Major A writes: > This is a really good one, David -- I think I would end up with > s*** in my pants if I had to do this for real!
Dead people don't care if they have clean underwear, despite all the warnings your mother gave you as a kid. I think it's a generational thing -- in my so-far limited experience, it seems to be older pilots (say, 55+) who prefer scud running to getting an IFR ticket. Often, they even have an instrument rating, but don't want to use it. I personally have no issue with the system, and am looking forward to getting my IFR ticket and then using it whenever I have the chance. > Does the real C172 shake like that in wind, or is it the changing wind > that makes it dance? I have a fairly simplistic gust model right now -- it might rattle the plane a little too hard. In real life, you usually get that only close to the ground (especially under cumulus), and it tends to be accompanied by mechanical turbulence. It can be pretty frightening, though (it's not fun to find yourself in a sudden 20 degree bank 50 feet above ground level). SFO actually has some interesting legal low-level approaches with names like "Tipp Toe Visual" and "Quiet Bridge Visual", but I think they have higher minima. Take a look at http://edj.net/cgi-bin/echoplate.pl/ to get all the KSFO approaches, STARs, and SIDs. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
