Brutal IPC

[Lead Sled]

I am where I am by learning from others with more experience than I, not from some babbling idiot that claims to be someone he isn't, now do you get it?

TD...
Avbug and I are the same "vintage" and from the same area. Our orbits have crossed a few times in the past. Becareful who you call a "babbling idiot" As far as I can see, his only "offense" is being frank.

Avbug...
I'm trying to put a face to your posts. Spraying right out of high school? Do the words: Rawdon, Tony, toilet paper, or Woodhouse Brothers have any meaning?

'Sled

 

[minitour]

...go missed at MDA in a non-turbine twin...

...did I miss something here? Aren't you supposed to maintain MDA until the MAP and then go missed even if it's a non-turbine twin?

-mini

 

[bigD]

...did I miss something here? Aren't you supposed to maintain MDA until the MAP and then go missed even if it's a non-turbine twin?

-mini

Hmmmm...I think she meant go missed on one engine in a non-turbine twin.

 

[minitour]

Hmmmm...I think she meant go missed on one engine in a non-turbine twin.

Ah hah...that makes more sense.

-mini

 

[JediNein]

Hmmmm...I think she meant go missed on one engine in a non-turbine twin.

DING!DING! We have a winner!

Sorry 'bout the confusion, I should know better than to post before 10 PM.

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein

 

[freeflyer14]

Avbug, Phil, others, please just let this idiot be. And TD, when you and your 1000 hours finally realize what a douchebag you are, come back and see us. And if I have to hear about your F'ing 182 again, I'm gonna puke. Oh wait, it's a "R"182, you're more of a badass than I thought. Tool...

 

[350DRIVER]

Avbug, Phil, others, please just let this idiot be. And TD, when you and your 1000 hours finally realize what a douchebag you are, come back and see us. And if I have to hear about your F'ing 182 again, I'm gonna puke. Oh wait, it's a "R"182, you're more of a badass than I thought. Tool...

Yeah, a tool making over $300,000+ a year as a doctor, many rental homes, who has his own 182RG that is paid for. Hey man, just for kicks how does it feel to make "peanuts" to fly that shiny new ERJ around and live paycheck to paycheck?. Sorry, just curious... Yeah, TD is leading one miserable life- LOL (I about p!ssed my pants when I read your response, thanks for the laugh)

I think Mr. TD has the last laugh on this one.

$25,000 a year, you daaaaaaaaaaaaaa man

TD- you had to get a kick outta that one?. Mommy and Daddy probably still paying for his little one bedroom apt.!

 

[Goose Egg]

Yeah, a tool making over $300,000+ a year as a doctor...

Is he a good doctor or a tool? I've met both. A tool is still a tool regardless of income.

Hey man, just for kicks how does it feel to make "peanuts" to fly that shiny new ERJ around and live paycheck to paycheck?.

Making more than that to instruct in smaller airplanes, I wouldn't know. Although it would be nice to be a little more comfortable. But I'm happy, and there's as many definitions of QOL as there are pilots.

I see your point, 350, I really do. TD has a good career and is probably really good at being a dr., and I'm sure that he has buckets full of life experience which we youngsters have not yet had the chance to accumulate. However, I don't think it's fair to say that income level equates with happiness or non-toolishness, or that income level in some other profession equates with skill and proficiency in flying. The "gotchas" in flying do not discriminate.

-Goose

 

[350DRIVER]

Is he a good doctor or a tool? I've met both. A tool is still a tool regardless of income.



Making more than that to instruct in smaller airplanes, I wouldn't know. Although it would be nice to be a little more comfortable. But I'm happy, and there's as many definitions of QOL as there are pilots.

I see your point, 350, I really do. TD has a good career and is probably really good at being a dr., and I'm sure that he has buckets full of life experience which we youngsters have not yet had the chance to accumulate. However, I don't think it's fair to say that income level equates with happiness or non-toolishness, or that income level in some other profession equates with skill and proficiency in flying. The "gotchas" in flying do not discriminate.

-Goose

Having known him personally for quite some time now I don't buy into the "tool" label, but again view or see him as you wish since very few things if anything seem to effect him personally for the obvious reasons. He is a good, accomplished, successful, and experienced doctor with probably more years in his respective profession than most (not all) have in aviation who have jumped down his throat on this thread and others. I wouldn't think twice about having a family member or friend aboard a flight that he was at the controls of, with as much as he has viewing him as "unsafe" and one to increase risks, take many chances, etc, just does not stick with me when in reality he has everything one could possibly want in life to throw it all away and depart this planet via a smoking hole in the ground.

I don't think it's fair to say that income level equates with happiness or non-toolishness, or that income level in some other profession equates with skill and proficiency in flying. The "gotchas" in flying do not discriminate.

I agree to a certain extent, but I also don't take much to heart from a "kid" who is still in love with the lure of flying a new shiny ERJ around who seems to lack the class, professionalism, and overall life experience to be throwing a label around on someone he hasn't a clue about.

TD is still around and I sure don't think he is going away anytime soon given his previous time(s), he does know his equipment inside and out.

Keep in mind, he is not a pilot by trade. I would trade positions with him in a heartbeat if I could.

Nothing more and nothing less.. Be careful when labeling all "non career" pilots as "unsafe". One of the sharpest pilots I have ever flown with was a CJ captain who owned multiple companies who flew for "fun" on the side who was as sharp as I have seen.

3 5 0

 

[Lead Sled]

FWIW, I've run into "TDTurbo" types before - successful professionals such as doctors, attornies, business men, etc. These guys tend to be motivated, driven types who attack everything they do with a vengence. They work hard and they play hard. They also tend not to listen to other mere mortals.

Put these kind of guys in the cockpit and they often do very well - at the control manipulation part of flying. The problem is you can't tell them anything, they already know it all. As a result you read posts where they talk about how good they are, about flying non-deiced airplanes in freezing rain, experimenting with how much ice an airplane will carry before you get tail stall, etc, etc, etc.

Yep, I've met those types before and several of them (and their passengers) are now dead. They died when their stupid, ill-advised actions finally caught up with them. Aviation is a funny thing, you can do some of the stupidest things and often times nothing is hurt but your pride. You can overload an airplane, fly it out of CG, and do any number of foolish, ill-advised (not to mention illegal) stuff and get a way with it - sometimes for years. Like I said before, if you do so the danger never goes away, it merely lies in wait.

Money and success can get you a lot of things; but it can't get you good old fashioned common sense. Remember back in your initial flight training how they talked about how accidents seem to cluster at certain distinct points – 100 hours, 500 hours, 1000 hours, 3000 hours, 10000 hours, etc. With a little experience there is a real tendency to get too comfortable and let your guard down.

Unfortunately, over the years, I have known many good pilots (and a few of them were MDs) who have died in aircraft accidents. When it happens, it is a VERY sobering experience. All too often, as you look back on the events surrounding the accident it becomes very apparent that, in many cases, it was very avoidable.

There is another interesting phenomenon that pilots fall into. Most guys, when they get 100 hours, think they know a lot about flying. When they have their instrument rating and 500 hours they're practically ready to be an ATP. Once they hit 1000 hours, well that's it, bring on the jet transports, they know it all - or so they think. Funny thing though, talk to pilots with 10,000 to 15,000+ hours in their logs and they'll tell you that they can't believe how much they don't know. Our friend is right at one of those logbook landmarks and we read his posts about how good he is and how he's been "experimenting" in icing conditions.

He fits the mold of several of the dead doctors and dentists I've known. If you need to fly in weather conditions where icing is frequently a consideration then get an airplane that has that capability, then use it wisely. Being at the top of your game won't do a bit of good if the airplane decides it's finished flying for the day.

'Sled

 

[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.