Why don't more Young Eagles become pilots?

Mike Ash writes:

You said:

"I read yesterday that the descent rate of a Cirrus with the parachute
deployed is around 1700 fpm, far more than a competent pilot could
manage by actually flying the aircraft."

In short, you directly said that a competent pilot flying the aircraft
could not come anywhere close to 1700fpm. This is blatantly wrong.

No, I said that 1700 fpm greatly exceeds what a pilot could limit the descent
rate to if he actually flew the aircraft. I thought that would be clear in
context. Why would the pilot want to hit the ground at greater than 1700 fpm?

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Mike Ash writes:

You said:

"I read yesterday that the descent rate of a Cirrus with the parachute
deployed is around 1700 fpm, far more than a competent pilot could
manage by actually flying the aircraft."

In short, you directly said that a competent pilot flying the aircraft
could not come anywhere close to 1700fpm. This is blatantly wrong.

No, I said that 1700 fpm greatly exceeds what a pilot could limit the descent
rate to if he actually flew the aircraft. I thought that would be clear in
context. Why would the pilot want to hit the ground at greater than 1700 fpm?

It was not at all clear. You wouldn't want to hit the ground at greater
than that speed. There are many scenarios, however, where you would want
to descend at greater than that speed BEFORE arriving at the ground.

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

On Jul 1, 11:06*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
I have FAR exceeded 2000 fpm descent rate (have a video of it on my
You Tube channel) practicing emergency descents in a Sundowner. *I am
here to talk about it and it was completely controlled.

With a parachute deployed?

Nope, I said nothing about any parachute. READ WHAT I POSTED. I far
exceeded 2000 fpm descent rate as YOU SAID it was far more then a
competent pilot COULD MANAGE. Sure looks like YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN.
Let me refresh your memory on what you posted.

"I read yesterday that the descent rate of a Cirrus with the parachute
deployed is around 1700 fpm, far more than a competent pilot could
manage by actually flying the aircraft."

Video sure proved YOU ARE CLUELESS as I had a DESCENT RATE exceeding
1700 fpm and I was actually flying the aircraft. HAND flying it at
that.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

And after all your babble about "angry young men" in these groups...

I don't see any correlation.

You never do.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Mike Ash writes:

You said:

"I read yesterday that the descent rate of a Cirrus with the parachute
deployed is around 1700 fpm, far more than a competent pilot could
manage by actually flying the aircraft."

In short, you directly said that a competent pilot flying the aircraft
could not come anywhere close to 1700fpm. This is blatantly wrong.

No, I said that 1700 fpm greatly exceeds what a pilot could limit the
descent
rate to if he actually flew the aircraft. I thought that would be clear in
context. Why would the pilot want to hit the ground at greater than 1700
fpm?

Anthony,

I took the trouble to read back and, as you know, that is not exactly what
you said.

I really don't know the minimum power off descent rate of the cirrus,
windmilling or idling, and that by itself is not particularly usefull in the
successfull landing of either an aircraft or a simulator. You have known
that for a long time because the basic numbers and procedures are similar.
You also know the circumstance in which stabilization at minimum sink is
recommended as the best means to minimize the effect of a crash, because it
is just too frequently quoted and published for you to have missed.

You also know that the parachute was not added as a fix for a problem; but
was part of the original concept and was a reason that spin entry and
recovery were not part of the certification process. That subject has been
discussed ad nauseam here and elsewhere.

So my question to you is this: Whereas you have been doing this far too
long to be a grad student and you occasionally change your writing style so
that, for a few months at a time, your trolling is dramatically less
effective or more effective; who really are you, how many are you, and why?

Mike Ash writes:

It was not at all clear.

Sorry. If it wasn't at all clear, perhaps you should not have been so quick to
call it wrong.

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Mike Ash writes:

It was not at all clear.

Sorry. If it wasn't at all clear, perhaps you should not have been so quick to
call it wrong.

Perhaps *I* wasn't clear. Your message had, as far as I could tell, one
single reasonable interpretation. It just happened that the meaning of
that single reasonable interpretation doesn't line up with what you
meant to say. Thus, it was unclear, but this was only evident after you
explained yourself.

Maybe YOU shouldn't be so quick to call ME out, huh? No wonder nobody
likes you....

Feel free to get in the last word now.

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

Mike Ash writes:

Perhaps *I* wasn't clear. Your message had, as far as I could tell, one
single reasonable interpretation. It just happened that the meaning of
that single reasonable interpretation doesn't line up with what you
meant to say. Thus, it was unclear, but this was only evident after you
explained yourself.

But the standard of reasonableness was yours, not mine. Given the context, I
felt certain that it would be correctly interpretation, since the
interpretation you gave it would make no sense.