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
Question for AvBug
- Thread starter Cutlass1287
- Start date
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
TrafficInSight
mmmm.... doooonuuuut.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2004
- Posts
- 613
avbug said:
Obviously it wouldn't do well to study under someone that truly felt that, which is why I said try to make some connections. Some people are genuinely interested in spreading the knowledge... others are just grumpy mechanics that get angry everytime someone asks a question... We're supposed to take the answer on gospel and not ask why
3
350DRIVER
Ya'll crack me up- We got one guy on here who does nothing more than correct spelling and then proceed to jump down avbug's throat and a few more that question his method of coming across.... If you folks don't like the way he posts then by all means just ignore him, once again simple solution to a rather simple problem. I as well as the majority on here truly respect everything that avbug has done, stands for, and the vast knowledge and experience that he has.
avbug, don't change a single thing- You are probably getting a few laughs from these posters as I did when I saw them question you, take em at face value.
3 5 0
avbug, don't change a single thing- You are probably getting a few laughs from these posters as I did when I saw them question you, take em at face value.
3 5 0
3
350DRIVER
FlyChicaga
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2002
- Posts
- 862
350-
What experience? What knowledge? What he "stands for?" We all see what avbug writes on here, however none of us really know what experience he actually has. I am often confused whether he is a pilot, or an engineer, or a mechanic, or even for real half the time. I would probably take him more seriously if he had some credibility.
What experience? What knowledge? What he "stands for?" We all see what avbug writes on here, however none of us really know what experience he actually has. I am often confused whether he is a pilot, or an engineer, or a mechanic, or even for real half the time. I would probably take him more seriously if he had some credibility.
3
350DRIVER
FlyChicaga said:
If he so chooses to inform you and others who question his "experience", "knowledge", and "what he stands" for then he will be the one who does so, not I. Don't take him seriously, he probably could care less. Do a board search and read some of his replies and threads and most can see it is quite obvious why "he" was asked to answer the question in this thread.
I am sure he will lose very little sleep over you not taking him seriously.
3 5 0
Cutlass1287
Cup
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2004
- Posts
- 113
TrafficInSight
mmmm.... doooonuuuut.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2004
- Posts
- 613
Actually Cutlass 1287, maybe you are Avbug just asking almost rediculous questions in order to post wordy responses. If you really are a solo studrent as you say and don't know what moves the ailerons or what a bellcrank is etc, your instructor ought to get his or her ticket lifted.
I would think rather than show your ignorance you would post privately if you really did not know.
I would think rather than show your ignorance you would post privately if you really did not know.
Last edited:
TrafficInSight
mmmm.... doooonuuuut.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2004
- Posts
- 613
Add donsa to tony for contributing only negativity and absence of thought to this thread. Neither has added an iota, but to attack other posters, as is so often the case. What sad, pathetic ladies these must be.
I am not an engineer.
I also conduct engine failures to a landing, and I demonstrate and require students to demonstrate forced landings off-field. I also teach cross controlled stalls. Each of these tends to wrinkle the nose of the blowhards that seem to think they have a handle on that which they don't even know...which doesn't bother me a bit. Those who decry these acts simply loudly announce their own ignorance.
I never simulate an engine failure unless I have placed myself in a position to fully execute the evoloution as an actual engine failure.
The individual of whom I spoke who experienced the siezed mixture did not exercise such care, and had no judgement or experience to do so. One who had completed USAF UPT and gone no further, he had precious little flight experience, but considered himself the bastian of flight experience and knowledge. He would pull the engine at 100 or 200 or little more on takeoff, often while departing over water or locations where a landing would be nearly impossible. I very much doubt he had the capability to execute a forced landing off field if he needed to, yet frequently failed the engine in the manner I described, in the airplane I described, seldom over a suitable landing site, seldom with the forethought to carry out the simulation should he be unable to restore power.
I NEVER pull power without being fully prepared to not get it back. Therein lies the difference. If I cannot restore power, then I am already in a position to complete the flight to a safe conclusion. With this in mind, it matters not a whit if I pull the mixture, shut off the fuel, or shut off the magnetos or ignition and throw the key out the window. I have positioned myself, and am prepared, to do what I'm paid to do at that time and place; teach and complete the flight safely.
The former pilot to whom I referred felt he was above instructing. He felt forced to do it; he was a "jet pilot" after all, and felt belittle by having to fly with students, and for having to fly a lowly reciprocating engine powered airplane, and a pathetic propeller driven airplane. Heaven forbid that he lift a finger to do more than he had to, which included learning, studying, preparing, or doing a good job in his position or station in life.
A mixture does not simply sieze up. I repaired the mixture; I cleaned and lubricated it, rather than replacing the cable, housing or assembly. It was loaded with grit, and siezed. The repair took sometime, and yielded a lot of contamination inside the housing. This instructor should have seen it coming, he should have been prepared, but he continued to pull his little trick, despite all the warning signs; airplanes talk to you, and he wasn't listening. He risked the life of his student, his own pathetic hide, and presented himself a danger to those on the ground.
Each case I cited was a real example, involving real acts and real people. Nothing condescending in that. Stupid pilot tricks.
Add to it the pilot who purchased his own FBO. He was also a certificated mechanic, and began accepting aircraft in his hangar for repairs. He took an airplane with a wooden propeller in as a leaseback, with him providing the maintenance. One day the propeller left the airplane, causing a certain amount of damage in the process, while in a practice area with a student. He never trained in forced landings off field, but managed to make a highway. He told me afterward he had been surprised to learn that it's necessary to periodically retorque the attach bolts on a wooden propeller. Not only is that part of the care and maintenance of any wooden propeller installation, it's common sense, and it's something that any competent maintenance student should know. His own ignorance, and unwillingness to crack a book or perform maintenance on the airplane by using the legally-required manufacturer maintenance manuals, he carelessly caused an incident that could have ended much worse than it did.
Condescending in noting his actions, am I? A friend of mine, he would agree, and does agree with my comments. He certainly would not see it as condescending, but a true assesment, and it is, as was each event I noted.
Several posters blithly suggested I have placed myself above these individuals, that I have suggested am somehow a better or superior person. These individuals have suggested that I have puffed myself up in citing the errors of these individuals. In no place have I done so. The questioner who started the thread is happy with the responses. Yet these brilliant brightsparks condescendingly must throw in their weight, contributing nothing, to muddy the water and cause a problem. Nice try, folks. Your mindless prattling on is wasted, as is your breath. G'day.
I am not an engineer.
It is appropriate, and it is something I still espouse, and a method I still employ. You failed to ask what type aircraft or under what circumstances; you therefore ask the wrong question, or only part of a question. Your quote is taken out of context, for it's an answer I explained repeatedly and fully in that, and other threads on this site.
I also conduct engine failures to a landing, and I demonstrate and require students to demonstrate forced landings off-field. I also teach cross controlled stalls. Each of these tends to wrinkle the nose of the blowhards that seem to think they have a handle on that which they don't even know...which doesn't bother me a bit. Those who decry these acts simply loudly announce their own ignorance.
I never simulate an engine failure unless I have placed myself in a position to fully execute the evoloution as an actual engine failure.
The individual of whom I spoke who experienced the siezed mixture did not exercise such care, and had no judgement or experience to do so. One who had completed USAF UPT and gone no further, he had precious little flight experience, but considered himself the bastian of flight experience and knowledge. He would pull the engine at 100 or 200 or little more on takeoff, often while departing over water or locations where a landing would be nearly impossible. I very much doubt he had the capability to execute a forced landing off field if he needed to, yet frequently failed the engine in the manner I described, in the airplane I described, seldom over a suitable landing site, seldom with the forethought to carry out the simulation should he be unable to restore power.
I NEVER pull power without being fully prepared to not get it back. Therein lies the difference. If I cannot restore power, then I am already in a position to complete the flight to a safe conclusion. With this in mind, it matters not a whit if I pull the mixture, shut off the fuel, or shut off the magnetos or ignition and throw the key out the window. I have positioned myself, and am prepared, to do what I'm paid to do at that time and place; teach and complete the flight safely.
The former pilot to whom I referred felt he was above instructing. He felt forced to do it; he was a "jet pilot" after all, and felt belittle by having to fly with students, and for having to fly a lowly reciprocating engine powered airplane, and a pathetic propeller driven airplane. Heaven forbid that he lift a finger to do more than he had to, which included learning, studying, preparing, or doing a good job in his position or station in life.
A mixture does not simply sieze up. I repaired the mixture; I cleaned and lubricated it, rather than replacing the cable, housing or assembly. It was loaded with grit, and siezed. The repair took sometime, and yielded a lot of contamination inside the housing. This instructor should have seen it coming, he should have been prepared, but he continued to pull his little trick, despite all the warning signs; airplanes talk to you, and he wasn't listening. He risked the life of his student, his own pathetic hide, and presented himself a danger to those on the ground.
Each case I cited was a real example, involving real acts and real people. Nothing condescending in that. Stupid pilot tricks.
Add to it the pilot who purchased his own FBO. He was also a certificated mechanic, and began accepting aircraft in his hangar for repairs. He took an airplane with a wooden propeller in as a leaseback, with him providing the maintenance. One day the propeller left the airplane, causing a certain amount of damage in the process, while in a practice area with a student. He never trained in forced landings off field, but managed to make a highway. He told me afterward he had been surprised to learn that it's necessary to periodically retorque the attach bolts on a wooden propeller. Not only is that part of the care and maintenance of any wooden propeller installation, it's common sense, and it's something that any competent maintenance student should know. His own ignorance, and unwillingness to crack a book or perform maintenance on the airplane by using the legally-required manufacturer maintenance manuals, he carelessly caused an incident that could have ended much worse than it did.
Condescending in noting his actions, am I? A friend of mine, he would agree, and does agree with my comments. He certainly would not see it as condescending, but a true assesment, and it is, as was each event I noted.
Several posters blithly suggested I have placed myself above these individuals, that I have suggested am somehow a better or superior person. These individuals have suggested that I have puffed myself up in citing the errors of these individuals. In no place have I done so. The questioner who started the thread is happy with the responses. Yet these brilliant brightsparks condescendingly must throw in their weight, contributing nothing, to muddy the water and cause a problem. Nice try, folks. Your mindless prattling on is wasted, as is your breath. G'day.
TonyC
Frederick's Happy Face
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2002
- Posts
- 3,050
Like I said, coming from you the advice seems so hollow.350DRIVER said:
I don't have a problem with Avbug - - he has contributed a great deal to the board, so far as I can tell. Maybe he thinks he's earned the right to be arrogant - - I don't know. I gently suggested he was coming across that way on a different thread, and he doesn't seem to mind. Swass made the observation on this thread; I concurred. In this case, though, Avbug seems to be offended by the claim. Go figger. No chip here, just an opinion.
What's your investment here, anyway?
TonyC
Frederick's Happy Face
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2002
- Posts
- 3,050
OK, Cutlass1287. You're welcome for returning his attention to the bellcrank question so he could answer it, too.Cutlass1287 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't attempt to answer your question. I simply spoke up to agree with Swass.
I'm glad you got some great answers to your questions.
TonyC
Frederick's Happy Face
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2002
- Posts
- 3,050
Blithly... blithely: lacking due thought or consideration: casually, heedlesslyavbug said:
You know, Avbug, it may be easier for you to dismiss the observation if you consider it to be a blithe one, but in this case you are dead wrong. I gave careful consideration before beginning a reply, and have been careful to craft what I thought to be constructive comments. Now, perhaps I have failed to convey my thoughts to you, but it's not for lack of trying. It was certainly not a blithe activity. Dismissing the comments as prattle only confirms the original observation.
I believe every 12-step program begins with the same Step 1.
You continue to post, but say nothing. You whined that I hadn't addressed the posters question. Others have joined in to comment on the posters question, or even to introduce levity. But not you. Your mission here is quite different. It's to denegrate.
Tell us about the bellcrank, give us something. Contribute something why don't you? Instead of being a complete drain, here? That isn't your nature, though. Is it? You step in, riding someone else's thread, someone else's coat tails, trying to find something to attack in the post...rather than contributing to the thread. As always.
At least you're consistent, that much can be afforded you. Bless you for it; a measure of common sense is still available for someone else in this world, seeing as you won't be needing it.
I have addressed the topics to which I was invited, by individual posters here, as always. I will continue to do so, without any effort at apology to you, donsa, swass, or others who seem to prefer vinegar to fresh air.
Keep stabbing away there. It never hurts to try.
Tell us about the bellcrank, give us something. Contribute something why don't you? Instead of being a complete drain, here? That isn't your nature, though. Is it? You step in, riding someone else's thread, someone else's coat tails, trying to find something to attack in the post...rather than contributing to the thread. As always.
At least you're consistent, that much can be afforded you. Bless you for it; a measure of common sense is still available for someone else in this world, seeing as you won't be needing it.
I have addressed the topics to which I was invited, by individual posters here, as always. I will continue to do so, without any effort at apology to you, donsa, swass, or others who seem to prefer vinegar to fresh air.
Keep stabbing away there. It never hurts to try.
I would surmise he did not. What he did do was ask a question which drew an answer. I was critiqued by the peanut gallery for failure to provide an adequate answer, and then for providing too much of an answer...when strangely the peanut gallery would not lower themselves far enough to actually participate in a meaningful reply to the poster. Your motives are clear folks, move on.
Last edited:
TonyC
Frederick's Happy Face
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2002
- Posts
- 3,050
Either you can't read, or you can't remember. You were not critiqued for failure to provide an adequate answer, nor were you critiqued for providing too much of an answer. You were critiqued for being arrogant.avbug said:
TO REVIEW:
Post #1: Cutlass1287 asks avbug a technical question
Post #6: avbug provides an outstanding answer
Post #7: Cutlass1287 thanks avbug, asks "what is a bellcrank"
Post #8: Cat Driver mentions snag lists
Post #10: avbug "Where to begin?"
Post #11: avbug - - where does it end?
Post #14: Swass observes "does that mean you always have to talk down to everyone when you post."
Post #15: Cutlass1287 likes the way avbug comes across, and hurls personal insult at Swass - - characterizes him as dimwitted
Post #17: I remind Cutlass1287 that avbug failed to answer his second question, and agree with Swass
Post #19: avbug gets offended
It's easy, I suppose, for you to focus your anger on me since I have the nerve to speak up, speak loudly, and keep speaking. But when you hear the same critique from different people at different times, maybe there's something to it, huh? Well, at least that's the way I'd look at it.
I'm hoping you can take the observations as constructive criticism, and perhaps gain a bit from them. That's the motive.
Cat Driver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Posts
- 257
Well Tony I guess we just have to accept different personalities as part of aviation.
When I first started posting here Avbug tore into me about some post I made about my being a water bomber pilot, in fact he as much as called me either a liar or an incompetant....but I do not take these things seriously because I have a good self image and know what flying skills and experience that I have aquired over the years and of course my limitations when plying this trade.
So I just accept Avbug for Avbug and do not allow him to bug me.
Cat Driver
When I first started posting here Avbug tore into me about some post I made about my being a water bomber pilot, in fact he as much as called me either a liar or an incompetant....but I do not take these things seriously because I have a good self image and know what flying skills and experience that I have aquired over the years and of course my limitations when plying this trade.
So I just accept Avbug for Avbug and do not allow him to bug me.
Cat Driver
3
350DRIVER
I think you dismissed him long ago and he is now in his place...avbug said:Anybody that flies a gyroplane can't be all bad.
Have you had anything to do with the Cat in Sandpoint (ID)?
Tony's still struggling to contribute to the thread. Hang in there, mate. You can do it.
avbug, thanks for continuing to grace this board with your knowledge that you have accumulated over the many years that you have been in this industry.. The majority see and respect you for what you have done.
3 5 0
Cat Driver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Posts
- 257
Avbug:
If you mean the one that was converted to a flying yacht, yes.
I worked on it and flew it when it was being converted to a play toy.
As for Gyroplanes next to Sail Planes they are great fun to fly, I spent a lot of money getting the U.S. Gyroplane license on the McCulloch J2 which is certified. But it is the little ones that are real neat to fly.
PM me your e-mail and I will send you some of the best pictures ever taken of PBY's that we have flown, the pictures are all taken by professionals such as TF1 Television in France. We flew all of Africa filming for French TV and then did South America with the same airplane and TV crew.
Cat Driver
If you mean the one that was converted to a flying yacht, yes.
I worked on it and flew it when it was being converted to a play toy.
As for Gyroplanes next to Sail Planes they are great fun to fly, I spent a lot of money getting the U.S. Gyroplane license on the McCulloch J2 which is certified. But it is the little ones that are real neat to fly.
PM me your e-mail and I will send you some of the best pictures ever taken of PBY's that we have flown, the pictures are all taken by professionals such as TF1 Television in France. We flew all of Africa filming for French TV and then did South America with the same airplane and TV crew.
Cat Driver
TonyC
Frederick's Happy Face
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2002
- Posts
- 3,050
Ah, yes. I remember the 747 fire bomber thread - - I lost track of how many derogatory names he called you. I seem to remember him explaining then that his way of talking to us peons was somehow related to our perceived worth or something like that.Cat Driver said:Well Tony I guess we just have to accept different personalities as part of aviation.
When I first started posting here Avbug tore into me about some post I made about my being a water bomber pilot, in fact he as much as called me either a liar or an incompetant....but I do not take these things seriously because I have a good self image and know what flying skills and experience that I have aquired over the years and of course my limitations when plying this trade.
So I just accept Avbug for Avbug and do not allow him to bug me.
Cat Driver
Why didn't I remember that before!?!? I could have saved my breath!
Thanks Cat!
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
