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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net... The original post said "You are flying for hire a Cessna Conquest" which I interpret to mean that the airplane was "for hire" There is no valid reason to restrict your interpretation to that meaning. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message link.net... The original post said "You are flying for hire a Cessna Conquest" which I interpret to mean that the airplane was "for hire" There is no valid reason to restrict your interpretation to that meaning. I disagree, it would be irrelevent to say "for hire" if we are only talking about the pilot being employed. It would make no difference to the flight or the rules under which the flight operated and it also doesn't say anything about the pilot who could be anyone from a PP to an ATP. I will concede that it is not totally clear what the OP meant by "for hire" or why he mentioned it at all. Mike MU-2 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net... The original post said "You are flying for hire a Cessna Conquest" which I interpret to mean that the airplane was "for hire" There is no valid reason to restrict your interpretation to that meaning. I disagree, it would be irrelevent to say "for hire" if we are only talking about the pilot being employed. Why do you say that? Do people not hire pilots? Do pilots not fly for hire? It would make no difference to the flight or the rules under which the flight operated You're the one who brought up "the flight or the rules under which the flight operated". There's no reason to believe from the original post that those were ever relevant to the discussion, so the fact that they might be irrelevant under a given interpretation is, in and of itself, irrelevant. and it also doesn't say anything about the pilot who could be anyone from a PP to an ATP. The pilot is "you", and "you" are flying "for hire". Thus, the pilot ("you") has at least a commercial certificate. They obviously could NOT be "anyone from a PP to an ATP". They need to be qualified to be paid for flying. I will concede that it is not totally clear what the OP meant by "for hire" or why he mentioned it at all. You concede that, but still disagree that "there is no valid reason to restrict your interpretation to that meaning"? Very odd. Pete |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message
A Cessna Conquest landing at gross weight over 50 foot trees in no wind and perfect pilot technique needs 2150 feet. Did you mean "max" gross weight? If so, the landing is illegal as the max gross weight is more than the max landing weight for either series of Conquest. What do you do? Traffic permitting, I'd land straight in, regardless of a small tail-wind. D. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cuban Missle Crisis - Ron Knott | Greasy Rider© @invalid.com | Naval Aviation | 0 | June 2nd 05 09:14 PM |
Skycraft Landing Light Question | Jay Honeck | Owning | 15 | February 3rd 05 06:49 PM |
VW-1 C-121J landing with unlocked nose wheel | Mel Davidow LT USNR Ret | Military Aviation | 1 | January 19th 04 05:22 AM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
Off topic - Landing of a B-17 | Ghost | Home Built | 2 | October 28th 03 04:35 PM |