I give up, after many, many years!

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
writes:

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


That's a hell of a statement.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Steve Foley writes:

This is much less inaccurate than your other statement.

No, it is simply more detailed, which makes it harder for you to use
incorrect assumptions in an attempt to discredit it. Everyone pilot
knows (or should know) that if you increase power, you climb, all else
being equal. (I know what someone will say about this, too, but I
won't deprive him of the satisfaction of playing the game.)

You're a moron.

"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.

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.

A Lieberman writes:

Ummm, there was no fantasy about what happened to me on Friday.

And it's not extraordinary dangerous to lose your HI and DG if you
take the proactive approach in the what if scenario.while flying. I
am here to prove that.

We practice this in our Instrument air training, but you don't know it
since you never have taken flying lessons.

What's the tail number of your aircraft, so I can recognize it in the NTSB
report?

A Lieberman writes:

Smart students get in real airplanes and will be able to confirm
everything I have posted.

Getting in a real airplane won't help. You don't learn to fly by trial and
error.

Steve Foley writes:

That's a hell of a statement.

Safety first.

On May 18, 2:08*pm, romeomike wrote:

The change in those sensations might give you some information
in the initial instant of change, but after that they are more likely to
confuse you to death.

And this is the entire point I am trying to drive across. The absence
of a sensation is more important then no sensation in an IMC
environment.

I am not talking about unusual attitudes as it would be too late then,
as obviously if you get yourself in an unusual attitude situation, you
were ignoring signs WELL BEFORE that happens. I am talking VERY
SUBTLE changes that you have to be acutely aware of before it
exasperates into an unusual attitude situation which INCLUDES scanning
all instruments AND feeling results of power adjustments..

Nowhere am I saying it's a primary decision making process, but if you
make an input such as add power, you should feel something in the seat
of your pants. If you reduce power, you should feel a negative G type
feeling. If you don't, something is radically wrong. It is a TOOL
for verifying instrumentation as demonstrated in my Friday
situation..

You can't tell me that if you are on an ILS approach and you find
yourself sliding below glideslope that by adding power you don't feel
it in the seat of your pants AND find that comforting.

Add power and then don't get that seat of the pants feeling, you best
start looking at instruments, trim settings or more importantly OUT
the WINDOW for icing.

If you don't feel it, then you really are missing one of the finer
tools of flying as IFR flying is not all gauges. All gauge flying
can be done on a desktop MSFS. Knock yourself out on that, but that
doesn't give you the leans, nor any physiological sensations for
control input which is vital to feel in addition to scanning the
instruments..

AGAIN, it's a tool to supplement and VERIFY what your eyes do indeed
see, not a replacement.

All of my postings are toward IA pilots, not VFR pilots. VFR pilots
won't have the skills to work a partial panel situation as quickly as
a IA pilot and if a VFR pilot finds them in IMC AND a partial panel
situation, then they really are having a bad day.

IA pilots with a vacuum failure, it is a nuisance but not a life
endangering situation PROVIDING they use all their training resources
and of course the remainder of the airplane systems are still fully
functional.

On May 18, 3:10*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

What's the tail number of your aircraft, so I can recognize it in the NTSB
report?

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N1943L

On May 18, 3:11*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

Getting in a real airplane won't help. *You don't learn to fly by trial and
error.

WRONG