Tricky examiners

[Dallas]

I've been greatly amused by examiner trick stories lately, like Dudley's
story of an examiner bringing in his child to have the CFI candidate teach
him lift. Or the one where the examiner failed the flaps and asked the
student to find the ground frequency of the airport at the same time to see
the reaction.

What other favorite examiner tricks are out there?


--
Dallas

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 3, 12:12*pm, Dallas > wrote:
> I've been greatly amused by examiner trick stories lately, like Dudley's
> story of an examiner bringing in his child to have the CFI candidate teach
> him lift. * Or the one where the examiner failed the flaps and asked the
> student to find the ground frequency of the airport at the same time to see
> the reaction.
>
> What other favorite examiner tricks are out there?

Its pretty common to ask the student to do something in order to
distract them from making a mandatory call or pull the gear breaker.

-Robert

[Ross]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> On Jan 3, 12:12 pm, Dallas > wrote:
>
>>I've been greatly amused by examiner trick stories lately, like Dudley's
>>story of an examiner bringing in his child to have the CFI candidate teach
>>him lift. Or the one where the examiner failed the flaps and asked the
>>student to find the ground frequency of the airport at the same time to see
>>the reaction.
>>
>>What other favorite examiner tricks are out there?
>
>
> Its pretty common to ask the student to do something in order to
> distract them from making a mandatory call or pull the gear breaker.
>
> -Robert

On my commerical checkride, right after completing the unusual attitudes
under the hood, I was given the engine out emergency immediately. I did
all the prep work and set up for an empty field below me. The examiner
asked what was wrong with the airport about 2 miles at my 4 o'clock
position. I made the airport.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Al G[_1_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 3, 12:12 pm, Dallas > wrote:
> I've been greatly amused by examiner trick stories lately, like Dudley's
> story of an examiner bringing in his child to have the CFI candidate teach
> him lift. Or the one where the examiner failed the flaps and asked the
> student to find the ground frequency of the airport at the same time to
> see
> the reaction.
>
> What other favorite examiner tricks are out there?

Its pretty common to ask the student to do something in order to
distract them from making a mandatory call or pull the gear breaker.

-Robert

Correct, ask the student to do something noisy so he can't hear the CB
get pulled. A 15A breaker makes a noticeable Pop. in my case, it was "Let's
go do some clean stalls", which got the gear and stall horns going.

Al G

[Jim Stewart]

Dallas wrote:
> I've been greatly amused by examiner trick stories lately, like Dudley's
> story of an examiner bringing in his child to have the CFI candidate teach
> him lift. Or the one where the examiner failed the flaps and asked the
> student to find the ground frequency of the airport at the same time to see
> the reaction.
>
> What other favorite examiner tricks are out there?

Not really an examiner trick. I was on my final
lesson for my Practical signoff. We were heading
home and the instructor did the obligatory "your
engine just failed" drill.

I did the glide setup, simulated restart, secure
and radio call, estimated and set up a pattern
leaving me a little high and was feeling a little
proud of myself.

The instructor looked at the field and said "I
don't think you can make it".

I looked again, decided again that I might be a
little high, if anything and told him I was pretty
sure I could make it.

He said, "no, I don't think you can make it"

I said, "I'm sure I can make it"

He said, "you can't make it"

I said, "yes I can"

He said, "ok, do it."

I turned to final, made a nice approach and about
20' above the deck he ended the drill.

I said, "you knew I could make it" He said
yeah, but if you ever have a planeload of
people and the engine stops, they will be
yelling and crying that "you're not going to
make it, we're all going to die". I wanted
to see what you'd do.

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Dallas wrote:
>
>What other favorite examiner tricks are out there?
>

After finishing my preflight on my PPL ride, I had to go back inside to
get a hood. While I was inside, the examiner reattached the tail tiedown.
Fortunately, an embarrasing incident as a student had taught me do a quick
review of the exterior before climbing in and firing up. I caught it. He
told me that about half of his examinees didn't catch it.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200801/1

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jim Stewart wrote:
> Dallas wrote:
>> I've been greatly amused by examiner trick stories lately, like Dudley's
>> story of an examiner bringing in his child to have the CFI candidate
>> teach
>> him lift. Or the one where the examiner failed the flaps and asked the
>> student to find the ground frequency of the airport at the same time
>> to see
>> the reaction.
>>
>> What other favorite examiner tricks are out there?
>
> Not really an examiner trick. I was on my final
> lesson for my Practical signoff. We were heading
> home and the instructor did the obligatory "your
> engine just failed" drill.
>
> I did the glide setup, simulated restart, secure
> and radio call, estimated and set up a pattern
> leaving me a little high and was feeling a little
> proud of myself.
>
> The instructor looked at the field and said "I
> don't think you can make it".
>
> I looked again, decided again that I might be a
> little high, if anything and told him I was pretty
> sure I could make it.
>
> He said, "no, I don't think you can make it"
>
> I said, "I'm sure I can make it"
>
> He said, "you can't make it"
>
> I said, "yes I can"
>
> He said, "ok, do it."
>
> I turned to final, made a nice approach and about
> 20' above the deck he ended the drill.
>
> I said, "you knew I could make it" He said
> yeah, but if you ever have a planeload of
> people and the engine stops, they will be
> yelling and crying that "you're not going to
> make it, we're all going to die". I wanted
> to see what you'd do.
>
>

What is it the guy said?
"When I die I hope I go out peacefully like my father did, just passing
on silently in my sleep, not screaming and kicking like the passengers
in his car."
:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Jim Stewart wrote:
> I said, "you knew I could make it" He said
> yeah, but if you ever have a planeload of
> people and the engine stops, they will be
> yelling and crying that "you're not going to
> make it, we're all going to die". I wanted
> to see what you'd do.


Obviously he's never had to do it. I have, and trust me, they won't make a
sound.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Ron Natalie]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

>
> Its pretty common to ask the student to do something in order to
> distract them from making a mandatory call or pull the gear breaker.
>
Bear breaker? Har!

[BT]

> I turned to final, made a nice approach and about
> 20' above the deck he ended the drill.
>
> I said, "you knew I could make it" He said
> yeah, but if you ever have a planeload of
> people and the engine stops, they will be
> yelling and crying that "you're not going to
> make it, we're all going to die". I wanted
> to see what you'd do.
>

You get yourself too high.. and you will not make it.. you'll dive with too
much speed.. and float in ground effect off the other end of a very short
runway.. seen it happen.

BT

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 18:01:39 -0800, "BT" > wrote:

>You get yourself too high.. and you will not make it.. you'll dive with too
>much speed.. and float in ground effect off the other end of a very short
>runway.. seen it happen.

How high was the airplane? I can come down pretty quickly without diving
and increasing airspeed just by slipping.

So he'd have to be in a position where he was too low to do a 360, and too
high to do a controlled slip.
--ron

[Dallas]

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:17:32 GMT, JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:

> While I was inside, the examiner reattached the tail tiedown.

That's completely rotten and unfair! That would never happen in real life
and pretty much serves no purpose during a checkride, except to un-nerve
the poor student who is already in a pretty frazzled state already.

I call foul!

--
Dallas

[BT]

>
> How high was the airplane? I can come down pretty quickly without diving
> and increasing airspeed just by slipping.
>
> So he'd have to be in a position where he was too low to do a 360, and too
> high to do a controlled slip.
> --ron

Yes "you" can "slip it in"... he did not even try to slip..

His head was definitely "up and locked" and he turned into a passenger as it
went through the far fence, no engine for a go around..
BT

[Dallas]

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 14:13:42 -0800, Jim Stewart wrote:

> The instructor looked at the field and said "I
> don't think you can make it".

Unreal... I had almost exactly the same experience word for word except my
examiner really didn't think we could make it. I posted an account in RAS
last month if you don't believe me.

We must have had the same DPE....

:- )

--
Dallas

[[email protected]]

Dallas > wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:17:32 GMT, JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:

> > While I was inside, the examiner reattached the tail tiedown.

> That's completely rotten and unfair! That would never happen in real life
> and pretty much serves no purpose during a checkride, except to un-nerve
> the poor student who is already in a pretty frazzled state already.

> I call foul!

Years ago I was showing a buddy of mine a new pistol I had bought and
went to take a whiz.

When I came back, I picked up the gun from the table where he had left
it and dropped the hammer without first checking the chamber.

He had put in a blank while I was in the can.

After my screaming stopped, he just smiled and said, "I'll be you'll
never, ever pick up a gun again without checking it".

He was right.

The moral to both stories:

Never assume that some asshole hasn't "helped you out" while your
back was turned.

I've had people "help me out" by putting the tie downs back on after
a preflight while doing a quick sump dump before takeoff.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[dVaridel]

"Dudley Henriques" wrote
>> I said, "you knew I could make it" He said
>> yeah, but if you ever have a planeload of
>> people and the engine stops, they will be
>> yelling and crying that "you're not going to
>> make it, we're all going to die". I wanted
>> to see what you'd do.

One local Test Officer has a reputation of asking PPL candidates to "keep
going, lets see if make it" during the simulated forced landing to a paddock
in the exam. Drop below 500 AGL and BAM ...... test over.

As the PIC you aren't allowed below 500' (unless taking off, landing,
training for a rating or crashing), and you have shown poor judgement in
allowing your "passenger" to goad you into low flying.

Tough but real worldish.



--
Regards,

David Varidel

-----
There are 10 types of people in this world - those who use binary, and those
who don't.

[[email protected]]

A couple tricks come to mind. The Arrow turn on the exterior lights
to dim the gear down lights. This did not catch me since i was warned
by a friend who had an Arrow. Another cute trick is for the examiner
to place a piece of safety wire under the engine compartment to see if
the pilot performing the pre-flight will find it.

My favorite trick happened during my multi-engine check ride. I
noticed another plane in the vicinity while performing clearing
turns. My attention was locked on it until it was clear. Imagine my
surprise when the right hand engine quit! The examiner had his hands
in his lap! I went thru the shut down and restart procedure and found
that he had turned the fuel off when I wasn't looking. He previously
had covered the throttle quadrant with a chart when pulling an engine.

[Jon[_5_]]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 00:19:39 -0600, Dallas
> wrote:

>On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 14:13:42 -0800, Jim Stewart wrote:
>
>> The instructor looked at the field and said "I
>> don't think you can make it".
>
>Unreal... I had almost exactly the same experience word for word except my
>examiner really didn't think we could make it. I posted an account in RAS
>last month if you don't believe me.
>
>We must have had the same DPE....
>
>:- )

My examiner may be a distant relative as when i did my skills test
(PPL) my practace forced landing was on a bit of ground 500 feet
higher than the surrounding countryside.
The altimeter was set to sea level and the low countryside was very
close to that. as I decended to 1000 feet qnh I said to my examiner
that the altimeter was not a lot of use as the terrain was much
higher.
He was happy with that and i passed :))

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Ross wrote:
>
> On my commerical checkride, right after completing the unusual attitudes
> under the hood, I was given the engine out emergency immediately. I did
> all the prep work and set up for an empty field below me. The examiner
> asked what was wrong with the airport about 2 miles at my 4 o'clock
> position. I made the airport.


A better one:

On a mock checkride, the instructor got me out from under the hood with
an airport in sight, just out of glide range, and another below and
slightly behind me. He failed the engine immediately.

I took the bait and tried to reach the obvious of the two!

Man, did I learn a lot from that!

[Steve Foley]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:17:32 GMT, JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
>
>> While I was inside, the examiner reattached the tail tiedown.
>
> That's completely rotten and unfair! That would never happen in real life
> and pretty much serves no purpose during a checkride, except to un-nerve
> the poor student who is already in a pretty frazzled state already.
>
> I call foul!
>
> --
> Dallas

I'll disagree with you. It shows how the student reacts when something
unexpected happens.

Does the student simply apply full power and try to move?

Does the student use the elevator/rudder to try to break free?

Does the student immediately shut down to diagnose the problem?

[Ross]

B A R R Y wrote:
> Ross wrote:
>
>>
>> On my commerical checkride, right after completing the unusual
>> attitudes under the hood, I was given the engine out emergency
>> immediately. I did all the prep work and set up for an empty field
>> below me. The examiner asked what was wrong with the airport about 2
>> miles at my 4 o'clock position. I made the airport.
>
>
>
> A better one:
>
> On a mock checkride, the instructor got me out from under the hood with
> an airport in sight, just out of glide range, and another below and
> slightly behind me. He failed the engine immediately.
>
> I took the bait and tried to reach the obvious of the two!
>
> Man, did I learn a lot from that!

This happened on a BFR. I had the under the hood again and then the
emergency. I took a quick scan and knew where I was and remember there
was a private turf field right near me. I made the approach and then was
told OK and lets go back. That one was lucky.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Ross wrote:
>
>
> This happened on a BFR. I had the under the hood again and then the
> emergency. I took a quick scan

As I (like anyone else) have gained experience, things seem to happen
slower, so it wouldn't work now.

As ****ed as I was at the time, thinking I'd been tricked, I now realize
it was a terrific lesson.

[Dallas]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 20:54:16 +1100, dVaridel wrote:

> As the PIC you aren't allowed below 500' (unless taking off, landing,
> training for a rating or crashing), and you have shown poor judgement in
> allowing your "passenger" to goad you into low flying.

I don't know how they do it in Oz, but up here you get to pick your own
examiner. These people derive reasonable income from their exam fees.

If an examiner gets a reputation for being too tough (or being too much of
a dick), the word gets out and nobody uses them.

Pilot examiners have to walk a fine line between being desirable to flight
schools and tough enough to filter out candidates that are not qualified.


--
Dallas

[george]

On Jan 5, 8:31 am, Dallas > wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 20:54:16 +1100, dVaridel wrote:
> > As the PIC you aren't allowed below 500' (unless taking off, landing,
> > training for a rating or crashing), and you have shown poor judgement in
> > allowing your "passenger" to goad you into low flying.
>
> I don't know how they do it in Oz, but up here you get to pick your own
> examiner. These people derive reasonable income from their exam fees.
>
> If an examiner gets a reputation for being too tough (or being too much of
> a dick), the word gets out and nobody uses them.
>
> Pilot examiners have to walk a fine line between being desirable to flight
> schools and tough enough to filter out candidates that are not qualified.
>

When I did my PPL flight test I had a run through with the examiner
who was an "A" Cat who owned the other flying school.
He continued the forced landing exercise right down to the deck to see
if I'd get in.
Take up gliding folks, you get pretty good at forced landings :-)
The actual flight test was a breeze

[Dallas]

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:46:30 GMT, Steve Foley wrote:

> I'll disagree with you. It shows how the student reacts when something
> unexpected happens.

But if the student didn't react well to the trick, would that be grounds to
bust the checkride?

Asking a candidate to come up with a ground frequency while in a stressful
situation falls under "Cockpit Management" and is a DPE checklist item.

Looking through the PTS, I don't see anything on the examiner's test
checklist that requires the student to be tested or pass something like
this.

Most candidates don't get a lot of sleep before exam day and to start off
the flight with a sneaky trick like this could have the poor fellow
completely distracted waiting for the next trick. This one just seems
outside the boundaries of fairness and it could jeopardize the candidate's
checkride over an issue that is not required by the PTS.


--
Dallas

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Dallas wrote:
>> While I was inside, the examiner reattached the tail tiedown.
>
>That's completely rotten and unfair! That would never happen in real life
>and pretty much serves no purpose during a checkride, except to un-nerve
>the poor student who is already in a pretty frazzled state already.
>
>I call foul!
>

Not in the least bit unfair. The examiner was attempting to emphasize the
point that you need to look over the aicraft again, if it has been out of
your sight since you completed the preflight. The "embarrasing incident" I
referred to had to do with me loudly revving up an airplane, trying to get it
to move (and drawing quite a crowd). The reason it didn't move was because
someone had put the chocks back in place after I'd done the preflight. I'd
gone into the office to ask my CFI a final question, and some helpful soul
came along and noticed that the plane was not chocked.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200801/1

[Dallas]

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 14:12:57 -0600, Dallas wrote:

> What other favorite examiner tricks are out there?

I'll answer my own post.. I forgot I had one :- )

I had been warned that my DPE did like to do one test...

One guy had a nice set up for his engine out and was gliding in nicely
towards an open cow pasture. At that point the examiner said, "Go ahead
and land..."

The poor guy said, "really?" in a meek voice.

He sat up straight and got a good serious look on his face and continued to
land.

At 20 feet AGL she called it off. Afterwards, she told him she was very
pleased with the way he handled it.


--
Dallas

[Mxsmanic]

Dallas writes:

> I don't know how they do it in Oz, but up here you get to pick your own
> examiner. These people derive reasonable income from their exam fees.
>
> If an examiner gets a reputation for being too tough (or being too much of
> a dick), the word gets out and nobody uses them.
>
> Pilot examiners have to walk a fine line between being desirable to flight
> schools and tough enough to filter out candidates that are not qualified.

Obviously they are motivated to not be too tough, but what consequences do
they risk if they just let everyone pass?

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Dallas wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 14:12:57 -0600, Dallas wrote:
>
>> What other favorite examiner tricks are out there?
>
> I'll answer my own post.. I forgot I had one :- )
>
> I had been warned that my DPE did like to do one test...
>
> One guy had a nice set up for his engine out and was gliding in nicely
> towards an open cow pasture. At that point the examiner said, "Go ahead
> and land..."
>
> The poor guy said, "really?" in a meek voice.
>
> He sat up straight and got a good serious look on his face and continued to
> land.
>
> At 20 feet AGL she called it off. Afterwards, she told him she was very
> pleased with the way he handled it.
>
>


Really, the better answer would have been, "No, not really." Which was
the exact answer I gave when the DPE on my Helicopter check ride asked
if I would like to take the auto-rotation all the way to the ground.

I knew it wasn't required for Private and though I had had to do an
actual solo during training it wasn't something I enjoyed and there was
just no reason to take the risk.

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> Obviously they are motivated to not be too tough, but what consequences do
> they risk if they just let everyone pass?

I have no doubt that you aren't going to understand this but I'll write
it anyway.

Most people when put in a position of public trust will do what they can
to live up to that trust.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 21:30:37 -0800, "BT" > wrote:

>>
>> How high was the airplane? I can come down pretty quickly without diving
>> and increasing airspeed just by slipping.
>>
>> So he'd have to be in a position where he was too low to do a 360, and too
>> high to do a controlled slip.
>> --ron
>
>Yes "you" can "slip it in"... he did not even try to slip..
>
>His head was definitely "up and locked" and he turned into a passenger as it
>went through the far fence, no engine for a go around..
>BT
>

Well, I was responding to your statement, "...You get yourself too high..
and you will not make it.. " NOT realizing that you were only referring to
a particular pilot (or perhaps to a group of pilots who don't know how to
slip).

And you may well be correct that there are a lot of pilots who don't know
how to use a forward slip. I don't often fly with other pilots, but when I
do I am amazed at the shallow, power on approaches most opt for (VFR). I'd
rather have that extra altitude until landing is assured.
--ron

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 21:55:38 -0600, Dallas >
wrote:

>On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:17:32 GMT, JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
>
>> While I was inside, the examiner reattached the tail tiedown.
>
>That's completely rotten and unfair! That would never happen in real life
>and pretty much serves no purpose during a checkride, except to un-nerve
>the poor student who is already in a pretty frazzled state already.
>
>I call foul!

Maybe it is unfair, and maybe not. My personal rule is to do a pre-flight
inspection if the airplane has been out of my sight.
--ron

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 3, 12:12*pm, Dallas > wrote:
> I've been greatly amused by examiner trick stories lately, like Dudley's
> story of an examiner bringing in his child to have the CFI candidate teach
> him lift. * Or the one where the examiner failed the flaps and asked the
> student to find the ground frequency of the airport at the same time to see
> the reaction.

I'll also add that on both my private and my commercial checkride the
examiner got really, really, really chatty as we approached the class
D airspace. Their goal was for me to be afraid to interupt them and I
bust the airspace.

-Robert

[Peter Clark]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 14:08:35 -0600, Dallas
> wrote:

>On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:46:30 GMT, Steve Foley wrote:
>
>> I'll disagree with you. It shows how the student reacts when something
>> unexpected happens.
>
>But if the student didn't react well to the trick, would that be grounds to
>bust the checkride?
>..
>Looking through the PTS, I don't see anything on the examiner's test
>checklist that requires the student to be tested or pass something like
>this.

Just playing devil's advocate, how about II.A - Preflight Inspection?
Tiedowns are on the checklists for the aircraft I fly, and I was
always taught to re-check things if I had to go away from the aircraft
for any length of time just because some nice line guy might chock or
tie it back up.

[[email protected]]

Gig601XLBuilder > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:

> >
> > Obviously they are motivated to not be too tough, but what consequences do
> > they risk if they just let everyone pass?

> I have no doubt that you aren't going to understand this but I'll write
> it anyway.

> Most people when put in a position of public trust will do what they can
> to live up to that trust.

You are correct; not a snowball's chance in hell he will understand
what you are talking about.

Maybe if Microsoft releases an Ethics and Values Simulator he will get
a clue.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Robert M. Gary > wrote:
> On Jan 3, 12:12?pm, Dallas > wrote:
> > I've been greatly amused by examiner trick stories lately, like Dudley's
> > story of an examiner bringing in his child to have the CFI candidate teach
> > him lift. ? Or the one where the examiner failed the flaps and asked the
> > student to find the ground frequency of the airport at the same time to see
> > the reaction.

> I'll also add that on both my private and my commercial checkride the
> examiner got really, really, really chatty as we approached the class
> D airspace. Their goal was for me to be afraid to interupt them and I
> bust the airspace.

That's why having a pilot isolate setting on the intercom is really
handy, both for checkrides and real life.

If the examiner asks why you went to pilot isolate, you simply say
cockpit management to elimate chatter at a crucial point in the flight.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dallas]

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:49:37 -0600, Gig601XLBuilder wrote:

> Most people when put in a position of public trust will do what they can
> to live up to that trust.

This is strictly hearsay, but I recall my CFI saying that if one of the
candidates that the DPE passed ruins his whole day due to poor airmanship
it is reflected in that DPE's FAA files.

I have no idea how accurate this statement is.

--
Dallas

[B A R R Y]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 17:58:39 -0600, Dallas
> wrote:

>On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:49:37 -0600, Gig601XLBuilder wrote:
>
>> Most people when put in a position of public trust will do what they can
>> to live up to that trust.
>
>This is strictly hearsay, but I recall my CFI saying that if one of the
>candidates that the DPE passed ruins his whole day due to poor airmanship
>it is reflected in that DPE's FAA files.
>
>I have no idea how accurate this statement is.

I've heard the same, along with the CFI "owning" you for 3 years.

As I hear it, if you screw up, both the CFI and DPE can be interviewed
during a specified time period after the certificate issuance.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Peter Clark wrote:
> Just playing devil's advocate, how about II.A - Preflight Inspection?
> Tiedowns are on the checklists for the aircraft I fly, and I was
> always taught to re-check things if I had to go away from the aircraft
> for any length of time just because some nice line guy might chock or
> tie it back up.


If I step away for a few moments, how can I possibly not notice the airplane is
tied down again or that a chock has found its way in front of a tire again?
You'd have to be pretty unconscious or distracted beyond your tolerance.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Mxsmanic]

Gig601XLBuilder writes:

> Most people when put in a position of public trust will do what they can
> to live up to that trust.

Unless, of course, they are being paid to be "not too tough."

[B A R R Y]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 19:18:43 -0500, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
<mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote:

>If I step away for a few moments, how can I possibly not notice the airplane is
>tied down again or that a chock has found its way in front of a tire again?
>You'd have to be pretty unconscious or distracted beyond your tolerance.


Right.

The whole time you're approaching the plane you're looking at it, and
lots of folks are taught to go the long way around just for the look
over. The ol' circle check!

If the examiner got out after the pilot had gotten in (before engine
start), and put the tie down back on then, that would be dirty pool.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Gig601XLBuilder writes:

> > Most people when put in a position of public trust will do what they can
> > to live up to that trust.

> Unless, of course, they are being paid to be "not too tough."

Bingo, Gig601XLBuilder was right, he didn't understand it.

Though would we really expect an asocial misfit to understand things
like ethics and a sense of responsibility?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote:
> Peter Clark wrote:
> > Just playing devil's advocate, how about II.A - Preflight Inspection?
> > Tiedowns are on the checklists for the aircraft I fly, and I was
> > always taught to re-check things if I had to go away from the aircraft
> > for any length of time just because some nice line guy might chock or
> > tie it back up.


> If I step away for a few moments, how can I possibly not notice the airplane is
> tied down again or that a chock has found its way in front of a tire again?
> You'd have to be pretty unconscious or distracted beyond your tolerance.

Human nature is to see what you expect to see unless you are specifically
looking for the unexpected.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dallas wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:17:32 GMT, JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
>
>> While I was inside, the examiner reattached the tail tiedown.
>
> That's completely rotten and unfair! That would never happen in real life
> and pretty much serves no purpose during a checkride, except to un-nerve
> the poor student who is already in a pretty frazzled state already.
>
> I call foul!
>

Actually Dal, I've used the same approach many times when giving
checkouts as well as drilling it into my own student's heads. Believe
me, it's completely legitimate. Here's the reason and it's a simple one.

Henriques rule #12 for living a long and fruitful life as a pilot
postulates as follows;
"Under NO circumstances....NO EXCEPTIONS....EVER...EVER....do a
preflight on an airplane involving an interruption that takes you away
from the airplane so that the aircraft is out of your sight without
re-performing the preflight if you are the PIC of that aircraft "

The bottom line on preflights is that doing one as the PIC, YOU are, at
the end of that preflight inspection, accepting the airplane as being
ready to fly. You can only do this realistically if the aircraft is
totally under your control starting at the beginning of the inspection
and ending with you getting into the aircraft.

If your attention is diverted from the inspection to the point where you
are physically out of sight of the airplane you are inspecting even for
a minute, you have the choice of accepting that absolutely nothing has
occurred while your eyes were not on the airplane that has changed your
preflight inspection, or you can do as I suggest and re-perform the
inspection. This doesn't mean you have to recheck the fuel and the oil,
but it does mean you should visually reinspect the exterior of the
aircraft for damage or any change that might have occurred in your absence.

This is exactly why that examiner re-tied down the tail. A sitting
airplane unattended could very easily have been seen by a line boy and
tied down. (A stretch of course, but it made the examiner's point)





--
Dudley Henriques

[BT]

It's called "Distraction"... the DPE is required to try and distract you to
see how you prioritize and handle the distraction.

BT

"Dallas" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:46:30 GMT, Steve Foley wrote:
>
>> I'll disagree with you. It shows how the student reacts when something
>> unexpected happens.
>
> But if the student didn't react well to the trick, would that be grounds
> to
> bust the checkride?
>
> Asking a candidate to come up with a ground frequency while in a stressful
> situation falls under "Cockpit Management" and is a DPE checklist item.
>
> Looking through the PTS, I don't see anything on the examiner's test
> checklist that requires the student to be tested or pass something like
> this.
>
> Most candidates don't get a lot of sleep before exam day and to start off
> the flight with a sneaky trick like this could have the poor fellow
> completely distracted waiting for the next trick. This one just seems
> outside the boundaries of fairness and it could jeopardize the candidate's
> checkride over an issue that is not required by the PTS.
>
>
> --
> Dallas

[Peter Clark]

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:42:43 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

> A sitting
>airplane unattended could very easily have been seen by a line boy and
>tied down. (A stretch of course, but it made the examiner's point)

I guess it depends on the airport. At Hanscom there are prop-lock and
must-be-attended whilst doors open rules which Massport has been
pretty draconian in their enforcement, so the line people 'save'
pilots and the FBOs from being fined pretty regularly when they leave
an aircraft to go back inside for some reason.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Peter Clark > wrote:

> I guess it depends on the airport. At Hanscom there are prop-lock and
> must-be-attended whilst doors open rules which Massport has been
> pretty draconian in their enforcement, so the line people 'save'
> pilots and the FBOs from being fined pretty regularly when they leave
> an aircraft to go back inside for some reason.

How many times has massport bagged people for that stupid open door
rule?

Have you seen how well some prop locks have been "installed" at KBED?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Peter Clark wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:42:43 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> A sitting
>> airplane unattended could very easily have been seen by a line boy and
>> tied down. (A stretch of course, but it made the examiner's point)
>
> I guess it depends on the airport. At Hanscom there are prop-lock and
> must-be-attended whilst doors open rules which Massport has been
> pretty draconian in their enforcement, so the line people 'save'
> pilots and the FBOs from being fined pretty regularly when they leave
> an aircraft to go back inside for some reason.

Try this one;

Airplane out of sight; someone parks next to it or passes it taxiing and
puts a nice dent in the elevator.
It happened!

You go get a coke. Some kid comes along and stuffs his Teddy Bear inside
your carb air scoop.
It happened!

Reinspect the airplane!!!!! Trust me on this one :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Denny]

and you have shown poor judgement in
> allowing your "passenger" to goad you into low flying.
>
> Tough but real worldish.

Nope! The examiner failed right then and there... He is not just a
'passenger' and has certificate authority...
I would tell him that I am filing a formal complaint with the local
FSDO... I would also inform him that I would make sure that the entire
local pilot community knows about him and they might just be reluctant
to hire him in the future...

But then, I am older, self employed, and used to making my own
decisions, so I don't take kindly to crap...

denny

[Judah]

Peter Clark > wrote in
:

> unattended (heck, I parked at HPN for 10 minutes to go inside the FBO,
> grab some paperwork, and came back out to find their line guys had
> towed me to remote parking and chained me down), and if you're not
> used to that kind of 'service' you may miss it if you're not really
> looking when you come back out.

So which line on the preflight checklist is:

"Plane still there... Check"

[Dallas]

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:42:43 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:

> Actually Dal, I've used the same approach many times when giving
> checkouts

Ok... you guy have convinced me it's fair...


--
Dallas

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dallas wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:42:43 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> Actually Dal, I've used the same approach many times when giving
>> checkouts
>
> Ok... you guy have convinced me it's fair...
>
>

It's interesting how these things work sometimes.

Someday, and I might be long gone by then, you might be sitting in some
flight office somewhere in Texas discussing preflight with some pilots
and mention this to them. Sometime years down the line, one of those
pilots might catch something that saves lives because you and I traded
something together on Usenet.
Kind of nice to think of things this way when you get a bit older
:-))



--
Dudley Henriques

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 01:05:03 GMT, wrote:
>
>Human nature is to see what you expect to see unless you are specifically
>looking for the unexpected.


I was trained to look at the airplane as I approach it, since if could
have been hit by a ground vehicle while I was gone, something may have
leaked, the tire may have gone flat, etc...

[Peter Clark]

On 05 Jan 2008 16:16:10 GMT, Judah > wrote:

>Peter Clark > wrote in
:
>
>> unattended (heck, I parked at HPN for 10 minutes to go inside the FBO,
>> grab some paperwork, and came back out to find their line guys had
>> towed me to remote parking and chained me down), and if you're not
>> used to that kind of 'service' you may miss it if you're not really
>> looking when you come back out.
>
>So which line on the preflight checklist is:
>
>"Plane still there... Check"

#1 overall condidtion, the lack of an aircraft being physically
present being one criterion for fialing?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Peter Clark > wrote in
:

> On 05 Jan 2008 16:16:10 GMT, Judah > wrote:
>
>>Peter Clark > wrote in
:
>>
>>> unattended (heck, I parked at HPN for 10 minutes to go inside the FBO,
>>> grab some paperwork, and came back out to find their line guys had
>>> towed me to remote parking and chained me down), and if you're not
>>> used to that kind of 'service' you may miss it if you're not really
>>> looking when you come back out.
>>
>>So which line on the preflight checklist is:
>>
>>"Plane still there... Check"
>
> #1 overall condidtion, the lack of an aircraft being physically
> present being one criterion for fialing?

If the guy could fly it, i'd pass him.


Bertie

[Peter Clark]

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 21:31:17 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Peter Clark > wrote in
:
>
>> On 05 Jan 2008 16:16:10 GMT, Judah > wrote:
>>
>>>Peter Clark > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> unattended (heck, I parked at HPN for 10 minutes to go inside the FBO,
>>>> grab some paperwork, and came back out to find their line guys had
>>>> towed me to remote parking and chained me down), and if you're not
>>>> used to that kind of 'service' you may miss it if you're not really
>>>> looking when you come back out.
>>>
>>>So which line on the preflight checklist is:
>>>
>>>"Plane still there... Check"
>>
>> #1 overall condidtion, the lack of an aircraft being physically
>> present being one criterion for fialing?
>
>If the guy could fly it, i'd pass him.

I meant failing the line of the checklist, not a checkride.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Peter Clark > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 21:31:17 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>Peter Clark > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On 05 Jan 2008 16:16:10 GMT, Judah > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Peter Clark > wrote in
:
>>>>
>>>>> unattended (heck, I parked at HPN for 10 minutes to go inside the
>>>>> FBO, grab some paperwork, and came back out to find their line
>>>>> guys had towed me to remote parking and chained me down), and if
>>>>> you're not used to that kind of 'service' you may miss it if
>>>>> you're not really looking when you come back out.
>>>>
>>>>So which line on the preflight checklist is:
>>>>
>>>>"Plane still there... Check"
>>>
>>> #1 overall condidtion, the lack of an aircraft being physically
>>> present being one criterion for fialing?
>>
>>If the guy could fly it, i'd pass him.
>
> I meant failing the line of the checklist, not a checkride.
>

Mm, ok.

Bertie

[dVaridel]

"Denny" wrote
> Nope! The examiner failed right then and there... He is not just a
> 'passenger' and has certificate authority...

I'm guessing things are a little different here in the Land of Oz. In the
licence test the student is listed as Pilot In Command for the ride, the
test officer is an observer. He is not expected to help (or hinder!) but to
observe. Of course, he will initiate the 'ol "I wanna go to Ballarat not
Echuca" diversion and the "Oh look, your engine's failed" gags along the
way.

Seems all students are warned by their instructors to watch out for it so
it's not a real surprise.


Cheers,

David

--
I was reading the dictionary the other day. I thought it was a poem about
everything.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

dVaridel wrote:
> "Denny" wrote
>> Nope! The examiner failed right then and there... He is not just a
>> 'passenger' and has certificate authority...
>
> I'm guessing things are a little different here in the Land of Oz. In the
> licence test the student is listed as Pilot In Command for the ride, the
> test officer is an observer. He is not expected to help (or hinder!) but to
> observe. Of course, he will initiate the 'ol "I wanna go to Ballarat not
> Echuca" diversion and the "Oh look, your engine's failed" gags along the
> way.

Same here, really. FAR 61.47 specifically disclaims PIC responsibility
for the examiner.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Some Other Guy > wrote in
:

> dVaridel wrote:
>
>> One local Test Officer has a reputation of asking PPL candidates to
>> "keep going, lets see if make it" during the simulated forced landing
>> to a paddock in the exam. Drop below 500 AGL and BAM ...... test
>> over.
>>
>> As the PIC you aren't allowed below 500' (unless taking off, landing,
>> training for a rating or crashing), and you have shown poor judgement
>> in allowing your "passenger" to goad you into low flying.
>>
>> Tough but real worldish.
>
> Where I live, when you take an automobile driving test you are told
> clearly at the start "the examiner *will never ask you to do anything
> illegal*".

Ine of mine did. i was going too slow to suit him.

He told me I failed, told me i needed more practice. I told him I'd been
driving for years on several continents. He asked me why I was n several
continents and I told him I flew a 737 for a living.
he gave me the licence.
>
> Is this not the case for a PPL exam? If so, I'm astounded.
> That could lead to some very dangerous situations.

Hmmm, better not get into those stories!


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Some Other Guy > wrote in
> :
>
>> dVaridel wrote:
>>
>>> One local Test Officer has a reputation of asking PPL candidates to
>>> "keep going, lets see if make it" during the simulated forced landing
>>> to a paddock in the exam. Drop below 500 AGL and BAM ...... test
>>> over.
>>>
>>> As the PIC you aren't allowed below 500' (unless taking off, landing,
>>> training for a rating or crashing), and you have shown poor judgement
>>> in allowing your "passenger" to goad you into low flying.
>>>
>>> Tough but real worldish.
>> Where I live, when you take an automobile driving test you are told
>> clearly at the start "the examiner *will never ask you to do anything
>> illegal*".
>
> Ine of mine did. i was going too slow to suit him.
>
> He told me I failed, told me i needed more practice. I told him I'd been
> driving for years on several continents. He asked me why I was n several
> continents and I told him I flew a 737 for a living.
> he gave me the licence.
>> Is this not the case for a PPL exam? If so, I'm astounded.
>> That could lead to some very dangerous situations.
>
> Hmmm, better not get into those stories!
>
>
> Bertie
I have a great one.
Got stopped with my wife on I95 one night. I had just had my new
Corvette tuned and was checking it out.
The Police pulled me over and two cops came walking up to the driver's
window. They looked like Abbott and Costello. One was real tall and the
other one was built like a fire plug. The tall one I guess was trying to
be a wise guy with the Vette as I was well over a hundred when I went
through the radar gun. He leaned down and looked in the window and
calmly asked to see my pilot's license.
You can guess what happened next. The fire plug guy broke up laughing,
slapped the tall one on the back and said something about using that one
once too often.
Anyway...I won't tell you what it cost me, but FWIW, if a cop ever asks
to see your pilot's license, for God sake, don't show it to him :-)))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Some Other Guy > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> dVaridel wrote:
>>>
>>>> One local Test Officer has a reputation of asking PPL candidates to
>>>> "keep going, lets see if make it" during the simulated forced
>>>> landing to a paddock in the exam. Drop below 500 AGL and BAM
>>>> ...... test over.
>>>>
>>>> As the PIC you aren't allowed below 500' (unless taking off,
>>>> landing, training for a rating or crashing), and you have shown
>>>> poor judgement in allowing your "passenger" to goad you into low
>>>> flying.
>>>>
>>>> Tough but real worldish.
>>> Where I live, when you take an automobile driving test you are told
>>> clearly at the start "the examiner *will never ask you to do
>>> anything illegal*".
>>
>> Ine of mine did. i was going too slow to suit him.
>>
>> He told me I failed, told me i needed more practice. I told him I'd
>> been driving for years on several continents. He asked me why I was n
>> several continents and I told him I flew a 737 for a living.
>> he gave me the licence.
>>> Is this not the case for a PPL exam? If so, I'm astounded.
>>> That could lead to some very dangerous situations.
>>
>> Hmmm, better not get into those stories!
>>
>>
>> Bertie
> I have a great one.
> Got stopped with my wife on I95 one night. I had just had my new
> Corvette tuned and was checking it out.
> The Police pulled me over and two cops came walking up to the driver's
> window. They looked like Abbott and Costello. One was real tall and
> the other one was built like a fire plug. The tall one I guess was
> trying to be a wise guy with the Vette as I was well over a hundred
> when I went through the radar gun. He leaned down and looked in the
> window and calmly asked to see my pilot's license.
> You can guess what happened next. The fire plug guy broke up laughing,
> slapped the tall one on the back and said something about using that
> one once too often.
> Anyway...I won't tell you what it cost me, but FWIW, if a cop ever
> asks to see your pilot's license, for God sake, don't show it to him
> :-)))

Never would, but I got stopped in uniform doing about 85 once and the
guy asked me "getting airborne a little early aren;t we, captain?"
he let me go!

Bertie
>

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Never would, but I got stopped in uniform doing about 85 once and the
> guy asked me "getting airborne a little early aren;t we, captain?"
> he let me go!

Sounds more likely to happen in a bar around here, given some history
with NW pilots...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:47803883$0$27488
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Never would, but I got stopped in uniform doing about 85 once and the
>> guy asked me "getting airborne a little early aren;t we, captain?"
>> he let me go!
>
> Sounds more likely to happen in a bar around here, given some history
> with NW pilots...
>

There's been a lot of that lately!


Bertie

[Blueskies]

"dVaridel" > wrote in message u...
>
> As the PIC you aren't allowed below 500' (unless taking off, landing, training for a rating or crashing), and you have
> shown poor judgement in allowing your "passenger" to goad you into low flying.
>
> Tough but real worldish.
>
>

No issue flying all day long below 500' agl here in the states, as long as you stay away from persons or property and
are not over a 'congested' area...

[dVaridel]

"Blueskies" wrote
> "dVaridel" wrote
>> As the PIC you aren't allowed below 500' (unless taking off, landing,
>> training for a rating or crashing), and you have shown poor judgement in
>> allowing your "passenger" to goad you into low flying.
>
> No issue flying all day long below 500' agl here in the states, as long as
> you stay away from persons or property and are not over a 'congested'
> area...

::chuckle::

The rules are not below 500' AGL yadda yadda ...... but ..... well ......
big country with a small population so ...... :-)


Cheers,

David

--
A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.

[RST Engineering]

>> One local Test Officer has a reputation of asking PPL candidates to "keep
>> going, lets see if make it" during the simulated forced landing to a
>> paddock in the exam. Drop below 500 AGL and BAM ...... test over.
>>
>> As the PIC you aren't allowed below 500' (unless taking off, landing,
>> training for a rating or crashing), and you have shown poor judgement in
>> allowing your "passenger" to goad you into low flying.
>>
>> Tough but real worldish.

Well, your premise is incorrect. As the PIC you are allowed to fly from
California to Maine with your wheels an inch above the terrain so long as
you 91.119(c) stay 500' away from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

And they aren't a "Test Officer". They are a Designated Examiner. Somehow
I think this is a troll thread. Name the guy. Name the FSDO from which he
operates.

Until then, I suggest we let this thread drop.


>
> Where I live, when you take an automobile driving test you are told
> clearly
> at the start "the examiner *will never ask you to do anything illegal*".
>
> Is this not the case for a PPL exam? If so, I'm astounded.
> That could lead to some very dangerous situations.
>

As a retired examiner, I can tell you that you cannot ask or require the
examinee to do anything illegal. Now he can ASK would you fly below xxx
altitude around here? And if the answer was yes and clearly illegal, then
you are correct, exam over. But to trick, coerce, or otherwise act as the
cop behind the billboard is clearly against FAA ops standards.

Jim

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

RST Engineering wrote:
>>> One local Test Officer has a reputation of asking PPL candidates to "keep
>>> going, lets see if make it" during the simulated forced landing to a
>>> paddock in the exam. Drop below 500 AGL and BAM ...... test over.
>>>
>>> As the PIC you aren't allowed below 500' (unless taking off, landing,
>>> training for a rating or crashing), and you have shown poor judgement in
>>> allowing your "passenger" to goad you into low flying.
>>>
>>> Tough but real worldish.
>
> Well, your premise is incorrect. As the PIC you are allowed to fly from
> California to Maine with your wheels an inch above the terrain so long as
> you 91.119(c) stay 500' away from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
>
> And they aren't a "Test Officer". They are a Designated Examiner. Somehow
> I think this is a troll thread. Name the guy. Name the FSDO from which he
> operates.
>
> Until then, I suggest we let this thread drop.
>
>
>> Where I live, when you take an automobile driving test you are told
>> clearly
>> at the start "the examiner *will never ask you to do anything illegal*".
>>
>> Is this not the case for a PPL exam? If so, I'm astounded.
>> That could lead to some very dangerous situations.
>>
>
> As a retired examiner, I can tell you that you cannot ask or require the
> examinee to do anything illegal. Now he can ASK would you fly below xxx
> altitude around here? And if the answer was yes and clearly illegal, then
> you are correct, exam over. But to trick, coerce, or otherwise act as the
> cop behind the billboard is clearly against FAA ops standards.
>
> Jim
>
>
I agree. I've known many examiners through my career in aviation both
designated and FAA. I've known very few what I would call "bad" examiners.
Many examiners develop their pet ways of stressing this or that with an
applicant, but I can't remember ever dealing with an examiner who used
illegal or even devious means to make an applicant fail a flight test.
In fact, many of the examiners I knew and know today are the type who
enjoy the work to the point where once a decision has been made that the
applicant will pass the flight test, they will use the remaining time to
"teach" a bit and share with the applicant the good feelings associated
with the moment of passing the flight test.

--
Dudley Henriques

[RST Engineering]

I've carried this process on to my third career as a college professor. I
teach a college vocational education ("shop") electronics class and I tell
my students right on the first night that they have an "A" in the class and
the only way they can get an "F" is to not complete the class project or
drop the class and not attend.

"Don't worry about your grade. You've got an A. You are here to learn, not
to get a grade. If you don't understand I'll help you or I'll assign one of
the students that DO understand to help you if I'm occupied. We aren't
going to move on to the next part of the project until everybody has
completed the first part. If you've completed the first part, help somebody
who hasn't completed it so we can all move on. The only thing the folks who
finish the project first get are the first pieces of pizza the last night of
the class."

Jim

> In fact, many of the examiners I knew and know today are the type who
> enjoy the work to the point where once a decision has been made that the
> applicant will pass the flight test, they will use the remaining time to
> "teach" a bit and share with the applicant the good feelings associated
> with the moment of passing the flight test.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

[RST Engineering]

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> RST Engineering wrote:
>>>> One local Test Officer has a reputation of asking PPL candidates to
>>>> "keep
>>>> going, lets see if make it" during the simulated forced landing to a
>>>> paddock in the exam. Drop below 500 AGL and BAM ...... test over.
>>>>
>>>> As the PIC you aren't allowed below 500' (unless taking off, landing,
>>>> training for a rating or crashing), and you have shown poor judgement
>>>> in
>>>> allowing your "passenger" to goad you into low flying.
>>>>
>>>> Tough but real worldish.
>>
>> Well, your premise is incorrect. As the PIC you are allowed to fly from
>> California to Maine with your wheels an inch above the terrain so long as
>> you 91.119(c) stay 500' away from any person, vessel, vehicle, or
>> structure.
>>
>> And they aren't a "Test Officer". They are a Designated Examiner.
>> Somehow I think this is a troll thread. Name the guy. Name the FSDO
>> from which he operates.
>>
>> Until then, I suggest we let this thread drop.
>>
>>
>>> Where I live, when you take an automobile driving test you are told
>>> clearly
>>> at the start "the examiner *will never ask you to do anything illegal*".
>>>
>>> Is this not the case for a PPL exam? If so, I'm astounded.
>>> That could lead to some very dangerous situations.
>>>
>>
>> As a retired examiner, I can tell you that you cannot ask or require the
>> examinee to do anything illegal. Now he can ASK would you fly below xxx
>> altitude around here? And if the answer was yes and clearly illegal,
>> then you are correct, exam over. But to trick, coerce, or otherwise act
>> as the cop behind the billboard is clearly against FAA ops standards.
>>
>> Jim
> I agree. I've known many examiners through my career in aviation both
> designated and FAA. I've known very few what I would call "bad" examiners.
> Many examiners develop their pet ways of stressing this or that with an
> applicant, but I can't remember ever dealing with an examiner who used
> illegal or even devious means to make an applicant fail a flight test.
> In fact, many of the examiners I knew and know today are the type who
> enjoy the work to the point where once a decision has been made that the
> applicant will pass the flight test, they will use the remaining time to
> "teach" a bit and share with the applicant the good feelings associated
> with the moment of passing the flight test.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

[RST Engineering]

I've only met one in my life. It was an asshole out of Marysville in the
Sacramento area who bounced me on a CFI renewal because I couldn't explain
to him how the nosewheel centering mechanism on a C-172 worked while I was
doing to-the-limits chandelles for him.

He said he had pretty well decided to pink me because I couldn't remember
from memory the tetraethyl lead limits in milligrams per gallon for 80, 100,
100LL, and 115. Like it makes a hell of a lot of difference.

Jim

>I've known very few what I would call "bad" examiners.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

RST Engineering wrote:
> I've carried this process on to my third career as a college professor. I
> teach a college vocational education ("shop") electronics class and I tell
> my students right on the first night that they have an "A" in the class and
> the only way they can get an "F" is to not complete the class project or
> drop the class and not attend.
>
> "Don't worry about your grade. You've got an A. You are here to learn, not
> to get a grade. If you don't understand I'll help you or I'll assign one of
> the students that DO understand to help you if I'm occupied. We aren't
> going to move on to the next part of the project until everybody has
> completed the first part. If you've completed the first part, help somebody
> who hasn't completed it so we can all move on. The only thing the folks who
> finish the project first get are the first pieces of pizza the last night of
> the class."
>
> Jim
>
>> In fact, many of the examiners I knew and know today are the type who
>> enjoy the work to the point where once a decision has been made that the
>> applicant will pass the flight test, they will use the remaining time to
>> "teach" a bit and share with the applicant the good feelings associated
>> with the moment of passing the flight test.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>

I always told the pilots I trained for a CFI rating that teaching
doesn't come from books. The mechanics of teaching comes from books.
What makes the teacher a teacher comes from the heart.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

RST Engineering wrote:
> I've only met one in my life. It was an asshole out of Marysville in the
> Sacramento area who bounced me on a CFI renewal because I couldn't explain
> to him how the nosewheel centering mechanism on a C-172 worked while I was
> doing to-the-limits chandelles for him.
>
> He said he had pretty well decided to pink me because I couldn't remember
> from memory the tetraethyl lead limits in milligrams per gallon for 80, 100,
> 100LL, and 115. Like it makes a hell of a lot of difference.
>
> Jim
>
>> I've known very few what I would call "bad" examiners.
>
>

Notice I said "very few" :-)) The good thing is that the few assholes
make the good guys look even better :-))


--
Dudley Henriques

[Dallas]

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 15:42:40 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:

> Sometime years down the line, one of those
> pilots might catch something that saves lives because you and I traded
> something together on Usenet.

Usenet might be the next Library of Alexandria... if Google decides to
maintain the database intact, everyone of us could be dead 60 years from
now and people in 2068 could be researching and reading our words as we
write them today.

Your words could be saving lives of pilots 50 years from now.

[Ouch... too much too think about... brain on overload... need scotch...]

--
Dallas

[Dallas]

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 10:08:28 +1100, dVaridel wrote:

> In the licence test the student is listed as Pilot In Command
> for the ride, the test officer is an observer.

Yup, many people write about taking up their "first passenger"... but the
reality is that the examiner is their first legal passenger.


--
Dallas

[Dallas]

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 01:13:30 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Never would, but I got stopped in uniform doing about 85 once and the
> guy asked me "getting airborne a little early aren;t we, captain?"
> he let me go!

Brotherhood of the uniform syndrome.

--
Dallas

[dVaridel]

"RST Engineering" wrote

Sorry Jim, I should have prefaced my post with "In Australia".


> Well, your premise is incorrect. As the PIC you are allowed to fly from
> California to Maine with your wheels an inch above the terrain so long as
> you 91.119(c) stay 500' away from any person, vessel, vehicle, or
> structure.

As mentioned in another part of the discussion, here in the Land of Oz we
have a rule (CAR 157) that you can't fly below 500' AGL unless:
- Landing, taking off etc.
- Stress of weather
- Undertaking training with an approved instructor
- You poses a low flight endorsement
- You're a crop duster pilot
- You're crashing

Btw, over populated area's it's 1000' ...... Australia, the land that
legislates the bleeding obvious!


> And they aren't a "Test Officer". They are a Designated Examiner.

Down here they are a "(CASA) Approved Testing Officer" or ATO. CASA is the
Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
http://ioa.casa.gov.au/scripts/ATO.asp


> Somehow I think this is a troll thread.

Nope, just a pilot with an opinion. Trolls try to stir up trouble and
"typically" morph their email address to make it hard to kill file them.


> Name the guy. Name the FSDO from which he operates.

Nope, not gunna happen. Especially since I don't know what a FSDO is!


> As a retired examiner, I can tell you that you cannot ask or require the
> examinee to do anything illegal. Now he can ASK would you fly below xxx
> altitude around here? And if the answer was yes and clearly illegal, then
> you are correct, exam over.

Here in Oz it is illegal. I think we are in violent agreement!


Cheers,

David

--
Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dallas > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 01:13:30 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Never would, but I got stopped in uniform doing about 85 once and the
>> guy asked me "getting airborne a little early aren;t we, captain?"
>> he let me go!
>
> Brotherhood of the uniform syndrome.
>

Could be I guess.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in
:

>
>>> One local Test Officer has a reputation of asking PPL candidates to
>>> "keep going, lets see if make it" during the simulated forced
>>> landing to a paddock in the exam. Drop below 500 AGL and BAM ......
>>> test over.
>>>
>>> As the PIC you aren't allowed below 500' (unless taking off,
>>> landing, training for a rating or crashing), and you have shown poor
>>> judgement in allowing your "passenger" to goad you into low flying.
>>>
>>> Tough but real worldish.
>
> Well, your premise is incorrect. As the PIC you are allowed to fly
> from California to Maine with your wheels an inch above the terrain so
> long as you 91.119(c) stay 500' away from any person, vessel, vehicle,
> or structure.
>
> And they aren't a "Test Officer". They are a Designated Examiner.
> Somehow I think this is a troll thread. Name the guy. Name the FSDO
> from which he operates.


Uh, he's an Aussie.


>
> As a retired examiner, I can tell you that you cannot ask or require
> the examinee to do anything illegal.

Again, he's an Aussie


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in
:

> I've only met one in my life. It was an asshole out of Marysville in
> the Sacramento area who bounced me on a CFI renewal because I couldn't
> explain to him how the nosewheel centering mechanism on a C-172 worked
> while I was doing to-the-limits chandelles for him.
>
> He said he had pretty well decided to pink me because I couldn't
> remember from memory the tetraethyl lead limits in milligrams per
> gallon for 80, 100, 100LL, and 115. Like it makes a hell of a lot of
> difference.
>

What? Who the hell knows that?

I had an interesting check ride many years ago with an FAA inspector.
It was for a ME CFI. It was an Apache and he asked me for a VMC demo. I did
the usual, allowing the airplane to begin to roll left and then recovered
and he said "no no no, I want to see a proper one, let it go some" So I
did. I did the same thng but let it go just that little bit further. Again,
he was unhappy and took it off me saying "let me show you"
Now, we had an overcast and we were only at 2500' or so, but he pulled hard
enough just at VMC that we rolled over and did about a half a turn. ****!
It wasn't intentional, BTW, just got away from him. He didn't seem too
flustered by it though, and admonished me to "make sure the student sees
what can happen"
BTW, the Apache is the only light twin that was ever cerified for spins,
though that was revoked not long after.
My boss went ballasitic abotu thsi when he found out and wanted a written
report so he could go after the guy. I told him to forget it. There was no
way I was getting between him and the FAA ( he had a history of knocking
heads with these guys)


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dallas > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 15:42:40 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> Sometime years down the line, one of those
>> pilots might catch something that saves lives because you and I
>> traded something together on Usenet.
>
> Usenet might be the next Library of Alexandria... if Google decides
> to maintain the database intact, everyone of us could be dead 60 years
> from now and people in 2068 could be researching and reading our words
> as we write them today.
>
> Your words could be saving lives of pilots 50 years from now.
>
Actually, I think they'll probably be laughing at us! "Those guys flew
aroudn with high explosives in their wings!

I have an extensive collection of old magazines and books from the earliest
days of aviation through to present day ( imagine what mrs Bunyip makes of
that if you will) There is some very good stuff in there, much of it arcane
but still very handy to know. Some of it is pure crap. There was a two year
discussion in Popular Avaition, the forerunner of Flying, about levitaiton
via mechanical means, for instance. But other bits, especially some
performance and nav articles, are simply excellent. The EAA collated some
of Raoul Hoffman's stuff a few years ago all into one book.
And the nav articles by Weems, who was the guy who advised many of the long
distance flyers of the day, are pure gold.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dallas > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 10:08:28 +1100, dVaridel wrote:
>
>> In the licence test the student is listed as Pilot In Command
>> for the ride, the test officer is an observer.
>
> Yup, many people write about taking up their "first passenger"... but
> the reality is that the examiner is their first legal passenger.
>
>

Like the "legal" qualifier. ;)


Bertie

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 20:11:13 -0800, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

>I've only met one in my life. It was an asshole out of Marysville in the
>Sacramento area who bounced me on a CFI renewal because I couldn't explain
>to him how the nosewheel centering mechanism on a C-172 worked while I was
>doing to-the-limits chandelles for him.
>
>He said he had pretty well decided to pink me because I couldn't remember
>from memory the tetraethyl lead limits in milligrams per gallon for 80, 100,
>100LL, and 115. Like it makes a hell of a lot of difference.
>

Was he a FSDO employee or DPE?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dallas > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 15:42:40 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>
>>> Sometime years down the line, one of those
>>> pilots might catch something that saves lives because you and I
>>> traded something together on Usenet.
>> Usenet might be the next Library of Alexandria... if Google decides
>> to maintain the database intact, everyone of us could be dead 60 years
>> from now and people in 2068 could be researching and reading our words
>> as we write them today.
>>
>> Your words could be saving lives of pilots 50 years from now.
>>
> Actually, I think they'll probably be laughing at us! "Those guys flew
> aroudn with high explosives in their wings!
>
> I have an extensive collection of old magazines and books from the earliest
> days of aviation through to present day ( imagine what mrs Bunyip makes of
> that if you will) There is some very good stuff in there, much of it arcane
> but still very handy to know. Some of it is pure crap. There was a two year
> discussion in Popular Avaition, the forerunner of Flying, about levitaiton
> via mechanical means, for instance. But other bits, especially some
> performance and nav articles, are simply excellent. The EAA collated some
> of Raoul Hoffman's stuff a few years ago all into one book.
> And the nav articles by Weems, who was the guy who advised many of the long
> distance flyers of the day, are pure gold.
>
> Bertie

I still have an old Weems plotter around here someplace. If I remember
right it's slightly bent from the day I loaned it to a student and he
parked a Tri-Pacer on the ramp and left it on top of the glare shield in
the sun.
:-)



--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dallas > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 15:42:40 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sometime years down the line, one of those
>>>> pilots might catch something that saves lives because you and I
>>>> traded something together on Usenet.
>>> Usenet might be the next Library of Alexandria... if Google decides
>>> to maintain the database intact, everyone of us could be dead 60
>>> years from now and people in 2068 could be researching and reading
>>> our words as we write them today.
>>>
>>> Your words could be saving lives of pilots 50 years from now.
>>>
>> Actually, I think they'll probably be laughing at us! "Those guys
>> flew aroudn with high explosives in their wings!
>>
>> I have an extensive collection of old magazines and books from the
>> earliest days of aviation through to present day ( imagine what mrs
>> Bunyip makes of that if you will) There is some very good stuff in
>> there, much of it arcane but still very handy to know. Some of it is
>> pure crap. There was a two year discussion in Popular Avaition, the
>> forerunner of Flying, about levitaiton via mechanical means, for
>> instance. But other bits, especially some performance and nav
>> articles, are simply excellent. The EAA collated some of Raoul
>> Hoffman's stuff a few years ago all into one book. And the nav
>> articles by Weems, who was the guy who advised many of the long
>> distance flyers of the day, are pure gold.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I still have an old Weems plotter around here someplace. If I remember
> right it's slightly bent from the day I loaned it to a student and he
> parked a Tri-Pacer on the ramp and left it on top of the glare shield
> in the sun.
> :-)


He he. I've seen them for sale on Ebay, but never an original.
He developed a strip plotter for long distance trans-oceanic flyers.
I'm not exactly sure how it worked, but Harold Gatty developed it with
him and used it on the round the world flight with Wiley Post. Anna
Lindbergh was one of his students at the insistence of her husband as
well. The articles are excellent.

Bertie

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
>>> One local Test Officer has a reputation of asking PPL candidates to
>>> "keep
>>> going, lets see if make it" during the simulated forced landing to a
>>> paddock in the exam. Drop below 500 AGL and BAM ...... test over.
>>>
>>> As the PIC you aren't allowed below 500' (unless taking off, landing,
>>> training for a rating or crashing), and you have shown poor judgement in
>>> allowing your "passenger" to goad you into low flying.
>>>
>>> Tough but real worldish.
>
> Well, your premise is incorrect. As the PIC you are allowed to fly from
> California to Maine with your wheels an inch above the terrain so long as
> you 91.119(c) stay 500' away from any person, vessel, vehicle, or
> structure.
>
> And they aren't a "Test Officer". They are a Designated Examiner.
> Somehow I think this is a troll thread. Name the guy. Name the FSDO from
> which he operates.
>

California and Main are in the US. CFR 91.119(c)applies only to the US.
FDSO's only exist in the US and D.E is US terminology. If I recall correctly
the person you are quoting is from some other country where they are likely
to use other terminonolgy for things like this and the regulations are
likely to differ somewhat.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dallas > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 15:42:40 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sometime years down the line, one of those
>>>>> pilots might catch something that saves lives because you and I
>>>>> traded something together on Usenet.
>>>> Usenet might be the next Library of Alexandria... if Google decides
>>>> to maintain the database intact, everyone of us could be dead 60
>>>> years from now and people in 2068 could be researching and reading
>>>> our words as we write them today.
>>>>
>>>> Your words could be saving lives of pilots 50 years from now.
>>>>
>>> Actually, I think they'll probably be laughing at us! "Those guys
>>> flew aroudn with high explosives in their wings!
>>>
>>> I have an extensive collection of old magazines and books from the
>>> earliest days of aviation through to present day ( imagine what mrs
>>> Bunyip makes of that if you will) There is some very good stuff in
>>> there, much of it arcane but still very handy to know. Some of it is
>>> pure crap. There was a two year discussion in Popular Avaition, the
>>> forerunner of Flying, about levitaiton via mechanical means, for
>>> instance. But other bits, especially some performance and nav
>>> articles, are simply excellent. The EAA collated some of Raoul
>>> Hoffman's stuff a few years ago all into one book. And the nav
>>> articles by Weems, who was the guy who advised many of the long
>>> distance flyers of the day, are pure gold.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> I still have an old Weems plotter around here someplace. If I remember
>> right it's slightly bent from the day I loaned it to a student and he
>> parked a Tri-Pacer on the ramp and left it on top of the glare shield
>> in the sun.
>> :-)
>
>
> He he. I've seen them for sale on Ebay, but never an original.
> He developed a strip plotter for long distance trans-oceanic flyers.
> I'm not exactly sure how it worked, but Harold Gatty developed it with
> him and used it on the round the world flight with Wiley Post. Anna
> Lindbergh was one of his students at the insistence of her husband as
> well. The articles are excellent.
>
> Bertie
I remember him as being involved in some way with the US Navy; a very
talented guy I'm sure. In fact, the modern Jepp plotters sold today in
student pilot kits is I believe almost a direct copy of his original
plotter.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:


> I remember him as being involved in some way with the US Navy; a very
> talented guy I'm sure.


Yeah, that's right. He was. I think he might have had something to do with
Wings field as well, but I'm not sure.

> In fact, the modern Jepp plotters sold today in
> student pilot kits is I believe almost a direct copy of his original
> plotter.
>
>
Probably. Between himself,Taylor ( can't remember his first name but he was
Kingsford Smith's nav) and Harold Gatty, they quite literally wrote the
book on navigation. Called Avigation by Weems, I bleive.

Bertie

[RST Engineering]

>>
>> He said he had pretty well decided to pink me because I couldn't
>> remember from memory the tetraethyl lead limits in milligrams per
>> gallon for 80, 100, 100LL, and 115. Like it makes a hell of a lot of
>> difference.
>>
>
> What? Who the hell knows that?

Um, I do except for 115 (purple gas). 80 (red gas) is 0.5 ml/gallon (do you
like the mixed measurement system), 100 (green gas) is 4 ml/gallon, and
100LL (blue gas) is 2 ml/gallon (from memory, without looking it up in the
regs). I doubt sincerely that I could even FIND the spec for 115 in any
currently printed document, and that's the one I missed.

Jim

[RST Engineering]

DPE. The Feds I've ridden with were/are top of the line. My first Fed was
my original CFI in 1970. Big old cigar chomping ex-AAF with a remarkable
resemblance in all ways to Curtis LeMay. Did the usual maneuvers, then he
put me under the hood (with that g.d. cigar smoke swirling around me) and
gave me vectors. Then took the hood off and asked me to show him steep
turns to the left. Steep turn, steep turn, steep turn (nearly tossed
cookies with smoke) steep turn, stee...haven't we done enough? Two more,
steep turn, steep turn.

Got back and he told me I might make a pretty good instructor some day and
signed me off. I asked him what that steep turn stuff was and he told me
they were digging his swimming pool that day and he wanted to watch for a
while.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 20:11:13 -0800, "RST Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
>>I've only met one in my life. It was an asshole out of Marysville in the
>>Sacramento area who bounced me on a CFI renewal because I couldn't explain
>>to him how the nosewheel centering mechanism on a C-172 worked while I was
>>doing to-the-limits chandelles for him.
>>
>>He said he had pretty well decided to pink me because I couldn't remember
>>from memory the tetraethyl lead limits in milligrams per gallon for 80,
>>100,
>>100LL, and 115. Like it makes a hell of a lot of difference.
>>
>
> Was he a FSDO employee or DPE?

[RST Engineering]

Sorry old chap, if you mentioned this somewhere in this thread, I missed it.
In that case, you are correct and the examiner is well within his bounds to
ask you if you would do something illegal, and if you agree, you lose.
That's true on this side of the pond as well.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

"dVaridel" > wrote in message
u...
> "RST Engineering" wrote
>
> Sorry Jim, I should have prefaced my post with "In Australia".

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in
:

>
>>>
>>> He said he had pretty well decided to pink me because I couldn't
>>> remember from memory the tetraethyl lead limits in milligrams per
>>> gallon for 80, 100, 100LL, and 115. Like it makes a hell of a lot
>>> of difference.
>>>
>>
>> What? Who the hell knows that?
>
> Um, I do except for 115 (purple gas). 80 (red gas) is 0.5 ml/gallon
> (do you like the mixed measurement system), 100 (green gas) is 4
> ml/gallon, and 100LL (blue gas) is 2 ml/gallon (from memory, without
> looking it up in the regs). I doubt sincerely that I could even FIND
> the spec for 115 in any currently printed document, and that's the one
> I missed.
>
> Jim
>
>
>

Yeah, but off the top of your head?

(OK, you do maybe )

I'd read the figures andI knew that 100ll is about 4x the lead content of
80, but WTF is the difference? It's not like it's posted on the pumps and
it's critical to flight safety if you don't know.



Bertie

[Dave[_3_]]

Same here.. but it was a 1979 Ltd......

......same question, had my hand on it (shirt pocket)..

....said to myself.."self, this MAY NOT be a good time to be a smart
ass.."

So I didn't, got a warning..

But the chance to have a great story was lost for the price of a
speeding ticket..

Dave



On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:07:55 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Some Other Guy > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> dVaridel wrote:
>>>
>>>> One local Test Officer has a reputation of asking PPL candidates to
>>>> "keep going, lets see if make it" during the simulated forced landing
>>>> to a paddock in the exam. Drop below 500 AGL and BAM ...... test
>>>> over.
>>>>
>>>> As the PIC you aren't allowed below 500' (unless taking off, landing,
>>>> training for a rating or crashing), and you have shown poor judgement
>>>> in allowing your "passenger" to goad you into low flying.
>>>>
>>>> Tough but real worldish.
>>> Where I live, when you take an automobile driving test you are told
>>> clearly at the start "the examiner *will never ask you to do anything
>>> illegal*".
>>
>> Ine of mine did. i was going too slow to suit him.
>>
>> He told me I failed, told me i needed more practice. I told him I'd been
>> driving for years on several continents. He asked me why I was n several
>> continents and I told him I flew a 737 for a living.
>> he gave me the licence.
>>> Is this not the case for a PPL exam? If so, I'm astounded.
>>> That could lead to some very dangerous situations.
>>
>> Hmmm, better not get into those stories!
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>I have a great one.
>Got stopped with my wife on I95 one night. I had just had my new
>Corvette tuned and was checking it out.
>The Police pulled me over and two cops came walking up to the driver's
>window. They looked like Abbott and Costello. One was real tall and the
>other one was built like a fire plug. The tall one I guess was trying to
>be a wise guy with the Vette as I was well over a hundred when I went
>through the radar gun. He leaned down and looked in the window and
>calmly asked to see my pilot's license.
>You can guess what happened next. The fire plug guy broke up laughing,
>slapped the tall one on the back and said something about using that one
>once too often.
>Anyway...I won't tell you what it cost me, but FWIW, if a cop ever asks
>to see your pilot's license, for God sake, don't show it to him :-)))

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in
:

> Sorry old chap, if you mentioned this somewhere in this thread, I
> missed it. In that case, you are correct and the examiner is well
> within his bounds to ask you if you would do something illegal, and if
> you agree, you lose. That's true on this side of the pond as well.

Actually, the rules could be very different ndeed. No idea what Oz is like,
but I have been involved in certification in a few different countries and
while the general idea is the same, the specific rules can be very
different indeed.
The Brits, for instance, are downright bizarre. Don't even start me on the
Germans, and I had one licence that merely required that my company bribe
the officials. No check ride, no written on the local rules. nothing.

You also had to bribe the waiter in this place to get you your breakfast,
customs and immigration to get in and out of the country, the fueler to
brign you fuel on time and so on.



Bertie

[RST Engineering]

Yes, off the top of my head. I think Ron Natalie can do the same thing.
It's an engineer thingie...we memorize the most obscure crap but can't
remember the anniversary. Even that's hard for me ... we got married in
Oshkosh on the Saturday of the Show. Don't ask me how many years without
letting me look it up.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "RST Engineering" > wrote in
> :
>>
>> Um, I do except for 115 (purple gas). 80 (red gas) is 0.5 ml/gallon
>> (do you like the mixed measurement system), 100 (green gas) is 4
>> ml/gallon, and 100LL (blue gas) is 2 ml/gallon (from memory, without
>> looking it up in the regs). I doubt sincerely that I could even FIND
>> the spec for 115 in any currently printed document, and that's the one
>> I missed.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>>
>
> Yeah, but off the top of your head?
>
> (OK, you do maybe )

[RST Engineering]

Thank God our country is nothing like this. We call it a tip, not a bribe.

{;-0

Jim

>
> You also had to bribe the waiter in this place to get you your breakfast,
> customs and immigration to get in and out of the country, the fueler to
> brign you fuel on time and so on.
>
>
>
> Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in
:

> Yes, off the top of my head. I think Ron Natalie can do the same
> thing. It's an engineer thingie...we memorize the most obscure crap
> but can't remember the anniversary. Even that's hard for me ... we
> got married in Oshkosh on the Saturday of the Show. Don't ask me how
> many years without letting me look it up.




Yeh, I know the feeling.
Different numbers.


I can recite the lat long of a couple dozen airfields round the world.


Berti

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in
:

> Thank God our country is nothing like this. We call it a tip, not a
> bribe.




You cant be too sure I wasn't talking about the US!

Well, I wasn't, but it's always dangerous to assume around me.

The bribing was no real problem. jsut rthe way it was, and yu couldn't
blame them. they had nothing. Actually, the ones you tipped had a little
the rest had, quite literally, nothing.

Bertie

[Margy Natalie]

RST Engineering wrote:
> Yes, off the top of my head. I think Ron Natalie can do the same thing.
> It's an engineer thingie...we memorize the most obscure crap but can't
> remember the anniversary. Even that's hard for me ... we got married in
> Oshkosh on the Saturday of the Show. Don't ask me how many years without
> letting me look it up.
>
> Jim
>
****er you are right. I just asked him and he rattled them off (didn't
get 115 either) and then asked "why". I just wish he'd remember to do
the litter box ;-).

Margy

[RST Engineering]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...

> RST Engineering schrieb:
>> Sorry old chap, if you mentioned this somewhere in this thread, I missed
>> it. In that case, you are correct and the examiner is well within his
>> bounds to ask you if you would do something illegal, and if you agree,
>> you lose.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


> even when it saves your life?


Most every nation's set of rules has the catchall that goes something like
(US FAR 91.3) "In the case of an emergency the pilot in command may deviate
from any rule in the book that saves his worthless ass."

Obviously the OP said the examiner said "Lets go down low and look at that"
or words to that effect. Absent an emergency, this paragraph is inoperative
and the operative paragraph is the prohibition about flying below 500AGL in
Oz.

Jim

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in
:

> Anthony, how was your examiner during your check ride? Oh wait, I
> forgot that you don't fly, don't have a medical, and have never taken
> a check ride.
>
>

hmm, could be a big market out there for check rides in MSFS.

Not a lot of overhead. I could make up some wings out of macaroni and gold
paint and recycle some of the "you may have already won" junk mail into
certificates.


Bertie

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "Viperdoc" > wrote in
> :
>
>> Anthony, how was your examiner during your check ride? Oh wait, I
>> forgot that you don't fly, don't have a medical, and have never taken
>> a check ride.
>>
>>
>
> hmm, could be a big market out there for check rides in MSFS.
>
> Not a lot of overhead. I could make up some wings out of macaroni and gold
> paint and recycle some of the "you may have already won" junk mail into
> certificates.

They beat you to it long ago. For instance, see how they horked up the
IFR checkride built into MSFS:

http://www.rodmachado.com/Flight-Sim/FS-IFR-Ride.htm

And Microsludge provides instructions on editing the certificates:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/256619

(Let me anticipate your next thought: (jesus wept...")

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in
et:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "Viperdoc" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Anthony, how was your examiner during your check ride? Oh wait, I
>>> forgot that you don't fly, don't have a medical, and have never
>>> taken a check ride.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> hmm, could be a big market out there for check rides in MSFS.
>>
>> Not a lot of overhead. I could make up some wings out of macaroni and
>> gold paint and recycle some of the "you may have already won" junk
>> mail into certificates.
>
> They beat you to it long ago. For instance, see how they horked up the
> IFR checkride built into MSFS:
>
> http://www.rodmachado.com/Flight-Sim/FS-IFR-Ride.htm
>
> And Microsludge provides instructions on editing the certificates:
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/256619
>
> (Let me anticipate your next thought: (jesus wept...")


Yep!


But they don;t have gold macaroni wings.


Bertie
>

[Dallas]

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 11:08:58 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Actually, I think they'll probably be laughing at us! "Those guys flew
> aroudn with high explosives in their wings!

Yeah, we'll be the pre-antigravity flux capacitor generation.

What a bunch of brave guys we were.

Students will probably be scour Usenet for clips to write their thesis on
the life and times of Mxsmanic before he was elected the President of the
French Republic.

--
Dallas

[dVaridel]

"RST Engineering" wrote
> Most every nation's set of rules has the catchall that goes something like
> (US FAR 91.3) "In the case of an emergency the pilot in command may
> deviate from any rule in the book that saves his worthless ass."

Yeah, same down here, you may be asked to justify your decision - if you
live! More likely you end up having a LLOONNGG chat to the CASA folk about
how you ended up in the position that you needed to break a rule.


David

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dallas > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 11:08:58 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Actually, I think they'll probably be laughing at us! "Those guys flew
>> aroudn with high explosives in their wings!
>
> Yeah, we'll be the pre-antigravity flux capacitor generation.


Really. there will come a time when they'll look at us the way we'd look at
someone who went to sea in a canoe.
>
> What a bunch of brave guys we were.


Men men men men .
>
> Students will probably be scour Usenet for clips to write their thesis on
> the life and times of Mxsmanic before he was elected the President of the
> French Republic.
>

Yipes!


Bertie

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>Really. there will come a time when they'll look at us the way we'd look at
>someone who went to sea in a canoe.
>

I think that's already happening, particularly in the area of navigation.
I've had more than one pilot comment with amazement on the fact that we used
to navigate across the country without GPS. Particularly in areas where
radio navigation is not available (mountains). Apparently, finding
unfamiliar airports without the magic box pointing you right at it, is some
sort of magical feat. I personally know pilots that wouldn't consider flying
a cross-country trip without an operable GPS.

Remember when flying a GA airplane across an ocean was a huge navigational
challenge (HF being what it is)?

My local library has bound copies of the aviation mags going back to the
'20s. Since my plane's equipment is generally not much better than the
state of the art in the 40s, I can often relate to those old articles.

Several years back I saw an old Narco radio (Superhomer) in an aviation
museum and was surprised because I'd removed an identical one from my
airplane only a few years before.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200801/1

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig601XLBuilder writes:
>
>> Most people when put in a position of public trust will do what they can
>> to live up to that trust.
>
> Unless, of course, they are being paid to be "not too tough."

You have just made a statement saying one or more DPE are excepting
bribes to bass students. Do you have any evidence of such?

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> Anyway...I won't tell you what it cost me, but FWIW, if a cop ever asks
> to see your pilot's license, for God sake, don't show it to him :-)))
>


While I agree aren't you actually required to if he asks?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in
news:7ddba2d81cb24@uwe:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>Really. there will come a time when they'll look at us the way we'd
>>look at someone who went to sea in a canoe.
>>
>
> I think that's already happening, particularly in the area of
> navigation.
> I've had more than one pilot comment with amazement on the fact that
> we used to navigate across the country without GPS. Particularly in
> areas where radio navigation is not available (mountains).
> Apparently, finding unfamiliar airports without the magic box
> pointing you right at it, is some sort of magical feat. I personally
> know pilots that wouldn't consider flying a cross-country trip without
> an operable GPS.

I know. I still fly with no GPS and people look at me like I have two
heads.
I had to get someone to prop my Luscombe before a pasage over a farly
large body of water a few years back. After a few pulls this commercial
pilot was clearly not able to do it, so I put him in th eairplane and
briefed him on how to work everything and how the procedure worked. He
looked around and asked me how I intended to get where I was going
without navaids ( it was a fifty mile crossing) and I pointed at the
compass.
I went off with him thinking I was an idiot. I made a point of dropping
into his office ( he was a policeman flying an Islander) the next week
in my 737!
>
> Remember when flying a GA airplane across an ocean was a huge
> navigational
> challenge (HF being what it is)?

HF is useless for nav. You need to be able to combine a few techniques
to do something like a transoceanic flight. You'd have to be a very
special kind of idiot to do it solely reliant on anything, especially a
GPS. If you're not reasonably confident you can at least find a beach on
arrival after having lost everything but needle ball airspeed and
compass you have no business being there. I say reasonably because
anything can happen.
>
> My local library has bound copies of the aviation mags going back to
> the
> '20s. Since my plane's equipment is generally not much better than
> the state of the art in the 40s, I can often relate to those old
> articles.
>
> Several years back I saw an old Narco radio (Superhomer) in an
> aviation
> museum and was surprised because I'd removed an identical one from my
> airplane only a few years before.

He he. I taught a couple of kids to fly in their Dad's PA-12 at Pontiac
a long time ago. It had a whistle stop radio and that was all. Pontiac
was a very busy airport. We never did take off and landings there, but
of course we had to depart and arrive. I couldn't reach it from the
back, so a lot of the first few lessons were just getting the students
to tune it. It got so every time th etower heard a carrier wave they
said "88M, if that;s you, you're cleared to a right base 27R and cleared
to land"
It should have been in a museum even then, but it was fun!

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Really. there will come a time when they'll look at us the way we'd look at
>> someone who went to sea in a canoe.
>>
>
> I think that's already happening, particularly in the area of navigation.
> I've had more than one pilot comment with amazement on the fact that we used
> to navigate across the country without GPS. Particularly in areas where
> radio navigation is not available (mountains). Apparently, finding
> unfamiliar airports without the magic box pointing you right at it, is some
> sort of magical feat. I personally know pilots that wouldn't consider flying
> a cross-country trip without an operable GPS.
>
> Remember when flying a GA airplane across an ocean was a huge navigational
> challenge (HF being what it is)?
>
> My local library has bound copies of the aviation mags going back to the
> '20s. Since my plane's equipment is generally not much better than the
> state of the art in the 40s, I can often relate to those old articles.
>
> Several years back I saw an old Narco radio (Superhomer) in an aviation
> museum and was surprised because I'd removed an identical one from my
> airplane only a few years before.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
Things have sure come a long way since the Superhomer days for sure. We
used to check the gas against the forcast winds, pick a Magnetic Course
off the nearest VOR and parrell that to the True Course line, allow some
extra gas for ("unintended consequences" :-), then take off, check the
ground speed and wind between the first two checkpoints and get an ETA.
God, we were archaic by modern day standards.......and I haven't even
mentioned trying to fly a damn low freq range leg with a bad headset :-))))


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Gig601XLBuilder > wrote in news:13o4hgltpjes298
@news.supernews.com:

> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> Anyway...I won't tell you what it cost me, but FWIW, if a cop ever asks
>> to see your pilot's license, for God sake, don't show it to him :-)))
>>
>
>
> While I agree aren't you actually required to if he asks?

I had some dickhead of a cop at an airport in Dr Vaterland who wanted to
see my cafeteria pass one day. And I wasn't in the cafeteria.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Gig601XLBuilder wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> Anyway...I won't tell you what it cost me, but FWIW, if a cop ever
>> asks to see your pilot's license, for God sake, don't show it to him
>> :-)))
>>
>
>
> While I agree aren't you actually required to if he asks?

Actually the answer to this would be yes, IF the request was an official
one made for an official purpose.
In this case, it was an obvious attempt at humor and being a smart ass
as I was, I supplied it. Bad ju ju in case you need to know :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Really. there will come a time when they'll look at us the way we'd
>>> look at someone who went to sea in a canoe.
>>>
>>
>> I think that's already happening, particularly in the area of
>> navigation.
>> I've had more than one pilot comment with amazement on the fact that
>> we used to navigate across the country without GPS. Particularly in
>> areas where radio navigation is not available (mountains).
>> Apparently, finding unfamiliar airports without the magic box
>> pointing you right at it, is some sort of magical feat. I personally
>> know pilots that wouldn't consider flying a cross-country trip
>> without an operable GPS.
>>
>> Remember when flying a GA airplane across an ocean was a huge
>> navigational
>> challenge (HF being what it is)?
>>
>> My local library has bound copies of the aviation mags going back
>> to the
>> '20s. Since my plane's equipment is generally not much better than
>> the state of the art in the 40s, I can often relate to those old
>> articles.
>>
>> Several years back I saw an old Narco radio (Superhomer) in an
>> aviation
>> museum and was surprised because I'd removed an identical one from my
>> airplane only a few years before.
>>
>> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>>
> Things have sure come a long way since the Superhomer days for sure.
> We used to check the gas against the forcast winds, pick a Magnetic
> Course off the nearest VOR and parrell that to the True Course line,
> allow some extra gas for ("unintended consequences" :-), then take
> off, check the ground speed and wind between the first two checkpoints
> and get an ETA. God, we were archaic by modern day standards.......and
> I haven't even mentioned trying to fly a damn low freq range leg with
> a bad headset :-))))
>

I've only ever seen them in Canada. had to do a test with the Canadian
CAA once and the guy who administerd it told me soem real good tips on
tracking them, but they're all gone a long time now.
last one in the US was servicable to about 1979 IIRC. Somewhere out
west.


Bertie
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Gig601XLBuilder wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Gig601XLBuilder writes:
>>
>>> Most people when put in a position of public trust will do what they
>>> can to live up to that trust.
>>
>> Unless, of course, they are being paid to be "not too tough."
>
> You have just made a statement saying one or more DPE are excepting
> bribes to bass students. Do you have any evidence of such?

How do you bass a student? Sounds a bit fishy to me :-))))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Really. there will come a time when they'll look at us the way we'd
>>>> look at someone who went to sea in a canoe.
>>>>
>>> I think that's already happening, particularly in the area of
>>> navigation.
>>> I've had more than one pilot comment with amazement on the fact that
>>> we used to navigate across the country without GPS. Particularly in
>>> areas where radio navigation is not available (mountains).
>>> Apparently, finding unfamiliar airports without the magic box
>>> pointing you right at it, is some sort of magical feat. I personally
>>> know pilots that wouldn't consider flying a cross-country trip
>>> without an operable GPS.
>>>
>>> Remember when flying a GA airplane across an ocean was a huge
>>> navigational
>>> challenge (HF being what it is)?
>>>
>>> My local library has bound copies of the aviation mags going back
>>> to the
>>> '20s. Since my plane's equipment is generally not much better than
>>> the state of the art in the 40s, I can often relate to those old
>>> articles.
>>>
>>> Several years back I saw an old Narco radio (Superhomer) in an
>>> aviation
>>> museum and was surprised because I'd removed an identical one from my
>>> airplane only a few years before.
>>>
>>> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>>>
>> Things have sure come a long way since the Superhomer days for sure.
>> We used to check the gas against the forcast winds, pick a Magnetic
>> Course off the nearest VOR and parrell that to the True Course line,
>> allow some extra gas for ("unintended consequences" :-), then take
>> off, check the ground speed and wind between the first two checkpoints
>> and get an ETA. God, we were archaic by modern day standards.......and
>> I haven't even mentioned trying to fly a damn low freq range leg with
>> a bad headset :-))))
>>
>
> I've only ever seen them in Canada. had to do a test with the Canadian
> CAA once and the guy who administerd it told me soem real good tips on
> tracking them, but they're all gone a long time now.
> last one in the US was servicable to about 1979 IIRC. Somewhere out
> west.
>
>
> Bertie
>
That's right I believe. I happened on a chance to go down to South
America with a modified P38 and do some aerial mapping. I never went as
it turned out but I did get as far with the program as checking out the
Nav aids down there. What a mess! Mostly ADF and a few low freq ranges
but little else in those days.
Glad I passed on that job really. Much of it would have been flying grid
lines over long expanses of jungle and that Lightning was getting a bit
old in the tooth.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>> Several years back I saw an old Narco radio (Superhomer) in an
>> aviation
>> museum and was surprised because I'd removed an identical one from my
>> airplane only a few years before.
>>
>> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>>
> Things have sure come a long way since the Superhomer days for sure.

Hey, I just had a guy donate an old Superhomer to us, for use in a future
theme suite. Damn thing is as heavy as an anvil...

He recently took it out of his dad's old Taylorcraft, a plane he has
completely restored to like-new condition.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:
>>
>> I've only ever seen them in Canada. had to do a test with the Canadian
>> CAA once and the guy who administerd it told me soem real good tips on
>> tracking them, but they're all gone a long time now.
>> last one in the US was servicable to about 1979 IIRC. Somewhere out
>> west.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
> That's right I believe. I happened on a chance to go down to South
> America with a modified P38 and do some aerial mapping. I never went as
> it turned out but I did get as far with the program as checking out the
> Nav aids down there. What a mess! Mostly ADF and a few low freq ranges
> but little else in those days.
> Glad I passed on that job really. Much of it would have been flying grid
> lines over long expanses of jungle and that Lightning was getting a bit
> old in the tooth.
>

He he. Yeah,. They did have fantastic range though.
I've used some NDBs that were good for about 1500 miles, too.Sometimes even
more.
Mostly at night.



Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:kKsgj.289558$Fc.124827@attbi_s21:

>>> Several years back I saw an old Narco radio (Superhomer) in an
>>> aviation
>>> museum and was surprised because I'd removed an identical one from
>>> my airplane only a few years before.
>>>
>>> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>>>
>> Things have sure come a long way since the Superhomer days for sure.
>
> Hey, I just had a guy donate an old Superhomer to us, for use in a
> future theme suite. Damn thing is as heavy as an anvil...

Oh what a magical world you live in, you self promoting fjukkwit.




Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>>> I've only ever seen them in Canada. had to do a test with the Canadian
>>> CAA once and the guy who administerd it told me soem real good tips on
>>> tracking them, but they're all gone a long time now.
>>> last one in the US was servicable to about 1979 IIRC. Somewhere out
>>> west.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>> That's right I believe. I happened on a chance to go down to South
>> America with a modified P38 and do some aerial mapping. I never went as
>> it turned out but I did get as far with the program as checking out the
>> Nav aids down there. What a mess! Mostly ADF and a few low freq ranges
>> but little else in those days.
>> Glad I passed on that job really. Much of it would have been flying grid
>> lines over long expanses of jungle and that Lightning was getting a bit
>> old in the tooth.
>>
>
> He he. Yeah,. They did have fantastic range though.
> I've used some NDBs that were good for about 1500 miles, too.Sometimes even
> more.
> Mostly at night.
>
>
>
> Bertie
>

Lots of NDB's down in SA. I have to admit though that it was the thought
of flying over that damn jungle every day that worried me. I never did
find out if that job went through or who if anyone took it. The P38 that
was involved ended up here in the states somewhere I believe and went to
a private owner.
I've always wondered if I had taken that job if I would have ended up on
some Jivaro's lodge pole as a shrunken head :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>>> I've only ever seen them in Canada. had to do a test with the
>>>> Canadian CAA once and the guy who administerd it told me soem real
>>>> good tips on tracking them, but they're all gone a long time now.
>>>> last one in the US was servicable to about 1979 IIRC. Somewhere out
>>>> west.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>> That's right I believe. I happened on a chance to go down to South
>>> America with a modified P38 and do some aerial mapping. I never went
>>> as it turned out but I did get as far with the program as checking
>>> out the Nav aids down there. What a mess! Mostly ADF and a few low
>>> freq ranges but little else in those days.
>>> Glad I passed on that job really. Much of it would have been flying
>>> grid lines over long expanses of jungle and that Lightning was
>>> getting a bit old in the tooth.
>>>
>>
>> He he. Yeah,. They did have fantastic range though.
>> I've used some NDBs that were good for about 1500 miles,
>> too.Sometimes even more.
>> Mostly at night.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Lots of NDB's down in SA. I have to admit though that it was the
> thought of flying over that damn jungle every day that worried me. I
> never did find out if that job went through or who if anyone took it.
> The P38 that was involved ended up here in the states somewhere I
> believe and went to a private owner.
> I've always wondered if I had taken that job if I would have ended up
> on some Jivaro's lodge pole as a shrunken head :-))


Hehe. Nah. It's not that bad flying in those parts of the world if
you're prepared. hopefully at least one engine would have run for you
til you got where you were going?


Bertie
>

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> How do you bass a student? Sounds a bit fishy to me :-))))
>

It is done at the same time as the cutting of the shirt tail. The only
difference is they have to drop their paints and bend over.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Gig601XLBuilder wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> How do you bass a student? Sounds a bit fishy to me :-))))
>>
>
> It is done at the same time as the cutting of the shirt tail. The only
> difference is they have to drop their paints and bend over.
>
I can see where getting them to drop their paints would indeed be a
colorful experience.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>>> I've only ever seen them in Canada. had to do a test with the
>>>>> Canadian CAA once and the guy who administerd it told me soem real
>>>>> good tips on tracking them, but they're all gone a long time now.
>>>>> last one in the US was servicable to about 1979 IIRC. Somewhere out
>>>>> west.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>> That's right I believe. I happened on a chance to go down to South
>>>> America with a modified P38 and do some aerial mapping. I never went
>>>> as it turned out but I did get as far with the program as checking
>>>> out the Nav aids down there. What a mess! Mostly ADF and a few low
>>>> freq ranges but little else in those days.
>>>> Glad I passed on that job really. Much of it would have been flying
>>>> grid lines over long expanses of jungle and that Lightning was
>>>> getting a bit old in the tooth.
>>>>
>>> He he. Yeah,. They did have fantastic range though.
>>> I've used some NDBs that were good for about 1500 miles,
>>> too.Sometimes even more.
>>> Mostly at night.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>> Lots of NDB's down in SA. I have to admit though that it was the
>> thought of flying over that damn jungle every day that worried me. I
>> never did find out if that job went through or who if anyone took it.
>> The P38 that was involved ended up here in the states somewhere I
>> believe and went to a private owner.
>> I've always wondered if I had taken that job if I would have ended up
>> on some Jivaro's lodge pole as a shrunken head :-))
>
>
> Hehe. Nah. It's not that bad flying in those parts of the world if
> you're prepared. hopefully at least one engine would have run for you
> til you got where you were going?
>
>
> Bertie
>

The alternatives would have been interesting to say the least. Remember,
this was to be over mostly uncharted jungle. The word was that if
something happened to you along the routes, jumping was the only way to
go since there was no way to put something down in those trees and live
through it. All in all the picture was pretty glum chum :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Gig601XLBuilder wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>
>>> How do you bass a student? Sounds a bit fishy to me :-))))
>>>
>>
>> It is done at the same time as the cutting of the shirt tail. The only
>> difference is they have to drop their paints and bend over.
>>
> I can see where getting them to drop their paints would indeed be a
> colorful experience.
>


It's probably a seaplane tradition.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:
>>
>
> The alternatives would have been interesting to say the least. Remember,
> this was to be over mostly uncharted jungle. The word was that if
> something happened to you along the routes, jumping was the only way to
> go since there was no way to put something down in those trees and live
> through it. All in all the picture was pretty glum chum :-))
>

Yeah. It's probably true, but much of it is gone now!
I've seen much much worse than jungle, though. You want to see northern
Quebec, for instance. all rocks. I might have a pic in fact, but it's all
rock and none of it flat for hundreds of miles. Not to mention, if you jump
there it's cold too!


bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>> The alternatives would have been interesting to say the least. Remember,
>> this was to be over mostly uncharted jungle. The word was that if
>> something happened to you along the routes, jumping was the only way to
>> go since there was no way to put something down in those trees and live
>> through it. All in all the picture was pretty glum chum :-))
>>
>
> Yeah. It's probably true, but much of it is gone now!
> I've seen much much worse than jungle, though. You want to see northern
> Quebec, for instance. all rocks. I might have a pic in fact, but it's all
> rock and none of it flat for hundreds of miles. Not to mention, if you jump
> there it's cold too!
>
>
> bertie
I rode a motorcycle up through the plains in Canada once all the way to
Moosejaw. I thought it would never end :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>> The alternatives would have been interesting to say the least.
>>> Remember, this was to be over mostly uncharted jungle. The word was
>>> that if something happened to you along the routes, jumping was the
>>> only way to go since there was no way to put something down in those
>>> trees and live through it. All in all the picture was pretty glum
>>> chum :-))
>>>
>>
>> Yeah. It's probably true, but much of it is gone now!
>> I've seen much much worse than jungle, though. You want to see
>> northern Quebec, for instance. all rocks. I might have a pic in fact,
>> but it's all rock and none of it flat for hundreds of miles. Not to
>> mention, if you jump there it's cold too!
>>
>>
>> bertie
> I rode a motorcycle up through the plains in Canada once all the way
> to Moosejaw. I thought it would never end :-))
>

I don't think it does!

Bertie

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Lots of NDB's down in SA. I have to admit though that it was the thought
> of flying over that damn jungle every day that worried me. I never did
> find out if that job went through or who if anyone took it. The P38 that
> was involved ended up here in the states somewhere I believe and went to
> a private owner.


Speaking of crappy jobs not taken, I remember seeing one years ago involving an
"armored T-28" for thunderstorm and hail research in the midwestern United
States in the Trade-A-Plane. I was actually thinking about it until I got to
the part about the "$10,000 bonus if you complete the contract". Hmmmmm....


> I've always wondered if I had taken that job if I would have ended up on
> some Jivaro's lodge pole as a shrunken head :-))


No doubt it would have made a handsome addition to his decor.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> Lots of NDB's down in SA. I have to admit though that it was the thought
>> of flying over that damn jungle every day that worried me. I never did
>> find out if that job went through or who if anyone took it. The P38 that
>> was involved ended up here in the states somewhere I believe and went to
>> a private owner.
>
>
> Speaking of crappy jobs not taken, I remember seeing one years ago involving an
> "armored T-28" for thunderstorm and hail research in the midwestern United
> States in the Trade-A-Plane. I was actually thinking about it until I got to
> the part about the "$10,000 bonus if you complete the contract". Hmmmmm....

I was having some "attitude adjustment" one night at a bar outside the
gate at Pax River when I met a NASA test pilot who was pushing an F106
out of Wallops NAS doing lightning research. He told me he had taken
several hundred direct hits doing flights through heavy Nimbo
Cumulobumpus and was just about the world's foremost expert on St.
Elmo's Fire :-)
>
>
>> I've always wondered if I had taken that job if I would have ended up on
>> some Jivaro's lodge pole as a shrunken head :-))
>
>
> No doubt it would have made a handsome addition to his decor.

From the looks of some of those guys.....this might actually have been
possible :-))


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
:

> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> Lots of NDB's down in SA. I have to admit though that it was the
>> thought of flying over that damn jungle every day that worried me. I
>> never did find out if that job went through or who if anyone took it.
>> The P38 that was involved ended up here in the states somewhere I
>> believe and went to a private owner.
>
>
> Speaking of crappy jobs not taken, I remember seeing one years ago
> involving an "armored T-28" for thunderstorm and hail research in the
> midwestern United States in the Trade-A-Plane. I was actually
> thinking about it until I got to the part about the "$10,000 bonus if
> you complete the contract". Hmmmmm....
>

That might have been fun. I've been shredded by hail It was no fun. But an
armoured airplane might ahve been.


Bertie

[Dallas]

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:35:30 -0600, Gig601XLBuilder wrote:

> While I agree aren't you actually required to if he asks?

I can answer that, having just studied the answer for the verbal portion of
the checkride.

You are required to show your pilot's license to anyone in authority who
asks to see it. The key word here is "show", you do not have to
"surrender" the license.

If you hand it over to a police officer, he is not required to give it back
to you. Either hold it while he reads it or in the presence of witnesses
say, "I am obliged to give you my licence for purposes of examination, but
in no way is this action to be interpreted as my surrendering my license."

Without witnesses, you'd better hold on to it with both hands while he
reads it.
--
Dallas

[Mxsmanic]

Gig601XLBuilder writes:

> You have just made a statement saying one or more DPE are excepting
> bribes to bass students.

I did not say that, and I'm not sure how it's relevant here.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig601XLBuilder writes:
>
>> You have just made a statement saying one or more DPE are excepting
>> bribes to bass students.
>
> I did not say that, and I'm not sure how it's relevant here.
>

It is just as much as you are.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dallas wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:35:30 -0600, Gig601XLBuilder wrote:
>
>> While I agree aren't you actually required to if he asks?
>
> I can answer that, having just studied the answer for the verbal portion of
> the checkride.
>
> You are required to show your pilot's license to anyone in authority who
> asks to see it. The key word here is "show", you do not have to
> "surrender" the license.
>
> If you hand it over to a police officer, he is not required to give it back
> to you. Either hold it while he reads it or in the presence of witnesses
> say, "I am obliged to give you my licence for purposes of examination, but
> in no way is this action to be interpreted as my surrendering my license."
>
> Without witnesses, you'd better hold on to it with both hands while he
> reads it.
I knew a guy once who went through it the hard way. The FAA told him
that if you hold on to the certificate physically, they have to go
through the court system and hell and high water to take it from you,
but if you hand it over, it's YOU who have to go through the court
system and the burning fires of hell to get it back.
Wonderful system :-)))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig601XLBuilder writes:
>
>> You have just made a statement saying one or more DPE are excepting
>> bribes to bass students.
>
> I did not say that, and I'm not sure how it's relevant here.

You most certainly did.

[Dallas]

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:31:02 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:

> The FAA told him that if you hold on to the certificate physically,
> they have to go through the court system and hell and high water
> to take it from you,


Good advice. If the FAA ever gets around to sending me the real plastic
one, I'll have a piercing shop just attach it to my ass.

That way if they ask to see it they'll get an extra thrill.

:- )


--
Dallas

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Dallas wrote:
>> The FAA told him that if you hold on to the certificate physically,
>> they have to go through the court system and hell and high water
>> to take it from you,
>
>
> Good advice. If the FAA ever gets around to sending me the real plastic
> one, I'll have a piercing shop just attach it to my ass.
>
> That way if they ask to see it they'll get an extra thrill.


That may not be the best idea you ever had. You don't want to possibly get
gigged for having a ****ty attitude.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Dallas wrote:
>>> The FAA told him that if you hold on to the certificate physically,
>>> they have to go through the court system and hell and high water
>>> to take it from you,
>>
>> Good advice. If the FAA ever gets around to sending me the real plastic
>> one, I'll have a piercing shop just attach it to my ass.
>>
>> That way if they ask to see it they'll get an extra thrill.
>
>
> That may not be the best idea you ever had. You don't want to possibly get
> gigged for having a ****ty attitude.
>
>
>

God, I'm sure glad I'm not the butt of this exchange!!

--
Dudley Henriques

[Margy Natalie]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Gig601XLBuilder wrote:
>
>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway...I won't tell you what it cost me, but FWIW, if a cop ever
>>> asks to see your pilot's license, for God sake, don't show it to him
>>> :-)))
>>>
>>
>>
>> While I agree aren't you actually required to if he asks?
>
>
> Actually the answer to this would be yes, IF the request was an official
> one made for an official purpose.
> In this case, it was an obvious attempt at humor and being a smart ass
> as I was, I supplied it. Bad ju ju in case you need to know :-))
>
I've also heard the story with another outcome. The cop laughed and
said "either slow down or gain altitude" and let the guy off.

Margy

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Margy Natalie wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> Gig601XLBuilder wrote:
>>
>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anyway...I won't tell you what it cost me, but FWIW, if a cop ever
>>>> asks to see your pilot's license, for God sake, don't show it to him
>>>> :-)))
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> While I agree aren't you actually required to if he asks?
>>
>>
>> Actually the answer to this would be yes, IF the request was an
>> official one made for an official purpose.
>> In this case, it was an obvious attempt at humor and being a smart ass
>> as I was, I supplied it. Bad ju ju in case you need to know :-))
>>
> I've also heard the story with another outcome. The cop laughed and
> said "either slow down or gain altitude" and let the guy off.
>
> Margy
Hi Margy;

Hope you and Ron had a great holiday and will be having a great new year
as well.

Best all around comeback I ever heard in my life I witnessed one morning
at a local convenience store when I stopped in for coffee.
Gathered around the place where you put in your cream and sugar were a
small group of what looked like construction workers all making up their
coffee to go. These guys looked REAL rough. I wouldn't want to have
tangled with any of them believe me.

Torn tee shirts...beards......tattoos....cigarettes rolled up under
their sleeves...the whole nine yards.....a REAL rough looking bunch if
ever there was one.
In walks what I can only describe as a GORGEOUS woman. I made her age in
her early twenties. She had on a simple black mini dress, high heels,
and all this on what had to be a perfect frame :-)
Anyway, she pours herself a cup of coffee and is putting in the cream
when she spots one of the rough looking construction types staring at her.
I guess she was in a bad mood. She snapped at him in a loud voice,
"I hope you're getting an eyeful!!!"
I was standing off to the side watching all this quietly.
The entire area suddenly got deathly quiet. I didn't know what was going
to happen next.
The guy put down his coffee and answered her in a slow absolutely
respectful voice brimming over with sincerity.
He said,
"I'm awfully sorry Miss. I didn't mean to be disrespectful in any way.
Please excuse me.......It's just that you are SO beautiful."

The woman just stared at him and you could see the anger melt away from
her face. I've never seen someone change like that.
She just smiled at him and said;
"I'm sorry, and thank you so much. You've just made my day for me".

Best comeback I've ever heard!!



--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

Gig601XLBuilder writes:

> You most certainly did.

What's the message ID?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig601XLBuilder writes:
>
>> You most certainly did.
>
> What's the message ID?
>


Check your dictionary.

Any of them


Bertie

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig601XLBuilder writes:
>
>> You most certainly did.
>
> What's the message ID?

Just follow the thread back up.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig601XLBuilder writes:

> Just follow the thread back up.

What's the message ID?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig601XLBuilder writes:
>
>> Just follow the thread back up.
>
> What's the message ID?
>

What's the diff? You'll be shown to be full of it, you'll deny it and then
try and change the subject.

There. I've cut to the chase.


Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig601XLBuilder writes:
>
>> Just follow the thread back up.
>
> What's the message ID?

You've got plenty of free time.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> You've got plenty of free time.

I was simply calling your bluff, successfully.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> You've got plenty of free time.
>
> I was simply calling your bluff, successfully.
>

Nope.

Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> You've got plenty of free time.
>
> I was simply calling your bluff, successfully.


No you just successfully showed that you are incapable of backing up
anything you say and that you spew crap every time you post.

[dgs[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>
>>You've got plenty of free time.
>
>
> I was simply calling your bluff, successfully.

You did no such thing, and as usual, you failed, as you do repeatedly.

You're obviously not here to discuss aviation or flying. LEAVE!
--
dgs

[Bertie the Bunyip[_21_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> You've got plenty of free time.
>
> I was simply calling your bluff, successfully.


Good job bud!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in
:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>>
>>> You've got plenty of free time.
>>
>> I was simply calling your bluff, successfully.
>
>
> Good job bud!
>
>
> Bertie
>
>

Bad baby bunyip!

MXS is a dirty boi.


Bertie

[Margy Natalie]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Margy Natalie wrote:
>
>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>
>>> Gig601XLBuilder wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Anyway...I won't tell you what it cost me, but FWIW, if a cop ever
>>>>> asks to see your pilot's license, for God sake, don't show it to
>>>>> him :-)))
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> While I agree aren't you actually required to if he asks?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually the answer to this would be yes, IF the request was an
>>> official one made for an official purpose.
>>> In this case, it was an obvious attempt at humor and being a smart
>>> ass as I was, I supplied it. Bad ju ju in case you need to know :-))
>>>
>> I've also heard the story with another outcome. The cop laughed and
>> said "either slow down or gain altitude" and let the guy off.
>>
>> Margy
>
> Hi Margy;
>
> Hope you and Ron had a great holiday and will be having a great new year
> as well.
>
Thanks, we had an interesting holiday as I managed to get sick for the 5
days preceding our New Year's brunch so poor Ron had to clean, shop and
cook. I managed to get well enough to clean up, but he got stuck with
most of the work. I still sound like a toad, so every day I get a good
ribbing from the docents. My job really has some aspects of hanging out
with some of the more colorful characters here, but in person :-). At
least most of them tell good flying lies :-).

I'm just starting to gear up for the June Fly-In at work,
http://www.nasm.si.edu/becomeapilot/
which requires way more meetings than needed, but ... and poor Ron I
think I'm not going to invite him to fly to the fly-in this year for the
first time so he can have more time to clean and cook for the pilots
party afterwards. He should never have learned to make his now famous
fried turkey!

Margy

" ...
>
> The woman just stared at him and you could see the anger melt away from
> her face. I've never seen someone change like that.
> She just smiled at him and said;
> "I'm sorry, and thank you so much. You've just made my day for me".
>
> Best comeback I've ever heard!!
>
>
That is a good one!

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Margy Natalie wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> Margy Natalie wrote:
>>
>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gig601XLBuilder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway...I won't tell you what it cost me, but FWIW, if a cop ever
>>>>>> asks to see your pilot's license, for God sake, don't show it to
>>>>>> him :-)))
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> While I agree aren't you actually required to if he asks?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually the answer to this would be yes, IF the request was an
>>>> official one made for an official purpose.
>>>> In this case, it was an obvious attempt at humor and being a smart
>>>> ass as I was, I supplied it. Bad ju ju in case you need to know :-))
>>>>
>>> I've also heard the story with another outcome. The cop laughed and
>>> said "either slow down or gain altitude" and let the guy off.
>>>
>>> Margy
>>
>> Hi Margy;
>>
>> Hope you and Ron had a great holiday and will be having a great new
>> year as well.
>>
> Thanks, we had an interesting holiday as I managed to get sick for the 5
> days preceding our New Year's brunch so poor Ron had to clean, shop and
> cook. I managed to get well enough to clean up, but he got stuck with
> most of the work. I still sound like a toad, so every day I get a good
> ribbing from the docents. My job really has some aspects of hanging out
> with some of the more colorful characters here, but in person :-). At
> least most of them tell good flying lies :-).
>
> I'm just starting to gear up for the June Fly-In at work,
> http://www.nasm.si.edu/becomeapilot/
> which requires way more meetings than needed, but ... and poor Ron I
> think I'm not going to invite him to fly to the fly-in this year for the
> first time so he can have more time to clean and cook for the pilots
> party afterwards. He should never have learned to make his now famous
> fried turkey!
>
> Margy
>
> " ...
>>
>> The woman just stared at him and you could see the anger melt away
>> from her face. I've never seen someone change like that.
>> She just smiled at him and said;
>> "I'm sorry, and thank you so much. You've just made my day for me".
>>
>> Best comeback I've ever heard!!
>>
>>
> That is a good one!
>
You guys do a wonderful job down there at the Museum. It's a fabulous
place. The one complaint I had on our visit there some years ago were
the outrageous prices of the hot dogs the vendors were charging outside
on the street, but I was one hungry camper and those dogs smelled SO
good I had to have one.....make that two I think!! :-))

Tell Ron I sympathize with him on the cooking. I've learned to cook
fairly well myself. My wife has been down for many months now with a
terrible Sciatic Nerve issue and I've taken over the kitchen duties.
She says at least I haven't killed anyone with my cooking yet.
Best of luck with the Fly-In.
Dudley
I

--
Dudley Henriques

[Margy Natalie]

> You guys do a wonderful job down there at the Museum. It's a fabulous
> place. The one complaint I had on our visit there some years ago were
> the outrageous prices of the hot dogs the vendors were charging outside
> on the street, but I was one hungry camper and those dogs smelled SO
> good I had to have one.....make that two I think!! :-))
That's downtown, I'm out at the Udvar-Hazy Center where there is the
most expensive McDonald's in Virginia or you can get back in your car
and drive 5-10 minutes for real food. Actually in the past few years a
number of hotels and food places have opened up near the museum so
weekend hotel rates have come way down.
>
> Tell Ron I sympathize with him on the cooking. I've learned to cook
> fairly well myself. My wife has been down for many months now with a
> terrible Sciatic Nerve issue and I've taken over the kitchen duties.
> She says at least I haven't killed anyone with my cooking yet.
:-)
> Best of luck with the Fly-In.

Thanks, I'll need it. Every year it's gotten bigger and better so now
everyone's looking at me and saying, "so what do you have in store for
this year"! The date this year is June 14th. Anyone out there who has
something they might want to bring in, let me know at my work address
which is my last name and first initial (nataliem) atsign (si.edu) or
register on the web page. http://www.nasm.si.edu/becomeapilot/ Last
year I ended up with 59 aircraft and the only things I had duplicates of
were a pair of F-16's and a pair of SNJs. I had everything from a
motorglider to a C-17. It was a blast!

Margy
> Dudley
> I
>

[Steve Foley]

"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Last
> year I ended up with 59 aircraft and the only things I had duplicates of
> were a pair of F-16's and a pair of SNJs. I had everything from a
> motorglider to a C-17. It was a blast!

The first time I read this, I thought the 59 aircraft were donations.

THAT would be a blast.

[Margy Natalie]

Steve Foley wrote:
> "Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>Last
>>year I ended up with 59 aircraft and the only things I had duplicates of
>>were a pair of F-16's and a pair of SNJs. I had everything from a
>>motorglider to a C-17. It was a blast!
>
>
> The first time I read this, I thought the 59 aircraft were donations.
>
> THAT would be a blast.
>
>
Well, there was an MV-22 that was having a tough time unfolding the
wings and the crew was running out of duty time. The pilot asked if it
would be a problem if they had to stay overnight. I gave him a bit of a
funny look and asked what other option we would have. The building guy
who was finding tools for them without missing a bit said, "yeah, but in
the morning we tow it in and it's ours". The museum is actually at the
point where every piece of floor space (including hanging space) is
planned and there are a few planes that "don't fit". The master plan is
really an amazing piece of work and it gets "readjusted" periodically.
I'm glad it's not my job :-).

Margy

[Dallas]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:19:26 -0500, Margy Natalie wrote:

> "yeah, but in the morning we tow it in and it's ours".

Two days later you'd see it for sale on Ebay.

:- )


--
Dallas

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 18:47:15 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>"RST Engineering" > wrote in
:
>
>> Sorry old chap, if you mentioned this somewhere in this thread, I
>> missed it. In that case, you are correct and the examiner is well
>> within his bounds to ask you if you would do something illegal, and if
>> you agree, you lose. That's true on this side of the pond as well.
>
>Actually, the rules could be very different ndeed. No idea what Oz is like,
>but I have been involved in certification in a few different countries and
>while the general idea is the same, the specific rules can be very
>different indeed.
>The Brits, for instance, are downright bizarre. Don't even start me on the
>Germans, and I had one licence that merely required that my company bribe
>the officials. No check ride, no written on the local rules. nothing.
>
>You also had to bribe the waiter in this place to get you your breakfast,
>customs and immigration to get in and out of the country, the fueler to
>brign you fuel on time and so on.

I went to an "Ethics" training meeting at one company I worked for.
They dealt with both US and "foreign" ethics. The gist of the meeting
was "If you have a problem doing business like this" we suggest you
either plan on staying in your present state side position or seek
employment elsewhere". IOW the emphasis was on the "elsewhere" as
most would be going to other countries within their first 10 years of
so.

These "Ethics" are a nightmare for companies doing business abroad as
you play by their rules, but you can't let the folks "over here" know
that.

Roger (K8RI)
>
>
>
>Bertie

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:28:14 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Really. there will come a time when they'll look at us the way we'd look at
>>> someone who went to sea in a canoe.
>>>
>>
>> I think that's already happening, particularly in the area of navigation.
>> I've had more than one pilot comment with amazement on the fact that we used
>> to navigate across the country without GPS. Particularly in areas where
>> radio navigation is not available (mountains). Apparently, finding
>> unfamiliar airports without the magic box pointing you right at it, is some
>> sort of magical feat. I personally know pilots that wouldn't consider flying
>> a cross-country trip without an operable GPS.
>>
>> Remember when flying a GA airplane across an ocean was a huge navigational
>> challenge (HF being what it is)?
>>
>> My local library has bound copies of the aviation mags going back to the
>> '20s. Since my plane's equipment is generally not much better than the
>> state of the art in the 40s, I can often relate to those old articles.
>>
>> Several years back I saw an old Narco radio (Superhomer) in an aviation
>> museum and was surprised because I'd removed an identical one from my
>> airplane only a few years before.
>>
>> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>>
>Things have sure come a long way since the Superhomer days for sure. We
>used to check the gas against the forcast winds, pick a Magnetic Course
>off the nearest VOR and parrell that to the True Course line, allow some

You had a radio that worked?
The planes we had available when I was a primary student did have a
single nav and com that sometimes worked.(over a very short range)

>extra gas for ("unintended consequences" :-), then take off, check the
>ground speed and wind between the first two checkpoints and get an ETA.
>God, we were archaic by modern day standards.......and I haven't even
>mentioned trying to fly a damn low freq range leg with a bad headset :-))))

And you had the modern stuff <:-))

Roger (K8RI)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 18:47:15 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>"RST Engineering" > wrote in
:
>>
>>> Sorry old chap, if you mentioned this somewhere in this thread, I
>>> missed it. In that case, you are correct and the examiner is well
>>> within his bounds to ask you if you would do something illegal, and
>>> if you agree, you lose. That's true on this side of the pond as
>>> well.
>>
>>Actually, the rules could be very different ndeed. No idea what Oz is
>>like, but I have been involved in certification in a few different
>>countries and while the general idea is the same, the specific rules
>>can be very different indeed.
>>The Brits, for instance, are downright bizarre. Don't even start me on
>>the Germans, and I had one licence that merely required that my
>>company bribe the officials. No check ride, no written on the local
>>rules. nothing.
>>
>>You also had to bribe the waiter in this place to get you your
>>breakfast, customs and immigration to get in and out of the country,
>>the fueler to brign you fuel on time and so on.
>
> I went to an "Ethics" training meeting at one company I worked for.
> They dealt with both US and "foreign" ethics. The gist of the meeting
> was "If you have a problem doing business like this" we suggest you
> either plan on staying in your present state side position or seek
> employment elsewhere". IOW the emphasis was on the "elsewhere" as
> most would be going to other countries within their first 10 years of
> so.
>
> These "Ethics" are a nightmare for companies doing business abroad as
> you play by their rules, but you can't let the folks "over here" know
> that.

Well, the division I was working for at that place did nothing but
overseas stuff and were well able for all that. In many ways it wasn't
all that much different fromthe way it worked elsewhere. Just think of
it as "taxes" And since we paid none anywhere while working for these
guys we dind't mind.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:28:14 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>>JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Really. there will come a time when they'll look at us the way we'd
>>>> look at someone who went to sea in a canoe.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think that's already happening, particularly in the area of
>>> navigation.
>>> I've had more than one pilot comment with amazement on the fact that
>>> we used to navigate across the country without GPS. Particularly in
>>> areas where radio navigation is not available (mountains).
>>> Apparently, finding unfamiliar airports without the magic box
>>> pointing you right at it, is some sort of magical feat. I
>>> personally know pilots that wouldn't consider flying a cross-country
>>> trip without an operable GPS.
>>>
>>> Remember when flying a GA airplane across an ocean was a huge
>>> navigational
>>> challenge (HF being what it is)?
>>>
>>> My local library has bound copies of the aviation mags going back
>>> to the
>>> '20s. Since my plane's equipment is generally not much better than
>>> the state of the art in the 40s, I can often relate to those old
>>> articles.
>>>
>>> Several years back I saw an old Narco radio (Superhomer) in an
>>> aviation
>>> museum and was surprised because I'd removed an identical one from
>>> my airplane only a few years before.
>>>
>>> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>>>
>>Things have sure come a long way since the Superhomer days for sure.
>>We used to check the gas against the forcast winds, pick a Magnetic
>>Course off the nearest VOR and parrell that to the True Course line,
>>allow some
>
> You had a radio that worked?

You had a radio?

Bertie

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 13:58:45 -0500, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
<mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote:

>Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> Lots of NDB's down in SA. I have to admit though that it was the thought
>> of flying over that damn jungle every day that worried me. I never did
>> find out if that job went through or who if anyone took it. The P38 that
>> was involved ended up here in the states somewhere I believe and went to
>> a private owner.
>
>
>Speaking of crappy jobs not taken, I remember seeing one years ago involving an
>"armored T-28" for thunderstorm and hail research in the midwestern United
>States in the Trade-A-Plane. I was actually thinking about it until I got to
>the part about the "$10,000 bonus if you complete the contract". Hmmmmm....

Not too long ago I saw a film clip of a guy flying a T-28 through
thunderstorms doing hair research. Probably the same one?
He survived as did the T-28.

Roger (K8RI)
>
>
>> I've always wondered if I had taken that job if I would have ended up on
>> some Jivaro's lodge pole as a shrunken head :-))
>
>
>No doubt it would have made a handsome addition to his decor.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:28:14 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Really. there will come a time when they'll look at us the way we'd look at
>>>> someone who went to sea in a canoe.
>>>>
>>> I think that's already happening, particularly in the area of navigation.
>>> I've had more than one pilot comment with amazement on the fact that we used
>>> to navigate across the country without GPS. Particularly in areas where
>>> radio navigation is not available (mountains). Apparently, finding
>>> unfamiliar airports without the magic box pointing you right at it, is some
>>> sort of magical feat. I personally know pilots that wouldn't consider flying
>>> a cross-country trip without an operable GPS.
>>>
>>> Remember when flying a GA airplane across an ocean was a huge navigational
>>> challenge (HF being what it is)?
>>>
>>> My local library has bound copies of the aviation mags going back to the
>>> '20s. Since my plane's equipment is generally not much better than the
>>> state of the art in the 40s, I can often relate to those old articles.
>>>
>>> Several years back I saw an old Narco radio (Superhomer) in an aviation
>>> museum and was surprised because I'd removed an identical one from my
>>> airplane only a few years before.
>>>
>>> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>>>
>> Things have sure come a long way since the Superhomer days for sure. We
>> used to check the gas against the forcast winds, pick a Magnetic Course
>> off the nearest VOR and parrell that to the True Course line, allow some
>
> You had a radio that worked?
> The planes we had available when I was a primary student did have a
> single nav and com that sometimes worked.(over a very short range)
>
>> extra gas for ("unintended consequences" :-), then take off, check the
>> ground speed and wind between the first two checkpoints and get an ETA.
>> God, we were archaic by modern day standards.......and I haven't even
>> mentioned trying to fly a damn low freq range leg with a bad headset :-))))
>
> And you had the modern stuff <:-))
>
> Roger (K8RI)

Well, at least in the Tri-Pacers and the PA18's. The J3's and the
Aeronca Champs were bare bones indeed :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 01:50:22 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in
:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:28:14 -0500, Dudley Henriques
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Really. there will come a time when they'll look at us the way we'd
>>>>> look at someone who went to sea in a canoe.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think that's already happening, particularly in the area of
>>>> navigation.
>>>> I've had more than one pilot comment with amazement on the fact that
>>>> we used to navigate across the country without GPS. Particularly in
>>>> areas where radio navigation is not available (mountains).
>>>> Apparently, finding unfamiliar airports without the magic box
>>>> pointing you right at it, is some sort of magical feat. I
>>>> personally know pilots that wouldn't consider flying a cross-country
>>>> trip without an operable GPS.
>>>>
>>>> Remember when flying a GA airplane across an ocean was a huge
>>>> navigational
>>>> challenge (HF being what it is)?
>>>>
>>>> My local library has bound copies of the aviation mags going back
>>>> to the
>>>> '20s. Since my plane's equipment is generally not much better than
>>>> the state of the art in the 40s, I can often relate to those old
>>>> articles.
>>>>
>>>> Several years back I saw an old Narco radio (Superhomer) in an
>>>> aviation
>>>> museum and was surprised because I'd removed an identical one from
>>>> my airplane only a few years before.
>>>>
>>>> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>>>>
>>>Things have sure come a long way since the Superhomer days for sure.
>>>We used to check the gas against the forcast winds, pick a Magnetic
>>>Course off the nearest VOR and parrell that to the True Course line,
>>>allow some
>>
>> You had a radio that worked?
>
>You had a radio?

Hey! If yah got it, flaunt it! <:-))

Roger
>
>Bertie

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:52:44 -0500, "Roger (K8RI)"
> wrote:

>On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 13:58:45 -0500, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
><mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>> Lots of NDB's down in SA. I have to admit though that it was the thought
>>> of flying over that damn jungle every day that worried me. I never did
>>> find out if that job went through or who if anyone took it. The P38 that
>>> was involved ended up here in the states somewhere I believe and went to
>>> a private owner.
>>
>>
>>Speaking of crappy jobs not taken, I remember seeing one years ago involving an
>>"armored T-28" for thunderstorm and hail research in the midwestern United
>>States in the Trade-A-Plane. I was actually thinking about it until I got to
>>the part about the "$10,000 bonus if you complete the contract". Hmmmmm....
>
>Not too long ago I saw a film clip of a guy flying a T-28 through
>thunderstorms doing hair research. Probably the same one?

Hair research?

Damn computer, I know what I meant! You'd think it'd be smart enough
to type hail. Gotta watch those grammar checkers.

Roger (K8RI)

>He survived as did the T-28.
>
>Roger (K8RI)
>>
>>
>>> I've always wondered if I had taken that job if I would have ended up on
>>> some Jivaro's lodge pole as a shrunken head :-))
>>
>>
>>No doubt it would have made a handsome addition to his decor.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>> Speaking of crappy jobs not taken, I remember seeing one years ago involving
>> an "armored T-28" for thunderstorm and hail research in the midwestern United
>> States in the Trade-A-Plane. I was actually thinking about it until I got to
>> the part about the "$10,000 bonus if you complete the contract". Hmmmmm....
>
> Not too long ago I saw a film clip of a guy flying a T-28 through
> thunderstorms doing hair research. Probably the same one?
> He survived as did the T-28.


No doubt every day in that job was a bad hair day.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>>> Speaking of crappy jobs not taken, I remember seeing one years ago involving
>>> an "armored T-28" for thunderstorm and hail research in the midwestern United
>>> States in the Trade-A-Plane. I was actually thinking about it until I got to
>>> the part about the "$10,000 bonus if you complete the contract". Hmmmmm....
>> Not too long ago I saw a film clip of a guy flying a T-28 through
>> thunderstorms doing hair research. Probably the same one?
>> He survived as did the T-28.
>
>
> No doubt every day in that job was a bad hair day.
>
>
>
Well at least he was flying from the Hairport!!!

--
Dudley Henriques

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>> Speaking of crappy jobs not taken, I remember seeing one years ago
>>>> involving an "armored T-28" for thunderstorm and hail research in the
>>>> midwestern United States in the Trade-A-Plane. I was actually thinking
>>>> about it until I got to the part about the "$10,000 bonus if you complete
>>>> the contract". Hmmmmm....
>>> Not too long ago I saw a film clip of a guy flying a T-28 through
>>> thunderstorms doing hair research. Probably the same one?
>>> He survived as did the T-28.
>>
>>
>> No doubt every day in that job was a bad hair day.
>>
>>
>>
> Well at least he was flying from the Hairport!!!


In a very stout hairplane! Two can play that game although I find myself
challenged, hirsutically (sp?) speaking.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>> Speaking of crappy jobs not taken, I remember seeing one years ago
>>>>> involving an "armored T-28" for thunderstorm and hail research in the
>>>>> midwestern United States in the Trade-A-Plane. I was actually thinking
>>>>> about it until I got to the part about the "$10,000 bonus if you complete
>>>>> the contract". Hmmmmm....
>>>> Not too long ago I saw a film clip of a guy flying a T-28 through
>>>> thunderstorms doing hair research. Probably the same one?
>>>> He survived as did the T-28.
>>>
>>> No doubt every day in that job was a bad hair day.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Well at least he was flying from the Hairport!!!
>
>
> In a very stout hairplane! Two can play that game although I find myself
> challenged, hirsutically (sp?) speaking.
>
>
>
I feel I must unfortunately at this time bow to superior hirsuteness :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Kevin Clarke]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>>> Speaking of crappy jobs not taken, I remember seeing one years ago
>>>>>> involving an "armored T-28" for thunderstorm and hail research in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> midwestern United States in the Trade-A-Plane. I was actually
>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>> about it until I got to the part about the "$10,000 bonus if you
>>>>>> complete
>>>>>> the contract". Hmmmmm....
>>>>> Not too long ago I saw a film clip of a guy flying a T-28 through
>>>>> thunderstorms doing hair research. Probably the same one?
>>>>> He survived as did the T-28.
>>>>
>>>> No doubt every day in that job was a bad hair day.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Well at least he was flying from the Hairport!!!
>>
>>
>> In a very stout hairplane! Two can play that game although I find
>> myself challenged, hirsutically (sp?) speaking.
>>
>>
>>
> I feel I must unfortunately at this time bow to superior hirsuteness :-))
>
this is all very hairlarious!

KC

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 10:49:57 -0500, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
<mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote:

>Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>> Speaking of crappy jobs not taken, I remember seeing one years ago
>>>>> involving an "armored T-28" for thunderstorm and hail research in the
>>>>> midwestern United States in the Trade-A-Plane. I was actually thinking
>>>>> about it until I got to the part about the "$10,000 bonus if you complete
>>>>> the contract". Hmmmmm....
>>>> Not too long ago I saw a film clip of a guy flying a T-28 through
>>>> thunderstorms doing hair research. Probably the same one?
>>>> He survived as did the T-28.
>>>
>>>
>>> No doubt every day in that job was a bad hair day.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Well at least he was flying from the Hairport!!!
>
>
>In a very stout hairplane! Two can play that game although I find myself
>challenged, hirsutically (sp?) speaking.

Dudley in a "stout" hairplane...Hmmmm... I'd like to have a photo of
that. <:-))

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 10:49:57 -0500, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>>> Speaking of crappy jobs not taken, I remember seeing one years ago
>>>>>> involving an "armored T-28" for thunderstorm and hail research in the
>>>>>> midwestern United States in the Trade-A-Plane. I was actually thinking
>>>>>> about it until I got to the part about the "$10,000 bonus if you complete
>>>>>> the contract". Hmmmmm....
>>>>> Not too long ago I saw a film clip of a guy flying a T-28 through
>>>>> thunderstorms doing hair research. Probably the same one?
>>>>> He survived as did the T-28.
>>>>
>>>> No doubt every day in that job was a bad hair day.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Well at least he was flying from the Hairport!!!
>>
>> In a very stout hairplane! Two can play that game although I find myself
>> challenged, hirsutically (sp?) speaking.
>
> Dudley in a "stout" hairplane...Hmmmm... I'd like to have a photo of
> that. <:-))


Hey....I'm just a little bit hair challenged that's all :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[george]

On Jan 14, 2:10 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> > Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> >>> Speaking of crappy jobs not taken, I remember seeing one years ago involving
> >>> an "armored T-28" for thunderstorm and hail research in the midwestern United
> >>> States in the Trade-A-Plane. I was actually thinking about it until I got to
> >>> the part about the "$10,000 bonus if you complete the contract". Hmmmmm....
> >> Not too long ago I saw a film clip of a guy flying a T-28 through
> >> thunderstorms doing hair research. Probably the same one?
> >> He survived as did the T-28.
>
> > No doubt every day in that job was a bad hair day.
>
> Well at least he was flying from the Hairport!!!
>
The bald barber song
Hair today gone tomorrow

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

george wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2:10 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
>>> Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>>>>> Speaking of crappy jobs not taken, I remember seeing one years ago involving
>>>>> an "armored T-28" for thunderstorm and hail research in the midwestern United
>>>>> States in the Trade-A-Plane. I was actually thinking about it until I got to
>>>>> the part about the "$10,000 bonus if you complete the contract". Hmmmmm....
>>>> Not too long ago I saw a film clip of a guy flying a T-28 through
>>>> thunderstorms doing hair research. Probably the same one?
>>>> He survived as did the T-28.
>>> No doubt every day in that job was a bad hair day.
>> Well at least he was flying from the Hairport!!!
>>
> The bald barber song
> Hair today gone tomorrow
>
I think that was Bugs Bunny on rabbit demise
"Hare Today; gone tomorrow!"

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> george wrote:
>> On Jan 14, 2:10 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
>>>> Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>>>>>> Speaking of crappy jobs not taken, I remember seeing one years
>>>>>> ago involving an "armored T-28" for thunderstorm and hail
>>>>>> research in the midwestern United States in the Trade-A-Plane. I
>>>>>> was actually thinking about it until I got to the part about the
>>>>>> "$10,000 bonus if you complete the contract". Hmmmmm....
>>>>> Not too long ago I saw a film clip of a guy flying a T-28 through
>>>>> thunderstorms doing hair research. Probably the same one?
>>>>> He survived as did the T-28.
>>>> No doubt every day in that job was a bad hair day.
>>> Well at least he was flying from the Hairport!!!
>>>
>> The bald barber song
>> Hair today gone tomorrow
>>
> I think that was Bugs Bunny on rabbit demise
> "Hare Today; gone tomorrow!"
>

You guys need to seek help.

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> george wrote:
>>> On Jan 14, 2:10 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
>>>>> Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>>>>>>> Speaking of crappy jobs not taken, I remember seeing one years
>>>>>>> ago involving an "armored T-28" for thunderstorm and hail
>>>>>>> research in the midwestern United States in the Trade-A-Plane. I
>>>>>>> was actually thinking about it until I got to the part about the
>>>>>>> "$10,000 bonus if you complete the contract". Hmmmmm....
>>>>>> Not too long ago I saw a film clip of a guy flying a T-28 through
>>>>>> thunderstorms doing hair research. Probably the same one?
>>>>>> He survived as did the T-28.
>>>>> No doubt every day in that job was a bad hair day.
>>>> Well at least he was flying from the Hairport!!!
>>>>
>>> The bald barber song
>>> Hair today gone tomorrow
>>>
>> I think that was Bugs Bunny on rabbit demise
>> "Hare Today; gone tomorrow!"
>>
>
> You guys need to seek help.
>
> Bertie
I tried that. Discussed puns with a friend of ours who's a physician
building a new house. Before we left, I had named his new home
"Bedside Manor"
It's a hopeless affliction :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:


I tried that. Discussed puns with a friend of ours who's a physician
> building a new house. Before we left, I had named his new home
> "Bedside Manor"
> It's a hopeless affliction :-))
>

Oh god!

Seriously, though. I have read that it s supposed to be an excellent way of
keeping your mind nimble and improving your memory.

The collateral damage can be pretty bad, though!

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>
> I tried that. Discussed puns with a friend of ours who's a physician
>> building a new house. Before we left, I had named his new home
>> "Bedside Manor"
>> It's a hopeless affliction :-))
>>
>
> Oh god!
>
> Seriously, though. I have read that it s supposed to be an excellent way of
> keeping your mind nimble and improving your memory.
>
> The collateral damage can be pretty bad, though!
>
> Bertie
>
It's fun, but it does get on people's nerves on occasion :-)

Bea dreads having intellectual company over. We once had an English
Literature Professor and his wife over here for dinner. He's the dean of
a major university. During dinner, before Bea could stop me, I had
described Dickins "Tale of Two Cities" as a book beginning with
"It was a day just like any other day"
and ending with
"It is a far better thing I do than I've ever done before"

........with a bunch of crap about the French Revolution in the middle.
:-))


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

>

> It's fun, but it does get on people's nerves on occasion :-)
>
> Bea dreads having intellectual company over. We once had an English
> Literature Professor and his wife over here for dinner. He's the dean
> of a major university. During dinner, before Bea could stop me, I had
> described Dickins "Tale of Two Cities" as a book beginning with
> "It was a day just like any other day"
> and ending with
> "It is a far better thing I do than I've ever done before"
>
> .......with a bunch of crap about the French Revolution in the middle.

I'm sure they do the same thing.

At least you didn't try and draw him into a discussion about the works of
Joan Collins.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>
>> It's fun, but it does get on people's nerves on occasion :-)
>>
>> Bea dreads having intellectual company over. We once had an English
>> Literature Professor and his wife over here for dinner. He's the dean
>> of a major university. During dinner, before Bea could stop me, I had
>> described Dickins "Tale of Two Cities" as a book beginning with
>> "It was a day just like any other day"
>> and ending with
>> "It is a far better thing I do than I've ever done before"
>>
>> .......with a bunch of crap about the French Revolution in the middle.
>
> I'm sure they do the same thing.
>
> At least you didn't try and draw him into a discussion about the works of
> Joan Collins.
>
>
> Bertie

The funny thing about Joan Collins is that when I look in the mirror I
keep looking older. I think she's looked the way she does now for the
last two hundred years.
:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>> It's fun, but it does get on people's nerves on occasion :-)
>>>
>>> Bea dreads having intellectual company over. We once had an English
>>> Literature Professor and his wife over here for dinner. He's the
>>> dean of a major university. During dinner, before Bea could stop me,
>>> I had described Dickins "Tale of Two Cities" as a book beginning
>>> with "It was a day just like any other day"
>>> and ending with
>>> "It is a far better thing I do than I've ever done before"
>>>
>>> .......with a bunch of crap about the French Revolution in the
>>> middle.
>>
>> I'm sure they do the same thing.
>>
>> At least you didn't try and draw him into a discussion about the
>> works of Joan Collins.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> The funny thing about Joan Collins is that when I look in the mirror I
> keep looking older. I think she's looked the way she does now for the
> last two hundred yearsYeah, but a bit of paint can conceal a hundred
sins!

Wonder how the bearings are?


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>
>>>> It's fun, but it does get on people's nerves on occasion :-)
>>>>
>>>> Bea dreads having intellectual company over. We once had an English
>>>> Literature Professor and his wife over here for dinner. He's the
>>>> dean of a major university. During dinner, before Bea could stop me,
>>>> I had described Dickins "Tale of Two Cities" as a book beginning
>>>> with "It was a day just like any other day"
>>>> and ending with
>>>> "It is a far better thing I do than I've ever done before"
>>>>
>>>> .......with a bunch of crap about the French Revolution in the
>>>> middle.
>>> I'm sure they do the same thing.
>>>
>>> At least you didn't try and draw him into a discussion about the
>>> works of Joan Collins.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> The funny thing about Joan Collins is that when I look in the mirror I
>> keep looking older. I think she's looked the way she does now for the
>> last two hundred yearsYeah, but a bit of paint can conceal a hundred
> sins!
>
> Wonder how the bearings are?
>
>
> Bertie

Ya hafta admit, she still looks good; but I always wonder about these
movie Kings and Queens; how do they REALLY look in the morning before
that first cup of coffee????????? :-)

Hell, I'm feeling better already.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:
>
> Ya hafta admit, she still looks good; but I always wonder about these
> movie Kings and Queens; how do they REALLY look in the morning before
> that first cup of coffee????????? :-)


Some papparazzi in the UK got a shot of her going to the corner shop in
london a while back. I didn't see it but I remember it making a big splash
at the time. She looked decidedly unglamorous, apparently.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>> Ya hafta admit, she still looks good; but I always wonder about these
>> movie Kings and Queens; how do they REALLY look in the morning before
>> that first cup of coffee????????? :-)
>
>
> Some papparazzi in the UK got a shot of her going to the corner shop in
> london a while back. I didn't see it but I remember it making a big splash
> at the time. She looked decidedly unglamorous, apparently.


It must be terrible having to get up in the middle of the night all the
time and put on all that makeup so that you look good for the Papparazzi
in the morning. Man, am I glad I will never have to do that :-))




--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>> Ya hafta admit, she still looks good; but I always wonder about
>>> these movie Kings and Queens; how do they REALLY look in the morning
>>> before that first cup of coffee????????? :-)
>>
>>
>> Some papparazzi in the UK got a shot of her going to the corner shop
>> in london a while back. I didn't see it but I remember it making a
>> big splash at the time. She looked decidedly unglamorous, apparently.
>
>
> It must be terrible having to get up in the middle of the night all
> the time and put on all that makeup so that you look good for the
> Papparazzi in the morning. Man, am I glad I will never have to do that
> :-))
>
>
>
>

Yeah. I was watching a program about Peter Falk last night. In one part he
was filming in Ecuador and every person on th estreet knew who he was. I
couldn't live like that.


Bertie

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> The funny thing about Joan Collins is that when I look in the mirror I
> keep looking older. I think she's looked the way she does now for the
> last two hundred years.
> :-)


Every time I visit the Museum of Natural History the dinosaurs look the same as
they did for thousands of years. Coincidence?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> The funny thing about Joan Collins is that when I look in the mirror I
>> keep looking older. I think she's looked the way she does now for the
>> last two hundred years.
>> :-)
>
>
> Every time I visit the Museum of Natural History the dinosaurs look the same as
> they did for thousands of years. Coincidence?
>
>
>
Interesting observation :-))

--
Dudley Henriques