Autopilot use during approach

Ron has been trying for the last two weeks to answer his questions like
the moron is a person who actually cares about the answer.



Thomas Borchert wrote:

Ron,


I don't know why it is so hard for you to understasnd



Yes, you DO know. He is a troll at best, an idiot at worst. Why do you
bother?

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Ray Andraka writes:

If your POH supplement for the autopilot has operating limitations, it
isn't legal to use contrary to those limitations.

This does not conflict with "in general," and "they aren't in the FARs.


But it does conflict with your statement:
Anything you can legally fly by hand can also be flown by the autopilot,
since you remain in command and can take over at any time;

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

I don't know why it is so difficult to distinguish between Federal Air
Regulations and manual limitations. Clearly, most pilots are not lawyers.

So you're a lawyer now too?

What program do you use to simulate that?

Judah writes:

So you're a lawyer now too?

No, but I've studied it more than some people have, apparently.

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

Judah writes:

But it does conflict with your statement:

Anything you can legally fly by hand can also be flown by the autopilot,
since you remain in command and can take over at any time;

How?

Spins cannot be flown by the autopilot, but that still doesn't invalidate the
statement above.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Judah writes:


But it does conflict with your statement:


Anything you can legally fly by hand can also be flown by the autopilot,
since you remain in command and can take over at any time;


How?

Spins cannot be flown by the autopilot, but that still doesn't invalidate the
statement above.

The statement is false and invalidated by the fact that there are some
segments of flight, with some autopilots, that cannot legally be flown
by the autopilot. This has been pointed out to you repetitively, but you
have your head so far up your rectum you can neither see nor hear. How
you manage to type in that position is one of the wonders of the world.

Rip

Rip writes:

The statement is false and invalidated by the fact that there are some
segments of flight, with some autopilots, that cannot legally be flown
by the autopilot.

Only if there are documented restrictions in the manual.

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

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 22:50:26 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Rip writes:

The statement is false and invalidated by the fact that there are some
segments of flight, with some autopilots, that cannot legally be flown
by the autopilot.

Only if there are documented restrictions in the manual.

Why don't you give us an example of TSOd autopilot manual without
restrictions?

Mxsmanic wrote:
Rip writes:


The statement is false and invalidated by the fact that there are some
segments of flight, with some autopilots, that cannot legally be flown
by the autopilot.


Only if there are documented restrictions in the manual.

Glory Be! You've actually managed to learn something! It took you
several days, but now you are parroting what was orignally told to you!
Good work, Anthony! Now all you need to do is put that new knowledge
together with your original ludicrously stupid statememnt, and realise
that you did indeed make a ludicrously stupid statement. That would be
REAL learning!

Rip

Judah wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote in
:

I don't know why it is so difficult to distinguish between Federal Air
Regulations and manual limitations. Clearly, most pilots are not lawyers.

So you're a lawyer now too?

What program do you use to simulate that?

http://www.ubi.com/US/Games/Info.aspx?pId=5199


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame
## CP-ASEL, AGI
## insert tail number here
## KHAO, KISZ
"Certain taboos, if broken, will result in the culprit being flamed."
-- Unix System Administration, Fiedler and Hunter