135 Alernate Filing

[whatwasthat?]

"Yes, one more thing. I think you need to get laid. It might help you lighten up."

Amen, brother.

 

[avbug]

Yes, one more thing. I think you need to get laid.

Ah, and here I thought that your arguements had degenerated as far from the facts as they could...after trying assertions such as it must be right because of your experience, or it must be right because of "other parts," now we're down to "get laid."

Good luck explaining to the fed reviewing your paperwork during a line check or recurrent why you don't have to have a alternate .

Good idea, you have here. When an operations inspector is reviewing your paperwork, use that all-inclusive intellectual brain-buster. Tell them to get laid. Tell them it might help them lighten up. You're one smart cookie, you are. Ouch.

But wait, there's more. Still unable to deal with the issue at hand (not surprisingly, one regarding regulation in a form dedicated to regulatory issues), you dredge up...

I'm quickly remembering why people on the real airline boards years ago didn't like you and also, I'm remembering some lengthy discussions as to your qualifications and if you were even a pilot back then.

So it's to be get laid, you're not a real pilot now, is it? No "your mother dresses you funny," or "I know you are, but what am I?" Your rationality bowls down the very pillars reason, laying waste to all common sense before it. I can scarcely wait to see what you come up with next.

As for "real airline boards," which would those be? I don't recall ever having posted on, or even read a "real airline" board. By default, your would be suggesting then, that this is a fake airline board? Or perhaps just an airline plank? Or a real aviation board that defers to higher sources for exalted airline types?

So you're saying that if I am flying an airplane under part 135, that I cannot be violated for FAR 91.13?

I am? Perhaps you might quote the place where I said that. I don't recall having done so...until you attempted to put the words in my mouth.

Point of fact; you can certainly be violated for careless and reckless operation, regardless of what part or subpart you're using for operational guidance.

Parts 61 and 91 are underlying to 135 and 121.

Actually, no. Parts 61 and 91 provide guidance for their respective areas, and stand alone. They are not "underlying" to anything. However, pilots operating under the requirements provided certain certificate holders (eg, Parts 121, 135, etc) are provided alterations or relief from certain requirements under Part 61, and Part 91. Operations Specifications, for example, permit different instrument approach and alternate criteria. Pilots undergoing regular proficiency checks under parts 135 and part 121 need not undergo flight reviews, may receive under certain circumstances automatic flight instructor renewals, need not meet the general recency of experience requirements for certain of Part 61, etc.

The regulations located under 14 CFR 121 and 135 do not merely add to those found under Parts 61 or 91, but in many cases alter them or change them due to the nature of the operations involved.

Can you be the object of enforcement action for violation of 91.13? You betcha. Too bad there isn't provision for enforcement action for failure to understand the regulation.

 

[CaSyndrm]

Wow, once again Bug picks things apart but misses the point and doesn't address the credible critisism of his earlier blunders. I would enjoy spending some time in your world but as of yet have only driven by and waived.

 

[avbug]

Credible? No. You have no credibility, whatsoever. In order to do that, you must be right at least part of the time, and then not by accident. That just isn't you.

Earlier blunders? Which might those be? Be specific, now.

Wave? Why don't you simply come on in, brightspark?

Gotta tell you. I wouldn't enjoy you in my world. Then again, I wouldn't let you in my cockpit, either.

 

[captdaddy]

The subject of this thread should be changed. I don't think the requirement of filing an alternate on a flight plan under part 135 is the issue anymore. At least I have lost interest.

It is amazing to me, however, how the text of one's message can so easily personify one's arrogance.

The condescending attitude has shrouded the facts--they become insignificant when you are insulting somebody.

What fun is it to always be right, when because of your method of delivery, you sacrifice comradery.

P.S. To convey that you have flown "all" airplanes and hold "all" ratings raises a brow.

 

[avbug]

Camaraderie. The implication in suggesting sacrifice of camaraderie is that it is desirable in the first place, is it not?

You speak of arrogance, yet what greater arrogance might you express than to suggest that I might wish camaraderie with you or any other here? Perhaps you come here looking for friendship, but make no assumption of any other.

I am correctly under the assumption that this forum discusses regulation, to which end I have done. If that wrinkles your sensibilities, what is that to me? I discussed the issue at hand, and sacrified nothing. I wouldn't waste my time shaking the hand of casyndrm; your post serves nothing more than to convince me the same of you.

Raise your brows all you like. Beat them to death if it pleases you. Then go somewhere else for your "comradery."

 

[nosehair]

Camaraderie

Yes, Camaraderie, Avbug. Webster's Dictionary: "Good will and lighthearted rapport between or among friends."
Wilbur and Orville didn't do what they did strictly in the interest of science and technical/regulatory perfection. Sure, they enjoyed the challange of the attempt to achieve these qualities, just as we do here on this board. My main objective here is to continue to learn and improve my technical knowledge/skill, but it is also the sharing of information with others who we become familiar with, thereby creating a "camaraderie", or level of knowledge/experience that cannot be achieved in the company of those who would not share experience on a level of personal mutual respect that promotes learning.

 

[mavrck]

yep, the op-specs for your company should state what is required for the filed alternate weather to be. Its usually based on what types of approaches are available at that airport you intend on filing as the alternate. Usually stated like " if 1 approach available, add 400 and 1 to the lowest circling minimum. If more than 1 approach avail, add 200 and 1 to lowest....."

Check your op specs. I doubt the Feds would have approved your op specs unless it was defined.

 

[mavrck]

lol... hope you got your answer you needed outta all of this SDCFI before the water got muddy in the thread.

 

[SDCFI]

You pretty much learn to wade through the "mud" around here, comes with the territory. Talk about a can of worms eh?

 

[avbug]

If you don't like it, don't ask the question.