There are a couple of techniques I've never been particularly good at while
flying, proper rudder work, and smooth turn onto a VOR radial without over
or undershooting the needle. What's a good way to smoothly know when to
start a standard rate turn onto the heading to intercept a VOR/GPS course on
the OBS?

My flying these days is with PC sims and often with an HSI. With an HSI you
have the lubber line and can keep the end of the lubber line on the needle
as it swings to get good results. What would be the non-HSI equivalent for
spam can flying?

--

Scott

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and
deserve to get it good and hard." H. L. Mencken
http://tinyurl.com/6qkhjb

tscottme wrote:
> What would be the non-HSI equivalent for
> spam can flying?


The CDI and DG?

On 12/05/08 13:39, tscottme wrote:
> There are a couple of techniques I've never been particularly good at while
> flying, proper rudder work, and smooth turn onto a VOR radial without over
> or undershooting the needle. What's a good way to smoothly know when to
> start a standard rate turn onto the heading to intercept a VOR/GPS course on
> the OBS?
>
> My flying these days is with PC sims and often with an HSI. With an HSI you
> have the lubber line and can keep the end of the lubber line on the needle
> as it swings to get good results. What would be the non-HSI equivalent for
> spam can flying?
>

This is a great question - plus it's aviation related!

Here are some notes I took during my instrument training. I hope you find
them useful:

- Choosing an intercept angle

This was pretty easy too, once I thought about it some. There
are some rules of thumb to remember:

- when within 3 miles of the station, use 30 degree angle
- when 3 to 10 miles from the station, use 30 - 45 degrees
- when more than 10 miles from the station, use 45 - 60 degrees

To select the intercept angle, just look at the side of the OBS
where the CDI needle is deflected. Then just count from the
top of the OBS toward the needle, the number of degrees of the
desired intercept angle. Then just fly that heading.

Assume we want to track outbound on the 090 degree radial.
We dial in 090 in the top of the OBS and see that the needle
deflects to the left. Because we are 5 miles from the station,
we select an intercept angle of 40 degrees. So now we just
count to the left from our radial (090) the number of degrees
of the intercept angle (040) and that gives us our heading
to fly: 050. Fly a heading or 050 and you will intercept the
090 degree radial at 40 degrees.

Wind will affect things here.

- Deciding when to turn on to the selected radial

The further we are from the station, the longer it will take
to move the needle. Therefore, when we're close to the station
(within 3 miles) we'll need to start our turn with about 2 dots
of CDI deflection.

However, when we're more than 10 miles from the station, we'll
need to start our turn when the CDI needle is much closer, say
within the "circle".

<My CFII> said this will just take some practice to get a good
feeling for when to turn.

Most of this assumes you know your distance from the station.
If you don't, you'll just have to make your best guess.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

Thanks Mark. Your answer was exactly what I was looking for.

--

Scott

Thanks Barry. Actually I was trying to ask what was technique without using
an HSI, not what instruments would one use if one had no HSI.

More specifically, when to start a turn toward the on-course heading?

--

Scott

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and
deserve to get it good and hard." H. L. Mencken
http://tinyurl.com/6qkhjb

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> tscottme wrote:
>> What would be the non-HSI equivalent for spam can flying?
>
>
> The CDI and DG?

tscottme wrote:
> Thanks Barry. Actually I was trying to ask what was technique without using
> an HSI, not what instruments would one use if one had no HSI.
>
> More specifically, when to start a turn toward the on-course heading?
>


Since you described yourself as a simmer, I wasn't sure if you knew they
existed.

Mark described it well!

tscottme writes:

> There are a couple of techniques I've never been particularly good at while
> flying, proper rudder work, and smooth turn onto a VOR radial without over
> or undershooting the needle. What's a good way to smoothly know when to
> start a standard rate turn onto the heading to intercept a VOR/GPS course on
> the OBS?
>
> My flying these days is with PC sims and often with an HSI. With an HSI you
> have the lubber line and can keep the end of the lubber line on the needle
> as it swings to get good results. What would be the non-HSI equivalent for
> spam can flying?

It is theoretically possible to calculate the exact turn required to land
precisely on a desired radial, but this type of calculation is extremely
awkward to carry out in flight, even with a calculator.

Shortcuts can be very useful for specific situations and specific aircraft,
but they are rarely applicable or accurate outside the very specific
circumstances for which they were developed.

I think the only practical way to turn precisely is with practice in a
specific aircraft. A great deal of practice probably isn't required, just a
few hours of practicing turns. Of course, if you change to a new aircraft, or
to a new flight regime, you'll have to practice again.

Even autopilots don't necessarily turn right on the mark. It depends on how
sophisticated the autopilot is (obviously airliners can afford better ones
than small private aircraft).

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> Even autopilots don't necessarily turn right on the mark. It depends on how
> sophisticated the autopilot is (obviously airliners can afford better ones
> than small private aircraft).

The master sim pilot speaks again.

As usual you don't know ****. Some of the newer light aircraft
autopilots, like the Garmin, are better than anything the airlines had
for many years.

But, the only autopilot you know is one that was written by software
engineers at Microsoft who don't know much more about real airplanes
than you do.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>>
>> Even autopilots don't necessarily turn right on the mark. It depends on
>> how
>> sophisticated the autopilot is (obviously airliners can afford better
>> ones
>> than small private aircraft).
>
> The master sim pilot speaks again.
>
> As usual you don't know ****. Some of the newer light aircraft
> autopilots, like the Garmin, are better than anything the airlines had for
> many years.
>
> But, the only autopilot you know is one that was written by software
> engineers at Microsoft who don't know much more about real airplanes than
> you do.

The Garmin autopilot only came out recently, but you are correct in that
others have had GPSS for quite some time. Most of the sophistication takes
place in the GPS, the FMS, and/or the GPSS rather than the autopilot itself.
With the advent of RNP the airlines have come up to speed significantly, but
there are still some carriers that don't even have GPS to this day, and many
airline crews won't accept RNAV approaches even though they have been
readily available and highly used by GA for years.

As usual, Anthony doesn't have a clue past what he can learn via MSFS.

By his comment, it might actually appear that Anthony has really flown
multiple different airplanes, and has knowledge about tracking VORs and
autopilots.

Of course, he has never used an autopilot of any kind, and he has never
flown anything other than a game with a joystick.

Viperdoc writes:

> By his comment, it might actually appear that Anthony has really flown
> multiple different airplanes, and has knowledge about tracking VORs and
> autopilots.
>
> Of course, he has never used an autopilot of any kind, and he has never
> flown anything other than a game with a joystick.

If the comment is correct, as you imply, then the source of the knowledge is
irrelevant.

I did not imply that your answer was correct. You, in fact, were misleading
and factually incorrect, particularly regarding your statement about the
level of technology in GA versus airliners.

Your recommendations and conclusions were also invalid, since the techniques
that you suggested were irrelevant, and neither practiced nor taught.

Your pedantic writing style in inversely proportional to your actual
experience, which is nil.

In other words, your post, as in all of your posts, is meaningless, since
you don't fly, never have, and never will.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> If the comment is correct

It isn't

>, as you imply

He didn't

> then the source of the knowledge is irrelevant.

You certainly are.

Viperdoc writes:

> I did not imply that your answer was correct.

If you found my answer incorrect, you could do everyone a considerable service
by providing the correct answer, instead of wasting paragraphs at a time
displaying your unhealthy obsession with me personally.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Viperdoc writes:
>
>
>>By his comment, it might actually appear that Anthony has really flown
>>multiple different airplanes, and has knowledge about tracking VORs and
>>autopilots.
>>
>>Of course, he has never used an autopilot of any kind, and he has never
>>flown anything other than a game with a joystick.
>
>
> If the comment is correct, as you imply, then the source of the knowledge is
> irrelevant.

Help me understand RNP SAAAR sir. What is the difference between RNP
0.10 and RNP 0.30 in the minimums boxes of the IAP?

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0812/06741RRZ8.PDF

You could do us all a favor by not posting your ridiculous comments anymore.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> If you found my answer incorrect, you could do everyone a considerable
> service
> by providing the correct answer, instead of wasting paragraphs at a time
> displaying your unhealthy obsession with me personally.

The smart student prefers to learn the correct information, rather than
analyse and argue over the wrong answer.

Beauciphus writes:

> The smart student prefers to learn the correct information, rather than
> analyse and argue over the wrong answer.

Agreed. And the smart teacher provides the correct answer, instead of
yielding to obsessive compulsions.

Sam Spade writes:

> Help me understand RNP SAAAR sir. What is the difference between RNP
> 0.10 and RNP 0.30 in the minimums boxes of the IAP?

Sir, the minimums to be used are those corresponding to the RNP for which the
crew, operator, and aircraft are authorized. Thus, if the crew, operator, and
aircraft are authorized for a RNP of 0.10, they will use the minimums
associated with that RNP on the plate; if they are qualified only for a RNP of
0.30, they will use those minimums instead. Notice that the minimums are
lower for more stringent RNPs.

If you have a SAAAR RNP authorization, you already know this. If you don't
already know this, you don't have the authorization, and so it doesn't matter,
since you cannot use this SAAAR approach.

Reference the AIM and AC 90-101 (from which the AIM text is largely lifted)
for further information, or just google for it.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Beauciphus writes:

> Agreed. And the smart teacher provides the correct answer, instead of
> yielding to obsessive compulsions.

I guess my law professors must be stupid.

I guess my medical school teachers were pretty stupid as well. At least they
wouldn't tolerate lazy students who pleaded ignorance when they could look
things up, or worse, people who gave BS answers and made up responses
instead of taking responsibility for not knowing.

Of course, Anthony has expounded at length on medicine as well as law,
although he knows as little about these subjects as he does about flying.

Anthony, what minima do you use based upon your own flying experiences?

On Dec 6, 4:57*pm, "Viperdoc" > wrote:

> Of course, he has never used an autopilot of any kind, and he has never
> flown anything other than a game with a joystick.

Vipe, Vipe Vipe.... Somebody been brainwashing you? :-))))

How does one ***fly*** (or flown) a desktop MSFS simulator?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fly

The rest of the world understands the definition of flying- I was just
trying to help Anthony with the concept, which he obviously has trouble
grasping.

Beauciphus writes:

> I guess my law professors must be stupid.

Obsessive and compulsive behavior is not necessarily an indication of
stupidity, but stupid often behave irrationally.

Viperdoc writes:

> I guess my medical school teachers were pretty stupid as well. At least they
> wouldn't tolerate lazy students who pleaded ignorance when they could look
> things up, or worse, people who gave BS answers and made up responses
> instead of taking responsibility for not knowing.

How did they treat students who spent their time attacking other students
instead of studying and participating in class?

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Beauciphus writes:
>
>> I guess my law professors must be stupid.
>
> Obsessive and compulsive behavior is not necessarily an indication of
> stupidity, but stupid often behave irrationally.

Stepped right into it.

Anthony, your response suggests that somehow you have taken offense at my
responses. Have any of them been factually incorrect? I'm rather surprised
since you have stated on multiple times that you were immune to personal
insults and had little emotional response in this regard.

I have simply been attempting to accurately point out that despite your
pronouncements you are not a pilot, and have actually no experience at all
regarding flying (or medicine or law).

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Viperdoc writes:
>
> > I guess my medical school teachers were pretty stupid as well. At least
they
> > wouldn't tolerate lazy students who pleaded ignorance when they could
look
> > things up, or worse, people who gave BS answers and made up responses
> > instead of taking responsibility for not knowing.
>
> How did they treat students who spent their time attacking other students
> instead of studying and participating in class?

If a student was continuously disrupting the class, it wouldn't be up to the
real students to respond. The disruptive student would be banned from
further participation.

If, for some reason, the administration refused to act to remove the
disruption, the students would be justified in taking it upon themselves to
remove the disruption.

The short answer is that you would get you ass kicked one way or another.
Cowering in your apartment wouldn't save you.

Beauciphus writes:

> If a student was continuously disrupting the class, it wouldn't be up to the
> real students to respond. The disruptive student would be banned from
> further participation.

Are constant personal attacks directed at other students disruptive?

> If, for some reason, the administration refused to act to remove the
> disruption, the students would be justified in taking it upon themselves to
> remove the disruption.

How would they go about that?

> The short answer is that you would get you ass kicked one way or another.

So you advocate violence? Do you feel frustrated?

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> So you advocate violence? Do you feel frustrated?

Stepped right in it again.

Anthony, what did your last post have to do with aviation? I thought you
were immune to the opinions of others, and didn't care what others thought?

No matter how much you read or think you know, you have no credibility since
you have zero experience, and this applies to law, medicine, flying, or
breast feeding.

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> Anthony, what did your last post have to do with aviation? I thought you
> were immune to the opinions of others, and didn't care what others
thought?
>
> No matter how much you read or think you know, you have no credibility
since
> you have zero experience, and this applies to law, medicine, flying, or
> breast feeding.
>
He's about as predictable as gravity, and pretty easily provoked to show off
his ignorance.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Beauciphus writes:
>
>
>>If a student was continuously disrupting the class, it wouldn't be up to the
>>real students to respond. The disruptive student would be banned from
>>further participation.
>
>
> Are constant personal attacks directed at other students disruptive?
>
>
>>If, for some reason, the administration refused to act to remove the
>>disruption, the students would be justified in taking it upon themselves to
>>remove the disruption.
>
>
> How would they go about that?
>
>
>>The short answer is that you would get you ass kicked one way or another.
>
>
> So you advocate violence? Do you feel frustrated?

Where did he advocate violence. The only violence is that committed by
you, the loud, unqualified imposter.

Viperdoc wrote:

> Anthony, what did your last post have to do with aviation? I thought you
> were immune to the opinions of others, and didn't care what others thought?
>
> No matter how much you read or think you know, you have no credibility since
> you have zero experience, and this applies to law, medicine, flying, or
> breast feeding.
>
>
But, he is very good at eating Pizza.

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>Help me understand RNP SAAAR sir. What is the difference between RNP
>>0.10 and RNP 0.30 in the minimums boxes of the IAP?
>
>
> Sir, the minimums to be used are those corresponding to the RNP for which the
> crew, operator, and aircraft are authorized. Thus, if the crew, operator, and
> aircraft are authorized for a RNP of 0.10, they will use the minimums
> associated with that RNP on the plate; if they are qualified only for a RNP of
> 0.30, they will use those minimums instead. Notice that the minimums are
> lower for more stringent RNPs.
>
> If you have a SAAAR RNP authorization, you already know this. If you don't
> already know this, you don't have the authorization, and so it doesn't matter,
> since you cannot use this SAAAR approach.
>
> Reference the AIM and AC 90-101 (from which the AIM text is largely lifted)
> for further information, or just google for it.

Your answers I could glean from the chart. But, what are the aircraft
and crew requirements for:

1. RNP 0.30

2. RNP 0.10

wrote:

> On Dec 6, 4:57 pm, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
>
>
>>Of course, he has never used an autopilot of any kind, and he has never
>>flown anything other than a game with a joystick.
>
>
> Vipe, Vipe Vipe.... Somebody been brainwashing you? :-))))
>
> How does one ***fly*** (or flown) a desktop MSFS simulator?
>

In any case, it is a computer game. It is not a flight simulator by the
wildest stretch of the imagination (well, except for Anthony's wild
imagination.)

Sam Spade writes:

> Your answers I could glean from the chart. But, what are the aircraft
> and crew requirements for:
>
> 1. RNP 0.30
>
> 2. RNP 0.10

I know that below 0.3 dual autopilots driven directly by the RNAV equipment
are required, for the aircraft.

There are indeed a few differences in training requirements between RNP 0.3
and RNP 0.1, but I haven't bothered to study them because I don't need to
care. However, you can look them up if you need to--the sources I gave are a
start. I don't imagine too many Cessnas are flying RNP 0.1 approaches.

>> 2. RNP 0.10
>
> I know that below 0.3 dual autopilots driven directly by the RNAV
> equipment
> are required, for the aircraft.

Anthony, are there many autopilots that don't couple to the nav equipment?
Can you name some?
>
> There are indeed a few differences in training requirements between RNP
> 0.3
> and RNP 0.1, but I haven't bothered to study them because I don't need to
> care. However, you can look them up if you need to--the sources I gave are
> a
> start. I don't imagine too many Cessnas are flying RNP 0.1 approaches.

Who mentioned anything about Cessnas? How many Cessnas have dual AP? What
type and brand?

Of course you don't know- you look up something in a book in isolation, and
seem to think that it imparts wisdom and experience, which of course you
have neither.

Viperdoc writes:

> Who mentioned anything about Cessnas?

Most of the pilots here have never flown airliners, or even any aircraft
equipped for the type of navigation under discussion. Note that the original
topic was VORs.

> How many Cessnas have dual AP? What type and brand?

None, as far as I know. Even if someone is making it for Cessnas, it would
cost more than the airframe. (I'm talking about aircraft like 182s or 152s,
not jets.)

>
> None, as far as I know. Even if someone is making it for Cessnas, it
> would
> cost more than the airframe. (I'm talking about aircraft like 182s or
> 152s,
> not jets.)

You were also incorrect in your original response regarding VORs. How much
does an STEC autopilot cost? How much does a 182 cost?

You are wrong again, as usual, and this is because you know nothing about
flying, and even less about airplanes.

Mxsmanic > wrote:

>> How many Cessnas have dual AP? What type and brand?
>
> None, as far as I know. Even if someone is making it for Cessnas, it would
> cost more than the airframe. (I'm talking about aircraft like 182s or 152s,

I am personally aware of a Bonanza that has dual auto-pilots. Actually,
if you count a yaw-dampener (and I don't), it has three auto-pilots.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...

Viperdoc: How much does an STEC autopilot cost?

MX: About a hundred dollars

Viperdoc: How much does a 182 cost?

MX: About a hundred dollars

So here we have a discussion between two of Tom Cruise's sidekicks:
Viper(doc), the instructor from Top Gun, and Raymond, his brother in Rain
Man.

I think Anthony's Aspergers has evolved into full blown Autism.

Frank Stutzman writes:

> I am personally aware of a Bonanza that has dual auto-pilots. Actually,
> if you count a yaw-dampener (and I don't), it has three auto-pilots.

Is it certified for RNP 0.1 approaches?

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>Your answers I could glean from the chart. But, what are the aircraft
>>and crew requirements for:
>>
>>1. RNP 0.30
>>
>>2. RNP 0.10
>
>
> I know that below 0.3 dual autopilots driven directly by the RNAV equipment
> are required, for the aircraft.
>
> There are indeed a few differences in training requirements between RNP 0.3
> and RNP 0.1, but I haven't bothered to study them because I don't need to
> care. However, you can look them up if you need to--the sources I gave are a
> start. I don't imagine too many Cessnas are flying RNP 0.1 approaches.

I already know a lot about the subject. I was checking your knowledge
level, which is close to zero. I expected that since none of the
aircraft in Microsoft Flight Game have RNP capability.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Frank Stutzman writes:
>
>> I am personally aware of a Bonanza that has dual auto-pilots. Actually,
>> if you count a yaw-dampener (and I don't), it has three auto-pilots.
>
> Is it certified for RNP 0.1 approaches?

I could answer that, but I've watched these discussions enough to know
that is pointless...

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

Sam Spade writes:

> I already know a lot about the subject.

Prove it. Answer your own questions, for a start. It's always useful to
share knowledge.

Frank Stutzman writes:

> I could answer that ...

No, you couldn't.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Frank Stutzman writes:
>
> > I could answer that ...
>
> No, you couldn't.

You're losing your touch.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Sam Spade writes:
>
> > I already know a lot about the subject.
>
> Prove it. Answer your own questions, for a start. It's always useful to
> share knowledge.

Trying to become an internet tough-guy?

Anthony, at least it looks like he has a plane and flies- what about you?

Anthony said:
>> Prove it. Answer your own questions, for a start. It's always useful to
>> share knowledge.


Anthony, why do you keep posting, when you should realize by now that every
time you make a single post, you will never receive an answer or a positive
response to what you've written?

This is because you lack credibility and experience, and are therefore
disrepected. This will never change unless the unlikely event occurs when
you actually fly an airplane and gain experience.

Until then, you will always be treated as the pompous wannabe you are.
>

Beauciphus writes:

> Trying to become an internet tough-guy?

No, just calling someone's bluff.

>
> No, just calling someone's bluff.

Anthony, how would you know whether he was bluffing or not? Just a few
months ago you were askiing the location of the ejection seat switch on a
Baron! (We all know it's like an Aces II, just pull the yellow and black
ring between your legs).

Of course, it's not visible on MSFS, so this is why you probably missed it.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Beauciphus writes:
>
>> Trying to become an internet tough-guy?
>
> No, just calling someone's bluff.

It really doesn't matter if he know or not. You are not worthy of an answer.

Viperdoc writes:

> ... how would you know whether he was bluffing or not?

Someone who is bluffing will never answer the question, despite the obvious
advantages of doing so.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> ... how would you know whether he was bluffing or not?
>
> Someone who is bluffing will never answer the question, despite the
> obvious
> advantages of doing so.

I see no advantage. I have no interest in the answer, and most real pilots
wouldn't. It's simply trivia.

Someone who is bluffing will never answer the question, despite the
>> obvious
>> advantages of doing so

There is no advantage in doing so, since any pilot would obviously know the
answer.

The premise of your logic is flawed, and based upon the fact that you do not
understand anything near to what you think about flying, since you have no
experience.

You are not worth the time or effort to formulate a considered or respectful
answer, and this is why you will always be castigated on this and other NGs.

Beauciphus writes:

> I see no advantage. I have no interest in the answer, and most real pilots
> wouldn't. It's simply trivia.

It apparently wasn't trivia when I was asked. When did its status change?

Viperdoc writes:

> There is no advantage in doing so, since any pilot would obviously know the
> answer.

Then there is no point in asking me the same questions, is there? And it's a
bit contradictory to refuse to answer a question and then criticize someone
else for not answering it, isn't it?

> You are not worth the time or effort to formulate a considered or respectful
> answer, and this is why you will always be castigated on this and other NGs.

You post to me regularly even though I usually don't even respond, so
obviously it's worth a great deal to you. You do realize how transparent this
is, don't you?

>
> Then there is no point in asking me the same questions, is there? And
> it's a
> bit contradictory to refuse to answer a question and then criticize
> someone
> else for not answering it, isn't it?

Again, the logic of your response is specious and circular, but typical for
everything else you've written.
>
>> You are not worth the time or effort to formulate a considered or
>> respectful
>> answer, and this is why you will always be castigated on this and other
>> NGs.
>
> You post to me regularly even though I usually don't even respond, so
> obviously it's worth a great deal to you. You do realize how transparent
> this
> is, don't you?

I do not post to you, I post on the NG. You actually mean very little to me
other than as a source of amusement since your pronouncements and pedantic
comments are generally ludicrous.

However, keep trying, because every post you make will garner a similar
response, since your idiocy and recalcitrance are a great comic relief.

Of course, I do not expect you to remotely understand this, which is why you
have been so unsuccessful in your other endeavors.

The status changed when people on the NG realized who originated the
question. Actually it was your ridiculous and pompous response that
generated the feedback.

Of course, you'll never understand.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>I already know a lot about the subject.
>
>
> Prove it. Answer your own questions, for a start. It's always useful to
> share knowledge.

How could I possibly prove it to you?

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Beauciphus writes:
>
>
>>Trying to become an internet tough-guy?
>
>
> No, just calling someone's bluff.

Show's even more what you don't know.

Sam Spade writes:

> How could I possibly prove it to you?

Answering your own questions would be an excellent start (although I realize
it's possible to look up answers).

But Anthony, he, like most reasonable people, is not like you. Unlike
yourself, he will not ask questions when he thinks he already has the
answer..
Of course, his answers have more validity than yours, since he appears to
actually fly an airplane.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>How could I possibly prove it to you?
>
>
> Answering your own questions would be an excellent start (although I realize
> it's possible to look up answers).

Why don't you join AOPA. Then you can participate on the IFR sections
of the AOPA Forums where no one can hide behind a basically useless Use
Net form like this.

There you would be praised for your knowledge and held accountable by
your peers for bogus material.

This forum is basically nothing more than aviation masturbation.

Sam Spade writes:

> Why don't you join AOPA.

I don't have any money, and I was under the impression that it required one to
be a licensed pilot to join.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>Why don't you join AOPA.
>
>
> I don't have any money, and I was under the impression that it required one to
> be a licensed pilot to join.

Nope. You can apply for a non-voting membership. Or, even if you're
not a pilot and have ever owned an aircraft (and they wouldn't know) you
can apply for a voting membership.

https://www.aopa.org/join/index.cfm?SA=AddressForm&WT.svl=JoinNavHeader

If you can't afford the $40 for a year's membership you are truly in bad
straits.

Maybe the folks here can pass the hat.

Sam Spade writes:

> If you can't afford the $40 for a year's membership you are truly in bad
> straits.

Not only is it difficult to afford, but I have no means of electronic payment.
But I'll keep it in mind.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>If you can't afford the $40 for a year's membership you are truly in bad
>>straits.
>
>
> Not only is it difficult to afford, but I have no means of electronic payment.
> But I'll keep it in mind.

I suspect they would accept payment by ordinary mail.

Why waste the time- we should all know by now that Anthony is actually
afraid of learning.

Viperdoc wrote:
> Why waste the time- we should all know by now that Anthony is actually
> afraid of learning.
>
>
I want to get him on AOPA, where he can share his knowledge on a
moderated forum.

He has done his usual rationalization for not participating on a moderated
forum, but the bottom line is that he would not get any responses because
his questions do not reflect any actual flying experience, despite his
pedantic attitude.

Viperdoc wrote:
> He has done his usual rationalization for not participating on a moderated
> forum, but the bottom line is that he would not get any responses because
> his questions do not reflect any actual flying experience, despite his
> pedantic attitude.
>
>
Oh, he would get responses for a time, until folks used the ignore button.

I was smoking him out hoping him to prove me wrong. But, not eligible
to join, oh...no way to send money electronically,oh...too poor.

That sums it all up.