Fuel selector question

[es330td]

Sorry if this is dumb (I am only at 8.3 hours toward my PPL)...

In the email I got from AOPA ePilot training tips today there is a
discussion of fuel starvation that makes regular mention of the fuel
selector switch. All my flying is done in a CE172 and the first and
last time I worry about the switch is during pre-flight when I confirm
that it is on both. I fly on both and never fly any other way and to
be honest, outside of gravity flow issues when parked on an incline I
cannot think of why one would want to select one tank at a time vs
both.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 5, 2:47 pm, es330td > wrote:
> Sorry if this is dumb (I am only at 8.3 hours toward my PPL)...
>
> In the email I got from AOPA ePilot training tips today there is a
> discussion of fuel starvation that makes regular mention of the fuel
> selector switch. All my flying is done in a CE172 and the first and
> last time I worry about the switch is during pre-flight when I confirm
> that it is on both. I fly on both and never fly any other way and to
> be honest, outside of gravity flow issues when parked on an incline I
> cannot think of why one would want to select one tank at a time vs
> both.

The POH will answer that.

-Kees

[es330td]

On Oct 5, 9:03 am, wrote:
> On Oct 5, 2:47 pm, es330td > wrote:
>
> > Sorry if this is dumb (I am only at 8.3 hours toward my PPL)...
>
> > In the email I got from AOPA ePilot training tips today there is a
> > discussion of fuel starvation that makes regular mention of the fuel
> > selector switch. All my flying is done in a CE172 and the first and
> > last time I worry about the switch is during pre-flight when I confirm
> > that it is on both. I fly on both and never fly any other way and to
> > be honest, outside of gravity flow issues when parked on an incline I
> > cannot think of why one would want to select one tank at a time vs
> > both.
>
> The POH will answer that.
>
> -Kees

I bought one two days ago. I should finish reading it this weekend.
Thanks.

[Maxwell]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Oct 5, 2:47 pm, es330td > wrote:
>> Sorry if this is dumb (I am only at 8.3 hours toward my PPL)...
>>
>> In the email I got from AOPA ePilot training tips today there is a
>> discussion of fuel starvation that makes regular mention of the fuel
>> selector switch. All my flying is done in a CE172 and the first and
>> last time I worry about the switch is during pre-flight when I confirm
>> that it is on both. I fly on both and never fly any other way and to
>> be honest, outside of gravity flow issues when parked on an incline I
>> cannot think of why one would want to select one tank at a time vs
>> both.
>
> The POH will answer that.
>

Wise ass.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

es330td wrote:
> Sorry if this is dumb (I am only at 8.3 hours toward my PPL)...
>
> In the email I got from AOPA ePilot training tips today there is a
> discussion of fuel starvation that makes regular mention of the fuel
> selector switch. All my flying is done in a CE172 and the first and
> last time I worry about the switch is during pre-flight when I confirm
> that it is on both. I fly on both and never fly any other way and to
> be honest, outside of gravity flow issues when parked on an incline I
> cannot think of why one would want to select one tank at a time vs
> both.

All aircraft fuel systems aren't as simple as they are in the 172. All
Aircraft can't use gravity feed either.

Let's take for example the little 601XL I'm building. It is low wing and the
fuel pumps move the fuel from the wing tanks to the engine. No as an
experiment to see what would happen if there were a both setting on the fuel
selector take a glass of water and two drinking straws. Put on of the straws
in the glass and hold the other out side the glass. Put both straws in your
mouth and suck.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 5, 3:21 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
> > On Oct 5, 2:47 pm, es330td > wrote:
> >> Sorry if this is dumb (I am only at 8.3 hours toward my PPL)...
>
> >> In the email I got from AOPA ePilot training tips today there is a
> >> discussion of fuel starvation that makes regular mention of the fuel
> >> selector switch. All my flying is done in a CE172 and the first and
> >> last time I worry about the switch is during pre-flight when I confirm
> >> that it is on both. I fly on both and never fly any other way and to
> >> be honest, outside of gravity flow issues when parked on an incline I
> >> cannot think of why one would want to select one tank at a time vs
> >> both.
>
> > The POH will answer that.
>
> Wise ass.

Thank you.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Bob Moore wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote
>> Let's take for example the little 601XL I'm building. It is low wing
>> and the fuel pumps move the fuel from the wing tanks to the engine.
>> No as an experiment to see what would happen if there were a both
>> setting on the fuel selector take a glass of water and two drinking
>> straws. Put on of the straws in the glass and hold the other out
>> side the glass. Put both straws in your mouth and suck.
>
> Doesn't have to work like that. I have a lot of time instructing in
> YAK-52s.
> Low wing, and only one fuel ON/OFF valve. Both wing tanks feed to a
> central sump which then feeds a header tank via an engine driven fuel
> pump. With both tanks "straws" feeding the central sump, which is
> heavier, 100LL or air? Yep, even with one tank empty, the heavier fuel
> in the other tank keeps the sump full. I pretty sure that there are
> some flapper valves in the sump to prevent the fuel from running into
> the low wing in a turn.
>
> Bob Moore

I didn't say it had to work like that. I was showing the OP an example of
one fuel system that would not work safely with a BOTH position fuel
selector.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

es330td wrote:
> In the email I got from AOPA ePilot training tips today there is a
> discussion of fuel starvation that makes regular mention of the fuel
> selector switch. All my flying is done in a CE172 and the first and
> last time I worry about the switch is during pre-flight when I confirm
> that it is on both. I fly on both and never fly any other way and to
> be honest, outside of gravity flow issues when parked on an incline I
> cannot think of why one would want to select one tank at a time vs
> both.

Frankly, on a C-172 I can't think of any reason either. But different aircraft
have different systems. As you move up the Cessna line you will find aircraft
that don't offer the "both" option. None of the Pipers do. In fact, I can't
think of a general aviation low wing aircraft I ever flew that offered "both" as
an option. So in that situation you:

1. Take off and land on the fullest tank.

2. Switch tanks every 30 minutes to keep the aircraft from becoming heavy on
one side.

3. If you have to manage both inboard and outboard tanks, I prefer to burn the
outboards first so that the remaining fuel has less effect on balance. Of
course, some aircraft require specific handling.

On the C-402 for example, you had to burn a good 30 minutes on the outboards
(which were its mains) before you could switch to the inboards. When you
switched to the inboards, the fuel actually went from the inboards to the
outboards to the engine. If you didn't make room first by burning the outboards
first, the fuel pumped from the inboards would just be pushed through the
overflow valves on the outboard tanks and then you get to sprinkle the landscape
with expensive avgas.

4. Bottom line: read the manual and follow their directions.


--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[B A R R Y]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 08:21:50 -0500, "Maxwell" >
wrote:

>>
>> The POH will answer that.
>>
>
>Wise ass.


What's up with that?

Getting a new pilot into the habit of going to the POH _first_, is a
bad thing? <G>

[karl gruber[_1_]]

On many Cessna 172s you are REQUIRED to run on either left or right (not
both) above 5000'

Karl
http://www.caa.is/datadir/bsdata/img/adnotes/72-07-02.pdf


"es330td" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Sorry if this is dumb (I am only at 8.3 hours toward my PPL)...
>
> In the email I got from AOPA ePilot training tips today there is a
> discussion of fuel starvation that makes regular mention of the fuel
> selector switch. All my flying is done in a CE172 and the first and
> last time I worry about the switch is during pre-flight when I confirm
> that it is on both. I fly on both and never fly any other way and to
> be honest, outside of gravity flow issues when parked on an incline I
> cannot think of why one would want to select one tank at a time vs
> both.
>

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
...
> Frankly, on a C-172 I can't think of any reason either.

http://www.caa.is/datadir/bsdata/img/adnotes/72-07-02.pdf

Karl

[Allen[_1_]]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
...
>
> On the C-402 for example, you had to burn a good 30 minutes on the
> outboards (which were its mains) before you could switch to the inboards.
> When you switched to the inboards, the fuel actually went from the
> inboards to the outboards to the engine. If you didn't make room first by
> burning the outboards first, the fuel pumped from the inboards would just
> be pushed through the overflow valves on the outboard tanks and then you
> get to sprinkle the landscape with expensive avgas.

You got that partially right. The aux tanks each have their own electric
fuel pump that pushes the fuel throught the selector valve and on to the
engine driven fuel pump. Excess fuel from the engine driven fuel pump is
routed back to the main (tip) tanks. The reason for running on the tip
tanks first for 60 (or 90 for the large aux tanks) minutes is to make room
for this bypass fuel.

--

*H. Allen Smith*
WACO - We are all here, because we are not all there.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 6, 12:47 am, es330td > wrote:
> Sorry if this is dumb (I am only at 8.3 hours toward my PPL)...
>
> In the email I got from AOPA ePilot training tips today there is a
> discussion of fuel starvation that makes regular mention of the fuel
> selector switch. All my flying is done in a CE172 and the first and
> last time I worry about the switch is during pre-flight when I confirm
> that it is on both. I fly on both and never fly any other way and to
> be honest, outside of gravity flow issues when parked on an incline I
> cannot think of why one would want to select one tank at a time vs
> both.

If you ever get to a situation where you are worried about fuel, you
switch to one tank and start your watch, when that tank runs dry
(engine splutters) you will have a very good idea of how much flying
time you have left. This knowlege will enable you to decide if your
chosen alternate airfield is in reach or if you neeed to start your
precautionary landing procedures (looking for a paddock etc.)

Cheers

[[email protected]]

On Oct 6, 4:25 am, "karl gruber" > wrote:
> On many Cessna 172s you are REQUIRED to run on either left or right (not
> both) above 5000'
>
> Karlhttp://www.caa.is/datadir/bsdata/img/adnotes/72-07-02.pdf
>

Many cessna 172's? How many were not modified -I've not seen the
required placard...

Cheers

[BT]

Some times after some maneuvers.. or continuous pattern work with not that
great coordination.. you may find one tank (wing) heavier than the other
because the fuel is unbalanced. select the heavier (fuller) tank for a few
minutes and monitor to rebalance, then back to "both".

Of course.. training to select one tank or the other for single tank
operations, prepares one for flying other aircraft.

BT


"es330td" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Oct 5, 9:03 am, wrote:
>> On Oct 5, 2:47 pm, es330td > wrote:
>>
>> > Sorry if this is dumb (I am only at 8.3 hours toward my PPL)...
>>
>> > In the email I got from AOPA ePilot training tips today there is a
>> > discussion of fuel starvation that makes regular mention of the fuel
>> > selector switch. All my flying is done in a CE172 and the first and
>> > last time I worry about the switch is during pre-flight when I confirm
>> > that it is on both. I fly on both and never fly any other way and to
>> > be honest, outside of gravity flow issues when parked on an incline I
>> > cannot think of why one would want to select one tank at a time vs
>> > both.
>>
>> The POH will answer that.
>>
>> -Kees
>
> I bought one two days ago. I should finish reading it this weekend.
> Thanks.
>

[Gene Seibel]

On Oct 5, 7:47 am, es330td > wrote:
> Sorry if this is dumb (I am only at 8.3 hours toward my PPL)...
>
> In the email I got from AOPA ePilot training tips today there is a
> discussion of fuel starvation that makes regular mention of the fuel
> selector switch. All my flying is done in a CE172 and the first and
> last time I worry about the switch is during pre-flight when I confirm
> that it is on both. I fly on both and never fly any other way and to
> be honest, outside of gravity flow issues when parked on an incline I
> cannot think of why one would want to select one tank at a time vs
> both.

If you are running on "BOTH" and there is an obstruction in a fuel
line, fuel could feed only from the other tank and you might find
yourself with fuel starvation long before you expect it. Changing
between left and right on a regular basis may let you discover such a
problem before it's an emergency. A close watch on fuel gauges and
being sensitive to heavy wing helps too.
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

[Peter Clark]

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:38:09 -0000, wrote:

>On Oct 6, 4:25 am, "karl gruber" > wrote:
>> On many Cessna 172s you are REQUIRED to run on either left or right (not
>> both) above 5000'
>>
>> Karlhttp://www.caa.is/datadir/bsdata/img/adnotes/72-07-02.pdf
>>
>
>Many cessna 172's? How many were not modified -I've not seen the
>required placard...

The modification was to add a new vent line. I don't know any on the
flight lines I have access to that weren't done. They also all
complied with AD79-10-14R1 (new vented fuel caps) at the same time.

[Al G[_1_]]

"Allen" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> On the C-402 for example, you had to burn a good 30 minutes on the
>> outboards (which were its mains) before you could switch to the inboards.
>> When you switched to the inboards, the fuel actually went from the
>> inboards to the outboards to the engine. If you didn't make room first
>> by burning the outboards first, the fuel pumped from the inboards would
>> just be pushed through the overflow valves on the outboard tanks and then
>> you get to sprinkle the landscape with expensive avgas.
>
> You got that partially right. The aux tanks each have their own electric
> fuel pump that pushes the fuel throught the selector valve and on to the
> engine driven fuel pump. Excess fuel from the engine driven fuel pump is
> routed back to the main (tip) tanks. The reason for running on the tip
> tanks first for 60 (or 90 for the large aux tanks) minutes is to make room
> for this bypass fuel.
>
> --
>
> *H. Allen Smith*
> WACO - We are all here, because we are not all there.
>

Correct for the AUX tanks. However, the optional locker tanks function
just like Mortimer said.

Al G

[Robert M. Gary]

On Oct 5, 12:09 pm, Gene Seibel > wrote:
> On Oct 5, 7:47 am, es330td > wrote:

> If you are running on "BOTH" and there is an obstruction in a fuel
> line, fuel could feed only from the other tank and you might find
> yourself with fuel starvation long before you expect it. Changing
> between left and right on a regular basis may let you discover such a
> problem before it's an emergency. A close watch on fuel gauges and
> being sensitive to heavy wing helps too.

My Mooney doesn't have a both. However, its nice to know that if I
ever did run out of gas, I could always switch to the other tank and
having something left. If you run out in a C-172 on "both" you're
done.

-Robert

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Allen wrote:
> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> On the C-402 for example, you had to burn a good 30 minutes on the
>> outboards (which were its mains) before you could switch to the inboards.
>> When you switched to the inboards, the fuel actually went from the
>> inboards to the outboards to the engine. If you didn't make room first by
>> burning the outboards first, the fuel pumped from the inboards would just
>> be pushed through the overflow valves on the outboard tanks and then you
>> get to sprinkle the landscape with expensive avgas.
>
> You got that partially right. The aux tanks each have their own electric
> fuel pump that pushes the fuel throught the selector valve and on to the
> engine driven fuel pump. Excess fuel from the engine driven fuel pump is
> routed back to the main (tip) tanks. The reason for running on the tip
> tanks first for 60 (or 90 for the large aux tanks) minutes is to make room
> for this bypass fuel.


Oops... it's been a while.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

wrote:
> If you ever get to a situation where you are worried about fuel, you
> switch to one tank and start your watch, when that tank runs dry
> (engine splutters) you will have a very good idea of how much flying
> time you have left. This knowlege will enable you to decide if your
> chosen alternate airfield is in reach or if you neeed to start your
> precautionary landing procedures (looking for a paddock etc.)


If you're worried about fuel, you don't have enough.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Gene Seibel wrote:
>If you are running on "BOTH" and there is an obstruction in a fuel
>line, fuel could feed only from the other tank and you might find
>yourself with fuel starvation long before you expect it. Changing
>between left and right on a regular basis may let you discover such a
>problem before it's an emergency. A close watch on fuel gauges and
>being sensitive to heavy wing helps too.

In a similar vein, I was reading recently (I think on the AOPA site) about
a poor slob in a Cessna that mistakenly left a fuel cap off. Since his
selector was on "both", the vacuum from the open hole not only drained the
tank he was using, but also sucked the fuel out of the other tank as well.
As I recall he made a successful emergency landing in a lake (floatplane),
but it wasn't big enough to fly back out of.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200710/1

[TheSmokingGnu]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> wrote:
>> ...(looking for a paddock etc.)
>
> If you're worried about fuel, you don't have enough.

Contrariwise, if you don't have a paddock, you aren't worried enough.

:D

TheSmokingGnu

[Peter R.]

On 10/5/2007 4:52:53 PM, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

> However, its nice to know that if I
> ever did run out of gas, I could always switch to the other tank and
> having something left.

Assuming you didn't run that tank to fumes 30 minutes earlier.

--
Peter

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Oct 5, 11:53 am, B A R R Y > wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 08:21:50 -0500, "Maxwell" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> The POH will answer that.
>
> >Wise ass.
>
> What's up with that?
>
> Getting a new pilot into the habit of going to the POH _first_, is a
> bad thing? <G>

The POH for the 1958 Luscombe I used to fly had a 10-page POH. I
imagine the older cessna models were the same.

Besides, how many times have you really switched tanks in a 172? The
last time I tried to turn the fuel switch in a 172 to demonstrate to a
student, it felt like I might break something. It probably has never
been touched in years.

The OP has a damn good question, so telling him to "go read the POH'
is very patronizing and reflects poorly on all pilots' attitudes
towards new students. And you wonder why the student population is
declining in aviation. I once flew with a smart-ass CFI like this. I
flew with him only once, and unfortunately that experience kept me
from coming back for a long time. Be careful about how you treat new
comers to aviation.

[buttman]

On Oct 5, 3:07 pm, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote:
> Gene Seibel wrote:
> >If you are running on "BOTH" and there is an obstruction in a fuel
> >line, fuel could feed only from the other tank and you might find
> >yourself with fuel starvation long before you expect it. Changing
> >between left and right on a regular basis may let you discover such a
> >problem before it's an emergency. A close watch on fuel gauges and
> >being sensitive to heavy wing helps too.
>
> In a similar vein, I was reading recently (I think on the AOPA site) about
> a poor slob in a Cessna that mistakenly left a fuel cap off. Since his
> selector was on "both", the vacuum from the open hole not only drained the
> tank he was using, but also sucked the fuel out of the other tank as well.
> As I recall he made a successful emergency landing in a lake (floatplane),
> but it wasn't big enough to fly back out of.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
> --
> Message posted via AviationKB.comhttp://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200710/1

I totally don't believe that. Have a link? I once had a fuel cap come
off in flight, and all it did was jettison about a quarter of the fuel
on that side. This was in a AMD Alarus, which has a really poor fuel
cap design. I'm surprised they don't come off more often.

I don't believe the vacuum is so great as to suck all the fuel out
from both tanks.

[B A R R Y]

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:23:10 -0700, Andrew Sarangan
> wrote:
>
>The OP has a damn good question, so telling him to "go read the POH'
>is very patronizing and reflects poorly on all pilots' attitudes
>towards new students.

OK, so HIS "read the POH" response was a tad harsh, but the overall
message remains a good one.

>Be careful about how you treat new
>comers to aviation.

You can point someone toward a basic reference in a manner that's
neither condescending or demeaning. <G>

So perhaps a more pleasant tone would be better?

[B A R R Y]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:04:50 -0400, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
<mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote:


>Frankly, on a C-172 I can't think of any reason either. But different aircraft
>have different systems. As you move up the Cessna line you will find aircraft
>that don't offer the "both" option. None of the Pipers do. In fact, I can't
>think of a general aviation low wing aircraft I ever flew that offered "both" as
>an option.

My Beech can't draw from both.

I've been in Turboprop Cessna Grand Caravans (I know, not a 172) who
would draw fuel from the left tank faster than the right tank, so the
left would be shut off for periods of time to even the fuel.

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Oct 6, 7:30 am, B A R R Y > wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:23:10 -0700, Andrew Sarangan
>
> > wrote:
>
> >The OP has a damn good question, so telling him to "go read the POH'
> >is very patronizing and reflects poorly on all pilots' attitudes
> >towards new students.
>
> OK, so HIS "read the POH" response was a tad harsh, but the overall
> message remains a good one.
>
> >Be careful about how you treat new
> >comers to aviation.
>
> You can point someone toward a basic reference in a manner that's
> neither condescending or demeaning. <G>
>
> So perhaps a more pleasant tone would be better?

Yes. I can relate to many such instances where a more inviting
attitude from the pilot would have had a different outcome. Long time
ago, even before I was a student pilot, I found out that my college
house mate was a pilot. I had all kinds of questions I wanted to ask
him about flying. But he was behaving like Tom Cruise in Top Gun, and
gave me the impression that I might not be cool enough to become a
pilot. He was never willing to answer any questions except tell me
that "it takes a lot of training and experience". Sort of like
telling someone to "go read the books". I have had other similar
encounters. Actually, I don't think I met a single friendly and
inviting pilot until I became a pilot myself. It is pretty sad.
Despite all that I still managed to become a pilot and CFI. I am just
very sensitive about how pilots treat other people expressing interest
in aviation.

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 07:51:56 -0700, Andrew Sarangan
> wrote:


>Despite all that I still managed to become a pilot and CFI. I am just
>very sensitive about how pilots treat other people expressing interest
>in aviation.


Points well taken! <G>

I really do try to do the same. I give away my expired charts,
magazines, and printed training materials to non-pilots. I even
offered to mail expired charts to France, when you-know-who first
appeared. One of the local simmers who I've passed lots of charts
to, and explained how to read them, has even enrolled in an actual PP
ground school and gotten up a few times. I'm also one who has
advocated offering "fence hangers" impromptu rides.

I'll try to be more mindful of your experiences when suggesting
students and interested parties look things up themselves.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Oct 5, 6:50 pm, "Peter R." > wrote:
> On 10/5/2007 4:52:53 PM, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
>
> > However, its nice to know that if I
> > ever did run out of gas, I could always switch to the other tank and
> > having something left.
>
> Assuming you didn't run that tank to fumes 30 minutes earlier.

If that was the case I'd have been on the ground 30 minutes earlier. I
don't have to be told twice ;)

-Robert

[[email protected]]

On Oct 6, 1:30 pm, B A R R Y > wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:23:10 -0700, Andrew Sarangan
>
> > wrote:
>
> >The OP has a damn good question, so telling him to "go read the POH'
> >is very patronizing and reflects poorly on all pilots' attitudes
> >towards new students.
>
> OK, so HIS "read the POH" response was a tad harsh, but the overall
> message remains a good one.
>
> >Be careful about how you treat new
> >comers to aviation.
>
> You can point someone toward a basic reference in a manner that's
> neither condescending or demeaning. <G>
>
> So perhaps a more pleasant tone would be better?

Yes, you are right that my answer was not in a very pleasant tone.

Normally I'm the kind of person that tell people just read the book.
I'm not a CFI but I give training in other fields, one of the first
things I do is were to find and how to use manuals.

I was out of line here.

-Kees

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:1191824413.286637.187960
@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

> On Oct 6, 1:30 pm, B A R R Y > wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:23:10 -0700, Andrew Sarangan
>>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >The OP has a damn good question, so telling him to "go read the POH'
>> >is very patronizing and reflects poorly on all pilots' attitudes
>> >towards new students.
>>
>> OK, so HIS "read the POH" response was a tad harsh, but the overall
>> message remains a good one.
>>
>> >Be careful about how you treat new
>> >comers to aviation.
>>
>> You can point someone toward a basic reference in a manner that's
>> neither condescending or demeaning. <G>
>>
>> So perhaps a more pleasant tone would be better?
>
> Yes, you are right that my answer was not in a very pleasant tone.
>
> Normally I'm the kind of person that tell people just read the book.
> I'm not a CFI but I give training in other fields, one of the first
> things I do is were to find and how to use manuals.
>
> I was out of line here.
>


'm sorry, but this sort of thig just will not do.

Please call him a name and threaten to killfile him right now or shall
have to take drastic measures.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Oct 8, 8:49 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in news:1191824413.286637.187960
> @r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 1:30 pm, B A R R Y > wrote:
> >> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:23:10 -0700, Andrew Sarangan
>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >The OP has a damn good question, so telling him to "go read the POH'
> >> >is very patronizing and reflects poorly on all pilots' attitudes
> >> >towards new students.
>
> >> OK, so HIS "read the POH" response was a tad harsh, but the overall
> >> message remains a good one.
>
> >> >Be careful about how you treat new
> >> >comers to aviation.
>
> >> You can point someone toward a basic reference in a manner that's
> >> neither condescending or demeaning. <G>
>
> >> So perhaps a more pleasant tone would be better?
>
> > Yes, you are right that my answer was not in a very pleasant tone.
>
> > Normally I'm the kind of person that tell people just read the book.
> > I'm not a CFI but I give training in other fields, one of the first
> > things I do is were to find and how to use manuals.
>
> > I was out of line here.
>
> 'm sorry, but this sort of thig just will not do.
>
> Please call him a name and threaten to killfile him right now or shall
> have to take drastic measures.
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Good morning Bertie,

Do I have to take drastic measures or others against me or both?

-Kees

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:1191828153.253491.212830@
22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:

> On Oct 8, 8:49 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in news:1191824413.286637.187960
>> @r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 6, 1:30 pm, B A R R Y >
wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:23:10 -0700, Andrew Sarangan
>>
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> >The OP has a damn good question, so telling him to "go read the
POH'
>> >> >is very patronizing and reflects poorly on all pilots' attitudes
>> >> >towards new students.
>>
>> >> OK, so HIS "read the POH" response was a tad harsh, but the
overall
>> >> message remains a good one.
>>
>> >> >Be careful about how you treat new
>> >> >comers to aviation.
>>
>> >> You can point someone toward a basic reference in a manner that's
>> >> neither condescending or demeaning. <G>
>>
>> >> So perhaps a more pleasant tone would be better?
>>
>> > Yes, you are right that my answer was not in a very pleasant tone.
>>
>> > Normally I'm the kind of person that tell people just read the
book.
>> > I'm not a CFI but I give training in other fields, one of the first
>> > things I do is were to find and how to use manuals.
>>
>> > I was out of line here.
>>
>> 'm sorry, but this sort of thig just will not do.
>>
>> Please call him a name and threaten to killfile him right now or
shall
>> have to take drastic measures.
>>
>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Good morning Bertie,
>
> Do I have to take drastic measures or others against me or both?
>

As you feel neccesary and appropriate, but please try snd keep the adult
behavior to a minimum, eh?

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Oct 8, 9:30 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in news:1191828153.253491.212830@
> 22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 8, 8:49 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> wrote in news:1191824413.286637.187960
> >> @r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > On Oct 6, 1:30 pm, B A R R Y >
> wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:23:10 -0700, Andrew Sarangan
>
> >> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >> >The OP has a damn good question, so telling him to "go read the
> POH'
> >> >> >is very patronizing and reflects poorly on all pilots' attitudes
> >> >> >towards new students.
>
> >> >> OK, so HIS "read the POH" response was a tad harsh, but the
> overall
> >> >> message remains a good one.
>
> >> >> >Be careful about how you treat new
> >> >> >comers to aviation.
>
> >> >> You can point someone toward a basic reference in a manner that's
> >> >> neither condescending or demeaning. <G>
>
> >> >> So perhaps a more pleasant tone would be better?
>
> >> > Yes, you are right that my answer was not in a very pleasant tone.
>
> >> > Normally I'm the kind of person that tell people just read the
> book.
> >> > I'm not a CFI but I give training in other fields, one of the first
> >> > things I do is were to find and how to use manuals.
>
> >> > I was out of line here.
>
> >> 'm sorry, but this sort of thig just will not do.
>
> >> Please call him a name and threaten to killfile him right now or
> shall
> >> have to take drastic measures.
>
> >> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Good morning Bertie,
>
> > Do I have to take drastic measures or others against me or both?
>
> As you feel neccesary and appropriate, but please try snd keep the adult
> behavior to a minimum, eh?
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Okay, got it. I'll killfile myself.

-Kees

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:1191830236.887702.142050
@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

> On Oct 8, 9:30 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in news:1191828153.253491.212830@
>> 22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 8, 8:49 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> wrote in news:1191824413.286637.187960
>> >> @r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> > On Oct 6, 1:30 pm, B A R R Y >
>> wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:23:10 -0700, Andrew Sarangan
>>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >The OP has a damn good question, so telling him to "go read
the
>> POH'
>> >> >> >is very patronizing and reflects poorly on all pilots'
attitudes
>> >> >> >towards new students.
>>
>> >> >> OK, so HIS "read the POH" response was a tad harsh, but the
>> overall
>> >> >> message remains a good one.
>>
>> >> >> >Be careful about how you treat new
>> >> >> >comers to aviation.
>>
>> >> >> You can point someone toward a basic reference in a manner
that's
>> >> >> neither condescending or demeaning. <G>
>>
>> >> >> So perhaps a more pleasant tone would be better?
>>
>> >> > Yes, you are right that my answer was not in a very pleasant
tone.
>>
>> >> > Normally I'm the kind of person that tell people just read the
>> book.
>> >> > I'm not a CFI but I give training in other fields, one of the
first
>> >> > things I do is were to find and how to use manuals.
>>
>> >> > I was out of line here.
>>
>> >> 'm sorry, but this sort of thig just will not do.
>>
>> >> Please call him a name and threaten to killfile him right now or
>> shall
>> >> have to take drastic measures.
>>
>> >> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Good morning Bertie,
>>
>> > Do I have to take drastic measures or others against me or both?
>>
>> As you feel neccesary and appropriate, but please try snd keep the
adult
>> behavior to a minimum, eh?
>>
>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Okay, got it. I'll killfile myself.
>


Good man. There are usenet standards at stake here, after all.


Bertie