Extended full-power in small pistons

On Jan 4, 6:25Â*am, Martin Hotze wrote:
Beauciphus schrieb:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
.. .

That's because I'm not a troll.

And you've never had a blog either.

Both are false statements.

wouldn't it be great if you all would save your breath in answering this
idiot?

Mx is famous for his assumptive knowledge. The definition of
assumption follows:


as·sump·tion [ ə súmpshən ] (plural as·sump·tions)

noun
Definition:

1. something taken for granted: something that is believed to be true
without proof

2. belief without proof: the belief that something is true without
having any proof

3. act of undertaking something: the act of taking something upon
yourself

4. acceptance of responsibility for something: the act of taking over
responsibility for something

5. inclination to high expectations: the tendency to expect too much

6. logic unproved starting point: something taken as a starting point
of a logical proof rather than given as a premise

[13th century. Latin assumption- assumpt-, past participle of
assumere (see assume)]

Consider points 1, 2, and 6. Mx assumes he knows everything
already and is therefore unteachable. There's no refuting him, so
there's no point arguing. He's either just trolling for reactions, or
has a complex of some sort. Why do we bother?

Dan

On Jan 4, 5:49*pm, Michael Ash wrote:
In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic wrote:

Michael Ash writes:

If your fancy glass cockpit fails you either go back to looking out the
window or you revert to steam-gauge instrements. In either case, the
failure is at worst an annoyance.

A lot of pilots are forgetting how to revert to anything. *If the glass fails,
they die.

Oh no you don't. I'm not going to give you a pass on this one. There are
serious problems with this response and I object strongly.

First, I'm going to have to ask you for some kind of cite for your
statement. Because quite frankly I don't believe it. IFR training involves
a lot of simulated instrument failures, and steam gauges are not exactly
difficult to use.

In the mad world that anthony occupies there is no need for training
for eventualities.
Hell, ASI, Altimeter and Compass will get you to where you need to go


Second even if we take your statement at face value (which I repeat that I
do not!) there is the small problem that you are simply assuming, without
any evidence or even a simple statement that you're doing it, that the
pilots who object to more modern engines but who accept glass cockpits are
the same pilots who are die when their glass cockpits fail.


Anthony doesn't fly and knows nothing of the training we all go
through

On Jan 4, 3:05*pm, Clark wrote:
" wrote in news:e4986c47-c8e5-42b2-b6ae-
:

On Jan 4, 1:55*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

There's a lot to flight besides physical sensations. *

Enlighten us?????
f
The only thing mxy can enlighten us on is the depth of his illness. He does
it by demonstration.

--
---
there should be a "sig" here

What Anthony does not seem to understand is it does not take much
training to learn to fly an airplane in ordinary circumstances. At
least two thirds of the training hours, and much of the time spent
with another pilot active in the right seat, are devoted to learning
how to fly the airplane when things are not going as they should. In
our case, we are much harder on ourselves than a CFI is. You want
unusual attitudes and combinations of failures? -- come into my parlor
said the spider to the fly. The thing is, that is true with many of
our pilot friends, too. He, on the other hand, simply restarts his
game.

"Clark" wrote in message
...
Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Michael Ash writes:

If your fancy glass cockpit fails you either go back to looking out the
window or you revert to steam-gauge instrements. In either case, the
failure is at worst an annoyance.

A lot of pilots are forgetting how to revert to anything. If the glass
fails, they die.

If your engine fails in the wrong circumstances then you die.

See above.

And mxy claims he isn't a troll....rotflmao

Even funnier is how mxy never understands when is is trolled in turn. It
(mxy) is just hilarious.
--
---
there should be a "sig" here

He is actually an extremely effective troll, and presumably "doing schtick"

There used to be a "sig" but I forgot it

In rec.aviation.student a wrote:
What Anthony does not seem to understand is it does not take much
training to learn to fly an airplane in ordinary circumstances. At
least two thirds of the training hours, and much of the time spent
with another pilot active in the right seat, are devoted to learning
how to fly the airplane when things are not going as they should. In
our case, we are much harder on ourselves than a CFI is. You want
unusual attitudes and combinations of failures? -- come into my parlor
said the spider to the fly. The thing is, that is true with many of
our pilot friends, too. He, on the other hand, simply restarts his
game.

Yep, exactly right. Any pilot who can't handle a failure is going to die
from it. Avoiding fancy-pants glass panels may extend his life a bit more
but it is not going to save him. The answer to G1000 reliability concerns
isn't to stick with ancient instruments, it's to maintain your necessary
ability to fly safely on backups.

As the readers of this group know, I had an instrument failure a few weeks
ago. It wasn't due to fancy computer-driven avionics, but rather a simple,
foolish assembly mistake. Combined with other factors it resulted in a
very exciting landing, but thanks to my training I had a successful
outcome.

Pilots must train for equipment outages and they do train for equipment
outages. Some may not, but the answer that is to start training for them,
not to avoid computerized avionics.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Any real pilot would agree with you- remember these responses are due to
Anthony's trolling, and nothing more. We also know he is not a pilot and has
never flown, so he is simply looking for attention again.

"Viperdoc" wrote in message
...
so he is simply looking for attention again.

And getting it.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

The POH for a number of small piston aircraft warn that high power and
prop settings should not be used for extended periods. What counts as
an extended period, and what happens to the engine if these
recommended (or mandatory) limits are exceeded?


You;'re an idiot



Bertie