Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Barnstormers Aerial Advertising

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
Look up the definition of "challenge" avbug.

You're arguing with yourself. You are the waste of time. 7000 posts should have tipped me off. I don't have the time to show you your flawed logic (which is prolific), especially because you obviously don't think anyone else has anything useful to say. I have made some very cogent points... you ignored them. If you didn't, you plainly argued with them, all reason to the contrary. It seems you just like being right, even about something so silly as the semantics of a flying task.

Your comprehension lacks. I asked you to compare comments, not the pilots. You didn't get it. I'm sorry.

Fine.

Well, here you go... "you're right. About everything, I mean. There's no way I could have any idea about what I'm saying."

This is why, it seems, that people make little quips about you. I didn't know... but now I do.

By the way, thanks again for more of the resume. I thought I very clearly said I wanted no more of it, but you provided it anyway.

Again, I'm very impressed.
 
Last edited:
avbug claims nothing is dangerous only the user WTF. So if an unrecoverable wind shear strikes avbug as he is fighting a fire and he ends up dead I suppose that was his fault. If he had an un-commanded rudder hard over on his aircraft resulting from faulty maintenance that was his fault. If wires chaffed and caused a fire that was his fault. If the wing fell off because of structural fatigue then it is his fault. If the pressure vessel failed because of poor design and fatigue it is his fault. All these things have happened I guess according to avbug the pilots did it.

What a moron, it is unbelievable what some people will believe.
 
nismo611 said:
avbug claims nothing is dangerous only the user WTF. So if an unrecoverable wind shear strikes avbug as he is fighting a fire and he ends up dead I suppose that was his fault. If he had an un-commanded rudder hard over on his aircraft resulting from faulty maintenance that was his fault. If wires chaffed and caused a fire that was his fault. If the wing fell off because of structural fatigue then it is his fault. If the pressure vessel failed because of poor design and fatigue it is his fault. All these things have happened I guess according to avbug the pilots did it.

What a moron, it is unbelievable what some people will believe.
Click to expand...

I have quickly learned what others apparently already knew about avbug. I doubt he/she is a moron, but he/she certainly needs a different hobby. Avbug may be the safest pilot in the world, but he/she would argue about the color of the sky if it made him/her feel "right." That should trouble avbug, but it probably doesn't.
 
An inability to discuss is quickly followed by insults. nismo611 was put on the ignore list some time ago for his or her failure to have anything worthy to merit a response.

Without a doubt, "airplanessuck" deserves the same consideration, and is therefore so consigned.
 
avbug said:
An inability to discuss is quickly followed by insults. nismo611 was put on the ignore list some time ago for his or her failure to have anything worthy to merit a response.

Without a doubt, "airplanessuck" deserves the same consideration, and is therefore so consigned.
Click to expand...

There is no discussion with you... no concession. You just talk at people. You may as well block everyone and just blog away.
 
avbug said:
An inability to discuss is quickly followed by insults. nismo611 was put on the ignore list some time ago for his or her failure to have anything worthy to merit a response.

Without a doubt, "airplanessuck" deserves the same consideration, and is therefore so consigned.
Click to expand...

Ooooohhhh the "Ignore List!!!" You guys are IN for it now!
 
Nobody's "in" for anything. It's a handy site feature reserved for those who have nothing worthwhile to contribute. It simply serves to declutter by wasting time with them. Their name appears, but their post doesn't appear, and they're easily ignored. It's a nice feature.
 
nismo611 said:
OHHHHH NOOOOOOO, Bizjet800 do you think if I beg for forgiveness I will unblocked? I really like listening to avbug's lies and BS.
Click to expand...

Not a chance Mismo!!! One screw up and you're out of the circle trust. And once you're out you're out for good!!!!!
 
Hi Avbug,

Do you consider a freight job which might require flying a single engine piston at night and in IMC safe & benign too? Just asking because I believe you've said that you feel that night/instrument single engine piston is a bad idea, yet there are jobs which require it, no? (flight express for example) Do such jobs simply require a pilot "up to the task" in terms of training and proficiency?

I'm not claiming banner tow is a safe or dangerous op, just wondering about the apparent contradiction... cheers.
 
doog said:
Hi Avbug,

Do you consider a freight job which might require flying a single engine piston at night and in IMC safe & benign too? Just asking because I believe you've said that you feel that night/instrument single engine piston is a bad idea, yet there are jobs which require it, no? (flight express for example) Do such jobs simply require a pilot "up to the task" in terms of training and proficiency?

I'm not claiming banner tow is a safe or dangerous op, just wondering about the apparent contradiction... cheers.
Click to expand...

Careful, Doog... you'll get put on the "ignore list" too.
 
Do you consider a freight job which might require flying a single engine piston at night and in IMC safe & benign too? Just asking because I believe you've said that you feel that night/instrument single engine piston is a bad idea, yet there are jobs which require it, no?
Click to expand...

There's no contradiction whatsoever.

Whether the flight carries freight is of course, irrelevant. That it's a night cross country flight in a single engine airplane, or IMC in a single engine airplane, is very relevant, and yes, it most certainly can be a dangerous undertaking. There's really nothing in aviation which creates a greater workload than single pilot IFR/IMC. Add to this single vacum pump, single generator, single engine, in clouds and ice without radar and the potential for embedded weather...yes, it's dangerous, and it's a gamble.

Towing a banner, on the other hand, involves no difficult maneuvering, poses no particular risk beyond what the operator allows, and is a slow, easy job. A problem with the banner? Cut it away. Problem with the aircraft? Make a forced landing. No different than flying around in one's private airplane, or offering flight instruction, for that matter.

You're attempting to draw some kind of parallel between day VFR flying, and single pilot single engine IFR cross country flying at night?

Do such jobs simply require a pilot "up to the task" in terms of training and proficiency?
Click to expand...

Most certainly one who is operating single pilot IFR needs to be up to the task in terms of training and proficiency. Is this ever in question?


​
 
avbug said:
Whether the flight carries freight is of course, irrelevant. That it's a night cross country flight in a single engine airplane, or IMC in a single engine airplane, is very relevant, and yes, it most certainly can be a dangerous undertaking. There's really nothing in aviation which creates a greater workload than single pilot IFR/IMC. Add to this single vacum pump, single generator, single engine, in clouds and ice without radar and the potential for embedded weather...yes, it's dangerous, and it's a gamble.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that is a perfectly logical line of reasoning. To be clear, I was trying to reconcile that with this section:

avbug said:
I don't consider flying dangerous. I do consider many pilots to be dangerous, and they tend to put the risk in certain assignments. Banner towing, for example is not dangerous, unless it is undertaken by a dangerous pilot. It then becomes dangerous: not because the assignment is difficult or full or risk (because it isn't). It's simply that the pilot, doubting his own abilities and unequal to the task, is insufficient to perform his duty, and therefore dangerous. Accordingly, he believes the job to be dangerous in error, and through his belief, makes it so. A self-fulfilling prophesy, where all it takes is an inadequate pilot to turn a safe and benign task such as picking up and dropping a simple banner into a *dangerous* event.
Click to expand...
 
Avbug must be screwing with people...he argued and argued with me that navy seals placing underwater explosives wasn't dangerous.

Yeesh.
 
HAAAAA this is craziness that avbug is a fool. He just likes arguments he doesn't care if he is right or wrong. The sky is purple, grass is red, and avbug is awesome.
 
nismo611 said:
HAAAAA this is craziness that avbug is a fool. He just likes arguments he doesn't care if he is right or wrong. The sky is purple, grass is red, and avbug is awesome.
Click to expand...

You must not be a good enough pilot to appreciate his greatness.

Anyway, whoever thinks single pilot night IFR is dangerous, must not be a good pilot. Probably blames systems failures on banner pilots.

CE
 
Yes sir... Avbug has just shown us his lack of aviation prowess by his admission.

The tool is not dangerous, nor is the task... just the pilot who isn't up to it.
 
Thanks, that is a perfectly logical line of reasoning. To be clear, I was trying to reconcile that with this section:
Click to expand...

There's nothing to reconcile. Flying of it's own accord is not dangerous. It's the pilot who makes it so.

When towing a banner, the failure of a generator poses no problem whatsoever. The failure of a powerplant results in a forced landing during daylight conditions, and a reasonable pilot will have already noted a forced landing site long before the engine ever quits. A vacum pump failure poses no controllability problems, and one does not tow a banner in the ice. One does not tow a banner in the clouds, and lack of radar is of no consequence because one does not tow banners under conditions in which it might be of benefit. Towing a banner, from takeoff to pickup to the tow to the release and drop and subsequent landing, is one of the most simple, most safe things one can do with a working airplane.

Flying single pilot IFR is one of the single most demanding, highest workload environments which a pilot can undertake. Single pilot IFR, in IMC, in a single engine piston airplane, particularly one with a single electrical and single vacum source, no airborne radar, limited or no deice and anti-ice capability, limited performance, and no autopilot, is not only highly demanding, but is an exercise in taking nearly every possible hazard one can face in the business, and stacking them all on one flight with limited or no alternative options.

Yes, the pilot makes that flight dangerous too...by undertaking the flight.

You noted my previous commentary in other threads regarding single engine piston IFR operations, and if you've read over it at all, you'll know that I don't advocate, support, or do those operations. The operation itself poses no hazard, and no risk, so long as it's not undertaken...it's the pilot that elects to accept risk, and to create a dangerous flight. The pilot can do a lot to ensure the safety of the flight, starting with an adequate preflight. However, the pilot can do more by ensuring the flight goes in the daylight in visual conditions, and ensures such routing and operation that he can secure the airplane in the event of a powerplant failure, electrical failure, or other problem which may arise.

This is of no event when towing a banner. As previously, it's of no consequence and poses no danger at all unless the pilot elects to make it dangerous. A flight from A to B in a single engine airplane is just the same. The act of going from A to B, of it's own accord, not a problem. The pilot who complicates it by undertaking the flight in an airplane with limited options and performance, and who does so with limited alternatives in equipment and redundancy paints himself into a corner, and thus makes the flight dangerous. Again, it falls back to the pilot.
 
Wow. Lots more paragraphs to explain to everyone that he's a bumbling, double-talking goofball.

Are there risks? No. Yes. Maybe. Depends on the pilot. YOU ARE ALL WRONG! Bow before Avbug's greatness. When he sets foot on Mars in a not-at-all-dangerous mission and claims the planet for himself, we're all doomed. But simply because of our own incompetence.
 
avbug said:
This is of no event when towing a banner. As previously, it's of no consequence and poses no danger at all unless the pilot elects to make it dangerous. A flight from A to B in a single engine airplane is just the same. The act of going from A to B, of it's own accord, not a problem. The pilot who complicates it by undertaking the flight in an airplane with limited options and performance, and who does so with limited alternatives in equipment and redundancy paints himself into a corner, and thus makes the flight dangerous. Again, it falls back to the pilot.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Of course I agree that it always comes back to the pilot, and legal and safe are not always aligned.
 
Last edited:
CrimsonEclipse said:
You must not be a good enough pilot to appreciate his greatness.

Anyway, whoever thinks single pilot night IFR is dangerous, must not be a good pilot. Probably blames systems failures on banner pilots.

CE
Click to expand...

Jeesh I think dual pilot VFR day is scary as hell!!!!!!!!!!!!!

God, I need a less scary occupation. Maybe I could open an ice cream shop that seems low risk.
 
nismo611 said:
Jeesh I think dual pilot VFR day is scary as hell!!!!!!!!!!!!!

God, I need a less scary occupation. Maybe I could open an ice cream shop that seems low risk.
Click to expand...

..and risk the dreaded "Brain Freeze"?!?!?!?

*shivers*

Too risky for me.

Ask Buggy, he's the man for the job! :D

CE
 
didnt read all of these posts, however, i flew for barnstormers in the summer of 2004. i did not pay for training, and was paid $13/hour for every hour i had a sign up. Had a blast in myrtle beach! showed up each morning in shorts and flip flops, and flew all day. I think 600 hours in 3 months. The planes were fine. Towing is certainly more dangerous than many other flying jobs. In the summer of 2005, Sky Signs sadly lost one in a training accident, killing the instructor and the student. Also in 2005, Barnstormers had one lose a motor and had a water landing just offshore(no injury). All in all great experience, but convince DR that you shouldnt be paying for training, much less 3500.
 
I towed in 14Papa for many hundreds of hours in 1999, I did pay $1500. for training.. but they teach you how to safely do the job and not kill yourself, nothing dangerous about towing banners if you're in a Super Cub and have the proper training.

I have a good job, I mean career now flying rich folks in little jets, but I am considering towing banners on my days off, fun stuff.
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom