Important: for A2A C172 Trainer Owners

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

We have all of these other things to think about other than paying and loading.  It feels like cold water.  Sign here, here, here...and here. 

 

Maybe people will slow down, learn and enjoy some of the aircraft before jumping to the next one now.

[Great Ozzie 101]

If you are not one of the above categories, then the academic license suffices whether you hold a student, private, or no pilot certificate.

 

You need to go back and review the FAQ on LM's website.

 

Btw... the chart on LM's website is quite clear.

[pilottj 198]

I think accusim really shines here.  You are entertained and learning at the same time.  There is no reason why you can't have your cake and eat it too.  If you hop in your Skyhawk or Cherokee without doing a proper preflight, you will 'learn' of the consequences of not doing so.   With good action-consequences modelling, good habits are encouraged and learned.  I believe this falls quite nicely under LM's loose 'academic use' guidelines.  

[n4gix 4,947]

Gee, just how many "professionals" or "students" for that matter are really going to use the L049 L-M thoughtfully included to prepare themselves for a "type rating" do you suppose...

 

Why do so many folks continue to ignore the H U G E white elephant in the room? :LMAO:

[Great Ozzie 101]

With good action-consequences modelling, good habits are encouraged and learned. I believe this falls quite nicely under LM's loose 'academic use' guidelines.

 

Aw c'mon TJ... this has nothing to do with LM's "loose 'academic use' guidelines".

 

The only thing "loose" about the academic license is LM does not require proof of student eligibility.

 

 

 

Why do so many folks continue to ignore the H U G E white elephant in the room? [ :LMAO:]

 

If I understand you correctly, Fr. Bill... the answer would be related to $$$.

[Guest]

 

 

This guy gets it!

 

No he doesn't ... LM have no risk (and I'm assuming most 3rd party content providers include very similar statements).

 

 

8.2     Indemnification.  Licensee expressly agrees to indemnify and hold licensor and each of its directors, officers, employees and agents harmless from and against any and all claims or remedies, suits, actions, liabilities and damages, whether in tort (and whether or not arising from the negligence of licensor), in contract or otherwise, including costs and expenses and attorney's fees incident thereto, which may be suffered by, accrued against, charged to or recoverable from licensor or any of its directors, officers, employees and agents by reason of Licensee's use of the Software or Documentation, including without limitation; (1) licensor's enforcement of licensor's rights under this EULA; (2) injury to or death of any person or loss or damage to property (tangible or intangible) arising from (but not limited to) use of the Software or Documentation, or any products or services derived therefrom.

 

This thread is most likely going to get locked, but I need to clarify for accuracy.

 

Cheers, Rob.

[Great Ozzie 101]

 

 

No he doesn't ... LM have no risk

 

:LMAO:

 

Tell that one to their legal department!

[pilottj 198]

You need to go back and review the FAQ on LM's website.

 

Btw... the chart on LM's website is quite clear.

 

 

I still think it comes down to what you do.  There is sport and private pilot certification...intended flying for fun/recreation/personal transportation.  Then there is commercial pilot certification...intended flying for compensation.  The academic 'under graduate' level training fits for student pilots training for a PPL.  The pro level fits for the 'post graduate' training...ie training for CPL and beyond.  Just like the real world, there is a lot of grey area.  Just like an experimental aircraft can't technically haul fare paying passengers, there are ways around it.

[Guest]

 

 

Tell that one to their legal department!

 

Don't think I need to, LM's legal department drafted the document of which I quoted.

 

 

 

You need to go back and review the FAQ on LM's website.

Btw... the chart on LM's website is quite clear.

 

The binding agreement comes from these files that are part of the purchased product (not the website):

eula_academic.rtf

eula_professional.rtf

eula_professional_plus.rtf

 

Cheers, Rob.

[Great Ozzie 101]

 

 

Don't think I need to, LM's legal department drafted the document of which I quoted.

Well (w/o checking :Big grin: ) of course they did!

What company (with respect to lawsuits) says, "Bring it on!" :Big grin:

 

I still think it comes down to what you do.

Well... have a look here:

http://www.prepar3d.com/forum-5/?mingleforumaction=viewtopic&t=3741.0 (WB post in there at the end)

http://www.prepar3d.com/forum-5/?mingleforumaction=viewtopic&t=3747

In the end... it is for our own "legal department" to make a determination.

IBTL Regards,

[pilottj 198]

Aw c'mon TJ... this has nothing to do with LM's "loose 'academic use' guidelines".

 

The only thing "loose" about the academic license is LM does not require proof of student eligibility.

 

 

 

 

If I understand you correctly, Fr. Bill... the answer would be related to $$$.

 

Isn't it about trying to find some justification using a training program for entertainment purposes? B)   It seems to me LM is really trying to accommodate everyone while not stepping on MS's toes. If the P3D hobbyist can claim they are 'learning' something, that would fill the requirement, albeit in broad terms.  Whats stopping some billionaire FS Geek from hopping in a level D 777 simulator, paying for the time, then proceed to attempt an aerobatic display.  Are they having fun...most likely.  Are they learning something...sure, they learn what happens when you barrel roll a 777 :lol:    

[Guest]

 

 

What company (with respect to lawsuits) says, "Bring it on!"

 

Oh I don't know, say a company with considerable funds and a defense contract for 2400+ F35 aircraft to be delivered by 2037 ... so I can probably safely say LM could and would say "Bring it on!" ... any takers out there?  :lol:

[Flyer10 31]

I see A2A are going to penalize those P3D users who where honest and shelled out the $200 for the appropriate license that they where qualified for and reward the no doubt majority of Academic license holders who do not qualify for the Academic license by giving them a discount. I really hope LM start locking for proof of eligibility for the Academic license so those who where honest don't continue to have to pay for the addons of those who where dishonest. Based on hundreds of posts I've read here and on the LM site I would say that most who purchased the Academic license for P3D do not qualify for it :-|

[Great Ozzie 101]

The pro level fits for the 'post graduate' training...ie training for CPL and beyond.

 

This just a "fwiw".  Professional Pilot Program at Purdue University... Commercial / Instrument was completed by the end of the second (sophomore) year.  The whole thing was just a four-year (undergrad) program to get you ready for the regionals / corporate.

 

 

It seems to me LM is really trying to accommodate everyone while not stepping on MS's toes.

 

We are certainly free to make that assumption -- and it very well may be correct.  But dollars to donuts you won't hear LM say that! :Big Grin:

 

 

 

Oh I don't know, say a company with considerable funds

 

Certainly they could absorb it... then pass the costs on to the end user.  But who here has had to go to court to testify in a trial AND say what a joyous occasion it was?

[pilottj 198]

This just a "fwiw".  Professional Pilot Program at Purdue University... Commercial / Instrument was completed by the end of the second (sophomore) year.  The whole thing was just a four-year (undergrad) program to get you ready for the regionals / corporate.

 

 

 

 

We are certainly free to make that assumption -- and it very well may be correct.  But dollars to donuts you won't hear LM say that!

True but if LM didn't want us 'pesky' simmers around, they could have easily restricted their licensing and charged a rate that only flight schools could afford. :lol: 

 

The Purdue system sounds like what I had at ERAU, tho flight training time for each level and academic year didn't always mesh, if anything the only academic side to the flight training they really cared about timing wise was the ground school. I also remember students who were not in the ERAU flight training but were interested in flying taking their flight instruction with the other FBOs on the field.