| Microsoft Fight Simulator Approved by the FAA |
|
|
|
| Written by Randall McFarlane | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sunday, 10 June 2007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There are a lot of good reasons why you should never trust the FAA but this has to be best reason. The FAA a while a go has approved the Microsoft Flight Simulator for flight training. Microsoft was one of the last flight sims to get approved by the FAA and a good reason too. But eventually Microsoft paid its way to get the FAA approval so they can claim they are the best flight simulator. Microsoft has put millions and millions in to this.
Now my fucking question is how in the fuck did the FAA allow this. I mean come the fuck on. would you trust a pilot who files a plane and has done hours of training on a ms product? I'm sorry but there is no blue screening on real flights. Hell you don't see a fucking reset switch or a ctrl + alt + delete in the cockpit do you? Or you don't hear the pilot say "we are sorry but the computer just gave a blue screen of death, I am sorry you are all going to die". The point is you don't so there is no fucking way I would trust a pilot say he logged his training hours in Ms Flight simulator. Thats like saying your Doctor got his practice for heart sergery from Microsoft Paint. Would you trust him? I mean really ? no you wouldn't I say that the fucking FAA needs to stop getting kick backs and help protect the people.Allowing MS Flight Simulator to be FAA approved is almost a act of terrorism its self. I can't believe the government would fucking allow this but no they don't give a flying fuck to who or what is in danger as long as the kick backs roll in. I say we need to take the FAA to court for treason. Hell people but put of for treason for far less why in the hell can't we take the FAA who fucking turned its back on the people because they can get money. Fuck the FAA and Microsoft I hope they both rot in hell for their treason ways.
Comments (19)
Rod
said:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subscribe to this comment's feed| Do you have any information that confirms what you said ? Thank you.  |
Ranting can be fun
said:
| OK, I have flown in a number of real simulators and the fake MS Microsoft Simulator. There is really no difference in flight handling characteristics. Yes, you can hit the "I QUIT" button in a real simulator. Ranting about MS Flight Simulator can be fun, but let's give MS credit for one good product. I am perfectly OK with FAA approval if evidence has shown that Pilots that buy and use MS Flight Simulator about flying. When I first bought MS Flight Simulator for about $45; it was the only thing available. Certainly, I never would have gotten 100 hours of flying experience with a qualified commercial flight simulator; so when I did get a chance to use a real flight simulator I could actually fly it. Here's the thing about Flight Simulators and any other qualified software package. Requirements, Specifications, Quality Assurance, Version Control, Documentation. The FAA just didn't write an "OK Ticket". Through the Freedom of Information Act, we can get the facts about this approval. Here is the funny KICKER to this story. MS Flight Simulator 2004, which got the approval, DOES NOT WORK with Windows Vista. So Microsoft has to go through the RED TAPE approval process again with MS Flight Simulator X to get recertified.  So have a drink on me. But in general, I would bet that terrorists were already using MS Flight Simulator for unqualified flying instruction and practice. After all, they didn't have to learn how to LAND. Good luck - Dan |
T
said:
| Geeze, you really ought to cut back the drinking and look up some facts. Yes the FAA has approved PC based flight simulators (more than just MSFS). But please note: it is only approved WITH the approved controls (NO you cannot fly a 747 with a mouse, trust me). Also, it is only good for a MAX of 10 hours WITH a Certified Flight Instructor to sign off on the training (minimun of 40 hours of flight trainning WITH a ground school and approved tests). Typically students require 50 hours of trainning to pass a very rigorus performance based "Pratical Test" demonstrating flight profenciency. Also, that's only for a "learners permit" of a PRIVATE Pilot license. Thoes guys with the Airline Transport License have many thousands of hours of experience and trainning (which by the way is also partly based on a simulator, but thoes are pretty much the scale of a building with many techs running it with a certified instructor along side. But hey, it's your rant I guess... Enjoy, if that's what you want to do, just don't infect your idiocy on others. Maybe find a nice quiet hobby like virtual pool -T FAA Certified Flight Instructor |
Randall
said:
| Dear T, I know there is xplane and others out there. and I know that you need to have certified controls. I just don't think that the FAA should allow Microsoft as a option at all. I know you also have to get hours behind a real plane. But this rant is mostly on FAA saying that ms is ok to train on. Fuck that. People need real software not stuff that is unstable and a piece of fucking shit. But to people who got their Flight Licenses I know its hard work and this rant was not directed at them But seems like you love to be ass raped by the Microsoft corp. But hey its ok if you receive money from them isn't it? I hope you burn in hell. I never said anything about FAA Instructors or anything about the certification. All I said was this was on the software that the FAA approved. Maybe you’re the one that’s a fucking retard or a fucking woman that twists my fucking words around. by the Microsoft corp. But hey its ok if you recive money from them isn't it? I hope you burn in hell. I |
Joeshittheragman
said:
| Randall, If you only knew how many times the Flight Safety or Simuflight simulators shit the bed and broke down during a training flight you would praise Microsoft stability. Granted there is a world of difference between the complexity, but MS Flight SImulator is wonderful for the price even if you throw in the cost of the computer, controls, and software. It's a helleva a deal and worth it for any student to purchase. David CFI-IMEIG Oh ya.....I work for the FAA too, but don't hold that against me |
A Real Pilot
said:
| Why the hell shouldn't FSX get approval? They're not talking about doing an entire airline career curriculum on the frigging thing, just a few measly hours. I personally used FS98 while I was doing my ATPL and IR and saved $thousands. X-Plane is technically more accurate, but is really not up to anythign like the same standard as an overall package as FSX. X-Plane was approved by FAA, but I've seen such an installation and it's bloody garbage. But who cares about approval anyway? If a school can allow people to practice without wasting fuel, congesting airspace, and still make the same (or more) markup, and dudes can practice on their own on a moderately inexpensive computer, it has my thumbs up. |
Commercial Pilot
said:
| Wow, just wow. I have to hand it to you. This is probably the worst rant I have ever read. Not only does it truly have no point to it, your laughable use of the word @uck murders any credibility you may have had. Face it, your insane bias against MS in general is the true motivator for your ramblings. OH NOES!! FSX is an MS product so hence and logically it MUST BE EVIL!! Give me a break... Have you done ANY research into your claims? better yet you know the first thing about instrument flying? Enough to compare the real thing with what is simulated in FSX? I'd bet real money the answer to both questions is NO. Because if you really knew about instrument flying and if you really had expirience in simulated instrument flying through FSX (or any of the previous MS sims for that matter) then you would know that it is just as good as any of the other sims approved by the FAA for that purpose. My school has 3 simulators. AST-300, Elite Software Sim and FS2004. AST is a more complex machine consisting of anactual simulated cockpit (takes up half the room) while Elite and FS are both software sims run off a regular desktop computer. Guess what, Elite and FS provide the same ammount of sim quality and learning even though The Elite solution (not including hardware cost) ticks in at 500 dollars! Both packages provide the same kind of instrument training, though FS looks a HELL of a lot better for 1/8 the cost! So to conclude, you are entitled to your opinion, but please don't act as if you are some sort of an expert on the matter of flight training, because you are obviously very ignorant about such matters. Oh and one last thing, if you truly want to be taken seriously, take it easy on the expletives. It truly makes you sound like a potty mouth 6th grader. CFI in training. |
RandalI
said:
| Dear Commercial Pilot , Why because I want to use the word fuck? Oh thats right because he uses the word fuck I don't know what the fuck I am talking about. First off did you know that xplane an the others you talked about can use a physics chip to enhance real physics to simulate real life conditions? MS FS does not. The Flight Dynamics in xplane are as real as you can get and beat ms in every way on this. So does most commercial flight simulators. But the way you act on how you know everything makes me wonder if I should ever get on a plane with you. Your arrogance and FUCKED up attitude is going to fuck you over. So to conclude why don't you do a little research and then talk to me bitch. Seems you are just in training Please Please tell me you just started. if not I will never fly again if there are people like you flying. To conclude my reply. FUCK YOU AND I HOPE YOU FUCKING CHOKE ON A FUCKING FUCKED UP HAM SANDWICH, Thank you Randall |
Daniel
said:
| Randall... You are a true dumbass. I have never seen such a piss-poor article. Your arguments show that you have absolutely NO IDEA of what you are talking about in regards to the FAA and its Regulatory practices. You come across as simply being a "Microsoft Hater" and are dragging the FAA and pilots using MS Products to further their training. Perhaps you should get a clue before you start talking about something you know nothing about. |
RandalI
said:
| Daniel, Why I gave proof and I also showed you why x-plan was 300 times better. It seems to me that your fucking love for ms is clouding your judgment. So why do you you shut the fuck up. FAA should never use a product from Microsoft. |
rp
said:
| proof? bullshit. there is simply no other desktop sim capable of simulating tu-134 or atr-72 as close to the real thing as msfs does. |
RandaII
said:
| RP what the fuck are you smoking? Xplane is on the desktop and does all that and more. Seems to me you need to take your head out of your ass and look around. |
Paolo
said:
Randall is one of those pilotwannabe in denile but he will never get there due to a fatal brain disfunction, called profanity. You know, profanityi is a tool of a week mind to express itself forcefully.  Randall! jerk the monkey and get some sleep! Muhaha |
rp
said:
| the tu-134 for xplane does not simulate even the hydraulical positioning systems on the horizontal tailplane, not to mention rsbn navigation system and engine management. you fucking noob XD |
Michael
said:
| Old posting I know, but wow, how ignorant. I did a lot of sim time as part of my IFR training, on very expensive simulators which were no better / no more realistic than MS Flight Sim (PC-based simulators were not approved when I was a student.) For practicing scans and IFR procedures, MSFS is extremely good especially nowadays with FS X. -Michael PPSEL-IR |
RandaII
said:
| FS X is the biggest pofs ever. to rp yeah neither does fucking fs x. I fucking hate you people that argue about how x-plane doesn't do this or that. Well I know and its commercial flight simulators that need to be only used not some pofs like fs x. so rp you nameless bastard your argument is invalid because I think we should leave it to the pros not desktop flight sims. |
rp
said:
| "to rp yeah neither does fucking fs x." FALSE. here's link to project tupolev: http://www.protu-154.com/index_e.html "I think we should leave it to the pros not desktop flight sims." yeah, and because of that attitude x-plane does not offer realistic tupolev tu-134, but fsx does. same goes for atr-72, boeing 767 etc. with fsx, one can have much wider and more realistic flying experience, because there are more planes available and the top addons (many of them are created in co-operation with manufacturers, like flight 1's atr-72) are second to none as it comes to desktop sims. without correctly simulated control surfaces, the tu-134 on x-plane is simply an arcade game. you can't even fly it right, not to mention IFR flights where you must heavily rely on instruments. you simply DON'T have the necessary navigation instruments simulated on x-plane: how can you fly IFR, if you don't have RSBN on your tupolev? so stop flaming you little retarded n00b. xD |
RandaII
said:
| well RP again you are wrong and I will admit I am wrong xplane does all that you said it can't do. Google it you stupid ass hole. I don't want to do the work for you. Me flaming no its you. sorry that you are a little bitch for ms. Please stfu xplane is far more realistic then fsx ever will be. There are tons of forums that go both ways. I'm sorry that my opinion pisses you off, well not really. SO go choke on a ham sandwich and die in hell. All you are doing is research for ms side and not even looking for xplane specs at all. Its fayboys like you that fuck up everything in this world. PLEASE BEFORE YOU FUCKING POST AGAIN DO YOUR FUCKING RESEARCH! Fucking stupid ass bitch. Thanks Randall |
rp
said:
| there is NO tu-134 for xplane with rsbn system. there IS one for fsx. PROVE ME WRONG. |
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
