Bad pilots, bad maintenance ruining general aviation

[Mxsmanic]

I see on the CNN Web page not one but two reports of GA plane crashes.
General Aviation isn't inherently dangerous, so the large number of crashes
can only mean that there are lots of bad pilots and poorly-maintained aircraft
out there. And the accidents that occur as a result are ruining the
reputation of GA in the eyes of the public.

If you must fly, make sure you know what you are doing, and don't take stupid
risks. And make sure that the aircraft you're flying is in flyable (safe)
condition. Otherwise there eventually won't be any general aviation any more.

[Skylune]

On Jun 5, 9:51 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> I see on the CNN Web page not one but two reports of GA plane crashes.
> General Aviation isn't inherently dangerous, so the large number of crashes
> can only mean that there are lots of bad pilots and poorly-maintained aircraft
> out there. And the accidents that occur as a result are ruining the
> reputation of GA in the eyes of the public.
>
> If you must fly, make sure you know what you are doing, and don't take stupid
> risks. And make sure that the aircraft you're flying is in flyable (safe)
> condition. Otherwise there eventually won't be any general aviation any more.

The bait is set. Now, the fish will begin to jump.

[Skylune]

On Jun 5, 9:51 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> I see on the CNN Web page not one but two reports of GA plane crashes.
> General Aviation isn't inherently dangerous, so the large number of crashes
> can only mean that there are lots of bad pilots and poorly-maintained aircraft
> out there. And the accidents that occur as a result are ruining the
> reputation of GA in the eyes of the public.
>
> If you must fly, make sure you know what you are doing, and don't take stupid
> risks. And make sure that the aircraft you're flying is in flyable (safe)
> condition. Otherwise there eventually won't be any general aviation any more.

Still no bites??

[Skylune]

On Jun 5, 9:51 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> I see on the CNN Web page not one but two reports of GA plane crashes.
> General Aviation isn't inherently dangerous, so the large number of crashes
> can only mean that there are lots of bad pilots and poorly-maintained aircraft
> out there. And the accidents that occur as a result are ruining the
> reputation of GA in the eyes of the public.
>
> If you must fly, make sure you know what you are doing, and don't take stupid
> risks. And make sure that the aircraft you're flying is in flyable (safe)
> condition. Otherwise there eventually won't be any general aviation any more.

Boyer is responsible for the decline in GA, and he supports a large
increase in the Avgas tax. When he gets it, he will proclaim victory
to the AOPA membership.

[John Theune]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> I see on the CNN Web page not one but two reports of GA plane crashes.
> General Aviation isn't inherently dangerous, so the large number of crashes
> can only mean that there are lots of bad pilots and poorly-maintained aircraft
> out there. And the accidents that occur as a result are ruining the
> reputation of GA in the eyes of the public.
>
> If you must fly, make sure you know what you are doing, and don't take stupid
> risks. And make sure that the aircraft you're flying is in flyable (safe)
> condition. Otherwise there eventually won't be any general aviation any more.
For someone who insists that facts must be backed up with verifiable
proof, you seem awfully willing to accept a newspaper report of a crash
as the final word as to why something happened and who's fault it was.
Please try to be a little bit more consistent in your shrill pronouncements.

[Mxsmanic]

John Theune writes:

> For someone who insists that facts must be backed up with verifiable
> proof, you seem awfully willing to accept a newspaper report of a crash
> as the final word as to why something happened and who's fault it was.

As long as it was a crash, it's overwhelmingly probable that it was caused by
pilot error or inadequate maintenance.

[Viperdoc]

Since the only thing you'll ever crash is your Microsoft OS, your opinion
matters little.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_14_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> I see on the CNN Web page not one but two reports of GA plane crashes.
> General Aviation isn't inherently dangerous, so the large number of
> crashes can only mean that there are lots of bad pilots and
> poorly-maintained aircraft out there. And the accidents that occur as
> a result are ruining the reputation of GA in the eyes of the public.

Could be worse, you could be flying, or trying to.


Bertie

[BDS[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote
>
> If you must fly, make sure you know what you are doing, and don't take
stupid
> risks. And make sure that the aircraft you're flying is in flyable (safe)
> condition. Otherwise there eventually won't be any general aviation any
more.

Wow, thanks for that sobering piece of advice. And here I was, just about
to go out and take some stupid risks without knowing what I was doing in an
airplane that wasn't in flyable (safe) condition. I'm sure glad you stopped
me. I'd hate to be the reason that GA went away.

BDS

[gatt]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 5, 9:51 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

>> I see on the CNN Web page not one but two reports of GA plane crashes.
>> General Aviation isn't inherently dangerous, so the large number of
>> crashes


"The large number of crashes." LOL!

> The bait is set. Now, the fish will begin to jump.


Yep. NOTAM: TROLL ACTIVITY REPORTED REC.AVIATION.PILOTING

[gatt]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> Boyer is responsible for the decline in GA, and he supports a large
> increase in the Avgas tax.

Not according to the junkmail AOPA sends me with his name on it.

-c

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> Since the only thing you'll ever crash is your Microsoft OS, your opinion
> matters little.

Well, then, by all means, fly recklessly in half-broken aircraft, and enjoy
the consequences.

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> Could be worse, you could be flying, or trying to.

I'm actually almost pathologically safety-conscious in vehicles, and I would
be an extraordinarily safe pilot.

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> Wow, thanks for that sobering piece of advice. And here I was, just about
> to go out and take some stupid risks without knowing what I was doing in an
> airplane that wasn't in flyable (safe) condition. I'm sure glad you stopped
> me. I'd hate to be the reason that GA went away.

There are lots of pilots taking stupid risks. Some of them will flippantly
deny doing so, too, although it's hard to hide one's errors from the NTSB.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Could be worse, you could be flying, or trying to.
>
> I'm actually almost pathologically safety-conscious in vehicles, and I
> would be an extraordinarily safe pilot.
>

No, you wouldn't be because you would never be able to fly

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> BDS writes:
>
>> Wow, thanks for that sobering piece of advice. And here I was, just
>> about to go out and take some stupid risks without knowing what I was
>> doing in an airplane that wasn't in flyable (safe) condition. I'm
>> sure glad you stopped me. I'd hate to be the reason that GA went
>> away.
>
> There are lots of pilots taking stupid risks. Some of them will
> flippantly deny doing so, too, although it's hard to hide one's errors
> from the NTSB.
>



Something you'll never have to worry about since you will never, ever
fly..


Fjukkwit


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jun 5, 7:51 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> I see on the CNN Web page not one but two reports of GA plane crashes.
> General Aviation isn't inherently dangerous, so the large number of crashes
> can only mean that there are lots of bad pilots and poorly-maintained aircraft
> out there. And the accidents that occur as a result are ruining the
> reputation of GA in the eyes of the public.
>
> If you must fly, make sure you know what you are doing, and don't take stupid
> risks. And make sure that the aircraft you're flying is in flyable (safe)
> condition. Otherwise there eventually won't be any general aviation any more.

Very good, skilled pilots in well maintained airplanes crash and die.
I know of several who have. It only takes one moment of bad luck,
inattentiveness, or an unforseen problem to take you out. The
probability may not be high for any of these, but they do happen.

Even sitting in your worn out chair playing with your PC you could
die. Deep vein thrombosis, heart attack, or even a meteorite crashing
through your roof could kill you, not to mention a strafing run from a
real pilot who reads your posts on this newsgroup.

So don't be so smug and self-righteous.

[JB]

>large number of crashes
>lots of bad pilots and poorly-maintained aircraft

As usual, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
But I guess if you can only count to 5, then 2 must be a "large
number"!

Do you really think anyone here cares at all what conclusions you
reach or stupid "words of wisdom" you have to offer about aviation?
What a moron.

[Skylune]

On Jun 5, 12:18 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> BDS writes:
> > Wow, thanks for that sobering piece of advice. And here I was, just about
> > to go out and take some stupid risks without knowing what I was doing in an
> > airplane that wasn't in flyable (safe) condition. I'm sure glad you stopped
> > me. I'd hate to be the reason that GA went away.
>
> There are lots of pilots taking stupid risks. Some of them will flippantly
> deny doing so, too, although it's hard to hide one's errors from the NTSB.

I see the bait was taken, with only a slight delay. Nice.

[Skylune]

On Jun 5, 12:18 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> BDS writes:
> > Wow, thanks for that sobering piece of advice. And here I was, just about
> > to go out and take some stupid risks without knowing what I was doing in an
> > airplane that wasn't in flyable (safe) condition. I'm sure glad you stopped
> > me. I'd hate to be the reason that GA went away.
>
> There are lots of pilots taking stupid risks. Some of them will flippantly
> deny doing so, too, although it's hard to hide one's errors from the NTSB.

Keep it up, MX. They absolutely NEED you. Paging Dr. Melfi.....

[Shirl]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> I'm actually almost pathologically safety-conscious in
> vehicles, and I would be an extraordinarily safe pilot.

That's great, but being an "extraordinarily safe pilot" doesn't mean
accidents won't happen. There's absolutely no way that even the safest
pilot can anticipate ALL mechanical failures; even the very best
aircraft mechanics can't anticipate ALL mechanical failures. You can't
"make sure" your airplane is going to be 100% safe for the duration of
ALL your flights any more than you can "make sure" your car won't break
down every time you leave your driveway, despite all your and your
mechanic's best efforts.

[Shirl]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Well, then, by all means, fly recklessly in half-broken
> aircraft, and enjoy the consequences.

Bad pilots and bad maintenance exist, sure ... but accidents can and do
occur in the most meticulously maintained aircraft flown by
"extraordinarily safe" pilots too. You shouldn't make any assumptions
about pilots or maintenance every time there is a crash.

[Erik]

Jim Stewart wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>
>>> Could be worse, you could be flying, or trying to.
>>
>>
>> I'm actually almost pathologically safety-conscious in vehicles, and I
>> would
>> be an extraordinarily safe pilot.
>
>
> Doesn't matter how safety-conscious you are if
> you're having an anxiety attack and loosing
> bowel control on final....
>

On an office chair behind a simulator.

[birdog]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>I see on the CNN Web page not one but two reports of GA plane crashes.
> General Aviation isn't inherently dangerous, so the large number of
> crashes
> can only mean that there are lots of bad pilots and poorly-maintained
> aircraft
> out there. And the accidents that occur as a result are ruining the
> reputation of GA in the eyes of the public.

Get off it. A Cub can crash out of a dirt strip in the Ozarks and it makes
national news. On the same day, 1000 people can get killed on the highway in
Arkansas, and it's a footnote in the local paper.

Been one of my gripes for 50 years.

[TheSmokingGnu]

gatt wrote:
> Yep. NOTAM: TROLL ACTIVITY REPORTED REC.AVIATION.PILOTING

Isn't that:

TRLNG VCNTY RAP ADV ALTRN PSTNG. KLLFL AVBL, ADV USE TIL FTHR NTC.

TheSmokingGnu

[Mxsmanic]

Shirl writes:

> Bad pilots and bad maintenance exist, sure ... but accidents can and do
> occur in the most meticulously maintained aircraft flown by
> "extraordinarily safe" pilots too. You shouldn't make any assumptions
> about pilots or maintenance every time there is a crash.

I'm just going by the numbers. Random, unavoidable mechanical or other
failures are quite rare as causes of accidents, even in GA aircraft. Most
accidents are avoidable, either with a better pilot or a more carefully
maintained aircraft, or both.

[Mxsmanic]

Shirl writes:

> That's great, but being an "extraordinarily safe pilot" doesn't mean
> accidents won't happen.

They would be far less likely to happen than they would be if I were a
reckless pilot.

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Stewart writes:

> Doesn't matter how safety-conscious you are if
> you're having an anxiety attack and loosing
> bowel control on final....

If you're careful, you should be able to avoid anxiety.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Very good, skilled pilots in well maintained airplanes crash and die.
> I know of several who have. It only takes one moment of bad luck,
> inattentiveness, or an unforseen problem to take you out. The
> probability may not be high for any of these, but they do happen.

You can be struck by lightning, too.

Or are you saying that GA is so incredibly dangerous that it should be
avoided--or outlawed?

> So don't be so smug and self-righteous.

You haven't said this about other people who have posted essentially the same
thing.

[Mxsmanic]

birdog writes:

> Get off it. A Cub can crash out of a dirt strip in the Ozarks and it makes
> national news. On the same day, 1000 people can get killed on the highway in
> Arkansas, and it's a footnote in the local paper.

Be that as it may, the stories on GA crashes do damage; the non-stories on
highway fatalities do not.

> Been one of my gripes for 50 years.

What have you done about it?

[gatt]

"TheSmokingGnu" > wrote in message
...
> gatt wrote:
>> Yep. NOTAM: TROLL ACTIVITY REPORTED REC.AVIATION.PILOTING
>
> Isn't that:
>
> TRLNG VCNTY RAP ADV ALTRN PSTNG. KLLFL AVBL, ADV USE TIL FTHR NTC.

LOL! Wilco!

[Shirl]

> > That's great, but being an "extraordinarily safe pilot" doesn't mean
> > accidents won't happen.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> They would be far less likely to happen than they would be if I were a
> reckless pilot.

Yeah, and that's something none of us already know?
Accidents in ANY situation are less likely to happen than when people
are reckless. How basic is that?

[Shirl]

Shirl:
> > Bad pilots and bad maintenance exist, sure ... but accidents can and do
> > occur in the most meticulously maintained aircraft flown by
> > "extraordinarily safe" pilots too. You shouldn't make any assumptions
> > about pilots or maintenance every time there is a crash.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> I'm just going by the numbers. Random, unavoidable mechanical or other
> failures are quite rare as causes of accidents, even in GA aircraft.

Not as rare as you assume.

> Most accidents are avoidable, either with a better pilot
> or a more carefully maintained aircraft, or both.

There are PLENTY of carefully maintained aircraft that have problems and
failures, some resulting in accidents and some not. The concept you
aren't understanding is that mechanical failure is not necessarily an
indication of poor/careless/inadequate maintenance, and in fact, more
frequently than you believe, things go wrong even on airplanes that are
vigilantly maintained. Bottom line, even though you and your mechanic do
everything humanly possible, there is simply no way to assure an
aircraft isn't going to have a problem.

[ManhattanMan]

Skylune wrote:
> On Jun 5, 12:18 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> BDS writes:
>>> Wow, thanks for that sobering piece of advice. And here I was,
>>> just about to go out and take some stupid risks without knowing
>>> what I was doing in an airplane that wasn't in flyable (safe)
>>> condition. I'm sure glad you stopped me. I'd hate to be the
>>> reason that GA went away.
>>
>> There are lots of pilots taking stupid risks. Some of them will
>> flippantly deny doing so, too, although it's hard to hide one's
>> errors from the NTSB.
>
> I see the bait was taken, with only a slight delay. Nice.

Was there ANY doubt?????????????????????

----------------------------------------o__\
twannnnnggg............
(sound of taut line after setting the hook ;)

[Skylune]

On Jun 5, 12:10 pm, "gatt" > wrote:
> "Skylune" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > Boyer is responsible for the decline in GA, and he supports a large
> > increase in the Avgas tax.
>
> Not according to the junkmail AOPA sends me with his name on it.
>
> -c

Well, here is what Boyer said on the website:
"Finally, if there is a need to address growing use of the system by
some segments of general aviation, primarily corporate operators, then
let's pay for that with an incremental increase in the fuel tax."

Incremental? The gubmint's original position was to ensure that a
smaller hike (I believe it will end up at about $.41) than that
originally proposed will be viewed as a victory by the Boyers of the
world. When the inevitable avgas increase takes effect, look for
Boyer to take credit for keeping it low. LOL.

He is already declaring it a victory that the funding bill came CLOSE
to being defeated. He sounds like a Democrat to me. But, regardless,
Boyer is just another politician, with average skills.

Take care.

[Mxsmanic]

Shirl writes:

> There are PLENTY of carefully maintained aircraft that have problems and
> failures, some resulting in accidents and some not. The concept you
> aren't understanding is that mechanical failure is not necessarily an
> indication of poor/careless/inadequate maintenance, and in fact, more
> frequently than you believe, things go wrong even on airplanes that are
> vigilantly maintained. Bottom line, even though you and your mechanic do
> everything humanly possible, there is simply no way to assure an
> aircraft isn't going to have a problem.

Then it must be a defect in design.

[Skylune]

On Jun 5, 4:27 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Shirl writes:
> > There are PLENTY of carefully maintained aircraft that have problems and
> > failures, some resulting in accidents and some not. The concept you
> > aren't understanding is that mechanical failure is not necessarily an
> > indication of poor/careless/inadequate maintenance, and in fact, more
> > frequently than you believe, things go wrong even on airplanes that are
> > vigilantly maintained. Bottom line, even though you and your mechanic do
> > everything humanly possible, there is simply no way to assure an
> > aircraft isn't going to have a problem.
>
> Then it must be a defect in design.

Sorry to jump in here guys.

MX, you are an insufferable fool. Your comments on other threads
regarding housing prices in the US, how a million dollars is not alot
of money, how middle class is shrinking in America, etc are absolutely
hysterical coming from an underemployed Frenchman like you.

[Mxsmanic]

Skylune writes:

> Sorry to jump in here guys.
>
> MX, you are an insufferable fool. Your comments on other threads
> regarding housing prices in the US, how a million dollars is not alot
> of money, how middle class is shrinking in America, etc are absolutely
> hysterical coming from an underemployed Frenchman like you.

Was your mistake deliberate, or just a coincidence?

[Skylune]

On Jun 5, 2:42 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> birdog writes:
> > Get off it. A Cub can crash out of a dirt strip in the Ozarks and it makes
> > national news. On the same day, 1000 people can get killed on the highway in
> > Arkansas, and it's a footnote in the local paper.
>
> Be that as it may, the stories on GA crashes do damage; the non-stories on
> highway fatalities do not.
>
> > Been one of my gripes for 50 years.
>
> What have you done about it?

This is toooooo funny. Doesn't France provide free psychiatric
care?

Since you are expert in everything, I am having a problem with low
pressure in one of the zones on my lawn sprinkler system. Could you
provide some advice on how to diagnose the problem and then fix it?

Where do you think housing prices in the US will settle out?

Why do you think $1mm is not alot of $$ in the US? Would it be worth
alot in France?

Please provide a comprehensive peace plan for Iraq and the Middle East
in general. Are you in touch with General Petraeus? If not, please
send him an e-mail. I am sure he could benefit from your wisdom.

[george]

On Jun 6, 2:31 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> John Theune writes:
> > For someone who insists that facts must be backed up with verifiable
> > proof, you seem awfully willing to accept a newspaper report of a crash
> > as the final word as to why something happened and who's fault it was.
>
> As long as it was a crash, it's overwhelmingly probable that it was caused by
> pilot error or inadequate maintenance.

moron !

[[email protected]]

On Jun 5, 3:00 pm, Skylune > wrote:
> On Jun 5, 2:42 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > birdog writes:
> > > Get off it. A Cub can crash out of a dirt strip in the Ozarks and it makes
> > > national news. On the same day, 1000 people can get killed on the highway in
> > > Arkansas, and it's a footnote in the local paper.
>
> > Be that as it may, the stories on GA crashes do damage; the non-stories on
> > highway fatalities do not.
>
> > > Been one of my gripes for 50 years.
>
> > What have you done about it?
>
> This is toooooo funny. Doesn't France provide free psychiatric
> care?
>
> Since you are expert in everything, I am having a problem with low
> pressure in one of the zones on my lawn sprinkler system. Could you
> provide some advice on how to diagnose the problem and then fix it?
>
> Where do you think housing prices in the US will settle out?
>
> Why do you think $1mm is not alot of $$ in the US? Would it be worth
> alot in France?
>
> Please provide a comprehensive peace plan for Iraq and the Middle East
> in general. Are you in touch with General Petraeus? If not, please
> send him an e-mail. I am sure he could benefit from your wisdom.

He can't help you, but I might... I had the same problem the other
night. Let the zone run for 1/2 an hour until a mound appeared in the
grass. Stabbed my foot into it and out gushed a bunch of water.
Guess who gets to splice a poly pipe tonight? Arrrghh!

[Skylune]

On Jun 5, 5:13 pm, wrote:
> On Jun 5, 3:00 pm, Skylune > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 2:42 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > > birdog writes:
> > > > Get off it. A Cub can crash out of a dirt strip in the Ozarks and it makes
> > > > national news. On the same day, 1000 people can get killed on the highway in
> > > > Arkansas, and it's a footnote in the local paper.
>
> > > Be that as it may, the stories on GA crashes do damage; the non-stories on
> > > highway fatalities do not.
>
> > > > Been one of my gripes for 50 years.
>
> > > What have you done about it?
>
> > This is toooooo funny. Doesn't France provide free psychiatric
> > care?
>
> > Since you are expert in everything, I am having a problem with low
> > pressure in one of the zones on my lawn sprinkler system. Could you
> > provide some advice on how to diagnose the problem and then fix it?
>
> > Where do you think housing prices in the US will settle out?
>
> > Why do you think $1mm is not alot of $$ in the US? Would it be worth
> > alot in France?
>
> > Please provide a comprehensive peace plan for Iraq and the Middle East
> > in general. Are you in touch with General Petraeus? If not, please
> > send him an e-mail. I am sure he could benefit from your wisdom.
>
> He can't help you, but I might... I had the same problem the other
> night. Let the zone run for 1/2 an hour until a mound appeared in the
> grass. Stabbed my foot into it and out gushed a bunch of water.
> Guess who gets to splice a poly pipe tonight? Arrrghh!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Don't take offense, but I am going to wait until the underemployed guy
from France gives his opinion. It is the most prudent course of
action.

Sorry to come back here guys, but I just couldn't resist. I'll be on
my way now.

Take care.

[ManhattanMan]

wrote:
>
> He can't help you, but I might... I had the same problem the other
> night. Let the zone run for 1/2 an hour until a mound appeared in the
> grass. Stabbed my foot into it and out gushed a bunch of water.
> Guess who gets to splice a poly pipe tonight? Arrrghh!

I bypassed the mound phase, and went direct to water gushing out after they
came on but nothing came out for a few minutes...... Arrrrghhhh!

[Erik]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jim Stewart writes:
>
>
>>Doesn't matter how safety-conscious you are if
>>you're having an anxiety attack and loosing
>>bowel control on final....
>
>
> If you're careful, you should be able to avoid anxiety.

Haha, look, the expert on not getting laid and being
afraid of airplanes is offering advice on anxiety.

[Skylune]

On Jun 5, 4:57 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Skylune writes:
> > Sorry to jump in here guys.
>
> > MX, you are an insufferable fool. Your comments on other threads
> > regarding housing prices in the US, how a million dollars is not alot
> > of money, how middle class is shrinking in America, etc are absolutely
> > hysterical coming from an underemployed Frenchman like you.
>
> Was your mistake deliberate, or just a coincidence?

OK, I'll play for a while. I have some free time.

What mistake? Did you obtain gainful employment?

[John Theune]

Skylune wrote:
> On Jun 5, 4:57 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Skylune writes:
>>> Sorry to jump in here guys.
>>> MX, you are an insufferable fool. Your comments on other threads
>>> regarding housing prices in the US, how a million dollars is not alot
>>> of money, how middle class is shrinking in America, etc are absolutely
>>> hysterical coming from an underemployed Frenchman like you.
>> Was your mistake deliberate, or just a coincidence?
>
> OK, I'll play for a while. I have some free time.
>
> What mistake? Did you obtain gainful employment?
>
I never thought I'd say this this, but don't insult the French by
implying he is one of them. He is just a whining ex-pat American ( or
so he claims )

[tom418]

Too bad you weren't aboard United 232 back in 1989. I'm sure you could have
averted the disaster.
"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Shirl writes:
>
> > Bad pilots and bad maintenance exist, sure ... but accidents can and do
> > occur in the most meticulously maintained aircraft flown by
> > "extraordinarily safe" pilots too. You shouldn't make any assumptions
> > about pilots or maintenance every time there is a crash.
>
> I'm just going by the numbers. Random, unavoidable mechanical or other
> failures are quite rare as causes of accidents, even in GA aircraft. Most
> accidents are avoidable, either with a better pilot or a more carefully
> maintained aircraft, or both.

[Skylune]

On Jun 5, 6:36 pm, John Theune > wrote:
> Skylune wrote:
> > On Jun 5, 4:57 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> Skylune writes:
> >>> Sorry to jump in here guys.
> >>> MX, you are an insufferable fool. Your comments on other threads
> >>> regarding housing prices in the US, how a million dollars is not alot
> >>> of money, how middle class is shrinking in America, etc are absolutely
> >>> hysterical coming from an underemployed Frenchman like you.
> >> Was your mistake deliberate, or just a coincidence?
>
> > OK, I'll play for a while. I have some free time.
>
> > What mistake? Did you obtain gainful employment?
>
> I never thought I'd say this this, but don't insult the French by
> implying he is one of them. He is just a whining ex-pat American ( or
> so he claims )

I'm an immigrant myself (German), and have no love for French or
German politics. I love my country, and hate things that smack of
socialism (like the FAA).

If he is an ex-pat, and is presently under-employed in France making a
few hundred bucks a week guiding tourists around (as I remember from a
few months ago when Anthony was "outed" by one of the clever pilots
here), why would he remain in France?

Could it be that he is more comfortable there? Underemployed, but
SIMULATING: flying, relationships, economic research, sex (?),
intellectualism, etc. Maybe French government services make it more
comfortable to do this in France. Maybe he views himself as a
misunderstood philosopher, and feels more at home in France than the
burgeious USA?

I don't know. I'll say this. The last episode of the Sopranos occurs
this Sunday. So far, watching the MX series to be the next best
alternative.

[Viperdoc]

Now how would you know if my airplanes are half broken, or that I fly
recklessly?

It sounds like you're envious of the fact that while many of us actually fly
real airplanes, you'll never have the experience of flying anything other
than a chair.

..

[Dallas]

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:37:35 -0700, TheSmokingGnu wrote:

> TRLNG VCNTY RAP ADV ALTRN PSTNG. KLLFL AVBL, ADV USE TIL FTHR NTC.

An instant classic.

[two thumbs up]


--
Dallas

[Erik]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>
>>Very good, skilled pilots in well maintained airplanes crash and die.
>>I know of several who have. It only takes one moment of bad luck,
>>inattentiveness, or an unforseen problem to take you out. The
>>probability may not be high for any of these, but they do happen.
>
>
> You can be struck by lightning, too.
>
> Or are you saying that GA is so incredibly dangerous that it should be
> avoided--or outlawed?
>
>
>>So don't be so smug and self-righteous.
>
>
> You haven't said this about other people who have posted essentially the same
> thing.

There's a difference between being self-righteous and being correct.

[Erik]

BDS wrote:

> "Mxsmanic" > wrote
>
>>If you must fly, make sure you know what you are doing, and don't take
>
> stupid
>
>>risks. And make sure that the aircraft you're flying is in flyable (safe)
>>condition. Otherwise there eventually won't be any general aviation any
>
> more.
>
> Wow, thanks for that sobering piece of advice. And here I was, just about
> to go out and take some stupid risks without knowing what I was doing in an
> airplane that wasn't in flyable (safe) condition. I'm sure glad you stopped
> me. I'd hate to be the reason that GA went away.
>
> BDS
>

Haha, the three most dangerous words in GA. "Check this out!"

[Peter Dohm]

"ManhattanMan" > wrote in message
...
> Skylune wrote:
> > On Jun 5, 12:18 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> BDS writes:
> >>> Wow, thanks for that sobering piece of advice. And here I was,
> >>> just about to go out and take some stupid risks without knowing
> >>> what I was doing in an airplane that wasn't in flyable (safe)
> >>> condition. I'm sure glad you stopped me. I'd hate to be the
> >>> reason that GA went away.
> >>
> >> There are lots of pilots taking stupid risks. Some of them will
> >> flippantly deny doing so, too, although it's hard to hide one's
> >> errors from the NTSB.
> >
> > I see the bait was taken, with only a slight delay. Nice.
>
> Was there ANY doubt?????????????????????
>
> ----------------------------------------o__\
> twannnnnggg............
> (sound of taut line after setting the hook ;)
>
>
Well, I *was* hoping. But it *was* like examining a discarded ticket for a
past lotto drawing...

Peter :-(

[ManhattanMan]

Skylune wrote:
>
> Could it be that he is more comfortable there? Underemployed, but
> SIMULATING: flying, relationships, economic research, sex (?),
> intellectualism, etc. Maybe French government services make it more
> comfortable to do this in France. Maybe he views himself as a
> misunderstood philosopher, and feels more at home in France than the
> burgeious USA?
>


BINGO!

Not to mention being a narcissistic, arrogant, conceited, pious,
prick..........

[Mxsmanic]

Skylune writes:

> What mistake? Did you obtain gainful employment?

I guess it was an ironic coincidence, then.

Best not to criticize others for a perceived lack of research unless one does
at least as much research oneself.

[Mxsmanic]

tom418 writes:

> Too bad you weren't aboard United 232 back in 1989. I'm sure you could have
> averted the disaster.

United 232 was faulty maintenance. There was a crack in the engine that had
gone undetected, even though it had been inspected. If it had been properly
maintained, there would have been no crash.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> Now how would you know if my airplanes are half broken, or that I fly
> recklessly?

If you have an accident, that's prima facie evidence of one or the other. If
you're an excellent pilot in a properly maintained aircraft, you won't have an
accident.

> It sounds like you're envious of the fact that while many of us actually fly
> real airplanes, you'll never have the experience of flying anything other
> than a chair.

Pilots like to think that everyone envies them. More generally, most people
who like a particular activity like to think that everyone else not engaged in
that activity envies them. Of course, this is all wishful thinking.

[Mxsmanic]

Skylune writes:

> Since you are expert in everything, I am having a problem with low
> pressure in one of the zones on my lawn sprinkler system. Could you
> provide some advice on how to diagnose the problem and then fix it?

Look for leaks. A leak will manifest by an excess of water at some point on
the lawn.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 5, 10:27 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Shirl writes:
> > There are PLENTY of carefully maintained aircraft that have problems and
> > failures, some resulting in accidents and some not. The concept you
> > aren't understanding is that mechanical failure is not necessarily an
> > indication of poor/careless/inadequate maintenance, and in fact, more
> > frequently than you believe, things go wrong even on airplanes that are
> > vigilantly maintained. Bottom line, even though you and your mechanic do
> > everything humanly possible, there is simply no way to assure an
> > aircraft isn't going to have a problem.
>
> Then it must be a defect in design.

Thanks, for letting me know you have no clue about engineering.

-Kees

[Shirl]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> If you have an accident, that's prima facie evidence of one
> or the other. If you're an excellent pilot in a properly maintained
> aircraft, you won't have an accident.

Riiiiiiight. What other absolutes do you live by?
Do you know the name of an aircraft mechanic that will *GUARANTEE* that
his/her work is so proper that "you won't have an accident" as long as
you're an "excellent pilot" flying a plane that he/she maintains? If so,
it's your duty to share it with us. I'm sure the FAA would like to know
who he/she is, too.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 6, 2:06 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> Look for leaks. A leak will manifest by an excess of water at some point on
> the lawn.

This dork actually posted this.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> United 232 was faulty maintenance. There was a crack in the engine that
> had
> gone undetected, even though it had been inspected. If it had been
> properly
> maintained, there would have been no crash.

You really are clueless. How, specifically, did mantenance fail 232?

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> Now how would you know if my airplanes are half broken, or that I fly
>> recklessly?
>
> If you have an accident, that's prima facie evidence of one or the other.
> If
> you're an excellent pilot in a properly maintained aircraft, you won't
> have an
> accident.

If life is that simple, why do you confine yourself to a basement and
simulator?

>
>> It sounds like you're envious of the fact that while many of us actually
>> fly
>> real airplanes, you'll never have the experience of flying anything other
>> than a chair.
>
> Pilots like to think that everyone envies them. More generally, most
> people
> who like a particular activity like to think that everyone else not
> engaged in
> that activity envies them. Of course, this is all wishful thinking.

You're the best example of wishful thinking around here, on most any topic.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Skylune writes:
>
>> Since you are expert in everything, I am having a problem with low
>> pressure in one of the zones on my lawn sprinkler system. Could you
>> provide some advice on how to diagnose the problem and then fix it?
>
> Look for leaks. A leak will manifest by an excess of water at some point
> on
> the lawn.

Take your meds.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 6, 12:02 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> tom418 writes:
> > Too bad you weren't aboard United 232 back in 1989. I'm sure you could have
> > averted the disaster.
>
> United 232 was faulty maintenance. There was a crack in the engine that had
> gone undetected, even though it had been inspected. If it had been properly
> maintained, there would have been no crash.

Bull****! The crack in the engine had absolutely nothing to do with
maintenance. It was a flaw that existed when the turbine blade was
fabricated. It was not detected in initial inspections of the parts
by the manufacturer, and there was no way that maintenance could have
ever detected it until it failed due to its microscopic nature. If
the manufacturer couldn't see it, what makes you think that Joe
mechanic should have tools that would allow him to see it?

[Jim Stewart]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Could be worse, you could be flying, or trying to.
>
> I'm actually almost pathologically safety-conscious in vehicles, and I would
> be an extraordinarily safe pilot.

Doesn't matter how safety-conscious you are if
you're having an anxiety attack and loosing
bowel control on final....

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> You really are clueless. How, specifically, did mantenance fail 232?

They performed multiple FPIs on the failed fan disk (proved by the presence of
traces of the dye on the part that failed) without actually noticing that the
results indicated a problem.

See NTSB/AAR-90/06 for details.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Bull****! The crack in the engine had absolutely nothing to do with
> maintenance. It was a flaw that existed when the turbine blade was
> fabricated. It was not detected in initial inspections of the parts
> by the manufacturer, and there was no way that maintenance could have
> ever detected it until it failed due to its microscopic nature. If
> the manufacturer couldn't see it, what makes you think that Joe
> mechanic should have tools that would allow him to see it?

A failure to see it is a failure to see it. It's not excusable.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> If life is that simple, why do you confine yourself to a basement and
> simulator?

I don't.

[Skylune]

On Jun 6, 1:49 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Skylune writes:
> > What mistake? Did you obtain gainful employment?
>
> I guess it was an ironic coincidence, then.
>
> Best not to criticize others for a perceived lack of research unless one does
> at least as much research oneself.

Listen fool: Some of the pilots here with whom I have quarreled with
in the past even acknowledged that I attached references to studies on
things like the FAA funding formula, etc.

You on the other hand just spew trash about anything and everything.

[Skylune]

On Jun 6, 7:55 am, wrote:
> On Jun 6, 2:06 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Look for leaks. A leak will manifest by an excess of water at some point on
> > the lawn.
>
> This dork actually posted this.

OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can't believe what a total idiot this clown
is.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 6, 5:02 pm, Skylune > wrote:

> You on the other hand just spew trash about anything and everything.

At the risk of mollifying Mx, you, sir, have often spewed trash here
about AOPA, airplane noise, GA subsidies, etc... Troll v. troll.

F--

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> You really are clueless. How, specifically, did mantenance fail 232?
>
> They performed multiple FPIs on the failed fan disk (proved by the
> presence of
> traces of the dye on the part that failed) without actually noticing that
> the
> results indicated a problem.
>
> See NTSB/AAR-90/06 for details.

How do you know their results indicated a problem?

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Bull****! The crack in the engine had absolutely nothing to do with
>> maintenance. It was a flaw that existed when the turbine blade was
>> fabricated. It was not detected in initial inspections of the parts
>> by the manufacturer, and there was no way that maintenance could have
>> ever detected it until it failed due to its microscopic nature. If
>> the manufacturer couldn't see it, what makes you think that Joe
>> mechanic should have tools that would allow him to see it?
>
> A failure to see it is a failure to see it. It's not excusable.

Then you acknowled your failure to realize your own limitations, is indeed
your failure?

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> If life is that simple, why do you confine yourself to a basement and
>> simulator?
>
> I don't.

You certainly don't fly moron. You say it's too unsafe. If you are so good,
what do you fear.

Save the answer, we already know you are full of BS.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Very good, skilled pilots in well maintained airplanes crash and die.
>> I know of several who have. It only takes one moment of bad luck,
>> inattentiveness, or an unforseen problem to take you out. The
>> probability may not be high for any of these, but they do happen.
>
> You can be struck by lightning, too.
>
> Or are you saying that GA is so incredibly dangerous that it should be
> avoided--or outlawed?
>
>> So don't be so smug and self-righteous.
>
> You haven't said this about other people who have posted essentially
> the same thing.

That's because they're not fjukkwits

bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> birdog writes:
>
>> Get off it. A Cub can crash out of a dirt strip in the Ozarks and it
>> makes national news. On the same day, 1000 people can get killed on
>> the highway in Arkansas, and it's a footnote in the local paper.
>
> Be that as it may, the stories on GA crashes do damage; the
> non-stories on highway fatalities do not.
>

What's it to you ground pounder?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Skylune writes:
>
>> Since you are expert in everything, I am having a problem with low
>> pressure in one of the zones on my lawn sprinkler system. Could you
>> provide some advice on how to diagnose the problem and then fix it?
>
> Look for leaks. A leak will manifest by an excess of water at some
> point on the lawn.


No it won't, wannabe boi.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Skylune > wrote in
oups.com:

> On Jun 6, 7:55 am, wrote:
>> On Jun 6, 2:06 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Look for leaks. A leak will manifest by an excess of water at some
>> > point on the lawn.
>>
>> This dork actually posted this.
>
> OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can't believe what a total idiot this clown
> is.
>

I can

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jim Stewart writes:
>
>> Doesn't matter how safety-conscious you are if
>> you're having an anxiety attack and loosing
>> bowel control on final....
>
> If you're careful, you should be able to avoid anxiety.
>

Point is, you can't fly and you never will be able to fly.


Not ever.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Skylune writes:
>
>> What mistake? Did you obtain gainful employment?
>
> I guess it was an ironic coincidence, then.
>
> Best not to criticize others for a perceived lack of research unless
> one does at least as much research oneself.
>

I don't need to. I'm the source.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> tom418 writes:
>
>> Too bad you weren't aboard United 232 back in 1989. I'm sure you
>> could have averted the disaster.
>
> United 232 was faulty maintenance. There was a crack in the engine
> that had gone undetected, even though it had been inspected. If it
> had been properly maintained, there would have been no crash.
>

Nope, wrong again, fjukkktard


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> You really are clueless. How, specifically, did mantenance fail 232?
>
> They performed multiple FPIs on the failed fan disk (proved by the
> presence of traces of the dye on the part that failed) without
> actually noticing that the results indicated a problem.

That's right fjukktard, but the conclusion you draw from it means you have
no more understanding of what the real problem was than you have of
anyhitng else.


Zippo, fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Bull****! The crack in the engine had absolutely nothing to do with
>> maintenance. It was a flaw that existed when the turbine blade was
>> fabricated. It was not detected in initial inspections of the parts
>> by the manufacturer, and there was no way that maintenance could have
>> ever detected it until it failed due to its microscopic nature. If
>> the manufacturer couldn't see it, what makes you think that Joe
>> mechanic should have tools that would allow him to see it?
>
> A failure to see it is a failure to see it. It's not excusable.


Nope,


Wrong again fjukktard.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

I certainly never tire of you being wrong.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> Now how would you know if my airplanes are half broken, or that I fly
>> recklessly?
>
> If you have an accident, that's prima facie evidence of one or the
> other. If you're an excellent pilot in a properly maintained
> aircraft, you won't have an accident.

Nope.

You're a fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Skylune]

On Jun 6, 2:06 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Skylune writes:
> > Since you are expert in everything, I am having a problem with low
> > pressure in one of the zones on my lawn sprinkler system. Could you
> > provide some advice on how to diagnose the problem and then fix it?
>
> Look for leaks. A leak will manifest by an excess of water at some point on
> the lawn.

You are correct, sir. A "manifestation of excess water" (commonly
referred to by bourgeouis Americans as a "leak") did in fact appear on
my lawn, caused by a split in the pipe. Now, what is the best method
of repair of the plastic pipe? Home Depot has connectors and hose
clamps. Should I purchase these items, or are there better methods of
repair?

You never addressed my other questions:

Are you still researching my other questions regarding housing prices
in the US, and where the price correction will end?

How about the comprehensive peace plan for the Middle East? Are you
in touch with Petraeus, because he really needs your insight. These
are very pressing issues, MX, as you are undoubtably aware. I assume
you have your staff of researchers working on these topics, and will
opine when you have sufficient data and time to formulate a rock solid
plan.

I have so many questions for you, MX. Do you think that the Chinese
practice of pegging their currency to the US dollar constitutes a fair
trade violation? If so, why, and what remedies should the United
States seek?

Is a Universal Healthcare plan feasible in the USA and, if so, what
should be the primary elements? Individual mandate? Employer
mandate? A combination?

Please respond quickly. We have an election coming up in this
country, and I need to know whom to vote for. Perhaps YOU should
consider running for public office.

[Mxsmanic]

Skylune writes:

> You are correct, sir. A "manifestation of excess water" (commonly
> referred to by bourgeouis Americans as a "leak") did in fact appear on
> my lawn, caused by a split in the pipe. Now, what is the best method
> of repair of the plastic pipe? Home Depot has connectors and hose
> clamps. Should I purchase these items, or are there better methods of
> repair?

Is it just PVC pipe, or what? If it's PVC, can't you just remove the leaky
section and splice in a new section? As I recall, it's extremely easy to
connect and cut PVC piping, although bending it is a lot more difficult (but
you shouldn't have to do that).

> Are you still researching my other questions regarding housing prices
> in the US, and where the price correction will end?

I'm not researching anything unrelated to aviation.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 8, 1:30 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> Is it just PVC pipe, or what? If it's PVC, can't you just remove the leaky
> section and splice in a new section? As I recall, it's extremely easy to
> connect and cut PVC piping, although bending it is a lot more difficult (but
> you shouldn't have to do that).
>

Wow. This guy can even fix PVC pipe. Awesome.

F--

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

Skylune:

Your topics are unimportant. I would like to hear MX's opinion on our
justice system (the American one, that is). Today, they announced that Paris
Hilton was being released from prison for medical issues.

This is the most important piece of news that I have heard in a while, and
I'm surprised that MX hasn't offered his recommendations on the topic, since
he knows everything else and is smarter than the rest of us.

How about it?

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Viperdoc > wrote:
> Skylune:
>
> Your topics are unimportant. I would like to hear MX's opinion on our
> justice system (the American one, that is). Today, they announced that Paris
> Hilton was being released from prison for medical issues.
>
> This is the most important piece of news that I have heard in a while, and
> I'm surprised that MX hasn't offered his recommendations on the topic, since
> he knows everything else and is smarter than the rest of us.
>
> How about it?

He already has, just not to here. Check out the 'boycott
hilton' thread in rec.travel.air.

Also, the judge ordered her back to court for a 'please
explain'.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGaakmyBkZmuMZ8L8RAh8UAJwPQewDutGsqwcfKRNQ8F wBX2nG/QCeKWWt
HXBVediq5yPMhIwAfloqhAA=
=WGWe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Skylune writes:
>
>> You are correct, sir. A "manifestation of excess water" (commonly
>> referred to by bourgeouis Americans as a "leak") did in fact appear
>> on my lawn, caused by a split in the pipe. Now, what is the best
>> method of repair of the plastic pipe? Home Depot has connectors and
>> hose clamps. Should I purchase these items, or are there better
>> methods of repair?
>
> Is it just PVC pipe, or what? If it's PVC, can't you just remove the
> leaky section and splice in a new section? As I recall, it's
> extremely easy to connect and cut PVC piping, although bending it is a
> lot more difficult (but you shouldn't have to do that).
>
>> Are you still researching my other questions regarding housing prices
>> in the US, and where the price correction will end?
>
> I'm not researching anything unrelated to aviation.
>

You're not researching avaiton either, fjukktard


Bertie