Operations over water

Erik writes:

Granted, I'm a n00b, however I still sit in a tiny Cessna
150 and do the thing. You must be thinking of someone else.

Some people are so eager to attack that they aim poorly. Of course, that
rather dilutes the impact of the attack. If you can't even identify the
target, how meaningful can the attack be?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

writes:

My sincere apologies. I misread the
attributions and thought that it was our resident
mxsmanic who wrote the quote and who Mr Borchert
was questioning the piloting experience of.

The quoted text is still the same. How could your personal attack be relevant
if I wrote the text, but not relevant if someone else wrote it?

I goofed.

That's an understatement. It is clear that you don't really care what is
written, you only care who wrote it. If it comes from person X, you'll try to
discredit it; if it comes from person Y, you'll accept it ... even though the
text is the same.

It reminds me a bit of people who vote straight party tickets without ever
learning anything about the actual candidates (and it produces similar
results).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

John Godwin writes:

91.205(b)(12) is the only paragraph in that part that relates to
Operations over water and only covers operations if the aircraft is
operated for hire.

So there really aren't any specific requirements anywhere for private pilots
not operating for hire in small GA aircraft over water?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

ZikZak wrote:
91.205 applies to all aircraft and should be checked before every
flight. Yes, 91.205(b)(12) does say that a liferaft is only
required if the aircraft is operated for hire.

91.205(b)(12) is the only paragraph in that part that relates to
Operations over water and only covers operations if the aircraft is
operated for hire.

--

Didn't I just say that?


There's an echo.


There's an echo.


there's an echo

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

My sincere apologies. I misread the
attributions and thought that it was our resident
mxsmanic who wrote the quote and who Mr Borchert
was questioning the piloting experience of.

The quoted text is still the same. How could your personal attack be
relevant if I wrote the text, but not relevant if someone else wrote
it?

I goofed.

That's an understatement. It is clear that you don't really care what
is written, you only care who wrote it. If it comes from person X,
you'll try to discredit it; if it comes from person Y, you'll accept
it ... even though the text is the same.

Yep, that's pretty much it, because the source is important, fjukkktard.


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Erik writes:

Granted, I'm a n00b, however I still sit in a tiny Cessna
150 and do the thing. You must be thinking of someone else.

Some people are so eager to attack that they aim poorly. Of course,
that
rather dilutes the impact of the attack. If you can't even identify
the
target, how meaningful can the attack be?


Attack?

Nope.


More like entertainment, fjukkwit.


Bertie

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
writes:

My sincere apologies. I misread the
attributions and thought that it was our resident
mxsmanic who wrote the quote and who Mr Borchert
was questioning the piloting experience of.

The quoted text is still the same. How could your personal attack be
relevant
if I wrote the text, but not relevant if someone else wrote it?

I goofed.

That's an understatement. It is clear that you don't really care what is
written, you only care who wrote it. If it comes from person X, you'll
try to
discredit it; if it comes from person Y, you'll accept it ... even though
the
text is the same.

It reminds me a bit of people who vote straight party tickets without ever
learning anything about the actual candidates (and it produces similar
results).


Still can't follow a thread can you retard.

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

Granted, I'm a n00b, however I still sit in a tiny Cessna
150 and do the thing. You must be thinking of someone else.

Some people are so eager to attack that they aim poorly. Of course, that
rather dilutes the impact of the attack. If you can't even identify the
target, how meaningful can the attack be?


No, that's just a good example of the kind of confusion cause by your type
of blathering.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
John Godwin writes:

91.205(b)(12) is the only paragraph in that part that relates to
Operations over water and only covers operations if the aircraft is
operated for hire.

So there really aren't any specific requirements anywhere for private
pilots
not operating for hire in small GA aircraft over water?


Just the fishing license and hip waders.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Erik writes:


Granted, I'm a n00b, however I still sit in a tiny Cessna
150 and do the thing. You must be thinking of someone else.


Some people are so eager to attack that they aim poorly. Of course, that
rather dilutes the impact of the attack. If you can't even identify the
target, how meaningful can the attack be?


Yep, I know how it goes lately.

However, you could completely dispell everyone and gain a CRAPLOAD
of credence by getting into a small plane with a CFI even once.

Think of the post you could make that day. Just saying that you
actually did it would say a lot.