Fly Boy ?????

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

I would think the operator would have better information on the ditching
behavior than would the manufacturer.

Glad to see you finally coming around Steven. There's no substitute
for experience but when I asked you how many hours you have in
a certain type your non sequitur response was "irrelevant."

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...

Glad to see you finally coming around Steven. There's no substitute
for experience but when I asked you how many hours you have in
a certain type your non sequitur response was "irrelevant."


Your message makes no sense whatsoever.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
"Mike Marron" wrote:

Glad to see you finally coming around Steven. There's no substitute
for experience but when I asked you how many hours you have in
a certain type your non sequitur response was "irrelevant."

Your message makes no sense whatsoever.

You must have a short memory:

I said:

"Please post your number of hours logged in experimental trikes
right here --____________"

You responded:

"Zero, and irrelevant."

In any event, now that you've acknowledged the priceless value of
experience, when it comes to ditching an Avenger I would agree with
you and give the nod to those whom have actual experience successfully
ditching the airplane in real world situations over what the book
says.

Of course, like many things in aviation it's not quite as cut and
dried as that and perhaps a combination of the book technique
and my fellow squadron mate's technique would be best. But having
ditched an aircraft myself, I still can't say for sure if I'd use the
same technique again in the event I find myself in the same situation
once again.

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
"Mike Marron" wrote:

Glad to see you finally coming around Steven. There's no substitute
for experience but when I asked you how many hours you have in
a certain type your non sequitur response was "irrelevant."

Your message makes no sense whatsoever.

You must have a short memory:

Non-sequitur.

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...

You must have a short memory:


I have an excellent memory.



I said:

"Please post your number of hours logged in experimental trikes
right here --____________"

You responded:

"Zero, and irrelevant."

In any event, now that you've acknowledged the priceless value of
experience, when it comes to ditching an Avenger I would agree with
you and give the nod to those whom have actual experience successfully
ditching the airplane in real world situations over what the book
says.

Of course, like many things in aviation it's not quite as cut and
dried as that and perhaps a combination of the book technique
and my fellow squadron mate's technique would be best. But having
ditched an aircraft myself, I still can't say for sure if I'd use the
same technique again in the event I find myself in the same situation
once again.


Different issue. Experience ditching an Avenger obviously provides one with
knowledge of the ditching characteristics of an Avenger. But logging hours
in experimental trikes does not provide one with knowledge of the FARs, as
you so ably demonstrated with your messages last month.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Different issue.

But same principle relating to the importance of experience.

Experience ditching an Avenger obviously provides one with
knowledge of the ditching characteristics of an Avenger.

Er um, exactly what I said.

But logging hours in experimental trikes does not provide one
with knowledge of the FARs, as you so ably demonstrated with
your messages last month.

Like I said Stevie, you're living in the land of Oz and are more full
of **** than a brontasaurus with no ass if you think that you, with
your basic VFR-only private pilot's license (?) and paltry amount of
experience is in the same ball park with ANY CFII or A&P mechanic
(not just me). Reality check!

What, do you think my ultralight trike came out of its shipping crate
with an N-number magically stuck on it just for me? Somebody had to
educate the feds about these newfangled, tailless flying machines
because like you, they didn't have the first clue even what a "trike"
is...much less how to go about N-numbering one!

And then somebody had to know how to properly fill out FAA Forms
8130-6, and -12, have them notorized and send them off to Oklahoma
City. Same goes for AC Form 8050-3, -1 which had to be signed and
dated as evidence that I have complied with the registration
requirements per FAR Part 47.

And who do you suppose had to enclose 3-view drawings complete
w/photos of the A/C as required by FAR section 21.193? The Great Oz?

And who do you think weighed the A/C to make sure it was within CG
limits and sent a copy of that information to the feds in Oklahoma
City as well? Santa Claus?

What about the all the required placards and markings, who do you
s'pose plastered them all over the A/C? Mrs. Claus? Santa's reindeer?
Perhaps one of Santa's elves?

Only AFTER all these items were done could I even begin to think about
logging hours in my experimental trike as you said above. Hell, you
didn't even know that experimental trikes EXISTED....much less that I
happened to be one of the handful of pilots whose not only
knowledgable enough with the FAR's, but motivated enough to take
a common ultralight and register it as an experimental so as allow me
to operate it just like I would operate a Cessna 210.

Perhaps it's time that you grow up and give credit where credit's due
Steve. Just because you've wasted all these years arguing on Usenet
about whether or not the Wrights were the first to achieve powered
flight or Yeager was the first through the mythical "sound barrier,"
some of us have actually been busy building and flying and
accomplishing things. You're a talker, not a doer.

BTW, how many experimental A/C have YOU built and N-numbered
Steve? Anyone, even my 9-year old nephew, can simply copy and paste
the FAR's off the web like you did while attempting to show how
knowledgable you *think* you are.

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

I would think the operator would have better information on the ditching
behavior than would the manufacturer.

Glad to see you finally coming around Steven. There's no substitute
for experience but when I asked you how many hours you have in
a certain type your non sequitur response was "irrelevant."

Lune.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
"Mike Marron" wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

I would think the operator would have better information on the ditching
behavior than would the manufacturer.

Glad to see you finally coming around Steven. There's no substitute
for experience but when I asked you how many hours you have in
a certain type your non sequitur response was "irrelevant."

Lune.

All great men are dying, and I am rather sick myself.

(BTW, you misspelled "loon")

rom: "Tarver Engineering"


Lune.

Lune (l€n) n.a crescent-shaped figure bounded by two arcs of circles,
either on a plane or a spherical surface. [1695–1705; L l�na moon]

Loon1 (l€n) n.any of several large, ducklike diving birds of the order
Gaviiformes, nesting along fresh water in colder regions of the Northern
Hemisphere. [1625–35; appar. alter. of dial. loom ON lŽm]

Loon2 (l€n) n.a crazy or simple-minded person. [1400–50; late ME lowen,
perh. ON l�inn worn, tired]


Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...
rom: "Tarver Engineering"


Lune.

Lune (l?n) n.a crescent-shaped figure bounded by two arcs of circles,
either on a plane or a spherical surface. [1695-1705; L l�na moon]

Well actually lun, as in lunar, luney, moonstruck, queen of heaven et al.