Mx no matter what mode of rules we fly by, you cannot ignore physical
sensations.
Ears popping at massive climb and descent rates will affect your
ability to concentrate on your task at hand flying a REAL airplane,
and that simply doesn't happen in front of a desktop simulator.  You
don't get that "distraction factor" that physical sensation CAN
INDUCE.
Mx doesn't acknowledge that getting dizzy on a steep turn can affect
your inner balance, even if it's brief because he doesn't experience
that on MSFS.
He calls it exaggeration, I call it the real world.
We may see differently on IFR handling of a plane, but surely you
can't agree with Mx that MSFS simulates flying and task management
with physical sensations tossed in, such as steep turns, turbulence,
doing a dance act barreling down a runway "right rudder right rudder"
the whole climb up.
Mx doesn't do a full motion simulator, and MSFS just doesn't simulate
even VFR flying even on control feel and inputs.  After all, flying my
Sundowner handles much differently then a Cessna, and on a real plane,
you know it's different.
You can't tell me that MSFS simulates the physical sensations that the
heavier Sundowner is compared to a Cessna.  Mouse doesn't simulate it,
nor does a keyboard.

I'm not trying to "tell you anything", and you are correct that
physical sensation is present at all times when flying. Learning to
acclimate to these sensations is a natural part of learning to fly.
AVOIDING all reference to these same physical sensations resulting in
a reaction to them is natural to learning to fly instruments. Nothing
more; nothing less.
When mentioning physical sensation as relates to flying, it is
important to recognize and differentiate between these two entirely
separate environments associated with flying.
As is the case with almost everything related to flying,
generalization can seldom be presented without specific explanation.
DH

[A Lieberman]

Post by Dudley Henriques
Learning to
acclimate to these sensations is a natural part of learning to fly.

Which I hope you will agree is not part of MSFS and MSFS fails to even
come close to simulate flying a real plane.

Post by Dudley Henriques
AVOIDING all reference to these same physical sensations resulting in
a reaction to them is natural to learning to fly instruments. Nothing
more; nothing less.

Avoiding and ignoring are two different things. You can't ignore
them, but you do need to avoid reacting to them (them being
sensations).

MSFS doesn't give you that opportunity to AVOID sensations. They
simply are not there, so you can't say flying IMC in MSFS is the same
as IMC in a real plane. You don't get the distraction of sensation or
get leans in MSFS. In VFR, you don't get that dizzy feeling in a
steep turn in MSFS that you get in a real plane.

This is not exaggerations of sensations as Mx thinks I am doing. They
are real bonifide feelings that one must acknowledge, not ignore, but
you do have to AVOID SUCCUMBING to the "reactions" you may want to do.

Post by Dudley Henriques
When mentioning physical sensation as relates to flying, it is
important to recognize and differentiate between these two entirely
separate environments associated with flying.
As is the case with almost everything related to flying,
generalization can seldom be presented without specific explanation.

Yes and no. Since the topic at hand is simulation is not flying, you
don't need to distinguish VFR vs IFR.

MSFS doesn't give you any physical sensation so anything in the real
world with any sensation adds to the workload of flying an airplane
whether it be VFR or IFR WHEN COMPARED TO MSFS.

Since Mx has never flown an airplane, he has no reference points to
make any comparison no matter what he reads on the net. He has no
experience or any credibility to make any comparison since he has
never flown a plane.

You know that reading experiences on the net isn't flying, or I would
hope so.

[Dudley Henriques]

Post by A Lieberman

Post by Dudley Henriques
Learning to
acclimate to these sensations is a natural part of learning to fly.

Which I hope you will agree is not part of MSFS and MSFS fails to even
come close to simulate flying a real plane.

I have in fact reviewed a fine book on this exact subject, worked with
MS on the simulator program and worked with flight instructors using
the program. My basic opinion is that MSFS has a purpose in flight
instruction as an introductory tool to be used before dual commences,
then again as a procedure tool after solo. I advocate NOT using MSFS
either by instructors or students during the period commencing with
the first hour of dual and ending at solo for the exact reason that
the simulator denies the critical control pressure acclimation that is
part and parcel of the learning curve for a student pilot during the
period I specified.

Post by A Lieberman

Post by Dudley Henriques
AVOIDING all reference to these same physical sensations resulting in
a reaction to them is natural to learning to fly instruments. Nothing
more; nothing less.

Avoiding and ignoring are two different things.  You can't ignore
them, but you do need to avoid reacting to them (them being
sensations).

No one has inferred that they be ignored. Being present they CAN'T be
ignored. What I said was that for instrument flying, physical
sensation has to be AVOIDED, and avoided means avoided as a cue, not
avoided as to presence.

Post by A Lieberman
MSFS doesn't give you that opportunity to AVOID sensations.  They
simply are not there, so you can't say flying IMC in MSFS is the same
as IMC in a real plane.  You don't get the distraction of sensation or
get leans in MSFS.  In VFR, you don't get that dizzy feeling in a
steep turn in MSFS that you get in a real plane.

Using MSFS for instruments is done for PROCEDURE, not for anything
else. MSFS should NEVER be used in any attempt to duplicate actual
flight, as in this sense, it is totally unsuitable .

Post by A Lieberman
This is not exaggerations of sensations as Mx thinks I am doing.  They
are real bonifide feelings that one must acknowledge, not ignore, but
you do have to AVOID SUCCUMBING to the "reactions" you may want to do.

Post by Dudley Henriques
When mentioning physical sensation as relates to flying, it is
important to recognize and differentiate between these two entirely
separate environments associated with flying.
As is the case with almost everything related to flying,
generalization can seldom be presented without specific explanation.

Yes and no.  Since the topic at hand is simulation is not flying, you
don't need to distinguish VFR vs IFR.

AGAIN, the simulator is suitable as an INTRODUCTORY and PROCEDURE
tool, nothing else.

Post by A Lieberman
MSFS doesn't give you any physical sensation so anything in the real
world with any sensation adds to the workload of flying an airplane
whether it be VFR or IFR WHEN COMPARED TO MSFS.
Since Mx has never flown an airplane, he has no reference points to
make any comparison no matter what he reads on the net.  He has no
experience or any credibility to make any comparison since he has
never flown a plane.
You know that reading experiences on the net isn't flying, or I would
hope so.

Hope as you wish.

[A Lieberman]

Post by Dudley Henriques
Using MSFS for instruments is done for PROCEDURE, not for anything
else. MSFS should NEVER be used in any attempt to duplicate actual
flight, as in this sense, it is totally unsuitable

AND

Post by Dudley Henriques
AGAIN, the simulator is suitable as an INTRODUCTORY and  PROCEDURE
tool, nothing else.

We are on the same page......

Learning the process of instruments workings and IFR (and even some
VFR) procedures is all that MSFS is good for. Beyond that it's simply
a game.

It does not and will never duplicate actual flight (good choice of
words on your part) whether it be VFR or IFR. This is the only point
I am bringing out in this thread.

It is not even a simulator of flying a real airplane without any
physical simulation. Sitting on a chair in front of a monitor is not
simulating the auditory, visual and physical sensations of a real
airplane.

MSFS is simply a game when it comes to "flight" as compared to flying
a real plane which is the reasons 99.9999 percent of the people come
to this group in the first place.

If they didn't want real flight, they would already be at the alt.sim
groups where Mx belongs as he is not interested in FLYING.

[Dudley Henriques]

Post by A Lieberman

Post by Dudley Henriques
Using MSFS for instruments is done for PROCEDURE, not for anything
else. MSFS should NEVER be used in any attempt to duplicate actual
flight, as in this sense, it is totally unsuitable

AND

Post by Dudley Henriques
AGAIN, the simulator is suitable as an INTRODUCTORY and  PROCEDURE
tool, nothing else.

We are on the same page......
Learning the process of instruments workings and IFR (and even some
VFR) procedures is all that MSFS is good for.  Beyond that it's simply
a game.
It does not and will never duplicate actual flight (good choice of
words on your part) whether it be VFR or IFR.  This is the only point
I am bringing out in this thread.
It is not even a simulator of flying a real airplane without any
physical simulation.  Sitting on a chair in front of a monitor is not
simulating the auditory, visual and physical sensations of a real
airplane.
MSFS is simply a game when it comes to "flight" as compared to flying
a real plane which is the reasons 99.9999 percent of the people come
to this group in the first place.
If they didn't want real flight, they would already be at the alt.sim
groups where Mx belongs as he is not interested in FLYING.

Your seeming need to explain to me things I don't need explained again
and again appear to me to be a symptom of your constant attempts to
make short shrift of Anthony. Quite frankly it's becoming obvious and
disturbing. If you want to bash Mxsmanic, go do it with someone else
will you please. I'm getting tired of being your means of doing this.
Thank you

[A Lieberman]

Post by Dudley Henriques
make short shrift of Anthony. Quite frankly it's becoming obvious and
disturbing. If you want to bash Mxsmanic, go do it with someone else
will you please. I'm getting tired of being your means of doing this.

Like our last spat, you said you don't give a fuck what I think. Well
neither do I care what you think when you post crap like the above.

You want to be a Mx fan have at it, but I don't have to be. He is
posting incorrect information and you came into here busting my chops
on IFR vs VFR.

THANK YOU.

[Dudley Henriques]

Post by Dudley Henriques
make short shrift of Anthony. Quite frankly it's becoming obvious and
disturbing. If you want to bash Mxsmanic, go do it with someone else
will you please. I'm getting tired of being your means of doing this.

Like our last spat, you said you don't give a fuck what I think.  Well
neither do I care what you think when you post crap like the above.
You want to be a Mx fan have at it, but I don't have to be.  He is
posting incorrect information and you came into here busting my chops
on IFR vs VFR.
THANK YOU.

Your chops need busting pal. You are so full of dislike for this
Anthony character you show it in every post you make. It takes away
from anything useful you might have to say flying wise. In short,
you're as bad as he is. You're so jaded you can't even recognize when
he's right and when he's wrong. For you, he's wrong ALL the time.
You can't even take ME on without getting into it about Mxsmanic.
Do as you like. Post as you like. If you want to take me on, go for
it. If killfiling is your thing go for that. Just go lecture someone
else will you. I don't need your Anthony lectures :-)

[A Lieberman]

Post by Dudley Henriques
it. If killfiling is your thing go for that. Just go lecture someone
else will you. I don't need your Anthony lectures :-)

I will lecture who I choose to. Killfile me if you don't like it or
what I don't like....

You add to the problem answering his questions. Look at the cold
thread and you tell me who is causing you more trouble. It's sure
isn't me. :-)))))))))))))

[Dudley Henriques]

Post by Dudley Henriques
it. If killfiling is your thing go for that. Just go lecture someone
else will you. I don't need your Anthony lectures :-)

I will lecture who I choose to.  Killfile me if you don't like it or
what I don't like....
You add to the problem answering his questions.  Look at the cold
thread and you tell me who is causing you more trouble.  It's sure
isn't me. :-)))))))))))))

Nice dealing with you again. Happy flying there ole buddy! :-)))

[Dudley Henriques]

Post by Dudley Henriques
it. If killfiling is your thing go for that. Just go lecture someone
else will you. I don't need your Anthony lectures :-)

I will lecture who I choose to.  Killfile me if you don't like it or
what I don't like....
You add to the problem answering his questions.  Look at the cold
thread and you tell me who is causing you more trouble.  It's sure
isn't me. :-)))))))))))))

Take a look at it yourself. You idiots amaze me! You, and a couple of
other morons on this forum have literally made a lifetime obsession
out of this character Mxsmanix. You obsess over this guy day after day
after day. You engage yourselves in threads that number into the
hundreds of posts, each one of you trying to impress the other with
how much you know, and being the first to hit the keys to impart this
"absolutely essential" information that HAS to be posted here to SAVE
the world from what YOU consider to be the worst flight safety poster
(mxsmanic) that's ever hit the web.
Then you idiots feel the need to engage anyone and everyone who YOU
think shouldn't be posting this or that.
The result has been what you have here now.
You are apparently so stupid you can't even see that the situation YOU
and your cohorts have created is FAR worse than having a mxsmanic
among you.
You, being neither a STUDENT PILOT or an INSTRUCTOR, are now engaging
instructors on this forum with non aviation related bull shit like you
have just done here with me.
You idiots should really consider getting a life! YOU are the problem
here, not me, not others, not even mxsmanic!!!.

My initial post to you in this thread was to address something YOU had
said concerning the use of MSFS. That post had absolutely nothing
whatsoever to do with mxsmanic or what he had said. I was addressing
YOU you idiot.
Now take a long llok at how YOU have taken our exchange.
THAT is the answer to the "problem" here. Nothing else!
DH

[Mark Hansen]

Post by Dudley Henriques

Post by Dudley Henriques
it. If killfiling is your thing go for that. Just go lecture someone
else will you. I don't need your Anthony lectures :-)

I will lecture who I choose to. �Killfile me if you don't like it or
what I don't like....
You add to the problem answering his questions. �Look at the cold
thread and you tell me who is causing you more trouble. �It's sure
isn't me. :-)))))))))))))

Take a look at it yourself. You idiots amaze me! You, and a couple of
other morons on this forum have literally made a lifetime obsession
out of this character Mxsmanix. You obsess over this guy day after day
after day. You engage yourselves in threads that number into the
hundreds of posts, each one of you trying to impress the other with
how much you know, and being the first to hit the keys to impart this
"absolutely essential" information that HAS to be posted here to SAVE
the world from what YOU consider to be the worst flight safety poster
(mxsmanic) that's ever hit the web.
Then you idiots feel the need to engage anyone and everyone who YOU
think shouldn't be posting this or that.
The result has been what you have here now.
You are apparently so stupid you can't even see that the situation YOU
and your cohorts have created is FAR worse than having a mxsmanic
among you.
You, being neither a STUDENT PILOT or an INSTRUCTOR, are now engaging
instructors on this forum with non aviation related bull shit like you
have just done here with me.
You idiots should really consider getting a life! YOU are the problem
here, not me, not others, not even mxsmanic!!!.
My initial post to you in this thread was to address something YOU had
said concerning the use of MSFS. That post had absolutely nothing
whatsoever to do with mxsmanic or what he had said. I was addressing
YOU you idiot.
Now take a long llok at how YOU have taken our exchange.
THAT is the answer to the "problem" here. Nothing else!
DH

Bravo, Dudley!

[Dudley Henriques]

Post by Mark Hansen

Post by Dudley Henriques

Post by Dudley Henriques
it. If killfiling is your thing go for that. Just go lecture someone
else will you. I don't need your Anthony lectures :-)

I will lecture who I choose to. Killfile me if you don't like it or
what I don't like....
You add to the problem answering his questions. Look at the cold
thread and you tell me who is causing you more trouble. It's sure
isn't me. :-)))))))))))))

Take a look at it yourself. You idiots amaze me! You, and a couple of
other morons on this forum have literally made a lifetime obsession
out of this character Mxsmanix. You obsess over this guy day after day
after day. You engage yourselves in threads that number into the
hundreds of posts, each one of you trying to impress the other with
how much you know, and being the first to hit the keys to impart this
"absolutely essential" information that HAS to be posted here to SAVE
the world from what YOU consider to be the worst flight safety poster
(mxsmanic) that's ever hit the web.
Then you idiots feel the need to engage anyone and everyone who YOU
think shouldn't be posting this or that.
The result has been what you have here now.
You are apparently so stupid you can't even see that the situation YOU
and your cohorts have created is FAR worse than having a mxsmanic
among you.
You, being neither a STUDENT PILOT or an INSTRUCTOR, are now engaging
instructors on this forum with non aviation related bull shit like you
have just done here with me.
You idiots should really consider getting a life! YOU are the problem
here, not me, not others, not even mxsmanic!!!.
My initial post to you in this thread was to address something YOU had
said concerning the use of MSFS. That post had absolutely nothing
whatsoever to do with mxsmanic or what he had said. I was addressing
YOU you idiot.
Now take a long llok at how YOU have taken our exchange.
THAT is the answer to the "problem" here. Nothing else!
DH

Bravo, Dudley!

Thank you. I'm fairly certain there will be a price to pay from the
peanut gallery I'm sure :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
D

[Mark Hansen]

Post by Dudley Henriques

Post by Mark Hansen
Bravo, Dudley!

Thank you. I'm fairly certain there will be a price to pay from the
peanut gallery I'm sure :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
D

Well, as with everywhere in life, some people's opinions you
respect, and some you don't :-)

With Respect,

[Dudley Henriques]

Post by Mark Hansen

Post by Dudley Henriques

Post by Mark Hansen
Bravo, Dudley!

Thank you. I'm fairly certain there will be a price to pay from the
peanut gallery I'm sure :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
D

Well, as with everywhere in life, some people's opinions you
respect, and some you don't :-)
With Respect,

Thank you. I appreciate that very much. Perhaps there's hope for us
"older guys" yet :-)))))

[A Lieberman]

Post by Dudley Henriques
Then you idiots feel the need to engage anyone and everyone who YOU
think shouldn't be posting this or that.
The result has been what you have here now.

Hmm, then why do you even bother to respond to me? Is it because I am
right and you sit there defending yourself? Chief, I don't care what
you think. Did you remember that earlier in this thread?

Post by Dudley Henriques
You are apparently so stupid you can't even see that the situation YOU
and your cohorts have created is FAR worse than having a mxsmanic
among you.

Show me one thread where I have engaged Mx endlessly? I bet you won't
find one.

Post by Dudley Henriques
You, being neither a STUDENT PILOT or an INSTRUCTOR, are now engaging
instructors on this forum with non aviation related bull shit like you

Your reply above really shows your intelligence.

Post by Dudley Henriques
You idiots should really consider getting a life! YOU are the problem
here, not me, not others, not even mxsmanic!!!.

Like an alcoholic, in denial and won't look in a mirror.

Post by Dudley Henriques
said concerning the use of MSFS. That post had absolutely nothing
whatsoever to do with mxsmanic or what he had said. I was addressing

Then don't engage that part of the conversation you do not like,
problem solved. If you wish to fix a problem look in your own court
and take account for your actions.

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

Post by Dudley Henriques

Post by A Lieberman

Post by Dudley Henriques
Learning to
acclimate to these sensations is a natural part of learning to fly.

Which I hope you will agree is not part of MSFS and MSFS fails to even
come close to simulate flying a real plane.

I have in fact reviewed a fine book on this exact subject, worked with
MS on the simulator program and worked with flight instructors using
the program. My basic opinion is that MSFS has a purpose in flight
instruction as an introductory tool to be used before dual commences,
then again as a procedure tool after solo. I advocate NOT using MSFS
either by instructors or students during the period commencing with
the first hour of dual and ending at solo for the exact reason that
the simulator denies the critical control pressure acclimation that is
part and parcel of the learning curve for a student pilot during the
period I specified.

Post by A Lieberman

Post by Dudley Henriques
AVOIDING all reference to these same physical sensations resulting in
a reaction to them is natural to learning to fly instruments. Nothing
more; nothing less.

Avoiding and ignoring are two different things.  You can't ignore
them, but you do need to avoid reacting to them (them being
sensations).

No one has inferred that they be ignored. Being present they CAN'T be
ignored. What I said was that for instrument flying, physical
sensation has to be AVOIDED, and avoided means avoided as a cue, not
avoided as to presence.

Post by A Lieberman
MSFS doesn't give you that opportunity to AVOID sensations.  They
simply are not there, so you can't say flying IMC in MSFS is the same
as IMC in a real plane.  You don't get the distraction of sensation or
get leans in MSFS.  In VFR, you don't get that dizzy feeling in a
steep turn in MSFS that you get in a real plane.

Using MSFS for instruments is done for PROCEDURE, not for anything
else. MSFS should NEVER be used in any attempt to duplicate actual
flight, as in this sense, it is totally unsuitable .

Post by A Lieberman
This is not exaggerations of sensations as Mx thinks I am doing.  They
are real bonifide feelings that one must acknowledge, not ignore, but
you do have to AVOID SUCCUMBING to the "reactions" you may want to do.

Post by Dudley Henriques
When mentioning physical sensation as relates to flying, it is
important to recognize and differentiate between these two entirely
separate environments associated with flying.
As is the case with almost everything related to flying,
generalization can seldom be presented without specific explanation.

Yes and no.  Since the topic at hand is simulation is not flying, you
don't need to distinguish VFR vs IFR.

AGAIN, the simulator is suitable as an INTRODUCTORY and  PROCEDURE
tool, nothing else.

Post by A Lieberman
MSFS doesn't give you any physical sensation so anything in the real
world with any sensation adds to the workload of flying an airplane
whether it be VFR or IFR WHEN COMPARED TO MSFS.
Since Mx has never flown an airplane, he has no reference points to
make any comparison no matter what he reads on the net.  He has no
experience or any credibility to make any comparison since he has
never flown a plane.
You know that reading experiences on the net isn't flying, or I would
hope so.

Hope as you wish.

Dudley
You make too much sense. Please don't confuse the issues with it.
Geeez and you use words that are so descriptive and so foreign to
many, and or the context is so foreign to people that claim to be
educated and yet can't decipher simple and/or correct english. Well,
at least I think we are using english here?
In spite of my USMC attitude, and in spite of my ongoing CFI feelings
about training pilots properly, I am really getting disheartened with
some of the trends to be spoon fed and not take responsibility for
your actions.
Happy Holidays anyway
Ol S&B

[Dudley Henriques]

Post by Dudley Henriques

Post by Dudley Henriques

Post by A Lieberman

Post by Dudley Henriques
Learning to
acclimate to these sensations is a natural part of learning to fly.

Which I hope you will agree is not part of MSFS and MSFS fails to even
come close to simulate flying a real plane.

I have in fact reviewed a fine book on this exact subject, worked with
MS on the simulator program and worked with flight instructors using
the program. My basic opinion is that MSFS has a purpose in flight
instruction as an introductory tool to be used before dual commences,
then again as a procedure tool after solo. I advocate NOT using MSFS
either by instructors or students during the period commencing with
the first hour of dual and ending at solo for the exact reason that
the simulator denies the critical control pressure acclimation that is
part and parcel of the learning curve for a student pilot during the
period I specified.

Post by A Lieberman

Post by Dudley Henriques
AVOIDING all reference to these same physical sensations resulting in
a reaction to them is natural to learning to fly instruments. Nothing
more; nothing less.

Avoiding and ignoring are two different things.  You can't ignore
them, but you do need to avoid reacting to them (them being
sensations).

No one has inferred that they be ignored. Being present they CAN'T be
ignored. What I said was that for instrument flying, physical
sensation has to be AVOIDED, and avoided means avoided as a cue, not
avoided as to presence.

Post by A Lieberman
MSFS doesn't give you that opportunity to AVOID sensations.  They
simply are not there, so you can't say flying IMC in MSFS is the same
as IMC in a real plane.  You don't get the distraction of sensation or
get leans in MSFS.  In VFR, you don't get that dizzy feeling in a
steep turn in MSFS that you get in a real plane.

Using MSFS for instruments is done for PROCEDURE, not for anything
else. MSFS should NEVER be used in any attempt to duplicate actual
flight, as in this sense, it is totally unsuitable .

Post by A Lieberman
This is not exaggerations of sensations as Mx thinks I am doing.  They
are real bonifide feelings that one must acknowledge, not ignore, but
you do have to AVOID SUCCUMBING to the "reactions" you may want to do.

Post by Dudley Henriques
When mentioning physical sensation as relates to flying, it is
important to recognize and differentiate between these two entirely
separate environments associated with flying.
As is the case with almost everything related to flying,
generalization can seldom be presented without specific explanation.

Yes and no.  Since the topic at hand is simulation is not flying, you
don't need to distinguish VFR vs IFR.

AGAIN, the simulator is suitable as an INTRODUCTORY and  PROCEDURE
tool, nothing else.

Post by A Lieberman
MSFS doesn't give you any physical sensation so anything in the real
world with any sensation adds to the workload of flying an airplane
whether it be VFR or IFR WHEN COMPARED TO MSFS.
Since Mx has never flown an airplane, he has no reference points to
make any comparison no matter what he reads on the net.  He has no
experience or any credibility to make any comparison since he has
never flown a plane.
You know that reading experiences on the net isn't flying, or I would
hope so.

Hope as you wish.

Dudley
You make too much sense. Please don't confuse the issues with it.
Geeez and you use words that are so descriptive and so foreign to
many, and or the context is so foreign to people that claim to be
educated and yet can't decipher simple and/or correct english. Well,
at least I think we are using english here?
In spite of my USMC attitude, and in spite of my ongoing CFI feelings
about training pilots properly, I am really getting disheartened with
some of the trends to be spoon fed and not take responsibility for
your actions.
Happy Holidays anyway
Ol S&B

Well Rocky, I guess old timers like us are just destined to get older
and more cranky as we hang in there trying to insert some old time
religion into this new- fangled world of ours :-)))

Best as always

[Jim Logajan]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
In December 2008 issue of Flying magazine's Left Seat column is an
article titled "The Simulator Yardstick".
"The most frequent complaint I hear from pilots transitioning into
turbine airplanes, particularly jets, is the the simulator doesn't
fly like the airplane. All say they can fly the real airplane just
fine, but the simulator just isn't the same."

When the pilots can describe the exact differences that bother them,
I'll listen. It's easy to make claims without specifics.

One possible specific:

I don't believe it is physically possible for any ground based simulator to
simulate excursions from one gravity for more than a fraction of a second,
yet longer duration excursions happen fairly often in real life aircraft in
many phases of flight, even under calm air conditions.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Jim Logajan
I don't believe it is physically possible for any ground based simulator to
simulate excursions from one gravity for more than a fraction of a second,
yet longer duration excursions happen fairly often in real life aircraft in
many phases of flight, even under calm air conditions.

The excursions are very small, and only a tiny part of the flying experience.
I consider them comparable to changes in air pressure. Unless one flies
specifically for the purpose of feeling these sensations, they are not
important.

Additionally, my simulated flying is calculated to minimize such excursions,
because passengers don't like them, and neither do I. I consider a flight
with minimal movement to be a sign of a good pilot.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Mxsmanic
The excursions are very small, and only a tiny part of the flying experience.
I consider them comparable to changes in air pressure. Unless one flies
specifically for the purpose of feeling these sensations, they are not
important.

Seems like no matter what the differences are they are not important
to you.

Since all you are doing is playing a game, whether you want to admit
that or not, that is probably as it should be.

I do note that your last sentence is terribly puerile. One flies for
the total experience of actual flight.

[Mxsmanic]

One flies for the total experience of actual flight.

Sensations are only a tiny part of the total experience.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Mxsmanic
Sensations are only a tiny part of the total experience.

sensation:

1. the operation or function of the senses; perception or awareness
of stimuli through the senses.

Without sensation there is no perception of any experience unless you
have a data input jack in your head like Mr. Data.

[D***@yahoo.com]

Post by Mxsmanic
The excursions are very small, and only a tiny part of the flying experience.

Ah. The voice of experience. How many times have you flown in a
small airplane?

Dan

[Michael Ash]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Jim Logajan
I don't believe it is physically possible for any ground based simulator to
simulate excursions from one gravity for more than a fraction of a second,
yet longer duration excursions happen fairly often in real life aircraft in
many phases of flight, even under calm air conditions.

The excursions are very small, and only a tiny part of the flying experience.

Just the other day I spent three solid minutes pulling 2 gees. With a
friend at the controls, no less. Frankly I'm surprised I didn't barf all
over the instrument panel.

Post by Mxsmanic
I consider them comparable to changes in air pressure.

I'm curious, have you ever landed an airplane with one of your ears giving
you an incredible, piercing pain because it refuses to pop? That kind of
pain is a very strong distraction and I can tell you from experience that
landing an airplane with it is quite a bit harder than usual. Still think
that changes in air pressure are irrelevant?

Post by Mxsmanic
Unless one flies
specifically for the purpose of feeling these sensations, they are not
important.
Additionally, my simulated flying is calculated to minimize such excursions,
because passengers don't like them, and neither do I. I consider a flight
with minimal movement to be a sign of a good pilot.

That's true on a normal flight. But a real pilot must be able to handle
abnormal conditions as well. The pilot of the Gimli Glider performed a
slip on final which no doubt scared the crap out of many of his
passengers, and yet he saved the day. A pilot who can fly well only on a
normal flight is pretty much useless.

Some people experience motion sickness even when flying the plane, but not
in a simulator. Would it be a good thing for a pilot to discover for the
first time that he is one of these people when he's at altitude on a
revenue flight? Like incredible ear pain, I can tell you from experience
that motion sickness greatly increases the difficulty of flying the plane.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Michael Ash
Just the other day I spent three solid minutes pulling 2 gees. With a
friend at the controls, no less. Frankly I'm surprised I didn't barf all
over the instrument panel.

What type of maneuver keeps you at 2 Gs for three minutes straight?

A steady 2 Gs will not induce motion sickness.

Post by Michael Ash
I'm curious, have you ever landed an airplane with one of your ears
giving you an incredible, piercing pain because it refuses to pop?

I've had unpleasant experiences with air pressure, which is another reason to
prefer simulation.

Post by Michael Ash
That kind of
pain is a very strong distraction and I can tell you from experience that
landing an airplane with it is quite a bit harder than usual. Still think
that changes in air pressure are irrelevant?

Yes.

Post by Michael Ash
That's true on a normal flight. But a real pilot must be able to handle
abnormal conditions as well.

A real pilot doesn't get himself into abnormal conditions.

Post by Michael Ash
Some people experience motion sickness even when flying the plane, but not
in a simulator.

Which people are those?

Post by Michael Ash
... I can tell you from experience that motion sickness greatly
increases the difficulty of flying the plane.

That's why simulation works out so much better.

[D***@yahoo.com]

Post by Mxsmanic
What type of maneuver keeps you at 2 Gs for three minutes straight?
A steady 2 Gs will not induce motion sickness.

A 60-degree-bank steep turn. Do that for three minutes and you'll
barf. The world goes around and around and around and around, yet the
inner ears (cochlea) start saying that nothing's happening. When the
eyes and ears disagree, sickness happens.
You REALLY should try it sometime.

Dan

[Mxsmanic]

Post by D***@yahoo.com
A 60-degree-bank steep turn. Do that for three minutes and you'll
barf.

Why?

Post by D***@yahoo.com
The world goes around and around and around and around, yet the
inner ears (cochlea) start saying that nothing's happening. When the
eyes and ears disagree, sickness happens.

Stop looking out the window.

Post by D***@yahoo.com
You REALLY should try it sometime.

Why?

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Mxsmanic" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
<...>

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by D***@yahoo.com
The world goes around and around and around and around, yet the
inner ears (cochlea) start saying that nothing's happening. When the
eyes and ears disagree, sickness happens.

Stop looking out the window.

Why would you want to make it worse by not looking out the window???

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
Why would you want to make it worse by not looking out the window???

It will make it better, not worse. A simple increase in Gs alone will not
produce motion sickness. If you're in a coordinated turn, you won't get sick
(even if you're not in a coordinated turn, you won't necessarily get sick, as
long as you're in a steady state).

[Viperdoc]

Anthony, how many g do you pull when doing steep turns? Oh wait I forgot
that you don't fly, never have, and have never experienced a steep turn of
any kind.

It should have been obvious as demonstrated by your lack of understanding.

[D***@yahoo.com]

Mx will come up with something--anything--to "refute" whatever
anyone here says. There's no point arguing. He's a master at pulling
our tails and making us mad. Too bad he doesn't do something
worthwhile with all that energy.
We should actually be glad he doesn't (and won't ever) fly; the
pilot's I've met who "know" it all already are some of the most
dangerous.

Dan

[Michael Ash]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by D***@yahoo.com
The world goes around and around and around and around, yet the
inner ears (cochlea) start saying that nothing's happening. When the
eyes and ears disagree, sickness happens.

Stop looking out the window.

Oh man, this is just too funny. Your advice here is *exactly the opposite*
of the advice I have received from every single pilot and medical
professional whose works I have ever read or who I have ever conversed
with on the subject.

But I suppose you're smarter than every single pilot or doctor who has
ever given me advice on motion sickness?

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Michael Ash
Oh man, this is just too funny. Your advice here is *exactly the opposite*
of the advice I have received from every single pilot and medical
professional whose works I have ever read or who I have ever conversed
with on the subject.

If you're in a steady state, you won't get sick. The only way to get sick in
that case is to see some sort of conflicting visual cues. If you look outside
and see something that conflicts with your sensations, you may get sick. If
you don't, you won't.

The situation is the opposite if you're not in a steady state.

Essentially, the key is to always find a steady state for reference, and avoid
anything that includes constant change.

[Viperdoc]

Now Anthony's a physician or physiologist, or perhaps he's just joking?

How could he possibly know anything about getting sick while flying, unless
he simulates vomiting as well?

[Michael Ash]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Michael Ash
Oh man, this is just too funny. Your advice here is *exactly the opposite*
of the advice I have received from every single pilot and medical
professional whose works I have ever read or who I have ever conversed
with on the subject.

If you're in a steady state, you won't get sick. The only way to get sick in
that case is to see some sort of conflicting visual cues. If you look outside
and see something that conflicts with your sensations, you may get sick. If
you don't, you won't.
The situation is the opposite if you're not in a steady state.
Essentially, the key is to always find a steady state for reference, and avoid
anything that includes constant change.

In other words, yes, you really do think that you're smarter than every
single pilot or doctor who has ever given me advice on motion sickness.
Too funny!

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Michael Ash
In other words, yes, you really do think that you're smarter than every
single pilot or doctor who has ever given me advice on motion sickness.

The conclusions I've reached don't require much intelligence. It surprises me
that anyone would think they do.

I've learned the hard way not to place too much trust in credentials. Pilots
know almost nothing about physiology, anyway, and what doctors know, they've
often forgotten (meaning that they have to look it up). Looking things up is
always a good idea, even if you already are pretty confident that you know
something.

[Michael Ash]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Michael Ash
Just the other day I spent three solid minutes pulling 2 gees. With a
friend at the controls, no less. Frankly I'm surprised I didn't barf all
over the instrument panel.

What type of maneuver keeps you at 2 Gs for three minutes straight?

Amazing for all your bluster that you cannot even come up with the answer
to this yourself. Pick any random student pilot who's been at it for more
than a couple of weeks and I bet that he will immediately tell you that a
turn with a 60-degree bank will pull a constant 2 gees for as long as you
want to do it.

Post by Mxsmanic
A steady 2 Gs will not induce motion sickness.

Why do you insist on pulling these statements out of your ass? I can
understand why you argue with people based on what you've read, but I
can't imagine you read this anywhere.

A steady ONE gee is enough to induce motion sickness in some people when
they are presented with the right (wrong?) sensory inputs. The movie _The
Blair Witch Project_ was famous for causing this, as I recall. Why would a
steady two gees be different?

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Michael Ash
I'm curious, have you ever landed an airplane with one of your ears
giving you an incredible, piercing pain because it refuses to pop?

I've had unpleasant experiences with air pressure, which is another reason to
prefer simulation.

Post by Michael Ash
That kind of
pain is a very strong distraction and I can tell you from experience that
landing an airplane with it is quite a bit harder than usual. Still think
that changes in air pressure are irrelevant?

Yes.

Please explain further. Pain due to unequal pressure in the ear can be
highly distracting and even debilitating. It can reduce a pilot's
performance, perhaps to the extent that he will have difficulty
maintaining safe operation of the airplane. And yet you think that it is
irrelevant?

Hypoxia can reduce a pilot's performance in similar ways. Do you then
think that hypoxia is also irrelevant?

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Michael Ash
That's true on a normal flight. But a real pilot must be able to handle
abnormal conditions as well.

A real pilot doesn't get himself into abnormal conditions.

What nonsense! It doesn't matter how excellent a pilot is, he will
encounter emergencies. You cannot avoid emergencies simply by being "good
enough". Unexpected weather, sudden equipment failures, and unexpected
medical problems will all result in abnormal conditions. A real pilot who
plans every flight with the assumption that no abnormal conditions will
arise will quickly either learn the error of his ways or die.

The only way to avoid abnormal conditions in the air with 100% reliability
is not to fly. Which gets us to you....

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Michael Ash
Some people experience motion sickness even when flying the plane, but not
in a simulator.

Which people are those?

Me, as just one example.

[Dudley Henriques]

Post by Michael Ash

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Michael Ash
Just the other day I spent three solid minutes pulling 2 gees. With a
friend at the controls, no less. Frankly I'm surprised I didn't barf all
over the instrument panel.

What type of maneuver keeps you at 2 Gs for three minutes straight?

Amazing for all your bluster that you cannot even come up with the answer
to this yourself. Pick any random student pilot who's been at it for more
than a couple of weeks and I bet that he will immediately tell you that a
turn with a 60-degree bank will pull a constant 2 gees for as long as you
want to do it.

Well....you COULD run out of fuel :-))))

Post by Michael Ash

Post by Mxsmanic
A steady 2 Gs will not induce motion sickness.

Why do you insist on pulling these statements out of your ass? I can
understand why you argue with people based on what you've read, but I
can't imagine you read this anywhere.

Been an acro instructor for many years when I had the occasion to fly
with the Snowbirds one year at Reading. Before we came back with the
number 10 Tutor, lead asked me to burn off the 10/10 engine oil we had
on board number 10 so that the techs could refill the tank after we
landed with fresh oil for the show.
I had to watch the smoke trail to see when the tank was empty which
meant doing the dump in a constant turn. Settled in at about a
constant 60 degree bank at 2g's (naturally :-) and dumped the oil.
Watched the smoke through 3/360's and was sick as a dog halfway
through turn 3 :-) It was hot as hell in the cockpit, strapped in
after doing linear acro and sweating like a stuck pig entering the
bank for the burnoff. At least I didn't puke in the mask, The
Canadians would have NEVER let me forget THAT one!!!! :-)

Post by Michael Ash
A steady ONE gee is enough to induce motion sickness in some people when
they are presented with the right (wrong?) sensory inputs. The movie _The
Blair Witch Project_ was famous for causing this, as I recall. Why would a
steady two gees be different?

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Michael Ash
I'm curious, have you ever landed an airplane with one of your ears
giving you an incredible, piercing pain because it refuses to pop?

I've had unpleasant experiences with air pressure, which is another reason to
prefer simulation.

Post by Michael Ash
That kind of
pain is a very strong distraction and I can tell you from experience that
landing an airplane with it is quite a bit harder than usual. Still think
that changes in air pressure are irrelevant?

Yes.

Please explain further. Pain due to unequal pressure in the ear can be
highly distracting and even debilitating. It can reduce a pilot's
performance, perhaps to the extent that he will have difficulty
maintaining safe operation of the airplane. And yet you think that it is
irrelevant?

Val Salva maneuver helps but doesn't clear the Eustastian tubes
sometimes. That pressure can REALLY hurt if you have a cold and do a
fast penetration from high altitude.

Post by Michael Ash
Hypoxia can reduce a pilot's performance in similar ways. Do you then
think that hypoxia is also irrelevant?

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Michael Ash
That's true on a normal flight. But a real pilot must be able to handle
abnormal conditions as well.

A real pilot doesn't get himself into abnormal conditions.

What nonsense! It doesn't matter how excellent a pilot is, he will
encounter emergencies. You cannot avoid emergencies simply by being "good
enough". Unexpected weather, sudden equipment failures, and unexpected
medical problems will all result in abnormal conditions. A real pilot who
plans every flight with the assumption that no abnormal conditions will
arise will quickly either learn the error of his ways or die.

Good pilots spend almost all their time preparing for an emergency
that might never come. The secret is to be ready when it
happens........and it WILL happen to most of us sooner or later.
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Dudley Henriques
That pressure can REALLY hurt if you have a cold and do a
fast penetration from high altitude.

Having a cold that can interfere with your ability to equalize pressure in
your ears would make you medically unfit to fly, so you wouldn't be able to
legally leave the ground until the cold resolves.

[Dudley Henriques]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Dudley Henriques
That pressure can REALLY hurt if you have a cold and do a
fast penetration from high altitude.

Having a cold that can interfere with your ability to equalize pressure in
your ears would make you medically unfit to fly, so you wouldn't be able to
legally leave the ground until the cold resolves.

Unfortunately "legal" doesn't always cover what happens in life.
Pilots are only human, and flying with a cold can easily occur and
indeed does on a fairly common basis. It might not be "legal" but it
hurts like hell just the same if the tubes block with pressure.
DH

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Dudley Henriques
Unfortunately "legal" doesn't always cover what happens in life.
Pilots are only human, and flying with a cold can easily occur and
indeed does on a fairly common basis. It might not be "legal" but it
hurts like hell just the same if the tubes block with pressure.

You don't think it's unwise to fly with a cold, especially given that it can
cause problems with your ears? Will ear pain prevent you from flying safely?

Pilots who are unwell in a way that makes them unable to fly safely are
legally obligated to defer flying until they are better. If they decide to
fly anyway, they take full responsibility for any difficulties they might
have, and they open themselves to all the legal consequences of flying while
unfit to do so.

There is no need to train pilots for flying when they are unfit to fly,
because they cannot legally fly while they are unfit. That's why pilot
training does not include flying while drunk (for example).

[Dudley Henriques]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Dudley Henriques
Unfortunately "legal" doesn't always cover what happens in life.
Pilots are only human, and flying with a cold can easily occur and
indeed does on a fairly common basis. It might not be "legal" but it
hurts like hell just the same if the tubes block with pressure.

You don't think it's unwise to fly with a cold, especially given that it can
cause problems with your ears?  Will ear pain prevent you from flying safely?

I swear Anthony, I have absolutely no idea how you extrapolate some of
your question/statement replies from what people say to you.
I said nothing at all that would indicate in any way whatsoever the
question you infer back to me whether or not I might believe it's wise
to fly with a cold! Of COURSE it's unwise. Stating what I have
concerning the possible consequences of doing it, could you possibly
think I might advocate such a practice? Oh I forgot for a
second...........you ARE Mxemanic :-))))

Post by Mxsmanic
Pilots who are unwell in a way that makes them unable to fly safely are
legally obligated to defer flying until they are better.  If they decide to
fly anyway, they take full responsibility for any difficulties they might
have, and they open themselves to all the legal consequences of flying while
unfit to do so.

Again Anthony, we're not discussing the legal aspects of flying with a
cold. We're simply discussing the PHYSICAL aspects of doing so, legal
or illegal.

Post by Mxsmanic
There is no need to train pilots for flying when they are unfit to fly,
because they cannot legally fly while they are unfit.  That's why pilot
training does not include flying while drunk (for example).

I give up :-))))

[Viperdoc]

Anthony, how can you possibly know what's safe or not when it comes to
flying, since you have never flown? Did you get the information during your
lessons, learn about it from an instructor, or simply infer that you have
some pertinent knowledge based upon playing a game?

[Michael Ash]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Dudley Henriques
That pressure can REALLY hurt if you have a cold and do a
fast penetration from high altitude.

Having a cold that can interfere with your ability to equalize pressure in
your ears would make you medically unfit to fly, so you wouldn't be able to
legally leave the ground until the cold resolves.

Sometimes you don't know you have the condition until it's too late. The
first time this happened to me I felt fine on the ground, and even in
flight. My ears popped fine on the way up. (They pop much easier going up
than down due to how the relevant structures work.) And then we were
descending back to the airport out of 15,000ft with sunset fast
approaching and my left ear simply wouldn't pop.

The second time was the next day. I flew anyway because I had an
instructor aboard (as I did on the first day) and so I did not need to be
physically fit to fly the plane, and decided to simply take the risk of
physical damage to my ear. (It was fine.) But on that first day I really
had absolutely no idea that my ear would be plugged, and if I had not had
an instructor on board it would have been entirely up to me to conclude
the flight safely. As it was, I was able to make a safe landing both times
without needing the instructor to save me, but the great pain in my ear
was a big distraction. And yes, the instructor knew what was going on, but
I wanted to land the plane myself because I knew that someday I might be
in that situation alone.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Michael Ash
Sometimes you don't know you have the condition until it's too late.

Granted.

Post by Michael Ash
And then we were descending back to the airport out of 15,000ft with
sunset fast approaching and my left ear simply wouldn't pop.

Why were you at 15,000 feet?

Post by Michael Ash
The second time was the next day. I flew anyway because I had an
instructor aboard (as I did on the first day) and so I did not need to be
physically fit to fly the plane, and decided to simply take the risk of
physical damage to my ear.

Losing your hearing is a pretty big risk to take just to avoid missing a
flight.

Post by Michael Ash
(It was fine.) But on that first day I really
had absolutely no idea that my ear would be plugged, and if I had not had
an instructor on board it would have been entirely up to me to conclude
the flight safely. As it was, I was able to make a safe landing both times
without needing the instructor to save me, but the great pain in my ear
was a big distraction. And yes, the instructor knew what was going on, but
I wanted to land the plane myself because I knew that someday I might be
in that situation alone.

Do you think that everyone should train for flying with an enormous pain in
his ear? Are pilots who have never flown with an enormous pain in the ear
unqualified to fly?

[Viperdoc]

Anthony- perhaps you can enlighten us as to how an ear block can cause
hearing loss? Of course you can't explain it because like all of your other
posts it simply demonstrates your lack of knowledge and experience.

[Michael Ash]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Michael Ash
Sometimes you don't know you have the condition until it's too late.

Granted.

Post by Michael Ash
And then we were descending back to the airport out of 15,000ft with
sunset fast approaching and my left ear simply wouldn't pop.

Why were you at 15,000 feet?

Same reason I do any flying: pure enjoyment. We did a short cross country
in weak wave, from Minden, NV north to Reno, then back. The wave topped
out at 15,500ft so we cruised at around that altitude.

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Michael Ash
The second time was the next day. I flew anyway because I had an
instructor aboard (as I did on the first day) and so I did not need to be
physically fit to fly the plane, and decided to simply take the risk of
physical damage to my ear.

Losing your hearing is a pretty big risk to take just to avoid missing a
flight.

"Missing a flight"? What odd phrasing you use. It was my last day in
Minden, I had spent several hundred dollars to go there just to fly, and
was planning to spend several hundred dollars more on the flying itself. I
wasn't about to let something like a painful ear stop me. And it was well
worth it. We did a nearly 300km cross country in wave, bumping up against
the class A at 18,000ft pretty much the whole way. It was really
spectacular.

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Michael Ash
(It was fine.) But on that first day I really
had absolutely no idea that my ear would be plugged, and if I had not had
an instructor on board it would have been entirely up to me to conclude
the flight safely. As it was, I was able to make a safe landing both times
without needing the instructor to save me, but the great pain in my ear
was a big distraction. And yes, the instructor knew what was going on, but
I wanted to land the plane myself because I knew that someday I might be
in that situation alone.

Do you think that everyone should train for flying with an enormous pain in
his ear? Are pilots who have never flown with an enormous pain in the ear
unqualified to fly?

No, because it's too specific. But every pilot should train for flying
with distractions, and every pilot I know of has.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Michael Ash
Same reason I do any flying: pure enjoyment. We did a short cross country
in weak wave, from Minden, NV north to Reno, then back. The wave topped
out at 15,500ft so we cruised at around that altitude.

I forgot that you were probably in a glider.

Don't you need to take oxygen at that altitude?

Post by Michael Ash
"Missing a flight"? What odd phrasing you use. It was my last day in
Minden, I had spent several hundred dollars to go there just to fly, and
was planning to spend several hundred dollars more on the flying itself. I
wasn't about to let something like a painful ear stop me. And it was well
worth it. We did a nearly 300km cross country in wave, bumping up against
the class A at 18,000ft pretty much the whole way. It was really
spectacular.

I suppose the end justifies the means, as long as you aren't taking
unnecessary risks (if you can fly competently with excruciating ear pain,
there's no reason why you shouldn't).

Post by Michael Ash
No, because it's too specific.

Then it isn't necessary for a simulator to simulate ear pain, is it?

Post by Michael Ash
But every pilot should train for flying with distractions, and every
pilot I know of has.

There are distractions even in simulators.

[Michael Ash]

Post by Dudley Henriques

Post by Michael Ash

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Michael Ash
Just the other day I spent three solid minutes pulling 2 gees. With a
friend at the controls, no less. Frankly I'm surprised I didn't barf all
over the instrument panel.

What type of maneuver keeps you at 2 Gs for three minutes straight?

Amazing for all your bluster that you cannot even come up with the answer
to this yourself. Pick any random student pilot who's been at it for more
than a couple of weeks and I bet that he will immediately tell you that a
turn with a 60-degree bank will pull a constant 2 gees for as long as you
want to do it.

Well....you COULD run out of fuel :-))))

Substitute "altitude" for "fuel" in my case, but this is true.

Post by Dudley Henriques

Post by Michael Ash

Post by Mxsmanic
A steady 2 Gs will not induce motion sickness.

Why do you insist on pulling these statements out of your ass? I can
understand why you argue with people based on what you've read, but I
can't imagine you read this anywhere.

Been an acro instructor for many years when I had the occasion to fly
with the Snowbirds one year at Reading. Before we came back with the
number 10 Tutor, lead asked me to burn off the 10/10 engine oil we had
on board number 10 so that the techs could refill the tank after we
landed with fresh oil for the show.
I had to watch the smoke trail to see when the tank was empty which
meant doing the dump in a constant turn. Settled in at about a
constant 60 degree bank at 2g's (naturally :-) and dumped the oil.
Watched the smoke through 3/360's and was sick as a dog halfway
through turn 3 :-) It was hot as hell in the cockpit, strapped in
after doing linear acro and sweating like a stuck pig entering the
bank for the burnoff. At least I didn't puke in the mask, The
Canadians would have NEVER let me forget THAT one!!!! :-)

Nice story!

At the risk of turning this thread into something useful.... I've been
thinking about starting on my CFI-G certificate. Some of the instructors
in my club have been pushing me in that direction and it seems like it
could be fun and educational. One of my concerns about it is motion
sickness. I do have some tendencies in that direction, and although it's
pretty rare for me when I'm flying a plane I fit well in, having other
people fly the plane makes it quite a bit worse for obvious reasons.

Could you or any of the other instructors on the group talk a bit about
whether you encountered motion sickness from ham-fisted student flying and
how you've dealt with it if so?

Post by Dudley Henriques
Val Salva maneuver helps but doesn't clear the Eustastian tubes
sometimes. That pressure can REALLY hurt if you have a cold and do a
fast penetration from high altitude.

Yep, it didn't help me on these two occasions. On the second time I came
down from 18,000ft to 4,700ft and it *really* hurt. One ear cleared fine
but the other one stayed stuck no matter how hard I huffed and puffed. It
finally cleared up sometime during the night.

Post by Dudley Henriques
Good pilots spend almost all their time preparing for an emergency
that might never come. The secret is to be ready when it
happens........and it WILL happen to most of us sooner or later.

My thoughts exactly. Not one of us is perfect, and even if we were, our
equipment and environment are not. Now, it seems to me that good pilots
have *fewer* emergencies than bad ones, but you can never avoid them
altogether. A pilot who bases his survival on having a 100% normal flight
is either lucky or dead!

[Dudley Henriques]

Post by Michael Ash

Post by Dudley Henriques

Post by Michael Ash

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Michael Ash
Just the other day I spent three solid minutes pulling 2 gees. With a
friend at the controls, no less. Frankly I'm surprised I didn't barf all
over the instrument panel.

What type of maneuver keeps you at 2 Gs for three minutes straight?

Amazing for all your bluster that you cannot even come up with the answer
to this yourself. Pick any random student pilot who's been at it for more
than a couple of weeks and I bet that he will immediately tell you that a
turn with a 60-degree bank will pull a constant 2 gees for as long as you
want to do it.

Well....you COULD run out of fuel :-))))

Substitute "altitude" for "fuel" in my case, but this is true.

Post by Dudley Henriques

Post by Michael Ash

Post by Mxsmanic
A steady 2 Gs will not induce motion sickness.

Why do you insist on pulling these statements out of your ass? I can
understand why you argue with people based on what you've read, but I
can't imagine you read this anywhere.

Been an acro instructor for many years when I had the occasion to fly
with the Snowbirds one year at Reading. Before we came back with the
number 10 Tutor, lead asked me to burn off the 10/10 engine oil we had
on board number 10 so that the techs could refill the tank after we
landed with fresh oil for the show.
I had to watch the smoke trail to see when the tank was empty which
meant doing the dump in a constant turn. Settled in at about a
constant 60 degree bank at 2g's (naturally :-) and dumped the oil.
Watched the smoke through 3/360's and was sick as a dog halfway
through turn 3 :-) It was hot as hell in the cockpit, strapped in
after doing linear acro and sweating like a stuck pig entering the
bank for the burnoff. At least I didn't puke in the mask, The
Canadians would have NEVER let me forget THAT one!!!! :-)

Nice story!
At the risk of turning this thread into something useful.... I've been
thinking about starting on my CFI-G certificate. Some of the instructors
in my club have been pushing me in that direction and it seems like it
could be fun and educational. One of my concerns about it is motion
sickness. I do have some tendencies in that direction, and although it's
pretty rare for me when I'm flying a plane I fit well in, having other
people fly the plane makes it quite a bit worse for obvious reasons.
Could you or any of the other instructors on the group talk a bit about
whether you encountered motion sickness from ham-fisted student flying and
how you've dealt with it if so?

This is quite common in instruction, especially with aerobatic
instruction, and it holds true for giving any dual including primary.
When you are flying the airplane, you have the advantage of
expectation and prediction. Your senses are prepared and ahead of the
action being applied even to the expectation of aircraft response in
all 3 axis vs control pressure application. In other words, your body
is ahead of the airplane and being prepared before the aircraft acts
to your input.
With the student flying the airplane, your body's physical and mental
response is a second or two BEHIND the airplane as the student applies
control pressures resulting in response. Add a hot cockpit and you
have the perfect equation for becoming queasy as the instructor.
Solve this problem first by recognizing it exists and what is causing
it, then ventilate the cockpit for both you AND the student (as they
have the same problem in reverse :-). You can further improve the
scenario by carefully monitoring the actual stick time back and forth
between yourself and the student. Most good CFI's will have the
student almost exclusively on the controls during a dual session so
it's YOU who will need to "take a break" every now and then. Best way
to do this without making a big deal out of it for the student is to
interface some straight and level flight into your dual sessions as
you explain things and discuss what has just been done and what is
about to be done next.
Working a dual session in this manner works wonders as a "relaxing
moment "and gives the student a breather as well.

Post by Michael Ash

Post by Dudley Henriques
Val Salva maneuver helps but doesn't clear the Eustastian tubes
sometimes. That pressure can REALLY hurt if you have a cold and do a
fast penetration from high altitude.

Yep, it didn't help me on these two occasions. On the second time I came
down from 18,000ft to 4,700ft and it *really* hurt. One ear cleared fine
but the other one stayed stuck no matter how hard I huffed and puffed. It
finally cleared up sometime during the night.

You have to be very careful with the Val Salva. EASY DOES IT is the
word!!! If one side doesn't clear, don't force it. Crack your jaw a
bit and give it another try with short easy pressures.

Post by Michael Ash

Post by Dudley Henriques
Good pilots spend almost all their time preparing for an emergency
that might never come. The secret is to be ready when it
happens........and it WILL happen to most of us sooner or later.

My thoughts exactly. Not one of us is perfect, and even if we were, our
equipment and environment are not. Now, it seems to me that good pilots
have *fewer* emergencies than bad ones, but you can never avoid them
altogether. A pilot who bases his survival on having a 100% normal flight
is either lucky or dead!

"There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots. It's fine to be
bold, but the only way to become old is to know when to be bold and
when not to be"
Dudley Henriques
"Zero Error Margin"

[Michael Ash]

Post by Dudley Henriques
This is quite common in instruction, especially with aerobatic
instruction, and it holds true for giving any dual including primary.
When you are flying the airplane, you have the advantage of
expectation and prediction. Your senses are prepared and ahead of the
action being applied even to the expectation of aircraft response in
all 3 axis vs control pressure application. In other words, your body
is ahead of the airplane and being prepared before the aircraft acts
to your input.
With the student flying the airplane, your body's physical and mental
response is a second or two BEHIND the airplane as the student applies
control pressures resulting in response. Add a hot cockpit and you
have the perfect equation for becoming queasy as the instructor.
Solve this problem first by recognizing it exists and what is causing
it, then ventilate the cockpit for both you AND the student (as they
have the same problem in reverse :-). You can further improve the
scenario by carefully monitoring the actual stick time back and forth
between yourself and the student. Most good CFI's will have the
student almost exclusively on the controls during a dual session so
it's YOU who will need to "take a break" every now and then. Best way
to do this without making a big deal out of it for the student is to
interface some straight and level flight into your dual sessions as
you explain things and discuss what has just been done and what is
about to be done next.
Working a dual session in this manner works wonders as a "relaxing
moment "and gives the student a breather as well.

Thanks much for explaining that. It's actually nice to hear that it's as
common as you describe, since that means it can be dealt with. And your
description of strategies is good too.

Post by Dudley Henriques
You have to be very careful with the Val Salva. EASY DOES IT is the
word!!! If one side doesn't clear, don't force it. Crack your jaw a
bit and give it another try with short easy pressures.

Yeah, I probably overdid it greatly that time. Fortunately nothing bad
happened, and I'll be more gentle next time.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Michael Ash
Amazing for all your bluster that you cannot even come up with the answer
to this yourself. Pick any random student pilot who's been at it for more
than a couple of weeks and I bet that he will immediately tell you that a
turn with a 60-degree bank will pull a constant 2 gees for as long as you
want to do it.

Why would you want to remain in a 60-degree bank for three minutes? You'd fly
a complete circle nearly nine times in that period of time.

Post by Michael Ash
Why do you insist on pulling these statements out of your ass?

An acceleration vector that is normal to the floor of the cockpit, and stays
that way (as in a coordinated turn) will not induce motion sickness, even if
the number of Gs is greater than one.

Post by Michael Ash
A steady ONE gee is enough to induce motion sickness in some people when
they are presented with the right (wrong?) sensory inputs.

Which inputs would those be, in this case?

Post by Michael Ash
The movie _The Blair Witch Project_ was famous for causing this,
as I recall. Why would a steady two gees be different?

The Gs don't induce the motion sickness--watching a randomly-moving image
does.

Post by Michael Ash
Me, as just one example.

What is different about flying in a real plane that causes motion sickness for
you?

[Viperdoc]

Your claims are blatantly untrue- how would you possibly know about the
causes of nausea when you have never pulled any g other than 1 while sitting
your lard ass in a chair while playing a game?

[Michael Ash]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Michael Ash
Amazing for all your bluster that you cannot even come up with the answer
to this yourself. Pick any random student pilot who's been at it for more
than a couple of weeks and I bet that he will immediately tell you that a
turn with a 60-degree bank will pull a constant 2 gees for as long as you
want to do it.

Why would you want to remain in a 60-degree bank for three minutes? You'd fly
a complete circle nearly nine times in that period of time.

Take a look at page 10-7 of this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Glider-Flying-Handbook-FAA-H-8083-13-Handbooks/dp/1560275243

If you don't want to get a hardcopy, you can either download the PDF here:

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/glider_handbook/

Or if you don't want to download a 20MB PDF, use the "Search Inside this
Book" link on the Amazon page, search for "thermalling", and go to page
181.

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Michael Ash
Why do you insist on pulling these statements out of your ass?

An acceleration vector that is normal to the floor of the cockpit, and stays
that way (as in a coordinated turn) will not induce motion sickness, even if
the number of Gs is greater than one.

Never said that it would. All I said was that I was experiencing two gees
for several minutes straight and that I was surprised that I was not sick
as a result. I left it to the reader to understand that the steady two
gees implies a steeply banked turn and all the airsickness-inducing
stimuli that this implies. That you didn't make that conceptual leap is
not my problem.

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Michael Ash
A steady ONE gee is enough to induce motion sickness in some people when
they are presented with the right (wrong?) sensory inputs.

Which inputs would those be, in this case?

Motion sickness can come from the sensation of motion without the
accompanying visuals, or from the visual input of motion without the
accompanying sensation. The essense of it is in the conflict between the
two.

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Michael Ash
The movie _The Blair Witch Project_ was famous for causing this,
as I recall. Why would a steady two gees be different?

The Gs don't induce the motion sickness--watching a randomly-moving image
does.

Yes. I never said that the Gs don't induce motion sickness. Now, if you
had been smart enough to make the (IMO relatively obvious) conceptual leap
implied by my previous statement, you would have realized that I was in a
steep turn, watching the world spin round and round one way while my body
felt squashed down into the seat in a completely different way.

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Michael Ash
Me, as just one example.

What is different about flying in a real plane that causes motion sickness for
you?

Wish I knew. Obviously it's something about the actual physical sensation
of flight, but I don't know exactly which aspects cause it. It seems worse
on bumpy days, and yet I've flown through turbulence so strong that it
would turn your hair white with not even a twinge. It seems worse when I
circle, and yet I've spent hours doing very little besides circling with
no trouble. It seems worse when I have a big, high instrument panel
restricting my visual field, and I have no witty rejoinder for this one
because it's the most reliable one.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Michael Ash
http://www.amazon.com/Glider-Flying-Handbook-FAA-H-8083-13-Handbooks/dp/1560275243

Gliders? Oh. I don't fly gliders.

Post by Michael Ash
Never said that it would. All I said was that I was experiencing two gees
for several minutes straight and that I was surprised that I was not sick
as a result.

But you shouldn't be. Two Gs is no more likely to make you sick than one G.
Changes are what make you sick, not steady states. The acceleration vector
doesn't move or change, so you don't get sick.

Post by Michael Ash
I left it to the reader to understand that the steady two
gees implies a steeply banked turn and all the airsickness-inducing
stimuli that this implies.

What stimuli are those?

Post by Michael Ash
Motion sickness can come from the sensation of motion without the
accompanying visuals, or from the visual input of motion without the
accompanying sensation. The essense of it is in the conflict between the
two.

Yes. Where was the conflict in this case?

Post by Michael Ash
Yes. I never said that the Gs don't induce motion sickness. Now, if you
had been smart enough to make the (IMO relatively obvious) conceptual leap
implied by my previous statement, you would have realized that I was in a
steep turn, watching the world spin round and round one way while my body
felt squashed down into the seat in a completely different way.

Okay. That might make some people queasy. Others might remain unaffected.

Post by Michael Ash
Wish I knew. Obviously it's something about the actual physical sensation
of flight, but I don't know exactly which aspects cause it. It seems worse
on bumpy days, and yet I've flown through turbulence so strong that it
would turn your hair white with not even a twinge. It seems worse when I
circle, and yet I've spent hours doing very little besides circling with
no trouble. It seems worse when I have a big, high instrument panel
restricting my visual field, and I have no witty rejoinder for this one
because it's the most reliable one.

And you've never been sick in a full-motion simulator when simulating the same
situations?

[Viperdoc]

Anthony, 2g represents a constant acceleration- since you have never
experienced it, you obviously can not understand, which is why you are again
incorrect. If you were a pilot making such ludicrous statements, I would
suggest going out on a warm summer day, pull a 6g turn in fighter with a
mask on, and tell me how you feel when you come back.

You really don't have a clue, and your superficial knowledge of theory does
not remotely come close to reality.

[Michael Ash]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Michael Ash
http://www.amazon.com/Glider-Flying-Handbook-FAA-H-8083-13-Handbooks/dp/1560275243

Gliders? Oh. I don't fly gliders.

Yes, I'm aware. I would have thought you would be aware that I *do* fly
them, given how much we've talked about it in the past.

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Michael Ash
Never said that it would. All I said was that I was experiencing two gees
for several minutes straight and that I was surprised that I was not sick
as a result.

But you shouldn't be. Two Gs is no more likely to make you sick than one G.
Changes are what make you sick, not steady states. The acceleration vector
doesn't move or change, so you don't get sick.

This is true only if you completely ignore what causes the two gees.

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Michael Ash
I left it to the reader to understand that the steady two
gees implies a steeply banked turn and all the airsickness-inducing
stimuli that this implies.

What stimuli are those?

Do you read my posts in their entirety before you begin to reply? I ask
because I answered your question in my previous post, in the parts that
you quoted no less. See below.

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Michael Ash
Motion sickness can come from the sensation of motion without the
accompanying visuals, or from the visual input of motion without the
accompanying sensation. The essense of it is in the conflict between the
two.

Yes. Where was the conflict in this case?

And again, do you read before you post? The answer is RIGHT BELOW.

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Michael Ash
Yes. I never said that the Gs don't induce motion sickness. Now, if you
had been smart enough to make the (IMO relatively obvious) conceptual leap
implied by my previous statement, you would have realized that I was in a
steep turn, watching the world spin round and round one way while my body
felt squashed down into the seat in a completely different way.

Okay. That might make some people queasy. Others might remain unaffected.

Well duh. Susceptibility to motion sickness varies extremely widely
between individuals. Personally I know that I am somewhat susceptible, and
that this situation is the sort that could trigger symptoms for me, thus
my surprise.

Honestly, what was the point of posting any of the above? All you do is
ask questions which I already answered or state the extremely obvious. You
might as well have just snipped it all out.

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Michael Ash
Wish I knew. Obviously it's something about the actual physical sensation
of flight, but I don't know exactly which aspects cause it. It seems worse
on bumpy days, and yet I've flown through turbulence so strong that it
would turn your hair white with not even a twinge. It seems worse when I
circle, and yet I've spent hours doing very little besides circling with
no trouble. It seems worse when I have a big, high instrument panel
restricting my visual field, and I have no witty rejoinder for this one
because it's the most reliable one.

And you've never been sick in a full-motion simulator when simulating the same
situations?

Never tried a full-motion simulator. I've used PC simulation and watched
movies like the Blair Witch Project and never felt a thing.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Michael Ash
Yes, I'm aware. I would have thought you would be aware that I *do* fly
them, given how much we've talked about it in the past.

Nothing personal, but I don't keep much in the way of poster-specific
information on hand. I generally treat all posts on their own merits alone,
without worrying about who wrote them. So, although you've surely mentioned
glider flight in the past, it's unlikely that I would recall it.

Post by Michael Ash
This is true only if you completely ignore what causes the two gees.

Whatever the cause, if it's a constant two gees, it won't make you sick.

Indeed, high, constant accelerations tend to nail your inner ear in place,
making movements less perceptible and less likely to cause sickness. The
inverse of this is zero gee, in which every tiny movement becomes perceptible,
often producing space sickness (in about half of people exposed to zero gee).

Post by Michael Ash
Honestly, what was the point of posting any of the above? All you do is
ask questions which I already answered or state the extremely obvious. You
might as well have just snipped it all out.

What's the point of talking about me, when you could be discussing the topic?

Post by Michael Ash
Never tried a full-motion simulator.

Ah.

Post by Michael Ash
I've used PC simulation and watched movies like the Blair Witch Project
and never felt a thing.

Flight Simulator will not make me queasy unless I move around a lot in slew
mode. The BWP made me queasy. Doom makes me queasy. Sometimes moving around
very rapidly in Second Life can do it, too. Some home videos I've seen have
made me queasy because of excessive camera movements.

I haven't experienced motion sickness in an airplane, although I've only been
a passenger on sedate commercial air transports. Cars have made me sick on
rare occasions, usually when I try to read in the car, or when it's hot, or
when I have a headache. I stay away from boats so I don't know what effect
they have.

One unpleasant thing about motion sickness is that it sneaks up on you.

[Viperdoc]

Anthony, do you have some specific knowledge regarding the effects of g
loading on nausea? Have you ever done a constant 2g turn on a hot day?

Of course not, since you don't fly and don't know.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Mxsmanic
Why would you want to remain in a 60-degree bank for three minutes? You'd fly
a complete circle nearly nine times in that period of time.

To learn how to do it correctly, obviously.

[Jim Logajan]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Mxsmanic
Why would you want to remain in a 60-degree bank for three minutes?
You'd fly a complete circle nearly nine times in that period of time.

To learn how to do it correctly, obviously.

That's a good reason, but Michael Ash flys gliders, so it is more likely he
was thermaling.

[Michael Ash]

Post by Jim Logajan

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Mxsmanic
Why would you want to remain in a 60-degree bank for three minutes?
You'd fly a complete circle nearly nine times in that period of time.

To learn how to do it correctly, obviously.

That's a good reason, but Michael Ash flys gliders, so it is more likely he
was thermaling.

We have a winner. Of course the other reason is also a pretty good one.

I have to say, it seems to me that MX is being particularly clueless in
this thread. I mean, he's usually clueless, but at least he's somewhat
subtle about it. Not knowing what kind of maneuver would result in two
gees for minutes at a time, that's just so obvious and ignorant. Of
course, maybe he's this obvious all the time to you guys, and I just
revealed the extent of *my* ignorance here....

I also like how he said I'd fly a complete circle "nearly nine times". We
were flying at 50 knots, so I calculate that we flew roughly twenty
complete circles in that time. (Obviously our speed and bank angle were
not that accurately held, and I certainly wasn't keeping a count!) Does MX
really not know that turn rate depends on both bank angle and speed?

[Mxsmanic]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
To learn how to do it correctly, obviously.

Learning to do it correctly would logically involve entering and leaving the
turn, not simply holding it for minutes at a time.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
To learn how to do it correctly, obviously.

Learning to do it correctly would logically involve entering and leaving the
turn, not simply holding it for minutes at a time.

Wrong, learning to do it correctly means learning how to maintain
altitude, airspeed, and bank angle through the turn.

Entering and leaving the turn are pretty trivial by comparison.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
Wrong, learning to do it correctly means learning how to maintain
altitude, airspeed, and bank angle through the turn.

How many complete circles do you have to fly to learn that?

[Viperdoc]

Post by Mxsmanic
How many complete circles do you have to fly to learn that?

It depends upon the skills of the pilot, which of course, you're not.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Mxsmanic
What type of maneuver keeps you at 2 Gs for three minutes straight?

If you actually knew anything about aviation you wouldn't be asking
this question.

[Jim Logajan]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Jim Logajan
I don't believe it is physically possible for any ground based
simulator to simulate excursions from one gravity for more than a
fraction of a second, yet longer duration excursions happen fairly
often in real life aircraft in many phases of flight, even under calm
air conditions.

The excursions are very small,

Um, no there are not. For example, a level 30 degree banked turn
generates a ~15% increase in perceived weight which can be made to last
until the aircraft runs out of fuel. At 60 degrees there is a 100%
increase in perceived weight. These excursions are not only large and
long term, they will be forever impossible to simulate even with "full-
motion" ground based simulators.

Another non-trivial extended acceleration is the one during takeoff. Even
a low powered small aircraft like a Cessna 150 generates an acceleration
of ~13% of one gravity for a period of ~20 seconds (rotation speed) to ~
30 seconds (best rate of climb speed). Simply impossible to simulate
without actually accelerating the "full motion" simulator over a
comparable distance.

Post by Mxsmanic
and only a tiny part of the flying experience.

Um, that is debatable but isn't relevant. You asked for specific
differences that might account for why pilots in the article were
claiming "full-motion" simulators don't "fly" like the real thing. I
presented one obvious perceptual physical difference.

Post by Mxsmanic
I consider them comparable to changes in air pressure.

Your opinion is irrelevant to determining the origins of opinions of the
pilots under discussion. You are not a member of the group under
discussion.

Post by Mxsmanic
Unless one flies specifically for the purpose of feeling these
sensations, they are not important.

I'm unable to determine what your opinion of what qualifies as important
reasons for flying have to do with the challenge made in "When the pilots
can describe the exact differences that bother them, I'll listen."

Post by Mxsmanic
Additionally, my simulated flying is calculated to minimize such
excursions, because passengers don't like them, and neither do I. I
consider a flight with minimal movement to be a sign of a good pilot.

A flight with "minimal movement" is inherently contradictory.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Jim Logajan
Um, no there are not. For example, a level 30 degree banked turn
generates a ~15% increase in perceived weight which can be made to last
until the aircraft runs out of fuel. At 60 degrees there is a 100%
increase in perceived weight. These excursions are not only large and
long term, they will be forever impossible to simulate even with "full-
motion" ground based simulators.

Your inner ear doesn't care whether a constant acceleration is one or two
gravities.

Post by Jim Logajan
Another non-trivial extended acceleration is the one during takeoff. Even
a low powered small aircraft like a Cessna 150 generates an acceleration
of ~13% of one gravity for a period of ~20 seconds (rotation speed) to ~
30 seconds (best rate of climb speed). Simply impossible to simulate
without actually accelerating the "full motion" simulator over a
comparable distance.

It isn't necessary to simulate it. Your inner ear doesn't care about constant
accelerations. They all resolve to gravity. That's why simulators can
simulate this with a degree of realism that is difficult or impossible to
distinguish from reality.

Post by Jim Logajan
Um, that is debatable but isn't relevant. You asked for specific
differences that might account for why pilots in the article were
claiming "full-motion" simulators don't "fly" like the real thing. I
presented one obvious perceptual physical difference.

Ask a pilot to give you the actual acceleration in Gs at any given instant in
a real aircraft, and see how accurate he is.

Post by Jim Logajan
Your opinion is irrelevant to determining the origins of opinions of the
pilots under discussion. You are not a member of the group under
discussion.

Maybe I should reciprocate, then.

Post by Jim Logajan
I'm unable to determine what your opinion of what qualifies as important
reasons for flying have to do with the challenge made in "When the pilots
can describe the exact differences that bother them, I'll listen."

I'm increasingly convinced that pilots here have no clue. They sound like
low-time pilots with a very limited sphere of experience.

Post by Jim Logajan
A flight with "minimal movement" is inherently contradictory.

I've been on many such flights. A typical scheduled airline flight is flown
in exactly this way, successfully.

[Viperdoc]

Anthony, just more of your typical weak attempts at getting attention. You
have never flown or pulled or pushed any kind of g, and it's obvious by your
statements.

[Jim Logajan]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Jim Logajan
Um, no there are not. For example, a level 30 degree banked turn
generates a ~15% increase in perceived weight which can be made to
last until the aircraft runs out of fuel. At 60 degrees there is a
100% increase in perceived weight. These excursions are not only
large and long term, they will be forever impossible to simulate even
with "full- motion" ground based simulators.

Your inner ear doesn't care whether a constant acceleration is one or
two gravities.

I'm afraid you are grossly misinformed:

http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102237141.html

http://www.physorg.com/news130588464.html

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Cause-For-Astronaut-Space-Sickness-Found-86325.shtml

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Jim Logajan
Another non-trivial extended acceleration is the one during takeoff.
Even a low powered small aircraft like a Cessna 150 generates an
acceleration of ~13% of one gravity for a period of ~20 seconds
(rotation speed) to ~ 30 seconds (best rate of climb speed). Simply
impossible to simulate without actually accelerating the "full
motion" simulator over a comparable distance.

It isn't necessary to simulate it. Your inner ear doesn't care about
constant accelerations. They all resolve to gravity. That's why
simulators can simulate this with a degree of realism that is
difficult or impossible to distinguish from reality.

See articles referenced above.

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Jim Logajan
Um, that is debatable but isn't relevant. You asked for specific
differences that might account for why pilots in the article were
claiming "full-motion" simulators don't "fly" like the real thing. I
presented one obvious perceptual physical difference.

Ask a pilot to give you the actual acceleration in Gs at any given
instant in a real aircraft, and see how accurate he is.

Irrelevant.

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Jim Logajan
Your opinion is irrelevant to determining the origins of opinions of
the pilots under discussion. You are not a member of the group under
discussion.

Maybe I should reciprocate, then.

That is a reasonable since my opinion is also irrelevant. We need to
stick with the facts. The fact is that pilots reported the simulators
didn't "fly" like the real thing. A proper analysis first attempts to
identify all the physical differences between simulated flight and
real flight. I have attempted to enumerate those differences but
do not have training in physiology so have avoided inserting my
opinion as to which of the physical differences account for the
reports.

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Jim Logajan
I'm unable to determine what your opinion of what qualifies as
important reasons for flying have to do with the challenge made in
"When the pilots can describe the exact differences that bother them,
I'll listen."

I'm increasingly convinced that pilots here have no clue.

Irrelevant emotional outburst.

Post by Mxsmanic
They sound like low-time pilots with a very limited sphere of
experience.

Your speculation contradicts the alleged facts as presented in the
original post.

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Jim Logajan
A flight with "minimal movement" is inherently contradictory.

I've been on many such flights. A typical scheduled airline flight is
flown in exactly this way, successfully.

Misunderstanding of the word "movement".

[Jim Logajan]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
In December 2008 issue of Flying magazine's Left Seat column is an
article titled "The Simulator Yardstick".
"The most frequent complaint I hear from pilots transitioning into
turbine airplanes, particularly jets, is the the simulator doesn't
fly like the airplane. All say they can fly the real airplane just
fine, but the simulator just isn't the same."

When the pilots can describe the exact differences that bother them,
I'll listen. It's easy to make claims without specifics.

Rotation perception is yet another physical difference that ground based
"full motion" simulators are forever unable to replicate due to the physics
involved.

Furthermore, any simulator that attempts to rotate the cockpit in order to
simulate a change in net force direction (e.g. tilts back to simulate the
change in force vector direction due to takeoff acceleration plus gravity)
is going to generate a perception of a rotation that wasn't intended.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Jim Logajan
Rotation perception is yet another physical difference that ground based
"full motion" simulators are forever unable to replicate due to the physics
involved.

Human perception of movement has many imperfections, particularly when
combined with all other human perception (all of which is also imperfect).
Simulators profit from the imperfections to create an impression of movement
that is not readily distinguishable from the real thing, especially when
combined with visual cues.

Post by Jim Logajan
Furthermore, any simulator that attempts to rotate the cockpit in order to
simulate a change in net force direction (e.g. tilts back to simulate the
change in force vector direction due to takeoff acceleration plus gravity)
is going to generate a perception of a rotation that wasn't intended.

Yes, but see above.

Adding visual cues helps a lot. As others here have observed, visual cues
alone can create a perception of motion sufficient to induce motion sickness.
Simulators profit from this very heavy dependence on visual cues to compensate
for the lack of real, sustained movement in the sim, successfully.

[Viperdoc]

Yes, real simulators give the impression of motion, but playing MSFS does
not, since it is just a game.

.

[Jim Logajan]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
In December 2008 issue of Flying magazine's Left Seat column is an
article titled "The Simulator Yardstick".
"The most frequent complaint I hear from pilots transitioning into
turbine airplanes, particularly jets, is the the simulator doesn't
fly like the airplane. All say they can fly the real airplane just
fine, but the simulator just isn't the same."

When the pilots can describe the exact differences that bother them,
I'll listen. It's easy to make claims without specifics.

Another perceptual problem with "full motion" simulators that make them
perceptually different from reality is that the objects on the displays
that are simulating windows are valid only for one specific viewing
distance. At only that viewing distance are the subtended angles of the
simulated objects correct.

For example, if the display is rendered with the assumption that your
eyes are, say, 50 cm from the display, but an object 1 cm across on the
screen is supposed to be 100000 cm distant, then inadvertently leaning in
to 25 cm will approximately double the subtended angle - whereas the
angle should hardly have increased in at all.

Another related issue is that the field of view should also change when
the head is moved closer or farther from the "windows".

So far the differences I have specified include:

1) Most accelerations of interest can never be simulated.
2) Most rotations of interest can never be simulated.
3) The views out the simulated "windows" almost never present the proper
subtended angles for external objects or proper field of view.

In all this I've been assuming that the designers of the "full motion"
simulators have replicated the control forces with perfect fidelity. If
that is not the case, then that could be added to the list of specific
reasons why "the simulator just isn't the same."

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Jim Logajan
Another perceptual problem with "full motion" simulators that make them
perceptually different from reality is that the objects on the displays
that are simulating windows are valid only for one specific viewing
distance. At only that viewing distance are the subtended angles of the
simulated objects correct.
For example, if the display is rendered with the assumption that your
eyes are, say, 50 cm from the display, but an object 1 cm across on the
screen is supposed to be 100000 cm distant, then inadvertently leaning in
to 25 cm will approximately double the subtended angle - whereas the
angle should hardly have increased in at all.

I'm not sure that this is true with displays set to visual infinity. In any
case, you're not going to be moving very much in your viewing position in the
sim, anyway.

Additionally, most full-motion sims do not have very elaborate visuals, since
they are not designed to simulate VFR.

Post by Jim Logajan
Another related issue is that the field of view should also change when
the head is moved closer or farther from the "windows".

For objects at optical infinity, nothing changes. I'm not sure exactly what
you are claiming, though, so I can't check what you are saying.

Post by Jim Logajan
1) Most accelerations of interest can never be simulated.

Those accelerations are not "of interest" at all. Visual cues are at least as
important as motion cues, and all of them are perceived imperfectly. The
right combination of cues in a sim can convince a pilot of almost anything.

If the perception of cues were accurate, you wouldn't need to ignore them when
flying IFR. The same imperfections in human perception that disorient you
while flying IFR without a visual reference can be used by sims to create
incorrect perceptions that follow (almost) any desired model.

Post by Jim Logajan
2) Most rotations of interest can never be simulated.

How many rotations of interest are there?

A sim need only simulate a change in acceleration.

Post by Jim Logajan
3) The views out the simulated "windows" almost never present the proper
subtended angles for external objects or proper field of view.

The visuals usually aren't important for the purposes to which most
full-motion simulators are put. They can be made very realistic if necessary.

Post by Jim Logajan
In all this I've been assuming that the designers of the "full motion"
simulators have replicated the control forces with perfect fidelity. If
that is not the case, then that could be added to the list of specific
reasons why "the simulator just isn't the same."

Of course they work on the control forces. That's not an insurmountable
problem by any means.

[Viperdoc]

You really are blowing smoke again- are you pretending to be an aerospace
physiologist now? Do you remotely think you can do some internet free
reading and then understand the human vestibular system as it applies to
flying?

Guess again.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Mxsmanic
Additionally, most full-motion sims do not have very elaborate visuals, since
they are not designed to simulate VFR.

Wrong, modern professional simulators have 180 degree views and the visuals
are about as real as you can get.

Post by Mxsmanic
The visuals usually aren't important for the purposes to which most
full-motion simulators are put.

If that were true why do professional simulators have them?

[Mxsmanic]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
Wrong, modern professional simulators have 180 degree views and the visuals
are about as real as you can get.

They have enough of a view to cover what you can see out the windows. The
visuals are usually pretty simply, with only the most important things (such
as runways) being simulated in highly realistic detail. Good visuals are
expensive, and they are unnecessary for the usual purposes to which
full-motion simulators are put. In fact, desktop simulators have better
visuals than some full-motion simulators.

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
If that were true why do professional simulators have them?

They have to have something out the window. And some things have to be
accurately simulated, such as runways. But the rest can be quite simple.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
Wrong, modern professional simulators have 180 degree views and the visuals
are about as real as you can get.

They have enough of a view to cover what you can see out the windows. The
visuals are usually pretty simply, with only the most important things (such
as runways) being simulated in highly realistic detail. Good visuals are
expensive, and they are unnecessary for the usual purposes to which
full-motion simulators are put. In fact, desktop simulators have better
visuals than some full-motion simulators.

You are either talking out of your ass or flat out lying.

[Viperdoc]

Anthony, when was the last time you were at Simcomm or Flight Safety in one
of the full size sims in order to make your last comments?

[Mxsmanic]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
You are either talking out of your ass or flat out lying.

Instead of speculating, why not just look it up?

[Viperdoc]

We don't have to look anything up, a lot of us have actually been in a sim
or really flown an airplane. How about yourself?

[Michael Ash]

Post by Jim Logajan
1) Most accelerations of interest can never be simulated.
2) Most rotations of interest can never be simulated.
3) The views out the simulated "windows" almost never present the proper
subtended angles for external objects or proper field of view.

And let me just say that, while I find MX's posts to be *at best* amusing,
your exploration of simulators' limitations has been actually interesting
and informative, so thanks for that.

[Jim Logajan]

Post by Michael Ash

Post by Jim Logajan
1) Most accelerations of interest can never be simulated.
2) Most rotations of interest can never be simulated.
3) The views out the simulated "windows" almost never present the
proper subtended angles for external objects or proper field of view.

And let me just say that, while I find MX's posts to be *at best*
amusing, your exploration of simulators' limitations has been actually
interesting and informative, so thanks for that.

Up till now, I hadn't really considered trying to enumerate as many of
their ultimate physical limitations as I could think of. No motivation - so
I found the exchange worthwhile as a motivator. It is a pleasure to see you
found some benefit too. However, I do not know enough about physiology to
know to what extent those limitations have on the use of simulators for
flight training.

The only issue I'd previously thought about in any detail was the subtended
angles of objects on a simulator's display. You see, I had purchased the
"Silent Wings" glider simulator to see if it would help me with aerotows.
I'm not sure whether it made a difference, but I did later try to use it to
learn what glide angles looked like for landing at airfields whose altitude
I didn't know (i.e. is this a good time to turn base?) and to see if it
would help me anticipate where the simulated glider would land. At that
point I realized that if the display had the wrong zoom factor for where my
eyes were from the screen, I might be conditioning my mind with the wrong
visual reference. I do not know if that is a valid physiological concern,
but the visual error is real. After all, if I put my face up to the cockpit
windshield in a real aircraft the airfield ahead doesn't suddenly take up
the entire field of view of my eyes as it would on a simulator display!

All that said, I not only have nothing against simulators, I own 4 of them:
Microsoft Flight Simulator 95, Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004, Silent
Wings, and Condor (another glider simulator). I also own CH Products'
rudder pedals and CH Products' yoke (obviously a joystick would be better
during simulated glider flights, but the the air brakes map so nicely to
the throttle control and tow release to the mixture control.)

[Michael Ash]

Post by Jim Logajan
The only issue I'd previously thought about in any detail was the subtended
angles of objects on a simulator's display. You see, I had purchased the
"Silent Wings" glider simulator to see if it would help me with aerotows.
I'm not sure whether it made a difference, but I did later try to use it to
learn what glide angles looked like for landing at airfields whose altitude
I didn't know (i.e. is this a good time to turn base?) and to see if it
would help me anticipate where the simulated glider would land. At that
point I realized that if the display had the wrong zoom factor for where my
eyes were from the screen, I might be conditioning my mind with the wrong
visual reference. I do not know if that is a valid physiological concern,
but the visual error is real. After all, if I put my face up to the cockpit
windshield in a real aircraft the airfield ahead doesn't suddenly take up
the entire field of view of my eyes as it would on a simulator display!

So don't do that! Of course it's limiting, but I guess if you want the
best visual representation at home, the thing to do is to keep your head
still. Not the most realistic, but more realistic than zooming by a factor
of two because you moved your head.

Personally the thing I find the most limiting is just the extremely small
field of view. Not really a problem with aerotow, but for landing it just
screws me up beyond belief. I imagine it would improve with practice, but
in the sim I can barely manage to land within 1000ft of where I want.

As for finding angles, I have lost the habit of looking at the altimeter
during landing altogether. The other day I was talking with a friend about
landing and he asked me what my normal altitudes are at various points in
the pattern. I thought for a minute and told him, "I don't know!" The
first time I actually did land at a separate airport, I had such a
difficult time converting my standard AGL altitudes into MSL that I could
read off the altimeter that I just gave up and landed by sight. Never
really used the altimeter in the pattern since.

Post by Jim Logajan
Microsoft Flight Simulator 95, Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004, Silent
Wings, and Condor (another glider simulator). I also own CH Products'
rudder pedals and CH Products' yoke (obviously a joystick would be better
during simulated glider flights, but the the air brakes map so nicely to
the throttle control and tow release to the mixture control.)

I was fairly big into X-Plane before I took up glider flying. In fact it
got me into glider flying. I started flying the gliders in X-Plane
(completely in the wrong way, of course, but I didn't know) and after a
while I started to think that it's the sort of thing I could really enjoy
in real life. I looked up my local glider club, and nine months later I
had my Official Piece of Plastic from Uncle Sam.

Alas, all the real-life flying has sort of spoiled me and I don't use
X-Plane very much anymore. But certainly I have nothing against it. They
can be fun, interesting, even educational. But of course they're limited,
especially the ones on PCs, we just have to keep that in mind.

[nobody]

BLAH BLAH BLAH...You idiots
BLAH BLAH BLAH...Other morons
BLAH BLAH BLAH ...you idiots....
BLAH BLAH BLAH .... you are apparently so stupid
BLAH BLAH BLAH ...You idiots....
BLAH BLHA BLAH ....YOU you idiot.

What a shit-hole this place has become.

Anthony Atkielski, you win. It's your treehouse now.

[Dudley Henriques]

Post by nobody

BLAH BLAH BLAH...You idiots
BLAH BLAH BLAH...Other morons
BLAH BLAH BLAH ...you idiots....
BLAH BLAH BLAH .... you are apparently so stupid
BLAH BLAH BLAH ...You idiots....
BLAH BLHA BLAH ....YOU you idiot.

What a shit-hole this place has become.
Anthony Atkielski, you win. It's your treehouse now.

It's BEEN his shithouse for some time now.Carry on :-)))