Logging time in a P51D?

[justaguy]

Anybody care to take a shot at this question?

I took a ride in a P51D recently. After we left the pattern the
owner, in the front seat, let me (in the back seat) take over the
stick for the next hour. Then in the pattern he took over and landed.
I was the only one who touched the controls for an hour. I have a
PPL with plenty of time in tail draggers (170's, 180's, Tcraft,
supercub, etc) and in complex, high perf, and RG planes (182's,
Vikings, etc). I am current in SEL planes but I haven't flown a
taildragger in some time (20 yrs) and of course everything else is
current; medical, BFR, etc. Can I log the hour towards total time or
should I just log it for the memory?

M. Grinnin

[C J Campbell]

You may log the time you were controlling the aircraft as pilot time. You
may log it as PIC time if the P-51 does not require a type rating.
§ 61.51 Pilot logbooks.
(c) Logging of pilot time. The pilot time described in this section may be
used to:

(1) Apply for a certificate or rating issued under this part; or

(2) Satisfy the recent flight experience requirements of this part.

(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A recreational, private, or
commercial pilot may log pilot-in- command time only for that flight time
during which that person-

(i) Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the
pilot is rated;

[tscottme]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> You may log the time you were controlling the aircraft as pilot time. You
> may log it as PIC time if the P-51 does not require a type rating.
> § 61.51 Pilot logbooks.
> (c) Logging of pilot time. The pilot time described in this section may be
> used to:
>
> (1) Apply for a certificate or rating issued under this part; or
>
> (2) Satisfy the recent flight experience requirements of this part.
>
> (e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A recreational, private, or
> commercial pilot may log pilot-in- command time only for that flight time
> during which that person-
>
> (i) Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the
> pilot is rated;
>

I was under the impression that the FAA had determined that each of the WWII
fighters required a Letter of Authorization (LOA) to be flown by a civilian
pilot. Because of this LOA requirement, which is a practical equivalent to
a type rating, even a military pilot of that particular aircraft model could
not log PIC time as a civilian, unless he had the LOA.

Maybe I'm wrong.

--
Scott

[John T]

"justaguy" > wrote in message
om
>
> I took a ride in a P51D recently. Can I log the hour towards total
> time or should I just log it for the memory?

Log whatever you'd like. Just don't count everything you log. :)

This flight is definitely one that you'd want to write about (perhaps even
more verbosely than usual), but don't expect it to count towards a rating.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Capt.Doug]

>"tscottme" wrote in message > I was under the impression that the FAA had
>determined that each of the WWII
> fighters required a Letter of Authorization (LOA) to be flown by a
civilian
> pilot. Because of this LOA requirement, which is a practical equivalent
to
> a type rating, even a military pilot of that particular aircraft model
could
> not log PIC time as a civilian, unless he had the LOA.

You are correct for warbirds having 1000 horsepower or more. Does the
requirement for an LOA count as a rating as concerns this particular
question? I could research it, but soon the LOA will be gone and in it's
place will be type-ratings. In the near future, P-51 will be a type-rating.

D.

[Bushy]

> I took a ride in a P51D recently.

Who cares how you log it?

Lucky C...
;<)

Peter

[zatatime]

On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 22:43:18 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>You may log the time you were controlling the aircraft as pilot time. You
>may log it as PIC time if the P-51 does not require a type rating.
>§ 61.51 Pilot logbooks.
>(c) Logging of pilot time. The pilot time described in this section may be
>used to:
>
>(1) Apply for a certificate or rating issued under this part; or
>
>(2) Satisfy the recent flight experience requirements of this part.
>
>(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A recreational, private, or
>commercial pilot may log pilot-in- command time only for that flight time
>during which that person-
>
>(i) Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the
>pilot is rated;
>

I don't think he can log PIC unless the person he was with was a CFI.
He said he didn't fly taildraggers for 20 years. This would mean he
is not current to act as PIC with passengers until he does 3 full stop
landings. If he wants to log it as PIC I think to be perfectly legal
he should also log it as dual received and have the CFI sign it
(assumong the guy was a CFI).

He can definitely log total time regardless.

z

[C J Campbell]

"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't think he can log PIC unless the person he was with was a CFI.
> He said he didn't fly taildraggers for 20 years. This would mean he
> is not current to act as PIC with passengers until he does 3 full stop
> landings.

Currency has nothing to do with it. You do not have to act as PIC in order
to log PIC. Read the regulation quoted in my post.

[zatatime]

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 07:40:39 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>
>"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I don't think he can log PIC unless the person he was with was a CFI.
>> He said he didn't fly taildraggers for 20 years. This would mean he
>> is not current to act as PIC with passengers until he does 3 full stop
>> landings.
>
>Currency has nothing to do with it. You do not have to act as PIC in order
>to log PIC. Read the regulation quoted in my post.
>

I did. This does not preclude him from needing to satisfy 61.57. The
other person in the plane cannot act as PIC in a P51, while not the
"sole manipulator of the controls" since it does not require more than
one crew member. If he cannot act as PIC because he's not flying, and
the original poster can't act as PIC because he isn't current then who
is acting as PIC? Seems to me the answer is no one. This goes back
to a lengthy thread not to long ago about logging time. I don't agree
that "no one" can be acting as PIC, and I don't believe the FAA would
either. Satisfying one reg does not mean your are in full compliance
with all regs (which I'm sure you will agree). I think this is one of
those sticky spots where multiple regs come into play and you need to
not only satisfy each reg, but also the implied overlap of the regs in
question. "The spirit of the law" carries alot of weight in situations
that aren't cut and dry.

z

[C J Campbell]

"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 07:40:39 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"zatatime" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> I don't think he can log PIC unless the person he was with was a CFI.
> >> He said he didn't fly taildraggers for 20 years. This would mean he
> >> is not current to act as PIC with passengers until he does 3 full stop
> >> landings.
> >
> >Currency has nothing to do with it. You do not have to act as PIC in
order
> >to log PIC. Read the regulation quoted in my post.
> >
>
> I did. This does not preclude him from needing to satisfy 61.57. The
> other person in the plane cannot act as PIC in a P51, while not the
> "sole manipulator of the controls" since it does not require more than
> one crew member. If he cannot act as PIC because he's not flying, and
> the original poster can't act as PIC because he isn't current then who
> is acting as PIC?

You have so many faulty assumptions here it is difficult to know where to
begin.

First of all, the aircraft does not have to require more than one crewmember
in order for the sole manipulator of the controls to act as PIC.

Secondly, the non-flying pilot may act as PIC without being able to log it,
as in this case. What makes you think he is not able to act as PIC?

The current and rated pilot remains PIC throughout the flight whether he is
logging PIC or not.

The FAA has made it clear in numerous rulings and in the regulations
themselves that logging PIC and acting PIC are two different things. Their
own test materials give numerous questions pertaining to this matter. I know
of one FAA question that asks whether an instructor that has no medical can
log PIC and whether he is acting as PIC. The correct answer is that the
instructor may log PIC any time that he is giving instruction, but he may
not act as PIC because he has no medical. Therefore he can only give
instruction to pilots who can act as PIC even though he himself logs the
time as PIC.

The last lengthy thread you refer to shows you obstinately holding to this
opinion of yours despite the fact that everyone who has any knowledge of the
matter disagrees with you. You are a minority of one. You are flat-out
wrong. And you are beginning to sound pretty stupid as well.

[Robert M. Gary]

> I was under the impression that the FAA had determined that each of the WWII
> fighters required a Letter of Authorization (LOA) to be flown by a civilian
> pilot. Because of this LOA requirement, which is a practical equivalent to
> a type rating, even a military pilot of that particular aircraft model could
> not log PIC time as a civilian, unless he had the LOA.

But you don't need to be qualified to be PIC to log PIC, only "rated".
A "rating" is something printed on your certificate. Just like
endorsements are not required, I would think LOA's would not be.

-Robert

[Michael]

"tscottme" > wrote
> I was under the impression that the FAA had determined that each of the WWII
> fighters required a Letter of Authorization (LOA) to be flown by a civilian
> pilot. Because of this LOA requirement, which is a practical equivalent to
> a type rating, even a military pilot of that particular aircraft model could
> not log PIC time as a civilian, unless he had the LOA.
>
> Maybe I'm wrong.

I'm not sure all the WWII fighters require it (I seem to recall that
some of the earlier ones don't) but that's beside the point.

The LOA is indeed a practical equivalent to a type rating, in the
sense that no pilot can act as PIC in an aircraft that requires one
unless he has it. However, the LOA is not a type rating. If it were
a type rating, it would be called a type rating. There are actually
some differences, including the fact that while a type rating always
requires a checkride, the LOA can be issued without one. For example,
a military pilot who showed that he flew that particular model in the
service would almost certainly be issued an LOA on that basis.

Therefore, one can log PIC time without an LOA, in the same way that
one can log PIC time in a taildragger without having a tailwheel
endorsement. One simply can't act as PIC.

Truly I wish the FAA would fix this and make acting as PIC and logging
PIC the same.

Michael

[zatatime]

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 09:34:13 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>You have so many faulty assumptions here it is difficult to know where to
>begin
>First of all, the aircraft does not have to require more than one crewmember
>in order for the sole manipulator of the controls to act as PIC.
>
I agree completely. I think you misread my statement about this. I
stated the inverse scenario.

>Secondly, the non-flying pilot may act as PIC without being able to log it,
>as in this case. What makes you think he is not able to act as PIC?

Because the aircraft does not require more than one crew member, and
it was not an instructional flight.
>
>The current and rated pilot remains PIC throughout the flight whether he is
>logging PIC or not.
>
While this does not necessarily make logical sense, I can see the
point in being a loophole.

>The FAA has made it clear in numerous rulings and in the regulations
>themselves that logging PIC and acting PIC are two different things. Their
>own test materials give numerous questions pertaining to this matter. I know
>of one FAA question that asks whether an instructor that has no medical can
>log PIC and whether he is acting as PIC. The correct answer is that the
>instructor may log PIC any time that he is giving instruction, but he may
>not act as PIC because he has no medical. Therefore he can only give
>instruction to pilots who can act as PIC even though he himself logs the
>time as PIC.
>
Agreed. As previously stated, instructional flights are a completely
different animal. I'd like to see what has been determined for
non-instructional flights. If you know of any please share, I have
not seen any.

>The last lengthy thread you refer to shows you obstinately holding to this
>opinion of yours despite the fact that everyone who has any knowledge of the
>matter disagrees with you. You are a minority of one. You are flat-out
>wrong. And you are beginning to sound pretty stupid as well.

Don't know that I've ever been "obstinate" in any news group.
Vehement maybe, but not obstinate. I also only remember posting two
replies to that thread, so I'm not sure how that could be construed as
obstinateness, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. I also seem
to remember others questioning the validity in that thread (I have not
gone back to study it). I guess those people (if my memory is
correct) are not part of the group "who has any knowledge of the
matter."

Stupid, or not I'll be on the safe side of what is recorded in my
permanent record.


z

[Peter Duniho]

"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Agreed. As previously stated, instructional flights are a completely
> different animal.

Instructional flights are different for the person NOT manipulating the
controls. The logging privilege for the person who IS manipulating the
controls remains the same.

The regulations (which CJ posted) are very simple, and very clear. If you
are rated in category and class, and you are the sole manipulator of the
controls, you may log the time as PIC, for that time during which you are
sole manipulator of the controls.

You are making the classic mistake of thinking that a pilot needs to be
acting as PIC in order to log the time as PIC. That's simply not true, and
the fact that the pilot flying isn't qualified to act as PIC in no way
prevents them from logging the time as PIC.

Pete

[Matt Young]

Agreed, log it however you want. Just don't depend on that hour to
count for any checkrides.

Bushy wrote:
>>I took a ride in a P51D recently.
>
>
> Who cares how you log it?
>
> Lucky C...
> ;<)
>
> Peter
>
>

[zatatime]

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 11:25:18 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>You are making the classic mistake of thinking that a pilot needs to be
>acting as PIC in order to log the time as PIC. That's simply not true, and
>the fact that the pilot flying isn't qualified to act as PIC in no way
>prevents them from logging the time as PIC.


OK, please give a True/False for the statements below (assume
non-instructional flights).

In a single pilot airplane, the person not flying can act as PIC, but
cannot log PIC for the time he is not manipulating the controls.

In a single pilot airplane, it is fine for the person to log PIC even
if he is not current, as long as there is someone current on board
acting as PIC.

The non-current pilot logging the PIC time cannot use this for
currency requirements because he was not acting as PIC.

The idiosyncrasies between logging and acting as PIC are more complex
than needed for single crew member aircraft.

If all of the above are true I understand your statements, and the
concepts even though I still find it bizarre.

Thanks.
z

[Peter Duniho]

"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
> In a single pilot airplane, the person not flying can act as PIC, but
> cannot log PIC for the time he is not manipulating the controls.

It is true that that scenario is possible. It is false that that scenario
is the only one possible.

> In a single pilot airplane, it is fine for the person to log PIC even
> if he is not current, as long as there is someone current on board
> acting as PIC.

True. It is also fine for the person to log PIC even if he is not current,
even if there is NOT someone current on board acting as PIC. Nothing about
the regulation requires the flight to be legal in order to log the flight as
PIC.

> The non-current pilot logging the PIC time cannot use this for
> currency requirements because he was not acting as PIC.

False. Logged PIC time is logged PIC time, and it is just as useful whether
or not the logging pilot was acting as PIC.

> The idiosyncrasies between logging and acting as PIC are more complex
> than needed for single crew member aircraft.

Possibly. :)

> If all of the above are true I understand your statements, and the
> concepts even though I still find it bizarre.

Yes, there are some non-intuitive conclusions the regulations create.
That's why I wrote "classic mistake". Don't use your intuition to try to
understand the FARs.

Pete

[Gary Drescher]

"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
> OK, please give a True/False for the statements below (assume
> non-instructional flights).
>
> In a single pilot airplane, the person not flying can act as PIC, but
> cannot log PIC for the time he is not manipulating the controls.

That's true as the regs are stated, but it's sometimes false as the regs are
interpreted. In particular, if you're acting as PIC and you let a non-pilot
passenger manipulate the controls, the FAA says you can log that time as
PIC, even though the FARs say otherwise.

--Gary

[zatatime]

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 12:15:59 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

> Don't use your intuition to try to
>understand the FARs.


Now there's a comment I think Everyone would agree on, which is mighty
rare for these forums!

z

[John T]

"zatatime" > wrote in message

>
> In a single pilot airplane, it is fine for the person to log PIC even
> if he is not current, as long as there is someone current on board
> acting as PIC.

Let's expand this scenario a bit. Let's say that my instrument currency has
lapsed and before I can schedule a flight, my night currency lapses, too. I
find a pilot friend (who is current) to fly safety pilot. Who logs the PIC
time for the duration I'm the only one manipulating the controls flying
approaches during a night flight?

> The non-current pilot logging the PIC time cannot use this for
> currency requirements because he was not acting as PIC.

See above scenario.

> The idiosyncrasies between logging and acting as PIC are more complex
> than needed for single crew member aircraft.

Not really. I think the confusion stems from the use of "PIC" in two
similar but logically separate functions. There's the guy in charge of the
flight and there's the guy manipulating the controls. Think of it as "pilot
in command" and "pilot in control". They're both PIC and they may both log
PIC for the same hour. (See "safety pilot".)

> ...I still find it bizarre.

You're not alone. :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Bob Moore]

"John T" > wrote
>> In a single pilot airplane, it is fine for the person to log PIC even
>> if he is not current, as long as there is someone current on board
> Not really. I think the confusion stems from the use of "PIC" in two
> similar but logically separate functions. There's the guy in charge
> of the flight and there's the guy manipulating the controls. Think of
> it as "pilot in command" and "pilot in control". They're both PIC and
> they may both log PIC for the same hour. (See "safety pilot".)

The Navy solved the problem very simply.

The "assigned PIC" is always the PIC (and logs PIC) no matter where
he/she sits or what he/she does.

The pilot manipulating the controls logs "First Pilot" time.

The pilot assisting the "First Pilot" logs "Second Pilot" time.

Actually, during my stay in the P-3 Navy, the term "Patrol Plane
Commander" was used in place of the FAA term "Pilot-in-Command".

Bob Moore

[Teacherjh]

>>
Truly I wish the FAA would fix this and make acting as PIC and logging
PIC the same.
<<

I wish they would fix is by changing the words. What you log and what you are
are supposed to be different. That they are given the same name is the error.

Jose


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

[Gary Drescher]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> Truly I wish the FAA would fix this and make acting as PIC and logging
> PIC the same.
> <<
>
> I wish they would fix is by changing the words. What you log and what you
are
> are supposed to be different. That they are given the same name is the
error.

Absolutely. And they compound the confusion by not even interpreting the
regs as written.

The FARs' distinction between "instrument meteorological conditions", on the
one hand, and "instrument conditions" or "instrument flight conditions", on
the other, is another example of abysmally confusing terminology.

--Gary

[Robert M. Gary]

(Michael) wrote in message >...
> Truly I wish the FAA would fix this and make acting as PIC and logging
> PIC the same.

Or change the names to not use "PIC" for both.

[lowflyer]

(justaguy) wrote in message >...
> Anybody care to take a shot at this question?
>
> I took a ride in a P51D recently.
Can I log the hour towards total time or
> should I just log it for the memory?
>
> M. Grinnin

While the debate about FARs goes on I will simply tell you of my
personal experience. In 1995 I had the pleasure of flying Crazy Horse
with Lee Lauder bach. We spent 1.5 hours in the air, 0.3 of which he
flew formation with a photo plane doing a feature for the German
magazine "aerokurier" (see the June, 1995 edition if you can find
it).After learning power settings and getting the feel, I then spent
1.2 hours at the controls doing aerobatics and simulated straffing
runs over an inactive military facility. Arriving back at Kissimmee,
he had me do an overhead break and then talked me through a landing,
which I bounced and he recovered. Lee (impressive credentials and a
CFI) made the entry in my logbook: 1.2 hrs PIC. I had been signed off
and was current in tailwheel and complex before this ride. Trying not
to editorialize on what I thought of the experience but hope this
helps answer your question.

[C J Campbell]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 8...
> "John T" > wrote
> >> In a single pilot airplane, it is fine for the person to log PIC even
> >> if he is not current, as long as there is someone current on board
> > Not really. I think the confusion stems from the use of "PIC" in two
> > similar but logically separate functions. There's the guy in charge
> > of the flight and there's the guy manipulating the controls. Think of
> > it as "pilot in command" and "pilot in control". They're both PIC and
> > they may both log PIC for the same hour. (See "safety pilot".)
>
> The Navy solved the problem very simply.
>

The Navy is not the FAA.

[C J Campbell]

"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
> "zatatime" > wrote in message
>
> >
> > In a single pilot airplane, it is fine for the person to log PIC even
> > if he is not current, as long as there is someone current on board
> > acting as PIC.
>
> Let's expand this scenario a bit. Let's say that my instrument currency
has
> lapsed and before I can schedule a flight, my night currency lapses, too.
I
> find a pilot friend (who is current) to fly safety pilot. Who logs the
PIC
> time for the duration I'm the only one manipulating the controls flying
> approaches during a night flight?

You both do. You as sole manipulator of the controls, the safety pilot as a
required crewmember acting as PIC.

>
> > ...I still find it bizarre.

I personally do not find it bizarre at all. I think the FAA's approach is
both simple and elegant.

[Matt Young]

Ok, so to throw another hypothetical in the loop, if I'm flying safety
pilot, and we go to an airport more than 50 miles away, does it count as
x-country PIC for my instrument rating. From what my instructor tells
me, I'm nearly ready for checkride, I just need to meet x-c
requirements, sooooooo if a friend and I make an hour and a half flight
to OKC and back, each flying one way and safety pilot the other, we both log
2.8 PIC and 2.8 X-C????
(subtracting a tenth for takeoff and landing when acting as safety
pilot, since that won't be done under the hood and not really safety
pilot, just a passenger then).

Trying to figure out just how confusing the FARs can be

C J Campbell wrote:

> "John T" > wrote in message
> ws.com...
>
>>"zatatime" > wrote in message

>>
>>>In a single pilot airplane, it is fine for the person to log PIC even
>>>if he is not current, as long as there is someone current on board
>>>acting as PIC.
>>
>>Let's expand this scenario a bit. Let's say that my instrument currency
>
> has
>
>>lapsed and before I can schedule a flight, my night currency lapses, too.
>
> I
>
>>find a pilot friend (who is current) to fly safety pilot. Who logs the
>
> PIC
>
>>time for the duration I'm the only one manipulating the controls flying
>>approaches during a night flight?
>
>
> You both do. You as sole manipulator of the controls, the safety pilot as a
> required crewmember acting as PIC.
>
>
>>>...I still find it bizarre.
>
>
> I personally do not find it bizarre at all. I think the FAA's approach is
> both simple and elegant.
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Matt Young" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> [...] if a friend and I make an hour and a half flight
> to OKC and back, each flying one way and safety pilot the other, we both
log
> 2.8 PIC and 2.8 X-C????

Assuming you and your friend agree that the safety pilot will be acting PIC,
yes.

BTW, one question mark suffices. A sentence is either a question or it's
not. You can't make it MORE of a question by adding question marks.

Pete

[Jack]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> ...one question mark suffices. A sentence is either a question or it's
> not. You can't make it MORE of a question by adding question marks.

And you can't make your criticisms more appropriate by putting two
spaces after a period instead of one, as though you were still using a
typewriter.

Matt's question was about logging flight time, not about English
composition.


Jack

[Paul Sengupta]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> Therefore, one can log PIC time without an LOA, in the same way that
> one can log PIC time in a taildragger without having a tailwheel
> endorsement. One simply can't act as PIC.

If the other guy is an insructor then I guess you could log it as
Pu/t (pilot under training) or whatever it's called in the US.
That would be quite cool. A "lesson" in a P51!

Paul

[Peter Duniho]

"Jack" > wrote in message
...
> And you can't make your criticisms more appropriate by putting two
> spaces after a period instead of one, as though you were still using a
> typewriter.

"You're an asshole". Now, that's a criticism. I was just offering an
observation. I find it pretty funny when people add extra question marks
and exclamation points, for the reason I already stated.

As for the extra space, you mean you aren't reading this using a
fixed-spaced font? How do you enjoy all the wonderful sig art then?

[Matt Young]

-- "You're an asshole".
shouldn't that be
"You're an asshole."

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Jack" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>And you can't make your criticisms more appropriate by putting two
>>spaces after a period instead of one, as though you were still using a
>>typewriter.
>
>
> "You're an asshole". Now, that's a criticism. I was just offering an
> observation. I find it pretty funny when people add extra question marks
> and exclamation points, for the reason I already stated.
>
> As for the extra space, you mean you aren't reading this using a
> fixed-spaced font? How do you enjoy all the wonderful sig art then?
>
>

[justaguy]

Thanks to everyone,
I had the same problems going through the FAR's and the section on
LOA's.
It wasn't an hour of dual but I don't really care because I don't need
any hours for further checkrides or ratings. Regardless of anything
else it was a dream flight out over the Sierras to Lake Tahoe. There
is nothing like excess power to make flying fun. That whole flight is
burned into my memory. I logged it for the memory, and for total
time. I definitely agree with the post below, I am lucky, and I have
great friends. Now I have to go work on the guy with a Stearman and
another one with a 1929 Bellanca.
M. Grinnin


"Bushy" wrote
>
> Who cares how you log it?
>
> Lucky C...
> ;<)
>
> Peter

[Peter Duniho]

"Matt Young" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> -- "You're an asshole".
> shouldn't that be
> "You're an asshole."

No.

[Matt Young]

According to my grammar handbook and any style guides available online,
periods always go inside closing quotation marks.

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/cws/wworkshop/advice/handling_quotations.htm&e=7370

With that, I hope to never discuss grammar on an aviation newsgroup
again. I'll try to remember that there are those on here who think that
correspondence on here should always be in formal style.

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Matt Young" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>-- "You're an asshole".
>>shouldn't that be
>>"You're an asshole."
>
>
> No.
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Matt Young" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> According to my grammar handbook and any style guides available online,
> periods always go inside closing quotation marks.

"Any style guides available online"? Really? You've read every single one?

Interesting. In any case, a) you are referring only to the American
"standard" usage, and b) it's based on out-dated typographical needs (to
protect delicate periods and commas from wear and tear during the printing
process). You didn't even bother to ask whether I learned English in the
US, or elsewhere where a different standard is used.

Many people, in the US and including myself, find the logical British
convention more compelling and use that instead. This is the way of the
future, and I choose to be there earlier than the laggards.

Pete

[Ditch]

>Many people, in the US and including myself, find the logical British
>convention more compelling and use that instead. This is the way of the
>future, and I choose to be there earlier than the laggards.
>

You are the first I have ever seen.


-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*