Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane

writes:

George is right and YOU are WRONG. WRONG AND SO WRONG.

How many hours do you have flying 747s again?

Tell this to Sully AND CREW who's glider rating got him to FLY and
LAND a large commercial airliner into the Hudson......

Sullenberger and Skiles ditched the aircraft smoothly because they were
experienced professionals who followed the procedures and kept cool during the
emergency (I bet Sully never types in uppercase). Sullenberger's glider rating
had little to do with it, any more than his experience flying F-4s. He
succeeded mainly due to a very high level of overall competence,
professionalism, and calm under fire. There was no magic single skill that
saved him and the rest of the flight. And he was also lucky.

If my memory serves me correct the skies had a very loaded down glider
in the flavor of a 747 going through volcanic ash before they got
their engines restarted. Tell me, what kept that plane flying besides
the basic rules of flight?????

You're confusing the laws of physics with the rules and procedures of flying.

LET ME GUESS, YOU WON'T answer.

Don't guess. Ask.

On Jun 30, 9:48*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
George is right and YOU are WRONG. WRONG AND SO WRONG.

How many hours do you have flying 747s again?

Doesn't matter how many hours I have. A 747 without engines is a
glider.

emergency (I bet Sully never types in uppercase). Sullenberger's glider rating
had little to do with it, any more than his experience flying F-4s.

YOU DON"T FLY a real plane. YOU DON'T know from real world
experience. MY UPPER CASE DOESN"T change the fact you are wrong. It
just helps point out the fact. It' was Sully's glider rating that got
him down. YES, that so called lowly rating beneath you because you
can't keep up with a pokey C172.

LET ME REMIND YOU AGAIN, a 747 WITHOUT working engines is a glider.
WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

You're confusing the laws of physics with the rules and procedures of flying.

DID YOU NOT SAY FLYING is using a yoke and rudder????? The basics of
flying is the same, you pull back on the stick you go up? You push
forward, you go down. A 747 with 4 dead engines is the same as the
Blanic I fly.

Or is it because YOU have no clue what you are talking about.

writes:

Doesn't matter how many hours I have. A 747 without engines is a
glider.

If you can be an authority without any hours in a 747 or glider, why can't I
know anything from study and simulation?

It' was Sully's glider rating that got him down.

That's not what Sully said.

The basics of flying is the same, you pull back on the stick you
go up? You push forward, you go down. A 747 with 4 dead engines
is the same as the Blanic I fly.

I asked you how many hours you have in a 747 because you appear to have no
knowledge of the aircraft, particularly if you believe that a 747 without
engines is just a glider. Large airliners are very complex, even when the
engines are not running, and even an expert glider pilot will be in a heap of
trouble if he has to fly one of them without any knowledge beyond his gliding
skills.

On Jun 30, 1:23*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

and even an expert glider pilot will be in a heap of
trouble if he has to fly one of them without any knowledge beyond his gliding
skills.

And what is your experience to back this up. Let me guess. ZERO.
What is your experience to back up what you say for real world
flying????? Can we say ZERO.

Now that I have entered the gliding arena, YOU ARE SO WRONG in the
above, you just have no clue. I have learned more about flying in my
15 flights in a Blanick then I did in my almost 10 years in a Cessna
and Sundowner.

I would take my chances with me in a dead stick 747 landing over your
MSFS experience anyday. It may not be pretty but I would have a
chance where as YOU WOULD HAVE ZERO CHANCE.

WHY??? If you don't know why then it's obvious you don't fly a real
plane AND HAVE NO CLUE WHAT IT TAKES TO FLY AN AIRPLANE. Alll the
pretty bells and whistles in a 747 mean squat when it comes to dead
engines. You fly it like a glider.

Let me guess, YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT IT TAKES TO FLY A GLIDER. If you
did, you wouldn't be here showing your incompetance!!!!!!!

HELLO, anybody HOME?????

On Jul 1, 6:48*am, " wrote:

And what is your experience to back this up. *Let me guess. ZERO.
What is your experience to back up what you say for real world
flying????? *Can we say ZERO.

He doesn't fly aeroplanes of any type. He never has.
That's why he knows everything about flying..
we are PPLs , CPLs and further up the food chain with hundreds or
thousands of hours as PIC of aircraft from sailplanes, Cessna, Piper
through to B777 so what do we know....

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:25:12 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:

On Jun 29, 5:59Â*am, Wingnut wrote:


Suffice it to say that I am growing weary of these unprovoked attacks
from Mxsmanic and Dudley Henriques. I did nothing to provoke these
relentless and unpleasant criticisms.


Dudley Henriques wrote;

I have no opinion of you at all really. You simply come with Usenet. No
problem at all. You have as much right to an opinion here as anyone
here. :-))))))))
Dudley Henriques

Interesting logic trail you have going here. I admit I'm a bit puzzled
to discover exactly where you are finding all these "relentless and
unpleasant criticisms".

Mainly in Mxsmanic's posts, but you did at least once suggest that I was
a liar, whether you intended to or not.

On Jun 30, 10:35*pm, Wingnut wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:25:12 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:
On Jun 29, 5:59*am, Wingnut wrote:

Suffice it to say that I am growing weary of these unprovoked attacks
from Mxsmanic and Dudley Henriques. I did nothing to provoke these
relentless and unpleasant criticisms.

Dudley Henriques wrote;

I have no opinion of you at all really. You simply come with Usenet. No
problem at all. You have as much right to an opinion here as anyone
here. *:-))))))))
Dudley Henriques

Interesting logic trail you have going here. I admit I'm a bit puzzled
to discover exactly where you are finding all these "relentless and
unpleasant criticisms".

Mainly in Mxsmanic's posts, but you did at least once suggest that I was
a liar, whether you intended to or not.

I'd like to see that quote when you get a moment to find it. In all
the years I've been here on this forum I can't recall ever calling or
inferring that someone was a liar.
Dudley Henriques

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:30:32 -0700, Hatunen, who had formerly been on my
side, suddenly launched an attack and called me incompetent at best and a
liar at worst.

What gives? You were the most vocal of Mxsmanic's detractors, yet now
suddenly you're taking his side against me. Is he paying you, or
providing some other consideration? Because I doubt you had a genuine,
spontaneous change of heart. Not TO rather than FROM the dark side. That
kind of thing is generally rare and generally only goes in the other
direction.

Then again, maybe you've recently suffered a head injury or something.

All I can say is this is disappointing and unfortunate. Nonetheless it
still leaves Mxsmanic with what, two allies and at least a dozen
detractors? Things are still not looking good for Mxsmanic, no matter
what dishonest tricks he might be using to try to bolster his side and
undermine mine.

The funny thing is it's clear from his retinue of loyal detractors that
he's a notorious troll, but what's less clear is where from. I'm pretty
familiar with the rec.arts.tv rogue's gallery by now ("trotsky",
"Ubiquitous", "Sound of Trumpet", and several nymshifting trolls
including "the homophobe", "the Obamaphobe", and the infamous Seamus
MacRae) and "Mxsmanic" isn't one of them. I'm guessing that like "Lady
Veteran" and "womanGoddess" before him he's a troll principally of other
groups that has decided to add to rec.arts.tv's sources of woe
temporarily for reasons probably beyond the ability of any sane mind to
fathom.

Wingnut wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:30:32 -0700, Hatunen, who had formerly been on
my side,

No one is against you. No one is for you, either.

suddenly launched an attack and called me incompetent at best
and a liar at worst.

Provide a message ID reference and quote the sentence where he used the
word "incompetent" in reference to you.

Of course he didn't. Which is unfortunate, since you really are either
incompetent or a troll. And you can quote me on that.

I've never understood why anonymous posters seem to get their knickers in
an uproar - probably nobody knows who you really and I personally don't
care. If you've made your precious handle look bad, just start using a
bloody new one and start fresh. Stop vommiting your ego insecurities all
over Usenet. You screwed up - BFD. You'll live. Move on.

I know this has a large probability of being a pointless exercise, but I'll
try it anyway:

When you make assertions and one or more turn out to be wrong and make you
look stupid - remember you are in a lot of good company (i.e. you're
human.) So try showing some maturity and own up to the mistake as
succinctly and graciously as possible. If you can't manage that (it is
monumentally tough and I know real character when I see a genuine mea
culpa,) then try starting fresh like I suggested in my harsh response
above. And take the mistake as a learning point: specifically, that you
should always research before you post, and if you can't, put plenty of
qualifiers in your future assertions.

On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 19:39:34 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:

On Jun 30, 10:35Â*pm, Wingnut wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:25:12 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:
On Jun 29, 5:59Â*am, Wingnut wrote:

Suffice it to say that I am growing weary of these unprovoked
attacks from Mxsmanic and Dudley Henriques. I did nothing to provoke
these relentless and unpleasant criticisms.

Dudley Henriques wrote;

I have no opinion of you at all really. You simply come with Usenet.
No problem at all. You have as much right to an opinion here as
anyone here. Â*:-))))))))
Dudley Henriques

Interesting logic trail you have going here. I admit I'm a bit
puzzled to discover exactly where you are finding all these
"relentless and unpleasant criticisms".

Mainly in Mxsmanic's posts, but you did at least once suggest that I
was a liar, whether you intended to or not.

I'd like to see that quote when you get a moment to find it. In all the
years I've been here on this forum I can't recall ever calling or
inferring that someone was a liar.

It was in your post of June 28, at 11:13 am. It was a response to one of
my posts countering one of Mxsmanic's, and it implied (though it didn't
state outright) that I was lying on the topic of how much experience was
implied by a commercial license.

I repeat for the record that at no time have I lied or otherwise acted
dishonestly here.