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

What a piece of Junk

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
So...Rattler...what about the topic subject material?? You know the topic YOU started? The one you were so concerned about before you became more concerned about yourself?

I've asked you ten times now if you're going to return to the topic, and asked you questions about the topic that you just won't answer. Either you're afraid of the topic (because let's face it, it really was a foolish comment, and you know it), or you're incapable of talking about it. Admitting it is the first step.

Really you'd rather waffle on for pages and pages whining about being slighted, crying, screaming for attention, when you will won't tell the world what else was probably wrong with that aircraft with three inoperative items...you could always go for the 402...it's got over a hundred things wrong and you can speculate on all of them. The report leaves it wide open.

You've got so much experience flying bad aircraft, this should be easy for you. So how 'bout it, mate? Are you remotely capable of addressing the topic which you started, or are you going to keep rolling around on the ground like a wounded puppy crying about your perceived wounds? Is this a thread about aircraft with inoperative components that lead to fatal accidents or about YOU??
 
(kneeling) "Oh God ... please make it stop."








.
 
You'll have to appeal to the moderators to make it stop, and as there's nothing unusual, profane, or offensive, here, I don't think they'll care. God certainly doesn't.

Tell ya what. I'll stop as soon as Rattler addresses the topic at hand with a meaningful comment. Eleven requests for that now.

Shoot, he even offered me the last word three times (which I really don't want, and never did), and took it back four...

How about it, rattler. Can you discuss your own topic? How about it?
 
Snakum

Handbags at fifty paces? *rimshot*

OMG!!! I just shot Coke (acola) out my nose, sharted and peed a little.

Bwahahahahah!!!! :eek:
 
Rattler71 said:
I already gave you your last word. Are you such an ego-maniac you have to one-up your own last word?

Yes, he is. He is fine as long as everyone praises his intellect, knowledge and experience. But once someone calls him out or in any manner disparages his "intellect" then he quickly becomes what you see here. Someone that desperately needs the opportunity to PROVE that he is right; to PROVE his intellect and vast knowledge over and over again.

And he always, ALWAYS must have the last word. (Several times in one thread, it would appear.)

Internet know-it-alls truly ARE a dime a dozen. Avbug is no different than any of them...except in his own mind.
 
Speculation after a crash usually leads to people faulting pilots for making simple errors when the real situation was a lot worse. I have to listen to uninformed people make inaccurate comments about a friend who died on an ATR all the time. It really fries me.

With that said, Rattler 71 isn't totally off the mark. The NTSB report did actually point out deficiencies in maintenance with that crash. When there's no ADF, no marker beacons and maybe no DME (I'm not familiar with the way that approach was set up in 1982), it'd be easy to track the wrong slope, not detect a stuck glideslope needle, etc.

Avbug makes a good point about speculation. Speculation leads people to say "That 6000 hour pilot simply got too slow and stalled." or "He must not have been paying attention.".

Bottom line:

You're both making good points.
 
That was sorta what I was getting at before all hell broke loose. Granted the three things listed by themselves wouldn't normally cause a fatal accident. There is definitely a point where somene could get overloaded. With the remarks made in the report it would appear the maintenance on that plane was not very good and there was pressure on the pilot from management to keep flying it.

Rattler71
 
Last edited:
Rattler; Why don't you ask avbug about the MU2? That will prolong the entertainment for all of us. He has a lot of answers for that topic. Lots of conclusions, too.
 
You weren't content to keep that little bit of your poison in it's own thread, you have to drag that crap here, too? Lady, you're out of your mind. You were wrong from the word go, the best thing you could have done is learn to shut your mouth...give it up already.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top