Common instruments on small aircraft

Judah writes:

If your purpose for flying is as a reliable mode of transportation, wouldn't
you do what is necessary to ensure it as such?

Yes ... which implies that pilots without an instrument rating aren't
really serious about using aircraft for transportation, no matter what
they might claim.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Skylune,

the
weakest of which (Sport Pilot) requires NO MEDICAL WHATSOEVER.


You mean, just like DRIVING? The horrors...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Judah writes:

I don't know off the top of my head.

Then why reply? It only wastes your bandwidth and mine.

I also asked a question, which you simply ignored in your tirade... Who's the
troll now?

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Judah writes:

If your purpose for flying is as a reliable mode of transportation,
wouldn't you do what is necessary to ensure it as such?

Yes ... which implies that pilots without an instrument rating aren't
really serious about using aircraft for transportation, no matter what
they might claim.

That depends on their needs for transportation, no? Many people have more
than one mode of transportation available to them. A byciclist that
doens't own snow tires because they don't intend to ride to work in the
winter can still be serious about using their bike for transportation.
This "all or nothing" notion that either an aircraft should totally
replace another vehicle or it's not serious transportation is just plain
absurd; there are times to fly, times to drive, and times to take a
commercial flight, and they don't have to overlap at all.

Neil

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Judah writes:

I don't know off the top of my head.

Then why reply? It only wastes your bandwidth and mine.

You don't appear to have much of a problem in wasting either one.

What is the real source of "noise" here?

You are a good deal of it.

Neil

Neil Gould writes:

That depends on their needs for transportation, no?

Outside the category of meteorologists, the need for transportation is
independent of the weather. Therefore someone who cannot fly in just
about any weather cannot provide reliable transportation.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

That depends on their needs for transportation, no?

Outside the category of meteorologists, the need for transportation is
independent of the weather. Therefore someone who cannot fly in just
about any weather cannot provide reliable transportation.

This is not usually true. One can't necessarily ride a bike in "just about
any weather", yet the bike can generally be considered "reliable
transportation". Your argument is not valid.

Neil

"Marty Shapiro" wrote in message
...

Since the principle benefits I derive from flying are experience and
enjoyment, I have no fear that the FAA is
going to come on some witchhunt to get me. Mainly because I've never
heard anybody with a contrary example.

Did you ever hear of Bob Hoover?

Three things:

1) Met him.

2) Turns out, he's still flying.

3) If the FAA is going to ground Bob Hoover because of a witchhunt as people
recognize it, (there is more to the story, but it's nobody's business. It
was medical in nature) it proves that the FAA will ground the best pilot
alive on wild-ass speculation and it really is us against them.

If you choose to let them bully you into submission without so much as a
fight for it, that's your business. I am fortunate in that flying is not my
livelihood. That's a battle that, if it ever came up, wouldn't destroy me if
I lost. I don't allow my skivvies to get knotted up too much about whether
I might theoretically offend the FAA based on some trivial reason; if they
ever decide to harrass me for taking my dad flying or something, they'll
find me medically and practically current in an airworthy and inspected
aircraft. Then we'll see what happens.

But I'm not going to not fly for fear that they might tell me not to fly. In
1988, somebody significant told me that because of my vision, the FAA would
never allow me to fly a plane. I'm glad I didn't listen.

-c
PP-ASEL-IA

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Neil Gould writes:

That depends on their needs for transportation, no?

Outside the category of meteorologists, the need for transportation is
independent of the weather. Therefore someone who cannot fly in just
about any weather cannot provide reliable transportation.


I just looked up the days annually that were clear, partly cloudy and cloudy
for the nearest city to me I could find at
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...ccd/clpcdy.txt . In this case
Little Rock Arkansas. Over the last 35 years they've averaged 119 clear, 100
partly cloudy and 147 cloudy. The vast majority of the clear and partly
cloudy would be VFR and a fairly large number of the cloudy days would be
VFR.

Sure there are days that you just can't fly without a IFR rating for that
matter there are days that you can't fly with an IFR rating. But guess what
there are days that I've been on commercial flight that I would have been
better off in a car. But with just a little bit of flexibility a VFR pilot
can and do on a regular basis use GA for reliable transportation.

I'm still better off seeing 4 of my clients tomorrow than I would be driving
and seeing 2 today and 2 the next and having to stay in a hotel on the night
in between.

Neil Gould writes:

This is not usually true. One can't necessarily ride a bike in "just about
any weather", yet the bike can generally be considered "reliable
transportation". Your argument is not valid.

There are very few types of weather that will stop a bicycle. A VFR
flight is stopped by a fluffy little cloud.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.