Do you use nitrogen?

[avbug]

Quote:
Originally Posted by avbug
You answered incorrectly when you stated that the regulations do not specify the use of nitrogen.


I never stated any such thing.

I guess this wasn't you, then...

If the tires require nitrogen it will be in the stated in the AFM. I don't think you'll find it in the regs...

But still you insist...

Originally Posted by avbug
Transport category aircraft because you adamantly insisted that no regulation requires the use of nitrogen in an aircraft tire. I cited a regulation that does.

A never insisted any such thing adamantly or otherwise. That would be pretty stupid of me to argue, I agree. Where did I say that?

Apparently this wasn't you, either...

I answered that no, the regs don't make a differentiation between filling a tire with air and filling it with nitrogen.

You were right, however...it certainly was stupid of you to make that arguement, and you DID make it. Repeatedly. You're still arguing the point, and you're still wrong.

Well, there you go. You did answer my question. I didn't ask if the sky was blue. I asked if you would give some sort of ridiculously technical, borish answer to such a simple yes/no question. The answer is that you would.

You consider one sentence to be ridiculously technical, and borish...one that said leave it to others to answer? You're really digging there, mate...and apparently desperate for an arguement. The question begs, however, regarding motivation. You're so desperate for an arguement, even when you can't say a single thing right. You recall the concept that it's far better to keep your trap shut and appear a fool, than open it and remove all doubt? You've removed all doubt. Now it's time to quit, shut up, go away, pick another topic, or think before you type in something else. Why do you keep digging yourself deeper? Do you dislike yourself enough that you're so intent on appearing like an idiot, or is this some kind of exercise in mental self-flaggelation?

 

[Gatorman]

Fire extinguisher needed.....

ackattacker....dude, AvBug smoked you on this one. :angryfire Put your flames out and walk away.....just walk away. You ain't playing with nitrogen here...hehehe

 

[ackattacker]

Ok, this will be my last post on this... you have certainly proven that some things I said were technically incorrect or at least not the full picture. It really doesn't bother me, one of the main reasons I post on this board is too learn things, not to prove my superior knowledge. I thought, for example, that moisture was the primary enemy of tires. Well, you showed that this was wrong (or at least not the full picture). For that I'm grateful, not upset. On the topic of "preventative maintenance" I initially interpreted tire filling as preventative maintenance. I revised my general intepretation in response to your post, and invited you to comment on it. Your responses were insulting and I felt missing the points I was trying to address, and instead focusing on technicalities and exceptions. I still feel that I got it right, and I'm backed up in "real life" by some people who I trust completely. Maybe I didn't explain it properly. It doesn't matter, my skin in cyberspace is "flame proof".

However, I do think that at least for a while you were confusing the hell out of me by arguing that I was wrong about ideas which I never had. That's why I felt so much of your posts were irrelevant to the topic. We were talking about two different topics.

The statement you quoted above about "I don't think you'll find it in the regs..." was a piece of practical advice to a pilot trying to figure out whether his/her aircraft required nitrogen filled tires. I wasn't 100% sure about the answer, so I said "I don't think"... You are correct that the certification standards of the aircraft are regulatory and in part determine what kinds of limitations the manufacturer is going to impose, it's still not the place a pilot should look. Nor is FAR 25 likely to be the first place a pilot or even mechanic is going to turn to for answers (particularly when the aircraft is not transport category...) Again, you are not wrong. But you certainly read a lot more into my statement than it deserved.

As for the second quote, taken out of context I can see how it can be interpreted to mean what you think it means. It's worded poorly grammatically so that it has two meanings. In context, I was talking about whether or not a mechanic or a pilot is allowed to fill a tire. I was not by any means trying to imply that a person take a tire which requires nitrogen, fill it with air, (or beer) and still be legal. Nor was I implying or stating that anybody can fill any tire... I feel it's was obvious that there are sometimes legal requirements, that doing it contrary to the aircraft and tire limitations would be clearly illegal, and that this was established way before I ever even posted. What wasn't clear, and what I was trying to establish, was whether or not the simple fact of being a "nitrogen tire" required that a mechanic fill it. This question has been the question all along from the beginning, and I guess I missed it when you started talking about something else.

Anyway, I'm still not sure what your answer is to that question. It may be buried in your posts somewhere. At this point I'm not learning anything so it is time to bury this thread also.

I apologize for the tone of some of my posts. But I still think you're an A$$.