Brutal IPC

[TDTURBO]

All I asked for was a good and thorough IPC which I finally got. Then everyone jumps on me for wanting to get back what I had when I was flying 30hrs actual/yr with 50 hood.

This summer has been void of IMC until today which I logged 2.5 IMC.

Odd how whatever position one takes, there is a few in the crowd with a bucket of water.

I think it's called jealousy, a very bad quality.

Is there something wrong with knowing everything I can about MY airplane?

Is there something wrong experimenting in controlled conditions how airframe icing effects the performance of a particular type. Not all planes are created equal, I know for sure my plane will fly and climb at gross with 2" of rime with 2 on board full fuel and luggage with 50 degree air under a 100 ft layer and clear on top at 5000ft. I would hate to find out by accident that an inadvertent ice encounter that resulted in only a slight frosting killed all my lift.

Instead I know for sure what my plane will do in this situation under the advisement of a high time CFII. Remember, it was his idea.

Also, just as you know MD's and Dentists that have died in airplanes, I personally know 5 CFI's that are dead and many more corporate high time pilots.

It is none of your business lecturing me on safety when that is what I am all about, hence the aerobatic training and constant voluntary safety classes and systems and procedure courses.

I don't take flying lightly, I became a Dr. so I could fly, I did it in 35 hrs and my instrument in 40, in 22 years I have never scratched an airplane.

All my hours are left seat, 85% x-country including many international flights over Cuba and South America.

Try finding a CFI with even 4000 hrs with time in type that can teach me something I don't already know.

Sorry, but your argument doesn't hold water.

It is extremely difficult paying a CFI so I can teach him how to fly my plane

. I am sick of doing this and wanted to find some good tips on this board on where to find proficient CFI's with more time in type than I have. Apparently this raised some hairs, deal with it, if you have nothing to contribute then stay off the thread. No one twisted your arm to read it, did they?

As far as if I care, I think 350 answered that for me. Have a nice day.

 

[TonyC]

Is there something wrong experimenting ...

In a word, yes.








Until you can "get" that, expect more contributions on "your thread."




.

 

[TDTURBO]

In a word, yes.











Until you can "get" that, expect more contributions on "your thread."






.

Aviation and everything else you enjoy today wouldn't exist without someone "experimenting, I also noticed you conveniently left out the "controlled conditions" part.

Think real hard about what you just said.

 

[TonyC]

... I also noticed you conveniently left out the "controlled conditions" part.

Tell ya what, chief. Find the "controlled conditions" exception to the FARs and I'll lay off.








.

 

[TDTURBO]

I will when you find the guy that wrote them to say a guy can fly legal IMC without ever entering a cloud.


Not all FAR's are smart, it depends on conditions, you can't write an FAR for every possible senerio or condition, it is simpler to make them ambiguous and blanket to cover THERE ass, not always ours.


Just because it's legal doesn't make it smart, just as something illegal doesn't always mean it's stupid.

Especially if the experience saves your life someday.

 

[Almerick07]

I give him 3 years until I hear about him on the NTSB page....fatality.

Cessna pays test pilots and engineers to do the experimenting for you, If there is something you want to know look it up in the POH...dont risk your life finding it out on your own. Chances are you will never have to push your airplane near those limits.

 

[TDTURBO]

I give him 3 years until I hear about him on the NTSB page....fatality.

Cessna pays test pilots and engineers to do the experimenting for you, If there is something you want to know look it up in the POH...dont risk your life finding it out on your own. Chances are you will never have to push your airplane near those limits.

Tell that to the hundreds of dead pilots that read the POH and it said "not approved for ice" only to find out they accidently picked up a 1/4 inch and panicked and died.

How many people do you know that crashed because a door wasn't closed all the way?

Fear comes from the unknown and fear breeds panic, if you seen it before in controlled conditions it's just another day at the office, you keep your cool and save the day instead of, "oh my god!. Ice, were all going to die"!

Knowing exactly what your plane will do with ice on it isn't in any POH. Without going into neurophysiology and how it relates to human behavior, suffice to say there is no substitute for experience.

What makes you think you won't end up a lawn dart?

Everyone that flys, regardless of hrs, has that risk.

I now have the experience, you apparently don't, who then is the safer pilot?

 

[TonyC]

I will when you find the guy that wrote them to say a guy can fly legal IMC without ever entering a cloud.

If you can't figure that out, you'd never make it past the oral. Take a look in FAR Part 91.155.

... , you can't write an FAR for every possible senerio or condition, ...

That's why we have 91.13 to include all the stupid things pilots can dream up to do that they didn't envision at the time - - like taking an airplane that's not certified to fly in icing conditions and intentionally flying it in icing conditions. There's no "controlled conditions" exception to the "careless or reckless" FAR.

it is simpler to make them ambiguous and blanket to cover THERE ass, not always ours.

Since you brought attention to it by changing the font, I'll bring attention to your spelling deficit. The word is a possessive pronoun, and it's spelled THEIR.

Just because it's legal doesn't make it smart, just as something illegal doesn't always mean it's stupid.

Especially if the experience saves your life someday.

Just because you lived doesn't mean it was smart. And just because you don't know the rule doesn't make it legal.

Was it legal? NO
Was it safe? NO
Was it smart? NO


Three strikes, you're out.


.

 

[TonyC]

I now have the experience, you apparently don't, who then is the safer pilot?

Not you.

Experience, expertise, knowledge, attitude. Of those, I'd say attitude is the most important, and yours makes you unsafe.




.

 

[TDTURBO]

Not you.

Experience, expertise, knowledge, attitude. Of those, I'd say attitude is the most important, and yours makes you unsafe.




.

There we have it boys and girls, God has spoken!

Learning as much as you can with controlled first hand experience is a a bad attitude according to spelling boy. I guess I'll have to brush up on more complacency to meet your requirements.