Latest issue of AOPA - Rod's article

[Guest Ken_Salter]

Anyone read Rod Machado's article on FS2004 in the latest AOPA? Any thoughts?http://saltydogfly2.avsim.net/images/avsim_sig.jpg"I am the keeper of the cheese; you are the lemon merchant"

[Guest]

It was an OK article, it could have been longer and had graphics to illustrate what he was talking about. Rod dumbed down the FS community a little by not mentioning VATSIM, and making it seem that you can only fly a GPS approach or only get an IFR automated route. I say dumbed down because when those "big shot/hot shot" pilots who were a little to late to be part of the computer flight simulation age read this, the majority think the same as if it were like some USMC Sniper game on Sega Genesis. I've told a few pilots, airline pilots, about all that I can do using FS, most are amazed, some say I am exagerating, until I start telling them how to get from Chicago Midway to Los Angeles using high alt airways, SIDS, STARS, etc etc Terminal Procedures, and the like. They are "amazed", and usually just say, I wish I had something like that when I was a kid.Sooner or later someone will do justice to our FS Community in AOPA Pilot and Sport Pilot magazines. Maybe an AVSIM crew of writers and editors could submit something to AOPA or EAA for their magazine for a little dough to fund the avsim servers..Paul Meyer - Morris, C09http://www.flightsimnetwork.com/dcforum/Us...7b45404593a.jpg

[Guest skylanepilot]

I thought it was an excellent article.Although one poster mentioned it was "dumbed down", his target audience was flight instructors and r/w pilots .. not flight simmers. The bottom line is that one of the most respected CFI's in the industry heartily endorsed computer flight simulation as a supplementary training aid. Given that most r/w pilots see FlightSim as a "game", his endorsement goes a long way to giving credibility to the what the sim community has known about for a long time now. It would be interesting to see an article in Pilot or Flying about advanced flight sim topics (like VATSIM or some of the excellent add-ons available), but this article will probably turn more than one Flight Sim "layman" into true believers :)

[Avcomware 1]

Hi.Rod is hardly an unbiased opinion, and has marginal at best, Computer / Game sims knowledge. He is a very good real world instructor but he lost a lot of credibility after the release of the FS2K2 and the Flight dynamics / handling issues, amongst the instructors that tried to use that game / sim. We will see when it comes out what FSCOF really behaves like.There are others PCATDs, Xplane and FLYII, that are recommended and that are better suited as tools for real pilots, at this time. It would be interesting to see how FSCOF behaves. TV

[Guest]

Remember that he was talking about the standard installation of the product, not all the addons we're using.As standard FS does not have FMCs with SID/STAR databases, packs of approach charts, etc.Also, Rod would be less interested in heavy jets as they exist in FS as he would with light aircraft as that's where his knowledge and business are located. And such aircraft are unlikely to use airway navigation and IFR procedures, instead relying on GPS nav and VFR reporting to ATC.

[Guest]

>in FS as he would with light aircraft as that's where his>knowledge and business are located. And such aircraft are>unlikely to use airway navigation and IFR procedures, instead>relying on GPS nav and VFR reporting to ATC.What?I suppose a private pilot flying IFR in a 172 doesn't use airways ?Mike

[Guest tgabriel]

Is the private pilot Instrument Rated? If so, he would use airways, at least victor airways. Not likely jetways because they are a little over the highest possible altitude of a 172. If a Private Pilot who is Instrument Rated files an Instrument Flight Rules flight plan, he would use airways, most likely. Depends on the part of the country and the density of the traffic. Out west one is not as likely to need to worry about congestion when flying in many places like Idaho, Utah, Nevada, Wyoming, and Montana. Certainly there are congested areas there but for the most part, they are reasonably wide open.Here in the east most instrument flight is forced into the victors because of congestion. A perfect example is in Florida where pilots fly from southern to northern or central Florida. Many are vectored to airways that are not the most direct because ATC does not want them fumbling around in the really busy routes. Not too many pilots in anything can fly direct by GPS and still maintain their Instrument Flight Plan. ATC basically will tell you "approved as filed with the following changes:Proceed direct to HAILY, then 322 to GEORGE" or something similar and far more complicated. The bottom line is that Instrument Flights are Controlled flights. VFR flights are not AS controlled.Generally, most owners of 172s do not fly them under IFR flight plans - many - not all of course - are used in training, not in business aviation. A few in flight training are used for Instrument Training but most IFR is taught in other airplanes. I did most of my IFR training in a 206, by the way. No, I did not finish my Instrument Rating, life interfered. Many, not all or even most, private business pilots graduate to 182s or their corresponding Pipers or other makers airplanes for higher performance and use their Instrument ratings with those aircraft.

[michal 44]

>Here in the east most instrument flight is forced into the>victors because of congestion. I find this statement baffling. First of all why would they force you to use victors because of congestion since victors are already congested ... I bet there is less congestion away from victors. And GA traffic is usually flying low, up to say FL180 where airspace congestion is minimal. Real congestion happens at jet altitudes. However ATC people are often not very flexible and "married" to outdated procedures - therefore their insistence on victors. But judging from what some pilots report they often grant you "Direct" request if they are assured you have IFR certified GPS aboard. Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

[Guest A_Delta_Sierra]

Did you say rw pilots?Here are some pictures of real world pilots at Oshkosh enjoying the FS9 display in the Wright Flyer tent.http://mtco.com/~rsam/Hfaces.jpg FYI - All images "lifted" from my DVD camcorder tape.They certainly look as if they enjoy it. I bet all of the grandchildern find a copy of FS9 among the Christmas gifts. I also bet they install a copy on their own computers and even "play" with it when the grandkids are not present. ;-)I didn't see anything like this last year when MS was showing CF3.Regards,BobS