I give up, after many, many years!

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
:

On May 21, 7:21 am, wrote:
On May 20, 11:43 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

On May 20, 6:26 pm, wrote:
Compass fluid is a petroleum product and is flammable. Its
MSDS
says it's odorless mineral spirits, which would make it similar
to household paint thinner:

http://www.setonresourcecenter.com/m...4/wcd00445.htm

Anti-freeze. (glycol)
Ken

Glycol is a "slight to moderate fire hazard," unlike
petroleum products. It is not the same as paint thinner or compass
fluid or anywhere near the same. It's a form of
alcohol.http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/e5125.htm
Dan

First, does your preflight check list require you ascertain
your mag-comp as functional, and if so, why?


Because if it wasn't he might accidentally end up in your neighborhood.


Bertie

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
:

On May 20, 6:26 pm, wrote:
On May 20, 12:16 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

Good grief. The compass has a diaphragm to take care of
expansion and contraction, and its fluid is just a solvent that
has a low freeze point. Even plain old gasoline has a low freeze
point.

Mr. Potato Head, we don't put a big blob of flammable
material in a cock-pit, your sci-phy-math-chem education
is a functional Gr.10.

Compass fluid is a petroleum product and is flammable. Its
MSDS
says it's odorless mineral spirits, which would make it similar to
household paint thinner:
http://www.setonresourcecenter.com/m...4/wcd00445.htm

Anti-freeze. (glycol)
Ken


obviously your favorite tipple.


Bertie

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in news:c47ef4b0-754f-
:

On May 20, 10:04 am, wrote:
On May 20, 10:27 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

When thought through, the Mag-Comp is quite the
precision instrument. That fluid needs be able to
not freeze down to what, maybe -40F. (Ron from
Alaska might know). It also sits in an Arizona sun
and can't expand to burst, though yours (John)
may have.
It also has a viscosity that keeps the thing from
gyrating all over the place, the one we used had
a slow lag while banking, so if you wanted to come
to 180 level the wings for 178 and the thing creeps
to 180.
Ken

Good grief. The compass has a diaphragm to take care of
expansion and contraction, and its fluid is just a solvent that has a
low freeze point. Even plain old gasoline has a low freeze point.

Mr. Potato Head, we don't put a big blob of flammable
material in a cock-pit, your sci-phy-math-chem education
is a functional Gr.10.

Nothing "precision" about that. And as for lag while banking, you
haven't studied the Private Pilot groundschool stuff about Northerly
Turning Error or anything else. You CANNOT use it to roll out on a
heading like you claim.

Duh, that's what your mag-field map is for,
it provides the mag-heading relative to true
north at the location you're at.
I flew alot in ontario and lines are a mess,
but that's not a big deal over ~ 50 miles.

My required instruction was to use
the mag-comp for IFR, including pitch level,
yaw constant, and nulled roll,

You are a liar or your instructor is trying to kill you.

I empathise with him.



Bertie

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:6HVYj.173519$yE1.33357@attbi_s21:

He came out here, asked the pilots a question then proceeded to
refute every single thing they said. Not just me ASEL pilots like
me, but just about everybody.

On the contrary, MX started by posting that pilots cannot rely on
physical sensations in instrument flight, and that the instruments
must be your primary source of flight information. Dudley, myself,
the FAA, and pretty much every source on the planet has agreed 100%
with this statement, yet -- for reasons known only to y'all -- many
posters here have now gone to incredible lengths to prove MX wrong.

The argument has gone Clinton-esque, by nuancing the meaning of
"sensation" down to the subtlest level. Now, of course, MX has gone
off on a zillion tangents since then, and the signal/noise ratio here
has gone back to unintelligible levels.

I don't know what strange power MX wields over so many here, but it's
creepy.

Well, you should know since most of your posts are about him, fjukkkwit.



Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:9_nZj.175573$yE1.84854@attbi_s21:

This leads to an interesting disconnect. In this group, it is not
rare for a rank novice - a student pilot or even someone who has
never flown - to know more than the supposed experts. This makes the
'experts' uncomfortable - especially when the novice asks questions,
the experts answer, and then the novice proceeds to point out the
logical inconsistencies and factual errors in their answers and
refuses to accept them just because they have credentials and he does
not.

This is the most cogent explanation yet of MX's power over some of the
regulars here. It perfectly explains how he -- a known non-pilot --
is able to throw many known pilots into apoplectic fits simply by
posting a few relatively innocuous comments.

Since you're on a roll, I'd love to hear your theories about Bertie.
To me, he is twice the mystery of MX, since he's obviously a real (or,
at least, former) pilot -- yet he has an apparently irresistable urge
to troll the group.

Nope, I just post. When I meet an asshole,. I have an irrestable urge to
kick him in the nuts. Thus my attraction to you.


Bertie

Kick him in the nuts???? Hell, you'd have to get a bucket to stand on, long
enough to kiss his ass, midget.

Tina wrote in
:

On May 22, 10:26 pm, "Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote:
"Tina" wrote in message

news:797c5043-2d03-45ce-957d-f2ef609c7cf2
@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
...

I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. But it
does take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?

Maybe it's just me, but this seems like an interesting question.
Anyone would have to admit the written and practical exams for and
ATP, are certainly know match when compared to a doctorate. But how
can you weight the knowledge gained from 2000 or 3000 flight hours,
especially in the variety of aircraft and flight conditions required
for and ATP, with 200 or 300 college hours?

There are different skill sets for each. Also, I am sure there are
many more Ph.Ds granted in the US than are ATRs. Still, some of us are
far more demanding
of our candidates than instructors are for those in training for an
ATR, and remember our candidates are in training for four years, and
that excludes their primary degrees. Ah, those four grad school years
are pretty much full time work years in our institution. (Think what
you might like, but most students want to finish as soon as they can,
they are mostly very motivated, and it takes that long anyhow).

Never the less, I think in each case the best are aiming for the
highest credentials in their fields, and I would not care to have to
defend one class of 'best' as better than another.

I can assure you from personal experience the IFR written is far
easier to pass than our qualifying exams (a few weeks of study was
enough for that exam vs a complete test of one's knowledge of a field
of study for the PhD). I know nothing about the ATR writtens.




Depends on the country..

here's what you would have to know to answer just one question on a JAA
nav plotting test.....http://williams.best.vwh.net/avform.htm

The next question might be a celestial nav question and another on
instruments might be how to navigate using only a free gyro from
australia to alaska.


And no preview in the form of a thousand sample multiple guess quesions
either. All done longhand.



Bertie



bertie

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
:

On May 22, 9:26*pm, "Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote:
"Tina" wrote in message

news:797c5043-2d03-45ce-957d-f2ef609c7cf2
@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
...

I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. *But it
does take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?

Maybe it's just me, but this seems like an interesting question.
Anyone would have to admit the written and practical exams for and
ATP, are certainly know match when compared to a doctorate. But how
can you weight the knowledge gained from 2000 or 3000 flight hours,
especially in the variety of aircraft and flight conditions required
for and ATP, with 200 o
r
300 college hours?

I think that, all things being equal, the academic will have an
advantage in the cockpit, because s/he will not only have a set of
rules to follow, but have fundamental understanding of why those rules
are applicable.

During my own ground school, there were several places during
instruction where knowledge of math and science was clearly
advantageous:

1. magnetos (induction)
2. carb ice (adiabatic cooling of condensate)
3. density/pressure altitude (ideal gas law)
4. course tracking in high crosswind (vectors)
5. balance and center of gravity (arms and moments)
6. compass error due to EMI (basic electrodynamics)
7. mixture enrichment and leaning (density of gases vs altitude)
8. VOR (electromagnetic radiation)
9. load factor (basic trigonometry, Newton's law for circular motion)
10. vestibular disorientation (physiology of inner ear)
11. gyroscopic precession (torque, Newton's Law)

An electrical engineer will, I think, have an easier time remembering
basic radio frequencies by virtue of the fact that s/he knows what a
frequency really is. Inn ground school, I tested hypothesis by asking
the class (and the instructor), if the frequency was in megahertz or
kilohertz. There was silence, as no one knew. This difference might
seem inconsequential and irrelevant until a pilot is asked to recite
all the standard frequencies. The EE, I think, might have an easier
time. The reason is context. When someone utters an RNAV frequency as
a number, the EE might think of many things, but often there is a
visualization. Maybe he thinks about the humps of sine waves. Maybe he
thinks about where it lies in spectrum, a few MHz beyond the FCC limit
on FM in the USA. Whatever he thinks, he will have something to think
about. To some others, the number is just a number, surround by a
black void that provides no crutch for recollection.

Then there is the E6-B. It makes a lot more sense to someone who
understands the fundamentals of what they are doing than following a
learned procedure, which is why I stopped following the "do this, then
do that" instructions, and examine the thing and thought about why it
works, what relationships exist between the scales etc.

So I regard my flight training as mostly a cerebral experience, with
the instructor filling in the parts that are not found in books.

-Le Chaud Lapin-


All of shich explains why you are not a pilot.


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

All ya needs a link to look like you're as smart as Mx. Good job lamer.

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
news

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:9_nZj.175573$yE1.84854@attbi_s21:

This leads to an interesting disconnect. In this group, it is not
rare for a rank novice - a student pilot or even someone who has
never flown - to know more than the supposed experts. This makes
the 'experts' uncomfortable - especially when the novice asks
questions, the experts answer, and then the novice proceeds to
point out the logical inconsistencies and factual errors in their
answers and refuses to accept them just because they have
credentials and he does not.

This is the most cogent explanation yet of MX's power over some of
the regulars here. It perfectly explains how he -- a known
non-pilot -- is able to throw many known pilots into apoplectic fits
simply by posting a few relatively innocuous comments.

Since you're on a roll, I'd love to hear your theories about Bertie.
To me, he is twice the mystery of MX, since he's obviously a real
(or, at least, former) pilot -- yet he has an apparently
irresistable urge to troll the group.

Nope, I just post. When I meet an asshole,. I have an irrestable urge
to kick him in the nuts. Thus my attraction to you.


Bertie

Kick him in the nuts???? Hell, you'd have to get a bucket to stand on,
long enough to kiss his ass, midget.




Oh ouch. You a meanie.


Snort!


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .

No, i'm not, and if I'm forging you you can have both my altopia and
databasix accounts terminated in a new york minute.



But since you haven't, and I know why you haven't, btw, you are simply
full of ****.


That's my proof.


Bertie

Skip the words Useless, we know you're just a common liar.