Jump to content

Great Ozzie

RTW Race Team
  • Content Count

    2,411
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Great Ozzie

  1. Can't comment on the use of radar (ground based or onboard) as I never have used it inflight - only wished for it. All my thunderstorm avoidance was done either visually, or as you say, staying on the ground. I understand the desire to keep things "original" but I wonder how many of the scoffers are actually doing the flying. Yes, KHEF inside some very serious airspace and the penalty for screwing up makes that a logical comparison (more than worth their weight in gold).
  2. Sorry, I tried finding something before posting - only thing that I was aware of would have been AOPA's Online Pilot (via subscription). Maybe Rob (RSR) could put someone (Kyle ) on asking AOPA for a .pdf of the article. @BrianW - thanks for posting the AOPA Live link. Big fan here of updating panels. Cool that wx radar - and a radar altimeter too?
  3. AOPA Pilot - December 2016 Sharp looking crew, gorgeous looking airplane - inside and out. Nice article too. Fires the imagination - dreams of being type rated etc. Here's to PMDG's continued success and that Tabitha May will have many years ahead as an ambassador "inspiring a new generation's interest in aviation." -Rob Osborne
  4. Let's tag team Fr. Bill... yolk, n.2 - A greasy substance composed of excretions (e.g. suint, lanolin, etc.) from a sheep's skin and sebaceous glands, which coats the wool and protects it from environmental factors. Phrase: in the yolk: designating raw or unscoured wool; designating wool which still contains yolk. Now hist. Oxford English Dictionary - The definitive record of the English language
  5. Hi angeli662, What is "not true" for RealAir may be completely inapplicable to A2A because of the way the aircraft is modeled. Lewis has posted on this a number of times going back several years e.g. see Lewis' post: Re: Expectations. I have no reason to doubt him. If you want to make the "not true" claim, I recommend opening a thread at the A2A Forum (in the 'Pilot Lounge' for example) and give Lewis or one of the developers a chance to respond. Best, Rob
  6. I only watched from just prior to the landing (isn't that the most important part? ). A couple things I noted: At about 9:40 he makes a callout regarding being cleared to land. B) Impressive was his debrief / self-eval (starting about 14:40). He says in part, "It was very hard, yes, because obviously I have no knowledge whatsoever of the seven three, but I do know the basic stuff which is very common in everything and that's what I actually what reverted to, and just operating down to the basics, down to the common procedures, the common things that we all do at the same places and the same, you know, in any aircraft. So that's what I was using there rather than specific things that I wouldn't know because obviously the aircraft is completely different. Just wow. Mark, I think he was asking "if I master (a PMDG or A2A airplane) will I be able to fly the RW counterpart?" I answered wrt the C172... you, Ian and others re: heavy(ers). I don't see how anyone could refute the statement that practice with a good sim is going to help / be beneficial toward real world training. The one caveat with the training done in the sim... were there negative training aspects that took place. Without an instructor, I find it hard to believe that there won't be some things that will have to be unlearned when flying an actual aircraft. Improperly configured aircraft happen with all aircraft 'sizes' - and have resulted in fatalities. AOPA's Bruce Landsberg went so far in his article Flaps and Lapses to suggest not lowering the flaps for a preflight check and explains why he feels they should be left up. I didn't want students (a student pilot) doing touch and goes - and one reason was the potential for having the aircraft improperly configured during the go.
  7. If that were truly the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't understand how anyone can post such a statement, "I think someone could do it" UNLESS they are type rated in something like a 737 etc (I take those statements to mean, "I could do it!" ). Everyone has an opinion - and I know I will ruffle feathers here but... the only value I find in these posts? The ones where someone is speaking from actual experience (or it appears as such). This is the kind of thing I look for in a post. There is a sense of humility. There is a sense of experience. A sense of honest self-assessment. Traits of a "good pilot" imo. Some great posts by Mark and Ian as well. KenG... Ron... Thanks for taking the time to post your assessment. I thought the same myself Mark... one of the cabin crew would be infinitely preferable over someone who says, "I fly FSX" (but wasn't going to post an opinion as what do I know about piloting a commercial aircraft). My reasoning was the cabin crew is intimately acquainted with procedures (as non-pilots) and company SOP. They know how to take instructions and give them. "Daily" they are in the air and understand the risks. There is a certain "familiarity" they will have with the aircraft. There is a demonstrated "professionalism" that they have to maintain as part of the crew. Essentially you are getting what I would call "a known quantity" with someone from the cabin crew. They are vetted. This coming from someone who has only eyeballed a flightdeck. Wrt experience (to my limited understanding) things have changed quite a bit in the U.S. the last decade or so. When I got my Comm/Inst. the Regionals (not the major carriers mind you - the regionals) wanted 2500hrs TT with 1000hrs of that as Multi (don't remember the turbine exp. required). It may be terribly exciting for a noob to hit that 250hr mark with his/her Commercial/Instrument - then be seated in the right seat. But there is a lot to be said for the vetting process that takes place over the number of years it would take to build 2500 plus hours. But now we're back to needing more experience... anywhere from 1000 to 1500hrs. --- I was actually "on edge" listening to the Unintentional King Air pilot (AOPA Interview) even though I knew the outcome. Rarely do I sit thru a youtube for more than a couple minutes... but listening to the ATC communications and watching the radar track (both Center then Approach Control) had me absolutely captivated. This guy had guts -- and a head to get him thru a situation that could have easily killed himself and his family. Outstanding job too by the controllers. They were calm, clear, supportive, and gave the pilot everything he needed from their end to get that pilot back on the ground safely. Amazing job all around.
  8. Yeah there's some Class G areas that can exist up to 14,500msl where it becomes Class E (tlll 18,000 msl - then it's Class A) but only places I know of are "out west" (west of the Mississippi). Looking at Wiki for airspace (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class) seems there's a good deal of difference between the UK & U.S.
  9. Well ordinarily... you do *not* want to be anywhere near (5nm) of an airport. Good way to find yourself involved in a mid-air. Finding a practice area just for "normal" maneuvers for a certificate (Steep Turns, Lazy Eights, Chandelles, Stalls / Spins) may require a bit of work and a few minutes of flying. But safety is paramount. In the U.S. that would likely put you below 1200'agl if not below 700'agl.
  10. §91.303 Aerobatic flight. No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight— ( a ) Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement; ( b ) Over an open air assembly of persons; ( c ) Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport; ( d ) Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway; ( e ) Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or ( f ) When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles. For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight. --------------- A person can get a waiver from 91.303 from the FAA for a Certificate of Authorization for an Aerobatic Practice Area / Contest Box. I don't know of where there is a list of these Boxes -- contacting your FSDO or your local IAC chapter is a place to start. I did see one IAC chapter that has posted their boxes online - the Minnesota Cloud Dancers. The Aerobatic Box has specific dimensions - you're going to have to contact the box "owner" - a NOTAM will be filed when the box is active etc.
  11. Close, I'd say, Ron... it doesn't hold water, but substitute "altitude" for what gets it there - the wing. Get rid at the outset of the idea that the airplane is only an air-going sort of automobile. It isn't. It may sound like one and smell like one, and it may have been interior-decorated to look like one; but the difference is -- it goes on wings. And a wing is an odd thing, strangely behaved, hard to understand, tricky to handle. In many important respects, a wing's behavior is exactly contrary to common sense. On wings it is safe to be high, dangerous to be low; safe to go fast, dangerous to go slow. ... And -- most spectacular contrariness of all -- in emergencies, when the airplane is sinking toward the ground in a "mush" or falling in a stall or spin, and you are afraid of crashing into the ground, the only way to keep it from crashing is to point its nose down and dive at the ground, as if you wanted to crash! It is largely this contrariness of the airplane that makes flying so difficult to learn. For flying *is* difficult to learn -- let nobody tell you otherwise. The accident record proves it, and so does the number of men barred from flight training or eliminated from training for lack of aptitude. What makes flying so difficult is that the flier's instincts -- that is, his most deeply established habits of mind and body -- will tempt him to do exactly the wrong thing. In learning other arts that are comparable to piloting -- sailing , for instance -- skills, ideas, habits must be developed where there were none before. In learning the art of piloting, much carefully learned behavior, many firmly held ideas must first be forgotten and cleared out of the way, must actually be reversed! And it is largely because of this contrariness to common sense that the conventional airplane sometimes requires "nerve" from its pilot. Again, let no one tell you that this is not so. There are situations in flying when he who "ducks," he who flinches, is lost. The most important example is the recovery from a stall at low altitude -- getting that stick forward and pointing the nose at the ground; that does require courage, and no two ways about it. But there are many lesser examples as well. One of the government manuals on flying puts it that the pilot must learn not to give in to his instinct of self-preservation, but to substitute for it carefully trained reactions. That is only a very polite way of saying "guts." From all this it might seem that learning to fly the conventional airplane must necessarily be mostly a matter of drill, like animal training, like making a dog not eat when he wants to eat, making him jump through a flaming hoop when he does not want to jump. And in fact, there is much of animal training in our flight training methods, at present, necessarily: for you simply cannot go against your common sense, against your most powerful instincts, except by drill, and more hard drill. Wolfgang Langewiesche - "Stick & Rudder" If y'all think you can get this kind of training solely from a computer simulation like FSX... you see something in it that I don't. -Rob
  12. Yair, I have PM'd Lewis B. @ A2A... hopefully he will get with you soon to resolve the forum access issue. Rob
  13. Yes, it was hard earned knowledge. It was terribly expensive to earn knowledge. And it was at times, "putting the fear of God in me" knowledge. In the last decade using FSX, I have made a number of great friends, had a lot of great times (multiplayer) and been incredibly impressed with the level of knowledge many here have - and have never stepped foot inside an aircraft! Incredibly impressed! And those guys have helped me (yes I learned from them) in my journey of learning to fly. I am still learning. But knowledge does not equate to experience. Or ability. So I don't know man... try and find out without an instructor. I am sure it can be done. In fact, it obviously was done a hundred years ago. But then, alot of people died tryin'. And a lot of people have died throughout the years trying. And people still die today trying - with an instructor. You can fire off a smart aleck comment like the above and think you are cute doing so. But I think it very disrespectful toward the individuals who have spents years of hard work obtaining advanced licenses - who are willing to share that hard earned knowledge with people, many of whom will never get the chance to actually fly. I have already stated I think sims like FSX can be a valuable training aid. And the information exchange that takes place on sim forums I find, not just fun, but valuable. I have said a number of times, it is like "iron sharpening iron." But I will tell you, it's comments like that which make me wonder, "Why do I bother to come here." Hi vololiberista, To Ken's point, to be approved for use in the U.S. as part of a flight training program, they will need an FAA LOA (letter of authorization). Rob re: the links... impressive.
  14. Ken, Good post / interesting points. I know the regs for simulators have been in flux until recently. Seems maybe the dust is starting to settle. Probably too because the terms "sim" and the "device" (such as Frasca) have been around forever. And it's not like the recent terminology "aviation training device" rolls off the tongue that easily. And... we've had a "flight sim" since the days of subLogic. I think I would refer to an ATD "colloquially" as a simulator (unless told ) and get to the specifics at the opportune time. Course I'd imagine having an FSTD would give one bragging rights. :Big Grin: The FAA Safety Briefing came out with an article in the Sept/Oct 2012 Issue "Real Learning through Flight Simulation: The ABCs of ATDs" if anyone interested (that's a direct download link). May not be completely up to date with the current regs, but reiterates / expands a bit on Ken's points. -Rob
  15. Apologies then... I completely mis-understood what you were initially trying to say. Thanks for clarifying. I was only using your examples which I disagreed with - and I explained why. For example, the meaning of "bad weather" can mean different things to different people. One way I think of bad weather is dealing with thunderstorms. FSX - in my opinion - encourages flying thru thunderstorms. That is one right way to getting yourself killed in a small GA aircraft. Things like that came to mind. Yeah clear on all the simulator stuff. My days with FAA approved sims harken back several decades to the Frasca 141. Of course, having something like P3D does not an aviation training device make. But sure, if I was currently instructing and had a student with a flight sim, I am absolutely certain for some things I would say, "go home and practice such and such." I know I practice certain things and think it beneficial. You mentioned: Real cross-country flights can be practiced in the sim prior to the real flight. and I certainly think that would be a great pre-planning tool. Edit: I actually posted on that very subject recently at A2A Forums - Flying Into AirVenture You did say: I'm sorry, but I took issue with that - again explaining why. That's all. If you wish not to discuss further, of course that is fine with me. Best, Rob O.
  16. Well to me... to say There's absolutely no contradiction between flying a simulator and flying in real life and both have value and there's no reason why someone shouldn't do both. They can complement each other are two completely different statements. I see the "contradiction" in the weather example. Dealing with thunderstorms one example. Icing another. Sure you can set up Low IFR conditions and practice approaches. Great for that. I also don't see how one could "keep their abilities fresh" in the traffic pattern solely by using the sim. Supplement, sure. Below an example: ----------------------- NTSB 2016 MOST WANTED - Transportation Safety Improvements Prevent Loss of Control in Flight in General Aviation While airline accidents have become relatively rare in the United States, pilots and passengers involved in general aviation (GA) operations still die at alarming rates every year due to loss of aircraft control by the pilot. Between 2008 and 2014, about 47 percent of fatal fixed-wing GA accidents in the United States involved pilots losing control of their aircraft in flight, resulting in 1,210 fatalities. Statistically, approach to landing, maneuvering, and initial climb are the deadliest phases of flight for loss-of-control accidents. Pilots should: • Be prepared to recognize stall characteristics and warning signs, and be able to apply appropriate recovery techniques before stall onset. • Be honest with themselves about their knowledge level of stalls, and their ability to recognize and handle them. • Use effective aeronautical decision-making techniques and flight risk assessment tools during both preflight planning and inflight operations. • Manage distractions so that they do not interfere with situational awareness. • Understand, properly train, and maintain currency in the equipment and airplanes they operate. • Take advantage of available commercial trainer, type club, and transition training opportunities. • Realize stall characteristics can vary with aircraft loading and are usually worse at aft CG (center of gravity). ----------------------- I am just wondering how in the world a person using only a sim can realistically address any one of the above points. And that is just a tiny slice of the flying pie.
  17. John, The Baron POH/AFM I have (B58/58A 1977-83) does not have a short field procedure. Flaps are up on takeoff. I'm sure you could you find a procedure or come up with one. The question is, are you willing to bet your life that both engines will always be working, particularly when you need them the most. The problem is what happens if an engine fails. If you rotate below or at Vmc (minimum control airspeed) and lose an engine, loss of control is what you are faced with. For further reading, google "Always Leave Yourself an Out - Richard N. Aarons" - and "FAA-P-8740-66" which is the FAA's "Flying Light Twins Safely". Both are short but excellent reads. Rob
  18. That is a tremendous amount of information you have there, Tomas. Some of it will be very difficult to wade through, like the Aeronautical Information Manual - some topics will be relevant, some not so much. One thing I'd hate to see is that you get overwhelmed with so much material. Have a look at the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge and the Airplane Flying Handbook. The student pilot guide has some good basic info in it - but that is geared toward the U.S. pilot (how to go about getting your license etc.). There's a good book "Understanding Flight" (Anderson & Eberhardt) that is something I wish I first read when learning about aerodynamics. I was just looking to see if I could find a private pilot ground school syllabus... I found a pdf "Learn to Fly: Private Pilot Ground School - Fall 2014 (University of California - Berkeley). That might provide some structure to your learning process. The recommended text is Jeppesen's "Guided Flight Discovery - Private Pilot Handbook". Maybe you could get your library to obtain a copy if you didn't want to purchase one. Jeppesen's material is used extensively at flight schools. I have not used that particular book, but years past I have used their books, such as their "Aviation Fundamentals".
  19. Hi Tomáš, I'm a flight instructor (however, not currently instructing)... Simon makes all good points. No... you would not be license ready... and you would not be ready for the PPL written either... it could help tho in preparation for solo and getting your license. There is a tremendous amount involved in learning to fly. When you say "master the aircraft" I understand that you are saying that - in the sim - you would know where all the switches and knobs are... what the instruments do... that you could land the airplane without any trouble. To help answer your question, I would suggest looking at the FAA's Private Pilot Airman Certification Standards - formerly the "Practical Test Standards". Are you able to maintain traffic pattern altitude ±100 feet, airspeed of ±10 knots, and roll out on headings within ±10°. Are Approach & Departure airspeeds +10/-5 knots. Able to navigate using the appropriate altitudes withing ±200 feet and heading ±15°. Certain required maneuvers you need to maintain altitude within ±100 feet and airspeed within ±10 knots. These are just PPL standards. The standards get tighter with the Commercial, then more so with the ATP. There's a lot of great information that can be found on the FAA's Pilot Training page. For example, under the "Pilot Study Materials" you can find a link to Aircraft Handbooks & Manuals where you can find the Airplane Flying Handbook. The Aviation Handbooks & Manuals page will have links to great references like the Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge. Useful also will be the Aeronautical Information Manual, Aerodynamics for Navy Aviators, Risk Management Handbook & the Weight & Balance Handbook. There's a saying, "Not all meteorologists are pilots, but all pilots are meteorologists"... at least to some degree or another. The better you are at understanding the weather and the weather products available, the better off you will be. To that end, here's a couple handbooks: AC 00-6A - Aviation Weather For Pilots and AC 00-45G - Aviation Weather Services. I mention the above references to give you an idea of what's involved in learning to fly (obviously not *everything* needed to know from the books mentioned above... but much of it... sure). You asked specifically, for example, if you mastered the A2A C172 would you be able to fly the real-world counterpart - a C172R or S model. Tough question. Could you get the airplane started? Certainly. Off the ground? Possibly. Back on the ground? That's the real question... Could you do it all safely? Completely unaided? I would say it is not likely... i.e. a terribly small chance of not breaking or bending something - either the airplane and/or yourself. Legally? In the U.S. - absolutely not. Again... there is just so very much to learn and be made aware of. People who have not been behind the controls of an airplane just don't realize what is required to operate an airplane safely. I learned to fly one summer at university. Essentially two months of doing nothing but studying and flying. Ground school for a couple hours in the morning and a couple hours flying in the afternoon and weekends. Solo'd at around 10 hours and license (PPL) at 50 hours. Could I fly the airplane? Yes. Did I feel like a competent private pilot? Absolutely not. That took more time and training (about 30 more hours of flight time) before I actually felt like I was competent to carry passengers. Not everyone feels that way. But that was my experience. However, I am certainly not going to laugh at you... in fact I admire your desire. Think of the sim as an introduction to flight or opening the door to many topics you can explore. I've beta tested the last couple of airplanes at A2A - and I most certainly would have been thrilled to have one of their aircraft to assist me when I first started my pursuit of learning to fly. (Who would disagree with me that their GA models are impeccable when it comes to replicating the actual airplane for the FSX environment?) The sim can also be useful for real-world activities such as practicing your instrument scan and flying instrument approaches - something I thoroughly enjoy now. Flying is truly a lifelong pursuit - there is always something you can learn to make yourself a better pilot - and a flight sim can be a great aid in many respects in this pursuit. -Rob O.
  20. To address your comment mabe, here's a press release dated 9 March from the U.S. Embassy in Malaysia. http://malaysia.usembassy.gov/news_mh370-030914.html
  21. Kind of hard to have an "investigation" without a "search" first. And having worked in law enforcement as an accident investigator... I am somewhat familiar with the difference between the two terms. Sorry, I do not know the specifics of the Chicago Convention and how it works... only what the Air Chief Marshal said...
  22. So again, I do not understand your point about meddling. You are making the mabe54's (and my) point. The information I posted came from an interview of Air Chief Marshal Houston that is posted on the JACC website... hence the quotes. Let me tell you a little bit more about that. Under the Chicago convention, the accident investigation into the disappearance of MH370 is the responsibility of Malaysia. However, to support its investigation, Malaysia requested that Australia lead the search for the missing aircraft and participate in the investigation as an accredited representative.
  23. I don't understand your point. This idea of "meddling" is utter rubbish -- as many countries ask for the U.S. to aid in aircraft accident investigation. At any rate, in the case of AF 447 the U.S. was quite involved. My understanding, it is relevant and in such a case, is based on aircraft registry. Yes and No... Malaysia invited Australia to "participate as an accredited representative in the investigation". So the agreement was for Australia to lead the search. But Malaysia still has the responsibility for the accident investigation... Australia only a supporting participant. Btw, the U.S. , U.K. and China are also "accredited representatives". Sounds to me you are rewriting history. Read that CMJ I quoted from above. Again... all the foreign countries where I have stepped ashore (from U.S. Naval Vessels) and the foreign military ships I have seen docked in various countries... no, I do not understand that. And little thingys called treaties... like NATO... ANZUS... etc... Then, my friend... you should understand the U.S. response to outside aid after Katrina.
  24. I don't think so. This incident occurred over international waters. Is not the reason Malaysia is heading the investigation due to MH370 originating from that country? Very curious to know what the name of the ship that was supposedly sitting off the coast of New Orleans and was not permitted to assist in aid efforts... I'm sure every country "has rules" about letting "a foreign Armed Force onto land". Personally, as a U.S. Marine, I have been to a number of 'Ports of Call' during three separate U.S. Navy Amphibious Squadron deployments. We docked at Singapore. Not sure what you mean, as I bet dollars to donuts it is still a Port of Call for the U.S. Seventh Fleet. Speaking about those "rules"... I was on board a U.S. ship at Pearl Harbor when we had ships from Japan's SDF docked there. Surreal to see the "Rising Sun" flag at Pearl... nonetheless, it is a port of call for "foreign" navies. Hmmm... I just read the following: Although the best port in terms of condition was located in Texas, Formation Logistics decided that this was too faraway for the ships to steam for resupply. Further, it did not make sense to send them to devastated cities like Biloxi, Gulfport, or New Orleans. Pascagoula Mississippi was considered, but it was decided that the logical initial stopping place was Pensacola. It was estimated that this port would be sufficiently repaired by the time the CTG arrived to offload humanitarian assistance items. The decision to dock in Pensacola was made after the ships were en route, again, an example of the flexibility of an ocean-based response. (Canadian Military Journal, p.57 Vol. 12, No. 3, Summer 2012) Sure... and I think they were respected by other nations. But this respect for "protocols and sovereignty" led to a significant delay in the search (and possible rescue). Whatever mistrust there was should have been set aside for the sake of the crew and passengers / families of MH370. I know... hindsight. But it is a fact that the resources in the U.S. are top drawer regarding aircraft accident investigation.
×
×
  • Create New...