When I asked an airline caption how many type ratings he held, he told me,
"Actually, I have 6 and a half,

figure that one out."


Well, I went to Google to try to figure it out and came up empty-handed, so
can someone please enlighten me?

I'm gonna guess that everything was done in a simulator, including the
start-up?????

On Jan 10, 8:37*am, "Shelly" > wrote:
> When I asked an airline caption how many type ratings he held, he told me,
> "Actually, *I have 6 and a half,
>
> figure that one out."

If you know his name you can look it up at registry.faa.gov. Perhaps
he had a 757 type rating when the 767 came out? Perhaps he has a type
rating limited to VFR or SIC?
I've also found that many captains really dislike answering questions
from GA pilots and have built it BS answers (epecially if this was
United, most of their pilots are jerks). I asked a pilot in Denver (on
a 100F day) if the density altitude was intersting that day. He said
"I don't worry about that stuff I have go to either way; just as long
as the wheels don't hit anything". Clealry he was just patting me on
the head and telling me to go away.


-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 10, 8:37 am, "Shelly" > wrote:
> When I asked an airline caption how many type ratings he held, he told me,
> "Actually, I have 6 and a half,
>
> figure that one out."

If you know his name you can look it up at registry.faa.gov. Perhaps
he had a 757 type rating when the 767 came out? Perhaps he has a type
rating limited to VFR or SIC?
I've also found that many captains really dislike answering questions
from GA pilots and have built it BS answers (epecially if this was
United, most of their pilots are jerks). I asked a pilot in Denver (on
a 100F day) if the density altitude was intersting that day. He said
"I don't worry about that stuff I have go to either way; just as long
as the wheels don't hit anything". Clealry he was just patting me on
the head and telling me to go away.


-Robert

----------------------------------------------------------

I had a similar experience years ago with a couple of Thunderbird pilots.
Although according to the speaker of the private event I was attending, they
were stationed next to their planes for display and questions. If you ask
them anything except personal questions about themselves, you just got a
****tly little smirk and the old "that's classified" nonsense. After about
the second or third question I had enough.

If you know his name you can look it up at registry.faa.gov. Perhaps
he had a 757 type rating when the 767 came out? Perhaps he has a type
rating limited to VFR or SIC?

I do have his first and last name now. He works for US air, currently flies
the Scarebus 320 and a captain at 52 y/o, I hope he would be. lol.

His answer was, "i have 6 and half type ratings but 7 are listed on the back
my license."

Don't you just hate it when pilots want to make u look STUPID!?

Shel


I've also found that many captains really dislike answering questions
from GA pilots and have built it BS answers (epecially if this was
United, most of their pilots are jerks). I asked a pilot in Denver (on
a 100F day) if the density altitude was intersting that day. He said
"I don't worry about that stuff I have go to either way; just as long
as the wheels don't hit anything". Clealry he was just patting me on
the head and telling me to go away.


-Robert

He was probably halfway through another rating.

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Jan 10, 8:37 am, "Shelly" > wrote:
>> When I asked an airline caption how many type ratings he held, he told
>> me,
>> "Actually, I have 6 and a half,
>>
>> figure that one out."
>
> If you know his name you can look it up at registry.faa.gov. Perhaps
> he had a 757 type rating when the 767 came out? Perhaps he has a type
> rating limited to VFR or SIC?
> I've also found that many captains really dislike answering questions
> from GA pilots and have built it BS answers (epecially if this was
> United, most of their pilots are jerks). I asked a pilot in Denver (on
> a 100F day) if the density altitude was intersting that day. He said
> "I don't worry about that stuff I have go to either way; just as long
> as the wheels don't hit anything". Clealry he was just patting me on
> the head and telling me to go away.
>
>
> -Robert
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> I had a similar experience years ago with a couple of Thunderbird pilots.
> Although according to the speaker of the private event I was attending,
> they were stationed next to their planes for display and questions. If you
> ask them anything except personal questions about themselves, you just got
> a ****tly little smirk and the old "that's classified" nonsense. After
> about the second or third question I had enough.

No doubt they had enough of you well before, Anthony.

Perhaps we should try the same line and see if it works here on you also.

On Jan 10, 7:48*pm, "Aluckyguess" > wrote:
> He was probably halfway through another rating.

He stated, we read, that it's on his card, so he satisfied an examiner
enough to earn it. He may not consider himself qualified though.

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:38:13 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote:

>On Jan 10, 8:37*am, "Shelly" > wrote:
>> When I asked an airline caption how many type ratings he held, he told me,
>> "Actually, *I have 6 and a half,
>>
>> figure that one out."
>
>If you know his name you can look it up at registry.faa.gov. Perhaps
>he had a 757 type rating when the 767 came out? Perhaps he has a type
>rating limited to VFR or SIC?
>I've also found that many captains really dislike answering questions
>from GA pilots and have built it BS answers (epecially if this was
>United, most of their pilots are jerks). I asked a pilot in Denver (on
>a 100F day) if the density altitude was intersting that day. He said
>"I don't worry about that stuff I have go to either way; just as long
>as the wheels don't hit anything". Clealry he was just patting me on
>the head and telling me to go away.
>
>
>-Robert

I dont think you were getting the shift at all.
In commercial service the guy is flying to a timetable with an
aircraft with lots of reserve power.
as he says he doesnt worry about that stuff because he has to fly it
anyway.

I used to worry about weather.
I've found that my aircraft tankers along enough fuel to be able to do
a 300 mile leg into a 15 knot headwind and still have an hour spare at
the other end. honestly as long as the air isnt opaque I'm going to
fly the leg anyway.

in our military's flying the cruise speed is over 250knots. I know
that they do not factor wind speed in their calcs because it is
insignificant.

most of high end aviation is spared the concerns of the private guy
because of the substantially higher performance of their aircraft.

Stealth Pilot

Stealth Pilot wrote:

> in our military's flying the cruise speed is over 250knots. I know
> that they do not factor wind speed in their calcs because it is
> insignificant.
> Stealth Pilot

That simply cannot be true

"a" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 10, 7:48 pm, "Aluckyguess" > wrote:
>> He was probably halfway through another rating.

>He stated, we read, that it's on his card, so he satisfied an examiner
>enough to earn it. He may not consider himself qualified though.

More likely just being a smartass.
--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

"Flydive" > wrote in message
...
> Stealth Pilot wrote:
>
>> in our military's flying the cruise speed is over 250knots. I know
>> that they do not factor wind speed in their calcs because it is
>> insignificant.
>> Stealth Pilot
>
> That simply cannot be true

You are exactly right.

I used to occasionally ship freight on passenger flights, and cargo is
frequently omitted when the combination of wind, temperature, and runway
length don't quite work out. The leg is still flown, unless the conditions
are REALLY bad, and the passengers don't know the difference; but the
freight gets bumped due to temperature, wind (incuding extra fuel
requirements) and the amount of passenger baggage carried.

Peter

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:51:05 +0000, Flydive > wrote:

>Stealth Pilot wrote:
>
>> in our military's flying the cruise speed is over 250knots. I know
>> that they do not factor wind speed in their calcs because it is
>> insignificant.
>> Stealth Pilot
>
>That simply cannot be true

well it is the case. do the calcs yourself on a whizwheel.
250 knots and a worst case of 10 knots from the side.
remember that the calcs are for fuel burn and range the actual flying
being done with instrument assistance.

Stealth Pilot wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:51:05 +0000, Flydive > wrote:
>> That simply cannot be true
>
> well it is the case. do the calcs yourself on a whizwheel.
> 250 knots and a worst case of 10 knots from the side.

Are you pulling our leg?

OK, worst case head wind is 100+kts at turbine altitudes, which is
significant for anything subsonic. 250k? Maybe you're talking about a
turboprop, still those need to get up high enough for any longish legs
where a 50k headwind is not a surprise at all.

I always thought, as another poster alluded to, that large commercial
aircraft are often flown at the limits of weight imposed by performance
restrictions -- involving runway length at origin and destination,
density altitude, etc.... So I think all of the above are factors...
T

Stealth Pilot wrote:
>
> well it is the case. do the calcs yourself on a whizwheel.
> 250 knots and a worst case of 10 knots from the side.
> remember that the calcs are for fuel burn and range the actual flying
> being done with instrument assistance.


You kidding right?

At cruise levels you routinely see winds of 50, 100, or more knots.
Cruise at 450 kts and factor a head wind of 100 kts and you'll see it
makes a big difference on range.

For t/o winds and temperature are always taken into account, again can
make a big difference on load you can carry.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:17:32 +0000, Flydive > wrote:

>Stealth Pilot wrote:
>>
>> well it is the case. do the calcs yourself on a whizwheel.
>> 250 knots and a worst case of 10 knots from the side.
>> remember that the calcs are for fuel burn and range the actual flying
>> being done with instrument assistance.
>
>
>You kidding right?
>
>At cruise levels you routinely see winds of 50, 100, or more knots.
>Cruise at 450 kts and factor a head wind of 100 kts and you'll see it
>makes a big difference on range.
>
>For t/o winds and temperature are always taken into account, again can
>make a big difference on load you can carry.

no I'm not kidding. I'm referring to Pilatus PC9's in training roles.

On Jan 11, 12:26*pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My
Sig.com> wrote:
> "a" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Jan 10, 7:48 pm, "Aluckyguess" > wrote:
>
> >> He was probably halfway through another rating.
> >He stated, we read, that it's on his card, so he satisfied an examiner
> >enough to earn it. He may not consider himself qualified though.
>
> More likely just being a smartass.
> --


Occam's Razor and all that

On Jan 12, 11:43*am, wrote:
> On Jan 11, 12:26*pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My
>
> Sig.com> wrote:
> > "a" > wrote in message
>
> ....
> > On Jan 10, 7:48 pm, "Aluckyguess" > wrote:
>
> > >> He was probably halfway through another rating.
> > >He stated, we read, that it's on his card, so he satisfied an examiner
> > >enough to earn it. He may not consider himself qualified though.
>
> > More likely just being a smartass.
> > --
>
> Occam's Razor and all that

I was actually thinking about golf, where players at the highest level
are often heard to say they are still trying to figure out how to play
the game. I'd have great respect for an experienced pilot who said he
was only halfway through learning what he needed to know.

The difference may be good golfers for the most part will call rules
infractions on themselves. Compare that attitude with those here
who. . . well, never mind.

"a" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 12, 11:43 am, wrote:
> On Jan 11, 12:26 pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My
>
> Sig.com> wrote:
> > "a" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > On Jan 10, 7:48 pm, "Aluckyguess" > wrote:
>
> > >> He was probably halfway through another rating.
> > >He stated, we read, that it's on his card, so he satisfied an examiner
> > >enough to earn it. He may not consider himself qualified though.
>
> > More likely just being a smartass.
> > --
>
> Occam's Razor and all that

I was actually thinking about golf, where players at the highest level
are often heard to say they are still trying to figure out how to play
the game. I'd have great respect for an experienced pilot who said he
was only halfway through learning what he needed to know.

The difference may be good golfers for the most part will call rules
infractions on themselves. Compare that attitude with those here
who. . . well, never mind.

---------new post begins----------

Actually, I believe that things were different before Elizabeth Dole.

Sadly, the old ways have not yet returned in her absence.

"Shelly" wrote
> When I asked an airline caption how many type ratings he held, he told
> me, "Actually, I have 6 and a half,

One possibility...........FAR 61.157...All training accomplished in a
Category D Simulator.
An excerpt:
(9) An applicant issued a pilot certificate with the limitation specified
in paragraph (g)(8) of this section--
(i) May not act as pilot in command of the aircraft for which an additional
rating was obtained under the provisions of this section until the
limitation is removed from the certificate; and
(ii) May have the limitation removed by accomplishing 25 hours of
supervised operating experience as pilot in command under the supervision
of a qualified and current pilot in command, in the seat normally occupied
by the pilot in command, in an airplane of the same type for which the
limitation applies.

Bob Moore
CFI ATP B-727 B-707
PanAm (retired)

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On Jan 10, 8:37*am, "Shelly" > wrote:
>> When I asked an airline caption how many type ratings he held, he
>> told me
> ,
>> "Actually, *I have 6 and a half,
>>
>> figure that one out."
>
> If you know his name you can look it up at registry.faa.gov. Perhaps
> he had a 757 type rating when the 767 came out?


Other way around



Perhaps he has a type
> rating limited to VFR or SIC?
> I've also found that many captains really dislike answering questions
> from GA pilots and have built it BS answers (epecially if this was
> United, most of their pilots are jerks). I asked a pilot in Denver (on
> a 100F day) if the density altitude was intersting that day. He said
> "I don't worry about that stuff I have go to either way; just as long
> as the wheels don't hit anything". Clealry he was just patting me on
> the head and telling me to go away.
>

Bet you didn't somehow

Bertie

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in
:

>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> news:da1b6b26-02ae-4f81-bb54-
..
> . On Jan 10, 8:37 am, "Shelly" > wrote:
>> When I asked an airline caption how many type ratings he held, he
>> told me, "Actually, I have 6 and a half,
>>
>> figure that one out."
>
> If you know his name you can look it up at registry.faa.gov. Perhaps
> he had a 757 type rating when the 767 came out? Perhaps he has a type
> rating limited to VFR or SIC?
> I've also found that many captains really dislike answering questions
> from GA pilots and have built it BS answers (epecially if this was
> United, most of their pilots are jerks). I asked a pilot in Denver (on
> a 100F day) if the density altitude was intersting that day. He said
> "I don't worry about that stuff I have go to either way; just as long
> as the wheels don't hit anything". Clealry he was just patting me on
> the head and telling me to go away.
>
>
> -Robert
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> I had a similar experience years ago with a couple of Thunderbird
> pilots. Although according to the speaker of the private event I was
> attending, they were stationed next to their planes for display and
> questions. If you ask them anything except personal questions about
> themselves, you just got a ****tly little smirk and the old "that's
> classified" nonsense. After about the second or third question I had
> enough.
>

What, not enough abuse for you?


Bertie

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:38:13 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
> > wrote:
>
>>On Jan 10, 8:37*am, "Shelly" > wrote:
>>> When I asked an airline caption how many type ratings he held, he
>>> told me, "Actually, *I have 6 and a half,
>>>
>>> figure that one out."
>>
>>If you know his name you can look it up at registry.faa.gov. Perhaps
>>he had a 757 type rating when the 767 came out? Perhaps he has a type
>>rating limited to VFR or SIC?
>>I've also found that many captains really dislike answering questions
>>from GA pilots and have built it BS answers (epecially if this was
>>United, most of their pilots are jerks). I asked a pilot in Denver (on
>>a 100F day) if the density altitude was intersting that day. He said
>>"I don't worry about that stuff I have go to either way; just as long
>>as the wheels don't hit anything". Clealry he was just patting me on
>>the head and telling me to go away.
>>
>>
>>-Robert
>
> I dont think you were getting the shift at all.
> In commercial service the guy is flying to a timetable with an
> aircraft with lots of reserve power.
> as he says he doesnt worry about that stuff because he has to fly it
> anyway.
>
> I used to worry about weather.
> I've found that my aircraft tankers along enough fuel to be able to do
> a 300 mile leg into a 15 knot headwind and still have an hour spare at
> the other end. honestly as long as the air isnt opaque I'm going to
> fly the leg anyway.
>
> in our military's flying the cruise speed is over 250knots. I know
> that they do not factor wind speed in their calcs because it is
> insignificant.
>
> most of high end aviation is spared the concerns of the private guy
> because of the substantially higher performance of their aircraft.

Nope, sorry, all incorrect.
For one thing, wind can be very significant.
A headwind of 150 knots can put a big ent in your MPG
For anoher, we do not tanker a lot of fuel.
Destination, diversion and legal hold, period, unlss the weather is
filthy at the other end.
As for takeoff performance, it depends on the sector lenght, but the big
round things on the wings are made big to ensure one thing, payload.
The reserve power is good if you are nowhere near limiting performance ,
but if you are heavy or the runway is short, high or hot or a
combination, the performance becomes critical.

Bertie

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:17:32 +0000, Flydive > wrote:
>
>>Stealth Pilot wrote:
>>>
>>> well it is the case. do the calcs yourself on a whizwheel.
>>> 250 knots and a worst case of 10 knots from the side.
>>> remember that the calcs are for fuel burn and range the actual flying
>>> being done with instrument assistance.
>>
>>
>>You kidding right?
>>
>>At cruise levels you routinely see winds of 50, 100, or more knots.
>>Cruise at 450 kts and factor a head wind of 100 kts and you'll see it
>>makes a big difference on range.
>>
>>For t/o winds and temperature are always taken into account, again can
>>make a big difference on load you can carry.
>
> no I'm not kidding. I'm referring to Pilatus PC9's in training roles.
>

Yes, so? th eOP was talking about an airliner

Bertie

"Shelly" > wrote in
:

>
>
> If you know his name you can look it up at registry.faa.gov. Perhaps
> he had a 757 type rating when the 767 came out? Perhaps he has a type
> rating limited to VFR or SIC?
>
> I do have his first and last name now. He works for US air, currently
> flies the Scarebus 320 and a captain at 52 y/o, I hope he would be.
> lol.
>
> His answer was, "i have 6 and half type ratings but 7 are listed on
> the back my license."
>
> Don't you just hate it when pilots want to make u look STUPID!?
>

Ah, Ok
he might regard the Bus as somethign he can't actually fly..
what else is on it?


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...


Why, the only thing classified about you and your little pocket pal Mikey
Mouth, are your medical records.

"Flydive" > wrote in message
...
> Stealth Pilot wrote:
>>
>> well it is the case. do the calcs yourself on a whizwheel. 250 knots and
>> a worst case of 10 knots from the side.
>> remember that the calcs are for fuel burn and range the actual flying
>> being done with instrument assistance.
>
>
> You kidding right?
>
> At cruise levels you routinely see winds of 50, 100, or more knots.
> Cruise at 450 kts and factor a head wind of 100 kts and you'll see it
> makes a big difference on range.
>
> For t/o winds and temperature are always taken into account, again can
> make a big difference on load you can carry.

You and Tman might want to cut your losses on this one. You are arguing with
a moron that insists aircraft brakes are to hold the aircraft during run-up
only, and were never intended for stopping the aircraft.

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 02:20:32 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:17:32 +0000, Flydive > wrote:
>>
>>>Stealth Pilot wrote:
>>>>
>>>> well it is the case. do the calcs yourself on a whizwheel.
>>>> 250 knots and a worst case of 10 knots from the side.
>>>> remember that the calcs are for fuel burn and range the actual flying
>>>> being done with instrument assistance.
>>>
>>>
>>>You kidding right?
>>>
>>>At cruise levels you routinely see winds of 50, 100, or more knots.
>>>Cruise at 450 kts and factor a head wind of 100 kts and you'll see it
>>>makes a big difference on range.
>>>
>>>For t/o winds and temperature are always taken into account, again can
>>>make a big difference on load you can carry.
>>
>> no I'm not kidding. I'm referring to Pilatus PC9's in training roles.
>>
>
>Yes, so? th eOP was talking about an airliner
>
>Bertie

no. he was relating a comment made by a pilot which he thought was a
flick off. I dont think it was.

.....havent we all got something better to do?

On Jan 11, 7:33*am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:

> in our military's flying the cruise speed is over 250knots. I know
> that they do not factor wind speed in their calcs because it is
> insignificant.

I've seen winds approaching 100 knots over the North Atlantic. Is that
not significant?

-Robert

On Jan 12, 6:15*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> What, not enough abuse for you?

No, he was looking for an argument, abuse is down the hall (I know
only about 10% here will get that joke).

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 12, 6:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> What, not enough abuse for you?

>No, he was looking for an argument, abuse is down the hall (I know
>only about 10% here will get that joke).
>
>-Robert

Some sort of Monte Python joke?

It is not!

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 12, 6:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> What, not enough abuse for you?

No, he was looking for an argument, abuse is down the hall (I know
only about 10% here will get that joke).

-Robert

>
> One possibility...........FAR 61.157...All training accomplished in a
> Category D Simulator.
> An excerpt:
> (9) An applicant issued a pilot certificate with the limitation specified
> in paragraph (g)(8) of this section--
> (i) May not act as pilot in command of the aircraft for which an
> additional
> rating was obtained under the provisions of this section until the
> limitation is removed from the certificate; and
> (ii) May have the limitation removed by accomplishing 25 hours of
> supervised operating experience as pilot in command under the supervision
> of a qualified and current pilot in command, in the seat normally occupied
> by the pilot in command, in an airplane of the same type for which the
> limitation applies.
>
> Bob Moore
> CFI ATP B-727 B-707
> PanAm (retired)

Thank YOU, Robt. Every other CLOWN here can go to hell!!!

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 11, 7:33 am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:

> in our military's flying the cruise speed is over 250knots. I know
> that they do not factor wind speed in their calcs because it is
> insignificant.

I've seen winds approaching 100 knots over the North Atlantic. Is that
not significant?

-Robert

------------------new post begins--------------

That depends, it would be if I was flying there--even as a passenger.

Sitting here, in front of my computer, it's not significant at all.

Peter :-)))))

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 11, 7:33 am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:

> in our military's flying the cruise speed is over 250knots. I know
> that they do not factor wind speed in their calcs because it is
> insignificant.

I've seen winds approaching 100 knots over the North Atlantic. Is that
not significant?

-Robert

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I have experienced winds aloft approaching 85 knots over Northern Arkansas.

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in
:

>
> "Flydive" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Stealth Pilot wrote:
>>>
>>> well it is the case. do the calcs yourself on a whizwheel. 250 knots
>>> and a worst case of 10 knots from the side.
>>> remember that the calcs are for fuel burn and range the actual
>>> flying being done with instrument assistance.
>>
>>
>> You kidding right?
>>
>> At cruise levels you routinely see winds of 50, 100, or more knots.
>> Cruise at 450 kts and factor a head wind of 100 kts and you'll see it
>> makes a big difference on range.
>>
>> For t/o winds and temperature are always taken into account, again
>> can make a big difference on load you can carry.
>
> You and Tman might want to cut your losses on this one. You are
> arguing with a moron that insists aircraft brakes are to hold the
> aircraft during run-up only, and were never intended for stopping the
> aircraft.
>


never heard you say that.. Not surprised however.

Bertie

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 02:20:32 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:17:32 +0000, Flydive >
wrote:
>>>
>>>>Stealth Pilot wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> well it is the case. do the calcs yourself on a whizwheel.
>>>>> 250 knots and a worst case of 10 knots from the side.
>>>>> remember that the calcs are for fuel burn and range the actual
flying
>>>>> being done with instrument assistance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You kidding right?
>>>>
>>>>At cruise levels you routinely see winds of 50, 100, or more knots.
>>>>Cruise at 450 kts and factor a head wind of 100 kts and you'll see
it
>>>>makes a big difference on range.
>>>>
>>>>For t/o winds and temperature are always taken into account, again
can
>>>>make a big difference on load you can carry.
>>>
>>> no I'm not kidding. I'm referring to Pilatus PC9's in training
roles.
>>>
>>
>>Yes, so? th eOP was talking about an airliner
>>
>>Bertie
>
> no. he was relating a comment made by a pilot which he thought was a
> flick off. I dont think it was.


Nope,
>
> ....havent we all got something better to do?


Not at the moment!
Standby..

Bertie

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in
:

>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> .
> .. On Jan 11, 7:33 am, Stealth Pilot >
> wrote:
>
>> in our military's flying the cruise speed is over 250knots. I know
>> that they do not factor wind speed in their calcs because it is
>> insignificant.
>
> I've seen winds approaching 100 knots over the North Atlantic. Is that
> not significant?
>


Oooww!
That all? Seen over 200,

And often.






Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Stealth Pilot > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 02:20:32 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:17:32 +0000, Flydive >
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Stealth Pilot wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> well it is the case. do the calcs yourself on a whizwheel.
>>>>>> 250 knots and a worst case of 10 knots from the side.
>>>>>> remember that the calcs are for fuel burn and range the actual
> flying
>>>>>> being done with instrument assistance.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You kidding right?
>>>>>
>>>>>At cruise levels you routinely see winds of 50, 100, or more knots.
>>>>>Cruise at 450 kts and factor a head wind of 100 kts and you'll see
> it
>>>>>makes a big difference on range.
>>>>>
>>>>>For t/o winds and temperature are always taken into account, again
> can
>>>>>make a big difference on load you can carry.
>>>>
>>>> no I'm not kidding. I'm referring to Pilatus PC9's in training
> roles.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, so? th eOP was talking about an airliner
>>>
>>>Bertie
>>
>> no. he was relating a comment made by a pilot which he thought was a
>> flick off. I dont think it was.
>
>
> Nope,
>>
>> ....havent we all got something better to do?
>
>
> Not at the moment!
> Standby..
>
> Bertie

You never will!!!

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in news:GKocl.29953$H12.6282
@newsfe12.iad:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Stealth Pilot > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 02:20:32 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:17:32 +0000, Flydive >
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Stealth Pilot wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> well it is the case. do the calcs yourself on a whizwheel.
>>>>>>> 250 knots and a worst case of 10 knots from the side.
>>>>>>> remember that the calcs are for fuel burn and range the actual
>> flying
>>>>>>> being done with instrument assistance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You kidding right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>At cruise levels you routinely see winds of 50, 100, or more
knots.
>>>>>>Cruise at 450 kts and factor a head wind of 100 kts and you'll see
>> it
>>>>>>makes a big difference on range.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>For t/o winds and temperature are always taken into account, again
>> can
>>>>>>make a big difference on load you can carry.
>>>>>
>>>>> no I'm not kidding. I'm referring to Pilatus PC9's in training
>> roles.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes, so? th eOP was talking about an airliner
>>>>
>>>>Bertie
>>>
>>> no. he was relating a comment made by a pilot which he thought was a
>>> flick off. I dont think it was.
>>
>>
>> Nope,
>>>
>>> ....havent we all got something better to do?
>>
>>
>> Not at the moment!
>> Standby..
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You never will!!!
>
>

Not as long as you're here, fjukktard.

Bertie

Bertie

What is the NORMAL cruise RPM these days? Core, fan ????? Or where do
you set the bug?

In F-80 we used 100% from take off until retarded for landing.

Word then came down to only use 98% in cruise as that would give
longer engine life and save USAF money.

Big John

************************************************** ***********************

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 02:19:13 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:38:13 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On Jan 10, 8:37*am, "Shelly" > wrote:
>>>> When I asked an airline caption how many type ratings he held, he
>>>> told me, "Actually, *I have 6 and a half,
>>>>
>>>> figure that one out."
>>>
>>>If you know his name you can look it up at registry.faa.gov. Perhaps
>>>he had a 757 type rating when the 767 came out? Perhaps he has a type
>>>rating limited to VFR or SIC?
>>>I've also found that many captains really dislike answering questions
>>>from GA pilots and have built it BS answers (epecially if this was
>>>United, most of their pilots are jerks). I asked a pilot in Denver (on
>>>a 100F day) if the density altitude was intersting that day. He said
>>>"I don't worry about that stuff I have go to either way; just as long
>>>as the wheels don't hit anything". Clealry he was just patting me on
>>>the head and telling me to go away.
>>>
>>>
>>>-Robert
>>
>> I dont think you were getting the shift at all.
>> In commercial service the guy is flying to a timetable with an
>> aircraft with lots of reserve power.
>> as he says he doesnt worry about that stuff because he has to fly it
>> anyway.
>>
>> I used to worry about weather.
>> I've found that my aircraft tankers along enough fuel to be able to do
>> a 300 mile leg into a 15 knot headwind and still have an hour spare at
>> the other end. honestly as long as the air isnt opaque I'm going to
>> fly the leg anyway.
>>
>> in our military's flying the cruise speed is over 250knots. I know
>> that they do not factor wind speed in their calcs because it is
>> insignificant.
>>
>> most of high end aviation is spared the concerns of the private guy
>> because of the substantially higher performance of their aircraft.
>
>Nope, sorry, all incorrect.
>For one thing, wind can be very significant.
>A headwind of 150 knots can put a big ent in your MPG
>For anoher, we do not tanker a lot of fuel.
>Destination, diversion and legal hold, period, unlss the weather is
>filthy at the other end.
>As for takeoff performance, it depends on the sector lenght, but the big
>round things on the wings are made big to ensure one thing, payload.
>The reserve power is good if you are nowhere near limiting performance ,
>but if you are heavy or the runway is short, high or hot or a
>combination, the performance becomes critical.
>
>Bertie

<Tech Support> wrote in message
...
> Bertie
>
> What is the NORMAL cruise RPM these days? Core, fan ????? Or where do
> you set the bug?
>
> In F-80 we used 100% from take off until retarded for landing.
>
> Word then came down to only use 98% in cruise as that would give
> longer engine life and save USAF money.
>
> Big John
>


Quick Gertie, go find your book.

Tech Support <> wrote in :

> Bertie
>
> What is the NORMAL cruise RPM these days? Core, fan ????? Or where do
> you set the bug?


>
> In F-80 we used 100% from take off until retarded for landing.

Well, normally on most airplanes we use EPR. It'd be 100% ish on takeoff,
dependin on how much we flexed the power, but for the rest, I couldn't tell
you! We ony look at it if we figure there's a problem, but at a guess, we'd
cruise at about 65% N1
>
> Word then came down to only use 98% in cruise as that would give
> longer engine life and save USAF money.
>

Yipes!



Bertie

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in :

>
> <Tech Support> wrote in message
> ...
>> Bertie
>>
>> What is the NORMAL cruise RPM these days? Core, fan ????? Or where do
>> you set the bug?
>>
>> In F-80 we used 100% from take off until retarded for landing.
>>
>> Word then came down to only use 98% in cruise as that would give
>> longer engine life and save USAF money.
>>
>> Big John
>>
>
>
> Quick Gertie, go find your book.



Awww, you so mean



Bertie

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> Why, the only thing classified about you and your little pocket pal
> Mikey Mouth, are your medical records.
>

Awww, you sound upset, maxie.

Sumpin wrong?



Bertie

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:0cd87373-9462-458d-a721-
:

> On Jan 12, 6:15*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> What, not enough abuse for you?
>
> No, he was looking for an argument, abuse is down the hall (I know
> only about 10% here will get that joke).
>

No they won't less than 5%


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Tech Support <> wrote in :
>
>> Bertie
>>
>> What is the NORMAL cruise RPM these days? Core, fan ????? Or where do
>> you set the bug?
>
>
>>
>> In F-80 we used 100% from take off until retarded for landing.
>
> Well, normally on most airplanes we use EPR. It'd be 100% ish on takeoff,
> dependin on how much we flexed the power, but for the rest, I couldn't
> tell
> you! We ony look at it if we figure there's a problem, but at a guess,
> we'd
> cruise at about 65% N1
>>
>> Word then came down to only use 98% in cruise as that would give
>> longer engine life and save USAF money.
>>
>
> Yipes!
>
>
>
> Bertie

There is a hell of lot of things you can't seem to tell us.

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Tech Support <> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> What is the NORMAL cruise RPM these days? Core, fan ????? Or where
>>> do you set the bug?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> In F-80 we used 100% from take off until retarded for landing.
>>
>> Well, normally on most airplanes we use EPR. It'd be 100% ish on
>> takeoff, dependin on how much we flexed the power, but for the rest,
>> I couldn't tell
>> you! We ony look at it if we figure there's a problem, but at a
>> guess, we'd
>> cruise at about 65% N1
>>>
>>> Word then came down to only use 98% in cruise as that would give
>>> longer engine life and save USAF money.
>>>
>>
>> Yipes!
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> There is a hell of lot of things you can't seem to tell us.


Which would still be miles ahead of your nothing..

Nada
Zero
Nil
Zilch
**** all
Sweet fanny adams
Goose egg







Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Tech Support <> wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>> What is the NORMAL cruise RPM these days? Core, fan ????? Or where
>>>> do you set the bug?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In F-80 we used 100% from take off until retarded for landing.
>>>
>>> Well, normally on most airplanes we use EPR. It'd be 100% ish on
>>> takeoff, dependin on how much we flexed the power, but for the rest,
>>> I couldn't tell
>>> you! We ony look at it if we figure there's a problem, but at a
>>> guess, we'd
>>> cruise at about 65% N1
>>>>
>>>> Word then came down to only use 98% in cruise as that would give
>>>> longer engine life and save USAF money.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yipes!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> There is a hell of lot of things you can't seem to tell us.
>
>
> Which would still be miles ahead of your nothing..
>
> Nada
> Zero
> Nil
> Zilch
> **** all
> Sweet fanny adams
> Goose egg
>

Wow!!! Such a powerful control of the English language. You have almost half
the vocabulary of you little newt Mikey Mouth.

(applause)

Bertie

OK. Understand.

Tnx

Big John

************************************************** **********************
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 02:47:42 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Tech Support <> wrote in :
>
>> Bertie
>>
>> What is the NORMAL cruise RPM these days? Core, fan ????? Or where do
>> you set the bug?
>
>
>>
>> In F-80 we used 100% from take off until retarded for landing.
>
>Well, normally on most airplanes we use EPR. It'd be 100% ish on takeoff,
>dependin on how much we flexed the power, but for the rest, I couldn't tell
>you! We ony look at it if we figure there's a problem, but at a guess, we'd
>cruise at about 65% N1
>>
>> Word then came down to only use 98% in cruise as that would give
>> longer engine life and save USAF money.
>>
>
>Yipes!
>
>
>
>Bertie

Bertie

Sorry I ask a technical question on thread and giving the VI (if you
don't understand VI ask and I'll explain :o) an opportunity to
respond.

BJ

************************************************** **************
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 02:47:42 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Tech Support <> wrote in :
>
>> Bertie
>>
>> What is the NORMAL cruise RPM these days? Core, fan ????? Or where do
>> you set the bug?
>
>
>>
>> In F-80 we used 100% from take off until retarded for landing.
>
>Well, normally on most airplanes we use EPR. It'd be 100% ish on takeoff,
>dependin on how much we flexed the power, but for the rest, I couldn't tell
>you! We ony look at it if we figure there's a problem, but at a guess, we'd
>cruise at about 65% N1
>>
>> Word then came down to only use 98% in cruise as that would give
>> longer engine life and save USAF money.
>>
>
>Yipes!
>
>
>
>Bertie

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Tech Support <> wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the NORMAL cruise RPM these days? Core, fan ????? Or where
>>>>> do you set the bug?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In F-80 we used 100% from take off until retarded for landing.
>>>>
>>>> Well, normally on most airplanes we use EPR. It'd be 100% ish on
>>>> takeoff, dependin on how much we flexed the power, but for the
>>>> rest, I couldn't tell
>>>> you! We ony look at it if we figure there's a problem, but at a
>>>> guess, we'd
>>>> cruise at about 65% N1
>>>>>
>>>>> Word then came down to only use 98% in cruise as that would give
>>>>> longer engine life and save USAF money.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yipes!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> There is a hell of lot of things you can't seem to tell us.
>>
>>
>> Which would still be miles ahead of your nothing..
>>
>> Nada
>> Zero
>> Nil
>> Zilch
>> **** all
>> Sweet fanny adams
>> Goose egg
>>
>
> Wow!!! Such a powerful control of the English language.


Actually, several of thiose were in other languages, fjukkktard



You have
> almost half the vocabulary of you little newt Mikey Mouth.
>
> (applause)



Thenkew


Bertie

Tech Support <> wrote in
:

> Bertie
>
> Sorry I ask a technical question on thread and giving the VI (if you
> don't understand VI ask and I'll explain :o) an opportunity to
> respond.
>


?? Are you asking me what the V1 would be?

Bertie

Bertie

No. VI is short for Village Idiot :o)

BJ

************************************************** **

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 21:29:57 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Tech Support <> wrote in
:
>
>> Bertie
>>
>> Sorry I ask a technical question on thread and giving the VI (if you
>> don't understand VI ask and I'll explain :o) an opportunity to
>> respond.
>>
>
>
>?? Are you asking me what the V1 would be?
>
>Bertie

Tech Support <> wrote in :

> Bertie
>
> No. VI is short for Village Idiot :o)


Oh OK. With you now!



Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Tech Support <> wrote in :
>
>> Bertie
>>
>> No. VI is short for Village Idiot :o)
>
>
> Oh OK. With you now!
>
>
>
> Bertie

Says Tweedle Dumb Ass to Tweedle Dumber.

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Tech Support <> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> No. VI is short for Village Idiot :o)
>>
>>
>> Oh OK. With you now!
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Says Tweedle Dumb Ass to Tweedle Dumber.
>
>

Aww, feewin weft out maxie? :(


Bertie

>

"Shelly" > wrote in
:

>
>>
>> One possibility...........FAR 61.157...All training accomplished in a
>> Category D Simulator.
>> An excerpt:
>> (9) An applicant issued a pilot certificate with the limitation
>> specified in paragraph (g)(8) of this section--
>> (i) May not act as pilot in command of the aircraft for which an
>> additional
>> rating was obtained under the provisions of this section until the
>> limitation is removed from the certificate; and
>> (ii) May have the limitation removed by accomplishing 25 hours of
>> supervised operating experience as pilot in command under the
>> supervision of a qualified and current pilot in command, in the seat
>> normally occupied by the pilot in command, in an airplane of the same
>> type for which the limitation applies.
>>
>> Bob Moore
>> CFI ATP B-727 B-707
>> PanAm (retired)
>
> Thank YOU, Robt. Every other CLOWN here can go to hell!!!

You shouldn't cal BOb a clown, that's not nice ..

Bertie