XPost: rec.aviation.piloting, alt.usenet.kooks, alt.alien.vampir   
   .flonk.flonk.flonk   
   XPost: rec.aviation.student   
   From: Sm@rt.1   
      
   Mxsmanic  wrote in   
   news:a2d5p35pcuuu5faglaq965m4hu3aco2cmq@4ax.com:   
      
   > Dan_Thomas_nospam@yahoo.com writes:   
   >   
   >> Because it involves airplanes. Real airplanes.   
   >   
   > And what is a "real" airplane?  A jet fighter?  A Cessna 152?  A UAV?   
   > A remote-controlled model?  A glider?  A 747?   
   >   
   >> Because a cloth or wooden airplane is still an airplane and   
   >> still requires real skill to fly and, in most cases, a license.   
   >   
   > What is this obsession of private pilots with wind and motion and all   
   > the visceral aspects of primitive flight?  Listening to them, you'd   
   > think there's nothing else to aviation.   
   >   
   >> Even an ultralight is real flying, where a computer simulator is not.   
   >   
   > You're entitled to your opinion.   
   >   
   >> Becase real flying involves real risk, that's why.   
   >   
   > Safe pilots minimize risk.  A risky flight is a flight conducted by an   
   > incompetent pilot.   
   >   
   > Here again, it seems that some pilots aren't happy unless they are in   
   > danger. It's thrill-seeking behavior, which is a bad sign.   
   >   
   >> That management requires study,   
   >> discipline, training, and compliance. This is something totally,   
   >> completely, absolutely, utterly lacking in simulation.   
   >   
   > You can learn everything you need to know with the aid of a simulator.   
   >  The only reason this isn't done now is that there are still   
   > regulatory obstacles to doing so.  But that will change.   
   >   
   >> Death is not possible due to crashing a computer simulation.   
   >   
   > Fear of death is an extremely defective motivation for rigor and   
   > discipline in piloting.  If you cannot do things right unless you're   
   > scared of dying, you aren't a good pilot.  The challenge is to do   
   > things right even when you feel complacent and safe, because that's   
   > when bad things usually happen.   
   >   
   >> If it was, you wouldn't be making so much noise here.   
   >   
   > I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion.   
   >   
   >> If you want some idea of the risk, rig yourself a device that   
   >> electrocutes you dead if you crash your simulator. Then sit down and   
   >> fly it.   
   >   
   > I don't need the threat of bodily harm to compel me to do things   
   > correctly and well.   
   >   
   >> Wrong again. Those glass panels are not simulation any more   
   >> than the old gyro instruments were; they provide necessary   
   >> information for flight in IMC.   
   >   
   > I wasn't talking about the panels; I was talking about the flight   
   > controls. Modern airliners have no physical connections to the control   
   > surfaces, and the "feel" of the controls is 100% simulated.   
   >   
   >> Ask any other real pilot and see if the answer varies much.   
   >   
   > I have.  The answer varies considerably.   
      
      
   Nope, they al think you are a fjukkwit.   
   >   
   >> Your insisting that simulation is the same as flying sounds like a   
   >> serious probelm with delusion.   
   >   
   > Simulation is not the same as flying a real airplane.  But then again,   
   > flying airplane A is not the same as flying airplane B, either.   
      
   You're an idiot.   
      
   All airpanes work the same way.   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)