Operations over water

[Mxsmanic]

Where in the regulations can I find the requirements for operations over water
in light GA aircraft? I seem to recall there are restrictions and equipment
requirements, but I can't find them.

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

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Where in the regulations can I find the requirements for operations
> over water in light GA aircraft? I seem to recall there are
> restrictions and equipment requirements, but I can't find them.

FAR Part 91 Sec. 91.509

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Where in the regulations can I find the requirements for operations
>> over water in light GA aircraft? I seem to recall there are
>> restrictions and equipment requirements, but I can't find them.
>
> FAR Part 91 Sec. 91.509

opps I forgot Sec. 91.511

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Where in the regulations can I find the requirements for operations
> > over water in light GA aircraft? I seem to recall there are
> > restrictions and equipment requirements, but I can't find them.
>
> FAR Part 91 Sec. 91.509

Thanks. The liferaft must add a lot of weight.

I read a story about a French pilot who flew across the Channel with he and
his passengers actually wearing their lifejackets, but I don't know if this
was a specific requirement for France, or just an extra precaution that he
preferred, or what. It's only 20 miles across the channel so apparently it
wouldn't even be covered by 91.509.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> opps I forgot Sec. 91.511

Thanks again.

It looks both of these apply only to large aircraft. Does this mean that
small GA planes are on their own as far as what they wish to carry?

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

[Erik]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>
>>Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>>Where in the regulations can I find the requirements for operations
>>>over water in light GA aircraft? I seem to recall there are
>>>restrictions and equipment requirements, but I can't find them.
>>
>>FAR Part 91 Sec. 91.509
>
>
> Thanks. The liferaft must add a lot of weight.
>
> I read a story about a French pilot who flew across the Channel with he and
> his passengers actually wearing their lifejackets, but I don't know if this
> was a specific requirement for France, or just an extra precaution that he
> preferred, or what. It's only 20 miles across the channel so apparently it
> wouldn't even be covered by 91.509.
>

That would give me some concern if my pilot handed me a lifejacket
and asked me to put it on.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Where in the regulations can I find the requirements for operations
> over water in light GA aircraft? I seem to recall there are
> restrictions and equipment requirements, but I can't find them.
>

I have extensive experience operating over water, as it happens, Send me
$500 and i'll tell you all about it. I accept paypal.


That's cheap, BTW.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> > Where in the regulations can I find the requirements for operations
>> > over water in light GA aircraft? I seem to recall there are
>> > restrictions and equipment requirements, but I can't find them.
>>
>> FAR Part 91 Sec. 91.509
>
> Thanks. The liferaft must add a lot of weight.
>
> I read a story about a French pilot who flew across the Channel with
> he and his passengers actually wearing their lifejackets, but I don't
> know if this was a specific requirement for France, or just an extra
> precaution that he preferred, or what. It's only 20 miles across the
> channel so apparently it wouldn't even be covered by 91.509.

You're an idiot.


Bertie

[John Godwin]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
:

> FAR Part 91 Sec. 91.509

Careful, you've wandered into Subpart F "Large and Turbine-Powered
Multiengine Airplanes and Fractional Ownership Program Aircraft"

--

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Where in the regulations can I find the requirements for operations over
> water
> in light GA aircraft? I seem to recall there are restrictions and
> equipment
> requirements, but I can't find them.
>

Just a current fishing license, or perhaps certificate, depending on the
state you wish to land in.

[Thomas Borchert]

Erik,

> That would give me some concern if my pilot handed me a lifejacket
> and asked me to put it on.
>

Come again? Aren't you a GA pilot? In a small 4-seat GS aircraft,
suppose you are flying at 3000 feet across water. You will have about 5
minutes to be ready for landing on the water. It might indeed be wise
for everyone to have the jackets on rather than trying to put them on
under duress in the confines of a small cockpit.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[[email protected]]

On Apr 25, 11:45 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Where in the regulations can I find the requirements for operations over water
> in light GA aircraft? I seem to recall there are restrictions and equipment
> requirements, but I can't find them.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

You need to switch off the RunRoughOMatic for flights over water.
That makes you feel save.

-Kees

[Gary[_2_]]

On Apr 25, 5:45 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Where in the regulations can I find the requirements for operations over water
> in light GA aircraft? I seem to recall there are restrictions and equipment
> requirements, but I can't find them.
>

Be sure your PC is plugged into a ground-fault circuit interrupter.
For an added margin of safety, don't use the keyboard with wet hands.

[ZikZak]

On Apr 25, 3:04 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Where in the regulations can I find the requirements for operations
> > over water in light GA aircraft? I seem to recall there are
> > restrictions and equipment requirements, but I can't find them.
>
> FAR Part 91 Sec. 91.509

91.509 applies only to large aircraft.

For small aircraft, only 91.205(b)(12) applies.

[Gary[_2_]]

On Apr 25, 6:28 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> I read a story about a French pilot who flew across the Channel with he and
> his passengers actually wearing their lifejackets, but I don't know if this
> was a specific requirement for France, or just an extra precaution that he
> preferred, or what. It's only 20 miles across the channel so apparently it
> wouldn't even be covered by 91.509.
>

I can think of other reasons why a flight by a French pilot across the
English channel wouldn't be covered by FAR 91.509.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 25, 3:06 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> > Mxsmanic wrote:
> >> Where in the regulations can I find the requirements for operations
> >> over water in light GA aircraft? I seem to recall there are
> >> restrictions and equipment requirements, but I can't find them.
>
> > FAR Part 91 Sec. 91.509
>
> opps I forgot Sec. 91.511

Both of which do not apply to Spamcans. However, if you are flying
Citations, you may need to be concerned with these FARs.

-robert

[Ross]

Erik wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>>
>>
>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>
>>>> Where in the regulations can I find the requirements for operations
>>>> over water in light GA aircraft? I seem to recall there are
>>>> restrictions and equipment requirements, but I can't find them.
>>>
>>>
>>> FAR Part 91 Sec. 91.509
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks. The liferaft must add a lot of weight.
>>
>> I read a story about a French pilot who flew across the Channel with
>> he and
>> his passengers actually wearing their lifejackets, but I don't know if
>> this
>> was a specific requirement for France, or just an extra precaution
>> that he
>> preferred, or what. It's only 20 miles across the channel so
>> apparently it
>> wouldn't even be covered by 91.509.
>>
>
> That would give me some concern if my pilot handed me a lifejacket
> and asked me to put it on.
>

Do it in floatplanes....

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Erik]

Gary wrote:
> On Apr 25, 6:28 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>>I read a story about a French pilot who flew across the Channel with he and
>>his passengers actually wearing their lifejackets, but I don't know if this
>>was a specific requirement for France, or just an extra precaution that he
>>preferred, or what. It's only 20 miles across the channel so apparently it
>>wouldn't even be covered by 91.509.
>>
>
>
> I can think of other reasons why a flight by a French pilot across the
> English channel wouldn't be covered by FAR 91.509.
>

I hope that you're not suggesting that the FAA does not have
jurisdiction over French pilots! I thought we had all-
encompassing police power in every country.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 26, 4:00 am, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> Erik,
>
> > That would give me some concern if my pilot handed me a lifejacket
> > and asked me to put it on.
>
> Come again? Aren't you a GA pilot?

Of course he's not! He only "flies" simulators,
and has zero experience as pilot or passenger
in a single engine plane. He demonstrates
this ignorance frequently in this group in
various ways.

[John Godwin]

ZikZak > wrote in
oups.com:

> For small aircraft, only 91.205(b)(12) applies.
>

.... if being operated for hire.

--

[Erik]

wrote:
> On Apr 26, 4:00 am, Thomas Borchert >
> wrote:
>
>>Erik,
>>
>>
>>>That would give me some concern if my pilot handed me a lifejacket
>>>and asked me to put it on.
>>
>>Come again? Aren't you a GA pilot?
>
>
> Of course he's not! He only "flies" simulators,
> and has zero experience as pilot or passenger
> in a single engine plane. He demonstrates
> this ignorance frequently in this group in
> various ways.
>

Granted, I'm a n00b, however I still sit in a tiny Cessna
150 and do the thing. You must be thinking of someone else.

I own MS Flight Simulator 2003 and MSFS got me into flying,
but my office chair's hydrolic tilt and lift wasn't enough for
me.

[Erik]

wrote:

> Of course he's not! He only "flies" simulators,
> and has zero experience as pilot or passenger
> in a single engine plane. He demonstrates
> this ignorance frequently in this group in
> various ways.

And you're half-right. I don't have any experience as
a passenger in a single engine plane :)

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 25, 3:28 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
> > Mxsmanic wrote:
> > > Where in the regulations can I find the requirements for operations
> > > over water in light GA aircraft? I seem to recall there are
> > > restrictions and equipment requirements, but I can't find them.
>
> > FAR Part 91 Sec. 91.509
>
> Thanks. The liferaft must add a lot of weight.

Since you'd have to be flying a Citation for this rule to apply you
probably are not concerned with the weight of the life raft.

-Robert

[[email protected]]

On Apr 26, 12:08 pm, Erik > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Apr 26, 4:00 am, Thomas Borchert >
> > wrote:
>
> >>Erik,
>
> >>>That would give me some concern if my pilot handed me a lifejacket
> >>>and asked me to put it on.
>
> >>Come again? Aren't you a GA pilot?
>
> > Of course he's not! He only "flies" simulators,
> > and has zero experience as pilot or passenger
> > in a single engine plane. He demonstrates
> > this ignorance frequently in this group in
> > various ways.
>
> Granted, I'm a n00b, however I still sit in a tiny Cessna
> 150 and do the thing. You must be thinking of someone else.
>
> I own MS Flight Simulator 2003 and MSFS got me into flying,
> but my office chair's hydrolic tilt and lift wasn't enough for
> me.


My sincere apologies. I misread the
attributions and thought that it was our resident
mxsmanic who wrote the quote and who Mr Borchert
was questioning the piloting experience of.

I goofed. Sorry.

[Erik]

wrote:
> My sincere apologies. I misread the
> attributions and thought that it was our resident
> mxsmanic who wrote the quote and who Mr Borchert
> was questioning the piloting experience of.
>
> I goofed. Sorry.
>

No problem. I broke my office chair, anyway.

[flynrider via AviationKB.com]

Erik wrote:
>
>No problem. I broke my office chair, anyway.

If you were a certain "other" poster, you'd have to report that to the NTSB.


John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200704/1

[Erik]

flynrider via AviationKB.com wrote:
> Erik wrote:
>
>>No problem. I broke my office chair, anyway.
>
>
> If you were a certain "other" poster, you'd have to report that to the NTSB.
>
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>

The engine didn't fail, there were no fires. The Oh, right, the
hydrolics failed. Dammit. I hope I'm not overdue.

[ZikZak]

On Apr 26, 12:02 pm, John Godwin > wrote:
> ZikZak > wrote groups.com:
>
> > For small aircraft, only 91.205(b)(12) applies.
>
> ... if being operated for hire.
>
> --

91.205 applies to all aircraft and should be checked before every
flight. Yes, 91.205(b)(12) does say that a liferaft is only required
if the aircraft is operated for hire.

[John Godwin]

ZikZak > wrote in
oups.com:

> 91.205 applies to all aircraft and should be checked before every
> flight. Yes, 91.205(b)(12) does say that a liferaft is only
> required if the aircraft is operated for hire.
>

91.205(b)(12) is the only paragraph in that part that relates to
Operations over water and only covers operations if the aircraft is
operated for hire.


--

[ZikZak]

On Apr 26, 5:08 pm, John Godwin > wrote:
> ZikZak > wrote groups.com:
>
> > 91.205 applies to all aircraft and should be checked before every
> > flight. Yes, 91.205(b)(12) does say that a liferaft is only
> > required if the aircraft is operated for hire.
>
> 91.205(b)(12) is the only paragraph in that part that relates to
> Operations over water and only covers operations if the aircraft is
> operated for hire.
>
> --

Didn't I just say that?

[Mxsmanic]

Erik writes:

> Granted, I'm a n00b, however I still sit in a tiny Cessna
> 150 and do the thing. You must be thinking of someone else.

Some people are so eager to attack that they aim poorly. Of course, that
rather dilutes the impact of the attack. If you can't even identify the
target, how meaningful can the attack be?

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

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> My sincere apologies. I misread the
> attributions and thought that it was our resident
> mxsmanic who wrote the quote and who Mr Borchert
> was questioning the piloting experience of.

The quoted text is still the same. How could your personal attack be relevant
if I wrote the text, but not relevant if someone else wrote it?

> I goofed.

That's an understatement. It is clear that you don't really care what is
written, you only care who wrote it. If it comes from person X, you'll try to
discredit it; if it comes from person Y, you'll accept it ... even though the
text is the same.

It reminds me a bit of people who vote straight party tickets without ever
learning anything about the actual candidates (and it produces similar
results).

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

[Mxsmanic]

John Godwin writes:

> 91.205(b)(12) is the only paragraph in that part that relates to
> Operations over water and only covers operations if the aircraft is
> operated for hire.

So there really aren't any specific requirements anywhere for private pilots
not operating for hire in small GA aircraft over water?

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

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

ZikZak wrote:
>>> 91.205 applies to all aircraft and should be checked before every
>>> flight. Yes, 91.205(b)(12) does say that a liferaft is only
>>> required if the aircraft is operated for hire.
>>
>> 91.205(b)(12) is the only paragraph in that part that relates to
>> Operations over water and only covers operations if the aircraft is
>> operated for hire.
>>
>> --
>
> Didn't I just say that?


There's an echo.


There's an echo.


there's an echo

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> My sincere apologies. I misread the
>> attributions and thought that it was our resident
>> mxsmanic who wrote the quote and who Mr Borchert
>> was questioning the piloting experience of.
>
> The quoted text is still the same. How could your personal attack be
> relevant if I wrote the text, but not relevant if someone else wrote
> it?
>
>> I goofed.
>
> That's an understatement. It is clear that you don't really care what
> is written, you only care who wrote it. If it comes from person X,
> you'll try to discredit it; if it comes from person Y, you'll accept
> it ... even though the text is the same.

Yep, that's pretty much it, because the source is important, fjukkktard.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Erik writes:
>
>> Granted, I'm a n00b, however I still sit in a tiny Cessna
>> 150 and do the thing. You must be thinking of someone else.
>
> Some people are so eager to attack that they aim poorly. Of course,
that
> rather dilutes the impact of the attack. If you can't even identify
the
> target, how meaningful can the attack be?
>

Attack?

Nope.


More like entertainment, fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> My sincere apologies. I misread the
>> attributions and thought that it was our resident
>> mxsmanic who wrote the quote and who Mr Borchert
>> was questioning the piloting experience of.
>
> The quoted text is still the same. How could your personal attack be
> relevant
> if I wrote the text, but not relevant if someone else wrote it?
>
>> I goofed.
>
> That's an understatement. It is clear that you don't really care what is
> written, you only care who wrote it. If it comes from person X, you'll
> try to
> discredit it; if it comes from person Y, you'll accept it ... even though
> the
> text is the same.
>
> It reminds me a bit of people who vote straight party tickets without ever
> learning anything about the actual candidates (and it produces similar
> results).
>

Still can't follow a thread can you retard.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Erik writes:
>
>> Granted, I'm a n00b, however I still sit in a tiny Cessna
>> 150 and do the thing. You must be thinking of someone else.
>
> Some people are so eager to attack that they aim poorly. Of course, that
> rather dilutes the impact of the attack. If you can't even identify the
> target, how meaningful can the attack be?
>

No, that's just a good example of the kind of confusion cause by your type
of blathering.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> John Godwin writes:
>
>> 91.205(b)(12) is the only paragraph in that part that relates to
>> Operations over water and only covers operations if the aircraft is
>> operated for hire.
>
> So there really aren't any specific requirements anywhere for private
> pilots
> not operating for hire in small GA aircraft over water?
>

Just the fishing license and hip waders.

[Erik]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Erik writes:
>
>
>>Granted, I'm a n00b, however I still sit in a tiny Cessna
>>150 and do the thing. You must be thinking of someone else.
>
>
> Some people are so eager to attack that they aim poorly. Of course, that
> rather dilutes the impact of the attack. If you can't even identify the
> target, how meaningful can the attack be?
>

Yep, I know how it goes lately.

However, you could completely dispell everyone and gain a CRAPLOAD
of credence by getting into a small plane with a CFI even once.

Think of the post you could make that day. Just saying that you
actually did it would say a lot.

[Erik]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> John Godwin writes:
>
>
>>91.205(b)(12) is the only paragraph in that part that relates to
>>Operations over water and only covers operations if the aircraft is
>>operated for hire.
>
>
> So there really aren't any specific requirements anywhere for private pilots
> not operating for hire in small GA aircraft over water?
>

The only thing I could really find is that there are a LOT of
wildlife refuges around coastal areas.

Other than that, the fuel requirements will probably take hold.
You must carry enough fuel to arrive at your planned destination
and then beyond that for another half-hour (in VFR conditions in
daytime). If your destination is the middle of the ocean, I guess
you're probably covered.

[Mxsmanic]

Erik writes:

> However, you could completely dispell everyone and gain a CRAPLOAD
> of credence by getting into a small plane with a CFI even once.

I assume you mean credibility rather than credence.

I do not seek to gain credibility. I expect any intelligent person to look
things up and verify them for himself; anyone who relies exclusively on USENET
is doomed to have problems sooner or later. And even if I were the type to
worship credentials, as some are, the credentials claimed on USENET are
unverifiable.

I might even work for the FAA ... who knows?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Erik writes:

> The only thing I could really find is that there are a LOT of
> wildlife refuges around coastal areas.

I noticed that. And even though they seem innocuous on the charts, some have
implied that the consequences of bothering the bugs or worms or rats or
whatever is being protected can be significant.

> Other than that, the fuel requirements will probably take hold.
> You must carry enough fuel to arrive at your planned destination
> and then beyond that for another half-hour (in VFR conditions in
> daytime). If your destination is the middle of the ocean, I guess
> you're probably covered.

It's not just an ocean thing. I presume that flights over areas like the
Great Lakes would be covered. Even a flight across the Great Salt Lake might
be covered (?); at least it looks pretty big on the map.

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

[Gary[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> I might even work for the FAA ... who knows?
>

We do. You don't.

[Mxsmanic]

Gary writes:

> We do. You don't.

If you say so.

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

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gary writes:
>
>> We do. You don't.
>
> If you say so.
>

You moron, you are waaayyyy to stupid to be anything but a snitch for FAA,
and I doubt that use them.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Erik writes:
>
>> The only thing I could really find is that there are a LOT of
>> wildlife refuges around coastal areas.
>
> I noticed that. And even though they seem innocuous on the charts, some
> have
> implied that the consequences of bothering the bugs or worms or rats or
> whatever is being protected can be significant.
>
>> Other than that, the fuel requirements will probably take hold.
>> You must carry enough fuel to arrive at your planned destination
>> and then beyond that for another half-hour (in VFR conditions in
>> daytime). If your destination is the middle of the ocean, I guess
>> you're probably covered.
>
> It's not just an ocean thing. I presume that flights over areas like the
> Great Lakes would be covered. Even a flight across the Great Salt Lake
> might
> be covered (?); at least it looks pretty big on the map.
>

It's a lot easier to swim in Great Salt Lake.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> You moron, you are waaayyyy to stupid to be anything but a snitch for FAA,
> and I doubt that use them.

I see people here who seem way too stupid to be pilots, and yet they claim
that they are.

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

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Erik writes:
>
>> However, you could completely dispell everyone and gain a CRAPLOAD
>> of credence by getting into a small plane with a CFI even once.
>
> I assume you mean credibility rather than credence.
>
> I do not seek to gain credibility.

just as well.


bertie

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> You moron, you are waaayyyy to stupid to be anything but a snitch for
>> FAA,
>> and I doubt that use them.
>
> I see people here who seem way too stupid to be pilots, and yet they claim
> that they are.
>

How can YOU tell. You clearly have no frame of reference. You are always
flying in social IMC.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> I do not seek to gain credibility.

And doing one hell of a fine job at it, if I do say so myself.

[Snowbird]

"Mxsmanic" wrote ..
> Where in the regulations can I find the requirements for operations over
> water
> in light GA aircraft? I seem to recall there are restrictions and
> equipment
> requirements, but I can't find them.
>

Specify your mission first.
There are different regulations depending on the country, type of water,
class of aircraft, class of operations, and class of pilot licence.

The way to find the information you request is part of the pilots' ground
school. Attend it or read up on the subject.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> How can YOU tell.

It's always easy to recognize stupidity in someone more stupid than oneself.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Snowbird writes:

> Specify your mission first.
> There are different regulations depending on the country, type of water,
> class of aircraft, class of operations, and class of pilot licence.

Just flying for pleasure, with or without passengers.

> The way to find the information you request is part of the pilots' ground
> school. Attend it or read up on the subject.

If you don't know, it's okay to say so.

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

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> How can YOU tell.
>
> It's always easy to recognize stupidity in someone more stupid than
> oneself.
>

Sorry, same answer moron.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Snowbird writes:
>
>> Specify your mission first.
>> There are different regulations depending on the country, type of water,
>> class of aircraft, class of operations, and class of pilot licence.
>
> Just flying for pleasure, with or without passengers.
>
>> The way to find the information you request is part of the pilots' ground
>> school. Attend it or read up on the subject.
>
> If you don't know, it's okay to say so.
>

We all know. We're just no interested in "writing a book" that would
convince you.

[Snowbird]

"Mxsmanic" wrote ...
> Snowbird writes:
>
>> Specify your mission first.
>> There are different regulations depending on the country, type of water,
>> class of aircraft, class of operations, and class of pilot licence.
>
> Just flying for pleasure, with or without passengers.

I told you, you need to specify the items above. To start with, as an
example, are you flying a SEP, an LSA or something else? Land- or seaplane?
Etc.

>
>> The way to find the information you request is part of the pilots' ground
>> school. Attend it or read up on the subject.
>
> If you don't know, it's okay to say so.
>

Oops, what an obvious provocation, Mr. Mx. But I can understand your
disappointment in not getting someone to do your research for you. Too bad.

Let me give you some of your own advice: "I expect any intelligent person to
look things up and verify them for himself;"

Anyway, what I know is irrelevant. You wanted an answer and I told you how
to get it, which was my contribution. Actually, your local library may even
have the books you need, or then you can try visiting the briefing office of
the closest airport. Have a nice day ;-)

[george]

On Apr 28, 10:45 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I might even work for the FAA ... who knows?
>
Impossible
They require their personel to undergo IQ tests

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> Impossible
> They require their personel to undergo IQ tests

There is no maximum IQ.

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

[d.g.s.]

On 4/27/2007 8:52 PM Mxsmanic jumped down, turned around, and wrote:

> I see people here who seem way too stupid to be pilots, and yet they claim
> that they are.

So much for your self-proclaimed refraining from making personal
attacks, albeit in a pathetic, anonymously passive-aggresive manner
of tarring several people with the same brush.

Also, you don't see anyone here. You claim that all who post here are
nothing more than names on a screen. If you choose to dehumanize those
who post here (and elsewhere on Usenet), then they aren't people.

Why are you such a lying hypocrite, Anthony? What do you gain?
--
dgs

[d.g.s.]

On 4/28/2007 10:59 AM Mxsmanic jumped down, turned around, and wrote:

> It's always easy to recognize stupidity in someone more stupid than oneself.

What does this have to do with aviation?
--
dgs

[d.g.s.]

On 4/26/2007 6:46 PM Mxsmanic jumped down, turned around, and wrote:

> Some people are so eager to attack that they aim poorly. Of course, that
> rather dilutes the impact of the attack. If you can't even identify the
> target, how meaningful can the attack be?

Who cares? What does this have to do with aviation?
--
dgs

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Snowbird writes:
>
>> Specify your mission first.
>> There are different regulations depending on the country, type of
>> water, class of aircraft, class of operations, and class of pilot
>> licence.
>
> Just flying for pleasure, with or without passengers.

I know, send me $300 and I'll tell you all about it.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> How can YOU tell.
>
> It's always easy to recognize stupidity in someone more stupid than
> oneself.


Snort!


One of Oscar Wilde's or your own, fjukktard?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> george writes:
>
>> Impossible
>> They require their personel to undergo IQ tests
>
> There is no maximum IQ.

Or no minimum, obviously.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> You moron, you are waaayyyy to stupid to be anything but a snitch for
>> FAA, and I doubt that use them.
>
> I see people here who seem way too stupid to be pilots, and yet they
> claim that they are.
>

Wheras you don't even claim to be a pilot!

Guess that makes you dummer n dirt, eh?

Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> Wheras you don't even claim to be a pilot!

I'm not a liar.

> Guess that makes you dummer n dirt, eh?

It makes me honest. Is honesty stupid?

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

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> george writes:
>
>> Impossible
>> They require their personel to undergo IQ tests
>
> There is no maximum IQ.
>

Don't tell me, let me guess. Your last IQ test came back negative.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> It makes me honest. Is honesty stupid?
>

It sure doesn't seem to guarentee intelligence.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Wheras you don't even claim to be a pilot!
>
> I'm not a liar.
>
>> Guess that makes you dummer n dirt, eh?
>
> It makes me honest. Is honesty stupid?
>

No, it makes you too stupid to get the joke, wannabe terrorist.

Bertie

[d.g.s.]

On 4/29/2007 9:54 AM Maxwell jumped down, turned around, and wrote:

> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> It makes me honest. Is honesty stupid?
>>
>
> It sure doesn't seem to guarentee intelligence.

First of all, Anthony isn't honest. He claims to come here to
discuss aviation, and yet ...well, if the above is an aviation-
related discussion, as well as Anthony's constant bleating about how
he is treated here (which, btw, is pretty much how he is received
in a LOT of Usenet groups), then I'm the queen of the Netherlands.

Anthony also plays his typical little word game of false correlation.
Honesty is no indicator of whether one is intelligent or not. Stupid
people can be honest, too, and intelligent people are more than capable
of telling porkies when it suits them.
--
dgs

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> It sure doesn't seem to guarentee intelligence.

It doesn't, although intelligence does tend to increase honesty somewhat.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Don't tell me, let me guess. Your last IQ test came back negative.

IQ tests do not produce negative scores.

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

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Don't tell me, let me guess. Your last IQ test came back negative.
>
> IQ tests do not produce negative scores.


sarcasm-detection ability tests however...

--Sylvain

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> It sure doesn't seem to guarentee intelligence.
>
> It doesn't, although intelligence does tend to increase honesty somewhat.



So you're a lying idiot,. We've been sayiing that all along..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Don't tell me, let me guess. Your last IQ test came back negative.
>
> IQ tests do not produce negative scores.

Whoosh.

I wonder if he feels the breeze?


Bertie

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> It sure doesn't seem to guarentee intelligence.
>
> It doesn't, although intelligence does tend to increase honesty somewhat.
>

Based on my personal experiences, you couldn't be farther from the truth.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Don't tell me, let me guess. Your last IQ test came back negative.
>
> IQ tests do not produce negative scores.
>

Geeeeeeezzzz! Are you blonde too???

If I shined a flashlight in your ear, would it put a twinkle in your eye.

[Erik]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Erik writes:
>
>
>>However, you could completely dispell everyone and gain a CRAPLOAD
>>of credence by getting into a small plane with a CFI even once.
>
>
> I assume you mean credibility rather than credence.
>
> I do not seek to gain credibility. I expect any intelligent person to look
> things up and verify them for himself; anyone who relies exclusively on USENET
> is doomed to have problems sooner or later. And even if I were the type to
> worship credentials, as some are, the credentials claimed on USENET are
> unverifiable.
>
> I might even work for the FAA ... who knows?
>

No, I mean credence.

cre·dence
n.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in
:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Maxwell writes:
>>
>>> It sure doesn't seem to guarentee intelligence.
>>
>> It doesn't, although intelligence does tend to increase honesty
>> somewhat.
>>
>
> Based on my personal experiences, you couldn't be farther from the
> truth.
>

Or further from being intelligent. He seems to be mistaking intelligence
for smart-assedness


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Erik writes:

> No, I mean credence.

Credence in what?

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

[george]

On Apr 30, 4:27 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > george writes:
>
> >> Impossible
> >> They require their personel to undergo IQ tests
>
> > There is no maximum IQ.
>
> Don't tell me, let me guess. Your last IQ test came back negative.


I'd say it was in the low single digit range

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> I'd say it was in the low single digit range

People with IQs in the single-digit range usually cannot eat, walk, or speak
and may spend their lives confined to a crib.

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

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> george writes:
>
>> I'd say it was in the low single digit range
>
> People with IQs in the single-digit range usually cannot eat, walk, or
> speak and may spend their lives confined to a crib.
>

Which would explain why you never elave your bedroom


Bertie

[Erik]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Erik writes:
>
>
>>No, I mean credence.
>
>
> Credence in what?
>

In anything you say. Outside, of course that you're "Terrified of
airplanes."

[Mxsmanic]

Erik writes:

> In anything you say.

I already have full credence in anything I say.

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

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Erik writes:
>
>> In anything you say.
>
> I already have full credence in anything I say.
>

Of coarse you do, you're a legend in you own mind.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Erik writes:
>
>> In anything you say.
>
> I already have full credence in anything I say.
>
Bwawhahwhahwhahwhahhwahhwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwh hahw!

just as well yuo can't fly then.


Bertie