If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
On 5/8/04 5:19 PM, in article ,
"Judah" wrote: This was your quote: I fail to see the reasoning behind demonstrating my FAR/AIM research skills, as it pertains to my ability to fly safely. I see that it is recommended to bring the book to the ride, but since I've had no need to crack open the thing in my last 4 years of flying, I don't see the point. I think a DE should test the real world, not abstract FAA mumbo jumbo. The implication is that it is a waste for you to even own a copy because you have had no need to use it, and it does not represent the "real world". To you it is abstract FAA mumbo jumbo. I don't think I mischaracterized or distorted what you said at all. One of the things I don't like on Usenet is that people write things that they didn't really mean or think through, and then get insulted when someone else takes it for what it says without somehow knowing that the author didn't really mean it... Admittedly, I have done it too. But I try not to take it so seriously when someone else reiterates my comments and all of a sudden they don't sound so good anymore. Anyway, good luck on your test. I just got my Instrument Rating in February. I brought my FAR/AIM along, and the DE not only grilled me until he could catch me on something I didn't know, but he kept going until he found something that I didn't even know where to look up. When I went to the FAR/AIM, though, we used his copy, not mine... I meant no implication beyond what I wrote. I wrote that I had not had a reason to open the book in the last 4 years of my real world flying, *not* that I would never see a reason to use it in the future. I have no crystal ball and cannot and did not make such a claim. As for the "FAA mumbo jumbo", it is precisely the debates that go on in this and the other aviation newsgroups about the interpretation of the FARs that make me label them as such. Often we can't agree among ourselves what they mean, and as a lowly 250 hour, non-lawyer pilot, I can assure you that I will not be arguing the legal nuances of any of them with anyone. What better definition of mumbo jumbo could anyone require? I will say again that your experience with a DE digging at your knowledge base until he finds an obscure question you do not know and are forced to research while he looks on, which seems to be the norm according to most accounts given here, seems pointless and only purpose appears to be to inflate the ego of the DE. I recognize that I could be wrong. Thank you for the good wishes and fly safe. -- Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino Cartoons with a Touch of Magic www.wizardofdraws.com www.cartoonclipart.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Logging approaches | Ron Garrison | Instrument Flight Rules | 109 | March 2nd 04 05:54 PM |
Pass my Instrument Checkride Today! | Judah | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | February 19th 04 05:13 PM |
CFI logging instrument time | Barry | Instrument Flight Rules | 21 | November 11th 03 12:23 AM |
Instrument Rating Ground School at Central Jersey Regional (47N) | john price | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | October 12th 03 12:25 PM |
IR checkride story! | Guy Elden Jr. | Instrument Flight Rules | 16 | August 1st 03 09:03 PM |