Certified to fly more than a plane

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
. ..
I don't agree, Peter.

No, I guess you wouldn't.

It seems to me that the same degree of misinterpretation and
misunderstanding that you have attributed to Bob's reply has occurred in
your very own reading of Bob's post.

He opened with an insult of the other replies. How else would you suggest I
interpret "It is true that the FAA discourages ... but ..."? He clearly is
implying that other people who have replied are claiming that the US rules
are similar to those in India, which in fact no one made any such
suggestion.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote
He opened with an insult of the other replies. How else would you
suggest I interpret "It is true that the FAA discourages ... but ..."?
He clearly is implying that other people who have replied are
claiming that the US rules are similar to those in India, which in
fact no one made any such suggestion.

Mr. Rampriya and I count each other as personal friends. His knowledge
of aviation is limited to the ICAO equivalent of our Part 121 and I
understand that his questions are more related to airliners and airline
operations. We communicate 2-3 times per day and I am constantly reminding
him that he cannot expect to get a Part 121 answer from a bunch of Part
91'ers. He keeps trying though, I think to reduce the answering load on me.

My response to his earlier post was just a gentle jab at a friend in the
words of Ronald Regan..."There you go again".

Ramapriya's limited experience and lack of training in the different Parts
of the regulations under which flights are conducted often results in a
poor choice of words in his questions and lots of answers that are not
applicable.

I fully understood the "one a/c type" that is placed on airline pilots in
other countries and restricted by the airline's OPSPECS here in our own
country, something that you and the other Part 91'ers have no knowledge of
as demonstrated by the many "Oh no! we can fly many types" answers that he
recieved. Not one answer addressed the Part 121 (or equivalent) issues.

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727 L-188
PanAm (retired)

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 122...
Mr. Rampriya and I count each other as personal friends.
[...]

My response to his earlier post was just a gentle jab at a friend in the
words of Ronald Regan..."There you go again".

I'm not talking about any part of your comment that might have been directed
at him. I'm talking about the part that was directed at the rest of us,
saying that we "General Aviation pilots" are confused.

[...] Not one answer addressed the Part 121 (or equivalent) issues.

Nothing about the original question suggested that it was limited to
operations governed by Part 121, and in fact subsequent follow-ups by the
original poster made clear it was NOT limited to those operations.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Bob Moore" wrote in message

Nothing about the original question suggested that it was limited to
operations governed by Part 121, and in fact subsequent follow-ups by the
original poster made clear it was NOT limited to those operations.

Pete


Pete and Bob,

I really am mortified at having been somehow being the cause of all
this.

I can't remember one mail from Bob that doesn't have a smiley, and I
can say the same very thing about Pete's posts too. Despite the
obviously dunce-type questions, and being a guy who has 22000 flying
hours, Bob hasn't once lost either his equanimity or his sense of humor
- and neither have you, Pete!

The Internet can at once be great - in being able to afford platforms
for almost near-instant mesh of brains/ideas/opinions - and misleading.
Remember that a writer's tone can't always be judged well enough, and
it's best we don't lose sight of that. I'm too well aware of the impact
of a remotely written word, having lost count of the number of times
that remarks made in jest (I'm incurably flippant) on other Groups have
had people flying off the handle and all that sort of thing. I recall
one earlier occasion too, when someone yelled at Bob at being arrogant
and I thought, "Jeez this is so unfair to a cove who's clement all the
time".

Not only did I not want to mitigate the load on Bob - like he said,
there are at least a couple of doubts that I keep throwing at him
almost each day ) I wanted to get a feel of how the rules were in
various countries, suspecting that India was stuck in a time warp of
sorts. Btw, I've no clue what either Part 91 or 121 is )

Keep the cheer; if it isn't worth a smile, it isn't worth it at all )

Ramapriya

wrote)
...and I thought, "Jeez this is so unfair to a cove who's clement all the
time".

Is that a phrase borrowed from literature, or one of yours? I like it.


Btw, I've no clue what either Part 91 or 121 is )

http://www.risingup.com/fars/
FAR - Federal Aviation Regulations

Click links...

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl
Find 121, or 61, or 91, here ...same info as in the above link.

The reason people turn around and sell this information is, they've gone to
the trouble of putting it into book form. FAR/AIM 2006 is FREE from the
Government (below link).

http://www.aerotraining.com/html_gif/regs.htm
FAR's, CAR's and JAR's


Montblack

Montblack wrote:
wrote)
...and I thought, "Jeez this is so unfair to a cove who's clement all the
time".

Is that a phrase borrowed from literature, or one of yours? I like it.


No idea. But I can't rule out a subconscious influence of what I read
now and then - Thomas Hardy, Wodehouse or Asterix

Ramapriya

"Peter Duniho" wrote in

He opened with an insult of the other replies. How else would you suggest
I interpret ......

Perhaps by considering, as Bob as already pointed out, that he and ramapriya
may well be referring to an aspect of aviation you, and others, are not
considering. While 121 does not specifically proscribe multiple concurrent
type operations, most airlines' opspecs do, and as you well know, a
carrier's opspec carries the force of, indeed becomes part of, the FAR for
that carrier.

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
. ..
I don't agree, Peter.

No, I guess you wouldn't.

It seems to me that the same degree of misinterpretation and
misunderstanding that you have attributed to Bob's reply has occurred in
your very own reading of Bob's post.

He opened with an insult of the other replies. How else would you suggest I
interpret "It is true that the FAA discourages ... but ..."? He clearly is
implying that other people who have replied are claiming that the US rules
are similar to those in India, which in fact no one made any such
suggestion.

Stop this bickering right now, or I am going to send both of you to your
rooms! You two are worst than my kids, and you're supposedly grown-ups!