I give up, after many, many years!

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:lMVXj.169277$yE1.70867@attbi_s21:

Third, and most likely alternative: he's just stupid.

MX is many things. Persistent, stubborn, blunt, thick-skinned, willing
to argue that black-eyed-peas are really black-eyed-beans, yes.
Occasionally annoying, often entertaining (mostly because of the
responses he obtains), always willing to come back for more. He's
like a Weebil that won't fall down.

But stupid? I don't think so.


Well, relative to you, of course not.


Bertie

Michael Ash writes:

Because you do a crappy job of repeating things.

No. It's because some people reject anything I say in a knee-jerk emotional
reaction. They are more concentrated on me than on my words. Sometimes they
argue with established facts simply because I'm the one who posted them.

You discard qualifiers, you remove necessary context, and you fail to
understand the domain of applicability of the things you repeat.

I don't do it any differently than most people do.

Whether this happens because you lack the experience to know which bits are
important or because you just like to cause a ruckus, I couldn't say.

It's neither. Some people simply look for some way to argue with what I say,
even when I'm simply repeated well-established facts. I've occasionally made
test posts here that prove it, literally lifting statements from reliable
sources and posting them under my own name, and watching the amusing reaction
of the usual suspects.

What you need to do, if you wish to persuade refractory persons like
myself,
is explain and support your assertions.

Pilots are an interesting breed. I've met dozens (hundreds?) of them over
the years who will state something as fact, but will not (or can not)
explain themselves when questioned. The whole attitude is that they are so
incredibly experienced that no one should deign question their authority on
the matter.

Of course, it seems funny that someone of this mindset might frequent a
*newsgroup* -- where the free-flow of information is the whole point. But,
like I said, pilots are an interesting breed.

Trouble is, MX, I'm afraid you have burnt too many bridges behind you to
expect any further cooperation here. This thread is evidence that your
message is no longer important to many posters here, even when what you're
saying precisely parrots Bob Gardner's excellent book "The Complete
Instrument Pilot".

Since you're already semi-anonymous, you might try laying low for a few
weeks and coming back under a new name? Hell, you might even try using
your own?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck writes:

Pilots are an interesting breed. I've met dozens (hundreds?) of them over
the years who will state something as fact, but will not (or can not)
explain themselves when questioned. The whole attitude is that they are so
incredibly experienced that no one should deign question their authority on
the matter.

Pilots are not unique in this respect. Many people are this way. It is a
common personality characteristic, but not a universal one.

I don't understand this characteristic fully, as I do not share it. If I tell
someone something I know, I rather expect him to look it up, as I would. It's
surprising if he takes it as gospel. I am not offended if he choses to verify
what I say.

Trouble is, MX, I'm afraid you have burnt too many bridges behind you to
expect any further cooperation here. This thread is evidence that your
message is no longer important to many posters here, even when what you're
saying precisely parrots Bob Gardner's excellent book "The Complete
Instrument Pilot".

Bob Gardner is occasionally on this group himself (or at least someone
claiming to be him is). I wonder if he would feel compelled to argue with me
as well.

The stuff I have from Bob Gardner is so well-worn that the pages are starting
to fall out, and I still have more on my wish list at Amazon.

Anyway, I'm not worried about burnt bridges. All newsgroups have a steady
turnover, so there are always new people to talk to. People with the attitude
you describe are generally incompetent, so if they choose not to enter into
discussion, so much the better. And there are always a few people who don't
suffer from these problems and _do_ know what they are talking about, and will
discuss aviation objectively no matter what the brat pack does.

Since you're already semi-anonymous, you might try laying low for a few
weeks and coming back under a new name? Hell, you might even try using
your own?

I've been using this pseudonym for years and I don't see any reason to change.
I keep it to be slightly more anonymous, although anyone who expends even a
modicum of effort can find out who I actually am. I originally adopted it to
protect my erstwhile employer.

I find that, over time, a gradual filtering process occurs: the stupid people
stop talking to me entirely (which is fine) as they exhaust themselves with
their own tantrums, the average people get over their emotional reactions and
become more civil and eventually engage in useful interaction, and the smart
people never suffer from these issues to begin with. Sometimes people who
behaved foolishly at first become embarrassed by their initial behavior and
tell me "well, you've changed," when in fact _they_ have changed in their
interactions with me (I haven't changed in decades).

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Jay Honeck writes:

Pilots are an interesting breed. I've met dozens (hundreds?) of them
over the years who will state something as fact, but will not (or can
not) explain themselves when questioned. The whole attitude is that
they are so incredibly experienced that no one should deign question
their authority on the matter.

Pilots are not unique in this respect. Many people are this way. It
is a common personality characteristic, but not a universal one.

I don't understand this characteristic fully, as I do not share it.
If I tell someone something I know, I rather expect him to look it up,
as I would. It's surprising if he takes it as gospel. I am not
offended if he choses to verify what I say.

Trouble is, MX, I'm afraid you have burnt too many bridges behind you
to expect any further cooperation here. This thread is evidence
that your message is no longer important to many posters here, even
when what you're saying precisely parrots Bob Gardner's excellent
book "The Complete Instrument Pilot".

Bob Gardner is occasionally on this group himself (or at least someone
claiming to be him is). I wonder if he would feel compelled to argue
with me as well.

The stuff I have from Bob Gardner is so well-worn that the pages are
starting to fall out, and I still have more on my wish list at Amazon.

Anyway, I'm not worried about burnt bridges. All newsgroups have a
steady turnover, so there are always new people to talk to. People
with the attitude you describe are generally incompetent, so if they
choose not to enter into discussion, so much the better. And there
are always a few people who don't suffer from these problems and _do_
know what they are talking about, and will discuss aviation
objectively no matter what the brat pack does.

Since you're already semi-anonymous, you might try laying low for a
few weeks and coming back under a new name? Hell, you might even
try using your own?

I've been using this pseudonym for years and I don't see any reason to
change. I keep it to be slightly more anonymous, although anyone who
expends even a modicum of effort can find out who I actually am. I
originally adopted it to protect my erstwhile employer.

I find that, over time, a gradual filtering process occurs: the stupid
people stop talking to me entirely (which is fine) as they exhaust
themselves with their own tantrums, the average people get over their
emotional reactions and become more civil and eventually engage in
useful interaction, and the smart people never suffer from these
issues to begin with. Sometimes people who behaved foolishly at first
become embarrassed by their initial behavior and tell me "well, you've
changed," when in fact _they_ have changed in their interactions with
me (I haven't changed in decades).


You're a moron Anthony.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:4wVXj.115096$TT4.56541@attbi_s22:

Since you're already semi-anonymous, you might try laying low for a few
weeks and coming back under a new name? Hell, you might even try using
your own?

No mater what Anthony does in the future, his style will give him away and
everyone will remember how he came into this group. He won't be given
another chance.

Pretty much the same thing applies to you in this regard as you have
only made it to somewhere between second and third base in the IFR
realm. There are a lot of people on this group who are quite
experienced in IFR flight and I might be one of them. But I still
welcome the opportunity to learn from those who have earned my
respect. The IFR virgins should shut up, listen and learn.

Good observation. I usually subscribe to this approach, when the topic of
instrument filght comes up, since I *am* a newbie in that realm. I've only
shot 54 instrument approaches under the hood, and have maybe fifty hours
total simulated IMC, which pales into insignificance when compared with
someone who flies instruments daily.

However, in this case MX is parroting "the book" on instrument flight, while
several others are arguing counter to "the book". IMHO this is a case
where the messenger is being killed despite the fact that the message is
correct.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Sun, 18 May 2008 12:34:26 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

Pretty much the same thing applies to you in this regard as you have
only made it to somewhere between second and third base in the IFR
realm. There are a lot of people on this group who are quite
experienced in IFR flight and I might be one of them. But I still
welcome the opportunity to learn from those who have earned my
respect. The IFR virgins should shut up, listen and learn.

Good observation. I usually subscribe to this approach, when the topic of
instrument filght comes up, since I *am* a newbie in that realm. I've only
shot 54 instrument approaches under the hood, and have maybe fifty hours
total simulated IMC, which pales into insignificance when compared with
someone who flies instruments daily.

However, in this case MX is parroting "the book" on instrument flight, while
several others are arguing counter to "the book". IMHO this is a case
where the messenger is being killed despite the fact that the message is
correct.

No, it's a case of applicability and context. You train to ignore
your inner ear, but there are plenty of other sensations and cues
which you do pay attention to whether VMC or IMC. Blanket statements
and inability to accept correction or understand the context of the
book is his issue, and regardless of what name he comes back as (which
he won't do because he's too stubourn to know when to leave) the same
issue will always be there. He needs to go back to the sim groups and
stay where his simulator only posting is on topic.

On May 18, 7:34*am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
*I've only
shot 54 instrument approaches under the hood, and have maybe fifty hours
total simulated IMC, which pales into insignificance when compared with
someone who flies instruments daily.

PLEASE, PLEASE go out with an IA pilot and touch a cloud! It's the
folks that don't actively touch a cloud that gets in the most trouble,
not the ones that do it daily. You have the means to do this, so
really there is no excuse for you..

I put this in my original post and will reiterate it, ias it is sooooo
important! I have taken VFR pilots and IA students up and even been
safety pilot with newly minted pilots who never touched a cloud DURING
an approach.

The hood, blinders what ever you wish to call it doesn't compare to
the real deal. MSFS doesn't compare to the real deal.

A couple of the pilots had NO clue what it was inside IMC, and came
out of it whiter then the cloud. Not because of turbulence mind you,
but the fact they did not know which way was up or down. For the
instrument pilot where I was safety, he was behind his airplane,
enough to on the edge of dangerous. Not from his flying skills, but
not knowing in detail what the procedures are in the ATC system AND
making it work for him. He was getting a little overwhelmed just
getting to his first fix!

What is failing to be recognized in this entire thread is the workload
is upped exponentially on instrument approaches. It's not a matter of
picking up an approach plate, launching into the white wild yonder and
flying a set of needles. It's not just a matter of flying needles.
It's a mental process that will wear you down if you are not on top of
your game and part of that game is feeling intimately (not verbal /
non instrmententation) what your plane is telling you.

It takes a combination of trusting the instruments, but also your
senses. If you blindly trust your instruments without consideration
they may fail, you will be a statistic.

If you "trust but verify your instruments" you will be here to share
your experiences. Part of that verification BEGINS with the seat of
your pants feeling.

Out of 825+ flight hours I have flown, 59.4 were in IMC, so I would
believe I am reasonably qualified to stress the importance of the
above based on personal experience even though I am not an instructor.

Mx BLANKET statement is dangerous at best, flat out wrong would be
more like it.

writes:

If you "trust but verify your instruments" you will be here to share
your experiences. Part of that verification BEGINS with the seat of
your pants feeling.

Since the instruments are the most reliable source of information, "verifying"
them against any other source serves no purpose.

Out of 825+ flight hours I have flown, 59.4 were in IMC, so I would
believe I am reasonably qualified to stress the importance of the
above based on personal experience even though I am not an instructor.

Perhaps when you have 500 hours in IMC, you'll place more trust in your
instruments and be less inclined to think that you can fly IFR by feel.