How much fuel do you prefer to carry?

On Aug 13, 11:00*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
You have a significant problem if you think any experienced instrument
rated pilot will base his or her flying on posts you've made.

An experienced instrument pilot already knows the point I'm trying to make
(whether he's willing to publicly admit that or not is a separate question).

We are safe pilots because we work at developing and using superior judgment.

Superior judgement includes the ability to rely solely on instruments when
necessary, and always on instruments as a final authority.

That's a retreat from your earlier dogma.

writes:

You were the one making definitive statements about flight in IMC, and
you are clearly not knowledgeable.

Flight in IMC and instrument-rated pilots are two different things. And you
haven't answered my question.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

If you are in class G at 10,001 feet and the visibilty is 4.5 miles,
you are in IMC.

If you drop down to 9,999 feet with the same visibilty, you are in VMC.

If you are 2001 feet horizontally from a cloud, you only about 0.3
seconds away from not being able to see anything. Are you ready for
that?

Have you a clue yet how ridiculous your absolute statements are?

Not having an aircraft that can manage Mach 5, it's hard for me to put your
claim in perspective.

Babbling nonsense on oh so many levels.

What puzzles me is that you're trying to justify behavior that is
extraordinarily unwise. Trying to see how close you can come to inadequate
visibility without actually flying by instruments is asking for trouble. I
can only assume that you are doing this because I'm advocating reliance on
instruments, despite the fact that I'm just repeating some very
well-established principles of aviation.

What puzzles you is everything most everyone else says.

I was stating facts.

Do you concider 4.5 miles "inadequate visibility"?

You are not "repeating some very well-established principles of aviation",
you are voicing your interpretation with zero experience to back it up.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

The attributions are automatic ...

So are autopilots, but the FAA says that you're still PIC.

Thank you Mr. State The Obvious.

You got a statement correct, so now you've "won" and can go away
proud of your accomplishment.

Too bad you snipped the rest of the quote which made your comment
a non sequitur.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Care to quote the law or regulation that says you must be "on instruments"
whenever you are in IMC?

This is a bit like asking for a law that prohibits you from grabbing live
wires and electrocuting yourself. Why do you exhibit this adversarial
attitude towards instrument flight?

You're the one that said legally you must be on instruments whenever
you are in IMC.

Where's the reg to back up that statement or did you just make it up?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

That's a retreat from your earlier dogma.

I consistently overestimate my audience. Some things seem to me self-evident,
but apparently they are not to others. Or many people are simply being
disingenuous, which is certainly a strong possibility (I hope, for their
sakes).

On Aug 13, 9:49*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

What puzzles me is that you're trying to justify behavior that is
extraordinarily unwise. *Trying to see how close you can come to inadequate
visibility without actually flying by instruments is asking for trouble.

You just don't get it. Transitioning between outside visual reference
and reference to instruments is not "extraordinarily unwise," it is
normal, natural, and happens all the time.
I remember well my first solo long cross country with a new instrument
ticket in my wallet.
My ride was one of Le Tourneau University's air-conditioned Piper
Archers from Longview, TX. to San Antonio. There was lots of scattered
puffy white clouds nearly the entire way. I purposefully asked ATC for
an altitude that put me right in the middle of them. Very bumpy ride
but boy, I sure wanted to be in & out of the clouds as much as
possible as a hot, new IFR pilot. When I was not in the clouds I flew
by visual reference to the clouds & horizon. As the Archer penetrated
a cloud I transitioned my reference or view back onto the instruments.
I had an auto pilot but no way was I going to use it! That long cross
country was on an official IFR flight plan, in IMC, yet much of the
time I was flying by visual reference, much of the time I was flying
by instruments. Anthony? You with me? Did you read that?
That remains as one of the most enjoyable IFR flights I've ever taken,
so much fun. San Antonio approach was obviously taken aback that I
wanted the ILS to 12 R (the big jet runway) instead of a visual to 12
L (the smaller GA runway) it was a nice VFR day down low but I was
determined to end that flight just right. I do believe that was the
most accurate ILS I've ever shot with my hands alone. Fun, fun, fun!

Ricky

On Aug 13, 9:56*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

You can often depart SVFR in poor weather, but just because you aren't
absolutely required to be IFR doesn't mean that SVFR is a smart idea. *

Oh, no! Now you are going to attempt to educate us on SVFR? THIS is
going to be good!
Anthony, you are digging a really, really deep hole for yourself, boy!

Ricky

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

If visibility is 4.5 miles, you are by defininition in IMC.

Are you always solely on instruments, or is there any reason to be
on instruments at all, with a visibility of 4.5 miles?

If you're in IMC, you need to be on instruments. At 4.5 miles, you're
only 60-90 seconds away from not being able to see anything. Are you
ready for that?


No we are not, you moron. We ARE NOT FLYING at 180 to 270 MPH.

Take another guess, stupid. Make an even bigger ass of yourself.

wrote in :

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

The attributions are automatic ...

So are autopilots, but the FAA says that you're still PIC.

Thank you Mr. State The Obvious.

You got a statement correct, so now you've "won" and can go away
proud of your accomplishment.

Too bad you snipped the rest of the quote which made your comment
a non sequitur.



Standard Anthony Atkielski tactic.