Neil Gould writes:

> Perhaps you are confused over the meaning of the word "YOU" in my comment?

Maybe, although my reply would be valid in any case.

> Because he is a pilot with a multi-engine rating, and you aren't even a
> student pilot. DUH...

He hasn't performed the maneuver in question, therefore he doesn't
know if it can be done or not, irrespective of his rating or status.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> Perhaps you are confused over the meaning of the word "YOU" in my
>> comment?
>
> Maybe, although my reply would be valid in any case.
>
In your mind, only.

>> Because he is a pilot with a multi-engine rating, and you aren't
>> even a student pilot. DUH...
>
> He hasn't performed the maneuver in question, therefore he doesn't
> know if it can be done or not, irrespective of his rating or status.
>
You are wrong, yet again. Go back and read his comments. Perhaps it's a
reading comprehension problem that you're dealing with?

Neil

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> He hasn't performed the maneuver in question, therefore he doesn't
> know if it can be done or not, irrespective of his rating or status.
>
>

I tried to lift 400 lbs. and couldn't do it. I can now pretty safely say I
can't lift 500 lbs.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> I tried to lift 400 lbs. and couldn't do it. I can now pretty safely say I
> can't lift 500 lbs.

If you had been unable to taxi on two engines, it would be reasonable
to assume that you could not taxi on one. But that's not the case
here, and so that analogy (the only one that matches yours) is
irrelevant.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> I tried to lift 400 lbs. and couldn't do it. I can now pretty safely
>> say I can't lift 500 lbs.
>
> If you had been unable to taxi on two engines, it would be reasonable
> to assume that you could not taxi on one. But that's not the case
> here, and so that analogy (the only one that matches yours) is
> irrelevant.
>
The question was whether one could _take off_ on one engine, something
that MSFS will let you do. Sylvain explained that the Baron couldn't even
be taxied well enough to take off unless you had more space than an
airport that can accommodate B-52s. Since it can't be done within the
space of such large airports (400 lbs.), it's safe to say that it can't be
done from airports avialable to GA pilots (500 lbs.). Gig's analogy is
quite appropriate.

Neil

Neil Gould writes:

> The question was whether one could _take off_ on one engine, something
> that MSFS will let you do. Sylvain explained that the Baron couldn't even
> be taxied well enough to take off unless you had more space than an
> airport that can accommodate B-52s.

But Sylvain has apparently not tried to taxi or to take off with one
engine, and apparently neither have you. So it's all just
speculation.

I tried it in the simulator, and it doesn't really work to any
practical extent. I fully expect that the real aircraft would behave
in much the same way.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> The question was whether one could _take off_ on one engine,
>> something that MSFS will let you do. Sylvain explained that the
>> Baron couldn't even be taxied well enough to take off unless you had
>> more space than an airport that can accommodate B-52s.
>
> But Sylvain has apparently not tried to taxi or to take off with one
> engine, and apparently neither have you. So it's all just
> speculation.
>
You only think that because you have no experience in real airplanes. I
fully understood Sylvain's explanation, and find it entirely satisfactory:
it can't be done in real life, because the available airports that are
completely inadequate to the task.

The only thing that is speculation is your notion that it can be done, and
there is absolutely no basis for that notion in the real world. BTW - he
*has* taxied the Baron with one engine, and it was the basis of his
opinion. If you read his post, you know that, and if you do know that,
then your above claim is quite curious.

> I tried it in the simulator, and it doesn't really work to any
> practical extent. I fully expect that the real aircraft would behave
> in much the same way.
>
That you can't do it means nothing at all; you aren't even a student
pilot, so it shouldn't be surprising that you lack piloting skills.
Sylvain can do it, and he also flies Barons, so that says all that is
necessary.

Neil

Neil Gould writes:

> You only think that because you have no experience in real airplanes.

No, I think that because it's true, despite any idiosyncrasy of human
psychology that causes people to deny it. Many skills and experiences
are not transferable to highly foreign contexts. Being able to hold a
plane in level flight does not equate to being able to taxi. Being
able to taxi or fly with two engines does not equate to being able to
taxi or fly with one engine failing. Furthermore, even speculating on
the unfamiliar scenario is fraught with risk.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

> I tried it in the simulator, and it doesn't really work to any
> practical extent.

ok, can you tell me how to make a movie (uploadable to video.google
or other similar places) from MS FS?

--Sylvain

Neil Gould wrote:
> there is absolutely no basis for that notion in the real world. BTW - he
> *has* taxied the Baron with one engine,

actually it was a Duchess.

--Sylvain

Sylvain writes:

> ok, can you tell me how to make a movie (uploadable to video.google
> or other similar places) from MS FS?

I don't know. I've never tried it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> You only think that because you have no experience in real airplanes.
>
> No, I think that because it's true, despite any idiosyncrasy of human
> psychology that causes people to deny it. Many skills and experiences
> are not transferable to highly foreign contexts. Being able to hold a
> plane in level flight does not equate to being able to taxi. Being
> able to taxi or fly with two engines does not equate to being able to
> taxi or fly with one engine failing. Furthermore, even speculating on
> the unfamiliar scenario is fraught with risk.
>
By the time one is rated to fly -- anything, not just multi's -- one has
received training in all aspects of the operation of the plane, including
engine out. Taxiing with a single engine would be part of that training.
Even if one is already a multi-rated pilot, you can't just go hop into
some other multi-engine plane that you haven't been checked out in and go
flying. I don't know what the checkout in a Baron is, but I wouldn't be at
all surprised if it is 20-25 *hours* or more of instruction.

Neil

Recently, Sylvain > posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>> there is absolutely no basis for that notion in the real world. BTW
>> - he *has* taxied the Baron with one engine,
>
> actually it was a Duchess.
>
I stand corrected!

Neil

For an already rated and current MEL pilot, a Baron checkout
should be under 5 hours, perhaps a little. But insurance
coverage often will require 25-50 PIC time in that
make/model. So, you hire a CFI to ride along.

The 25-50 that are required often end up being 95% cruise
with not no engine out practice, no systems drills, very
little in the way of hand flown instrument, very little
valuable training.

Five hours of good instruction with some refresher every 6
months makes more sense.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
. com...
| Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:
|
| > Neil Gould writes:
| >
| >> You only think that because you have no experience in
real airplanes.
| >
| > No, I think that because it's true, despite any
idiosyncrasy of human
| > psychology that causes people to deny it. Many skills
and experiences
| > are not transferable to highly foreign contexts. Being
able to hold a
| > plane in level flight does not equate to being able to
taxi. Being
| > able to taxi or fly with two engines does not equate to
being able to
| > taxi or fly with one engine failing. Furthermore, even
speculating on
| > the unfamiliar scenario is fraught with risk.
| >
| By the time one is rated to fly -- anything, not just
multi's -- one has
| received training in all aspects of the operation of the
plane, including
| engine out. Taxiing with a single engine would be part of
that training.
| Even if one is already a multi-rated pilot, you can't just
go hop into
| some other multi-engine plane that you haven't been
checked out in and go
| flying. I don't know what the checkout in a Baron is, but
I wouldn't be at
| all surprised if it is 20-25 *hours* or more of
instruction.
|
| Neil
|
|
|

Neil Gould writes:

> By the time one is rated to fly -- anything, not just multi's -- one has
> received training in all aspects of the operation of the plane, including
> engine out. Taxiing with a single engine would be part of that training.

So why doesn't anyone seem to have done it?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> For an already rated and current MEL pilot, a Baron checkout
> should be under 5 hours, perhaps a little. But insurance
> coverage often will require 25-50 PIC time in that
> make/model. So, you hire a CFI to ride along.

Do aircraft have to be insured? What coverage is usually taken?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:07:51 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Neil Gould writes:
>
>> By the time one is rated to fly -- anything, not just multi's -- one has
>> received training in all aspects of the operation of the plane, including
>> engine out. Taxiing with a single engine would be part of that training.
>
>So why doesn't anyone seem to have done it?

In fact, they do. I often see multis taxiing in to the ramp with just
one engine running. Mostly turboprops.

Curious coincidence: I just saw the show on CNBC about American
Airlines that they're saving a lot of fuel by taxiing on just one
engine.

RK Henry

It has to do with the thrust vector and the landing gear
geometry. Light twins tend to bind on the asymmetric thrust
and the short coupled landing gear. Turbo props and jets
are generally longer and the engines thrust further from the
nose wheel. On jet aircraft, the engines may be on the tail
and they can taxi just fine on one engine.

The airlines do anything to save fuel, but they do not
take-off with paying passengers aboard to save fuel. They
do start and taxi on one engine, but will start all engines
when nearing the take-off runway so the temperatures has
stabilized and the engine can be verified as running. On
airplanes with 4 engines I do understand that some flights
may be allowed to depart on three engines, but I have no
researched the FAR 25 or 121 to see. Also the particular
OPS manual for an airline would have to allow it.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"RK Henry" > wrote in message
...
| On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:07:51 +0200, Mxsmanic
>
| wrote:
|
| >Neil Gould writes:
| >
| >> By the time one is rated to fly -- anything, not just
multi's -- one has
| >> received training in all aspects of the operation of
the plane, including
| >> engine out. Taxiing with a single engine would be part
of that training.
| >
| >So why doesn't anyone seem to have done it?
|
| In fact, they do. I often see multis taxiing in to the
ramp with just
| one engine running. Mostly turboprops.
|
| Curious coincidence: I just saw the show on CNBC about
American
| Airlines that they're saving a lot of fuel by taxiing on
just one
| engine.
|
| RK Henry

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:OOEZg.12886$XX2.1052@dukeread04...
> It has to do with the thrust vector and the landing gear
> geometry. Light twins tend to bind on the asymmetric thrust
> and the short coupled landing gear. Turbo props and jets
> are generally longer and the engines thrust further from the
> nose wheel. On jet aircraft, the engines may be on the tail
> and they can taxi just fine on one engine.

Thank you Jim, I was going to bring this up but didn't think it was worth
the effort for this thread : ( I used to taxi a Lear 35 all the time on
one engine, starting the second after the batteries had a chance to
re-charge. I have also taxiied a Baron on one engine but it was always on a
hardsurface without any uphill incline. The distance between the thrust
source and the steering source is the key.


>
> The airlines do anything to save fuel, but they do not
> take-off with paying passengers aboard to save fuel. They
> do start and taxi on one engine, but will start all engines
> when nearing the take-off runway so the temperatures has
> stabilized and the engine can be verified as running. On
> airplanes with 4 engines I do understand that some flights
> may be allowed to depart on three engines, but I have no
> researched the FAR 25 or 121 to see. Also the particular
> OPS manual for an airline would have to allow it.

Boeing 727 also has procedure for two-engine take-off but usually only
minimum crew to ferry it to a place it can be worked on.


>
>
> --
> James H. Macklin
> ATP,CFI,A&P
>
> --
> The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
> But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
> some support
> http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
> See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.
>
>
> "RK Henry" > wrote in message
> ...
> | On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:07:51 +0200, Mxsmanic
> >
> | wrote:
> |
> | >Neil Gould writes:
> | >
> | >> By the time one is rated to fly -- anything, not just
> multi's -- one has
> | >> received training in all aspects of the operation of
> the plane, including
> | >> engine out. Taxiing with a single engine would be part
> of that training.
> | >
> | >So why doesn't anyone seem to have done it?
> |
> | In fact, they do. I often see multis taxiing in to the
> ramp with just
> | one engine running. Mostly turboprops.
> |
> | Curious coincidence: I just saw the show on CNBC about
> American
> | Airlines that they're saving a lot of fuel by taxiing on
> just one
> | engine.
> |
> | RK Henry
>
>

I think that things as simple as tire pressures and surface
would make a difference. Slope or runway gradients, current
wind would have a big effect. a crosswind might cancel the
turning moment of a single-engine or magnify it.

I've had a number of engine failures, except for one at my
home airport. After landing I would coast off the runway
and just call for a tow. When I had both fuel pumps on the
left engine of a BE 58P fail down in Texas, I just did the
same thing, landed, coasted clear and arranged for a tow to
the ramp. If I had tried to taxi and had a problem, I could
have been blocking a taxiway and caused a real problem to
the ground controller.
For those who will ask, I was returning to Wichita from
Brownsville after dropping the aircraft owners off for the
week. At FL240 near Corpus Christi the left engine died
when I turned the boost pump off [I had been using the pumps
because of hot fuel and vapor suppression on the ground]
Then the engine would not start again because of zero fuel
pressure. Did not attempt cross-feed from the right because
of concern about possible broken fuel lines.
The most difficult decision was selecting a place to land,
it does take a while to come down from FL240 and I wanted a
place where I could get repairs and an airline flight out.
It was Mothers' Day week-end so I knew there would be no
work done for a while and my wife probably wanted me home.
Declared an emergency just because I wanted the priority
handling and no traffic I had to follow. The shop in San
Antoine repaired the pumps and I picked it up the next week.
Later, back at home we ended up replacing all the pumps with
new pumps. There was still too much fuel pressure
variation. The airplane was an early 58P and it had many
hours in service formerly in air taxi service in Europe.


"Allen" > wrote in message
om...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:OOEZg.12886$XX2.1052@dukeread04...
| > It has to do with the thrust vector and the landing gear
| > geometry. Light twins tend to bind on the asymmetric
thrust
| > and the short coupled landing gear. Turbo props and
jets
| > are generally longer and the engines thrust further from
the
| > nose wheel. On jet aircraft, the engines may be on the
tail
| > and they can taxi just fine on one engine.
|
| Thank you Jim, I was going to bring this up but didn't
think it was worth
| the effort for this thread : ( I used to taxi a Lear 35
all the time on
| one engine, starting the second after the batteries had a
chance to
| re-charge. I have also taxiied a Baron on one engine but
it was always on a
| hardsurface without any uphill incline. The distance
between the thrust
| source and the steering source is the key.
|
|
| >
| > The airlines do anything to save fuel, but they do not
| > take-off with paying passengers aboard to save fuel.
They
| > do start and taxi on one engine, but will start all
engines
| > when nearing the take-off runway so the temperatures
has
| > stabilized and the engine can be verified as running.
On
| > airplanes with 4 engines I do understand that some
flights
| > may be allowed to depart on three engines, but I have no
| > researched the FAR 25 or 121 to see. Also the
particular
| > OPS manual for an airline would have to allow it.
|
| Boeing 727 also has procedure for two-engine take-off but
usually only
| minimum crew to ferry it to a place it can be worked on.
|
|
| >
| >
| > --
| > James H. Macklin
| > ATP,CFI,A&P
| >
| > --
| > The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
| > But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
| > some support
| > http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
| > See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and
duties.
| >
| >
| > "RK Henry" > wrote in message
| > ...
| > | On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:07:51 +0200, Mxsmanic
| > >
| > | wrote:
| > |
| > | >Neil Gould writes:
| > | >
| > | >> By the time one is rated to fly -- anything, not
just
| > multi's -- one has
| > | >> received training in all aspects of the operation
of
| > the plane, including
| > | >> engine out. Taxiing with a single engine would be
part
| > of that training.
| > | >
| > | >So why doesn't anyone seem to have done it?
| > |
| > | In fact, they do. I often see multis taxiing in to the
| > ramp with just
| > | one engine running. Mostly turboprops.
| > |
| > | Curious coincidence: I just saw the show on CNBC about
| > American
| > | Airlines that they're saving a lot of fuel by taxiing
on
| > just one
| > | engine.
| > |
| > | RK Henry
| >
| >
|
|

"Allen" > wrote

> Boeing 727 also has procedure for two-engine take-off

???

What, like a normal operations?
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Allen" > wrote
>
>> Boeing 727 also has procedure for two-engine take-off
>
> ???
>
> What, like a normal operations? --
> Jim in NC

Umm, how many engines does a Boeing 727 have? I don't understand your
question. It would not be normal to T.O. with one of the three engines
inop.

allen

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:57:43 GMT, "Allen" >
wrote:

>
>"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Allen" > wrote
>>
>>> Boeing 727 also has procedure for two-engine take-off
>>
>> ???
>>
>> What, like a normal operations? --
>> Jim in NC
>
>Umm, how many engines does a Boeing 727 have? I don't understand your
>question. It would not be normal to T.O. with one of the three engines
>inop.
>
>allen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_266

Don

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 05:12:46 GMT, RK Henry
> wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:07:51 +0200, Mxsmanic >
>wrote:
>
>>Neil Gould writes:
>>
>>> By the time one is rated to fly -- anything, not just multi's -- one has
>>> received training in all aspects of the operation of the plane, including
>>> engine out. Taxiing with a single engine would be part of that training.
>>
>>So why doesn't anyone seem to have done it?
>
>In fact, they do. I often see multis taxiing in to the ramp with just
>one engine running. Mostly turboprops.

That saves more than fuel. Time to overhaul on those engines is
measured in both total hours and number of starts. When you are
looking at several hundred thousand dollars for a small one and who
knows for the large ones it behooves them to keep the number of starts
down.


>
>Curious coincidence: I just saw the show on CNBC about American
>Airlines that they're saving a lot of fuel by taxiing on just one
>engine.


>
>RK Henry
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:37:08 GMT, Don Tuite > wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:57:43 GMT, "Allen" >
> wrote:
>
>>Umm, how many engines does a Boeing 727 have? I don't understand your
>>question. It would not be normal to T.O. with one of the three engines
>>inop.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_266

That article describes a 727 accident near Los Angeles in January
1969. The summary says the aircraft departed LAX with two of three
engine-driven *generators* operable (not with one *engine* inop),
and two minutes after takeoff the crew shut down the No. 1 engine
after a fire warning, taking a second generator offline. The single
remaining generator overloaded and shut down, leaving the aircraft
with no electrical power.

Flying at night over water in marginal conditions (visibility was
less than 3 miles in fog and rain) the crew was unable to maintain
control of the aircraft and it crashed into Santa Monica Bay four
minutes after takeoff. This accident led to the FAA requirement
for battery-powered standby instruments in transport category
aircraft.

You can download a PDF copy of the 1970 NTSB report (AAR70-06)
from the Embry-Riddle library's web site at:

<http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/aar/AAR70-06.pdf>


ljd

"Allen" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Allen" > wrote
>>
>>> Boeing 727 also has procedure for two-engine take-off
>>
>> ???
>>
>> What, like a normal operations? --
>> Jim in NC
>
> Umm, how many engines does a Boeing 727 have? I don't understand your
> question. It would not be normal to T.O. with one of the three engines inop.

Ooops! I was thinking of a 717, I think.
--
Jim in NC

Good GAWD...I show 275 posts (and that starts with a RE:) for what
should have taken a single paragraph, or two with expansion on the
reason.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
> Good GAWD...I show 275 posts (and that starts with a RE:) for what
> should have taken a single paragraph, or two with expansion on the
> reason.
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

I know. he (that needs not be mentioned by name) is a plague descending upon
us.

I wonder how many worthwhile members have left us, now. I don't see many of the
regulars around here, lately.
--
Jim in NC

On 10/21/06 11:01, Morgans wrote:
> "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Good GAWD...I show 275 posts (and that starts with a RE:) for what
>> should have taken a single paragraph, or two with expansion on the
>> reason.
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>
> I know. he (that needs not be mentioned by name) is a plague descending upon
> us.
>
> I wonder how many worthwhile members have left us, now. I don't see many of the
> regulars around here, lately.

Well, it could be that 90% of the activity is due to the troll's threads,
and most have (wisely, IMHO) decided not to respond to him further?


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

"Mark Hansen" > wrote
>
> Well, it could be that 90% of the activity is due to the troll's threads,
> and most have (wisely, IMHO) decided not to respond to him further?

Could be.

I have an idea! Lets all stop responding to him, and when he goes away, we can
see how many left!

Well, at least I tried.

Missed it by <...> that much? <g>
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Good GAWD...I show 275 posts (and that starts with a RE:) for what
>> should have taken a single paragraph, or two with expansion on the
>> reason.
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>
> I know. he (that needs not be mentioned by name) is a plague descending
> upon us.
>
> I wonder how many worthwhile members have left us, now. I don't see many
> of the regulars around here, lately.
> --
> Jim in NC

In my opinion this character is perhaps one of the best if not THE best I've
ever encountered on Usenet. He or she or whatever it is has redefined the
definition of trolling as far as I'm concerned. Absolutely all the
parameters have been met and in most cases exceeded; the gauntlet has been
picked up by some; totally ignored by others; gambits have been accepted and
carried to extreme ends by those engaging; the group has been effectively
split from within; an absolute must to define the success of the effort.
I'm actually quite satisfied with my early decision made when he/she engaged
me on another forum not engage this person. Its been interesting watching
him/her work this and other groups at the same time. In fact, its been one
of the best experiences I've encountered since entering Usenet many years
ago.
I love to watch someone work who really knows what they are doing, and this
character has been fun to watch.
I believe now that some in the groups are finally catching on to what's been
happening and joining those of us who have chosen simply to ignore the whole
thing. Those arguing among themselves about him/her/it/whatever, have in my
opinion simply been fodder for the cannon.
:-))
VERY interesting........and it has been VERY entertaining!!!!
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Dudley Henriques

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:01:10 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
>> Good GAWD...I show 275 posts (and that starts with a RE:) for what
>> should have taken a single paragraph, or two with expansion on the
>> reason.
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>I know. he (that needs not be mentioned by name) is a plague descending upon
>us.

You mean...Voldemort?

RK Henry

>>
>>I know. he (that needs not be mentioned by name) is a plague descending upon
>>us.
>
> You mean...Voldemort?

Bzzzzzzt.

Two more tries! <g>
--
Jim in NC

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:07:58 -0400, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>
>"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Good GAWD...I show 275 posts (and that starts with a RE:) for what
>>> should have taken a single paragraph, or two with expansion on the
>>> reason.
>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>> I know. he (that needs not be mentioned by name) is a plague descending
>> upon us.
>>
>> I wonder how many worthwhile members have left us, now. I don't see many
>> of the regulars around here, lately.
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>
>In my opinion this character is perhaps one of the best if not THE best I've
>ever encountered on Usenet. He or she or whatever it is has redefined the

Absolutely!

>definition of trolling as far as I'm concerned. Absolutely all the
>parameters have been met and in most cases exceeded; the gauntlet has been
>picked up by some; totally ignored by others; gambits have been accepted and
>carried to extreme ends by those engaging; the group has been effectively
>split from within; an absolute must to define the success of the effort.
>I'm actually quite satisfied with my early decision made when he/she engaged
>me on another forum not engage this person. Its been interesting watching
>him/her work this and other groups at the same time. In fact, its been one
>of the best experiences I've encountered since entering Usenet many years
>ago.

I find that I still feel compelled to respond to some posts rather
than the poster to prevent some misconceptions from spreading. <:-))
Like Roger More's films, they contain just enough truth at times to
make the rest sound believable.

>I love to watch someone work who really knows what they are doing, and this
>character has been fun to watch.

>I believe now that some in the groups are finally catching on to what's been
>happening and joining those of us who have chosen simply to ignore the whole
>thing. Those arguing among themselves about him/her/it/whatever, have in my
>opinion simply been fodder for the cannon.
>:-))
>VERY interesting........and it has been VERY entertaining!!!!
>:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
>Dudley Henriques

I haven't seen you on the "other group" lately although there's not
much going on. Lots of posts on the new app, but not a lot else.


>
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:08:23 GMT, RK Henry
> wrote:

>On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:01:10 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
>>> Good GAWD...I show 275 posts (and that starts with a RE:) for what
>>> should have taken a single paragraph, or two with expansion on the
>>> reason.
>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>>I know. he (that needs not be mentioned by name) is a plague descending upon
>>us.
>
>You mean...Voldemort?

That's Lord Voldermort!<:-)) which is different than he that shall not
be named which is different than needs not be mentioned by name<:-)).

Speaking of him and as long as we are so far OT any way...we had a
local get fired up, holding meetings trying to get that series of
books banned in the schools and libraries. She started out with
public meetings, but after the first one the rest were canceled and
only meetings with school teachers, officials and librarians were
conducted. I don't think the acceptance was any higher<:-))

>
>RK Henry
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...

> I haven't seen you on the "other group" lately although there's not
> much going on. Lots of posts on the new app, but not a lot else.

Hi Rog;

I'm back posting again there now that the Beta process is over.
Actually, I've just become an MVP for Microsoft on Flight Simulator and will
be working even more closely with both them and the add on developers
working with the program.
Dudley

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote

> I find that I still feel compelled to respond to some posts rather
> than the poster to prevent some misconceptions from spreading. <:-))
> Like Roger More's films, they contain just enough truth at times to
> make the rest sound believable.

How about we all put a boilerplate statement in our signature files, and just
tack that on every time a need to respond to false, misleading, (or whatever)
questions and statements?

Something like;

************************************************** **
Boilerplate response to follow:
Do not believe the questions or statements posted by Mxsmanic necessarily have
any relevance or truth to "real" aviation. They are posted from a simulation
_game_ player, and are posed mainly for trolling purposes.
************************************************** **
That way, you get to respond, people are alerted to the danger of believing in
anything he posts, and he does not get the satisfaction of a continuing
argument. Win, win, win.

Does that work for you? If you like the idea, but not my quickly composed
response, feel free to change it or write your own, and I might use yours, too.
<g>
--
Jim in NC

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote

> Speaking of him and as long as we are so far OT any way...we had a
> local get fired up, holding meetings trying to get that series of
> books banned in the schools and libraries. She started out with
> public meetings, but after the first one the rest were canceled and
> only meetings with school teachers, officials and librarians were
> conducted. I don't think the acceptance was any higher<:-))

I have seen that happen, and occasionally succeed in getting books banned. Some
of the silliest reasons, for some of the most accepted books!
--
Jim in NC

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 23:32:44 -0400, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
>
>> I haven't seen you on the "other group" lately although there's not
>> much going on. Lots of posts on the new app, but not a lot else.
>
>Hi Rog;
>
>I'm back posting again there now that the Beta process is over.
>Actually, I've just become an MVP for Microsoft on Flight Simulator and will
>be working even more closely with both them and the add on developers
>working with the program.

Congratulations Dudley.

Now I know where I can send the bill when I have to upgrade all my
hardware so I can run it<:-))

Oh, if it'd only run on LINUX.

>Dudley
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 23:42:30 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote
>
>> Speaking of him and as long as we are so far OT any way...we had a
>> local get fired up, holding meetings trying to get that series of
>> books banned in the schools and libraries. She started out with
>> public meetings, but after the first one the rest were canceled and
>> only meetings with school teachers, officials and librarians were
>> conducted. I don't think the acceptance was any higher<:-))
>
>I have seen that happen, and occasionally succeed in getting books banned. Some
>of the silliest reasons, for some of the most accepted books!

All I can say is it's a good thing most of those people are not highly
educated or we'd lose all the works of the great masters. <LOL>


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 23:32:44 -0400, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>> I haven't seen you on the "other group" lately although there's not
>>> much going on. Lots of posts on the new app, but not a lot else.
>>
>>Hi Rog;
>>
>>I'm back posting again there now that the Beta process is over.
>>Actually, I've just become an MVP for Microsoft on Flight Simulator and
>>will
>>be working even more closely with both them and the add on developers
>>working with the program.
>
> Congratulations Dudley.
>
> Now I know where I can send the bill when I have to upgrade all my
> hardware so I can run it<:-))
>
> Oh, if it'd only run on LINUX.

Thanks. I'm sitting on an order now for either Hypersonic or Falcon NW for a
whole new system waiting for Nvidia's new DirectX 10 GPU to come on line.
Bea is going to kill me!
:-))))

Its been interesting watching the program progress over time, and its
amazing how knowledgeable some of the end users become after using the
program. You wouldn't believe the knowledge level of some of the simmers. I
helped someone just last week who had a pretty good handle on how to fly a
DME arc. He just needed one little piece of data to complete his "puzzle".
He was eleven years old :-))
There will be some "growing pains" with this new version while the hardware
and drivers upgrade into it but from what I've seen so far working with it,
the potential is unbelievable.
Dudley

Morgans wrote:
> Does that work for you? If you like the idea, but not my quickly composed
> response, feel free to change it or write your own, and I might use yours,
> too. <g>


Here's what I've finally decided to do: I'm now filtering via NewsProxy any
post in rec.aviation.piloting that's also crossposted in rec.aviation.students.
I figure that will rid me of Numbnuts and all of his threads. That will remove
me from the temptation of answering him, flaming him, or arguing with legitimate
pilots about him. I have chosen to flush him down with the rest of the turds.
Enough time has been wasted. And I'm tired of being accused of trolling myself
just because I want to get rid of him. Now I am... rid of him.

To those of you who aren't bright enough to recognize you can't shine a turd no
matter how much you wipe, have a nice day.

Hopefully my next post in either newsgroup will be directly on topic. I hope
there are folks who have enough energy left to participate in a thread not
originated by Numbnuts, because I expect my traffic to drop off a good 95%.
That's the effect he's had in the newsgroups whether anybody recognizes it or
not.

You might want to look up at the top of the page the next time you're tempted to
answer him and check whether you're answering to just one newsgroup.

Jim, obviously none of this applies to you, except the crosspost check. That
applies to everyone. And of course this message, which is being intentionally
crossposted. *I* won't see it, but others will.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Single posted.

I use Outlook Express and just blocked the maniacs posts as
originals. I still see re, so if there is something I feel
like saying, I can.



"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
message
...
| Morgans wrote:
| > Does that work for you? If you like the idea, but not
my quickly composed
| > response, feel free to change it or write your own, and
I might use yours,
| > too. <g>
|
|
| Here's what I've finally decided to do: I'm now filtering
via NewsProxy any
| post in rec.aviation.piloting that's also crossposted in
rec.aviation.students.
| I figure that will rid me of Numbnuts and all of his
threads. That will remove
| me from the temptation of answering him, flaming him, or
arguing with legitimate
| pilots about him. I have chosen to flush him down with
the rest of the turds.
| Enough time has been wasted. And I'm tired of being
accused of trolling myself
| just because I want to get rid of him. Now I am... rid of
him.
|
| To those of you who aren't bright enough to recognize you
can't shine a turd no
| matter how much you wipe, have a nice day.
|
| Hopefully my next post in either newsgroup will be
directly on topic. I hope
| there are folks who have enough energy left to participate
in a thread not
| originated by Numbnuts, because I expect my traffic to
drop off a good 95%.
| That's the effect he's had in the newsgroups whether
anybody recognizes it or
| not.
|
| You might want to look up at the top of the page the next
time you're tempted to
| answer him and check whether you're answering to just one
newsgroup.
|
| Jim, obviously none of this applies to you, except the
crosspost check. That
| applies to everyone. And of course this message, which is
being intentionally
| crossposted. *I* won't see it, but others will.
|
|
|
| --
| Mortimer Schnerd, RN
| mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com
|
|

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
...
> Morgans wrote:
>> Does that work for you? If you like the idea, but not my quickly
>> composed
>> response, feel free to change it or write your own, and I might use
>> yours,
>> too. <g>
>
>
> Here's what I've finally decided to do: I'm now filtering via NewsProxy
> any post in rec.aviation.piloting that's also crossposted in
> rec.aviation.students. I figure that will rid me of Numbnuts and all of
> his threads. That will remove me from the temptation of answering him,
> flaming him, or arguing with legitimate pilots about him. I have chosen
> to flush him down with the rest of the turds. Enough time has been wasted.
> And I'm tired of being accused of trolling myself just because I want to
> get rid of him. Now I am... rid of him.

What a collection of metaphors! :~)

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
> Oh, if it'd only run on LINUX.

Hell, it won't even run on Win2K...