Cessna 172R from Telluride to Aspen [Archive]

Mxsmanic

May 10th 08, 06:12 PM

Viperdoc writes:

> What altitude, what route, what was the weather and DA, weight and balance?

A very gradual climb from the airport elevation to 12500. The route was
ETL.MTJ.RIL.DBL, flown VFR. Weather was approximately (two hours have now
elapsed)

KTEX 101610Z AUTO 27009KT 10SM SCT025 SCT035 BKN060 03/M01 A3019 RMK AO2
KASE 101614Z 34006G14KT 7SM BKN017 BKN035 M01/M04 A3014 RMK AO2 SNE05 P0000
KRIL 101553Z AUTO VRB04KT 10SM FEW050 08/M01 A3013 RMK AO2 SLP179 T00781011
TSNO

KASE had 1SM and blowing snow and fog at the time of my flight.

Aircraft weight was 2426 lbs with 336 lbs of fuel.

> How can you expect an answer without at least this information as a minimum?

Gross discrepancies between what is required and what the aircraft can do
would not require that level of detail, but since you've asked for it, I've
provided it.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

May 10th 08, 06:15 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> What altitude, what route, what was the weather and DA, weight and
>> balance?
>
> A very gradual climb from the airport elevation to 12500. The route
> was ETL.MTJ.RIL.DBL, flown VFR. Weather was approximately (two hours
> have now elapsed)
>
> KTEX 101610Z AUTO 27009KT 10SM SCT025 SCT035 BKN060 03/M01 A3019 RMK
> AO2 KASE 101614Z 34006G14KT 7SM BKN017 BKN035 M01/M04 A3014 RMK AO2
> SNE05 P0000 KRIL 101553Z AUTO VRB04KT 10SM FEW050 08/M01 A3013 RMK AO2
> SLP179 T00781011 TSNO
>
> KASE had 1SM and blowing snow and fog at the time of my flight.
>
> Aircraft weight was 2426 lbs with 336 lbs of fuel.
>
>> How can you expect an answer without at least this information as a
>> minimum?
>
> Gross discrepancies between what is required and what the aircraft can
> do would not require that level of detail, but since you've asked for
> it, I've provided it.
>

You had blowing snow in your cold water apartment?

Bertie

Viperdoc

May 10th 08, 09:31 PM

You didn't include the area forecast and any sigmets or airmets. What is the
climb rate in a 172 for the given W/B at the temperature and altitude you
mentioned?

Benjamin Dover

May 10th 08, 10:20 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> Are you referring to a real airplane or simulated flight with MSFS?
>
> I'm asking about real airplanes, subsequent to a simulated flight with
> the same aircraft that ended tragically just a few minutes ago,
> probably due to icing, although I'm not sure. I tried the flight as
> an experiment to see if it was possible, and I'd like to know from
> pilots of the real aircraft whether or not it would be possible or
> safe to attempt it in real life.
>
> Weather at Aspen was low IFR so I had planned to divert to Garfield
> County, but I lost control of the aircraft about 20 miles southeast at
> 12500 feet and impacted terrain.
>

Wow. Our resident ace pilot can't even fly a 172 on his simulator! I
wonder who give him directions on how to pee.

Benjamin Dover

May 10th 08, 10:23 PM

"Viperdoc" > wrote in
:

> You didn't include the area forecast and any sigmets or airmets. What
> is the climb rate in a 172 for the given W/B at the temperature and
> altitude you mentioned?
>
>
>

Do you really expect MXSMORON to do any sort of flight planning? His
concept of pre-flight checks is to make sure his computer is plugged in and
then hit power on. He doesn't even know that he should kick the tires
before he lights the fires.

More_Flaps

May 10th 08, 10:45 PM

On May 11, 9:20*am, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > Viperdoc writes:
>
> >> Are you referring to a real airplane or simulated flight with MSFS?
>
> > I'm asking about real airplanes, subsequent to a simulated flight with
> > the same aircraft that ended tragically just a few minutes ago,
> > probably due to icing, although I'm not sure. *I tried the flight as
> > an experiment to see if it was possible, and I'd like to know from
> > pilots of the real aircraft whether or not it would be possible or
> > safe to attempt it in real life.
>
> > Weather at Aspen was low IFR so I had planned to divert to Garfield
> > County, but I lost control of the aircraft about 20 miles southeast at
> > 12500 feet and impacted terrain.
>
> Wow. *Our resident ace pilot can't even fly a 172 on his simulator!

In this case the output of the game had a modicum of accuracy, MX
would have crashed a real 172 also.

Cheers

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

May 10th 08, 10:53 PM

More_Flaps > wrote in
:

> On May 11, 9:20*am, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> innews:c8jb24l6tsh3td76a8s020c08icujj2
> :
>>
>> > Viperdoc writes:
>>
>> >> Are you referring to a real airplane or simulated flight with
>> >> MSFS?
>>
>> > I'm asking about real airplanes, subsequent to a simulated flight
>> > with the same aircraft that ended tragically just a few minutes
>> > ago, probably due to icing, although I'm not sure. *I tried the
>> > flight as an experiment to see if it was possible, and I'd like to
>> > know from pilots of the real aircraft whether or not it would be
>> > possible or safe to attempt it in real life.
>>
>> > Weather at Aspen was low IFR so I had planned to divert to Garfield
>> > County, but I lost control of the aircraft about 20 miles southeast
>> > at 12500 feet and impacted terrain.
>>
>> Wow. *Our resident ace pilot can't even fly a 172 on his simulator!
>
> In this case the output of the game had a modicum of accuracy, MX
> would have crashed a real 172 also.
>

He would have had to start , taxi and take off first, all of which seems
pretty unlikely.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

May 10th 08, 10:58 PM

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:bVoVj.85$yP7.41
@newsfe18.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> He would have had to start , taxi and take off first, all of which
seems
>> pretty unlikely.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Yeah, but a lot of **** seems unlikely to you Buttlipp.
>

Yes, like you ever getting a clue, for instance.

Bertie

Maxwell[_2_]

May 10th 08, 10:59 PM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> He would have had to start , taxi and take off first, all of which seems
> pretty unlikely.
>
>
> Bertie

Yeah, but a lot of **** seems unlikely to you Buttlipp.

More_Flaps

May 10th 08, 11:00 PM

On May 11, 9:53*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> More_Flaps > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 11, 9:20*am, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
> >> Mxsmanic > wrote
> >> innews:c8jb24l6tsh3td76a8s020c08icujj2
> > :
>
> >> > Viperdoc writes:
>
> >> >> Are you referring to a real airplane or simulated flight with
> >> >> MSFS?
>
> >> > I'm asking about real airplanes, subsequent to a simulated flight
> >> > with the same aircraft that ended tragically just a few minutes
> >> > ago, probably due to icing, although I'm not sure. *I tried the
> >> > flight as an experiment to see if it was possible, and I'd like to
> >> > know from pilots of the real aircraft whether or not it would be
> >> > possible or safe to attempt it in real life.
>
> >> > Weather at Aspen was low IFR so I had planned to divert to Garfield
> >> > County, but I lost control of the aircraft about 20 miles southeast
> >> > at 12500 feet and impacted terrain.
>
> >> Wow. *Our resident ace pilot can't even fly a 172 on his simulator!
>
> > In this case the output of the game had a modicum of accuracy, MX
> > would have crashed a real 172 also.
>
> He would have had to start , taxi and take off first, all of which seems
> pretty unlikely.
>

Good point.
BTW I'm starting aerobatic lessons in a Citabria next week... WhooHoo!
When are you going to get yours going? Any vices I should be warned
about?

Cheers

More_Flaps

May 10th 08, 11:01 PM

On May 11, 9:59*am, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in 6.130...
>
>
>
> > He would have had to start , taxi and take off first, all of which seems
> > pretty unlikely.
>
> > Bertie
>
> Yeah, but a lot of **** seems unlikely to you Buttlipp.

Could you be quiet please, Bertie and I are discussing flying?

Cheers

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

May 10th 08, 11:07 PM

More_Flaps > wrote in
:

> On May 11, 9:53*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> More_Flaps > wrote
>> innews:65c674c2-4c8a-440e-8967-f72d
> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 11, 9:20*am, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
>> >> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> >> innews:c8jb24l6tsh3td76a8s020c08icujj2
>> > :
>>
>> >> > Viperdoc writes:
>>
>> >> >> Are you referring to a real airplane or simulated flight with
>> >> >> MSFS?
>>
>> >> > I'm asking about real airplanes, subsequent to a simulated
>> >> > flight with the same aircraft that ended tragically just a few
>> >> > minutes ago, probably due to icing, although I'm not sure. *I
>> >> > tried the flight as an experiment to see if it was possible, and
>> >> > I'd like to know from pilots of the real aircraft whether or not
>> >> > it would be possible or safe to attempt it in real life.
>>
>> >> > Weather at Aspen was low IFR so I had planned to divert to
>> >> > Garfield County, but I lost control of the aircraft about 20
>> >> > miles southeast at 12500 feet and impacted terrain.
>>
>> >> Wow. *Our resident ace pilot can't even fly a 172 on his
>> >> simulator!
>>
>> > In this case the output of the game had a modicum of accuracy, MX
>> > would have crashed a real 172 also.
>>
>> He would have had to start , taxi and take off first, all of which
>> seems pretty unlikely.
>>
>
> Good point.
> BTW I'm starting aerobatic lessons in a Citabria next week... WhooHoo!
> When are you going to get yours going? Any vices I should be warned
> about?

Should be flying in about three more weeks or so. The airplane itself is
pretty easy to fly as an airplane. If you haven't flown any old
tailwheel airplanes or gliders you will have to wake your feet up a bit
just for the normal manuevering. It's pretty much a textbook airplane,
though. If he doesn't say it to you , be as smooth as you can in
everything you do. that doesn't neccesarily mean slow, but you'll always
get more performance if you're smooth.

Bertie

Mxsmanic

May 10th 08, 11:12 PM

Viperdoc writes:

> You didn't include the area forecast and any sigmets or airmets.

I didn't check them, although I looked at the current and forecast weather for
the several airports that interested me.

Do you know the answer to my question or not? You shouldn't need radar tracks
or a FDR just to reply.

It's still light outside ... I think I'll try it in the Baron, although I'm
pretty sure that it will be easy in that aircraft, if the weather isn't too
bad.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

May 10th 08, 11:16 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> You didn't include the area forecast and any sigmets or airmets.
>
> I didn't check them, although I looked at the current and forecast
> weather for the several airports that interested me.
>
> Do you know the answer to my question or not? You shouldn't need
> radar tracks or a FDR just to reply.
>
> It's still light outside ... I think I'll try it in the Baron,
> although I'm pretty sure that it will be easy in that aircraft, if the
> weather isn't too bad.
>
You are an idiot.

Bertie

Maxwell[_2_]

May 10th 08, 11:16 PM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Should be flying in about three more weeks or so. The airplane itself is
> pretty easy to fly as an airplane. If you haven't flown any old
> tailwheel airplanes or gliders you will have to wake your feet up a bit
> just for the normal manuevering. It's pretty much a textbook airplane,
> though. If he doesn't say it to you , be as smooth as you can in
> everything you do. that doesn't neccesarily mean slow, but you'll always
> get more performance if you're smooth.
>
> Bertie
>

Hey, is that you, or a another sock. Kind of like "is it real, or is it
memorex". We never can tell when you start counterfeiting and talking to
yourself.

Captain Crosspost!!!

May 10th 08, 11:18 PM

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:A9pVj.91$yP7.64
@newsfe18.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Should be flying in about three more weeks or so. The airplane itself
is
>> pretty easy to fly as an airplane. If you haven't flown any old
>> tailwheel airplanes or gliders you will have to wake your feet up a
bit
>> just for the normal manuevering. It's pretty much a textbook
airplane,
>> though. If he doesn't say it to you , be as smooth as you can in
>> everything you do. that doesn't neccesarily mean slow, but you'll
always
>> get more performance if you're smooth.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Hey, is that you, or a another sock. Kind of like "is it real, or is
it
> memorex". We never can tell when you start counterfeiting and talking
to
> yourself.

I know you can't, so i'll explain it to you.

When it says "Bertie the Bunyip" or "Captain Crosspost " ( I can't thnak
you enough for that, BTW) It's me, and when it doesn't, it's another
actual person.

Kay?

Bertie

Benjamin Dover

May 10th 08, 11:53 PM

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
:

> More_Flaps > wrote in
> :
>
>> On May 11, 9:20*am, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>>> innews:c8jb24l6tsh3td76a8s020c08icujj2
>> :
>>>
>>> > Viperdoc writes:
>>>
>>> >> Are you referring to a real airplane or simulated flight with
>>> >> MSFS?
>>>
>>> > I'm asking about real airplanes, subsequent to a simulated flight
>>> > with the same aircraft that ended tragically just a few minutes
>>> > ago, probably due to icing, although I'm not sure. *I tried the
>>> > flight as an experiment to see if it was possible, and I'd like to
>>> > know from pilots of the real aircraft whether or not it would be
>>> > possible or safe to attempt it in real life.
>>>
>>> > Weather at Aspen was low IFR so I had planned to divert to Garfield
>>> > County, but I lost control of the aircraft about 20 miles southeast
>>> > at 12500 feet and impacted terrain.
>>>
>>> Wow. *Our resident ace pilot can't even fly a 172 on his simulator!
>>
>> In this case the output of the game had a modicum of accuracy, MX
>> would have crashed a real 172 also.
>>
>
> He would have had to start , taxi and take off first, all of which seems
> pretty unlikely.
>
>
> Bertie
>

Yeah. He wouldn't know how to turn the boost on, let alone prime the
engine.

Chilly8

May 10th 08, 11:55 PM

More_Flaps > wrote in
:

> On May 11, 9:59*am, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in
>> messagenews:Xns9A9AE773E95FDpis
> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > He would have had to start , taxi and take off first, all of which
>> > seems
>
>> > pretty unlikely.
>>
>> > Bertie
>>
>> Yeah, but a lot of **** seems unlikely to you Buttlipp.
>
> Could you be quiet please, Bertie and I are discussing flying?
>
> Cheers

When Maxwell isn't working at the glory hole, he's totally clueless on what
to do.

Benjamin Dover

May 10th 08, 11:59 PM

"Viperdoc" > wrote in
:

> One other point- the surface observation for KASE was not basic VFR-
> how did you plan to land? Were you going to scud run into the airport
> in the mountains? What was the terminal forecast for the time of
> planned arrival?
>
> You mean you didn't check these things before departing, and just
> looked at the current surface observations? What kind of flight
> planning is that?
>
>
>

It's the flight planning done by a moron. Anthony is well qualified to do
this type of flight planning.

Maxwell[_2_]

May 11th 08, 12:00 AM

"Chilly8" > wrote in message
...
> More_Flaps > wrote in
> :
>
>> On May 11, 9:59 am, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in
>>> messagenews:Xns9A9AE773E95FDpis
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > He would have had to start , taxi and take off first, all of which
>>> > seems
>>
>>> > pretty unlikely.
>>>
>>> > Bertie
>>>
>>> Yeah, but a lot of **** seems unlikely to you Buttlipp.
>>
>> Could you be quiet please, Bertie and I are discussing flying?
>>
>> Cheers
>
> When Maxwell isn't working at the glory hole, he's totally clueless on
> what
> to do.
>

You tell em Bertie the Liar. All ya have to do is a quick name change.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

May 11th 08, 12:01 AM

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:fOpVj.2701$hJ1.2287
@newsfe17.lga:

>
> "Chilly8" > wrote in message
> ...
>> More_Flaps > wrote in
>> news:b2d45fc7-ce7a-4cfa-a99a-
:
>>
>>> On May 11, 9:59 am, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in
>>>> messagenews:Xns9A9AE773E95FDpis
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > He would have had to start , taxi and take off first, all of
which
>>>> > seems
>>>
>>>> > pretty unlikely.
>>>>
>>>> > Bertie
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, but a lot of **** seems unlikely to you Buttlipp.
>>>
>>> Could you be quiet please, Bertie and I are discussing flying?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>
>> When Maxwell isn't working at the glory hole, he's totally clueless
on
>> what
>> to do.
>>
>
> You tell em Bertie the Liar. All ya have to do is a quick name change.
>

Snort!

I do know how to pick 'em.

Tell me, are the little pandas on your wallpaper turning into Bunyips
when the light gets dim?

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

May 11th 08, 12:01 AM

Benjamin Dover > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
> :
>
>> More_Flaps > wrote in
>> news:65c674c2-4c8a-440e-8967-f72dce6e7ed4
@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com
>> :
>>
>>> On May 11, 9:20*am, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>>>> innews:c8jb24l6tsh3td76a8s020c08icujj2
>>> :
>>>>
>>>> > Viperdoc writes:
>>>>
>>>> >> Are you referring to a real airplane or simulated flight with
>>>> >> MSFS?
>>>>
>>>> > I'm asking about real airplanes, subsequent to a simulated flight
>>>> > with the same aircraft that ended tragically just a few minutes
>>>> > ago, probably due to icing, although I'm not sure. *I tried the
>>>> > flight as an experiment to see if it was possible, and I'd like
>>>> > to know from pilots of the real aircraft whether or not it would
>>>> > be possible or safe to attempt it in real life.
>>>>
>>>> > Weather at Aspen was low IFR so I had planned to divert to
>>>> > Garfield County, but I lost control of the aircraft about 20
>>>> > miles southeast at 12500 feet and impacted terrain.
>>>>
>>>> Wow. *Our resident ace pilot can't even fly a 172 on his simulator!
>>>
>>> In this case the output of the game had a modicum of accuracy, MX
>>> would have crashed a real 172 also.
>>>
>>
>> He would have had to start , taxi and take off first, all of which
>> seems pretty unlikely.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Yeah. He wouldn't know how to turn the boost on, let alone prime the
> engine.
>
>

Open the door., find the airport. Not to mention he;d probably go broke
walking to the field what with teh cost of walking these days.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

May 11th 08, 12:02 AM

Chilly8 > wrote in
:

> More_Flaps > wrote in
> news:b2d45fc7-ce7a-4cfa-a99a-
:
>
>> On May 11, 9:59*am, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in
>>> messagenews:Xns9A9AE773E95FDpis
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > He would have had to start , taxi and take off first, all of which
>>> > seems
>>
>>> > pretty unlikely.
>>>
>>> > Bertie
>>>
>>> Yeah, but a lot of **** seems unlikely to you Buttlipp.
>>
>> Could you be quiet please, Bertie and I are discussing flying?
>>
>> Cheers
>
> When Maxwell isn't working at the glory hole, he's totally clueless on
> what to do.
>
>

Eww!

Bertie

Benjamin Dover

May 11th 08, 12:02 AM

"Viperdoc" > wrote in
:

> Start the engine? He wouldn't know how to open the door. Check the oil,
> drain the sumps? What are sumps? Why check the oil?
>
> Wait- they aren't in MSFS so they can't be important.
>
>
>
>

I wonder if he's ever found the "reset" button in the C172R.

Chilly8

May 11th 08, 12:04 AM

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Chilly8" > wrote in message
> ...
>> More_Flaps > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On May 11, 9:59 am, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in
>>>> messagenews:Xns9A9AE773E95FDpis
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > He would have had to start , taxi and take off first, all of which
>>>> > seems
>>>
>>>> > pretty unlikely.
>>>>
>>>> > Bertie
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, but a lot of **** seems unlikely to you Buttlipp.
>>>
>>> Could you be quiet please, Bertie and I are discussing flying?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>
>> When Maxwell isn't working at the glory hole, he's totally clueless on
>> what
>> to do.
>>
>
> You tell em Bertie the Liar. All ya have to do is a quick name change.
>
>
>

I am NOT Bertie. The Bunyip does his thing and I do mine.
The group misses you at the glory hole, Maxwell.

Captain Crosspost!

May 11th 08, 12:05 AM

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:rTpVj.2703$hJ1.1446
@newsfe17.lga:

>
> "Chilly8" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I am NOT Bertie. The Bunyip does his thing and I do mine.
>> The group misses you at the glory hole, Maxwell.
>>
>
> Sure ya do Bertie the Liar.
>
>
>
>

Oh excellent. Excellent.

Bertie

Maxwell[_2_]

May 11th 08, 12:05 AM

"Chilly8" > wrote in message
...
>
> I am NOT Bertie. The Bunyip does his thing and I do mine.
> The group misses you at the glory hole, Maxwell.
>

Sure ya do Bertie the Liar.

Maxwell[_2_]

May 11th 08, 12:07 AM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Tell me, are the little pandas on your wallpaper turning into Bunyips
> when the light gets dim?
>
> Bertie

God you're lame.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

May 11th 08, 12:07 AM

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:2VpVj.2705$hJ1.1586
@newsfe17.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Tell me, are the little pandas on your wallpaper turning into Bunyips
>> when the light gets dim?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> God you're lame.
>
>
>

No, I'm hilarious.

There's a difference.

Bertie

Chilly8

May 11th 08, 12:10 AM

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Tell me, are the little pandas on your wallpaper turning into Bunyips
>> when the light gets dim?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> God you're lame.
>
>
>

Hey Maxwell, are you really Fritz Owl in drag?

Everyone says that no one at the glory hole swallows better than you.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

May 11th 08, 12:17 AM

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> God you're lame.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No, I'm hilarious.
>>
>>
>> There's a difference.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> But only to you!
>
>
> You couldn't stop if your life depended on it, could you Squirty
> ****drip?
>
>
> Squirt, squirt.
>
>
>

We'll find out , won;t we?

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

May 11th 08, 12:17 AM

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Captain Crosspost!" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> You couldn't stop if your life depended on it, could you Squirty
> ****drip?
>
>
> Squirt, squirt.
>
>
>

Snort!

God I love usenet.

Bertie

Maxwell[_2_]

May 11th 08, 12:18 AM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>> God you're lame.
>>
>>
>>
>
> No, I'm hilarious.
>
>
> There's a difference.
>
> Bertie

But only to you!

You couldn't stop if your life depended on it, could you Squirty ****drip?

Squirt, squirt.

Maxwell[_2_]

May 11th 08, 12:18 AM

"Captain Crosspost!" > wrote in message
...
>
> Bertie

You couldn't stop if your life depended on it, could you Squirty ****drip?

Squirt, squirt.

Maxwell[_2_]

May 11th 08, 12:18 AM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...

You couldn't stop if your life depended on it, could you Squirty ****drip?

Squirt, squirt.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

May 11th 08, 12:18 AM

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> You couldn't stop if your life depended on it, could you Squirty
> ****drip?
>
>
> Squirt, squirt.
>
>
>

Don;'t worry, you'll find somthing that will work eventaully.

I really think you oght to take this up with the google police, though.
I would say they must be getting darned upset with someone.

Bertie

Maxwell[_2_]

May 11th 08, 12:19 AM

"Captain Crosspost!!!" > wrote in message
.. .

You couldn't stop if your life depended on it, could you Squirty ****drip?

Squirt, squirt.

Maxwell[_2_]

May 11th 08, 12:19 AM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...

You couldn't stop if your life depended on it, could you Squirty ****drip?

Squirt, squirt.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

May 11th 08, 12:19 AM

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Captain Crosspost!!!" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
> You couldn't stop if your life depended on it, could you Squirty
> ****drip?
>
>
> Squirt, squirt.
>
>
>

OK!

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

May 11th 08, 12:20 AM

Maxwell[_2_]

May 11th 08, 12:30 AM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Captain Crosspost!" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>>
>> You couldn't stop if your life depended on it, could you Squirty
>> ****drip?
>>
>>
>> Squirt, squirt.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Snort!
>
> God I love usenet.
>
>
> Bertie

You go Bertie, "You da bitch"!!

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

May 11th 08, 12:34 AM

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:EeqVj.2736$hJ1.306
@newsfe17.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Captain Crosspost!" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>>
>>> You couldn't stop if your life depended on it, could you Squirty
>>> ****drip?
>>>
>>>
>>> Squirt, squirt.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Snort!
>>
>> God I love usenet.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You go Bertie, "You da bitch"!!
>
>

Aww, racial sterotyping. How "you"

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

May 11th 08, 12:34 AM

Mxsmanic

May 11th 08, 01:44 AM

Viperdoc writes:

> ... this is all basic information required to plan a flight,
> particularly in mountainous terrain, with low ceilings and a chance of
> icing. Since along your route the surface observation was at the freezing
> level, clearly at altitude the temperature would be lower.

I anticipated a risk of icing but decided to try it to see how much icing
would occur. That's one of the advantages of simulation.

> How you planned to do a flight VFR with IFR ceilings along the route is a
> mystery, or at the very least stupid and dangerous.

I was in VMC for the duration of the trip.

> Without the area forecast, where they describe the tops and layers,
> how could you possibly do this flight VFR?

By looking out the window, as so many people are fond of saying here.

> How would you know how to remain in VMC?

By avoiding clouds.

> Why plan a VFR flight along airways?

Because it's easier and potentially safer than planning it off airways.
Airways are not just for IFR.

> You talked about picking up ice, which only happens in visible moisture.
> Were you in the clouds or not?

I wasn't, although the simulation of icing doesn't exactly match visible
clouds, so I might still experience icing if there are clouds nearby (I
think--the exact details of how icing is simulated are a bit fuzzy).

> How fast will a 172 climb given the density altitude of the airport at take
> off (don't you have this information)?

I didn't look at the charts. I adjusted the mixture to get a few degrees rich
of peak on the ground, then took off. The climb rate was very poor, between
100 and 200 fpm.

> Regardless, the climb rate of a 172 will be pretty anemic at 12,500 feet,
> and if there's any ice at all, you could pretty much give up on maintaining
> altitude.

So you're saying that a Cessna 172 really isn't suitable for this type of
flight? You're saying that you wouldn't fly it?

> What makes you think it would be easier in a normally aspirated Baron?

Much better performance, better ability to deal with light icing, more margin
on the altitude, allowing me to climb or descend a little to avoid icing
conditions. I've flown over the mountains from Telluride to Aspen many times
in the Baron, albeit not in severe icing conditions.

> Ever try flying a Baron with a load of ice?

Yes, but not voluntarily. I experienced severe icing out of Midway once and
had to request a lower altitude. After descending 3000 feet or so, all was
well.

> What's the single engine service ceiling of a normally aspirated Baron
> without a load of ice?

I don't have the POH in front of me, but from memory, I believe it's 7000
feet.

> There's a lot more to flying than turning on your computer, as your idiotic
> response indicates. Of course, you'll never know.

And of course, this has nothing to do with answering my question. Even in the
course of your tirade, however, you've provided a few useful clues. I'd
prefer something more succinct, though.

Mxsmanic

May 11th 08, 01:48 AM

Viperdoc writes:

> One other point- the surface observation for KASE was not basic VFR- how did
> you plan to land?

I've already mentioned that I decided to divert to Garfield County when I
discovered that KASE had become IFR.

> Were you going to scud run into the airport in the mountains?

No. I haven't tried IFR in the Cessna 172, and I wouldn't try it on this
particular route in any case in that aircraft.

> What was the terminal forecast for the time of planned arrival?

It was already IFR, but I only checked it after my departure.

> You mean you didn't check these things before departing, and just looked at
> the current surface observations? What kind of flight planning is that?

It's the kind of planning you can get away with in simulation.

I adjust what I simulate based on the goals of the simulation. In this case I
was mainly curious about whether or not the Cessna 172 had sufficient
performance to do this trip safely. I planned a route that avoids most of the
higher elevations, but it still had a very difficult time of it. Nobody has
answered my original question yet, but it seems that the C172 is a poor choice
for this particular route, even in good weather. Nevertheless, I know that
some people fly them into and out of Aspen. I also know that several have
crashed in the process.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

May 11th 08, 01:56 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> One other point- the surface observation for KASE was not basic VFR-
>> how did you plan to land?
>
> I've already mentioned that I decided to divert to Garfield County
> when I discovered that KASE had become IFR.
>
>> Were you going to scud run into the airport in the mountains?
>
> No. I haven't tried IFR in the Cessna 172, and I wouldn't try it on
> this particular route in any case in that aircraft.
>
>> What was the terminal forecast for the time of planned arrival?
>
> It was already IFR, but I only checked it after my departure.
>
>> You mean you didn't check these things before departing, and just
>> looked at the current surface observations? What kind of flight
>> planning is that?
>
> It's the kind of planning you can get away with in simulation.
>
> I adjust what I simulate based on the goals of the simulation. In
> this case I was mainly curious about whether or not the Cessna 172 had
> sufficient performance to do this trip safely. I planned a route that
> avoids most of the higher elevations, but it still had a very
> difficult time of it. Nobody has answered my original question yet,
> but it seems that the C172 is a poor choice for this particular route,
> even in good weather. Nevertheless, I know that some people fly them
> into and out of Aspen. I also know that several have crashed in the
> process.
>

you're an idiot.

Bertie

Robert Barker

May 11th 08, 03:03 AM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> ... this is all basic information required to plan a flight,
>> particularly in mountainous terrain, with low ceilings and a chance of
>> icing. Since along your route the surface observation was at the freezing
>> level, clearly at altitude the temperature would be lower.
>
> I anticipated a risk of icing but decided to try it to see how much icing
> would occur. That's one of the advantages of simulation.
>
>> How you planned to do a flight VFR with IFR ceilings along the route is a
>> mystery, or at the very least stupid and dangerous.
>
> I was in VMC for the duration of the trip.
>
>> Without the area forecast, where they describe the tops and layers,
>> how could you possibly do this flight VFR?
>
> By looking out the window, as so many people are fond of saying here.
>
>> How would you know how to remain in VMC?
>
> By avoiding clouds.
>
>> Why plan a VFR flight along airways?
>
> Because it's easier and potentially safer than planning it off airways.
> Airways are not just for IFR.
>
>> You talked about picking up ice, which only happens in visible moisture.
>> Were you in the clouds or not?
>
> I wasn't, although the simulation of icing doesn't exactly match visible
> clouds, so I might still experience icing if there are clouds nearby (I
> think--the exact details of how icing is simulated are a bit fuzzy).
>
>> How fast will a 172 climb given the density altitude of the airport at
>> take
>> off (don't you have this information)?
>
> I didn't look at the charts. I adjusted the mixture to get a few degrees
> rich
> of peak on the ground, then took off. The climb rate was very poor,
> between
> 100 and 200 fpm.
>
>> Regardless, the climb rate of a 172 will be pretty anemic at 12,500 feet,
>> and if there's any ice at all, you could pretty much give up on
>> maintaining
>> altitude.
>
> So you're saying that a Cessna 172 really isn't suitable for this type of
> flight? You're saying that you wouldn't fly it?
>
>> What makes you think it would be easier in a normally aspirated Baron?
>
> Much better performance, better ability to deal with light icing, more
> margin
> on the altitude, allowing me to climb or descend a little to avoid icing
> conditions. I've flown over the mountains from Telluride to Aspen many
> times
> in the Baron, albeit not in severe icing conditions.
>
>> Ever try flying a Baron with a load of ice?
>
> Yes, but not voluntarily. I experienced severe icing out of Midway once
> and
> had to request a lower altitude. After descending 3000 feet or so, all
> was
> well.
>
>> What's the single engine service ceiling of a normally aspirated Baron
>> without a load of ice?
>
> I don't have the POH in front of me, but from memory, I believe it's 7000
> feet.
>
>> There's a lot more to flying than turning on your computer, as your
>> idiotic
>> response indicates. Of course, you'll never know.
>
> And of course, this has nothing to do with answering my question. Even in
> the
> course of your tirade, however, you've provided a few useful clues. I'd
> prefer something more succinct, though.

Was it a 160hp Cessna or a 180hp? Not a lot of 160hp 172s in CO. And no
one tries mountain flying in a 180hp 172 without perfect weather. To do
otherwise is to subject your next of kin to unnecessary grief. And you
don't fly airways in CO unless you can get above terrain and that usually
means a lot more performance than you get in a 172. Try contacting the co
Dept of Transport to get a CO chart with indicated mountain pass routes.
http://www.colorado-aeronautics.org/ Flying in the mountains requires
special training and lots of planning. In most of Colorado, you're TAKING
OFF at an altitude higher than crusing altitude in most other places. Then
throw in any kind of increase of DA... Just last summer, we had a DA at
KAPA of over 9800ft! Then you expect to try to gain an extra 4k or 5k in
altitude in a short amount of time to get over the passes?

Benjamin Dover

May 11th 08, 03:33 AM

Mxsmanic

May 11th 08, 04:18 AM

Robert Barker writes:

> Was it a 160hp Cessna or a 180hp? Not a lot of 160hp 172s in CO.

The aircraft simulated by the add-on is 160 hp (IO-360-L2A engine).

> And no one tries mountain flying in a 180hp 172 without perfect
> weather. To do otherwise is to subject your next of kin to
> unnecessary grief.

So it's a bad idea. OK, that's what I wanted to know.

> And you don't fly airways in CO unless you can get above terrain
> and that usually means a lot more performance than you get in a 172.

I thought airways were supposed to be safer, since they had guaranteed margins
for terrain. If you don't fly airways in CO, how do you normally fly?

> Try contacting the co Dept of Transport to get a CO chart with
> indicated mountain pass routes. http://www.colorado-aeronautics.org/

I took a look at their site but couldn't find anything. Perhaps I'll e-mail
them.

> Flying in the mountains requires
> special training and lots of planning. In most of Colorado, you're TAKING
> OFF at an altitude higher than crusing altitude in most other places. Then
> throw in any kind of increase of DA... Just last summer, we had a DA at
> KAPA of over 9800ft! Then you expect to try to gain an extra 4k or 5k in
> altitude in a short amount of time to get over the passes?

So I guess a Cessna 172R probably isn't ideal, or at best is close to the
limit.

Mxsmanic

May 11th 08, 04:23 AM

Viperdoc writes:

> You plan a VFR flight into an airport
> that is IFR with an airplane that has marginal performance at high density
> altitudes to begin with?

Yes. It was an experiment.

> You talk about picking up ice, but don't have a clue about how or when
> it forms?

I know how and when it forms in real life. I don't know the details of how it
is simulated, however.

> You didn't check the TAFs or area forecast prior to launching?

Not highly relevant to this experiment.

> Did you look at pireps for reports on icing? You didn't
> check the climb performance of your plane even though you were taking off at
> high altitude and trying to climb?

I figured I'd find out by experiment.

> It's no wonder you "crashed"- you were doomed before you started.

I doubt that.

> You are also incorrect about the Baron and its performance, although it
> obviously would be better than a 172. I have over 600 hrs in the one that I
> own and fly, and it has known ice certification, and even then I would not
> even remotely think about flying it into low ceilings in the mountains under
> the conditions you reported.

Nor might I, in real life. But it is possible (and often instructive) to take
greater risks in simulation than one might be willing to take in real life.

As I've said, I've flown from Telluride to Aspen many times in the Baron, in
simulation. You apparently haven't done it at all, which means I have more
experience with it than you do (since you apparently haven't even tried to
simulate it).

Robert Barker

May 11th 08, 05:34 AM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Barker writes:
>
>> Was it a 160hp Cessna or a 180hp? Not a lot of 160hp 172s in CO.
>
> The aircraft simulated by the add-on is 160 hp (IO-360-L2A engine).
>
>> And no one tries mountain flying in a 180hp 172 without perfect
>> weather. To do otherwise is to subject your next of kin to
>> unnecessary grief.
>
> So it's a bad idea. OK, that's what I wanted to know.
>
>> And you don't fly airways in CO unless you can get above terrain
>> and that usually means a lot more performance than you get in a 172.
>
> I thought airways were supposed to be safer, since they had guaranteed
> margins
> for terrain. If you don't fly airways in CO, how do you normally fly?
>
>> Try contacting the co Dept of Transport to get a CO chart with
>> indicated mountain pass routes. http://www.colorado-aeronautics.org/
>
> I took a look at their site but couldn't find anything. Perhaps I'll
> e-mail
> them.
>
>> Flying in the mountains requires
>> special training and lots of planning. In most of Colorado, you're
>> TAKING
>> OFF at an altitude higher than crusing altitude in most other places.
>> Then
>> throw in any kind of increase of DA... Just last summer, we had a DA at
>> KAPA of over 9800ft! Then you expect to try to gain an extra 4k or 5k
>> in
>> altitude in a short amount of time to get over the passes?
>
> So I guess a Cessna 172R probably isn't ideal, or at best is close to the
> limit.

The link I gave you had another link to request a CO chart. It's not FAA
official, but gives yo a great idea of the preferred routes for mountain
flying. Mountain flying in a lower performance aircraft isn't easy in the
best of conditions. A 172 can do it - I've used a 172R to fly into
Leadville (LXV), Eagle (EGE), and Steamboat (SBS) among others on a very
long day but it was perfect, with no wind and I had a CFI with me after 3
days of mountian flying classroom instruction. As others have said, it's
all in the planning. We'd scrubbed 3 times for weather before actually
doing the flight. Mountain winds are treacherous. Storms appear at the
drop of a hat and you can't see them because they're just over the ridge or
around the bend hidden by the mountains. And the terrain changes quickly.
The CO mountain passes are littered with planes that the pilots thought
could do it. And not all of them are low performance. I know of a life
flight jet that encountered icing in bad weather and didn't have enough
climb to make it over a pass and those pilots actually knew how to fly.
Simulation of mountain flying teaches you nothing especially if you don't
REALLY understand EVERYTHING that goes into it. It's not like flying over
Kansas where decent emergency landing spots are just about anywhere. Most
real pilots would have taken a look at the weather you indicated and headed
back to the hotel for a beer and the hot tub after dropping the skis off for
a new tune and wax. It really is good you don't actually fly. Your
aeronautical decision making process sucks. It's a "fatality due to pilot
error" waiting to happen.

Stealth Pilot[_2_]

May 11th 08, 12:28 PM

On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:45:20 -0700 (PDT), More_Flaps
> wrote:

>On May 11, 9:20*am, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>>
>> > Viperdoc writes:
>>
>> >> Are you referring to a real airplane or simulated flight with MSFS?
>>
>> > I'm asking about real airplanes, subsequent to a simulated flight with
>> > the same aircraft that ended tragically just a few minutes ago,
>> > probably due to icing, although I'm not sure. *I tried the flight as
>> > an experiment to see if it was possible, and I'd like to know from
>> > pilots of the real aircraft whether or not it would be possible or
>> > safe to attempt it in real life.
>>
>> > Weather at Aspen was low IFR so I had planned to divert to Garfield
>> > County, but I lost control of the aircraft about 20 miles southeast at
>> > 12500 feet and impacted terrain.
>>
>> Wow. *Our resident ace pilot can't even fly a 172 on his simulator!
>
>In this case the output of the game had a modicum of accuracy, MX
>would have crashed a real 172 also.
>
>Cheers

there is the real life case of a clown who stole a cherokee 140 from
Darwin Airport in the Northern Territory.

now remember that the cherokee has the reputation for being one of the
easiest to fly blandsville aircraft.

said clown crashed with fatal consequences just over the piano keys on
takeoff.

mx if you ever try flying a real one can I watch?
make it in winter so we can stand there warming our hands over the
fire....

Stealth Pilot

Benjamin Dover

May 11th 08, 01:09 PM

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:45:20 -0700 (PDT), More_Flaps
> > wrote:
>
>>On May 11, 9:20*am, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>>> :
>>>
>>> > Viperdoc writes:
>>>
>>> >> Are you referring to a real airplane or simulated flight with
>>> >> MSFS?
>>>
>>> > I'm asking about real airplanes, subsequent to a simulated flight
>>> > with the same aircraft that ended tragically just a few minutes
>>> > ago, probably due to icing, although I'm not sure. *I tried the
>>> > flight as an experiment to see if it was possible, and I'd like to
>>> > know from pilots of the real aircraft whether or not it would be
>>> > possible or safe to attempt it in real life.
>>>
>>> > Weather at Aspen was low IFR so I had planned to divert to
>>> > Garfield County, but I lost control of the aircraft about 20 miles
>>> > southeast at 12500 feet and impacted terrain.
>>>
>>> Wow. *Our resident ace pilot can't even fly a 172 on his simulator!
>>
>>In this case the output of the game had a modicum of accuracy, MX
>>would have crashed a real 172 also.
>>
>>Cheers
>
> there is the real life case of a clown who stole a cherokee 140 from
> Darwin Airport in the Northern Territory.
>
> now remember that the cherokee has the reputation for being one of the
> easiest to fly blandsville aircraft.
>
> said clown crashed with fatal consequences just over the piano keys on
> takeoff.
>
> mx if you ever try flying a real one can I watch?
> make it in winter so we can stand there warming our hands over the
> fire....
>
> Stealth Pilot

The only Cherokee Anthony will steal is one for MSFS. He can't afford to
pay for it or any of the add on aircraft, so he steals them. And he
manages to crash them anyway.

Mxsmanic

May 11th 08, 07:43 PM

Viperdoc writes:

> Anthony- way to backtrack! You talk about simulation being realistic, but
> you don't bother to learn about the aircraft's performance or do even
> minimal flight planning or think about the weather.

Oh, I do a little, depending on the goal of the simulation.

> When you don't bother to do your pre flight planning you call it an experiment?

That particular experiment had nothing to do with pre-flight planning.

> The people who really fly call it stupid and lazy.

Some of the people who really fly call everyone stupid and lazy, until they
are killed in an accident.

> Picking up ice in a game like
> you play is a lot different when you can't hold altitude over the middle of
> Lake Michigan with max anti ice in real life.

I'd never be stupid enough to get caught in that situation in real life.

Buster Hymen

May 11th 08, 08:21 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> Anthony- way to backtrack! You talk about simulation being realistic,
>> but you don't bother to learn about the aircraft's performance or do
>> even minimal flight planning or think about the weather.
>
> Oh, I do a little, depending on the goal of the simulation.
>
>> When you don't bother to do your pre flight planning you call it an
>> experiment?
>
> That particular experiment had nothing to do with pre-flight planning.
>
>> The people who really fly call it stupid and lazy.
>
> Some of the people who really fly call everyone stupid and lazy, until
> they are killed in an accident.
>
>> Picking up ice in a game like
>> you play is a lot different when you can't hold altitude over the
>> middle of Lake Michigan with max anti ice in real life.
>
> I'd never be stupid enough to get caught in that situation in real
> life.
>

You don't have a real life, you moron. You have totally wasted your
claimed superior education and just play games while jerking yourself off.

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe

May 11th 08, 11:51 PM

Tina

May 12th 08, 03:42 AM

This was by any measure a poorly designed experiment. The only lesson
to be learned is planning is necessary for safe flight. Superior
planning is necessary if there are questions about the airplane's
suitability.

[email protected]

May 12th 08, 04:15 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Viperdoc writes:

> > Are you referring to a real airplane or simulated flight with MSFS?

> I'm asking about real airplanes, subsequent to a simulated flight with the
> same aircraft that ended tragically just a few minutes ago, probably due to
> icing, although I'm not sure. I tried the flight as an experiment to see if
> it was possible, and I'd like to know from pilots of the real aircraft whether
> or not it would be possible or safe to attempt it in real life.

> Weather at Aspen was low IFR so I had planned to divert to Garfield County,
> but I lost control of the aircraft about 20 miles southeast at 12500 feet and
> impacted terrain.

Your choice of words is childish at best. Computer games don't end
"tragically", they just end.

Your so called "experiment" is just mental masturbation.

For a real pilot to attempt a flight under the conditions you describe
with the total lack of preperation you describe, that person would have
to be extremely stupid and ignore a huge pile of regulations and have
absolutely no common sense.

You might as well have posted "I simulated shoving a hand grenade up
my butt and I got blown to hell. Is it really possible to shove a hand
grenade up my butt?"

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Benjamin Dover

May 12th 08, 04:44 AM

wrote in :

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> > Are you referring to a real airplane or simulated flight with MSFS?
>
>> I'm asking about real airplanes, subsequent to a simulated flight
>> with the same aircraft that ended tragically just a few minutes ago,
>> probably due to icing, although I'm not sure. I tried the flight as
>> an experiment to see if it was possible, and I'd like to know from
>> pilots of the real aircraft whether or not it would be possible or
>> safe to attempt it in real life.
>
>> Weather at Aspen was low IFR so I had planned to divert to Garfield
>> County, but I lost control of the aircraft about 20 miles southeast
>> at 12500 feet and impacted terrain.
>
> Your choice of words is childish at best. Computer games don't end
> "tragically", they just end.
>
> Your so called "experiment" is just mental masturbation.
>
> For a real pilot to attempt a flight under the conditions you describe
> with the total lack of preperation you describe, that person would
> have to be extremely stupid and ignore a huge pile of regulations and
> have absolutely no common sense.
>
> You might as well have posted "I simulated shoving a hand grenade up
> my butt and I got blown to hell. Is it really possible to shove a hand
> grenade up my butt?"
>

It sure would be nice if Anthony did phoe a grenade up his butt and pulled
the pin. We could all enjoy reading the results in the Parisian newspapers
the next day!

Mxsmanic

May 12th 08, 11:27 AM

writes:

> Your choice of words is childish at best. Computer games don't end
> "tragically", they just end.

A crash in simulation is a tragedy within the context of that simulation.

> For a real pilot to attempt a flight under the conditions you describe
> with the total lack of preperation you describe, that person would have
> to be extremely stupid and ignore a huge pile of regulations and have
> absolutely no common sense.

Simulation and real life are two different things, as so many here are fond of
saying. Odd that they are more than willing to confuse the two when it suits
their purpose.

> You might as well have posted "I simulated shoving a hand grenade up
> my butt and I got blown to hell. Is it really possible to shove a hand
> grenade up my butt?"

Aircraft manufacturers spend a great deal of money on simulation of normal and
extreme situations, involving things that nobody would ever attempt in real
life. Why do you think they do that?

Mxsmanic

May 12th 08, 11:31 AM

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> writes:

> I've crossed the Rockies on 85hp in a Cessna 120.

Under what conditions?

Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]

May 12th 08, 12:19 PM

Benjamin Dover wrote:
>> You might as well have posted "I simulated shoving a hand grenade up
>> my butt and I got blown to hell. Is it really possible to shove a hand
>> grenade up my butt?"
>>
>
> It sure would be nice if Anthony did phoe a grenade up his butt and pulled
> the pin. We could all enjoy reading the results in the Parisian newspapers
> the next day!

As a nurse, I can assure you it is possible to shove a grenade up Anthony's
butt.

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Tina

May 12th 08, 12:29 PM

The point tht is being made is your simulation did not test the
concept of flying the route in a 172, but did demonstrate how unwise
it is to fly without suitable planning. Planning is very much a
simulation of a flight that pilots do. You did not do that, so the
lesson an aware observer would learn is, don't attempt a flight that
is not carefully planned, rather than don't attempt this simulated
flight in a 172.

Are you an aware observer?

Jay Maynard

May 12th 08, 12:34 PM

On 2008-05-12, Mortimer Schnerd, RN <> wrote:
> As a nurse, I can assure you it is possible to shove a grenade up Anthony's
> butt.

Yes, but is it possible for the handle to fly open and make it go boom once
it's been inserted?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

Mxsmanic

May 12th 08, 01:36 PM

Tina writes:

> The point tht is being made is your simulation did not test the
> concept of flying the route in a 172, but did demonstrate how unwise
> it is to fly without suitable planning.

Actually, all it demonstrated is the danger of icing, as far as I can tell.
Things were going well prior to that.

[email protected]

May 12th 08, 01:39 PM

Would there be room for a grenade? Isn't his head usually up there?

On May 12, 7:50 am, Clark > wrote:
> Jay Maynard > wrote om:
>
> > On 2008-05-12, Mortimer Schnerd, RN <> wrote:
> >> As a nurse, I can assure you it is possible to shove a grenade up
> >> Anthony's butt.
>
> > Yes, but is it possible for the handle to fly open and make it go boom
> > once it's been inserted?
>
> Look, you'll have several seconds to complete the insertion and take cover
> after activating the grenade. Just practice the procedure until it is
> completed in a reliable manner.
>
> Oh, be sure to remove the gerbil first - wouldn't want PETA to get
> involved...
>
> --
> ---
> there should be a "sig" here

[email protected]

May 12th 08, 01:43 PM

So, now the question is not if one could fly a 172 on that route, but
if it could be flown in icing conditions?

Why don't you change the title of the thread to reflect that, or are
you trying to somehow cover up the point 'Tina' had made, that real
pilots 'simulate' a flight first by planning it, and you didn't do
that?

JFK Jr to Saint Peter: "Gee, things were going really well right up to
the crash"

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

May 12th 08, 03:28 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> writes:
>
>> I've crossed the Rockies on 85hp in a Cessna 120.
>
> Under what conditions?
>

Above the hard bits, obviously

Bertie

Mxsmanic

May 12th 08, 04:11 PM

writes:

> So, now the question is not if one could fly a 172 on that route, but
> if it could be flown in icing conditions?

Well, the original question was whether or not a 172 would be adequate on that
route. Obviously it should not be flown in icing conditions.

> JFK Jr to Saint Peter: "Gee, things were going really well right up to
> the crash"

He was a licensed pilot.

gatt[_3_]

May 12th 08, 04:11 PM

>> Weather at Aspen was low IFR so I had planned to divert to Garfield
>> County, but I lost control of the aircraft about 20 miles southeast at
>> 12500 feet and impacted terrain.

MSNTSB Report: 'Probable cause of accident: Pilot disorientation caused
by hypoxia due to lack of simulated oxygen'

-c

Tina

May 12th 08, 04:52 PM

The JFK example was probably given to show what lack of careful
planning might cause, You choose to ignore the lesson, You chose to
not simulate a reality, but to play a computer game, and continue to
give us evidence you have little interest in learning.

We knew that of you, but appreciate that you have now abandoned the
charade.

[email protected]

May 12th 08, 05:15 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Your choice of words is childish at best. Computer games don't end
> > "tragically", they just end.

> A crash in simulation is a tragedy within the context of that simulation.

So did you hold a simulated service with simulated mourners and simulated
flowers?

> > For a real pilot to attempt a flight under the conditions you describe
> > with the total lack of preperation you describe, that person would have
> > to be extremely stupid and ignore a huge pile of regulations and have
> > absolutely no common sense.

> Simulation and real life are two different things, as so many here are fond of
> saying. Odd that they are more than willing to confuse the two when it suits
> their purpose.

> > You might as well have posted "I simulated shoving a hand grenade up
> > my butt and I got blown to hell. Is it really possible to shove a hand
> > grenade up my butt?"

> Aircraft manufacturers spend a great deal of money on simulation of normal and
> extreme situations, involving things that nobody would ever attempt in real
> life. Why do you think they do that?

Nonsense.

Manufacturers do simulations to avoid cost.

What you simulated was what happens when an ignorant individual attempts
a flight without doing the legally required preparation, finds their
self in over their head, and continues on anyway instead of turning
back.

No mystery there.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[email protected]

May 12th 08, 05:15 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > So, now the question is not if one could fly a 172 on that route, but
> > if it could be flown in icing conditions?

> Well, the original question was whether or not a 172 would be adequate on that
> route. Obviously it should not be flown in icing conditions.

No ****?

Few GA airplanes can be legally flown in icing conditions.

Part of the preparation for flight is to check for icing conditions.

Again, all you've simulated is what happens when the preflight requirements
are ignored.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[email protected]

May 12th 08, 05:15 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> writes:

> > I've crossed the Rockies on 85hp in a Cessna 120.

> Under what conditions?

Let me hazard a guess here; the legally required conditions.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Benjamin Dover

May 12th 08, 05:44 PM

wrote in
:

> Would there be room for a grenade? Isn't his head usually up there?
>
> On May 12, 7:50 am, Clark > wrote:
>> Jay Maynard > wrote
>> om:
>>
>> > On 2008-05-12, Mortimer Schnerd, RN <> wrote:
>> >> As a nurse, I can assure you it is possible to shove a grenade up
>> >> Anthony's butt.
>>
>> > Yes, but is it possible for the handle to fly open and make it go
>> > boom once it's been inserted?
>>
>> Look, you'll have several seconds to complete the insertion and take
>> cover after activating the grenade. Just practice the procedure until
>> it is completed in a reliable manner.
>>
>> Oh, be sure to remove the gerbil first - wouldn't want PETA to get
>> involved...
>>
>> --
>> ---
>> there should be a "sig" here
>
>

That's even easier. Just slam the grenade into his mouth and pull the pin.
As soon as you let go, Anthony's head will automatically pop right back up
his ass. We can blow his brains to smithereens and his ass will contain
all the debris, facilitating cleanup.

Mxsmanic

May 12th 08, 06:10 PM

Tina writes:

> The JFK example was probably given to show what lack of careful
> planning might cause.

But since people here have been implying that licensed pilots engage in
careful planning, this example rather undermines their argument. Of course,
many other, similar examples could be cited.

Mxsmanic

May 12th 08, 06:11 PM

writes:

> So did you hold a simulated service with simulated mourners and simulated
> flowers?

No. It's just a flight simulation.

Mxsmanic

May 12th 08, 06:11 PM

writes:

> Let me hazard a guess here; the legally required conditions.

What conditions are those?

I suspect it wasn't limited to the legal minimum, however.

Tina

May 12th 08, 06:42 PM

Of course there are many examples of pilots dying, Some of us try to
learn from other's mistakes. Not all lessons are learned well, and
accidents do happen. Your (attempted) superior attidude reminds me of
some studies that were done on MD pilots a long time ago, and maybe
JFK Jrs at that time: their attitude of whatever - being superior? --
led to an increased accident rate.

A lesson that might be learned by you is, if your life isn't all it
might be, adusting that attitude might be useful. But in your case,
it's probably too ingrained and way too late. Did you know many sel
airplanes burn as much value in fuel an hour as you can afford to eat
on in a week?

But I could be mistaken, you might be very happy with your life. It's
nice to recognize one's limitations.

[email protected]

May 12th 08, 06:45 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tina writes:

> > The JFK example was probably given to show what lack of careful
> > planning might cause.

> But since people here have been implying that licensed pilots engage in
> careful planning, this example rather undermines their argument. Of course,
> many other, similar examples could be cited.

It went right over your head, didn't it?

You haven't a clue.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[email protected]

May 12th 08, 06:45 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > So did you hold a simulated service with simulated mourners and simulated
> > flowers?

> No. It's just a flight simulation.

But it was a tragedy according to you.

Are you so heartless you would deny the simulated survivors the chance
for simulated mourning?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[email protected]

May 12th 08, 06:55 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Let me hazard a guess here; the legally required conditions.

> What conditions are those?

The legally required ones, e.g. possession of all requried paperwork
and manuals, route planning, preflight of aircraft, weather and
NOTAM check, etc.

How dense can you be?

Or in other words, everything you didn't do in your simulation of how
an idiot would conduct a flight.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

gatt[_3_]

May 12th 08, 07:12 PM

wrote:

>> No. It's just a flight simulation.
>
> But it was a tragedy according to you.
>
> Are you so heartless you would deny the simulated survivors the chance
> for simulated mourning?

Not to mention simulated cannibalism if they're stranded in the
simulated mountains.

Hey, that might be a cool mod. The last one I installed was a Jeep.
REALLY bad aerodynamics. I installed the Black Stallion horse for my
wife. That one's a blast because you're getting up to speed down the
runway, cloppity-cloppity-cloppity, and if you turn too suddenly and the
horse tips, it makes an great plane-crash explosion sound. It doesn't
amuse the missus much, but I love to sit on the edge of the runway and
run out in front of it right as it's about to land.

-c

Mxsmanic

May 12th 08, 08:46 PM

Tina writes:

> Your (attempted) superior attidude ...

I don't have a superior attitude. I simply cannot be intimidated into
submission to people who have not proved themselves worthy of respect. People
call that a "superior attitude" to try to make it seem that it's my problem,
rather than theirs.

> Did you know many sel airplanes burn as much value in fuel
> an hour as you can afford to eat on in a week?

Yes. So? It's an expensive hobby.

Mxsmanic

May 12th 08, 08:47 PM

writes:

> But it was a tragedy according to you.

It would have been a tragedy if the simulation were real. It is a tragedy
within the simulated environment.

> Are you so heartless you would deny the simulated survivors the chance
> for simulated mourning?

It's a flight simulation.

Mxsmanic

May 12th 08, 08:49 PM

writes:

> The legally required ones, e.g. possession of all requried paperwork
> and manuals, route planning, preflight of aircraft, weather and
> NOTAM check, etc.

Having required paperwork increases safety?

> How dense can you be?

Orders of magnitude more than I am. And I see extreme examples that bring
John Bradford's most famous words to mind.

[email protected]

May 12th 08, 09:15 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > The legally required ones, e.g. possession of all requried paperwork
> > and manuals, route planning, preflight of aircraft, weather and
> > NOTAM check, etc.

> Having required paperwork increases safety?

Non sequitur.

You are grasping at straws in an attempt to back out of your bone
headed question.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Benjamin Dover

May 12th 08, 09:41 PM

wrote in :

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>
>> > The legally required ones, e.g. possession of all requried paperwork
>> > and manuals, route planning, preflight of aircraft, weather and
>> > NOTAM check, etc.
>
>> Having required paperwork increases safety?
>
> Non sequitur.
>
> You are grasping at straws in an attempt to back out of your bone
> headed question.
>
>

Isn't it amazing how Anthony, who a few years back tried to post as though
he was a pilot ("Last night when I flew from Phoenix to Las Vegas in my
Baron") is now asking questions about simple things like when to use boost
pumps. Something anyone who ever flew a Baron would know.

More_Flaps

May 12th 08, 09:55 PM

On May 13, 6:12*am, gatt > wrote:
> wrote:
> >> No. *It's just a flight simulation.
>
> > But it was a tragedy according to you.
>
> > Are you so heartless you would deny the simulated survivors the chance
> > for simulated mourning?
>
> Not to mention simulated cannibalism if they're stranded in the
> simulated mountains.
>
> Hey, that might be a cool mod. *The last one I installed was a Jeep.
> REALLY bad aerodynamics. * I installed the Black Stallion horse for my
> wife. *That one's a blast because you're getting up to speed down the
> runway, cloppity-cloppity-cloppity, and if you turn too suddenly and the
> horse tips, it makes an great plane-crash explosion sound. *It doesn't
> amuse the missus much, but I love to sit on the edge of the runway and
> run out in front of it right as it's about to land.
>

Might be even more fun to install a bulldozer. Flies like crap except
in a dive after slewing to FL20 but imagine the fun watching the
wife's stallion trying to run backwards on late final. I can see it
now, legs whirling in reverse in a blur of panic. LOL

Cheers

More_Flaps

May 12th 08, 09:56 PM

On May 13, 7:46*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tina writes:
> > Your (attempted) superior attidude ...
>
> I don't have a superior attitude. *I simply cannot be intimidated into
> submission to people who have not proved themselves worthy of respect. *People
> call that a "superior attitude" to try to make it seem that it's my problem,
> rather than theirs.
>
> > Did you know many sel airplanes burn as much value in fuel
> > an hour as you can afford to eat on in a week?
>
> Yes. *So? *It's an expensive hobby.

No, you are poor.

Cheers

Stefan Hueneburg

May 13th 08, 02:18 AM

Mxsmanic writes:

> A crash in simulation is a tragedy within the context of that simulation.

First, the MSFS is not a real simulation, its a game, trying to appear
like one. A Crash within MSFS is just a failure with no consequences.

If you play MSFS regularly, you should know it's limitations.

I just tried you "experiment" and were scared by the low climb rate of
the Cessna in that altitude. You cannot even try the Bertie-Turn home
after takeoff. ;)

> Aircraft manufacturers spend a great deal of money on simulation of normal and
> extreme situations, involving things that nobody would ever attempt in real
> life. Why do you think they do that?

Even the real big flight simulators are limited to the input data they
have. And to my knowledge, not much data from unusual flight envelopes
(stalls, spins whatever) is inserted in these things.

So creating safety procedures from simulation can be dangerous. American
Airlines Flight 587 might be an potential example.

cu

Disclaimer: IANAP - I am not a pilot. Therefore, the whole message above
might be, could be, should be and most probably is, utterly nonsense.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

May 13th 08, 02:20 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> What have you done to prove yourself worthy of respect?
>
> When have I asked for respect?
>

You ask for it in almost every post, you whiney cretin.

Bertie

romeomike

May 13th 08, 05:28 AM

Tina wrote:
Your (attempted) superior attidude reminds me of
> some studies that were done on MD pilots a long time ago, and maybe
> JFK Jrs at that time: their attitude of whatever - being superior? --
> led to an increased accident rate.
>

Have a reference for those studies?

Tina

May 13th 08, 05:56 AM

Not peer reviewed, but here's something. Note the date.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,836176,00.html

On May 13, 12:28*am, romeomike > wrote:
> Tina wrote:
>
> * Your (attempted) superior attidude reminds me of
>
> > some studies that were done on MD pilots a long time ago, and maybe
> > JFK Jrs at that time: their attitude of whatever - being superior? --
> > led to an increased accident rate.
>
> Have a reference for those studies?

romeomike

May 13th 08, 06:25 AM

Yeah, and note the dates covered by the study. Only one or two years
(not sure if it's the year 1964 to 1965 or the two tears 1964 and 1965)
extrapolated and generalized to a conclusion. Not only not peer reviewed
but not statistically significant, except possibly for the specific time
mentioned. Why just those months in an article published today, more
than 40 years later.The authors should have been able to gather numbers
from other years to strengthen their conclusions. I have no ax to grind,
just curious whenever I hear these kinds of statements as to where they
come from.

Tina wrote:
> Not peer reviewed, but here's something. Note the date.
>
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,836176,00.html
>
>
> On May 13, 12:28 am, romeomike > wrote:
>> Tina wrote:
>>
>> Your (attempted) superior attidude reminds me of
>>
>>> some studies that were done on MD pilots a long time ago, and maybe
>>> JFK Jrs at that time: their attitude of whatever - being superior? --
>>> led to an increased accident rate.
>> Have a reference for those studies?
>

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

May 13th 08, 07:21 AM

wrote in :

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>
>> > Your choice of words is childish at best. Computer games don't end
>> > "tragically", they just end.
>
>> A crash in simulation is a tragedy within the context of that
>> simulation.
>
> So did you hold a simulated service with simulated mourners and
> simulated flowers?

Snort!

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

May 13th 08, 07:22 AM

wrote in :

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>
>> > So did you hold a simulated service with simulated mourners and
>> > simulated flowers?
>
>> No. It's just a flight simulation.
>
> But it was a tragedy according to you.
>
> Are you so heartless you would deny the simulated survivors the chance
> for simulated mourning?
>
>
>

God you're right. He's worse than hitler! Even worse than Simon Cowell.

Bertie

Tina

May 13th 08, 01:29 PM

As I said initially, my memory is that it was a long time ago. I doubt
it's as true today for MDs, but it is an example of ego overcoming
common sense. That was my initial point, and in the context of this
post, still valid. You asked for a reference, and I gave you one. A
more careful examination may refute it. I would estimate it may
approach statistical significance. It certainly cannot be rebutted
with hand waving.

Mxsmanic

May 13th 08, 02:15 PM

More_Flaps writes:

> Many average people could afford to fly from time to time if they
> choose to. They just prefer to spend their disposable income on other
> things.

What disposable income?

Mxsmanic

May 13th 08, 02:16 PM

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
> > He was a licensed pilot.
>
> And you are not.

And he's dead. And I'm not.

Mxsmanic

May 13th 08, 02:20 PM

Stefan Hueneburg writes:

> First, the MSFS is not a real simulation, its a game ...

Rest assured, it's a real simulation. I know that people with an ax to grind
will insist otherwise for a lifetime, but that doesn't change the reality.
Simulators have come a long way, and the mere fact that a simulator runs on a
PC doesn't make it "unreal."

> A Crash within MSFS is just a failure with no consequences.

A crash in every simulator is like that. That's one of the advantages of
simulation.

> If you play MSFS regularly, you should know it's limitations.

I do. I've listed them on several occasions.

> I just tried you "experiment" and were scared by the low climb rate of
> the Cessna in that altitude.

I can't say that I was scared by it, but I found it pretty lame. I was
heading west so there wasn't a lot of terrain to avoid.

> Even the real big flight simulators are limited to the input data they
> have. And to my knowledge, not much data from unusual flight envelopes
> (stalls, spins whatever) is inserted in these things.

That's why they are not used to practice spins. Any pilot who gets himself
into a spin in an airliner made way too many mistakes long before that.

Stefan Hueneburg[_2_]

May 13th 08, 03:37 PM

Mxsmanic writes:

> Simulators have come a long way, and the mere fact that a simulator runs on a
> PC doesn't make it "unreal."

It's still a game and not real.

>> If you play MSFS regularly, you should know it's limitations.
>
> I do. I've listed them on several occasions.

But you don't get the biggest limitation, i guess.

>> I just tried you "experiment" and were scared by the low climb rate of
>> the Cessna in that altitude.
>
> I can't say that I was scared by it, but I found it pretty lame. I was
> heading west so there wasn't a lot of terrain to avoid.

Well I saw some pretty big hills to my left and right. Luckily, I found
a upwind to get some height to save the simday.

>> Even the real big flight simulators are limited to the input data they
>> have. And to my knowledge, not much data from unusual flight envelopes
>> (stalls, spins whatever) is inserted in these things.
>
> That's why they are not used to practice spins. Any pilot who gets himself
> into a spin in an airliner made way too many mistakes long before that.

But you cannot draw any conclusion for the real world from a game with a
simulated environment. Therefore judging actions in the real world from
simulated experience is inappropriate.

cu

Tina

May 13th 08, 03:48 PM

If you read the article carefully you will note it was NOT published
recently. Also, when 30 MDs are involved in accidents when if
accidents were random across the population the number would have been
a quarter of that is significant.

I think one might conclude certain professions are self selecting for
people with great self assurance and the ego to go with it. As a
matter of interest Mensa members who are not doing well in the general
population seem to exhibit that same ego characteristic: we, the
general population, are at fault for not recognizing and rewarding
their worth. I think, but cannot support the observation, that Anthony
is quite bright, so it's not a surprise that he, as a displaced
American living at the subsistence level in Paris, would have some of
those characteristics.

I'm not sure what drives Max or Bertie, but there seems to be some
pathology there too.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

May 13th 08, 04:30 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > He was a licensed pilot.
>>
>> And you are not.
>
> And he's dead. And I'm not.

He lived, you don't.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

May 13th 08, 04:30 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Stefan Hueneburg writes:
>
>> First, the MSFS is not a real simulation, its a game ...
>
> Rest assured, it's a real simulation. I know that people with an ax
> to grind will insist otherwise for a lifetime, but that doesn't change
> the reality. Simulators have come a long way, and the mere fact that a
> simulator runs on a PC doesn't make it "unreal."
>

Yes, it does, fjukkwit.

It's the very definition of unreal.

Bertie

Steve Foley

May 13th 08, 05:25 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> I thought airways were supposed to be safer, since they had guaranteed
margins
> for terrain.

That's not what I was taught.

Gig 601Xl Builder

May 13th 08, 05:44 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> More_Flaps writes:
>
>> Many average people could afford to fly from time to time if they
>> choose to. They just prefer to spend their disposable income on other
>> things.
>
> What disposable income?

The amount of income left to an individual after taxes have been paid,
available for spending and saving.

Gig 601Xl Builder

May 13th 08, 07:51 PM

Viperdoc wrote:
> Anthony is saying that he has no income at all.
>
>

I know but he thinks we are mean if we don't answer his questions.

Benjamin Dover

May 13th 08, 07:53 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> More_Flaps writes:
>
>> Many average people could afford to fly from time to time if they
>> choose to. They just prefer to spend their disposable income on other
>> things.
>
> What disposable income?

Something which you will never, ever have.

Buster Hymen

May 13th 08, 07:53 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > He was a licensed pilot.
>>
>> And you are not.
>
> And he's dead. And I'm not.
>

Unfortunately!

Benjamin Dover

May 13th 08, 07:57 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Stefan Hueneburg writes:
>
>> First, the MSFS is not a real simulation, its a game ...
>
> Rest assured, it's a real simulation. I know that people with an ax
> to grind will insist otherwise for a lifetime, but that doesn't change
> the reality. Simulators have come a long way, and the mere fact that a
> simulator runs on a PC doesn't make it "unreal."
>

MSFS is a real simulation only in a simulated brain.

Benjamin Dover

May 13th 08, 07:59 PM

"Steve Foley" > wrote in
news:lijWj.1485$i51.840@trndny09:

> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I thought airways were supposed to be safer, since they had guaranteed
> margins
>> for terrain.
>
> That's not what I was taught.
>
>
>

No real pilot was ever taught that. Only Anthony, a simulated pilot, would
think that. And that's because he's a **** poor simulation of a pilot.

Mxsmanic

May 13th 08, 08:35 PM

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

> The amount of income left to an individual after taxes have been paid,
> available for spending and saving.

What about food and shelter?

Mxsmanic

May 13th 08, 08:37 PM

Tina writes:

> As a matter of interest Mensa members who are not doing well in the general
> population seem to exhibit that same ego characteristic: we, the
> general population, are at fault for not recognizing and rewarding
> their worth ...

Almost all Mensa members are socially dysfunctional; that's why they join
Mensa. Only a very tiny fraction of the people who qualify for Mensa actually
join the organization (65 million people are eligible, but the organization
has only about 70,000 members). They are self-selected for social
maladjustment.

Mxsmanic

May 13th 08, 08:39 PM

Stefan Hueneburg writes:

> It's still a game and not real.

Simulations aren't real, either. So what?

War games aren't real. Are you suggesting that military organizations
practice by starting real wars instead?

> But you cannot draw any conclusion for the real world from a game with a
> simulated environment.

Actually, I can draw quite a few conclusions, and they will be accurate.

There's an old school that still dismisses simulation, but it's steadily
shrinking.

More_Flaps

May 13th 08, 08:42 PM

On May 14, 1:16*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
> > Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
> > > He was a licensed pilot.
>
> > And you are not.
>
> And he's dead. *And I'm not.

Are you sure?

Cheers

Benjamin Dover

May 13th 08, 08:46 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Stefan Hueneburg writes:
>
>> It's still a game and not real.
>
> Simulations aren't real, either. So what?
>
> War games aren't real. Are you suggesting that military organizations
> practice by starting real wars instead?
>
>> But you cannot draw any conclusion for the real world from a game
>> with a simulated environment.
>
> Actually, I can draw quite a few conclusions, and they will be
> accurate.
>
> There's an old school that still dismisses simulation, but it's
> steadily shrinking.

The only "old school" that dismisses simulation is the simulated old school
in your simulated brain.

Real people in the real world understand the pluses and minuses of
simulation and use it where it is a plus.

Real people, unlike you Anthony, are very cognizant of the differences
between the real world and the simulated world and use simulation for a
positive result.

More_Flaps

May 13th 08, 08:46 PM

On May 14, 7:35*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder writes:
> > The amount of income left to an individual after taxes have been paid,
> > available for spending and saving.
>
> What about food and shelter?

Tell us aboutyour food and shelter. I get the impression of a garret.

Cheers

More_Flaps

May 13th 08, 08:48 PM

On May 14, 7:39*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Stefan Hueneburg writes:
> > It's still a game and not real.
>
> Simulations aren't real, either. *So what?
>
> War games aren't real. *Are you suggesting that military organizations
> practice by starting real wars instead?
>
They are not computer simulations, they involve actual people on
manouvers.

Cheers

Mxsmanic

May 13th 08, 08:50 PM

Steve Foley writes:

> That's not what I was taught.

It's in the Instrument Procedures Handbook.

Mxsmanic

May 13th 08, 08:59 PM

More_Flaps writes:

> They are not computer simulations, they involve actual people on
> manouvers.

They are not wars, they are simulations of wars.

Buster Hymen

May 13th 08, 09:00 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> That's not what I was taught.
>
> It's in the Instrument Procedures Handbook.
>

Instrument procedures are NOT the only way to fly, you moron.

Steve Foley

May 13th 08, 09:30 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
> > That's not what I was taught.
>
> It's in the Instrument Procedures Handbook.

The Instrument Procedures Handbook does not address Visual Flight Rules.

JGalban via AviationKB.com

May 13th 08, 09:59 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>Rest assured, it's a real simulation. I know that people with an ax to grind
>will insist otherwise for a lifetime, but that doesn't change the reality.
>Simulators have come a long way, and the mere fact that a simulator runs on a
>PC doesn't make it "unreal."
>

Go to the MS homepage for FS and look at the top left corner of your screen.
Unlike yourself, Microsoft Game Studios is under no illusion that their
product is anything but a computer game.

Since you do not fly, your judgement on the relative reality simulated by
the game would seem to be suspect. I could claim that a nuclear reactor
simulator game I recently played is an accurate simulation of an actual
nuclear reactor. Of course, since I have never actually operated a nuclear
reactor, I realize that such a statement would be just as full of crap as you
are.

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

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

Maxwell[_2_]

May 13th 08, 10:18 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Aircraft manufacturers spend a great deal of money on simulation of normal
> and
> extreme situations, involving things that nobody would ever attempt in
> real
> life.

Yeah dumb ass, but they don't use MSFS.

Maxwell[_2_]

May 13th 08, 10:20 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

>
> What disposable income?

Finally a valid question from you. Problem is, wrong group.

Gig 601Xl Builder

May 13th 08, 10:23 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder writes:
>
>> The amount of income left to an individual after taxes have been paid,
>> available for spending and saving.
>
> What about food and shelter?

I don't make this **** up Anthony. That is the economic definition. Feel
free to Google it. You will find a few links that say things like food
and shelter are not paid for out of disposable income but those few
sites are wrong. Income - required payments = disposable income.

Food and shelter are not required payments because you can't put a hard
number on them. If you could someone that makes a billion dollars a year
could be listed as zero disposable income. And while there are some
governments that are trying to get the tax rate to where that statement
would be true none that I know of have made it there yet.

Maxwell[_2_]

May 13th 08, 10:23 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Tina writes:
>
>> As a matter of interest Mensa members who are not doing well in the
>> general
>> population seem to exhibit that same ego characteristic: we, the
>> general population, are at fault for not recognizing and rewarding
>> their worth ...
>
> Almost all Mensa members are socially dysfunctional; that's why they join
> Mensa. Only a very tiny fraction of the people who qualify for Mensa
> actually
> join the organization (65 million people are eligible, but the
> organization
> has only about 70,000 members). They are self-selected for social
> maladjustment.

Sounds like you would fit right in, if you could only qualify.

Maxwell[_2_]

May 13th 08, 10:24 PM

"Tina" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm not sure what drives Max or Bertie, but there seems to be some
> pathology there too.

Interesting. Feel free to take a whack at it. No foul, promise.

Maxwell[_2_]

May 13th 08, 10:27 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> The implication is that when licensed pilots screw up, they don't get to
>> post here and ask "How could I avoid killing myself, next time".
>
> Sure they do. Most pilots who kill themselves have a long history of
> incidents prior to the one that finally kills them. In fact, such a
> history
> is a pretty good indicator that a pilot will one day kill himself.

You clueless twit. Let's see data, dip****.

Tina

May 14th 08, 12:06 AM

No thanks. Analysis at a distance is not something I do
professionally. You're welcome to scan the DSM and come up with your
own conclusions.

..

On May 13, 5:24 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> "Tina" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > I'm not sure what drives Max or Bertie, but there seems to be some
> > pathology there too.
>
> Interesting. Feel free to take a whack at it. No foul, promise.

Maxwell[_2_]

May 14th 08, 12:16 AM

"Tina" > wrote in message
...
> No thanks. Analysis at a distance is not something I do
> professionally. You're welcome to scan the DSM and come up with your
> own conclusions.
>
> .
>
>
> On May 13, 5:24 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>> "Tina" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > I'm not sure what drives Max or Bertie, but there seems to be some
>> > pathology there too.
>>
>> Interesting. Feel free to take a whack at it. No foul, promise.
>

I wasn't really expecting a professional analysis, just thought I would
invite your speculation. Sounded like you might have something in mind.

What is the DSM?

Tina

May 14th 08, 01:01 AM

On May 13, 7:16 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> "Tina" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
Sorry, I hate when professional jargon slips in. DSM is the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual used by mental health professionals.

Benjamin Dover

May 14th 08, 01:17 AM

Nomen Nescio > wrote in
:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Mxsmanic >
>
>>Simulations aren't real, either. So what?
>
> So discussions of simulations do not belong in this group.
>
> Got that, Dip****?
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: N/A
>
> iQCVAwUBSCoyG5MoscYxZNI5AQEyqQP/W3gOr/2hlvmaz5AR/tyfxAE/cWwSaEW0
> PL11GafxcDUj8bKOCoKoM808ikuvBudlYtoyqTtmFINJb60qcg ZdToWZen7iYUvq
> YoRvtA1Fq8NDU/qQOnYTSw1HilLJjGUIKjfJ3yXCUdvSTO4hbuSLMWsZxvwF/bG2
> PMZxI2EGQOg=
> =x3o8
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>

One has to wonder why MXSmoron doesn't go back to the simulation news
groups. Could it be that he wore out his welcome there years ago? He
could always go back to the breast feeding newsgroups, but he probably
doesn't find simulation there very satisfactory.

Dave Doe

May 14th 08, 01:21 AM

In article >,
says...
> Tina writes:
>
> > The point tht is being made is your simulation did not test the
> > concept of flying the route in a 172, but did demonstrate how unwise
> > it is to fly without suitable planning.
>
> Actually, all it demonstrated is the danger of icing, as far as I can tell.
> Things were going well prior to that.

If you'd planned the trip, you'd know that simply wasnt' the case at
all.

--
Duncan

Steve Foley

May 14th 08, 01:32 AM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

>
> Almost all Mensa members are socially dysfunctional; that's why they join
> Mensa.

My experience is exactly the opposite.

Where does your information regarding 'Almost all Mensa members' come from,
and how do you define socially dysfunctional?

Benjamin Dover

May 14th 08, 01:39 AM

"Steve Foley" > wrote in
:

> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>> Almost all Mensa members are socially dysfunctional; that's why they
>> join Mensa.
>
> My experience is exactly the opposite.
>
> Where does your information regarding 'Almost all Mensa members' come
> from, and how do you define socially dysfunctional?
>
>
>

Anthony runs the MSMS (MicroSoft Mensa Simulator).

Robert Barker

May 14th 08, 03:04 AM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Tina writes:
>
>> As a matter of interest Mensa members who are not doing well in the
>> general
>> population seem to exhibit that same ego characteristic: we, the
>> general population, are at fault for not recognizing and rewarding
>> their worth ...
>
> Almost all Mensa members are socially dysfunctional; that's why they join
> Mensa. Only a very tiny fraction of the people who qualify for Mensa
> actually
> join the organization (65 million people are eligible, but the
> organization
> has only about 70,000 members). They are self-selected for social
> maladjustment.

I quit Mensa and joined Densa. The members are a LOT more fun!!!
http://www.densasig.org/

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

May 14th 08, 06:06 AM

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Aircraft manufacturers spend a great deal of money on simulation of
>> normal and
>> extreme situations, involving things that nobody would ever attempt
>> in real
>> life.
>
> Yeah dumb ass, but they don't use MSFS.
>
>
>

Sez the twerp who prolly couldn't even fly that.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

May 14th 08, 06:07 AM

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Nomen Nescio writes:
>>
>>> The implication is that when licensed pilots screw up, they don't
>>> get to post here and ask "How could I avoid killing myself, next
>>> time".
>>
>> Sure they do. Most pilots who kill themselves have a long history of
>> incidents prior to the one that finally kills them. In fact, such a
>> history
>> is a pretty good indicator that a pilot will one day kill himself.
>
> You clueless twit. Let's see data, dip****.
>
Well, you coul dgo out and try it and see if you survive, wannabe boi.

Bertie
>

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

May 14th 08, 06:08 AM

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:yCnWj.42284$KJ1.11931
@newsfe19.lga:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>> What disposable income?
>
> Finally a valid question from you. Problem is, wrong group.
>
>
>

No such thing,.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

May 14th 08, 06:08 AM

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Tina" > wrote in message
> news:a3383356-90c2-4cce-b1da-81316c453770
@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com.
> ..
>> No thanks. Analysis at a distance is not something I do
>> professionally. You're welcome to scan the DSM and come up with your
>> own conclusions.
>>
>> .
>>
>>
>> On May 13, 5:24 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>>> "Tina" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:0f926d2d-01bf-4877-9ef7-a78354051419
@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.co
>>> m...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > I'm not sure what drives Max or Bertie, but there seems to be
>>> > some pathology there too.
>>>
>>> Interesting. Feel free to take a whack at it. No foul, promise.
>>
>
> I wasn't really expecting a professional analysis, just thought I
> would invite your speculation. Sounded like you might have something
> in mind.
>
> What is the DSM?
>
>
>

It sez you a k00k.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

May 14th 08, 06:11 AM

Tina > wrote in news:0f926d2d-01bf-4877-9ef7-
:

> If you read the article carefully you will note it was NOT published
> recently. Also, when 30 MDs are involved in accidents when if
> accidents were random across the population the number would have been
> a quarter of that is significant.
>
> I think one might conclude certain professions are self selecting for
> people with great self assurance and the ego to go with it. As a
> matter of interest Mensa members who are not doing well in the general
> population seem to exhibit that same ego characteristic: we, the
> general population, are at fault for not recognizing and rewarding
> their worth. I think, but cannot support the observation, that Anthony
> is quite bright, so it's not a surprise that he, as a displaced
> American living at the subsistence level in Paris, would have some of
> those characteristics.
>
> I'm not sure what drives Max or Bertie, but there seems to be some
> pathology there too.
>
Ever actually met a self-actualised type? I think I can count them on
two fingers.

Who doesn't have a pathology?

Just a bit of a giggle, is all.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

May 14th 08, 06:13 AM

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:tGnWj.42286$KJ1.446
@newsfe19.lga:

>
> "Tina" > wrote in message
> news:0f926d2d-01bf-4877-9ef7-a78354051419
@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> I'm not sure what drives Max or Bertie, but there seems to be some
>> pathology there too.
>
> Interesting. Feel free to take a whack at it. No foul, promise.

I can tell you, but of course you'd pay no more attention to it than my
explanation of how you're being played....

It's because you're stupid.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

May 14th 08, 06:15 AM

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Tina writes:
>>
>>> As a matter of interest Mensa members who are not doing well in the
>>> general
>>> population seem to exhibit that same ego characteristic: we, the
>>> general population, are at fault for not recognizing and rewarding
>>> their worth ...
>>
>> Almost all Mensa members are socially dysfunctional; that's why they
>> join Mensa. Only a very tiny fraction of the people who qualify for
>> Mensa actually
>> join the organization (65 million people are eligible, but the
>> organization
>> has only about 70,000 members). They are self-selected for social
>> maladjustment.
>
> Sounds like you would fit right in, if you could only qualify.
>
>
>
>

Sounds like you could qulify if you squared your IQ.

Or cubed.

Bertie

Steve Foley

May 14th 08, 12:11 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> Most pilots who kill themselves have a long history of
> incidents prior to the one that finally kills them.

This statement sounds like pure conjecture on your part.

Tina

May 14th 08, 12:30 PM

I'm lucky enough to work with a few people who hang around the summit
of Maslow's little triangle most of the time. They, like kooks and
Nobel laureates, seem to tend to cluster.

On May 14, 1:11 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Tina > wrote in news:0f926d2d-01bf-4877-9ef7-
> :
>
>
>
> > If you read the article carefully you will note it was NOT published
> > recently. Also, when 30 MDs are involved in accidents when if
> > accidents were random across the population the number would have been
> > a quarter of that is significant.
>
> > I think one might conclude certain professions are self selecting for
> > people with great self assurance and the ego to go with it. As a
> > matter of interest Mensa members who are not doing well in the general
> > population seem to exhibit that same ego characteristic: we, the
> > general population, are at fault for not recognizing and rewarding
> > their worth. I think, but cannot support the observation, that Anthony
> > is quite bright, so it's not a surprise that he, as a displaced
> > American living at the subsistence level in Paris, would have some of
> > those characteristics.
>
> > I'm not sure what drives Max or Bertie, but there seems to be some
> > pathology there too.
>
> Ever actually met a self-actualised type? I think I can count them on
> two fingers.
>
> Who doesn't have a pathology?
>
> Just a bit of a giggle, is all.
>
> Bertie

Tina

May 14th 08, 12:36 PM

Oh, this can be parsed to death. Are you ready for a Clintonization
along the lines of "It depends on what 'incidents' means"?

Unless you believe in reincarnation (going to come back as MX?) you
get to star in only one fatal accident.

On May 14, 7:11 am, "Steve Foley" > wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Most pilots who kill themselves have a long history of
> > incidents prior to the one that finally kills them.
>
> This statement sounds like pure conjecture on your part.

Mxsmanic

May 14th 08, 01:10 PM

Steve Foley writes:

> My experience is exactly the opposite.
>
> Where does your information regarding 'Almost all Mensa members' come from,
> and how do you define socially dysfunctional?

I know many members of Mensa, and I've dealt with others indirectly. Almost
all of them have "issues" when it comes to human interaction. Very often they
have not been as successful as they'd like to be in one domain or another, and
joining Mensa seems to be an attempt at validating themselves in some way.
People who are smart and successful don't need to join Mensa to feel good
about themselves; people who are smart but have nothing else going for them
tend to be strongly attracted to organizations like Mensa.

There are normally adjusted Mensa members, but they are rare. Most of them
are geeks in some (negative) way.

The other high-IQ clubs are much the same.

Mxsmanic

May 14th 08, 01:13 PM

Steve Foley writes:

> This statement sounds like pure conjecture on your part.

Perhaps, but it is based on NTSB and JAMA special reports that I have read. I
don't think they engage in conjecture.

Mxsmanic

May 14th 08, 01:15 PM

Buster Hymen writes:

> Instrument procedures are NOT the only way to fly, you moron.

Nobody said otherwise. I simply pointed out that the design criteria for
airways are discussed in the Instrument Procedures Handbook. It explains the
type of terrain and obstacle clearance that airways nominally provide. Even
someone who doesn't want an IR would still be well advised to read this book.

Mxsmanic

May 14th 08, 01:17 PM

Steve Foley writes:

> The Instrument Procedures Handbook does not address Visual Flight Rules.

But it does explain airways and the type of terrain and obstacle clearance
they provide (because this is very important for IFR flight).

Essentially, if you correctly fly along an airway, you can be assured of a
certain margin of clearance over obstacles and terrain. That's one of the
reasons for having airways in the first place.

Steve Foley

May 14th 08, 01:25 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
> > My experience is exactly the opposite.
> >
> > Where does your information regarding 'Almost all Mensa members' come
from,
> > and how do you define socially dysfunctional?
>
> I know many members of Mensa

So you feel comfortable extrapolating your experience with 'many' members of
Mensa to 'Almost all Mensa members'. Personally, I consider the sample
inadequate.

> Almost all of them have "issues" when it comes to human interaction.

You've substituted one vague definition for another.

Steve Foley

May 14th 08, 01:29 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
> > This statement sounds like pure conjecture on your part.
>
> Perhaps, but it is based on NTSB and JAMA special reports that I have
read. I
> don't think they engage in conjecture.

NTSB reports don't list prior incidents. In fact, they rarely identify the
pilot.

Tina

May 14th 08, 01:31 PM

There is nothing as much fun as an unskilled in the discipline person
speak authoritatively. All of this wisdom comes to us from someone
who has never had the visceral sensation of feeling the control
pressures lessen in slow flight or the sensation at the break of a
full stall. Or for that matter tries to tell us his experiment with a
high altitude simulated flight without flight planning in a 172
is somehow definitive.

Opps -- it WAS definitive, but the definition had everything to do
with the poster, not the simulation.

felt the controls On May 14, 8:17 am, Mxsmanic
> wrote:
> Steve Foley writes:
> > The Instrument Procedures Handbook does not address Visual Flight Rules.
>
> But it does explain airways and the type of terrain and obstacle clearance
> they provide (because this is very important for IFR flight).
>
> Essentially, if you correctly fly along an airway, you can be assured of a
> certain margin of clearance over obstacles and terrain. That's one of the
> reasons for having airways in the first place.

Steve Foley

May 14th 08, 01:33 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
> > The Instrument Procedures Handbook does not address Visual Flight Rules.
>
> But it does explain airways and the type of terrain and obstacle clearance
> they provide (because this is very important for IFR flight).

You stated you were flying VFR

>
> Essentially, if you correctly fly along an airway, you can be assured of a
> certain margin of clearance over obstacles and terrain. That's one of the
> reasons for having airways in the first place.

The best terrain clearance is normally not along an airway. Mountain passes
don't care where the VORs are.

Mxsmanic

May 14th 08, 02:11 PM

Steve Foley writes:

> So you feel comfortable extrapolating your experience with 'many' members of
> Mensa to 'Almost all Mensa members'.

Yes. And in fact I'm being charitable.

Mxsmanic

May 14th 08, 02:12 PM

Steve Foley writes:

> NTSB reports don't list prior incidents. In fact, they rarely identify the
> pilot.

Perhaps the word "special" escaped your notice. You can download them from
the NTSB site.

Mxsmanic

May 14th 08, 02:14 PM

Steve Foley writes:

> You stated you were flying VFR

You said that you were not taught about safety margins for terrain in airways.
I pointed you to an official publication that describes those margins.

> The best terrain clearance is normally not along an airway. Mountain passes
> don't care where the VORs are.

Read the book.

Steve Foley

May 14th 08, 02:34 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
> > NTSB reports don't list prior incidents. In fact, they rarely identify
the
> > pilot.
>
> Perhaps the word "special" escaped your notice. You can download them
from
> the NTSB site.

The NTSB does not produce 'Special' reports on 'most pilots who kill
themselves'.

Steve Foley

May 14th 08, 02:42 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
> > You stated you were flying VFR
>
> You said that you were not taught about safety margins for terrain in
airways.

I clearly stated that I was not taught that 'airways were supposed to be
safer'

> I pointed you to an official publication that describes those margins.

You pointed to a publication that was not relevant to the flight.

> > The best terrain clearance is normally not along an airway. Mountain
passes
> > don't care where the VORs are.
>
> Read the book.

I have. In fact, I'll be taking the written test in a few weeks.

Steve Foley

May 14th 08, 03:00 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
> > So you feel comfortable extrapolating your experience with 'many'
members of
> > Mensa to 'Almost all Mensa members'.
>
> Yes. And in fact I'm being charitable.

'Charitable' is not the term that comes to my mind when considering your
analysis.

Mxsmanic

May 14th 08, 04:51 PM

Steve Foley writes:

> 'Charitable' is not the term that comes to my mind when considering your
> analysis.

What comes to my mind is that Mensa has nothing to do with aviation.

Mxsmanic

May 14th 08, 04:56 PM

Steve Foley writes:

> The NTSB does not produce 'Special' reports on 'most pilots who kill
> themselves'.

From NTSB/SS-05/01:

Accident, Incident, and Violation History

A review of the accident and incident history of study pilots indicated
that 19 percent of accident pilots had an accident or incident before the
study accident. In four of these cases, the event included in the study was
the pilot's third recorded mishap. In contrast, figure 14 shows that a smaller
proportion of pilots in the nonaccident control group were ever involved in an
accident or incident. The differences in accident and incident history between
groups was statistically significant, .2 (1, N = 207) = 3.99, p = .046, with a
larger percentage of accident pilots having been involved in a prior
occurrence.

In addition to accidents and incidents, FAA records indicated that 6 of the 72
study accident pilots had civil aviation violations on their records, in
contrast to only 3 of the 135 nonaccident pilots. The descriptive comparison
suggests that a higher percentage of accident pilots had violation records,
but because of the small numbers of all study pilots with violations,
statistical analyses were not conducted for these values.

Mxsmanic

May 14th 08, 04:59 PM

Steve Foley writes:

> I have. In fact, I'll be taking the written test in a few weeks.

Good luck.

Steve Foley

May 14th 08, 06:02 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
> > The NTSB does not produce 'Special' reports on 'most pilots who kill
> > themselves'.
>
> From NTSB/SS-05/01:
>
> Accident, Incident, and Violation History
>
> A review of the accident and incident history of study pilots indicated
> that 19 percent of accident pilots had an accident or incident before the
> study accident. In four of these cases, the event included in the study
was
> the pilot's third recorded mishap.

19 percent is not 'most'.

Two previous mishaps in four cases does not equate to a long history of
incidents.

This does not support the statement that:

"Most pilots who kill themselves have a long history of
incidents prior "

Steve Foley

May 14th 08, 07:00 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
> > I have. In fact, I'll be taking the written test in a few weeks.
>
> Good luck.

Getting back to the point, I don't see any airways 20 miles southeast of
Aspen. What was your route?

I also saw (I think) in a post that you leaned the mixture prior to
take-off. Did you continue leaning as you climbed?

Mxsmanic

May 14th 08, 07:44 PM

Steve Foley writes:

> Getting back to the point, I don't see any airways 20 miles southeast of
> Aspen. What was your route?

ETL.V68.MTJ.RIL.DBL

I wasn't flying an airway in the 172. I prepared a route that avoided the
high mountains to the east.

I have since flown IFR via ETL.V68.MTJ.V361.DBL at 12000 in the Baron, with no
problems (although KASE was VFR at the time).

> I also saw (I think) in a post that you leaned the mixture prior to
> take-off. Did you continue leaning as you climbed?

I leaned the mixture for take-off because of the altitude. Held the brakes,
full throttle, adjusted mixture for 10° rich of peak. I did lean it slightly
more during the flight, but there isn't much difference in mixture between
9000 and 12000 feet. I always lean the mixture for peak EGT and then back off
5-15 degrees.

Steve Foley

May 14th 08, 08:11 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
> > Getting back to the point, I don't see any airways 20 miles southeast of
> > Aspen. What was your route?
>
> ETL.V68.MTJ.RIL.DBL
>

How did you end up southeast of Aspen?

Benjamin Dover

May 14th 08, 08:37 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Buster Hymen writes:
>
>> Instrument procedures are NOT the only way to fly, you moron.
>
> Nobody said otherwise. I simply pointed out that the design criteria
> for airways are discussed in the Instrument Procedures Handbook. It
> explains the type of terrain and obstacle clearance that airways
> nominally provide. Even someone who doesn't want an IR would still be
> well advised to read this book.
>

You really are a ****ing idiot Anthony. You don't know **** from shinola
about aviation. The terrain and obstacle clearance on the airways are
designed for instrument flight. The fecal matter you call a brain can't
distinguish between VFR and IFR.

Mxsmanic

May 14th 08, 08:42 PM

Steve Foley writes:

> How did you end up southeast of Aspen?

I didn't. I crashed southeast of Garfield County, as I've already explained.

Benjamin Dover

May 14th 08, 08:43 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> You stated you were flying VFR
>
> You said that you were not taught about safety margins for terrain in
> airways. I pointed you to an official publication that describes those
> margins.
>
>> The best terrain clearance is normally not along an airway. Mountain
>> passes don't care where the VORs are.
>
> Read the book.

Not only have we read the book, Anthony you dumb ****, we've actually flown
airplanes. You don't know **** from shinola about flying an airplane. All
you do is play a game while yanking your joy stick.

Benjamin Dover

May 14th 08, 08:44 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> I have since flown IFR via ETL.V68.MTJ.V361.DBL at 12000 in the Baron,
> with no problems (although KASE was VFR at the time).

LIAR. You have NEVER flown a Baron. You just pretend to fly a Baron while
jerking your joy stick.

Mxsmanic

May 14th 08, 08:45 PM

Benjamin Dover writes:

> The terrain and obstacle clearance on the airways are
> designed for instrument flight.

They work just as well for VFR flight.

Steve Foley

May 14th 08, 08:53 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
> > How did you end up southeast of Aspen?
>
> I didn't. I crashed southeast of Garfield County, as I've already
explained.

I read "had plkanned to divert...but lost control" to mean you hadn't
actually diverted.

In any event, if your route was ETL.V68.MTJ.RIL.DBL, how did you end up 20
miles southeast of Garfield County?

Benjamin Dover

May 14th 08, 08:55 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Benjamin Dover writes:
>
>> The terrain and obstacle clearance on the airways are
>> designed for instrument flight.
>
> They work just as well for VFR flight.
>

No they don't and you are too ****ing stupid to understand why.

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe

May 15th 08, 03:26 AM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> The NTSB does not produce 'Special' reports on 'most pilots who kill
>> themselves'.
>
> From NTSB/SS-05/01:
>
> Accident, Incident, and Violation History
>
> A review of the accident and incident history of study pilots indicated
> that 19 percent of accident pilots had an accident or incident before the
> study accident. In four of these cases, the event included in the study
> was

So, like, the NTSB figgured out that some pilots aren't as good as others
and tend to have accidents? Wow. What a surprise.

Guess what. There are some Doctors out there that graduated at the bottom of
their class too.

And English teachers...

--
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.

RST Engineering

May 15th 08, 04:06 AM

Like the English teachers that didn't know how to teach you to spell
"figured"? Or not capitalize "Doctors" as a class of people? Or put a
question mark at the end of the "Guess what?" incomplete sentence?

Jim
Science teacher who grades very hard on grammar and punctuation in the
semester final report.

--
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it."
--Aristotle

>
> So, like, the NTSB figgured out that some pilots aren't as good as others
> and tend to have accidents? Wow. What a surprise.
>
> Guess what. There are some Doctors out there that graduated at the bottom
> of their class too.
>
> And English teachers...
>
> --
> 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.
>
>

Mxsmanic

May 15th 08, 07:56 PM

Steve Foley writes:

> I read "had plkanned to divert...but lost control" to mean you hadn't
> actually diverted.

Garfield County was actually on my route, so the diversion would have
consisted of simply landing at that airport as I passed over it.

> In any event, if your route was ETL.V68.MTJ.RIL.DBL, how did you end up 20
> miles southeast of Garfield County?

Between MTJ and RIL.

Gezellig

May 15th 08, 08:29 PM

On Wed, 14 May 2008 20:06:05 -0700, RST Engineering wrote:

> Jim
> Science teacher who grades very hard on grammar and punctuation in the
> semester final report.

SERIOUSLY? Does the English teacher grade on their science?

Steve Foley

May 15th 08, 08:53 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
> > In any event, if your route was ETL.V68.MTJ.RIL.DBL, how did you end up
20
> > miles southeast of Garfield County?
>
> Between MTJ and RIL.

OK, now I understand why you crashed.

Mxsmanic

May 16th 08, 05:18 AM

Steve Foley writes:

> OK, now I understand why you crashed.

And why was that?

Tina

May 16th 08, 10:57 AM

Because you engaged in a simulated flight without sufficient planning
and did not exercise the judgment training is intended to teach real
pilots.

On May 16, 12:18 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Steve Foley writes:
> > OK, now I understand why you crashed.
>
> And why was that?

Steve Foley

May 16th 08, 01:36 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
> > OK, now I understand why you crashed.
>
> And why was that?

You were off course, and flew into a mountain.

Mxsmanic

May 16th 08, 06:55 PM

Steve Foley writes:

> You were off course, and flew into a mountain.

No, I was above terrain (about 2000' AGL, I think), but I lost control of the
aircraft. I looked at a chart--just for a few seconds--and when I looked
back, the autopilot had disengaged and I was banking rather wildly. My
half-hearted attempts to recover control several times were unsuccessful, and
by then I had too little altitude to survive.

I was unable to determine why the AP disengaged, but I assume that
deteriorating performance due to icing might have been the cause.

Steve Foley

May 16th 08, 07:16 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
> > You were off course, and flew into a mountain.
>
> No, I was above terrain (about 2000' AGL, I think), but I lost control of
the
> aircraft.

MTJ is almost due sourh of RIL. You crashed 20 miles southeast of RIL, so
you were off course.

The terrain to the southeast of RIL is much higher than the terrain between
MTJ and RIL.

My guess is you hit Huntsman Mountain.

Mxsmanic

May 16th 08, 08:02 PM

Steve Foley writes:

> MTJ is almost due sourh of RIL. You crashed 20 miles southeast of RIL, so
> you were off course.

No, I simply stated my position rather inaccurately. The needle was centered.

> The terrain to the southeast of RIL is much higher than the terrain between
> MTJ and RIL.
>
> My guess is you hit Huntsman Mountain.

My analysis indicates that I was crossing Grand Mesa on a direct line between
MTJ and RIL when I crashed. The sectional shows 11700' MSL for that point,
and I was at 12500' MSL--not a huge margin, but above terrain. I didn't
impact terrain in level flight; the aircraft started to spin several times and
I was so close to the ground that I could not recover--no time to try out the
PARE technique. It was probably unwise to leave so small a margin, but the
service ceiling of the aircraft is only slightly above that, and I didn't want
to be in too much of a corner.

Steve Foley

May 16th 08, 08:29 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

>
> No, I simply stated my position rather inaccurately. The needle was
centered.

With inaccurate information, there's no way anyone can tell you what
happened.

Mxsmanic

May 16th 08, 11:07 PM

Steve Foley writes:

> With inaccurate information, there's no way anyone can tell you what
> happened.

I explained what happened long ago, and it did not involve a collison with
rising terrain.

Steve Foley

May 17th 08, 04:11 AM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> With inaccurate information, there's no way anyone can tell you what
>> happened.
>
> I explained what happened long ago, and it did not involve a collison with
> rising terrain.

You also said your explanation contained inaccuracies.

Mxsmanic

May 17th 08, 11:26 AM

Steve Foley writes:

> You also said your explanation contained inaccuracies.

The inaccuracies were not relevant to the cause of the crash, which clearly
had nothing to do with rising terrain.

More_Flaps

May 17th 08, 11:57 AM

On May 17, 10:26*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Steve Foley writes:
> > You also said your explanation contained inaccuracies.
>
> The inaccuracies were not relevant to the cause of the crash, which clearly
> had nothing to do with rising terrain.

Did it not rise up and smite you?

Cheers

Steve Foley

May 17th 08, 01:21 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> You also said your explanation contained inaccuracies.
>
> The inaccuracies were not relevant to the cause of the crash, which
> clearly
> had nothing to do with rising terrain.

The cause of the crash is quite clear.

Pilot error.

Mxsmanic

May 17th 08, 02:13 PM

More_Flaps writes:

> Did it not rise up and smite you?

No, I descended into it.

Mxsmanic

May 17th 08, 02:14 PM

Steve Foley writes:

> The cause of the crash is quite clear.
>
> Pilot error.

I presume so. Unfortunately, nobody here is able to describe and correct the
error.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

May 17th 08, 02:30 PM

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

May 17th 08, 02:30 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> More_Flaps writes:
>
>> Did it not rise up and smite you?
>
> No, I descended into it.
>

Wrong again, fjukkwit.

Bertie

Steve Foley

May 17th 08, 02:40 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> The cause of the crash is quite clear.
>>
>> Pilot error.
>
> I presume so. Unfortunately, nobody here is able to describe and correct
> the
> error.

That probably has something to to with the limited, and often inaccurate,
information provided.

I would also like to correct a previous conclusion.

I should have used the term "operator error.".

Mxsmanic

May 17th 08, 05:26 PM

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> Wrong again, fjukkwit.

In the absence of seismic activity of divine magnitude, I can assure you that
I descended into terrain; it did not jump up to get in my way.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

May 17th 08, 05:41 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Wrong again, fjukkwit.
>
> In the absence of seismic activity of divine magnitude, I can assure
> you that I descended into terrain; it did not jump up to get in my
> way.
>

You descended into a bunch of pixtels, fjukktard.

Bertie

Buster Hymen

May 17th 08, 07:08 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> The cause of the crash is quite clear.
>>
>> Pilot error.
>
> I presume so. Unfortunately, nobody here is able to describe and
> correct the error.

That's because nobody here gives a **** about you, dumb ass. If you were
to be killed in a plane crash, we'd all celebrate. You're nothing but a
waste of bandwidth and electrons.

Benjamin Dover

May 17th 08, 07:09 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> More_Flaps writes:
>
>> Did it not rise up and smite you?
>
> No, I descended into it.
>

Wow. The dip **** can't even talk like a pilot.

Benjamin Dover

May 17th 08, 07:09 PM

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

May 17th 08, 07:12 PM

Buster Hymen > wrote in
02:

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Steve Foley writes:
>>
>>> The cause of the crash is quite clear.
>>>
>>> Pilot error.
>>
>> I presume so. Unfortunately, nobody here is able to describe and
>> correct the error.
>
> That's because nobody here gives a **** about you, dumb ass. If you
> were to be killed in a plane crash, we'd all celebrate. You're
> nothing but a waste of bandwidth and electrons.
>
>

He might make god fertiliser, though.

Bertie

Buster Hymen

May 17th 08, 07:28 PM

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
:

> Buster Hymen > wrote in
> 02:
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Steve Foley writes:
>>>
>>>> The cause of the crash is quite clear.
>>>>
>>>> Pilot error.
>>>
>>> I presume so. Unfortunately, nobody here is able to describe and
>>> correct the error.
>>
>> That's because nobody here gives a **** about you, dumb ass. If you
>> were to be killed in a plane crash, we'd all celebrate. You're
>> nothing but a waste of bandwidth and electrons.
>>
>>
>
> He might make god fertiliser, though.
>
>
> Bertie
>

Hmmm. I'm not sure. Making MX into fertilizer runs a high risk of
damaging the crops for years to come. He's toxic.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

May 17th 08, 07:33 PM

Buster Hymen > wrote in
02:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
> :
>
>> Buster Hymen > wrote in
>> 02:
>>
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Steve Foley writes:
>>>>
>>>>> The cause of the crash is quite clear.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pilot error.
>>>>
>>>> I presume so. Unfortunately, nobody here is able to describe and
>>>> correct the error.
>>>
>>> That's because nobody here gives a **** about you, dumb ass. If you
>>> were to be killed in a plane crash, we'd all celebrate. You're
>>> nothing but a waste of bandwidth and electrons.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> He might make god fertiliser, though.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Hmmm. I'm not sure. Making MX into fertilizer runs a high risk of
> damaging the crops for years to come. He's toxic.
>
>

A new sort of Genetic Modification. inserting stupid genes into your
carrots the hard way.

Bertie

Steve Foley

May 17th 08, 10:19 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Wrong again, fjukkwit.
>
> In the absence of seismic activity of divine magnitude, I can assure you
> that
> I descended into terrain; it did not jump up to get in my way.

If , as you claim, Microsoft simulates icing when you were not in icing
conditions, why do you doubt they would simulate the ground jumping up?

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

May 17th 08, 10:22 PM

"Steve Foley" > wrote in
:

> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>
>>> Wrong again, fjukkwit.
>>
>> In the absence of seismic activity of divine magnitude, I can assure
>> you that
>> I descended into terrain; it did not jump up to get in my way.
>
> If , as you claim, Microsoft simulates icing when you were not in
> icing conditions, why do you doubt they would simulate the ground
> jumping up?
>
>
>

After all it's just as valid to say the ground rose as it is to say that
you descended. That's relativity, that is!

Bertie

Steve Foley

May 22nd 08, 12:26 AM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> I have. In fact, I'll be taking the written test in a few weeks.
>
> Good luck.

Thanks.... I passed

Maxwell[_2_]

May 31st 08, 04:36 PM

In article <f1b63dba-55fe-4904-bd18-824d30674389
@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Chilly8 says...

>
> On May 10, 4:05*pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> > "Chilly8" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...
> >
> >
> >
> > > I am NOT Bertie. *The Bunyip does his thing and I do mine.
> > > The group misses you at the glory hole, Maxwell.
> >
> > Sure ya do Bertie the Liar.
>
>
>
> Maxwrell, I just happened onto this thread, and some ASSHOLE is
> gettring his jollies out of decicing to impersoante me. All the
> postings on rec.aviation.piloting, purportint to b me, are NOT *ME*.
>
> Whoever the HELL you are, I do NOT like being impersonated, and and I
> DEMAND that you CEASE AND DECIST from impersonating at RIGHT GOD DAMN
> NOW!!!!!!!!

Or else what, fr00tl00p?

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

Chilly8

May 31st 08, 06:25 PM

On May 31, 8:36*am, Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
> In article <f1b63dba-55fe-4904-bd18-824d30674389
> @l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Chilly8 says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 10, 4:05*pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> > > "Chilly8" > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> > > > I am NOT Bertie. *The Bunyip does his thing and I do mine.
> > > > The group misses you at the glory hole, Maxwell.
>
> > > Sure ya do Bertie the Liar.
>
> > Maxwrell, I just happened onto this thread, and some ASSHOLE is
> > gettring his jollies out of decicing to impersoante me. All the
> > postings on rec.aviation.piloting, purportint to b me, are NOT *ME*.
>
> > Whoever the HELL you are, I do NOT like being impersonated, and and I
> > DEMAND that you CEASE AND DECIST from impersonating at RIGHT GOD DAMN
> > NOW!!!!!!!!
>
> Or else what, fr00tl00p?
>

I am NOT "r00tl00p". I am NOT "Bertie". Someone has been IMPERSONATING
me.

I run an online radio statoin out of Australia,and Chily8 is one of my
scren names. Someobody has decided to take it and IMPERSONATE me, and
I am serving notice to WHOEVER is doing this STOP impersonating me
RIGHT *NOW*!!!!1

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

May 31st 08, 08:22 PM

Chilly8 > wrote in news:d9951312-9221-4ece-a035-
:

> On May 31, 8:36*am, Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
>> In article <f1b63dba-55fe-4904-bd18-824d30674389
>> @l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Chilly8 says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 10, 4:05*pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>> > > "Chilly8" > wrote in message
>>
>> > ...
>>
>> > > > I am NOT Bertie. *The Bunyip does his thing and I do mine.
>> > > > The group misses you at the glory hole, Maxwell.
>>
>> > > Sure ya do Bertie the Liar.
>>
>> > Maxwrell, I just happened onto this thread, and some ASSHOLE is
>> > gettring his jollies out of decicing to impersoante me. All the
>> > postings on rec.aviation.piloting, purportint to b me, are NOT
*ME*.
>>
>> > Whoever the HELL you are, I do NOT like being impersonated, and and
I
>> > DEMAND that you CEASE AND DECIST from impersonating at RIGHT GOD
DAMN
>> > NOW!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Or else what, fr00tl00p?
>>
>
> I am NOT "r00tl00p". I am NOT "Bertie". Someone has been IMPERSONATING
> me.
>

Gotta tell you d00d, the caps make you look a little crazy.

> I run an online radio statoin out of Australia,and Chily8 is one of my
> scren names. Someobody has decided to take it and IMPERSONATE me, and
> I am serving notice to WHOEVER is doing this STOP impersonating me
> RIGHT *NOW*!!!!1

Oh that'll work.

Bertie

Maxwell[_2_]

May 31st 08, 11:12 PM

In article <d9951312-9221-4ece-a035-
>, Chilly8 says...

> On May 31, 8:36*am, Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
> > In article <f1b63dba-55fe-4904-bd18-824d30674389
> > @l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Chilly8 says...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 10, 4:05*pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> > > > "Chilly8" > wrote in message
> >
> > > ...
> >
> > > > > I am NOT Bertie. *The Bunyip does his thing and I do mine.
> > > > > The group misses you at the glory hole, Maxwell.
> >
> > > > Sure ya do Bertie the Liar.
> >
> > > Maxwrell, I just happened onto this thread, and some ASSHOLE is
> > > gettring his jollies out of decicing to impersoante me. All the
> > > postings on rec.aviation.piloting, purportint to b me, are NOT *ME*.
> >
> > > Whoever the HELL you are, I do NOT like being impersonated, and and I
> > > DEMAND that you CEASE AND DECIST from impersonating at RIGHT GOD DAMN
> > > NOW!!!!!!!!
> >
> > Or else what, fr00tl00p?
> >
>
> I am NOT "r00tl00p". I am NOT "Bertie". Someone has been IMPERSONATING
> me.
>
> I run an online radio statoin out of Australia,and Chily8 is one of my
> scren names. Someobody has decided to take it and IMPERSONATE me, and
> I am serving notice to WHOEVER is doing this STOP impersonating me
> RIGHT *NOW*!!!!1

Or else what, asstralian fr00tl00p?

Or are you just blathering to hear yourself talk?

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

Maxwell[_2_]

May 31st 08, 11:14 PM

In article >, Bertie the
Bunyip says...

> Chilly8 > wrote in news:d9951312-9221-4ece-a035-
> :
>
> > On May 31, 8:36*am, Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
> >> In article <f1b63dba-55fe-4904-bd18-824d30674389
> >> @l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Chilly8 says...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > On May 10, 4:05*pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> >> > > "Chilly8" > wrote in message
> >>
> >> > ...
> >>
> >> > > > I am NOT Bertie. *The Bunyip does his thing and I do mine.
> >> > > > The group misses you at the glory hole, Maxwell.
> >>
> >> > > Sure ya do Bertie the Liar.
> >>
> >> > Maxwrell, I just happened onto this thread, and some ASSHOLE is
> >> > gettring his jollies out of decicing to impersoante me. All the
> >> > postings on rec.aviation.piloting, purportint to b me, are NOT
> *ME*.
> >>
> >> > Whoever the HELL you are, I do NOT like being impersonated, and and
> I
> >> > DEMAND that you CEASE AND DECIST from impersonating at RIGHT GOD
> DAMN
> >> > NOW!!!!!!!!
> >>
> >> Or else what, fr00tl00p?
> >>
> >
> > I am NOT "r00tl00p". I am NOT "Bertie". Someone has been IMPERSONATING
> > me.
> >
>
> Gotta tell you d00d, the caps make you look a little crazy.

Maybe I can make him a lot crazy...

> > I run an online radio statoin out of Australia,and Chily8 is one of my
> > scren names. Someobody has decided to take it and IMPERSONATE me, and
> > I am serving notice to WHOEVER is doing this STOP impersonating me
> > RIGHT *NOW*!!!!1
>
> Oh that'll work.

Par for the course for asstralian poofters

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

June 1st 08, 12:15 AM

Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in news:MPG.22ab6d84e936efd898b072
@notbxpats.edu:

> In article >, Bertie the
> Bunyip says...
>
>> Chilly8 > wrote in news:d9951312-9221-4ece-a035-
>> :
>>
>> > On May 31, 8:36*am, Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
>> >> In article <f1b63dba-55fe-4904-bd18-824d30674389
>> >> @l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Chilly8 says...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > On May 10, 4:05*pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>> >> > > "Chilly8" > wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> > ...
>> >>
>> >> > > > I am NOT Bertie. *The Bunyip does his thing and I do mine.
>> >> > > > The group misses you at the glory hole, Maxwell.
>> >>
>> >> > > Sure ya do Bertie the Liar.
>> >>
>> >> > Maxwrell, I just happened onto this thread, and some ASSHOLE is
>> >> > gettring his jollies out of decicing to impersoante me. All the
>> >> > postings on rec.aviation.piloting, purportint to b me, are NOT
>> *ME*.
>> >>
>> >> > Whoever the HELL you are, I do NOT like being impersonated, and
and
>
>> I
>> >> > DEMAND that you CEASE AND DECIST from impersonating at RIGHT GOD
>> DAMN
>> >> > NOW!!!!!!!!
>> >>
>> >> Or else what, fr00tl00p?
>> >>
>> >
>> > I am NOT "r00tl00p". I am NOT "Bertie". Someone has been
IMPERSONATING
>> > me.
>> >
>>
>> Gotta tell you d00d, the caps make you look a little crazy.
>
> Maybe I can make him a lot crazy...
>
>> > I run an online radio statoin out of Australia,and Chily8 is one of
my
>> > scren names. Someobody has decided to take it and IMPERSONATE me,
and
>> > I am serving notice to WHOEVER is doing this STOP impersonating me
>> > RIGHT *NOW*!!!!1
>>
>> Oh that'll work.
>
> Par for the course for asstralian poofters
>

Bit on the cluelss side alright.

Bertie

Maxwell[_2_]

June 1st 08, 04:55 PM

In article >, BaronLurk
says...

> On Sat, 31 May 2008 10:25:48 -0700 (PDT), Chilly8
> > wrote:
>
> >On May 31, 8:36*am, Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
> >> In article <f1b63dba-55fe-4904-bd18-824d30674389
> >> @l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Chilly8 says...
> >>
> >> > On May 10, 4:05*pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> >> > > "Chilly8" > wrote in message
> >>
> >> > ...
> >>
> >> > > > I am NOT Bertie. *The Bunyip does his thing and I do mine.
> >> > > > The group misses you at the glory hole, Maxwell.
> >>
> >> > > Sure ya do Bertie the Liar.
> >>
> >> > Maxwrell, I just happened onto this thread, and some ASSHOLE is
> >> > gettring his jollies out of decicing to impersoante me. All the
> >> > postings on rec.aviation.piloting, purportint to b me, are NOT *ME*.
> >>
> >> > Whoever the HELL you are, I do NOT like being impersonated, and and I
> >> > DEMAND that you CEASE AND DECIST from impersonating at RIGHT GOD DAMN
> >> > NOW!!!!!!!!
> >>
> >> Or else what, fr00tl00p?
> >
> >I am NOT "r00tl00p". I am NOT "Bertie". Someone has been IMPERSONATING
> >me.
> >
> >I run an online radio statoin out of Australia,and Chily8 is one of my
> >scren names. Someobody has decided to take it and IMPERSONATE me, and
> >I am serving notice to WHOEVER is doing this STOP impersonating me
> >RIGHT *NOW*!!!!1
>
> Anything for you, Chuckie.

Nothing for you, Chuckie.

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

Maxwell[_2_]

June 1st 08, 04:59 PM

In article >, Bertie the
Bunyip says...

> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in news:MPG.22ab6d84e936efd898b072
> @notbxpats.edu:
>
> > In article >, Bertie the
> > Bunyip says...
> >
> >> Chilly8 > wrote in news:d9951312-9221-4ece-a035-
> >> :
> >>
> >> > On May 31, 8:36*am, Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
> >> >> In article <f1b63dba-55fe-4904-bd18-824d30674389
> >> >> @l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Chilly8 says...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > On May 10, 4:05*pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> >> >> > > "Chilly8" > wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >> > ...
> >> >>
> >> >> > > > I am NOT Bertie. *The Bunyip does his thing and I do mine.
> >> >> > > > The group misses you at the glory hole, Maxwell.
> >> >>
> >> >> > > Sure ya do Bertie the Liar.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Maxwrell, I just happened onto this thread, and some ASSHOLE is
> >> >> > gettring his jollies out of decicing to impersoante me. All the
> >> >> > postings on rec.aviation.piloting, purportint to b me, are NOT
> >> *ME*.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Whoever the HELL you are, I do NOT like being impersonated, and
> and
> >
> >> I
> >> >> > DEMAND that you CEASE AND DECIST from impersonating at RIGHT GOD
> >> DAMN
> >> >> > NOW!!!!!!!!
> >> >>
> >> >> Or else what, fr00tl00p?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I am NOT "r00tl00p". I am NOT "Bertie". Someone has been
> IMPERSONATING
> >> > me.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Gotta tell you d00d, the caps make you look a little crazy.
> >
> > Maybe I can make him a lot crazy...
> >
> >> > I run an online radio statoin out of Australia,and Chily8 is one of
> my
> >> > scren names. Someobody has decided to take it and IMPERSONATE me,
> and
> >> > I am serving notice to WHOEVER is doing this STOP impersonating me
> >> > RIGHT *NOW*!!!!1
> >>
> >> Oh that'll work.
> >
> > Par for the course for asstralian poofters
>
> Bit on the cluelss side alright.

I haven't seen Sky around ozdebate since my return. This one might be
a suitable replacement.

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

June 2nd 08, 12:52 AM

Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in news:MPG.22ac673a9cf6bae798b076
@notbxpats.edu:

> In article >, Bertie the
> Bunyip says...
>
>> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
news:MPG.22ab6d84e936efd898b072
>> @notbxpats.edu:
>>
>> > In article >, Bertie the
>> > Bunyip says...
>> >
>> >> Chilly8 > wrote in news:d9951312-9221-4ece-
a035-
>> >> :
>> >>
>> >> > On May 31, 8:36*am, Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <f1b63dba-55fe-4904-bd18-824d30674389
>> >> >> @l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Chilly8 says...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > On May 10, 4:05*pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>> >> >> > > "Chilly8" > wrote in message
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > > > I am NOT Bertie. *The Bunyip does his thing and I do
mine.
>> >> >> > > > The group misses you at the glory hole, Maxwell.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > > Sure ya do Bertie the Liar.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Maxwrell, I just happened onto this thread, and some ASSHOLE
is
>> >> >> > gettring his jollies out of decicing to impersoante me. All
the
>> >> >> > postings on rec.aviation.piloting, purportint to b me, are
NOT
>> >> *ME*.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Whoever the HELL you are, I do NOT like being impersonated,
and
>
>> and
>> >
>> >> I
>> >> >> > DEMAND that you CEASE AND DECIST from impersonating at RIGHT
GOD
>
>> >> DAMN
>> >> >> > NOW!!!!!!!!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Or else what, fr00tl00p?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I am NOT "r00tl00p". I am NOT "Bertie". Someone has been
>> IMPERSONATING
>> >> > me.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Gotta tell you d00d, the caps make you look a little crazy.
>> >
>> > Maybe I can make him a lot crazy...
>> >
>> >> > I run an online radio statoin out of Australia,and Chily8 is one
of
>
>> my
>> >> > scren names. Someobody has decided to take it and IMPERSONATE
me,
>> and
>> >> > I am serving notice to WHOEVER is doing this STOP impersonating
me
>> >> > RIGHT *NOW*!!!!1
>> >>
>> >> Oh that'll work.
>> >
>> > Par for the course for asstralian poofters
>>
>> Bit on the cluelss side alright.
>
> I haven't seen Sky around ozdebate since my return. This one might be
> a suitable replacement.
>

Sky?

Bertie

Maxwell[_2_]

June 2nd 08, 05:29 AM

Funny how badly you wish to impersonate me.

Maxwell[_2_]

June 2nd 08, 05:30 AM

Funny how badly you wish to impersonate me.

Maxwell[_2_]

June 2nd 08, 05:31 AM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...

Your a dumb ass.

Maxwell[_2_]

June 2nd 08, 05:31 AM

Bigger dumb ass.

Maxwell[_2_]

June 2nd 08, 05:31 AM

Funny how badly you wish to impersonate me.

Maxwell[_2_]

June 2nd 08, 05:32 AM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in news:MPG.22ac673a9cf6bae798b076
> @notbxpats.edu:
>
>> In article >, Bertie the
>> Bunyip says...
>>
>>> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
> news:MPG.22ab6d84e936efd898b072
>>> @notbxpats.edu:
>>>
>>> > In article >, Bertie the
>>> > Bunyip says...
>>> >
>>> >> Chilly8 > wrote in news:d9951312-9221-4ece-
> a035-
>>> >> :
>>> >>
>>> >> > On May 31, 8:36 am, Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
>>> >> >> In article <f1b63dba-55fe-4904-bd18-824d30674389
>>> >> >> @l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Chilly8 says...
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> > On May 10, 4:05 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>>> >> >> > > "Chilly8" > wrote in message
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> > ...
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> > > > I am NOT Bertie. The Bunyip does his thing and I do
> mine.
>>> >> >> > > > The group misses you at the glory hole, Maxwell.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> > > Sure ya do Bertie the Liar.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> > Maxwrell, I just happened onto this thread, and some ASSHOLE
> is
>>> >> >> > gettring his jollies out of decicing to impersoante me. All
> the
>>> >> >> > postings on rec.aviation.piloting, purportint to b me, are
> NOT
>>> >> *ME*.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> > Whoever the HELL you are, I do NOT like being impersonated,
> and
>>
>>> and
>>> >
>>> >> I
>>> >> >> > DEMAND that you CEASE AND DECIST from impersonating at RIGHT
> GOD
>>
>>> >> DAMN
>>> >> >> > NOW!!!!!!!!
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Or else what, fr00tl00p?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I am NOT "r00tl00p". I am NOT "Bertie". Someone has been
>>> IMPERSONATING
>>> >> > me.
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> Gotta tell you d00d, the caps make you look a little crazy.
>>> >
>>> > Maybe I can make him a lot crazy...
>>> >
>>> >> > I run an online radio statoin out of Australia,and Chily8 is one
> of
>>
>>> my
>>> >> > scren names. Someobody has decided to take it and IMPERSONATE
> me,
>>> and
>>> >> > I am serving notice to WHOEVER is doing this STOP impersonating
> me
>>> >> > RIGHT *NOW*!!!!1
>>> >>
>>> >> Oh that'll work.
>>> >
>>> > Par for the course for asstralian poofters
>>>
>>> Bit on the cluelss side alright.
>>
>> I haven't seen Sky around ozdebate since my return. This one might be
>> a suitable replacement.
>>
>
> Sky?
>
>
> Bertie

Maxwell[_2_]

June 2nd 08, 05:32 AM

Funny how badly you wish to impersonate me.

Maxwell[_2_]

June 2nd 08, 05:33 AM

Funny how badly you wish to impersonate me.

Maxwell[_2_]

June 2nd 08, 05:34 AM

"Chilly8" > wrote in message
...

I'm not sure which Maxwell you are replying too, I am the original. The
following posts on 5/31, are someone forging me.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

June 2nd 08, 01:43 PM

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:eHK0k.3137$t07.481
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> Funny how badly you wish to impersonate me.
>
>
>

It is, actually!!!

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

June 2nd 08, 01:44 PM

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:kIK0k.3138$t07.1881
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> Funny how badly you wish to impersonate me.
>
>
>

I think it was rather well done, in fact.

Bertie

Maxwell[_2_]

June 2nd 08, 02:04 PM

In article >, Bertie the
Bunyip says...

> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in news:MPG.22ac673a9cf6bae798b076
> @notbxpats.edu:
>
> > In article >, Bertie the
> > Bunyip says...
> >
> >> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
> news:MPG.22ab6d84e936efd898b072
> >> @notbxpats.edu:
> >>
> >> > In article >, Bertie the
> >> > Bunyip says...
> >> >
> >> >> Chilly8 > wrote in news:d9951312-9221-4ece-
> a035-
> >> >> :
> >> >>
> >> >> > On May 31, 8:36*am, Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
> >> >> >> In article <f1b63dba-55fe-4904-bd18-824d30674389
> >> >> >> @l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Chilly8 says...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > On May 10, 4:05*pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> >> >> >> > > "Chilly8" > wrote in message
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > > > I am NOT Bertie. *The Bunyip does his thing and I do
> mine.
> >> >> >> > > > The group misses you at the glory hole, Maxwell.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > > Sure ya do Bertie the Liar.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Maxwrell, I just happened onto this thread, and some ASSHOLE
> is
> >> >> >> > gettring his jollies out of decicing to impersoante me. All
> the
> >> >> >> > postings on rec.aviation.piloting, purportint to b me, are
> NOT
> >> >> *ME*.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Whoever the HELL you are, I do NOT like being impersonated,
> and
> >
> >> and
> >> >
> >> >> I
> >> >> >> > DEMAND that you CEASE AND DECIST from impersonating at RIGHT
> GOD
> >
> >> >> DAMN
> >> >> >> > NOW!!!!!!!!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Or else what, fr00tl00p?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I am NOT "r00tl00p". I am NOT "Bertie". Someone has been
> >> IMPERSONATING
> >> >> > me.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Gotta tell you d00d, the caps make you look a little crazy.
> >> >
> >> > Maybe I can make him a lot crazy...
> >> >
> >> >> > I run an online radio statoin out of Australia,and Chily8 is one
> of
> >
> >> my
> >> >> > scren names. Someobody has decided to take it and IMPERSONATE
> me,
> >> and
> >> >> > I am serving notice to WHOEVER is doing this STOP impersonating
> me
> >> >> > RIGHT *NOW*!!!!1
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh that'll work.
> >> >
> >> > Par for the course for asstralian poofters
> >>
> >> Bit on the cluelss side alright.
> >
> > I haven't seen Sky around ozdebate since my return. This one might be
> > a suitable replacement.
> >
>
> Sky?
>
>
> Bertie

An asstralian by the name of "Skyrider" was the one who trolled the
vjikings into asking the CoT of alt.revenge for assistance against the
meowers way back when, thereby providing my introduction to Fluffy.

Things didn't work out quite as he planned...

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

June 2nd 08, 02:17 PM

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:HKK0k.3143$t07.1683
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> Funny how badly you wish to impersonate me.
>
>
>

Hilarious.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

June 2nd 08, 02:17 PM

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:IKK0k.3144$t07.1933
@newsfe22.lga:

> Funny how badly you wish to impersonate me.
>
>
>

Whoosh.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

June 2nd 08, 02:32 PM

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:DIK0k.3139$t07.813
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> Your a dumb ass.
>
>
>

Oh please stop! You're hurting me!

Snort!

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

June 2nd 08, 02:33 PM

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:2JK0k.3140$t07.1768
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> Bigger dumb ass.
>
>
>

You sem to have a bit of a fixation ....

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

June 2nd 08, 02:33 PM

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:5MK0k.3146$t07.1584
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> "Chilly8" > wrote in message
> news:f1b63dba-55fe-4904-bd18-824d30674389
@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> I'm not sure which Maxwell you are replying too, I am the original.
The
> following posts on 5/31, are someone forging me.
>
>
>
>

Well, you shoul dkompliaan to their server or to the 4 H club.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

June 2nd 08, 02:36 PM

Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in news:MPG.22ad8fc34d9306098b082
@notbxpats.edu:

> In article >, Bertie the
> Bunyip says...
>
>> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
news:MPG.22ac673a9cf6bae798b076
>> @notbxpats.edu:
>>
>> > In article >, Bertie the
>> > Bunyip says...
>> >
>> >> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.22ab6d84e936efd898b072
>> >> @notbxpats.edu:
>> >>
>> >> > In article >, Bertie
the
>
>> >> > Bunyip says...
>> >> >
>> >> >> Chilly8 > wrote in news:d9951312-9221-4ece-
>> a035-
>> >> >> :
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > On May 31, 8:36*am, Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> In article <f1b63dba-55fe-4904-bd18-824d30674389
>> >> >> >> @l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Chilly8 says...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > On May 10, 4:05*pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > "Chilly8" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > ...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > > > I am NOT Bertie. *The Bunyip does his thing and I do
>> mine.
>> >> >> >> > > > The group misses you at the glory hole, Maxwell.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > > Sure ya do Bertie the Liar.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Maxwrell, I just happened onto this thread, and some
ASSHOLE
>
>> is
>> >> >> >> > gettring his jollies out of decicing to impersoante me.
All
>> the
>> >> >> >> > postings on rec.aviation.piloting, purportint to b me, are
>> NOT
>> >> >> *ME*.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Whoever the HELL you are, I do NOT like being
impersonated,
>> and
>> >
>> >> and
>> >> >
>> >> >> I
>> >> >> >> > DEMAND that you CEASE AND DECIST from impersonating at
RIGHT
>
>> GOD
>> >
>> >> >> DAMN
>> >> >> >> > NOW!!!!!!!!
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Or else what, fr00tl00p?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I am NOT "r00tl00p". I am NOT "Bertie". Someone has been
>> >> IMPERSONATING
>> >> >> > me.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Gotta tell you d00d, the caps make you look a little crazy.
>> >> >
>> >> > Maybe I can make him a lot crazy...
>> >> >
>> >> >> > I run an online radio statoin out of Australia,and Chily8 is
one
>
>> of
>> >
>> >> my
>> >> >> > scren names. Someobody has decided to take it and IMPERSONATE
>> me,
>> >> and
>> >> >> > I am serving notice to WHOEVER is doing this STOP
impersonating
>
>> me
>> >> >> > RIGHT *NOW*!!!!1
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Oh that'll work.
>> >> >
>> >> > Par for the course for asstralian poofters
>> >>
>> >> Bit on the cluelss side alright.
>> >
>> > I haven't seen Sky around ozdebate since my return. This one might
be
>
>> > a suitable replacement.
>> >
>>
>> Sky?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> An asstralian by the name of "Skyrider" was the one who trolled the
> vjikings into asking the CoT of alt.revenge for assistance against the
> meowers way back when, thereby providing my introduction to Fluffy.
>
> Things didn't work out quite as he planned...
>

Ah, OK. I only caugth the tail end of that invasion and in fact made the
****list of several meowers in the process.

Those were th edays.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

June 2nd 08, 02:37 PM

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:DJK0k.3142$t07.3044
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
news:MPG.22ac673a9cf6bae798b076
>> @notbxpats.edu:
>>
>>> In article >, Bertie the
>>> Bunyip says...
>>>
>>>> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.22ab6d84e936efd898b072
>>>> @notbxpats.edu:
>>>>
>>>> > In article >, Bertie
the
>>>> > Bunyip says...
>>>> >
>>>> >> Chilly8 > wrote in news:d9951312-9221-4ece-
>> a035-
>>>> >> :
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > On May 31, 8:36 am, Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
>>>> >> >> In article <f1b63dba-55fe-4904-bd18-824d30674389
>>>> >> >> @l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Chilly8 says...
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> > On May 10, 4:05 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>>>> >> >> > > "Chilly8" > wrote in message
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> > ...
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> > > > I am NOT Bertie. The Bunyip does his thing and I do
>> mine.
>>>> >> >> > > > The group misses you at the glory hole, Maxwell.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> > > Sure ya do Bertie the Liar.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> > Maxwrell, I just happened onto this thread, and some
ASSHOLE
>> is
>>>> >> >> > gettring his jollies out of decicing to impersoante me. All
>> the
>>>> >> >> > postings on rec.aviation.piloting, purportint to b me, are
>> NOT
>>>> >> *ME*.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> > Whoever the HELL you are, I do NOT like being impersonated,
>> and
>>>
>>>> and
>>>> >
>>>> >> I
>>>> >> >> > DEMAND that you CEASE AND DECIST from impersonating at
RIGHT
>> GOD
>>>
>>>> >> DAMN
>>>> >> >> > NOW!!!!!!!!
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Or else what, fr00tl00p?
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > I am NOT "r00tl00p". I am NOT "Bertie". Someone has been
>>>> IMPERSONATING
>>>> >> > me.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Gotta tell you d00d, the caps make you look a little crazy.
>>>> >
>>>> > Maybe I can make him a lot crazy...
>>>> >
>>>> >> > I run an online radio statoin out of Australia,and Chily8 is
one
>> of
>>>
>>>> my
>>>> >> > scren names. Someobody has decided to take it and IMPERSONATE
>> me,
>>>> and
>>>> >> > I am serving notice to WHOEVER is doing this STOP
impersonating
>> me
>>>> >> > RIGHT *NOW*!!!!1
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Oh that'll work.
>>>> >
>>>> > Par for the course for asstralian poofters
>>>>
>>>> Bit on the cluelss side alright.
>>>
>>> I haven't seen Sky around ozdebate since my return. This one might
be
>>> a suitable replacement.
>>>
>>
>> Sky?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>

Earht!

bertie

Max Isn't Well

June 2nd 08, 03:37 PM

In article >, Bertie the
Bunyip says...

> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in news:MPG.22ad8fc34d9306098b082
> @notbxpats.edu:
>
> > In article >, Bertie the
> > Bunyip says...
> >
> >> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
> news:MPG.22ac673a9cf6bae798b076
> >> @notbxpats.edu:
> >>
> >> > In article >, Bertie the
> >> > Bunyip says...
> >> >
> >> >> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
> >> news:MPG.22ab6d84e936efd898b072
> >> >> @notbxpats.edu:
> >> >>
> >> >> > In article >, Bertie
> the
> >
> >> >> > Bunyip says...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Chilly8 > wrote in news:d9951312-9221-4ece-
> >> a035-
> >> >> >> :
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > On May 31, 8:36*am, Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> In article <f1b63dba-55fe-4904-bd18-824d30674389
> >> >> >> >> @l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Chilly8 says...
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > On May 10, 4:05*pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > > "Chilly8" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > > > I am NOT Bertie. *The Bunyip does his thing and I do
> >> mine.
> >> >> >> >> > > > The group misses you at the glory hole, Maxwell.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > > Sure ya do Bertie the Liar.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > Maxwrell, I just happened onto this thread, and some
> ASSHOLE
> >
> >> is
> >> >> >> >> > gettring his jollies out of decicing to impersoante me.
> All
> >> the
> >> >> >> >> > postings on rec.aviation.piloting, purportint to b me, are
> >> NOT
> >> >> >> *ME*.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > Whoever the HELL you are, I do NOT like being
> impersonated,
> >> and
> >> >
> >> >> and
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> I
> >> >> >> >> > DEMAND that you CEASE AND DECIST from impersonating at
> RIGHT
> >
> >> GOD
> >> >
> >> >> >> DAMN
> >> >> >> >> > NOW!!!!!!!!
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Or else what, fr00tl00p?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I am NOT "r00tl00p". I am NOT "Bertie". Someone has been
> >> >> IMPERSONATING
> >> >> >> > me.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Gotta tell you d00d, the caps make you look a little crazy.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Maybe I can make him a lot crazy...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I run an online radio statoin out of Australia,and Chily8 is
> one
> >
> >> of
> >> >
> >> >> my
> >> >> >> > scren names. Someobody has decided to take it and IMPERSONATE
> >> me,
> >> >> and
> >> >> >> > I am serving notice to WHOEVER is doing this STOP
> impersonating
> >
> >> me
> >> >> >> > RIGHT *NOW*!!!!1
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Oh that'll work.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Par for the course for asstralian poofters
> >> >>
> >> >> Bit on the cluelss side alright.
> >> >
> >> > I haven't seen Sky around ozdebate since my return. This one might
> be
> >
> >> > a suitable replacement.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Sky?
> >>
> >>
> >> Bertie
> >
> > An asstralian by the name of "Skyrider" was the one who trolled the
> > vjikings into asking the CoT of alt.revenge for assistance against the
> > meowers way back when, thereby providing my introduction to Fluffy.
> >
> > Things didn't work out quite as he planned...
> >
>
> Ah, OK. I only caugth the tail end of that invasion and in fact made the
> ****list of several meowers in the process.

Given the level of provocation, I never understood the end game there.

> Those were th edays.
>
>
> Bertie
>

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

Max Isn't Well

June 2nd 08, 03:42 PM

In article >, Bertie the
Bunyip says...

> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:DJK0k.3142$t07.3044
> @newsfe22.lga:
>
> >
> > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
> news:MPG.22ac673a9cf6bae798b076
> >> @notbxpats.edu:
> >>
> >>> In article >, Bertie the
> >>> Bunyip says...
> >>>
> >>>> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
> >> news:MPG.22ab6d84e936efd898b072
> >>>> @notbxpats.edu:
> >>>>
> >>>> > In article >, Bertie
> the
> >>>> > Bunyip says...
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> Chilly8 > wrote in news:d9951312-9221-4ece-
> >> a035-
> >>>> >> :
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> > On May 31, 8:36 am, Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
> >>>> >> >> In article <f1b63dba-55fe-4904-bd18-824d30674389
> >>>> >> >> @l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Chilly8 says...
> >>>> >> >>
> >>>> >> >>
> >>>> >> >>
> >>>> >> >>
> >>>> >> >>
> >>>> >> >>
> >>>> >> >>
> >>>> >> >> > On May 10, 4:05 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> >>>> >> >> > > "Chilly8" > wrote in message
> >>>> >> >>
> >>>> >> >> > ...
> >>>> >> >>
> >>>> >> >> > > > I am NOT Bertie. The Bunyip does his thing and I do
> >> mine.
> >>>> >> >> > > > The group misses you at the glory hole, Maxwell.
> >>>> >> >>
> >>>> >> >> > > Sure ya do Bertie the Liar.
> >>>> >> >>
> >>>> >> >> > Maxwrell, I just happened onto this thread, and some
> ASSHOLE
> >> is
> >>>> >> >> > gettring his jollies out of decicing to impersoante me. All
> >> the
> >>>> >> >> > postings on rec.aviation.piloting, purportint to b me, are
> >> NOT
> >>>> >> *ME*.
> >>>> >> >>
> >>>> >> >> > Whoever the HELL you are, I do NOT like being impersonated,
> >> and
> >>>
> >>>> and
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> I
> >>>> >> >> > DEMAND that you CEASE AND DECIST from impersonating at
> RIGHT
> >> GOD
> >>>
> >>>> >> DAMN
> >>>> >> >> > NOW!!!!!!!!
> >>>> >> >>
> >>>> >> >> Or else what, fr00tl00p?
> >>>> >> >>
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> > I am NOT "r00tl00p". I am NOT "Bertie". Someone has been
> >>>> IMPERSONATING
> >>>> >> > me.
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> Gotta tell you d00d, the caps make you look a little crazy.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Maybe I can make him a lot crazy...
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> > I run an online radio statoin out of Australia,and Chily8 is
> one
> >> of
> >>>
> >>>> my
> >>>> >> > scren names. Someobody has decided to take it and IMPERSONATE
> >> me,
> >>>> and
> >>>> >> > I am serving notice to WHOEVER is doing this STOP
> impersonating
> >> me
> >>>> >> > RIGHT *NOW*!!!!1
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> Oh that'll work.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Par for the course for asstralian poofters
> >>>>
> >>>> Bit on the cluelss side alright.
> >>>
> >>> I haven't seen Sky around ozdebate since my return. This one might
> be
> >>> a suitable replacement.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Sky?
> >>
> >>
> >> Bertie
> >
> >
>
> Earht!

Water!

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

June 2nd 08, 04:07 PM

Max Isn't Well <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
:

> In article >, Bertie the
> Bunyip says...
>
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:DJK0k.3142$t07.3044
>> @newsfe22.lga:
>>
>> >
>> > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.22ac673a9cf6bae798b076
>> >> @notbxpats.edu:
>> >>
>> >>> In article >, Bertie
the
>> >>> Bunyip says...
>> >>>
>> >>>> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
>> >> news:MPG.22ab6d84e936efd898b072
>> >>>> @notbxpats.edu:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> > In article >,
Bertie
>> the
>> >>>> > Bunyip says...
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >> Chilly8 > wrote in news:d9951312-9221-
4ece-
>> >> a035-
>> >>>> >> :
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> > On May 31, 8:36 am, Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
>> >>>> >> >> In article <f1b63dba-55fe-4904-bd18-824d30674389
>> >>>> >> >> @l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Chilly8 says...
>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>>> >> >> > On May 10, 4:05 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net>
wrote:
>> >>>> >> >> > > "Chilly8" > wrote in message
>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>>> >> >> > ...
>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>>> >> >> > > > I am NOT Bertie. The Bunyip does his thing and I do
>> >> mine.
>> >>>> >> >> > > > The group misses you at the glory hole, Maxwell.
>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>>> >> >> > > Sure ya do Bertie the Liar.
>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>>> >> >> > Maxwrell, I just happened onto this thread, and some
>> ASSHOLE
>> >> is
>> >>>> >> >> > gettring his jollies out of decicing to impersoante me.
All
>> >> the
>> >>>> >> >> > postings on rec.aviation.piloting, purportint to b me,
are
>> >> NOT
>> >>>> >> *ME*.
>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>>> >> >> > Whoever the HELL you are, I do NOT like being
impersonated,
>> >> and
>> >>>
>> >>>> and
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >> I
>> >>>> >> >> > DEMAND that you CEASE AND DECIST from impersonating at
>> RIGHT
>> >> GOD
>> >>>
>> >>>> >> DAMN
>> >>>> >> >> > NOW!!!!!!!!
>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>>> >> >> Or else what, fr00tl00p?
>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>>> >> >
>> >>>> >> > I am NOT "r00tl00p". I am NOT "Bertie". Someone has been
>> >>>> IMPERSONATING
>> >>>> >> > me.
>> >>>> >> >
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> Gotta tell you d00d, the caps make you look a little crazy.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > Maybe I can make him a lot crazy...
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >> > I run an online radio statoin out of Australia,and Chily8
is
>> one
>> >> of
>> >>>
>> >>>> my
>> >>>> >> > scren names. Someobody has decided to take it and
IMPERSONATE
>> >> me,
>> >>>> and
>> >>>> >> > I am serving notice to WHOEVER is doing this STOP
>> impersonating
>> >> me
>> >>>> >> > RIGHT *NOW*!!!!1
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> Oh that'll work.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > Par for the course for asstralian poofters
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Bit on the cluelss side alright.
>> >>>
>> >>> I haven't seen Sky around ozdebate since my return. This one
might
>> be
>> >>> a suitable replacement.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Sky?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Bertie
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Earht!
>
> Water!
>

Fire!

Bertie