Stability augmentation promises to give you even less control

[Mxsmanic]

This article is strongly slanted in favor of new stability-augmentation
gadgets for light aircraft:

http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going-direct/hal-not-control-your-airplane

Not surprisingly, Cirrus is installing the gadget first, and Garmin is writing
the poorly-tested software for it.

Apparently the author does not understand the distinction between flying for
fun and flying for transportation. The pilot who flies for fun is unlikely to
want a computer to fly for him, no matter how well the computer does it or how
safe the computer can make things. A pilot who flies for transportation might
welcome more computer control. But putting gadgets like this on every light
aircraft makes no sense. Sure, it might improve safety, but so would
automating the entire flight, giving the pilot no control at all--and yet
complete automation of flights would defeat the purpose of flying for many
hobby pilots.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> This article is strongly slanted in favor of new stability-augmentation
> gadgets for light aircraft:
>
> http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going-direct/hal-not-control-your-airplane
>
> Not surprisingly, Cirrus is installing the gadget first, and Garmin is writing
> the poorly-tested software for it.

And you know the software is "poorly-tested" how?

> Apparently the author does not understand the distinction between flying for
> fun and flying for transportation. The pilot who flies for fun is unlikely to
> want a computer to fly for him, no matter how well the computer does it or how
> safe the computer can make things. A pilot who flies for transportation might
> welcome more computer control. But putting gadgets like this on every light
> aircraft makes no sense. Sure, it might improve safety, but so would
> automating the entire flight, giving the pilot no control at all--and yet
> complete automation of flights would defeat the purpose of flying for many
> hobby pilots.

Apparently if you read the article but you didn't understand it.

The system does not fly the airplane and is not an autopilot.

It "senses that the pilot has lost control" and recovers.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[a[_3_]]

On Jul 31, 12:44*pm, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > This article is strongly slanted in favor of new stability-augmentation
> > gadgets for light aircraft:
>
> >http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going-direct/hal-not-control-your-airp...
>
> > Not surprisingly, Cirrus is installing the gadget first, and Garmin is writing
> > the poorly-tested software for it.
>
> And you know the software is "poorly-tested" how?
>
> > Apparently the author does not understand the distinction between flying for
> > fun and flying for transportation. The pilot who flies for fun is unlikely to
> > want a computer to fly for him, no matter how well the computer does it or how
> > safe the computer can make things. A pilot who flies for transportation might
> > welcome more computer control. But putting gadgets like this on every light
> > aircraft makes no sense. Sure, it might improve safety, but so would
> > automating the entire flight, giving the pilot no control at all--and yet
> > complete automation of flights would defeat the purpose of flying for many
> > hobby pilots.
>
> Apparently if you read the article but you didn't understand it.
>
> The system does not fly the airplane and is not an autopilot.
>
> It "senses that the pilot has lost control" and recovers.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

The early Mooneys had a vacuum operated wing leveler, don't know if it
was required for airworthiness. It could be disabled with a button on
the yoke, that was handy when turning, the wing leveler really
stiffened the controls. Wing levelers, manual gear retraction,
manually pumped down flaps -- those Mooney Rangers were fun to fly.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> And you know the software is "poorly-tested" how?

Decades of software engineering. Thorough testing is a mathematical
impossibility (or, more specifically, it is "computationally infeasible").

> The system does not fly the airplane and is not an autopilot.
>
> It "senses that the pilot has lost control" and recovers.

Do you want an airplane that "senses" that you've "lost control" and
"recovers"?

You might want a bus with an automatic system to keep it from drifting into
opposing traffic, but would you want a sports car that tries to keep you in
your lane whenever it "senses" that you might be moving out of it? What's the
point of operating a vehicle for fun if it's going to watch over your shoulder
and try to take over every time you exercise your freedom to drive as you see
fit?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> And you know the software is "poorly-tested" how?
>
> Decades of software engineering. Thorough testing is a mathematical
> impossibility (or, more specifically, it is "computationally infeasible").

Bull****.

You haven't a clue what goes on inside any particular company.

>> The system does not fly the airplane and is not an autopilot.
>>
>> It "senses that the pilot has lost control" and recovers.
>
> Do you want an airplane that "senses" that you've "lost control" and
> "recovers"?

It could be handy under certain circumstances.

> You might want a bus with an automatic system to keep it from drifting into
> opposing traffic, but would you want a sports car that tries to keep you in
> your lane whenever it "senses" that you might be moving out of it? What's the
> point of operating a vehicle for fun if it's going to watch over your shoulder
> and try to take over every time you exercise your freedom to drive as you see
> fit?

And yet once again the point sails right over the top of your clueless head.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> It could be handy under certain circumstances.

Such as? For a hobby pilot, remember.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> It could be handy under certain circumstances.
>
> Such as? For a hobby pilot, remember.

Define "hobby pilot".

I've heard of recreational, light sport, private, and commercial pilots,
but never "hobby pilots".

Is this a pilot class in France?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Define "hobby pilot".

Someone who doesn't fly for a living.

[Brian Whatcott]

On 7/31/2010 2:49 PM, a wrote:
>
> The early Mooneys had a vacuum operated wing leveler, don't know if it
> was required for airworthiness. It could be disabled with a button on
> the yoke, that was handy when turning, the wing leveler really
> stiffened the controls. Wing levelers, manual gear retraction,
> manually pumped down flaps -- those Mooney Rangers were fun to fly.

I bought a pilots manual for the C-150 off eBay the other day.
It was in fact, a digitized scan of a manual.
So it could not be cut to size and stapled like the original. Ah well...
Anyway, one of the options (apparently) was a pneumatic wing leveler
driven by the pump.

I never ever saw one with trhat fitted.

Brian W

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Define "hobby pilot".
>
> Someone who doesn't fly for a living.

OK, then single pilot in real IMC.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> OK, then single pilot in real IMC.

That's what wing levelers are for.

[a[_3_]]

On Jul 31, 7:40*pm, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
>
> >> Define "hobby pilot".
>
> > Someone who doesn't fly for a living.
>
> OK, then single pilot in real IMC.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

>There is a relevant story among my Jewish friends who asked a Rabbi what it was like praying at the Wall at the temple in Jerusalem. "It's like talking to a wall," he said.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> OK, then single pilot in real IMC.
>
> That's what wing levelers are for.

Not while manuevering, which is when the system would be active.

Another would be inadvertent VFR flight into IMC.

Though I will admit that since there has to be an autopilot installed which
this thing is installed on top of, it does sound a little like having a
belt and suspenders.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Not while manuevering, which is when the system would be active.

While maneuvering, you'd want the system inactive, lest it decide that you're
doing something "wrong" and attempt to "help" you.

> Though I will admit that since there has to be an autopilot installed which
> this thing is installed on top of, it does sound a little like having a
> belt and suspenders.

The part I don't like is the decision-making part. It's one thing to have a
wing leveler that you can turn on at your discretion; it's quite another to
have a gadget that turns itself on without warning and tries to override what
you are doing. Even if you can wrestle back control of the aircraft, the mere
fact that it interferes on its own initiative is worrisome and could cause
problems.

I prefer that automation be limited to things that do exactly as they are
told, when they are told, in easy-to-understand ways. Pilots are still
smarter than computers, and computers must not second-guess pilots.

As I've said, decades of experience with computers have made me wary. It's not
the computers themselves that I distrust--they do what they do very
reliably--it's the software, written by human beings, that I distrust.

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 1, 12:05*am, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
>
> >> OK, then single pilot in real IMC.
>
> > That's what wing levelers are for.
>
> Not while manuevering, which is when the system would be active.
>
> Another would be inadvertent VFR flight into IMC.
>
> Though I will admit that since there has to be an autopilot installed which
> this thing is installed on top of, it does sound a little like having a
> belt and suspenders.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

The reasonable approach would be to have the autopilot engage in
straight and level automatically if the sensors detect an out of
control condition. Not sure if a conventional A/P knows how to recover
from a spin, but that would be a modest software patch.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Not while manuevering, which is when the system would be active.
>
> While maneuvering, you'd want the system inactive, lest it decide that you're
> doing something "wrong" and attempt to "help" you.

Obviously you didn't read the article and understand exactly what it is
the system actually does as your comment is nonsense.


>> Though I will admit that since there has to be an autopilot installed which
>> this thing is installed on top of, it does sound a little like having a
>> belt and suspenders.
>
> The part I don't like is the decision-making part. It's one thing to have a
> wing leveler that you can turn on at your discretion; it's quite another to
> have a gadget that turns itself on without warning and tries to override what
> you are doing. Even if you can wrestle back control of the aircraft, the mere
> fact that it interferes on its own initiative is worrisome and could cause
> problems.

And again, nonsense because you don't understand what the system actually
does and how it works.

> I prefer that automation be limited to things that do exactly as they are
> told, when they are told, in easy-to-understand ways. Pilots are still
> smarter than computers, and computers must not second-guess pilots.

And again, nonsense because you don't understand what the system actually
does and how it works.

> As I've said, decades of experience with computers have made me wary. It's not
> the computers themselves that I distrust--they do what they do very
> reliably--it's the software, written by human beings, that I distrust.

If you have so much experience, how come you can't get a decent job?

While with the economic downturn my revenues have gone down, they are still
good, so the economy can't be the reason.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

a > wrote:
> On Aug 1, 12:05Â*am, wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> > writes:
>>
>> >> OK, then single pilot in real IMC.
>>
>> > That's what wing levelers are for.
>>
>> Not while manuevering, which is when the system would be active.
>>
>> Another would be inadvertent VFR flight into IMC.
>>
>> Though I will admit that since there has to be an autopilot installed which
>> this thing is installed on top of, it does sound a little like having a
>> belt and suspenders.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> The reasonable approach would be to have the autopilot engage in
> straight and level automatically if the sensors detect an out of
> control condition. Not sure if a conventional A/P knows how to recover
> from a spin, but that would be a modest software patch.

The article mentions loss of control as a major factor in the accident rate
without going into any details of what that means.

I can see the utility of something that monitors angle of attack and nudges
the nose down when it determines a stall is emminent.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

a writes:

> The reasonable approach would be to have the autopilot engage in
> straight and level automatically if the sensors detect an out of
> control condition.

What would count as an out-of-control condition?

[george]

On Aug 2, 4:48*am, wrote:

> The article mentions loss of control as a major factor in the accident rate
> without going into any details of what that means.
>
> I can see the utility of something that monitors angle of attack and nudges
> the nose down when it determines a stall is emminent.
>

We could use that as an excuse next time a landing gets away from
us :-0

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 1, 12:48*pm, wrote:
> a > wrote:
> > On Aug 1, 12:05*am, wrote:
> >> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> > writes:
>
> >> >> OK, then single pilot in real IMC.
>
> >> > That's what wing levelers are for.
>
> >> Not while manuevering, which is when the system would be active.
>
> >> Another would be inadvertent VFR flight into IMC.
>
> >> Though I will admit that since there has to be an autopilot installed which
> >> this thing is installed on top of, it does sound a little like having a
> >> belt and suspenders.
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> > The reasonable approach would be to have the autopilot engage in
> > straight and level automatically if the sensors detect an out of
> > control condition. Not sure if a conventional A/P knows how to recover
> > from a spin, but that would be a modest software patch.
>
> The article mentions loss of control as a major factor in the accident rate
> without going into any details of what that means.
>
> I can see the utility of something that monitors angle of attack and nudges
> the nose down when it determines a stall is emminent.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jim,with respect, if some device decided I wanted back pressure
released when a stall is pending that device and I would have a
discussion -- my end of it would be with wire clippers or a hammer! --
because when I'm landing the AoA is in the stall range and I don't
want the nose wheel to touch down first, especially on a soft field.
It would take somewhat better programming than simply AoA. On the
other hand, my airplane never sees pitch and bank close to the
statutory limits, Those might be worth considering. Wait a minute,
maybe not. I would not want something to intervene if I needed big
pitch or bank inputs if trying to avoid another airplane or the like.
I'm guessing optimal spin recovery would be ok though, optimal being
defined as minimal loss of altitude. And maybe something to avoid the
JFK Jr kind of pilot auguring into the ocean.

[[email protected]]

a > wrote:
> On Aug 1, 12:48Â*pm, wrote:
>> a > wrote:
>> > On Aug 1, 12:05Â*am, wrote:
>> >> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> >> > writes:
>>
>> >> >> OK, then single pilot in real IMC.
>>
>> >> > That's what wing levelers are for.
>>
>> >> Not while manuevering, which is when the system would be active.
>>
>> >> Another would be inadvertent VFR flight into IMC.
>>
>> >> Though I will admit that since there has to be an autopilot installed which
>> >> this thing is installed on top of, it does sound a little like having a
>> >> belt and suspenders.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>>
>> > The reasonable approach would be to have the autopilot engage in
>> > straight and level automatically if the sensors detect an out of
>> > control condition. Not sure if a conventional A/P knows how to recover
>> > from a spin, but that would be a modest software patch.
>>
>> The article mentions loss of control as a major factor in the accident rate
>> without going into any details of what that means.
>>
>> I can see the utility of something that monitors angle of attack and nudges
>> the nose down when it determines a stall is emminent.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> Jim,with respect, if some device decided I wanted back pressure
> released when a stall is pending that device and I would have a
> discussion -- my end of it would be with wire clippers or a hammer! --
> because when I'm landing the AoA is in the stall range and I don't
> want the nose wheel to touch down first, especially on a soft field.

Since the system as described is easily overriden with manual inputs, I
don't see that as a problem.

> It would take somewhat better programming than simply AoA. On the
> other hand, my airplane never sees pitch and bank close to the
> statutory limits, Those might be worth considering. Wait a minute,
> maybe not. I would not want something to intervene if I needed big
> pitch or bank inputs if trying to avoid another airplane or the like.
> I'm guessing optimal spin recovery would be ok though, optimal being
> defined as minimal loss of altitude. And maybe something to avoid the
> JFK Jr kind of pilot auguring into the ocean.

JFD Jr augured in in what appears to have been cooridinated flight, so such
a system would have made no difference.

I would think the system would be somewhat usefull to prevent things like
departure stalls and such.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
>
> a writes:
>
> > The reasonable approach would be to have the autopilot engage in
> > straight and level automatically if the sensors detect an out of
> > control condition.
>
> What would count as an out-of-control condition?

I stall, a spin, a spiral dive (excessive pitch down and speed) - many
things - as long as they are also with NO PILOT INPUT - then is it not a
good idea for such a system to "do something".?

--
Duncan.

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 1, 7:48*pm, wrote:
> a > wrote:
> > On Aug 1, 12:48*pm, wrote:
> >> a > wrote:
> >> > On Aug 1, 12:05*am, wrote:
> >> >> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> >> > writes:
>
> >> >> >> OK, then single pilot in real IMC.
>
> >> >> > That's what wing levelers are for.
>
> >> >> Not while manuevering, which is when the system would be active.
>
> >> >> Another would be inadvertent VFR flight into IMC.
>
> >> >> Though I will admit that since there has to be an autopilot installed which
> >> >> this thing is installed on top of, it does sound a little like having a
> >> >> belt and suspenders.
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> >> > The reasonable approach would be to have the autopilot engage in
> >> > straight and level automatically if the sensors detect an out of
> >> > control condition. Not sure if a conventional A/P knows how to recover
> >> > from a spin, but that would be a modest software patch.
>
> >> The article mentions loss of control as a major factor in the accident rate
> >> without going into any details of what that means.
>
> >> I can see the utility of something that monitors angle of attack and nudges
> >> the nose down when it determines a stall is emminent.
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> > Jim,with respect, if some device decided I wanted back pressure
> > released when a stall is pending that device and I would have a
> > discussion -- my end of it would be with wire clippers or a hammer! --
> > because when I'm landing the AoA is in the stall range and I don't
> > want the nose wheel to touch down first, especially on a soft field.
>
> Since the system as described is easily overriden with manual inputs, I
> don't see that as a problem.
>
> > It would take somewhat better programming than simply AoA. On the
> > other hand, my airplane never sees pitch and bank close to the
> > statutory limits, Those might be worth considering. Wait a minute,
> > maybe not. I would not want something to intervene if I needed big
> > pitch or bank inputs if trying to avoid another airplane or the like.
> > I'm guessing optimal spin recovery would be ok though, optimal being
> > defined as minimal loss of altitude. And maybe something to avoid the
> > JFK Jr kind of pilot auguring into the ocean.
>
> JFD Jr augured in in what appears to have been cooridinated flight, so such
> a system would have made no difference.
>
> I would think the system would be somewhat usefull to prevent things like
> departure stalls and such.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

It's been a while since I read the NTSB on the JFK Jr crash, but I
seem to remember he went from 5500 feet to impact in much less than a
minute in a classic death spiral. Seems to me sensing a tight
overbanked rapidly descending turn (5000 fpm down should get a
sensor's attention!), very rapid rate of turn could be a trigger for a
control system to take over. Critical point, if the PIC is as
disoriented as one might have expected JFK Jr to have been, is that
pilots should NOT be allowed to over ride the system. I would bet
serious money he had the the yoke in his belly and would not be
surprised if the controls were otherwise neutral, and he was wondering
why, with so much up elevator, the damn thing was still going down.,

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> I stall, a spin, a spiral dive (excessive pitch down and speed) - many
> things - as long as they are also with NO PILOT INPUT - then is it not a
> good idea for such a system to "do something".?

I suppose that's a good start, but when you write computer software, you have
to be way more specific ... and if you don't want to kill anyone, you also
have to be absolutely right.

A perfectly programmed computer might be able to do it, although I should
think it would also need mind-reading ability in order to determine the
pilot's intentions. But in any case, people write the software, so it's never
perfect--and that's the problem.

[Mxsmanic]

Stephen! writes:

> You haven't lived until you've piloted an SEL over the mountains in solid
> IMC without an autopilot. I logged 2 hours IMC in a 182 over Montana a few
> weeks ago. That was a LOT of fun!

But a standard autopilot does what you tell it to. You turn it on and off
yourself, and you tell it what heading to hold, what altitude to maintain,
when to level the wings, and so on. That's very different from a computer
that independently decides when you need "help" and acts on its own initiative
because it thinks you are "out of control."

In solid IMC over mountains, you need precise situational awareness. You don't
have that if a computer is making decisions behind your back.

It's a bit like having a silent copilot who does things whenever he deems them
appropriate without any interaction or instructions from you first. Does that
really enhance safety?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Stephen! writes:
>
>> You haven't lived until you've piloted an SEL over the mountains in solid
>> IMC without an autopilot. I logged 2 hours IMC in a 182 over Montana a few
>> weeks ago. That was a LOT of fun!
>
> But a standard autopilot does what you tell it to. You turn it on and off
> yourself, and you tell it what heading to hold, what altitude to maintain,
> when to level the wings, and so on. That's very different from a computer
> that independently decides when you need "help" and acts on its own initiative
> because it thinks you are "out of control."
>
> In solid IMC over mountains, you need precise situational awareness. You don't
> have that if a computer is making decisions behind your back.

True in general but this has nothing whatsoever to do with the system under
discussion.

> It's a bit like having a silent copilot who does things whenever he deems them
> appropriate without any interaction or instructions from you first. Does that
> really enhance safety?

It depends on how smart that silent copilot is.

The world is not black/white, one/zero, yes/no, all/nothing and once that
fact sinks in you might have a better understanding of it.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 3, 10:45*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> It's a bit like having a silent copilot who does things whenever he deems them
> appropriate without any interaction or instructions from you first.

YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE CLUELESS and never flew a real plane.

LOOK UP CRM.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> It's a bit like having a silent copilot who does things whenever he deems
> them
> appropriate without any interaction or instructions from you first.

Then you probably won't be buying an aiplane with this feature.

--
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.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> True in general but this has nothing whatsoever to do with the system under
> discussion.

It has a lot to do with it. A system that decides to "stabilize" the aircraft
because it thinks you have "lost control" is indisputably related to this.

> It depends on how smart that silent copilot is.

When the silent copilot is a computer, that depends on the barely-tested,
bug-laden software that it is running.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> LOOK UP CRM.

There is no CRM with a computer.

[Mxsmanic]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com> writes:

> Then you probably won't be buying an aiplane with this feature.

Unless manufacturers start installing it in everything, or the government
requires its presence.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> True in general but this has nothing whatsoever to do with the system under
>> discussion.
>
> It has a lot to do with it. A system that decides to "stabilize" the aircraft
> because it thinks you have "lost control" is indisputably related to this.

Nope, your statement was blatent nonsense.

The system in question is not "making decisions behind your back".

>> It depends on how smart that silent copilot is.
>
> When the silent copilot is a computer, that depends on the barely-tested,
> bug-laden software that it is running.

Your posted nonsense asked how useful would a silent copilot be and the
answer to that is exactly what I said above and that holds no matter whether
the silent copilot is human or a computer.

It is only your opinion as self declared, unemployed software engineer
that the software of the system in question is "barely-tested" and
"bug-laden" and you have zero evidence that such is true.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> LOOK UP CRM.
>
> There is no CRM with a computer.

Ice cream has no bones.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[george]

On Aug 4, 12:45*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > LOOK UP CRM.
>
> There is no CRM with a computer.

So stop playing computor games and get into a real aeroplane

[[email protected]]

On Aug 3, 7:45*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > LOOK UP CRM.
>
> There is no CRM with a computer.

LOOK UP CRM.

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 3, 10:36*am, "Stephen!" > wrote:
> wrote :
>
> >> Someone who doesn't fly for a living.
>
> > OK, then single pilot in real IMC.
>
> * You haven't lived until you've piloted an SEL over the mountains in solid
> IMC without an autopilot. *I logged 2 hours IMC in a 182 over Montana a few
> weeks ago. *That was a LOT of fun! *:)
>
> --
> RCOS #7
> IBA# 11465http://imagesdesavions.com

There was something in the literature recently about using a/p in IMC
is safer, but from my point of view I am much more aware of what's
going on hand flying (and have done so over the Rockies) than sitting
back and 'managing' the airplane while it's on auto pilot..

A sad confession is the a/p does do a better job of keeping the
needles crossed on an ILS than I do, but the correct interpretation of
that is, I need more practice at it than the a/p does. A huge 'and
moreover' is, I want hands on near minima, don't want to mess with the
a/p if I have to fly a miss, and don't want to transition from a/p to
manual when I decide conditions are not right for a landing.

Aviators understand this stuff.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> LOOK UP CRM.

No need, I know what it stands for.

[Mxsmanic]

a writes:

> There was something in the literature recently about using a/p in IMC
> is safer, but from my point of view I am much more aware of what's
> going on hand flying (and have done so over the Rockies) than sitting
> back and 'managing' the airplane while it's on auto pilot..

The workload for single-pilot IFR is substantial, particularly in actual IMC.
This is an important argument favoring the suggestion that autopilot be
heavily used for IFR. With two pilots, things are easier, although an
autopilot might still be preferable.

At least the autopilot only does what it is told. At the same time, it does
encourage a certain amount of complacency, which has even bit airline pilots
on more than one occasion.

> A sad confession is the a/p does do a better job of keeping the
> needles crossed on an ILS than I do, but the correct interpretation of
> that is, I need more practice at it than the a/p does.

There's no shame in an automated system doing better than a human being at
something it is designed to do.

> A huge 'and
> moreover' is, I want hands on near minima, don't want to mess with the
> a/p if I have to fly a miss, and don't want to transition from a/p to
> manual when I decide conditions are not right for a landing.
>
> Aviators understand this stuff.

It depends on the aircraft and the type of flying.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 4, 9:19*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > LOOK UP CRM.
>
> No need, I know what it stands for.

NO YOU DON'T.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> LOOK UP CRM.
>
> No need, I know what it stands for.

You may know what the words of the acronym are but you obviously don't know
what it means or you wouldn't have written what you wrote.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 4, 10:22*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> a writes:
> > There was something in the literature recently about using a/p in IMC
> > is safer, but from my point of view I am much more aware of what's
> > going on hand flying (and have done so over the Rockies) than sitting
> > back and 'managing' the airplane while it's on auto pilot..
>
> The workload for single-pilot IFR is substantial, particularly in actual IMC.
> This is an important argument favoring the suggestion that autopilot be
> heavily used for IFR. With two pilots, things are easier, although an
> autopilot might still be preferable.
>
> At least the autopilot only does what it is told. At the same time, it does
> encourage a certain amount of complacency, which has even bit airline pilots
> on more than one occasion.
>
> > A sad confession is the a/p does do a better job of keeping the
> > needles crossed on an ILS than I do, but the correct interpretation of
> > that is, I need more practice at it than the a/p does.
>
> There's no shame in an automated system doing better than a human being at
> something it is designed to do.
>
> > A huge 'and
> > moreover' is, I want hands on near minima, don't want to mess with the
> > a/p if I have to fly a miss, and don't want to transition from a/p to
> > manual when I decide conditions are not right for a landing.
>
> > Aviators understand this stuff.
>
> It depends on the aircraft and the type of flying.

I hate responding to a troll, but his statement is nonsensical when
he claims a substantially higher workload for SEL under IFR/IMC. What
increase in workload? Control by reference to instruments? Navigating?
Communicating? Changing Frequencies? Flying a predetermined route?
Most of us rated for instrument flight would assert the workload is
NOT substantial and I, among many, prefer IFR than VFR because it is
in fact easier and certainly safer. It's a matter of training,
something a non-aviator would not understand. It would take a
completely abnormal set of circumstances before I would consider a
long night CAVU XC flight under VFR Abnormal would be, for example,
during the controller's slowdown/strike during the Reagan
presidency.

This is an aviator's forum, aviators understand this stuff.

[Mxsmanic]

a writes:

> I hate responding to a troll, but his statement is nonsensical when
> he claims a substantially higher workload for SEL under IFR/IMC. What
> increase in workload? Control by reference to instruments? Navigating?
> Communicating? Changing Frequencies? Flying a predetermined route?

Yes, all of these and more.

> Most of us rated for instrument flight would assert the workload is
> NOT substantial ...

I'm not sure who "us" might be, but every source I've read on the topic
asserts that single-pilot IFR represents a substantial workload. And IFR in
general is a higher workload than VFR, if it's done right.

> ... and I, among many, prefer IFR than VFR because it is
> in fact easier and certainly safer.

It's easier when you've been doing it for a long time, and it's certainly
safer when it's done right, but that doesn't mean that the workload is
trivial. This is especially true when you are flying in IMC and you actually
need IFR, as opposed to flying in clear weather and choosing IFR for logistic
reasons.

> It's a matter of training, something a non-aviator would not understand.

A lot of non-aviators teach it, so they obviously understand it.

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 4, 9:48*pm, "Stephen!" > wrote:
> a > wrote in news:d20d09bc-73c8-44dd-9654-
> :
>
> > moreover' is, I want hands on near minima, don't want to mess with the
> > a/p if I have to fly a miss, and don't want to transition from a/p to
> > manual when I decide conditions are not right for a landing.
>
> * The FBO from where I got my Instrument Ticket (in a '72 C-182RG) has a
> new batch of DA-40's with the G1000 and a coupled autopilot. *This thing
> will not only take you down to minimums hands-off, all it takes to do the
> missed all the way to and including the hold is pressing a single "GA"
> button.
>
> * That might be a lot of fun to play with and very handy at the end of a
> long and rough flight, but I think it would get rather boring and quite
> possibly lead to losing the "edge" you need when all the fancy gizmos
> quit working.
>
> --
> RCOS #7
> IBA# 11465http://imagesdesavions.com

There is always the small likelihood of Murphy's Law making its
presence known, but for me at least hands on has more to do with the
aesthetics of flying and the intellectual and visceral pleasures it
brings. Some of us are privileged enough to know the sensations.
George, a few messages ago, talked about no outside reference over
unforgiving land masses, he's been there, and perhaps like me feels a
little sympathetic for those who would like to have been, but
can't.

My concern, and I expect it's true for many who find it convenient to
use SEL for transportation, has little to do with the workload --
aviators know training and experience make that almost trivial -- but
rather being aware and sensitive to the limited options I have if the
IO 360 dragging me around decides to irreversibly quit if visibility
is restricted all the way to the surface. "Glide, breathe, wait"
sucks as a checklist. Never the less, if the forecast for my
destination is good and I have a golden alternate, there are no pilot
reports of icing at reasonable altitudes, and there are no
thunderstorms around, I will not deprive myself the pleasure of
hearing departure control say "Radar contact, climb to . . ."

[[email protected]]

On Aug 4, 5:52*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> > It's a matter of training, something a non-aviator would not understand..
>
> A lot of non-aviators teach it, so they obviously understand it.

WRONG

[[email protected]]

On Aug 5, 8:50*am, "bds" > wrote:
> A couple of you guys seem to have a real obsession with Mx and will go to
> any length to try to discredit anything and everything he posts here. *I
> have to admit that it sometimes makes you look a little ridiculous,
> especially when he's more right than wrong, and you're response is more
> wrong than right.

Where am I even remotely wrong in this thread????????

He is dead wrong in what he says in this thread. He needs lessons on
English if he thinks a NON aviator can understand what it takes to fly
an airplane.

I can't imagine you even agreeing with what he says. If you fly a
REAL airplane, you wouldn't have said what you did above.

[BDS]

A couple of you guys seem to have a real obsession with Mx and will go to
any length to try to discredit anything and everything he posts here. I
have to admit that it sometimes makes you look a little ridiculous,
especially when he's more right than wrong, and you're response is more
wrong than right.

Just because the guy isn't a pilot doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't
understand anything about aviation. I know quite a few pilots that know a
lot less than he appears to know.


> wrote in message
...
On Aug 4, 5:52 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> > It's a matter of training, something a non-aviator would not understand.
>
> A lot of non-aviators teach it, so they obviously understand it.

WRONG

[[email protected]]

On Aug 4, 10:06*pm, a > wrote:

> I will not deprive myself the pleasure of
> hearing departure control say "Radar contact, climb to . . ."- Hide quoted text -

Can't wait to hear our resident troll say I hear this in MSFS. LOL

The difference is that I understand EXACTLY what you are saying as
hearing it in MSFS and hearing it in a REAL Cessna or a Sundowner are
worlds apart in the feeling of self satisfaction of ones
accomplishment.

[Ari Silverstein]

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 08:50:16 -0500, bds wrote:

> A couple of you guys seem to have a real obsession with Mx and will go to
> any length to try to discredit anything and everything he posts here. I
> have to admit that it sometimes makes you look a little ridiculous,
> especially when he's more right than wrong, and you're response is more
> wrong than right.
>
> Just because the guy isn't a pilot doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't
> understand anything about aviation. I know quite a few pilots that know a
> lot less than he appears to know.

Goodie, now take you and the other troll and go shove one up your ass.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> This article is strongly slanted in favor of new
> stability-augmentation gadgets for light aircraft:
>
> http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going-direct/hal-not-control-your-airplane
>
> Not surprisingly, Cirrus is installing the gadget first, and Garmin
> is writing the poorly-tested software for it.

> Apparently the author does not understand the distinction between
> flying for fun and flying for transportation. The pilot who flies for
> fun is unlikely to want a computer to fly for him, no matter how well
> the computer does it or how safe the computer can make things. A
> pilot who flies for transportation might welcome more computer
> control. But putting gadgets like this on every light aircraft makes
> no sense. Sure, it might improve safety, but so would automating the
> entire flight, giving the pilot no control at all--and yet complete
> automation of flights would defeat the purpose of flying for many
> hobby pilots.

This is sort of like saying that electronic stabilisation systems common in
todays cars take all the fun out of driving. Sure they do, if you're trying
to skid sideways on a frozen lake or push the envelope on a racetrack. But
flying for fun, just like driving for recreational reasons, rather seldomly
involves going to the edge like that. I guess that 99% of drivers never even
notice any override from the electronics unless they are about to loose
control of their car. In which case they will be very thankful for having
them aboard. The fun neither in driving nor in flying is in loosing control.
ESP undenieably saved thousands of lifes, and the conceived systems for
airplanes could possibly do the same.

Just like in cars electronic systems can also outperform humans in airplanes
when it comes to tasks involving very rapid an precise reactions. No need to
feel embarrassed about that. There is really not much point in arguing about
stability systems taking away authority from the pilot. Remember how pilots
first detested the stall prevention systems implemented by airbus? Not one
case has been proven, where a system override over the pilots stick input
has been to the worse and caused an undesireable result.

And just like ESP on a car I would imagine that the stability augmentation
systems in airplanes could be disabled if you intendedly want to push the
envelope of your plane and know what you are doing.

regards,
Friedrich

[[email protected]]

On Aug 5, 2:55*pm, "Stephen!" > wrote:

> * In other words, without ground school I was able to not only take (and
> pass) the written but also the practical.[1] *Before I even had my
> introductory flight I already had an understanding of "what it takes to
> fly".
>
> [1] *My primary CFI quizzed me and determined that I was ready for the
> written. *I'd spent the previous 30+ years doing 'self-study' and he
> realized that trying to do ground school would be a waste of time for
> both of us.

Book knowledge won't get you out of inadvertant IMC. Book knowledge
won't help you if you need to divert. If you fly far enough on a
regular basis, it's not if but when these situations will happen.
Book knowledge tells you wat to do to avoid it and how to get out of
it but doesn't allow you to experience it first hand.

Would you want to be taught by a CFI WITH ONLY MSFS experience and no
real airplane flying experience??????

I'd think and hope not! I know I would not!

Ever try to reach for something in heavy turbulence in a real plane
such as a throttle? Compare that to MSFS and then come back and lets
talk. The two doesn't compare. Ever experience leans and have to be
forced to ignore your bodily sensations. Compare that to MSFS and
then come back and lets talk.

Mx has absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE of what it takes to fly a real plane
with his ZERO PIC time and only MSFS time. ZERO, NADA. MSFS and real
world flying don't compare as he wants his readership to believe.

You can talk all the theories about what it take to fly a plane but
when the rubber meets the road, it's you that is flying the plane, not
the books. I have yet had to have a hard time reaching for my keyboard
in MSFS severe turbulence LOL yet conversly try reaching for the
throttle or tune a radio in light to moderate chop.

He talks like he flies XC's in a citation. HE SIMULATES, he doesnt'
fly. He presents himself as a pilot. He is not a pilot, he is
simulating being a pilot on a desktop computer.

He outright lies by misleading people.

'nuf said.....

[george]

On Aug 6, 7:55*am, "Stephen!" > wrote:
> " > wrote in news:ccab996d-ac27-41ee-
> :
>
> > He is dead wrong in what he says in this thread. *He needs lessons on
> > English if he thinks a NON aviator can understand what it takes to fly
> > an airplane.
>
> * I'm pretty sure you are stretching it a little here... *Care to guess
> how many hours of Ground School I had when I got my PPL?
>
> * Here's a hint: *Zero.

How many hours flying did you have ?

We didn't have (or need) 'ground schools'.
You picked up the theory as you trained and flew.

[george]

On Aug 6, 10:45*am, "Stephen!" > wrote:

> * Somewhere between 50 and 60. *During my training I had a bit of diffculty
> with tropical weather, aircraft having proper insurance, and terrorist
> attacks shutting down the airspace system that extended my time several
> hours longer than it should have been.

I fooled round and didn't do my PPL until I had over 70 hours.
At the time 40 hours was the lowest time permitted

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Book knowledge won't get you out of inadvertant IMC. Book knowledge
> won't help you if you need to divert.

Which parts of doing these things are not documented in books?

> Book knowledge tells you wat to do to avoid it and how to get out of
> it but doesn't allow you to experience it first hand.

So?

> Mx has absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE of what it takes to fly a real plane
> with his ZERO PIC time and only MSFS time. ZERO, NADA. MSFS and real
> world flying don't compare as he wants his readership to believe.

What are your total hours flying, just out of curiosity?

[Mxsmanic]

Friedrich Ostertag writes:

> ESP undenieably saved thousands of lifes, and the conceived systems for
> airplanes could possibly do the same.

ESP is nonexistent in most cars (maybe BMW or someone like that is
implementing it), so how can it be saving thousands of lives?

> Just like in cars electronic systems can also outperform humans in airplanes
> when it comes to tasks involving very rapid an precise reactions.

And just as in cars, digital systems have catastrophic modes of failure when
confronted with situations that were not foreseen and programmed for during
the design of the systems.

> There is really not much point in arguing about stability systems
> taking away authority from the pilot.

Why not? It has been hotly debated for decades, and there is still no
consensus on it.

> Remember how pilots first detested the stall prevention systems
> implemented by airbus?

Some pilots still detest the systems on Airbus. In any case, small aircraft
don't have stall prevention systems, as a general rule.

> Not one case has been proven, where a system override over the pilots
> stick input has been to the worse and caused an undesireable result.

Not one case has been proven where a system override prevented a crash.

> And just like ESP on a car I would imagine that the stability augmentation
> systems in airplanes could be disabled if you intendedly want to push the
> envelope of your plane and know what you are doing.

I prefer a system that needs to enabled explicitly to a system that needs to
be disabled explicitly (and I don't even want to think about a system that
cannot be disabled).

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Aug 5, 11:02*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Book knowledge won't get you out of inadvertant IMC. *Book knowledge
> > won't help you if you need to divert.
>
> Which parts of doing these things are not documented in books?
>
> > Book knowledge tells you wat to do to avoid it and how to get out of
> > it but doesn't allow you to experience it first hand.
>
> So?
>
> > Mx has absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE of what it takes to fly a real plane
> > with his ZERO PIC time and only MSFS time. *ZERO, NADA. *MSFS and real
> > world flying don't compare as he wants his readership to believe.
>
> What are your total hours flying, just out of curiosity?

Asking for experience, flying hours, qualifications etc are a total
waste of bandwidth on Usenet. The person being challenged could be a
trained Chimp with a keyboard or the King of Siam. They could also be
quite legitimate.
The ONLY accurate measure of value on any Usenet forum is the accuracy
of the information posted proven over time. Posters are usually found
to be who they claim to be or not who they claim to be over time and
posting history based on the above.

My most interesting Usenet experience occurred when someone accused me
of NOT being Dudley Henriques as he knew Dudley Henriques and I wasn't
him.
My wife promptly answered his private email to me stating that if he
knew the real Dudley Henriques, would he be kind enough to ask him to
come home immediately as the impostor she had been living with for
over 40 years didn't like to do yard work.
DH

[Jim Logajan]

Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> My most interesting Usenet experience occurred when someone accused me
> of NOT being Dudley Henriques as he knew Dudley Henriques and I wasn't
> him.

Maybe you have an evil twin you don't know about?

> My wife promptly answered his private email to me stating that if he
> knew the real Dudley Henriques, would he be kind enough to ask him to
> come home immediately as the impostor she had been living with for
> over 40 years didn't like to do yard work.

While I'm not a fan of weeding or watering, I do take a certain
satisfaction in mowing the yard with our riding mower.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Aug 5, 11:45*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> > My most interesting Usenet experience occurred when someone accused me
> > of NOT being Dudley Henriques as he knew Dudley Henriques and I wasn't
> > him.
>
> Maybe you have an evil twin you don't know about?
>
> > My wife promptly answered his private email to me stating that if he
> > knew the real Dudley Henriques, would he be kind enough to ask him to
> > come home immediately as the impostor she had been living with for
> > over 40 years didn't like to do yard work.
>
> While I'm not a fan of weeding or watering, I do take a certain
> satisfaction in mowing the yard with our riding mower.

YOU sir, are close to being a woman's ultimate fantasy :-))
D

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Friedrich Ostertag writes:
>
>> ESP undenieably saved thousands of lifes, and the conceived systems for
>> airplanes could possibly do the same.
>
> ESP is nonexistent in most cars (maybe BMW or someone like that is
> implementing it), so how can it be saving thousands of lives?

Nonsense.

It has been around since at least '87 and has been implemented by about every
car maker out there world wide.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[george]

On Aug 6, 3:45*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:

> Maybe you have an evil twin you don't know about?

An evil twin wouldn't do 'yard work' either :-)

[[email protected]]

On Aug 5, 10:02*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Book knowledge won't get you out of inadvertant IMC. *Book knowledge
> > won't help you if you need to divert.
>
> Which parts of doing these things are not documented in books?

What difference does it make to you. You already don't take my
answers for any value.

> What are your total hours flying, just out of curiosity?

What difference does it make to you. You already don't take my
answers for any value.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 5, 10:28*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> The ONLY accurate measure of value on any Usenet forum is the accuracy
> of the information posted proven over time. Posters are usually found
> to be who they claim to be or not who they claim to be over time and
> posting history based on the above.

So, where do I fall in this accurate measurment??? I would hope I
have proven my own experience over 10 years.

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 6, 8:04*am, " > wrote:
> On Aug 5, 10:28*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > The ONLY accurate measure of value on any Usenet forum is the accuracy
> > of the information posted proven over time. Posters are usually found
> > to be who they claim to be or not who they claim to be over time and
> > posting history based on the above.
>
> So, where do I fall in this accurate measurment??? *I would hope I
> have proven my own experience over 10 years.

Some, including you and hopefully me, have as aviators actually
included aviation related comments in our postings. My checklists have
grown based on ideas suggested here, as have some flying habits. Those
are the golden needles in this sometimes frustrating haystack.

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Asking for experience, flying hours, qualifications etc are a total
> waste of bandwidth on Usenet. The person being challenged could be a
> trained Chimp with a keyboard or the King of Siam. They could also be
> quite legitimate.

Which means I could also be working in aviation safety for a living. I could
even be working for the FAA.

> The ONLY accurate measure of value on any Usenet forum is the accuracy
> of the information posted proven over time. Posters are usually found
> to be who they claim to be or not who they claim to be over time and
> posting history based on the above.

I agree. However, I don't care who the posters are. They are either right or
wrong. I don't trust names or credentials. Someone who is consistently right
will gradually earn my respect; someone who is too often wrong will be
promptly written off.

> My most interesting Usenet experience occurred when someone accused me
> of NOT being Dudley Henriques as he knew Dudley Henriques and I wasn't
> him.
> My wife promptly answered his private email to me stating that if he
> knew the real Dudley Henriques, would he be kind enough to ask him to
> come home immediately as the impostor she had been living with for
> over 40 years didn't like to do yard work.

Perhaps the one he knew was the imposter.

I don't worry about that, as I've said above. So whether you are the real DH
or not doesn't matter. Only the things you post matter.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 6, 9:44*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I could even be working for the FAA.

WRONG.

DID YOU FORGET WHERE YOU LIVE?????????????

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> What difference does it make to you. You already don't take my
> answers for any value.

Yes, but I was calling your bluff. It worked.

> What difference does it make to you.

I was curious because you sound so inexperienced. Everyone thinks he's an
expert during the first hundred hours or so of doing something new. Your
knee-jerk, vehement rejection of just about anything I say about aviation
indicates that you've invested much of your self-esteem in your PPL and are
correspondingly insecure about it, characteristics that are also correlated
with a lack of experience.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> It has been around since at least '87 and has been implemented by about every
> car maker out there world wide.

I did some research and it turns out to be more prevalent than I thought;
however, it is far from universal (but apparently some governments have
required or will require it). I don't pay much attention to cars and I haven't
driven a car in ages. I'm disappointed that gadgets like this are becoming
prevalent.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> DID YOU FORGET WHERE YOU LIVE?????????????

Obviously, if I could work for the FAA and pretend not to, then I could also
live somewhere other than where I might appear to live. Indeed, I could be
someone different entirely. Believability would be enhanced if I simply
pretended to be another person who also happens to be real.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> It has been around since at least '87 and has been implemented by about every
>> car maker out there world wide.
>
> I did some research and it turns out to be more prevalent than I thought;
> however, it is far from universal (but apparently some governments have
> required or will require it). I don't pay much attention to cars and I haven't
> driven a car in ages. I'm disappointed that gadgets like this are becoming
> prevalent.

Once again, since 1987, so it isn't "are becoming prevalent", they have
been prevalent for over 20 years.

The only downside to such systems that I have seen is when a very old
driver first encounters them, as in very old drivers were taught not to
press the brakes as hard as you can in a panic stop yet the anti-skid
systems "want" you to do exactly that.

Even then it takes only once to adjust to the new reality (for me that was
more than 15 years ago) and since pilots train for other than normal
circumstances while drivers do not, I see no problem with such a system
in aircraft.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[BDS]

> Dudley Henriques writes:

>> The ONLY accurate measure of value on any Usenet forum is the accuracy
>> of the information posted proven over time. Posters are usually found
>> to be who they claim to be or not who they claim to be over time and
>> posting history based on the above.
>

A friend of mine used to have a saying..."If you have to tell them you are,
then you ain't".

[[email protected]]

On Aug 6, 10:08*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > DID YOU FORGET WHERE YOU LIVE?????????????
>
> Obviously, if I could work for the FAA and pretend not to, then I could also
> live somewhere other than where I might appear to live.

So in other words YOU LIVE A LIFE OF LIES.

FINALLY I AGREE WITH YOU.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> So in other words YOU LIVE A LIFE OF LIES.

I haven't said whether I'm lying or telling the truth, so your conclusion is
unwarranted.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The only downside to such systems that I have seen is when a very old
> driver first encounters them, as in very old drivers were taught not to
> press the brakes as hard as you can in a panic stop yet the anti-skid
> systems "want" you to do exactly that.

There is a downside for newer drivers, too, in that those who have driven
mostly cars with ABS tend to constantly ram the brakes at the last minute,
confident that the ABS will bring them to a safe stop without a skid. The
problems here are that they don't know what to do if the ABS fails, and they
often don't understand that ABS does not reduce minimum stopping distance, so
they can still crash into the car in front of them even with the system
running if they are too careless about braking.

I drive all cars as if they don't have ABS. In other words, I make sure that I
can stop with completely normal braking (not impending-skid braking, although
I learned to do that, too).

Which reminds me (incidentally) that supposedly Southwest has ABS disabled on
all its aircraft, because some of their older models don't have it, and they
want a consistent experience for all pilots on all 737 models. I've heard the
same about autothrottle. It makes me wonder how much automation Southwest
aircraft actually use.

> Even then it takes only once to adjust to the new reality (for me that was
> more than 15 years ago) and since pilots train for other than normal
> circumstances while drivers do not, I see no problem with such a system
> in aircraft.

Hmm ... does this rapid adjustment to reality apply generally?

[[email protected]]

On Aug 6, 2:52*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > So in other words YOU LIVE A LIFE OF LIES.
>
> I haven't said whether I'm lying or telling the truth, so your conclusion is
> unwarranted.

So in other words YOU CONTINUE TO LIVE A LIFE OF LIES since you
apparently are not truthful as indicated above.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> The only downside to such systems that I have seen is when a very old
>> driver first encounters them, as in very old drivers were taught not to
>> press the brakes as hard as you can in a panic stop yet the anti-skid
>> systems "want" you to do exactly that.
>
> There is a downside for newer drivers, too, in that those who have driven
> mostly cars with ABS

It is rather difficult to drive anything else these days unless you are
a collector of "classic" cars.

>> Even then it takes only once to adjust to the new reality (for me that was
>> more than 15 years ago) and since pilots train for other than normal
>> circumstances while drivers do not, I see no problem with such a system
>> in aircraft.
>
> Hmm ... does this rapid adjustment to reality apply generally?

Well, I've had this discussion with two other people from the same basic
age group, so for a sample size of three, it applies 100%.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Gemini]

On 2010-08-06, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> My most interesting Usenet experience occurred when someone accused me
>> of NOT being Dudley Henriques as he knew Dudley Henriques and I wasn't
>> him.
>
> Maybe you have an evil twin you don't know about?
>
>> My wife promptly answered his private email to me stating that if he
>> knew the real Dudley Henriques, would he be kind enough to ask him to
>> come home immediately as the impostor she had been living with for
>> over 40 years didn't like to do yard work.
>
> While I'm not a fan of weeding or watering, I do take a certain
> satisfaction in mowing the yard with our riding mower.

There's something about the riding mower that I enjoy. Not
sure what it is. I'd have to agree that mowing is acceptable
when a riding type is used. Especially if its got a big
2 or 3 bag catcher strapped to the back.

z

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Aug 6, 10:44*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
> > Asking for experience, flying hours, qualifications etc are a total
> > waste of bandwidth on Usenet. The person being challenged could be a
> > trained Chimp with a keyboard or the King of Siam. They could also be
> > quite legitimate.
>
> Which means I could also be working in aviation safety for a living. I could
> even be working for the FAA.
>
> > The ONLY accurate measure of value on any Usenet forum is the accuracy
> > of the information posted proven over time. Posters are usually found
> > to be who they claim to be or not who they claim to be over time and
> > posting history based on the above.
>
> I agree. However, I don't care who the posters are. They are either right or
> wrong. I don't trust names or credentials. *Someone who is consistently right
> will gradually earn my respect; someone who is too often wrong will be
> promptly written off.
>
> > My most interesting Usenet experience occurred when someone accused me
> > of NOT being Dudley Henriques as he knew Dudley Henriques and I wasn't
> > him.
> > My wife promptly answered his private email to me stating that if he
> > knew the real Dudley Henriques, would he be kind enough to ask him to
> > come home immediately as the impostor she had been living with for
> > over 40 years didn't like to do yard work.
>
> Perhaps the one he knew was the imposter.
>
> I don't worry about that, as I've said above. So whether you are the real DH
> or not doesn't matter. Only the things you post matter.

If I'm not mistaken, you have reposted almost verbatim what I just
said :-)
DH

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> If I'm not mistaken, you have reposted almost verbatim what I just
> said :-)

I am indeed saying about the same thing that you are.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> It is rather difficult to drive anything else these days unless you are
> a collector of "classic" cars.

I don't even remember if my last car had ABS (a few years ago). I think maybe
it did. But it didn't have any stability stuff.

> Well, I've had this discussion with two other people from the same basic
> age group, so for a sample size of three, it applies 100%.

In that case, the adjustment from a simulator to real life or vice versa
should be equally trivial.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> It is rather difficult to drive anything else these days unless you are
>> a collector of "classic" cars.
>
> I don't even remember if my last car had ABS (a few years ago). I think maybe
> it did. But it didn't have any stability stuff.

ABS is part of the "stability stuff" designed to keep the car from winding
up sideways in a panic stop.

>> Well, I've had this discussion with two other people from the same basic
>> age group, so for a sample size of three, it applies 100%.
>
> In that case, the adjustment from a simulator to real life or vice versa
> should be equally trivial.

Non sequitur.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> they
> often don't understand that ABS does not reduce minimum stopping distance,

THAT shows how you speak about thing you don't fully understand. ABS DOES
shorten stopping distances, as the system can more precisely modulate the
brakes than any human is able.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> ABS is part of the "stability stuff" designed to keep the car from winding
> up sideways in a panic stop.

Yes, but ABS systems can be installed alone, without any other stability
stuff, and that's the way my car was ... I think. I'm pretty sure it had ABS
because there was a light on the dashboard for it, but it didn't have any
stability weirdness. As I recall, the light came on when ABS was engaged. Of
course, it never came on for me, because I never stopped recklessly enough for
it to activate.

> Non sequitur.

I'm afraid not. You've admitted yourself that many differences are trivial and
can be easily adapted to, which is true. Moving from sim to airplane or back
is the same way. Only an exceptionally stupid student or pilot would not
notice and allow for differences between the two.

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> THAT shows how you speak about thing you don't fully understand. ABS DOES
> shorten stopping distances, as the system can more precisely modulate the
> brakes than any human is able.

The difference between that and what a skilled driver can achieve is small,
and in any case, if someone is depending on that slight decrement in stopping
distance, he's already making dangerous mistakes. In fact, if the ABS
activates at all, he is almost certainly making a mistake in his driving. An
ABS activation always means impending skid, and if you need an impending skid
to stop, you started braking way too late, or you were too close to whatever
you are trying not to hit.

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 6, 11:59*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote
>
> > they
> > often don't understand that ABS does not reduce minimum stopping distance,
>
> THAT shows how you speak about thing you don't fully understand. *ABS DOES
> shorten stopping distances, as the system can more precisely modulate the
> brakes than any human is able.

Mx does not understand that ABS in airplanes and in cars, prevents
wheel lock and uncontrolled skids. He is 'expert' at little expect
prolonging threads, unless you take the word expert apart. An ex,
after all, is a has been, and a spurt is a drip under pressure.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans writes:
>
>> THAT shows how you speak about thing you don't fully understand. ABS
>> DOES
>> shorten stopping distances, as the system can more precisely modulate the
>> brakes than any human is able.
>
> The difference between that and what a skilled driver can achieve is
> small,
> and in any case, if someone is depending on that slight decrement in
> stopping
> distance, he's already making dangerous mistakes. In fact, if the ABS
> activates at all, he is almost certainly making a mistake in his driving.
> An
> ABS activation always means impending skid, and if you need an impending
> skid
> to stop, you started braking way too late, or you were too close to
> whatever
> you are trying not to hit.

You are so damn stupid, you are a waste of oxygen.

If you ever had someone pull out in front of you while you were doing 55MPH,
and you had ABS, you had better be using it, or you gave up a hundred feet
of stopping distance.

I am glad for ever MPH my ABS lessen my speed when a person didn't see me
coming, and pulled out. Every extra MPH impact hurts, that much more. I
wasn't making dangerous mistakes, other than driving. That is one mistake
you will not make, because you are afraid of living.

But then, since you do almost no driving, and none now, you would not be in
real life to take your chances of applying ABS. Just like simming, instead
of flying.

Chicken****. Waste of air.

Everyone ignore this jerk, please ! ! ! The only way you can do that is to
block him out. I didn't, and like others, he ****es me off, and draws a
response. Block him, everyone, please ! ! !
--
Jim in NC

[Ari Silverstein]

On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 15:48:36 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:

> On Aug 6, 10:44*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>> Asking for experience, flying hours, qualifications etc are a total
>>> waste of bandwidth on Usenet. The person being challenged could be a
>>> trained Chimp with a keyboard or the King of Siam. They could also be
>>> quite legitimate.
>>
>> Which means I could also be working in aviation safety for a living. I could
>> even be working for the FAA.
>>
>>> The ONLY accurate measure of value on any Usenet forum is the accuracy
>>> of the information posted proven over time. Posters are usually found
>>> to be who they claim to be or not who they claim to be over time and
>>> posting history based on the above.
>>
>> I agree. However, I don't care who the posters are. They are either right or
>> wrong. I don't trust names or credentials. *Someone who is consistently right
>> will gradually earn my respect; someone who is too often wrong will be
>> promptly written off.
>>
>>> My most interesting Usenet experience occurred when someone accused me
>>> of NOT being Dudley Henriques as he knew Dudley Henriques and I wasn't
>>> him.
>>> My wife promptly answered his private email to me stating that if he
>>> knew the real Dudley Henriques, would he be kind enough to ask him to
>>> come home immediately as the impostor she had been living with for
>>> over 40 years didn't like to do yard work.
>>
>> Perhaps the one he knew was the imposter.
>>
>> I don't worry about that, as I've said above. So whether you are the real DH
>> or not doesn't matter. Only the things you post matter.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, you have reposted almost verbatim what I just
> said :-)
> DH

Which if you weren't the ever self-consuming troll you have become,
the real troll wouldn't have had the op to do that.

Excuse me, you can go back to trolling the troll like all the others,
bored, half-dead and spending countless hours on dozens of forums.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> ABS is part of the "stability stuff" designed to keep the car from winding
>> up sideways in a panic stop.
>
> Yes, but ABS systems can be installed alone, without any other stability
> stuff, and that's the way my car was ... I think. I'm pretty sure it had ABS
> because there was a light on the dashboard for it, but it didn't have any
> stability weirdness. As I recall, the light came on when ABS was engaged. Of
> course, it never came on for me, because I never stopped recklessly enough for
> it to activate.

Point missed again.

ABS is "stability stuff", which contrary to your assertion has been around
for over twenty years, has saved lives, and causes no "problems" I've ever
heard of.

One does not have to drive "recklessly" for their system to activate.

A ball rolls into the street in front of you followed closeley by a running
child...

Someone pulls out of a driveway onto the street without looking...

The car in the next lane blows a tire and starts skidding into your lane...

I could go on and on and all of them have happened to me.

>
>> Non sequitur.
>
> I'm afraid not. You've admitted yourself that many differences are trivial and
> can be easily adapted to, which is true. Moving from sim to airplane or back
> is the same way. Only an exceptionally stupid student or pilot would not
> notice and allow for differences between the two.

Nope, I what I have said is some differences are trivial, but many of them
are major unless you are talking about multi-million dollar, full motion,
professisonal simulators.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Morgans writes:
>
>> THAT shows how you speak about thing you don't fully understand. ABS DOES
>> shorten stopping distances, as the system can more precisely modulate the
>> brakes than any human is able.
>
> The difference between that and what a skilled driver can achieve is small,

For a professional driver, maybe.

For the average person, no.

> and in any case, if someone is depending on that slight decrement in stopping
> distance, he's already making dangerous mistakes. In fact, if the ABS
> activates at all, he is almost certainly making a mistake in his driving. An
> ABS activation always means impending skid, and if you need an impending skid
> to stop, you started braking way too late, or you were too close to whatever
> you are trying not to hit.

Or something totally unexpected happeded like a kid runs into the street
chasing a ball, someone pulls out in front of you without looking, a parked
car opens their door right in front of you, or someone runs a red light.

It appears your knowledge of real driving is just as shallow as your knowledge
of real flying.

Have you ever actually done ANYTHING or is your whole life a simulation?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Nope, I what I have said is some differences are trivial, but many of them
> are major unless you are talking about multi-million dollar, full motion,
> professisonal simulators.

So a multi-million-dollar, full-motion, professional simulator that
exaggerates the effects of spoilers by 100% would still only count as a
trivial difference?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> For a professional driver, maybe.
>
> For the average person, no.

Then the average person needs to take care to drive in a conservative way that
will not exceed his abilities.

Unfortunately, systems like ABS make drivers complacent, and soon they are
making every stop as if it were a panic stop, confident that the ABS will save
them.

This is a very consistent pattern of human behavior when gadgets like this are
installed on vehicles. In aviation, one sees this in the near-total
dependence on GPS that some private pilots have quickly embraced once they've
started using the receivers. Not only are they routinely taking risks that
they should not, but they've forgotten what to do if the GPS fails.

> Or something totally unexpected happeded like a kid runs into the street
> chasing a ball, someone pulls out in front of you without looking, a parked
> car opens their door right in front of you, or someone runs a red light.

An ABS might not help you at all in these cases if you aren't driving
cautiously enough to have the correct stopping distance. And if you do allow a
generous stopping distance, you may not need ABS.

In other words, a system like ABS helps in a minority of cases, but makes no
difference in many other cases. If that were the end of it, no problem, but
the flip side is that automation of this kind makes drivers (or pilots) lazy
and allows them to get far ahead of their actual abilities.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Nope, I what I have said is some differences are trivial, but many of them
>> are major unless you are talking about multi-million dollar, full motion,
>> professisonal simulators.
>
> So a multi-million-dollar, full-motion, professional simulator that
> exaggerates the effects of spoilers by 100% would still only count as a
> trivial difference?

Nope, and that is a really stupid question.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Nope, and that is a really stupid question.
>
> So what's the threshold of trivial?

Yet more really stupid blather.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Yes, and only you can prevent forest fires.
>
> And people who ridicule safety tend to have short life spans.

Maybe, but your saying it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

You might as well have said ice cream has no bones.

>> If what you say were even remotely true, every road would be filled with
>> the sound of screeching tires and the smell of buring rubber.
>
> Not as long as the ABS works.

Sigh, you are REALLY showing how little you know about driving or how ABS
works in the real world.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jim Logajan]

"Stephen!" > wrote:
> Gemini > wrote in
> :
>
>> There's something about the riding mower that I enjoy. Not
>> sure what it is. I'd have to agree that mowing is acceptable
>> when a riding type is used. Especially if its got a big
>> 2 or 3 bag catcher strapped to the back.
>
> Bah... To hell with bags. Full Mulch is the only way to go.

We bought a 3 bag catcher a few years back, and while I find bagging makes
for a nicer result, I bought a mulcher kit for the lawn tractor a couple
months ago. Still haven't used it yet (Oregon has a dry summer climate, so
as the summer wears on mowing isn't needed as much. And when it does need
mowing there is no need to bag or mulch.)

With regard to aviation and this thread:

I will need to increase the size of the blades (currently only 48 inch
width) and engine horsepower (currently just 20 HP) on my lawn tractor to
make it a hovering mower. Instead of a lever to adjust the height of the
mower blades, I'll need some way to adjust the height of the tractor above
ground (maybe replace the mower attachment lever with a collective?)
Haven't figured out how I'll handle slopes. Clearly a stability
augmentation system of some kind will be needed.

I'm pretty sure it'll weigh more than allowed for ultralights, so I may
need to get a helicopter license to legally mow. Will I need to equip it
with two seats to allow CFIs do BFRs? Or can they simply observe from a
safe distance while I show I can safely perform cross-wind mows, collision
avoidance of trees, flowers, and fences; simulated emergencies such as
mowing over things that make it go "kerchunk!"?

[Peter Dohm]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Stephen!" > wrote:
>> Gemini > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> There's something about the riding mower that I enjoy. Not
>>> sure what it is. I'd have to agree that mowing is acceptable
>>> when a riding type is used. Especially if its got a big
>>> 2 or 3 bag catcher strapped to the back.
>>
>> Bah... To hell with bags. Full Mulch is the only way to go.
>
> We bought a 3 bag catcher a few years back, and while I find bagging makes
> for a nicer result, I bought a mulcher kit for the lawn tractor a couple
> months ago. Still haven't used it yet (Oregon has a dry summer climate, so
> as the summer wears on mowing isn't needed as much. And when it does need
> mowing there is no need to bag or mulch.)
>
> With regard to aviation and this thread:
>
> I will need to increase the size of the blades (currently only 48 inch
> width) and engine horsepower (currently just 20 HP) on my lawn tractor to
> make it a hovering mower. Instead of a lever to adjust the height of the
> mower blades, I'll need some way to adjust the height of the tractor above
> ground (maybe replace the mower attachment lever with a collective?)
> Haven't figured out how I'll handle slopes. Clearly a stability
> augmentation system of some kind will be needed.
>
> I'm pretty sure it'll weigh more than allowed for ultralights, so I may
> need to get a helicopter license to legally mow. Will I need to equip it
> with two seats to allow CFIs do BFRs? Or can they simply observe from a
> safe distance while I show I can safely perform cross-wind mows, collision
> avoidance of trees, flowers, and fences; simulated emergencies such as
> mowing over things that make it go "kerchunk!"?

I've heard that a/c which are not routinely capable of achieving altitude
above a certain low limit are exempt from requlation by the FAA.

But, that stability augmentation might still be a good idea on the slopes!

Peter ;-))))))))))))

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Aug 8, 5:11*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> "Stephen!" > wrote:
> > Gemini > wrote in
> :
>
> >> There's something about the riding mower that I enjoy. Not
> >> sure what it is. I'd have to agree that mowing is acceptable
> >> when a riding type is used. Especially if its got a big
> >> 2 or 3 bag catcher strapped to the back.
>
> > * Bah... *To hell with bags. *Full Mulch is the only way to go.
>
> We bought a 3 bag catcher a few years back, and while I find bagging makes
> for a nicer result, I bought a mulcher kit for the lawn tractor a couple
> months ago. Still haven't used it yet (Oregon has a dry summer climate, so
> as the summer wears on mowing isn't needed as much. And when it does need
> mowing there is no need to bag or mulch.)
>
> With regard to aviation and this thread:
>
> I will need to increase the size of the blades (currently only 48 inch
> width) and engine horsepower (currently just 20 HP) on my lawn tractor to
> make it a hovering mower. Instead of a lever to adjust the height of the
> mower blades, I'll need some way to adjust the height of the tractor above
> ground (maybe replace the mower attachment lever with a collective?)
> Haven't figured out how I'll handle slopes. Clearly a stability
> augmentation system of some kind will be needed.
>
> I'm pretty sure it'll weigh more than allowed for ultralights, so I may
> need to get a helicopter license to legally mow. Will I need to equip it
> with two seats to allow CFIs do BFRs? Or can they simply observe from a
> safe distance while I show I can safely perform cross-wind mows, collision
> avoidance of trees, flowers, and fences; simulated emergencies such as
> mowing over things that make it go "kerchunk!"?

From my yard work handbook; Rider Mower ABS, GOOD.............Rider
Mower
Stabaug..........Good..............Kerchunk....... .........BAD!! :-))
D

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 8, 5:43*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> On Aug 8, 5:11*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Stephen!" > wrote:
> > > Gemini > wrote in
> > :
>
> > >> There's something about the riding mower that I enjoy. Not
> > >> sure what it is. I'd have to agree that mowing is acceptable
> > >> when a riding type is used. Especially if its got a big
> > >> 2 or 3 bag catcher strapped to the back.
>
> > > * Bah... *To hell with bags. *Full Mulch is the only way to go.
>
> > We bought a 3 bag catcher a few years back, and while I find bagging makes
> > for a nicer result, I bought a mulcher kit for the lawn tractor a couple
> > months ago. Still haven't used it yet (Oregon has a dry summer climate, so
> > as the summer wears on mowing isn't needed as much. And when it does need
> > mowing there is no need to bag or mulch.)
>
> > With regard to aviation and this thread:
>
> > I will need to increase the size of the blades (currently only 48 inch
> > width) and engine horsepower (currently just 20 HP) on my lawn tractor to
> > make it a hovering mower. Instead of a lever to adjust the height of the
> > mower blades, I'll need some way to adjust the height of the tractor above
> > ground (maybe replace the mower attachment lever with a collective?)
> > Haven't figured out how I'll handle slopes. Clearly a stability
> > augmentation system of some kind will be needed.
>
> > I'm pretty sure it'll weigh more than allowed for ultralights, so I may
> > need to get a helicopter license to legally mow. Will I need to equip it
> > with two seats to allow CFIs do BFRs? Or can they simply observe from a
> > safe distance while I show I can safely perform cross-wind mows, collision
> > avoidance of trees, flowers, and fences; simulated emergencies such as
> > mowing over things that make it go "kerchunk!"?
>
> From my yard work handbook; Rider Mower ABS, GOOD.............Rider
> Mower
> Stabaug..........Good..............Kerchunk....... .........BAD!! *:-))
> D

Mr Dudley, should you achieve lift from your mower blades you;d
probably have to be inverted -- remember the blades are designed to
create an updraft around the grass, so you best get a full harness
rather than just a seat belt. I suspected inverted flight close over
the lawn violates a regulation or two as well.

I'm not sure how you'd get enough speed to go inverted -- you may need
a launch ramp and half a snap roll. I'll be looking for this on you
tube,

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Aug 8, 6:20*pm, a > wrote:
> On Aug 8, 5:43*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 8, 5:11*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
> > > "Stephen!" > wrote:
> > > > Gemini > wrote in
> > > :
>
> > > >> There's something about the riding mower that I enjoy. Not
> > > >> sure what it is. I'd have to agree that mowing is acceptable
> > > >> when a riding type is used. Especially if its got a big
> > > >> 2 or 3 bag catcher strapped to the back.
>
> > > > * Bah... *To hell with bags. *Full Mulch is the only way to go.
>
> > > We bought a 3 bag catcher a few years back, and while I find bagging makes
> > > for a nicer result, I bought a mulcher kit for the lawn tractor a couple
> > > months ago. Still haven't used it yet (Oregon has a dry summer climate, so
> > > as the summer wears on mowing isn't needed as much. And when it does need
> > > mowing there is no need to bag or mulch.)
>
> > > With regard to aviation and this thread:
>
> > > I will need to increase the size of the blades (currently only 48 inch
> > > width) and engine horsepower (currently just 20 HP) on my lawn tractor to
> > > make it a hovering mower. Instead of a lever to adjust the height of the
> > > mower blades, I'll need some way to adjust the height of the tractor above
> > > ground (maybe replace the mower attachment lever with a collective?)
> > > Haven't figured out how I'll handle slopes. Clearly a stability
> > > augmentation system of some kind will be needed.
>
> > > I'm pretty sure it'll weigh more than allowed for ultralights, so I may
> > > need to get a helicopter license to legally mow. Will I need to equip it
> > > with two seats to allow CFIs do BFRs? Or can they simply observe from a
> > > safe distance while I show I can safely perform cross-wind mows, collision
> > > avoidance of trees, flowers, and fences; simulated emergencies such as
> > > mowing over things that make it go "kerchunk!"?
>
> > From my yard work handbook; Rider Mower ABS, GOOD.............Rider
> > Mower
> > Stabaug..........Good..............Kerchunk....... .........BAD!! *:-))
> > D
>
> Mr Dudley, should you achieve lift from your mower blades you;d
> probably have to be inverted -- remember the blades are designed to
> create an updraft around the grass, so you best get a full harness
> rather than just a seat belt. I suspected inverted flight close over
> the lawn violates a regulation or two as well.
>
> I'm not sure how you'd get enough speed to go inverted -- you may need
> a launch ramp and half a snap roll. I'll be looking for this on you
> tube,

Sounds like a good plan to me. A 1/2 snap sounds like the way to go.
Somehow I get the feeling that I'll have to be inverted in the seat
with the mower right side up however for the blades to work
properly.:-))
DH

[Jim Logajan]

Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> From my yard work handbook; Rider Mower ABS, GOOD.............Rider
> Mower
> Stabaug..........Good..............Kerchunk....... .........BAD!! :-))
> D

Hmmm - does it say how bad? Is it considered Controlled Flight into Terrain
(CFIT) or Controlled Mow into Things (CMIT)? Would it help if I filed a
ASRS after such an incident? It's not like it is intentional or anything.
Sure, I may let the grass get a tad high before mowing it, causing me to
mow under marginal visual mowing conditions, but there are always
extenuating circumstances.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Aug 8, 8:10*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> > From my yard work handbook; Rider Mower ABS, GOOD.............Rider
> > Mower
> > Stabaug..........Good..............Kerchunk....... .........BAD!! *:-))
> > D
>
> Hmmm - does it say how bad? Is it considered Controlled Flight into Terrain
> (CFIT) or Controlled Mow into Things (CMIT)? Would it help if I filed a
> ASRS after such an incident? It's not like it is intentional or anything.
> Sure, I may let the grass get a tad high before mowing it, causing me to
> mow under marginal visual mowing conditions, but there are always
> extenuating circumstances.

My lifelong dream is to get one of those mowers that mows
automatically while I sit up on the porch in air conditioned comfort
with a Jack Daniels in one mitt and a remote control joystick for the
mower in the other. :-)
DH

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 8, 8:17*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> On Aug 8, 8:10*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
> > Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> > > From my yard work handbook; Rider Mower ABS, GOOD.............Rider
> > > Mower
> > > Stabaug..........Good..............Kerchunk....... .........BAD!! *:-))
> > > D
>
> > Hmmm - does it say how bad? Is it considered Controlled Flight into Terrain
> > (CFIT) or Controlled Mow into Things (CMIT)? Would it help if I filed a
> > ASRS after such an incident? It's not like it is intentional or anything.
> > Sure, I may let the grass get a tad high before mowing it, causing me to
> > mow under marginal visual mowing conditions, but there are always
> > extenuating circumstances.
>
> My lifelong dream is to get one of those mowers that mows
> automatically while I sit up on the porch in air conditioned comfort
> with a Jack Daniels in one mitt and a remote control joystick for the
> mower in the other. :-)
> DH

With a suitably modified GPS enabled autopilot (some tractors are
large farms actually have these) you could be spared the labor of
working the joystick. Once programmed it would fly (well, taxi) a
suitable pattern, upwind, crosswind, downwind, base, and upwind again
and mow down those blades that intrude into a bug's airspace.

I claim extra credit for aviation content in the above.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Aug 8, 9:54*pm, a > wrote:
> On Aug 8, 8:17*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 8, 8:10*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
> > > Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> > > > From my yard work handbook; Rider Mower ABS, GOOD.............Rider
> > > > Mower
> > > > Stabaug..........Good..............Kerchunk....... .........BAD!! *:-))
> > > > D
>
> > > Hmmm - does it say how bad? Is it considered Controlled Flight into Terrain
> > > (CFIT) or Controlled Mow into Things (CMIT)? Would it help if I filed a
> > > ASRS after such an incident? It's not like it is intentional or anything.
> > > Sure, I may let the grass get a tad high before mowing it, causing me to
> > > mow under marginal visual mowing conditions, but there are always
> > > extenuating circumstances.
>
> > My lifelong dream is to get one of those mowers that mows
> > automatically while I sit up on the porch in air conditioned comfort
> > with a Jack Daniels in one mitt and a remote control joystick for the
> > mower in the other. :-)
> > DH
>
> With a suitably modified GPS enabled autopilot (some tractors are
> large farms actually have these) you could be spared the labor of
> working the joystick. Once programmed it would fly (well, taxi) a
> suitable pattern, upwind, crosswind, downwind, base, and upwind again
> and mow down those blades that intrude into a bug's airspace.
>
> I claim extra credit for aviation content in the above.

5 Atta Boys and no "Oh ****s" to you for aviation related
content :-)))

:-))
DH

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
>
> This article is strongly slanted in favor of new stability-augmentation
> gadgets for light aircraft:
>
> http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going-direct/hal-not-control-your-airplane
>
> Not surprisingly, Cirrus is installing the gadget first, and Garmin is writing
> the poorly-tested software for it.
>
> Apparently the author does not understand the distinction between flying for
> fun and flying for transportation. The pilot who flies for fun is unlikely to
> want a computer to fly for him, no matter how well the computer does it or how
> safe the computer can make things. A pilot who flies for transportation might
> welcome more computer control. But putting gadgets like this on every light
> aircraft makes no sense. Sure, it might improve safety, but so would
> automating the entire flight, giving the pilot no control at all--and yet
> complete automation of flights would defeat the purpose of flying for many
> hobby pilots.

http://biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=21816

--
Duncan.