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.

 

[TonyC]

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

I suspect you'd ignore Him, too.






.

 

[TDTURBO]

I suspect you'd ignore Him, too.









.

Spoken by a true hypocrite, unless of course you are without sin and never ignore Gods wishes. Admit it, I know it's hard to admit when you think you're God, but you are wrong.

 

[TonyC]

Spoken by a true hypocrite, unless of course you are without sin and never ignore Gods wishes. Admit it, I know it's hard to admit when you think you're God, but you are wrong.

I take it you've conceded that you have been wrong, and you're ready to turn this into a religious thread. Of course, we'll need to ask for a Moderator's help to get the thread moved to the Non-Aviation Related Chat thread.

If I were without sin, I wouldn't have any need for God. I realize that I do, and I'm pretty diligent about trying to comply with His wishes. So, no, I'm not a hypocrite in that respect. I didn't claim to be God - - that was your claim. Hey, while we're here, I have another revelation for you. I "go to church" with a bunch of sinners, too!




.

 

[TDTURBO]

I suspect you'd ignore Him, too.









.

No, I get from your response that your arrogance is getting the better of you, by saying "I suspect you ignore him , too", you imply that you don't. Hence the remark. Enough thread creep, what issues do you have after explaining myself as being conscientious about proficiency and diligent about knowing my plane inside and out? Somehow you think this is a "bad" attitude. How ever did you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[TonyC]

No, I get from your response that your arrogance is getting the better of you, by saying "I suspect you ignore him , too", you imply that you don't.

You have received input from a wide variety of pilots from a variety of backgrounds with considerable experience. None of them believe that intentionally flying into icing conditions in an airplane not properly equipped to handle icing is a smart thing to do. None.

You have ignored the advice and wisdom of all of those pilots. I believe that if God Himself were to come down and speak directly to you in your native language and tell you it was a dumb thing to do, you would ignore His advice.


There, did I make myself clear?

..., what issues do you have after explaining myself as being conscientious about proficiency and diligent about knowing my plane inside and out? Somehow you think this is a "bad" attitude. How ever did you arrive at that conclusion?

I have no problem with someone wanting to know about their airplane. I have a big problem with someone believing they are above the law when it comes to exploring. You've heard it before, you refuse to listen, I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

I'll read about you later.



.

 

[350DRIVER]

He is the self proclaimed God at Fed Ex, don't you know that?. I wouldn't play his game if I were you, he is never wrong. Plus he is a Bush supporter and flew on the back lines flying cargo- he is as close to God as we will see on planet earth.

 

[TonyC]

He is the self proclaimed God at Fed Ex, don't you know that?. I wouldn't play his game if I were you, he is never wrong. Plus he is a Bush supporter ...

OK, OK, so far, so good. I was with you until:

and flew on the back lines flying cargo-

Huh? I didn't follow that.

he is as close to God as we will see on planet earth.

Perhaps.

 

[350DRIVER]

OK, OK, so far, so good. I was with you until:


Huh? I didn't follow that.


Perhaps.

I don't play your game, never have and never will.


You are the self proclaimed almighty so carry on...

 

[TonyC]

I don't play your game, never have and never will.

I'm not asking you to play any game, just to explain what you meant by "flew on the back lines flying cargo."



.

 

[bigD]

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

I think this quote pretty much sums it up for me.

 

[flyifrvfr]

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.!

Jfk Jr was wealthy beyond my wildest dreams, but his money couldn't buy him out of the bottom of the ocean. A persons wealth or success out of the cockpit does not mean success in the cockpit is guarenteed. Ask all the doctors who were killed crashing Bonanzas. Notice that I didn't say flying. Oh wait, you can't ask them, they are dead.

 

[flyifrvfr]

TD I would also like to add that there are no " controlled conditions " when it comes to icing that you will ever experience. NASA is still doing everything they can to understand icing and they are still working on it. NASA uses many ways to test ice, but the one that sticks out the most is when they fly behind another airplane which is spraying them to get the wing to form ice. They do this in VFR no cloud/moisture conditions so if the wing gets too much ice they can quickly melt it.

How do you experiment with ice? Do you penetrate a cloud and let the ice form and try to climb or descend to get the ice off. If this is so, which really seems to me what you are doing, you are flirting with death. Ice up and hope to get to better conditions to melt the ice. I also read that you take your airplane up to altitude and shut the engine off and stop the prop. Why? This is wreckless and dangerous behavior. Most sane people want to avoid an engine failure and you induce it. I hope you don't treat medicine the same way. " Well Mr. Jones, your leg is healing nicely but I have decided that I want to inject you with a dirty needle to induce gangreen to see if I can stop it before I have to amputate your leg. Shall we.....

The more I think about this the more I am convinced you are an idiot. Here is my challenge to you. I want you to see if you are fast enough to get out of the way of a bullet that has just been fired at your forehead. To do this, place the barrell of a semi-automatic handgun against the front of your forehead. Pull the trigger. Don't cheat and move your head before pulling the trigger. You have to wait until you hear the bang before moving your head. If you can move faster than the bullet, you will get the experience and can now safely walk the streets knowing nothing can touch you. Let me know how it goes.

 

[avbug]

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

Well, today is your day, brightspark!

November 7, 1984
Mr. Joseph P. Carr
Dear Mr. Carr:

This is in response to your letter asking questions about instrument flight time.

First, you ask for an interpretation of Section 61.51(c)(4) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) regarding the logging of instrument flight time. You ask whether, for instance, a flight over the ocean on a moonless night without a discernible horizon could be logged as actual instrument flight time.

As you know, Section 61.51(c)(4) provides rules for the logging of instrument flight time which may be used to meet the requirements of a certificate or rating, or to meet the recent flight experience requirements of Part 61. That section provides in part, that a pilot may log as instrument flight time only that time during which he or she operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments, under actual (instrument meteorological conditions (imc)) or simulated instrument flight conditions. "Simulated" instrument conditions occur when the pilot's vision outside of the aircraft is intentionally restricted, such as by a hood or goggles. "Actual" instrument flight conditions occur when some outside conditions make it necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order to maintain adequate control over the aircraft. Typically, these conditions involve adverse weather conditions.

To answer your first question, actual instrument conditions may occur in the case you described a moonless night over the ocean with no discernible horizon, if use of the instruments is necessary to maintain adequate control over the aircraft. The determination as to whether flight by reference to instruments is necessary is somewhat subjective and based in part on the sound judgment of the pilot. Note that, under Section 61.51(b)(3), the pilot must log the conditions of the flight. The log should include the reasons for determining that the flight was under actual instrument conditions in case the pilot later would be called on to prove that the actual instrument flight time logged was legitimate.
Sincerely,
/s/
John H. Cassady
Assistant Chief counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division

 

[JAFI]

Let's see, a doctor, private pilot, 1000 hours, his own 182, likes to test the limits......... Haven't I read this in a NTSB report(s)??

How much ego can you fit into one head?

You guys are wasting your time.

JAFI

------------------------------------

"Never argue with a fool - people might not know the difference." - Anonymous

 

[semperfido]

Plus he is a Bush supporter

and there is a problem with this?

 

[TDTURBO]

Well, today is your day, brightspark!

November 7, 1984
Mr. Joseph P. Carr
Dear Mr. Carr:

This is in response to your letter asking questions about instrument flight time.

First, you ask for an interpretation of Section 61.51(c)(4) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) regarding the logging of instrument flight time. You ask whether, for instance, a flight over the ocean on a moonless night without a discernible horizon could be logged as actual instrument flight time.

As you know, Section 61.51(c)(4) provides rules for the logging of instrument flight time which may be used to meet the requirements of a certificate or rating, or to meet the recent flight experience requirements of Part 61. That section provides in part, that a pilot may log as instrument flight time only that time during which he or she operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments, under actual (instrument meteorological conditions (imc)) or simulated instrument flight conditions. "Simulated" instrument conditions occur when the pilot's vision outside of the aircraft is intentionally restricted, such as by a hood or goggles. "Actual" instrument flight conditions occur when some outside conditions make it necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order to maintain adequate control over the aircraft. Typically, these conditions involve adverse weather conditions.

To answer your first question, actual instrument conditions may occur in the case you described a moonless night over the ocean with no discernible horizon, if use of the instruments is necessary to maintain adequate control over the aircraft. The determination as to whether flight by reference to instruments is necessary is somewhat subjective and based in part on the sound judgment of the pilot. Note that, under Section 61.51(b)(3), the pilot must log the conditions of the flight. The log should include the reasons for determining that the flight was under actual instrument conditions in case the pilot later would be called on to prove that the actual instrument flight time logged was legitimate.
Sincerely,
/s/
John H. Cassady
Assistant Chief counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division

Even though you missed my point, that being a reg can be unwise and foolish, you did however point out the "Brightspark" that wrote it. For that I thank you, only an idiot would let a pilot obtain an IR without flying actual, that was my point.

 

[TDTURBO]

and there is a problem with this?

Yes, Bush is an idiot. I used to vote republican before this idiot ruined our country, I also hate democrats, I guess that makes me an independant. Hence the anticonformist perception you enjoy attacking. Follow in life, don't lead, we need people like you too.

 

[TDTURBO]

Let's see, a doctor, private pilot, 1000 hours, his own 182, likes to test the limits......... Haven't I read this in a NTSB report(s)??

How much ego can you fit into one head?

You guys are wasting your time.

JAFI

------------------------------------

"Never argue with a fool - people might not know the difference." - Anonymous

Of course you never read about DE's crashing or CFI's in NTSB reports, your arrogant attitude eludes to being immune to such an event, don't count your chickens yet, the day may come for any of us wether we like it or not.
You have a firm grip on the obvious, commendable for a fed. You are quite correct, they are wasting my time. Good day.

--------------------------------------

"Arguing on the internet is like the special olympics, if you win, you're still retarded." - Anonymous


With that, I bid you farewell, it is time to prepare for box manuvers over New Lenox.

 

[TDTURBO]

TD I would also like to add that there are no " controlled conditions " when it comes to icing that you will ever experience. NASA is still doing everything they can to understand icing and they are still working on it. NASA uses many ways to test ice, but the one that sticks out the most is when they fly behind another airplane which is spraying them to get the wing to form ice. They do this in VFR no cloud/moisture conditions so if the wing gets too much ice they can quickly melt it.

How do you experiment with ice? Do you penetrate a cloud and let the ice form and try to climb or descend to get the ice off. If this is so, which really seems to me what you are doing, you are flirting with death. Ice up and hope to get to better conditions to melt the ice. I also read that you take your airplane up to altitude and shut the engine off and stop the prop. Why? This is wreckless and dangerous behavior. Most sane people want to avoid an engine failure and you induce it. I hope you don't treat medicine the same way. " Well Mr. Jones, your leg is healing nicely but I have decided that I want to inject you with a dirty needle to induce gangreen to see if I can stop it before I have to amputate your leg. Shall we.....

The more I think about this the more I am convinced you are an idiot. Here is my challenge to you. I want you to see if you are fast enough to get out of the way of a bullet that has just been fired at your forehead. To do this, place the barrell of a semi-automatic handgun against the front of your forehead. Pull the trigger. Don't cheat and move your head before pulling the trigger. You have to wait until you hear the bang before moving your head. If you can move faster than the bullet, you will get the experience and can now safely walk the streets knowing nothing can touch you. Let me know how it goes.

I am beginning to think you are the one in your avitar, since I posted the pic and you used it.

 

[TDTURBO]

I think this quote pretty much sums it up for me.

Big D, if you know a CFI with 0ver 1100hrs in 182rg's, I would love to find them, that fact is they don't exist around here and none of them have a clue how my panel works, what the switches are for, if the HSI is coupled to the AP and how to verify that the HSI is reading off the GPS or the ILS. Like I said, I end up doing the teaching with new CFI's, that's why I found who I found. If I mentioned his name you would know him, he is the leading expert in the midwest on MU-2's with 10k in type with another 10K in everything else, this is who I fly with.