Anthony, question about IFR / IMC

wrote in message
...
Tim wrote:

Mx posts something and then a certain contingent tries their best to find
some flaw, however minor, to argue endlessly over. Occasionally Mx is
right
and the contingent is wrong, but that doesn't stop them from embarrasing
themselves for weeks on end as the arguement goes from nit picking to
semantics to the sublimely ridiculous. The amazing thing is that it
occurs
with almost every one of his posts.

Let me help you here - Mx meant that you must fly on instruments when you
have no reliable outside visual references.

I'm no Mx fan - far from it. But sometimes you guys are your own worst
enemy.

And you know what he meant is correct while what he actually said was
wrong how?

Let me help you here - Mx has no grasp of nuance, subtlety, or shades
of grey and everything is black and white, ergo if you are in instrument
conditions, you must be on instruments.


Well, why not, that's right! If you are in "instrument conditions" you
must be on instruments. Now on the other hand, if you were in IMC per the
AIM definition, that would be another situation. You have to consider the
"nuance, subtlety, or shades of grey"

--
Regards, BobF.

Bob F. wrote:
wrote in message
...
Tim wrote:

Mx posts something and then a certain contingent tries their best to find
some flaw, however minor, to argue endlessly over. Occasionally Mx is
right
and the contingent is wrong, but that doesn't stop them from embarrasing
themselves for weeks on end as the arguement goes from nit picking to
semantics to the sublimely ridiculous. The amazing thing is that it
occurs
with almost every one of his posts.

Let me help you here - Mx meant that you must fly on instruments when you
have no reliable outside visual references.

I'm no Mx fan - far from it. But sometimes you guys are your own worst
enemy.

And you know what he meant is correct while what he actually said was
wrong how?

Let me help you here - Mx has no grasp of nuance, subtlety, or shades
of grey and everything is black and white, ergo if you are in instrument
conditions, you must be on instruments.


Well, why not, that's right! If you are in "instrument conditions" you
must be on instruments. Now on the other hand, if you were in IMC per the
AIM definition, that would be another situation. You have to consider the
"nuance, subtlety, or shades of grey"

You do understand what the 'I' and 'C' in IMC stand for, don't you?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...
Bob F. wrote:
wrote in message
...
Tim wrote:

Mx posts something and then a certain contingent tries their best to
find
some flaw, however minor, to argue endlessly over. Occasionally Mx is
right
and the contingent is wrong, but that doesn't stop them from
embarrasing
themselves for weeks on end as the arguement goes from nit picking to
semantics to the sublimely ridiculous. The amazing thing is that it
occurs
with almost every one of his posts.

Let me help you here - Mx meant that you must fly on instruments when
you
have no reliable outside visual references.

I'm no Mx fan - far from it. But sometimes you guys are your own
worst
enemy.

And you know what he meant is correct while what he actually said was
wrong how?

Let me help you here - Mx has no grasp of nuance, subtlety, or shades
of grey and everything is black and white, ergo if you are in
instrument
conditions, you must be on instruments.


Well, why not, that's right! If you are in "instrument conditions" you
must be on instruments. Now on the other hand, if you were in IMC per
the
AIM definition, that would be another situation. You have to consider
the
"nuance, subtlety, or shades of grey"

You do understand what the 'I' and 'C' in IMC stand for, don't you?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.


Ah, but in your transcription you neglected to quote "IMC" and just said
"instrument conditions". "IMC" is a special definition in the AIM.
"instrument conditions" is just English... look the words up in Webster, put
them together and it means: conditions using instruments.

Hey I got an idea...how about stop bashing the OP, simply state the nuances,
politely, have a reasonable discussion and move on...how about that?


--
Regards, BobF.

Bob F. writes:

Well, why not, that's right! If you are in "instrument conditions" you
must be on instruments. Now on the other hand, if you were in IMC per the
AIM definition, that would be another situation.

Not really. If you're in IMC but you can still see out the window, it means
that the risk is high that you will not be able to see out the window in just
a few minutes or miles. If you continue to rely on visual references even in
IMC just because you can still see something outside, you're putting yourself
in danger. There are good reasons why the regulations mention a distance from
clouds in most contexts, instead of just being outside the clouds.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Bob F. writes:

Well, why not, that's right! If you are in "instrument conditions" you
must be on instruments. Now on the other hand, if you were in IMC per
the
AIM definition, that would be another situation.

Not really. If you're in IMC but you can still see out the window, it
means
that the risk is high that you will not be able to see out the window in
just
a few minutes or miles. If you continue to rely on visual references even
in
IMC just because you can still see something outside, you're putting
yourself
in danger. There are good reasons why the regulations mention a distance
from
clouds in most contexts, instead of just being outside the clouds.


Yes, really. It's "another situation" since the definitions are different.
How one handles the difference is another conversation.

--
Regards, BobF.

On Aug 13, 2:46*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

If you continue to rely on visual references even in
IMC just because you can still see something outside, you're putting yourself
in danger. *

Oh...my...gosh.
Anthony, please, this statement is wrong. Flying in IMC with visual
reference is not dangerous. Visual transition from the instruments to
the outside references to back on the instruments is as natural as
breathing once an IFR pilot has a little experience.

The dangerous thing here, Anthony, is a student believing any of this
gibberish that you type.

Ricky

"Ricky" wrote in message
...
On Aug 13, 2:46 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

If you continue to rely on visual references even in
IMC just because you can still see something outside, you're putting
yourself
in danger.

Oh...my...gosh.
Anthony, please, this statement is wrong. Flying in IMC with visual
reference is not dangerous. Visual transition from the instruments to
the outside references to back on the instruments is as natural as
breathing once an IFR pilot has a little experience.

I've trained a lot of instrument pilots. They all have been surprised, in
actual transitions when it occurred, how easy it was to make the change. It
is alway fun to hear the glee about this from them, but it was no big deal.
I liked doing training in actual conditions. When I worked with ATP's this
was no deal at all.

The dangerous thing here, Anthony, is a student believing any of this
gibberish that you type.

Ricky

--
Regards, BobF.

Ricky writes:

Flying in IMC with visual reference is not dangerous.

That's what John Kennedy thought.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Ricky writes:

Flying in IMC with visual reference is not dangerous.

That's what John Kennedy thought.


Puleeeze... inexperience flying a Saratoga in marginal VFR results in
exactly what happened. He was simply not competent in flying that mission.
This was a case of a person flying having more money than brains.

--
Regards, BobF.

Bob F. wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Ricky writes:

Flying in IMC with visual reference is not dangerous.

That's what John Kennedy thought.


Puleeeze... inexperience flying a Saratoga in marginal VFR results in
exactly what happened. He was simply not competent in flying that
mission. This was a case of a person flying having more money than brains.


I don't know about the money vs brains thing but what happened to
Kennedy has happened to a lot of other VFR pilots operating out of, in,
and around coastal areas, especially around dusk. Spatial disorientation
in this scenario is now and always has been a killer.
What has always bothered me about the Kennedy accident is whether or not
his instructor(s) ever made a POINT of warning him about this. The fact
that everyone in the world knew he would be operating any airplane he
flew in and out of the Martha"s Vineyard Block Island area should have
been a red flag to his instructors.
So for me at least, the REAL issue with his accident has always been
whether or not he had been SPECIFICALLY WARNED of the dangers involved
with flying in this area at dusk. If he was warned, I would believe that
then a case for the for the "money vs brains" thing would be warranted.

--
Dudley Henriques