Ever stuck your neck out too far? And got away with it?

[pacplyer]

In a previous Monday morning quarterback argument:
> > >
> > > "He abdicated complete personal responsibility for any kind of
> > > contingency plan or consideration of how he was going to get back with
> > > limited fuel."
> > >
> > > Bruce Hamilton
> > >
> > And what the hell else do you expect them to say????
> >
> Jerry:
> You have stretched this about as far as possible. Your logic is flawed and
> you are coming across as just plane silly.
> Jimmy


Pac sez:

Well Guys, I think Jerry actually has a valid point. Government
agencies frequently dig in their heels when a public acusation of
unreasonablness is levied at them. Ever been over a pole? I bet only
one percent of the readers here have.

Infrequently, Polar track flights would have to venture that far North
due to congestion. But comming from Frankfurt, Sonderstrom and Bodo
FIR's would not allow you to proceed into the Polar track system (PTS)
unless you had broke into busy HF well prior to approaching the PTS
gateway and patiently waited for that essential clearance. Poor
planning or Sunspot activity? Tough situation. The Europe H/Lchart
stated in boldface you were to not to proceed past that point without
that clearance.(means: go into holding and burn up your fuel reserve.)
We kept trucking one day without it, (too heavy, no gas
to screw around with) and were told 80 miles into the Polar track,
when we finally raised them, that we were head-to-head with a
Northwest 74 out of PANC at that future altitude. We had to stay at
280 and 290 most of the way and landed with iffy fuel in Anc! We were
not popular! But luckily, they didn't turn us in. Poor planning?
Irresponsible? Yes, I guess it was. Next time I'll hire a fortune
teller to predict those sunspots and ship in 200,000 pounds of fuel
inside the arctic cirle somewhere! ;-)

The "Asia direct" flying (as it was called) was challenging but fun.
Many flights started over 800,000 lbs. Diverting into any old
slippery field under 10,000 feet long risked running off the end.

And if you turn back every time something goes wrong with the
government system, you'll just never get anywhere.

No, I say Jon Johanson did all right. Buy that man a Foster's!

happy holidays,

pacplyer

(Ever venture too far in your airplane?)

[SelwayKid]

(pacplyer) wrote in message >...
> In a previous Monday morning quarterback argument:
> > > >
> > > > "He abdicated complete personal responsibility for any kind of
> > > > contingency plan or consideration of how he was going to get back with
> > > > limited fuel."
> > > >
> > > > Bruce Hamilton
> > > >
> > > And what the hell else do you expect them to say????
> > >
> > Jerry:
> > You have stretched this about as far as possible. Your logic is flawed and
> > you are coming across as just plane silly.
> > Jimmy
>
>
> Pac sez:
>
> Well Guys, I think Jerry actually has a valid point. Government
> agencies frequently dig in their heels when a public acusation of
> unreasonablness is levied at them. Ever been over a pole? I bet only
> one percent of the readers here have.

Without going thru the rest of your interesting and poignant post, I
completely agree with you. I don't know how many times I have poked
outside the envelope because of conditions that I couldn't control.
Those who are quick to point a finger and say "you should do this, or
that..." are not very well adapted to aviation. Yeh yeh I
know...regulations are there to protect you etc, etc. Well, I've been
flying over 40 years now and have been places that books are written
about and I'd have never been there if I always followed the rules.
And, the people who follow have the advantage of my having gone first
to plot the way. I think the same of those who I have followed and am
always amazed and humbled when I see what they did.
I don't even bother thinking of the many times when I landed with
either a helicopter or airplane on fumes and sweating it out the whole
way. Stupid? Nope... just a professional working the best way I can
under trying conditions.
Doing what the rest work from after we push the envelope and see how
far we can go.
No So Shy & Bashful with 21,000+ hours and still not done......

>
> Infrequently, Polar track flights would have to venture that far North
> due to congestion. But comming from Frankfurt, Sonderstrom and Bodo
> FIR's would not allow you to proceed into the Polar track system (PTS)
> unless you had broke into busy HF well prior to approaching the PTS
> gateway and patiently waited for that essential clearance. Poor
> planning or Sunspot activity? Tough situation. The Europe H/Lchart
> stated in boldface you were to not to proceed past that point without
> that clearance.(means: go into holding and burn up your fuel reserve.)
> We kept trucking one day without it, (too heavy, no gas
> to screw around with) and were told 80 miles into the Polar track,
> when we finally raised them, that we were head-to-head with a
> Northwest 74 out of PANC at that future altitude. We had to stay at
> 280 and 290 most of the way and landed with iffy fuel in Anc! We were
> not popular! But luckily, they didn't turn us in. Poor planning?
> Irresponsible? Yes, I guess it was. Next time I'll hire a fortune
> teller to predict those sunspots and ship in 200,000 pounds of fuel
> inside the arctic cirle somewhere! ;-)
>
> The "Asia direct" flying (as it was called) was challenging but fun.
> Many flights started over 800,000 lbs. Diverting into any old
> slippery field under 10,000 feet long risked running off the end.
>
> And if you turn back every time something goes wrong with the
> government system, you'll just never get anywhere.
>
> No, I say Jon Johanson did all right. Buy that man a Foster's!
>
> happy holidays,
>
> pacplyer
>
> (Ever venture too far in your airplane?)

[HiM]

> I don't even bother thinking of the many times when I landed with
> either a helicopter or airplane on fumes and sweating it out the whole
> way. Stupid? Nope... just a professional working the best way I can
> under trying conditions.
> Doing what the rest work from after we push the envelope and see how
>

buddy you sound like a daredevil thrill seeking idiot
you may get a buzz trying to be a man flying aboout on near empty tanks ...
intelligent people know better

[Teacherjh]

>>
I don't even bother thinking of the many times when I landed with
either a helicopter or airplane on fumes and sweating it out the whole
way. Stupid? Nope... just a professional working the best way I can
under trying conditions.
<<

I'd have to assume this is military or life-and-death missions. If not, I'd
question your risk/reward equation.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Del Rawlins]

On 30 Dec 2003 09:49 AM, HiM > posted the
following:
>
>
>> I don't even bother thinking of the many times when I landed with
>> either a helicopter or airplane on fumes and sweating it out the
>> whole way. Stupid? Nope... just a professional working the best way I
>> can under trying conditions. Doing what the rest work from after we
>> push the envelope and see how
>>
>
> buddy you sound like a daredevil thrill seeking idiot
> you may get a buzz trying to be a man flying aboout on near empty
> tanks ... intelligent people know better

Your email address says it all.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[Rosspilot]

>>>
>I don't even bother thinking of the many times when I landed with
>either a helicopter or airplane on fumes and sweating it out the whole
>way. Stupid? Nope... just a professional working the best way I can
>under trying conditions.
><<
>
>I'd have to assume this is military or life-and-death missions. If not, I'd
>question your risk/reward equation.
>

Don't you guys recall the scene in "And Justice For All", where Jack Warden
takes Al Pacino for a helicopter ride? This stuff happens all the time. <G>




www.Rosspilot.com

[RU ok]

(SelwayKid) wrote:

>Well, I've been
>flying over 40 years now and have been places that books are written
>about and I'd have never been there if I always followed the rules.
>And, the people who follow have the advantage of my having gone first
>to plot the way. I think the same of those who I have followed and am
>always amazed and humbled when I see what they did.
>I don't even bother thinking of the many times when I landed with
>either a helicopter or airplane on fumes and sweating it out the whole
>way. Stupid? Nope... just a professional working the best way I can
>under trying conditions.
>Doing what the rest work from after we push the envelope and see how
>far we can go.
>No So Shy & Bashful with 21,000+ hours and still not done......
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Zowie... but aren't you the flamboyant swashbuckler.

Related to the infamous Capt Zoom Campbell, maybe?

Would you like to be a staff writer for Zoom?
He can be contacted at Aero Snooze Nooz.
He's always looking for trailblazers and legends like himself.

Tell him...
Unka BOb -- sent ya.

[Roger Halstead]

On 30 Dec 2003 20:48:24 GMT, Del Rawlins
> wrote:

>On 30 Dec 2003 09:49 AM, HiM > posted the
>following:
>>
>>
>>> I don't even bother thinking of the many times when I landed with
>>> either a helicopter or airplane on fumes and sweating it out the
>>> whole way. Stupid? Nope... just a professional working the best way I
>>> can under trying conditions. Doing what the rest work from after we
>>> push the envelope and see how
>>>
>>
>> buddy you sound like a daredevil thrill seeking idiot
>> you may get a buzz trying to be a man flying aboout on near empty
>> tanks ... intelligent people know better
>
>Your email address says it all.

It's a rare pilot who hasn't had the weather change unexpectedly, or
something fail at a very inopportune time if they've been flying for a
while. I'm paranoid about fuel so it's unlikely I'll ever run out,
but OTOH **** happens. I carry enough gas to make a 300 to 400 mile
detour is necessary.

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


>
>----------------------------------------------------
>Del Rawlins-
>Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
>Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
>http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[pacplyer]

Thanks Selway,

It only took a week for someone to spot my great writing ;-) , but now
that you've let the cat out of the bag, we must both pay the price of
being real pilots... we must face the wrath of the RAH and the RAP
private-pilot peanut galleries! :-#

Actually, there is just no higher form of flattery around here... than
being flamed by these fearless Lyco and Continental minute men
(they're fearless for a whole minute after leaving the ground!)
Flames are their way of saying: "You cocky *******, I would kill to
get a shot over the pole! But alas, I'll be stuck here in this
cornfield forever." (Even I had that fear for the first few years.
Then that fear was replaced with the fear of never seeing my family
again; i.e., living my whole life out in dingy hotels) :-(

Just try to explain to these "weekend weenies" as BWB calls them, that
commercial flying, a lot of the time, blocks-out no matter what the
true weather or maintenance concerns are... And they'll probably whip
out their regs and stammer "but..but..but...it says..here...oh, you
beastly daredevil men you!"

So, it is believable to read about an occasional tight fuel situation;
after all, if it's commercial aviation (esp. int'l) over that many
years, stuff happens. As long as you don't f$#k up, the rest of the
world just assumes that flying is by-the-book-safe (just as there are
never any deviations from homebuilding plans among EAA members. Ask
Dan Rather.) ;-) OTOH, running on the ragged edge all the time is
hard to believe. No commercial pilot that I know refers to
frequently flying "out of the envelope" or "places that books are
written about" or "seeing how far I can go." This sounds more like
fraudulent test pilot speak. But never-the-less, I enjoyed reading
your zooming post. :-)

There are only two things bugging me right now. One, I smell a setup.
Usually, no one around here agrees with anything I say this fast.
Two, there's just no way now the "dysfunctional duo" (Captain Ripcord
and Robin the Rican) are going to hire me as a roving reporter (darn,
all my talent gone to waste!) That's not possible now that Barnyard
Bob has just announced that we are on par with these Aviation Lizards,
er … I mean Aviation Legends (where did that come from?) Gee, thanks
Bob… for once I'm actually speechless.

For more unbelievable tales from around the world, stay tuned to this
EAA caped-crusader station. :^D LOL!

pacplyer

(good ruse by the way!)


(SelwayKid) wrote in message >...

[Tilly]

SelwayKid wrote:
> Without going thru the rest of your interesting and poignant post, I
> completely agree with you. I don't know how many times I have poked
> outside the envelope because of conditions that I couldn't control.
> Those who are quick to point a finger and say "you should do this, or
> that..." are not very well adapted to aviation. Yeh yeh I
> know...regulations are there to protect you etc, etc. Well, I've been
> flying over 40 years now and have been places that books are written
> about and I'd have never been there if I always followed the rules.
> And, the people who follow have the advantage of my having gone first
> to plot the way. I think the same of those who I have followed and am
> always amazed and humbled when I see what they did.
> I don't even bother thinking of the many times when I landed with
> either a helicopter or airplane on fumes and sweating it out the whole
> way. Stupid? Nope... just a professional working the best way I can
> under trying conditions.
> Doing what the rest work from after we push the envelope and see how
> far we can go.
> No So Shy & Bashful with 21,000+ hours and still not done......

You sound just like Rick Collins.
He's very dead now.

Tilly

[SelwayKid]

"HiM" > wrote in message >...
> > I don't even bother thinking of the many times when I landed with
> > either a helicopter or airplane on fumes and sweating it out the whole
> > way. Stupid? Nope... just a professional working the best way I can
> > under trying conditions.
> > Doing what the rest work from after we push the envelope and see how
> >
>
> buddy you sound like a daredevil thrill seeking idiot
> you may get a buzz trying to be a man flying aboout on near empty tanks ...
> intelligent people know better

I don't think you fly for a living do you? One of the most daredevil
thrillseeking pilots I know of came from your part of the world. We
called him "Dave the Brave" and watched him take off while the rest of
us waited for the fog to lift above 200'in Egypt. Dave was killed in
Cambodia or someplace like that when a blade came off the russian
helicopter he was flying. The reposts I got were that 3 died in that
accident.
Do you suppose the books are or were written by people who never got
above 40mph in an automobile? As I recall there were those who said
going that fast would suck the air right out of your lungs and you'd
die. No, I am not an idiot and resent the implication. I don't get a
buzz flying on near empty tanks. Frankly it scares the crap out of me
but I'm not restricted to flying from concrete from point A-B and
having someone wipe my nose at each stop.
I don't think my ratings and experience indicate a lack of
intelligence, but the opposite.
Ol Shy & Bashful

[SelwayKid]

RU ok > wrote in message >...
> (SelwayKid) wrote:
>
> >Well, I've been
> >flying over 40 years now and have been places that books are written
> >about and I'd have never been there if I always followed the rules.
> >And, the people who follow have the advantage of my having gone first
> >to plot the way. I think the same of those who I have followed and am
> >always amazed and humbled when I see what they did.
> >I don't even bother thinking of the many times when I landed with
> >either a helicopter or airplane on fumes and sweating it out the whole
> >way. Stupid? Nope... just a professional working the best way I can
> >under trying conditions.
> >Doing what the rest work from after we push the envelope and see how
> >far we can go.
> >No So Shy & Bashful with 21,000+ hours and still not done......
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Zowie... but aren't you the flamboyant swashbuckler.
>
> Related to the infamous Capt Zoom Campbell, maybe?
>
> Would you like to be a staff writer for Zoom?
> He can be contacted at Aero Snooze Nooz.
> He's always looking for trailblazers and legends like himself.
>
> Tell him...
> Unka BOb -- sent ya.

Hey downunder..... I wonder what it is with you guys who seem so
offended by someone who doesn't mind commenting on the real world of
professional aviation. Some of the most dangerous pilots I've flown
with were Ozies or Kiwis. They didn't show much common sense when it
came to sticking their necks out. Others have impressed me with their
high level of professionalism. Doesn't that seem the way in the world?
Some are good, some are bad, and the rest fall in between someplace.
You make me smile with the flamboyant swashbuckler zowie. If I were
perhaps I could make a fortune on TV or someplace?
Nope. I am just a highly experienced pilot with the advantage of
having flown in many countries doing a variety of missions with just
as broad a variety of aircraft.
As for being a staff writer....does it pay anything? <g>
Ol shy & Bashful

[SelwayKid]

(Teacherjh) wrote in message >...
> >>
> I don't even bother thinking of the many times when I landed with
> either a helicopter or airplane on fumes and sweating it out the whole
> way. Stupid? Nope... just a professional working the best way I can
> under trying conditions.
> <<
>
> I'd have to assume this is military or life-and-death missions. If not, I'd
> question your risk/reward equation.
>
> Jose

Jose
Well, you are polite about it and I appreciate that! If you think
about it, every time a pilot takes off it can very quickly turn into a
life or death situation. I've experienced 18 actual emergencies in
flight that I can relate to and have entered in my logbook. Most were
mechanical failures of some sort and I'm thankful that only one person
aside from myself was ever injured in the process.
No I don't make flying junk a habit. When critical components fail
after being replaced, whose fault is it? The pilot? The mechanic who
did the work? The facility who did the overhaul? The original design?
That is what the legal profession thrives on.
As I near the end of my flying days I think back on places I've flown,
the conditions, the equipment and the problems. Would not hesitate to
go back and try it again.
What pilot doesn't have some trepidation on the first solo? Or on the
first long XC, or the first actual IMC? The only difference in a new
pilot and an old gray hair like me is experience. I've never done a
trans-pac nor a trans-atlantic ferry flight and I am not particularly
interested yet pilots with less than a thousand hours will take it on
just for the experience.
So, who is the daredevil? What is their risk/reward ratio? To this
point I have tried to make a calculated decision for any given flight
and if it was risky I did even more thought to determine if it could
be done safely. I guess the problem is when you try to define what is
too risky or safe?
I see videos of guys hanging off the side of a cliff and even sleeping
there while they do a climb. Sure as hell will never see me doing
that! Yet I have made over a hundred free fall parachute jumps and see
no particular danger in that as long as I pay attention to my
equipment and conditions. I've got over a thousand logged hours
underwater yet feel threatened by diving in some areas of the world
where locals swim all the time.
Who is to say what is safe and what is not or what is stupid or not?
Interesting subject here and a great place to exchange views and
thoughts. If only some of them could not be such blind flamers......
best regards
SelwayKid

[Teacherjh]

>>
> I don't even bother thinking of the many times when I landed with
> either a helicopter or airplane on fumes and sweating it out the whole
> way. Stupid? Nope... just a professional working the best way I can
> under trying conditions.
> <<
>
> I'd have to assume this is military or life-and-death missions. If not, I'd
> question your risk/reward equation.
>
> Jose

Jose
Well, you are polite about it and I appreciate that! If you think
about it, every time a pilot takes off it can very quickly turn into a
life or death situation. I've experienced 18 actual emergencies in
flight that I can relate to and have entered in my logbook. Most were
mechanical failures of some sort and I'm thankful that only one person
aside from myself was ever injured in the process....
<<

The way you had phrased it (and the context in which you replied) made it seem
as if flying an airplane on fumes was just a routine part of professional
flying. I'll grant that the more one flies, the more one runs into the edge of
the envelope simply due to greater exposure. This is true for mechanical
failures that are not the pilots fault as well as for errors in judgement by
the pilot in question. More flying, more chances to make errors. Fact of
life.

The comment however appears to portray a cavalier attitude, and this raised my
eyebrow. You make a reference to "trying conditions" leaving it to our
imagination what they may be - what conditions would lead you to continue to
fly on fumes. I can think of a few (ocean crossing with unexpected headwinds,
fuel leak over mountains, bombing or rescue run in wartime, stuff like that), h
owever in most cases landing at the nearest airport to fuel up long before the
one becmes reliant on Lady Luck would be indicated. Not doing so under those
circumstances would have been called "stupid" in the accident investigation,
no?

>>
To this point I have tried to make a calculated decision for
any given flight and if it was risky I did even more thought
to determine if it could be done safely.
<<

We all do that. In my case, when the outcome (though lucky) takes me too close
to the edge, I do not treat it as "just a pilot working the best way I can..."
I ask myself "what the #$* was I thinking??" and analyse the answer.

>>
....Yet I have made over a hundred free fall parachute jumps and see
no particular danger in that as long as I pay attention to my
equipment and conditions.
<<

What would your reaction on rec.parachuting be to somebody who said that he
can't even count the times he's landed with a chute that lines missing, holes,
or in (too) high winds? (I've only jumped once, back before Lake Elsinore
flooded the airport, so don't really know the edge of that envelope)

It is that to which I was reacting.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[RU ok]

(SelwayKid) wrote:

>> Would you like to be a staff writer for Zoom?
>> He can be contacted at Aero Snooze Nooz.
>> He's always looking for trailblazers and legends like himself.
>>
>> Tell him...
>> Unka BOb -- sent ya.
>
>Hey downunder..... I wonder what it is with you guys who seem so
>offended by someone who doesn't mind commenting on the real world of
>professional aviation. Some of the most dangerous pilots I've flown
>with were Ozies or Kiwis. They didn't show much common sense when it
>came to sticking their necks out. Others have impressed me with their
>high level of professionalism. Doesn't that seem the way in the world?
>Some are good, some are bad, and the rest fall in between someplace.
>You make me smile with the flamboyant swashbuckler zowie. If I were
>perhaps I could make a fortune on TV or someplace?
>Nope. I am just a highly experienced pilot with the advantage of
>having flown in many countries doing a variety of missions with just
>as broad a variety of aircraft.
>As for being a staff writer....does it pay anything? <g>
>Ol shy & Bashful
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thou speaketh too loudly, sir.

The last self proclaimed "PRO" to sound off as loudly
as you.... was anything but "PROFESSIONAL".

BTW...
I'm not at all offended at your flakey antics, other than it's
a shame to see you give real professionals a black eye.


Main Entry: pro·fes·sion·al

1 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of a profession b : engaged
in one of the learned professions c (1) : characterized by or
conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession (2) :
exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike
manner in the workplace


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight

[HiM]

No, I am not an idiot and resent the implication. I don't get a
> buzz flying on near empty tanks.

ONLY an idiot lifts a plane off the ground with a flight plan that will run
him short of fuel

Sir .. you are an idiot by your own admission

[HiM]

>
> So, it is believable to read about an occasional tight fuel situation;
> after all, if it's commercial aviation (esp. int'l) over that many
> years, stuff happens.

stuff happens

to do it repeatedly like the fool makes out is bad planning and dangerous
the man is an idiot

[HiM]

"SelwayKid" > wrote in message
om...
> RU ok > wrote in message
>...
> > (SelwayKid) wrote:
> >
> > >Well, I've been
> > >flying over 40 years now and have been places that books are written
> > >about and I'd have never been there if I always followed the rules.
> > >And, the people who follow have the advantage of my having gone first
> > >to plot the way. I think the same of those who I have followed and am
> > >always amazed and humbled when I see what they did.
> > >I don't even bother thinking of the many times when I landed with
> > >either a helicopter or airplane on fumes and sweating it out the whole
> > >way. Stupid? Nope... just a professional working the best way I can
> > >under trying conditions.
> > >Doing what the rest work from after we push the envelope and see how
> > >far we can go.
> > >No So Shy & Bashful with 21,000+ hours and still not done......
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > Zowie... but aren't you the flamboyant swashbuckler.
> >
> > Related to the infamous Capt Zoom Campbell, maybe?
> >
> > Would you like to be a staff writer for Zoom?
> > He can be contacted at Aero Snooze Nooz.
> > He's always looking for trailblazers and legends like himself.
> >
> > Tell him...
> > Unka BOb -- sent ya.
>
> Hey downunder..... I wonder what it is with you guys who seem so
> offended by someone who doesn't mind commenting on the real world of
> professional aviation. Some of the most dangerous pilots I've flown
> with were Ozies or Kiwis.

see matey

you orgasm on the danger instead of doing your job properly

an dangerous fool

[HiM]

> The last self proclaimed "PRO" to sound off as loudly
> as you.... was anything but "PROFESSIONAL".
>
> BTW...
> I'm not at all offended at your flakey antics, other than it's
> a shame to see you give real professionals a black eye.
>
as is this moron who cannot even check his fuel loading

[pacplyer]

>
> Zowie... but aren't you the flamboyant swashbuckler.
>
> Related to the infamous Capt Zoom Campbell, maybe?
>
> Would you like to be a staff writer for Zoom?
> He can be contacted at Aero Snooze Nooz.
> He's always looking for trailblazers and legends like himself.
>
> Tell him...
> Unka BOb -- sent ya.

Oh God, is this funny!
I just saw a movie on HBO: "Catch me if you can" starring Tom Hanks.
It's about an imposter doctor/airline pilot just like you know who.
Hysterical! Bob, I think Selway's gotta be zoom's long lost kid. When
you click on his name the delusional stories that pop up are
unmistakable.... LOL!

pacplyer - out

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=baile6%244dc2%241%40ID-194795.news.dfncis.de&output=gplain

SelwayKid wrote in message
>...
>"RT" > wrote in message
>...
>> SelwayKid wrote in message
>> >...
>> >"RT" > wrote in message news:<ba7sj1$praf8$1@ID-

>> >> >Selway Kid - 22,000 hours of fun flying all over the world

>> >> Now you are trying to tell me that at the *start* (let alone
later)
of a
>> >> procedure turn you couldn't get back to the paddock? And you
(like
>> >> everyone else) were operating at *cruise*?
>> >>
>> >> Is that what you're saying? What the hell were you flying? A
2-car
>> >> garage?
>> >>
>> >> (Dusting, eh?)
>> >HUH?
>>
>> Um, sorry - a single "HUH?" is not a valid answer to 4
questions........
>
>OK. Since you are being silly now let me attempt to answer your
>questionable questions.
>1. What do you mean by the start of a procedure turn? Are you
>referring to a spray turn-around? Those are done according to the
>terrain and surrounding obstacles as well as the type aircraft being
>used.
>2. Why should I return to any paddock since that is not what I am
>spraying?
>3. I am not in the habit of trying to fly as less than flying
>airspeed. while spraying with fixed wing, we are normally flying at
>cruise speed at an altitude of anywhere from 3' above the crops, to
>perhaps 50' above them. Obviously if we are spraying trees we'll
>adjust altitude accordingly. Our turn-around altitude will depend on
>terrain and obstacles but is frequently within 6 feet of the tops of
>trees and or powerlines.
>If spraying with rotorcraft, the speed may be anything from just into
>translational lift, to cruise. It will depend on the crops being
>treated.
>4. I didn't imply blue gums were not in OZ....here they are
generally
>referred to as eucalyptus and are plentiful in many agricultural
areas
>I work in.
>5. I am not licensed to fly a two car garage. However, I have quite
a
>bit of experience with the following agricultural aircraft; Pawnee,
>C-188, Ag Cat, Fletcher, Thrush -piston and turbine, AirTractor
>-piston and turbine, Bell helicopters 47/206, Hiller 12C&E piston and
>turbine, Hughes 500, and a few multi engined aircraft equipped for ag
>work.
>I do hold an ATP and rated in ASMELS, Rotorcraft (Instrument) and
hold
>5 instructor ratings. I have been licensed in at least a dozen
>countries.
>Does that satisfy your silly questions?
>Huh?

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

No, it doesn't actually. One of the things about the net is that
anyone
can appear/pretend to be anyone they like, even if they're in an iron
lung
in hospital.

A couple more silly questions for you, Selway "Kid", mate...

Where is the master switch on a Fletcher 300, and how does it operate?
And
don't bother to try to explain why you can't remember. How are the
booms
attached?
Pawnee: where is the fixed fire extinguisher fitted and how is it
actuated?
How many bungee cords are used?
AgCat: position of the oil reservoir?
C-188; where is the main fuel injection filter and how do you remove
it?

"I have been licensed in at least a dozen countries."

Name just the first 12, with dates.

"I am not in the habit of trying to fly as less than flying airspeed.
while
spraying with fixed wing"

REALLY! You mean all these other silly buggers still DO that - and
after
you've TOLD them?

"What do you mean by the start of a procedure turn? Are you referring
to a
spray turn-around? Those are done according to the terrain and
surrounding
obstacles as well as the type aircraft being used."

Oh really?

>> >> (Dusting, eh?)
>> >HUH?

Huh - you don't know what that is?

"and a few multi engined aircraft equipped for ag work."

Details, please.....

>1. What do you mean by the start of a procedure turn? Are you
>referring to a spray turn-around?

but you say: "I do hold an ATP and rated in ASMELS, Rotorcraft
(Instrument)
and hold
5 instructor ratings."

*5* instructor ratings. What are they?
And you don't know what a procedure turn is????????????
And when did you do the theory for the ATPL - who with and why? (Erm,
note
ATP = airline transport pilot. While you may hold one, we're not
really
interested in your kinky habits. Try ATPL = as above licence)

"Why should I return to any paddock since that is not what I am
spraying?"

Que? And this is after an engine failure?

From your responses so far, if you have done as you say, you are a
statistical anomaly, as in something that doesn't exist.

A far more likely explanation is that you are either a pimply faced
kid (or
a fat and bald divorcee) amusing himself by abusing himself while
running
Micro$loths Flight Sim.

In the first case stop wasting everyones' time and go and do your
homework.
In the second case stop wasting everyones' time and look up the yellow
pages
for "Cathouse".

In either case stop wasting our bloody time, you ******.

Goodbye SelwayKid - I hope you leaned your lesson.

[pacplyer]

>
> Thou speaketh too loudly, sir.
>
> The last self proclaimed "PRO" to sound off as loudly
> as you.... was anything but "PROFESSIONAL".
>
> BTW...
> I'm not at all offended at your flakey antics, other than it's
> a shame to see you give real professionals a black eye.
>
>
> Main Entry: pro·fes·sion·al
>
> 1 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of a profession b : engaged
> in one of the learned professions c (1) : characterized by or
> conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession (2) :
> exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike
> manner in the workplace
>
>
> Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight


Bob is entirely right here. Not a very professional thread at all. It
didn't read very good at all on the playback. Chalk it up to a little
too much Holiday merry-making. Hope nobody was offended.

Consider it "Withdrawn."
The aviation jury will disregard this thread, and pretend that it
never happened.
(well, professional lawyers get away with this...don't they?) ;-)

pacplyer - happy new year

[SelwayKid]

(Teacherjh) wrote in message >...
> >>
> > I don't even bother thinking of the many times when I landed with
> > either a helicopter or airplane on fumes and sweating it out the whole
> > way. Stupid? Nope... just a professional working the best way I can
> > under trying conditions.
> > <<
> >
> > I'd have to assume this is military or life-and-death missions. If not, I'd
> > question your risk/reward equation.
> >
> > Jose
>
> Jose
> Well, you are polite about it and I appreciate that! If you think
> about it, every time a pilot takes off it can very quickly turn into a
> life or death situation. I've experienced 18 actual emergencies in
> flight that I can relate to and have entered in my logbook. Most were
> mechanical failures of some sort and I'm thankful that only one person
> aside from myself was ever injured in the process....
> <<
>
> The way you had phrased it (and the context in which you replied) made it seem
> as if flying an airplane on fumes was just a routine part of professional
> flying. I'll grant that the more one flies, the more one runs into the edge of
> the envelope simply due to greater exposure. This is true for mechanical
> failures that are not the pilots fault as well as for errors in judgement by
> the pilot in question. More flying, more chances to make errors. Fact of
> life.
>
> The comment however appears to portray a cavalier attitude, and this raised my
> eyebrow. You make a reference to "trying conditions" leaving it to our
> imagination what they may be - what conditions would lead you to continue to
> fly on fumes. I can think of a few (ocean crossing with unexpected headwinds,
> fuel leak over mountains, bombing or rescue run in wartime, stuff like that), h
> owever in most cases landing at the nearest airport to fuel up long before the
> one becmes reliant on Lady Luck would be indicated. Not doing so under those
> circumstances would have been called "stupid" in the accident investigation,
> no?
>
> >>
> To this point I have tried to make a calculated decision for
> any given flight and if it was risky I did even more thought
> to determine if it could be done safely.
> <<
>
> We all do that. In my case, when the outcome (though lucky) takes me too close
> to the edge, I do not treat it as "just a pilot working the best way I can..."
> I ask myself "what the #$* was I thinking??" and analyse the answer.
>
> >>
> ...Yet I have made over a hundred free fall parachute jumps and see
> no particular danger in that as long as I pay attention to my
> equipment and conditions.
> <<
>
> What would your reaction on rec.parachuting be to somebody who said that he
> can't even count the times he's landed with a chute that lines missing, holes,
> or in (too) high winds? (I've only jumped once, back before Lake Elsinore
> flooded the airport, so don't really know the edge of that envelope)
>
> It is that to which I was reacting.
>
> Jose

Jose
The lake often flooded the airport even back in the late 50's when I
began jumping there!A lot of my flying was in remote areas, some were
not even mapped yet and many areas the fuel was iffy if it was even
available. there have been times when I was on fumes due to leaks of
one sort or other, or the possibility that the "restless natives" were
going to either use me for target practice, or put me in a cooking pot
if I landed at the wrong place/time.
There are many types of flight operations when an intentional light
fuel load is called for and if it gets cut too close, you end up
making an unscheduled landing. Crop dusting is a good example and I
have over 35 years doing that.
I'm sure if one were to ask, there are those times in nearly every
profession that require working close to the edge and takes judgement
based on experience to be done successfully. The more experience, the
finer the line is and with more chance of making errors.
Happy New Year!!
SelwayKid

[pacplyer]

"HiM" > wrote in message >...
> >
> > So, it is believable to read about an occasional tight fuel situation;
> > after all, if it's commercial aviation (esp. int'l) over that many
> > years, stuff happens.
>
> stuff happens
>
> to do it repeatedly like the fool makes out is bad planning and dangerous
> the man is an idiot

I agree with you HiM. I was just trolling him since his claims were
somewhat similar to a fake doctor/pilot who we have here on this side
of the pond. But if anything he says is true, he would be a statistic
by now. No, I suspect he is just a teenager leafing through a pile of
Dad's magazines. I remember dreaming about being "Smiling Jack" when I
was sixteen. :-)

Have a great "summer" in NZ

pacplyer

[pacplyer]

"HiM" > wrote ,snip

> ONLY an idiot lifts a plane off the ground with a flight plan that will run
> him short of fuel
"HiM" > wrote ,snip

HiM, I don't dispute how you state the obvious here. Common sense
says this guy Selwaykid is not a commercial pilot with his kind of
attitude.

But you are actually wrong about this. Polar flights out of Anchorage
with some operators use an FAA exemption to take off with inadequate
fuel for the real intended destination. It's called re-release. It
is perfectly legal, and standard practice to dept for instance: out of
Anchorage, Alaska to London Heathrow (LHR) with fuel that will
knowingly not get you there with FAR121 required int'l reserves.
Though somewhat controversial, this procedure makes the airline money
because they can haul more freight instead of gas. How it works is
that we file a fake flight plan with the FAA that lists Preswick,
Scotland as our destination and then at the computed "re-release"
waypoint the seven tanks on the 747 are totaled up by the flight
engineer and then the F/O compares this number say 107,500 lbs of fuel
to the min 105,300 lbs on the flight plan for re-release. Looking at
weather, the Captain makes his decision. We then are legal to call up
ATC and refile a new flight plan to what was really our intended
destination all along: LHR. If we have say only 104,000, it's now
"assholes and elbows" for us to pull out the new flight plans,
reprogram the three INS's, get more weather for Preswick, break out
and brief the new arrival charts and plates, and mentally prepare for
a long duty day (extra leg to get there.) Last time I did this was
summer 1989. In cruise the sun stayed up all day and all night (just
kind of wobbled around toward the horizon.)

pacplyer

(hope my vulgar cargo language does not offend BYB. It is less than
professional, but that's how we talk in the airplane.)

[HiM]

"pacplyer" > wrote in message
om...
> "HiM" > wrote ,snip
>
> > ONLY an idiot lifts a plane off the ground with a flight plan that will
run
> > him short of fuel
> "HiM" > wrote ,snip
>
> HiM, I don't dispute how you state the obvious here. Common sense
> says this guy Selwaykid is not a commercial pilot with his kind of
> attitude.
>
> But you are actually wrong about this. Polar flights out of Anchorage
> with some operators use an FAA exemption to take off with inadequate
> fuel for the real intended destination. It's called re-release. It
> is perfectly legal, and standard practice to dept for instance: out of
> Anchorage, Alaska to London Heathrow (LHR) with fuel that will
> knowingly not get you there with FAR121 required int'l reserves.
> Though somewhat controversial, this procedure makes the airline money
> because they can haul more freight instead of gas. How it works is
> that we file a fake flight plan with the FAA that lists Preswick,
> Scotland as our destination and then at the computed "re-release"
> waypoint the seven tanks on the 747 are totaled up by the flight
> engineer and then the F/O compares this number say 107,500 lbs of fuel
> to the min 105,300 lbs on the flight plan for re-release. Looking at
> weather, the Captain makes his decision. We then are legal to call up
> ATC and refile a new flight plan to what was really our intended
> destination all along: LHR. If we have say only 104,000, it's now
> "assholes and elbows" for us to pull out the new flight plans,
> reprogram the three INS's, get more weather for Preswick, break out
> and brief the new arrival charts and plates, and mentally prepare for
> a long duty day (extra leg to get there.) Last time I did this was
> summer 1989. In cruise the sun stayed up all day and all night (just
> kind of wobbled around toward the horizon.)
>
> pacplyer
>

i say again any captian who panders to company profit in such a way is far
less than professional

:)

[pacplyer]

"HiM" > wrote in message >...
> "pacplyer" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "HiM" > wrote ,snip
> >
> > > ONLY an idiot lifts a plane off the ground with a flight plan that will
> run
> > > him short of fuel
> > "HiM" > wrote ,snip
> >
> > HiM, I don't dispute how you state the obvious here. Common sense
> > says this guy Selwaykid is not a commercial pilot with his kind of
> > attitude.
> >
> > But you are actually wrong about this. Polar flights out of Anchorage
> > with some operators use an FAA exemption to take off with inadequate
> > fuel for the real intended destination. It's called re-release. It
> > is perfectly legal, and standard practice to dept for instance: out of
> > Anchorage, Alaska to London Heathrow (LHR) with fuel that will
> > knowingly not get you there with FAR121 required int'l reserves.
> > Though somewhat controversial, this procedure makes the airline money
> > because they can haul more freight instead of gas. How it works is
> > that we file a fake flight plan with the FAA that lists Preswick,
> > Scotland as our destination and then at the computed "re-release"
> > waypoint the seven tanks on the 747 are totaled up by the flight
> > engineer and then the F/O compares this number say 107,500 lbs of fuel
> > to the min 105,300 lbs on the flight plan for re-release. Looking at
> > weather, the Captain makes his decision. We then are legal to call up
> > ATC and refile a new flight plan to what was really our intended
> > destination all along: LHR. If we have say only 104,000, it's now
> > "assholes and elbows" for us to pull out the new flight plans,
> > reprogram the three INS's, get more weather for Preswick, break out
> > and brief the new arrival charts and plates, and mentally prepare for
> > a long duty day (extra leg to get there.) Last time I did this was
> > summer 1989. In cruise the sun stayed up all day and all night (just
> > kind of wobbled around toward the horizon.)
> >
> > pacplyer
> >
>
> i say again any captian who panders to company profit in such a way is far
> less than professional
>
> :)

Well HiM,

I agree with you. I am somewhat uncomfortable with many of those FAA
exemptions, but since I don't run the FAA, or own the airline, all I
can do is talk about it here. The Captain that refuses a legal flight
at my company, is immediately removed from the trip and placed into
disciplinary status.
Two crewmembers were terminated two years ago for refusing the flight
due to a typhoon being in the area in TPE. The flight left anyway
without them. Our union ALPA is trying to get their jobs back. But
don't worry. If it's important, I get the CP and the Union on the
phone to discuss it. I don't pander to anybody except my wife. :-)

I rather envy, your armchair aviator one-liners, as they do not
require you to have any experience or knowledge in the matters you are
discussing.

Are you on the South or North Island?

:)

pacplyer

[Richard Isakson]

> "pacplyer" wrote
<snip: A good explanation of re-dispatch>
>

"HiM" replied ...
> i say again any captian who panders to company profit in such a way is far
> less than professional

Re-dispatch is both legal and safe. What, specifically, do you find unsafe
about this procedure?

Rich

[John Gaquin]

"HiM" > wrote in message news:bt29h8> >
>
> i say again any captian who panders to company profit in such a way is far
> less than professional

HiM, it's really not a question of pandering to anyone. A re-release is a
safe and useful technique if rationally applied. Suppose you want to fly
from Auckland to CC, but there may or may not be a strong south wind, and
the CC weather may or may not be iffy at your arrival time, and your best
alternate is Wellington. A re-release setup is simply arranging the plane
and your plan to fly as far as Wellington, and then taking a look at CC. If
the weather has improved, or the south wind wasn't as strong as forecast,
then you're good to go on, and initiate the re-release. If things still
look crappy in CC, you drop into Wellington for more fuel. Very simple, no
risk taken. What you've saved is the requirement to carry [all the way from
Auckland] approach fuel and alternate fuel back to Wellington. This saves
money. In business, this is good, and it was not done unsafely.

Regards,

John Gaquin
B727, B747

[HiM]

"pacplyer" > wrote in message
om...
> "HiM" > wrote in message
>...
> > "pacplyer" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "HiM" > wrote ,snip
> > >
> > > > ONLY an idiot lifts a plane off the ground with a flight plan that
will
> > run
> > > > him short of fuel
> > > "HiM" > wrote ,snip
> > >
> > > HiM, I don't dispute how you state the obvious here. Common sense
> > > says this guy Selwaykid is not a commercial pilot with his kind of
> > > attitude.
> > >
> > > But you are actually wrong about this. Polar flights out of Anchorage
> > > with some operators use an FAA exemption to take off with inadequate
> > > fuel for the real intended destination. It's called re-release. It
> > > is perfectly legal, and standard practice to dept for instance: out of
> > > Anchorage, Alaska to London Heathrow (LHR) with fuel that will
> > > knowingly not get you there with FAR121 required int'l reserves.
> > > Though somewhat controversial, this procedure makes the airline money
> > > because they can haul more freight instead of gas. How it works is
> > > that we file a fake flight plan with the FAA that lists Preswick,
> > > Scotland as our destination and then at the computed "re-release"
> > > waypoint the seven tanks on the 747 are totaled up by the flight
> > > engineer and then the F/O compares this number say 107,500 lbs of fuel
> > > to the min 105,300 lbs on the flight plan for re-release. Looking at
> > > weather, the Captain makes his decision. We then are legal to call up
> > > ATC and refile a new flight plan to what was really our intended
> > > destination all along: LHR. If we have say only 104,000, it's now
> > > "assholes and elbows" for us to pull out the new flight plans,
> > > reprogram the three INS's, get more weather for Preswick, break out
> > > and brief the new arrival charts and plates, and mentally prepare for
> > > a long duty day (extra leg to get there.) Last time I did this was
> > > summer 1989. In cruise the sun stayed up all day and all night (just
> > > kind of wobbled around toward the horizon.)
> > >
> > > pacplyer
> > >
> >
> > i say again any captian who panders to company profit in such a way is
far
> > less than professional
> >
> > :)
>
> Well HiM,
>
> I agree with you. I am somewhat uncomfortable with many of those FAA
> exemptions, but since I don't run the FAA, or own the airline, all I
> can do is talk about it here. The Captain that refuses a legal flight
> at my company, is immediately removed from the trip and placed into
> disciplinary status.
> Two crewmembers were terminated two years ago for refusing the flight
> due to a typhoon being in the area in TPE. The flight left anyway
> without them. Our union ALPA is trying to get their jobs back. But
> don't worry. If it's important, I get the CP and the Union on the
> phone to discuss it. I don't pander to anybody except my wife. :-)
>
> I rather envy, your armchair aviator one-liners, as they do not
> require you to have any experience or knowledge in the matters you are
> discussing.
>
> Are you on the South or North Island?
>
> :)
>
> pacplyer

nth

i gain my knowledge of safety form having been a locomotive engineer .. and
when i felt it was not safe it did NOT happen with me at the controls

buckled foot plate on a shunt engine? i refuse to use it .. company
bitched and moaned but i didnt endanger lives for profit

ground lights not working .. same thing

your friends did right .. let them sue for wrongful dismissal .....

[HiM]

"Richard Isakson" > wrote in message
...
> > "pacplyer" wrote
> <snip: A good explanation of re-dispatch>
> >
>
> "HiM" replied ...
> > i say again any captian who panders to company profit in such a way is
far
> > less than professional
>
> Re-dispatch is both legal and safe. What, specifically, do you find
unsafe
> about this procedure?
>
> Rich
>
>

i never talked about re dispatch .. pleas read my posts again

i state again ANY pilot who flies with insuffient fuel is a fool .. whether
it be for profit or legal

its legal to drink alcohol and drive a vehicle in my country .. that does
not make it right

[HiM]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "HiM" > wrote in message news:bt29h8> >
> >
> > i say again any captian who panders to company profit in such a way is
far
> > less than professional
>
> HiM, it's really not a question of pandering to anyone. A re-release is a
> safe and useful technique if rationally applied. Suppose you want to fly
> from Auckland to CC, but there may or may not be a strong south wind, and
> the CC weather may or may not be iffy at your arrival time, and your best
> alternate is Wellington. A re-release setup is simply arranging the plane
> and your plan to fly as far as Wellington, and then taking a look at CC.
If
> the weather has improved, or the south wind wasn't as strong as forecast,
> then you're good to go on, and initiate the re-release. If things still
> look crappy in CC, you drop into Wellington for more fuel. Very simple,
no
> risk taken. What you've saved is the requirement to carry [all the way
from
> Auckland] approach fuel and alternate fuel back to Wellington. This saves
> money. In business, this is good, and it was not done unsafely.
>
> Regards,
>
> John Gaquin
> B727, B747

thanks matey
i refered originally to any pilot not taking a fuel loading to reach his
destination being a fool

your re dispatch clearly, now i understand it , allows enough fuel so is not
what the original poster was waffling about nor what i said.

have a quick look at the original post :)
>
>

[Teacherjh]

>>
The lake often flooded the airport even back in the late 50's when I
began jumping there!
<<

That would explain my experience with the FAA when I dutifully sent in the
sectional marked with the lake covering the airport, and heard nothing back,
and future sectionals showed no change.

>> A lot of my flying was in remote areas...

Ok, I see where you're coming from.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)