What constitutes an instrument approach

[mojavedriver]

With all this talk about alter egos and usernames, could I be flyifrvfr, AKA the banned one? The answer is yes, or until the webmaster or mods remove this username as well.

1. flyifrvfr - banned
2. erniestrange - banned
3. rich tillery - banned
4. transpondersoff - banned
5. mojavedriver - New until mods remove and I have to create more...

 

[NYCPilot]

It's unfair to accuse anyone of holding an alter-ego and quite possibly tarnishing another users name and credentials. I retracted my earlier statements and apologize for any disturbance it may have caused. This was done uncoerced and voluntarily out of being sensible and fair. Whether someone is or isn't someone else matters not. It is just another voice expressing an opinion on a message board.

 

[banned username 2]

With all this talk about alter egos and usernames, could I be flyifrvfr, AKA the banned one? The answer is yes, or until the webmaster or mods remove this username as well.

1. flyifrvfr - banned
2. erniestrange - banned
3. rich tillery - banned
4. transpondersoff - banned
5. mojavedriver - New until mods remove and I have to create more...

6. bizijet - banned
7. trooper1 - banned
8. mojavedriver - banned

Hey Victor,

Just can't stay away, huh??? I thought this place sucked? And all that other crybaby stuff you wrote in the email to the web master... But yet you just keep coming back... Acting like the child you are...

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showpost.php?p=697151&postcount=2

 

[100LL... Again!]

I'm flattered guys...but I only post under one name. One a couple of occasions I got on a computer before someone else logged off and inadvertantly used their name without realizing it...but that got straightened out. Luckily they were folks I knew.

For the record, I'm not dumbledore or anybody else, though I liked the character on Harry Potter. I have enough trouble being one person, let alone more than one.

As for the use of the word "mute," vs. "moot," a number of posters over several years have taken me to task for my dogged refusal to use the word "moot." Include a few in that list who do know whence they speak...there's a good exchange on the topic between TonyC and myself. I don't disagree with TonyC, and I certainly won't try to correct his use of the English language (though in truth it does differ somewhat from the Queens English, but we'll reserve that for another time).

I don't mistakenly use the word "mute," but rather use it as an expression of my intent. For starters, I don't like the word "moot." I never have. By saying "the point is mute," rather than "the point is moot," my intent is to literally say "the point is silent." Or in other words, the point of the word is literally without voice, which more accurately expresses my intent. Words are nothing more than a vehicle for the speakers intent, and my use of that word is intentional and deliberate. Further, a little research will show that while the use of the term "mute" is not contemporary, it's not incorrect either. You merely don't hear it much any more. It is my preference, and from me, you do hear it. If you were to hear it in conversation, you would hear me enunciate "mute," rather than "moot," would would clearly hear that I intend to say, "mute."

Like it or lump it, that's how I talk, and I type on here exactly as I talk in person.
Fly safe.

Now, call me a conspiracy nut, but this really has an after-the-fact rationalization kind of feel about it.

Not that I doubt that his explanation predates this thread - I DO believe that he has rationalized it during a previous argument with Tony C or whomever.

That said, Occam's Razor cuts to the heart of it and says that he used the wrong word, got busted, looked them both up and formulated a plausible but difficult to swallow 'reason' for the original word misuse.

You have a potential very succesful career ahead of you as a senator, avbug.

 

[banned username 2]

That said, Occam's Razor cuts to the heart of it and says that he used the wrong word, got busted, looked them both up and formulated a plausible but difficult to swallow 'reason' for the original word misuse.

Hey! I thought I was the only one around here who gets to reference Occam's Razor...

This sounds just like another member who used "irregardless" and backpeddled as well...

 

[Dumbledore]

It's unfair to accuse anyone of holding an alter-ego and quite possibly tarnishing another users name and credentials. I retracted my earlier statements and apologize for any disturbance it may have caused. This was done uncoerced and voluntarily out of being sensible and fair. Whether someone is or isn't someone else matters not. It is just another voice expressing an opinion on a message board.

I will add my public thanks for having done so. The time alotted for me to edit my stuff has expired. My words will have to stay.

Peace

 

[TonyC]

As for the use of the word "mute," vs. "moot," ... I don't like the word "moot."

...the use of the term "mute" is not contemporary, ... It is my preference, and from me, you do hear it.

A quick search fore moot and mute reveals that Avbug has been alerted two the issue own several occassions, even be four my discovery of this bored. He's got his mind maid up, so it's a waist of thyme.



Eye just wish he'd stop using "weather" when he's knot talking about the environment! (Whether he prefers it or NOT!)





.

 

[TonyC]

This sounds just like another member who used "irregardless" and backpeddled as well...

That word really bugs you, huh? At least we find the nonstandard usage recognized in a contemporary dictionary. We can't find Avbug's usage of mute recognized in a contemporary dictionary, but that matters little. Dictionaries change to reflect the language more often than the other way around.


I'll have to remember to fit irregardless in to more posts, irregardless of it's usefulness in the conversation.






,

 

[nitrogen]

All Very Familiar

I had to laugh as I read this thread because it all seems like deja vous to me.

See I went throught this ridiculous drill with this Av person a long time ago.

Like some of the other posters on this board I became incredulous at the outrageous claims that this AV person made on a routine basis. At that time he had his qualifications actually posted under his name. When I challenged him to prove some of them he removed them.

The one most outrageous claim that I remember him making was something about ingesting burning tree limbs down the engine of his aircraft. At first I thought he was joking. He wasn't. He stuck with that fantasy.

Then there was the discussion on declaring an emergency when he vehemently argued that having an onboard fire did not necessarily constitute an emergency. At that point I really began to suspect he wasn't a pilot but was someone who was around aviation a lot and studied about it quite a bit. Nothing he has ever said convinces me that I was mistaken then, including this ridiculous situation here.

Its really all just entertainment value. If you choose to buy into the Av persons questionable claims, fine. If not, then fine also. From what I can tell he won't really ever stop so whats the difference? Back then he had a small group of posters that came to defend him when he needed it. Like the ones that have shown up here I suspected then it was the Av person posting under a different name. That certainly seems to be the case again. And once more, who cares? It doesn't matter. I was concerned then that someone would take some of his highly questionable advice and do something they shouldn't in an aircraft. But, looking back now I guess I should have realized that when it comes down to it how much creedence is anyone really going to put in something they read on a "chat board"?

So what the heck. Let him live out his fantasies here if the moderators will allow him to do so. And when The Av person writes another of his "stupendous feats" stories just laugh it off as we do a Wile E Coyote episode with the Acme mining company.

 

[avbug]

Not that I have any need to prove or disprove anything, but I've never embellished on this board, or in person. If you can refute a single claim I have ever made, then I challenge you to do so.

You questioned striking materials over a fire...the answer is of course materials present a FOD hazard over a fire. If you'd ever been there, that would be obvious. I have hit burning materials, birds, and ingested a lot of smoke...just like anybody else who has ever piloted an aircraft over a fire on a tanker, helitanker, air attack, smoke jump, paracargo, or other mission dealing with wild fire. That anybody would question that is laughable...and far off the topic of this thread. I even saw a Skycrane in Lake City about seven years ago on a fire that ingested a turkey vulture. It was plastered across the intake, spread-eagled. Cost them a new engine.

Then there was the discussion on declaring an emergency when he vehemently argued that having an onboard fire did not necessarily constitute an emergency.

I still do. I have always been consistant in that assertion, based not on conjecture, but on real world experience. Can you make the same claim?

While I have always maintained, with absolute consistancy, that if one needs to make a declaration of priority or an emergency, one should do so, not every case demands it. Further, having experienced cockpit fires, wing fires, engine fires, ground fires, and a host of other such events, none to date have been of a nature that demanded the "declaration" of an emergency.

Several weeks ago I experienced a hydraulic loss in a tanker aircraft under circumstances which, in my judgement, justified requesting a crash rescue truck, and opening a closed runway. I did so, and landed uneventfully. This is the third time in my career I have requested and used the services of a rescue truck on a runway, despite the fact that each time each situation turned into a non-event. I have never hesitated to use the services available to me, when required. I do not, however, believe in blind panic, nor a blanket assertion that all things demand the drama you seem to feel is merited.

Attending a fire for me isn't an emergency. It's my job. A fire in flight may be quickly extinguished, or it may be uncontrollable. Clearly someone flicking a zippo lighter isn't worthy of an emergency descent, while in other circumstances, the mere scent of smoke might be. To suggest that any fire is an emergency is ridiculous.

I maintain now, and have always maintained, that there is no better scent than the smell of smoke in the cockpit.

I suspected then it was the Av person posting under a different name.

That is certainly not the case, but as the burden of proof is on you for making the accusation...prove your case. This would be impossible, of course, as I don't post under other names, but by making a false accusation (again) you have a duty to make good on the verification. Shall you?