Things to remember in very hot weather

[Mxsmanic]

What are the main things I have to give special consideration to when
preparing to fly in very hot weather (43° C)?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> What are the main things I have to give special consideration to when
> preparing to fly in very hot weather (43° C)?
>

Extra fans for your computer



Bertie

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> What are the main things I have to give special consideration to when
> preparing to fly in very hot weather (43? C)?

Turn on the air conditioner in your hovel.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[terry]

On Jun 29, 10:56*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> What are the main things I have to give special consideration to when
> preparing to fly in very hot weather (43° C)?

Dehydration is the main one, I take a six pack for every planned
flight hour, including reserves, and just a can for taxi allowance
either end. And dont forget to include them in your weight and
balance.
Terry
PPL Downunder

[[email protected]]

On Jun 28, 8:56*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> What are the main things I have to give special consideration to when
> preparing to fly in very hot weather (43° C)?

The negative effects of high density altitude.

[terry]

On Jun 29, 12:03*pm, wrote:
> On Jun 28, 8:56*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > What are the main things I have to give special consideration to when
> > preparing to fly in very hot weather (43° C)?
>
> The negative effects of high density altitude.

we have tried to explain the density altitude concept to him before.
it ended up in a debate about the gas laws, and how ( according to
mxs) they dont apply to the atmosphere. believe me its a lost cause
trying to explain anything to him.

[terry]

On Jun 29, 10:56*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> What are the main things I have to give special consideration to when
> preparing to fly in very hot weather (43° C)?

Not being a simmer myself, but dont you guys look at performance
charts and weather reports and make pretend flight plans and all that
sort of stuff that real pilots do? or do you just jump on the computer
and take off?

[More_Flaps]

On Jun 29, 12:56*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> What are the main things I have to give special consideration to when
> preparing to fly in very hot weather (43° C)?

Sweat dripping onto your keyboard and BO attracting the landlord.
Next?

Cheers

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> Not being a simmer myself, but dont you guys look at performance
> charts and weather reports and make pretend flight plans and all that
> sort of stuff that real pilots do? or do you just jump on the computer
> and take off?

It depends on the simmer. Some go to extremes with details, others do not.
In simulation, you can simulate the part you enjoy, and skip the part you
don't, which is one of its key advantages.

At least in the case of online flight, flight plans are routinely filed (and
of course they are required for IFR). I look briefly at weather for the
departure and destination airports and sometimes at weather along the way; I
do a lot of flying in the American southwest, where the weather tends to be
perpetually VMC, so detailed analysis isn't usually required. If I'm flying
through Alaska or through the Midwest in winter, or any place where VMC is not
the rule, or any place unfamiliar, I look more closely.

I only look at performance charts in unusual situations (such as this one). I
fly the same aircraft regularly and in normal situations I have a good idea
what performance to expect. Yesterday I noted the temperature on the ramp to
be 42.9° C, and so I worried a bit about any potential problems that I might
have forgotten about that are associated with high ambient temperatures, which
is why I asked about it.

There are simmers who have simulated passenger and cargo manifests, virtual
airlines for which they fly, and other simulated details highly peripheral to
the flight itself, but I don't usually bother with those, although I try to
come up with weak pretexts for having different numbers of passengers aboard
in small aircraft. In large aircraft I generally assume that I'm flying a
private jet with a fairly fixed weight and a constant fuel load so that I
don't have to constantly recalculate things. I keep more than enough fuel
aboard in both cases to cover the time range that interests me (no more than
two hours or so for a flight, and often much less).

There are also simmers who are very close to gamers, in that they'll just jump
into the aircraft and take off, and buzz buildings and fly loops and all sorts
of tremendously unrealistic things. They are only a problem if they do this
online, as online flight (at least on VATSIM) is supposed to be just like real
life, and this means no Mach 2.5 passes over the runways at LAX or anything
like that.

In simulation there is also a type of pilot that one would never see in real
life, namely, a pilot who has flown only airliners and only with full
automation. These pilots have learned only how to load something into their
FMC, and depend on the computer to handle the flight; they maneuver by
adjusting controls on the autopilot, and every landing is an autoland. They
aren't much of a hindrance if all goes well, but since they are often
incapable of flying the aircraft without the FMC, any instruction from ATC
that requires manual intervention leaves them dangerously confused. I'm not
sure what sort of person would only be interested in loading the FMC and
going, without ever being curious about the other aspects of piloting, but
they seem to be common. Perhaps it's the ATC that attracts them, and they
just want to sound cool on the radio.

[Mxsmanic]

More_Flaps writes:

> Sweat dripping onto your keyboard and BO attracting the landlord.

The hot weather was in the sim, not in real life (fortunately). That's
another advantage of simulation. There would be nothing fun about flying at
43° C in real life.

[terry]

On Jun 29, 8:30*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
> > Not being a simmer myself, *but dont you guys look at performance
> > charts and weather reports and make pretend flight plans and all that
> > sort of stuff that real pilots do? or do you just jump on the computer
> > and take off?
>
> I only look at performance charts in unusual situations (such as this one). *I
> fly the same aircraft regularly and in normal situations I have a good idea
> what performance to expect. *Yesterday I noted the temperature on the ramp to
> be 42.9° C, and so I worried a bit about any potential problems that I might
> have forgotten about that are associated with high ambient temperatures, which
> is why I asked about it.
>
Why do you worry? Worrying to me implies some sort of sonsequences if
you screw up. Can you please elaborate on the consequences you are
worried about, I am really intrigued.
Terry

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> Why do you worry? Worrying to me implies some sort of sonsequences if
> you screw up. Can you please elaborate on the consequences you are
> worried about, I am really intrigued.

I might have an accident.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:45:58 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>More_Flaps writes:
>
>> Sweat dripping onto your keyboard and BO attracting the landlord.
>
>The hot weather was in the sim, not in real life (fortunately). That's
>another advantage of simulation. There would be nothing fun about flying at
>43° C in real life.

on the contrary it is a hell of a lot of fun.
just how long do you think it stays 43 C when you are flying for real?

Stealth Pilot

[muff528]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> More_Flaps writes:
>
>> Sweat dripping onto your keyboard and BO attracting the landlord.
>
> The hot weather was in the sim, not in real life (fortunately). That's
> another advantage of simulation. There would be nothing fun about flying
> at
> 43° C in real life.

I doubt it would be uncomfortably hot at 3-4000 feet if it's 43° C on the
ground. Maybe you're flying too close to the ground.

Tony P.

[terry]

On Jun 29, 11:27*pm, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:45:58 +0200, Mxsmanic >
> wrote:
>
> >More_Flaps writes:
>
> >> Sweat dripping onto your keyboard and BO attracting the landlord.
>
> >The hot weather was in the sim, not in real life (fortunately). *That's
> >another advantage of simulation. *There would be nothing fun about flying at
> >43° C in real life.
>
> on the contrary it is a hell of a lot of fun.
> just how long do you think it stays 43 C when you are flying for real?
>
everyone knows that Stealth , as you get closer to the sun it gets
hotter, thats why that Icarus dude got his wings melted, and its why I
fly a high wing.. just for the shade factor.
Terry

[Lou]

On Jun 29, 8:32 am, "muff528" > wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > More_Flaps writes:
>
> >> Sweat dripping onto your keyboard and BO attracting the landlord.
>
> > The hot weather was in the sim, not in real life (fortunately). That's
> > another advantage of simulation. There would be nothing fun about flying
> > at
> > 43° C in real life.
>
> I doubt it would be uncomfortably hot at 3-4000 feet if it's 43° C on the
> ground. Maybe you're flying too close to the ground.
>
> Tony P.

I'll disagree, 43° C (109 f.) is extremely uncomfortable at 3000'.
Unless you have A/C in the plane, I don't.
Lou

[muff528]

"Lou" > wrote in message
...
On Jun 29, 8:32 am, "muff528" > wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > More_Flaps writes:
>
> >> Sweat dripping onto your keyboard and BO attracting the landlord.
>
> > The hot weather was in the sim, not in real life (fortunately). That's
> > another advantage of simulation. There would be nothing fun about
> > flying
> > at
> > 43° C in real life.
>
> I doubt it would be uncomfortably hot at 3-4000 feet if it's 43° C on the
> ground. Maybe you're flying too close to the ground.
>
> Tony P.

I'll disagree, 43° C (109 f.) is extremely uncomfortable at 3000'.
Unless you have A/C in the plane, I don't.
Lou

Yep, 43° C (109 f.) WOULD be extremely uncomfortable at 3000'. But it
probably not that hot at 3000 if it's 43C on the ground.

TP

[Lou]

On Jun 29, 8:57 am, "muff528" > wrote:
> "Lou" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Jun 29, 8:32 am, "muff528" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > More_Flaps writes:
>
> > >> Sweat dripping onto your keyboard and BO attracting the landlord.
>
> > > The hot weather was in the sim, not in real life (fortunately). That's
> > > another advantage of simulation. There would be nothing fun about
> > > flying
> > > at
> > > 43° C in real life.
>
> > I doubt it would be uncomfortably hot at 3-4000 feet if it's 43° C on the
> > ground. Maybe you're flying too close to the ground.
>
> > Tony P.
>
> I'll disagree, 43° C (109 f.) is extremely uncomfortable at 3000'.
> Unless you have A/C in the plane, I don't.
> Lou
>
> Yep, 43° C (109 f.) WOULD be extremely uncomfortable at 3000'. But it
> probably not that hot at 3000 if it's 43C on the ground.
>
> TP

I'll be honest, I won't fly (C152) in that hot of weather. Solo, I can
get
off the ground, but I can't grasp the controls. My palms sweat like a
fountain.
Lou

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

muff528 wrote:
>
>
> Yep, 43° C (109 f.) WOULD be extremely uncomfortable at 3000'. But it
> probably not that hot at 3000 if it's 43C on the ground.

Do you fly?

109F on the ground would be at or near 100F at 3,000. That's still hot,
especially with the sun beating on you through the windows.

[muff528]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> muff528 wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yep, 43° C (109 f.) WOULD be extremely uncomfortable at 3000'. But it
>> probably not that hot at 3000 if it's 43C on the ground.
>
> Do you fly?
>
> 109F on the ground would be at or near 100F at 3,000. That's still hot,
> especially with the sun beating on you through the windows.

Yeah, appox 3 degrees per 1000ft would hold up in a homogenous air column.
But I don't think that's necessarily the case everywhere. For example, here
in Florida I have noticed that even in summertime when it's oppressively hot
and humid at the surface, there seems to be an abrupt drop in temperature
around 3000 to 4000 ft. That's the only reason I picked the 3000 ft. number.
Maybe that's not the case in less humid climes. In wintertime (typically
less humid) it just gets colder and colder from the ground up to over 20000
where my experience ends in an unpressurized environment although I've heard
it definitely gets even colder.:-)
If it's still too hot at 3000 feet just go higher till you cool off! You're
in an airplane!

Tony P.

[muff528]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> muff528 wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yep, 43° C (109 f.) WOULD be extremely uncomfortable at 3000'. But it
>> probably not that hot at 3000 if it's 43C on the ground.
>
> Do you fly?
>

I don't actually drive the airplane, although I have in the past taken
controls of a Tri-Pacer and a Cherokee for extended distances while flying
places with my boss back in the 70's.

TP

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

muff528 wrote:
>
> I don't actually drive the airplane, although I have in the past taken
> controls of a Tri-Pacer and a Cherokee for extended distances while flying
> places with my boss back in the 70's.

So you're not familiar with winds & temp aloft charts, etc...?

The standard rate of temperature drop is more common than you're thinking.

[RST Engineering]

Yep. Roughly 3.5°F per 1000' or 7°C per 1000m. Unless you are in frikkin
California right now where there is an inversion layer trapping all this GD
smoke and making it a hellhole to live in. And I **AM** at 3000' MSL at
home (the contour line runs right through the garden).

Jim

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


"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> muff528 wrote:
>> I don't actually drive the airplane, although I have in the past taken
>> controls of a Tri-Pacer and a Cherokee for extended distances while
>> flying places with my boss back in the 70's.
>
> So you're not familiar with winds & temp aloft charts, etc...?
>
> The standard rate of temperature drop is more common than you're thinking.

[Mxsmanic]

Stealth Pilot writes:

> on the contrary it is a hell of a lot of fun.
> just how long do you think it stays 43 C when you are flying for real?

Most of the flight, at moderate altitudes, or at least it stays too hot for
most of the flight. My baron has an "air conditioning" switch, but it's not
clear whether or not this is the real thing, since the real thing requires a
compressor.

[muff528]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> muff528 wrote:
>> I don't actually drive the airplane, although I have in the past taken
>> controls of a Tri-Pacer and a Cherokee for extended distances while
>> flying places with my boss back in the 70's.
>
> So you're not familiar with winds & temp aloft charts, etc...?
>
> The standard rate of temperature drop is more common than you're thinking.

No, I haven't studied such charts, etc. beyond any incidental interest. I
guess I shouldn't have given specific numbers. My point only is that it gets
cooler as you go higher. Yes, barring inversions, etc., the standard rate
should hold true. Also, on the ground, the heat a person feels is not only
the air temperature (that is warmed by radiation from the ground). He also
feels heat from that radiation directly. So with 43C air temperature at the
ground, the person is going to feel hotter than 43C air temp at some
distance from the ground radiation.

[Mxsmanic]

muff528 writes:

> I doubt it would be uncomfortably hot at 3-4000 feet if it's 43° C on the
> ground. Maybe you're flying too close to the ground.

The difference would only be a few degrees at 4000 feet, and that's not enough
when the temperature at the surface is 43° C. Additionally, the temperature
inside the aircraft would be higher at all times.

[Mxsmanic]

muff528 writes:

> Yep, 43° C (109 f.) WOULD be extremely uncomfortable at 3000'. But it
> probably not that hot at 3000 if it's 43C on the ground.

So it would be 40° C, which isn't significantly better.

[Mxsmanic]

muff528 writes:

> If it's still too hot at 3000 feet just go higher till you cool off! You're
> in an airplane!

In this case, the service ceiling of the aircraft would make it difficult to
cool off by climbing.

[RST Engineering]

In a standard atmosphere, 43C at sea level would translate to 35C at
4000MSL.

Jim

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


"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> muff528 writes:
>
>> I doubt it would be uncomfortably hot at 3-4000 feet if it's 43° C on the
>> ground. Maybe you're flying too close to the ground.
>
> The difference would only be a few degrees at 4000 feet, and that's not
> enough
> when the temperature at the surface is 43° C. Additionally, the
> temperature
> inside the aircraft would be higher at all times.

[muff528]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
m...
> Yep. Roughly 3.5°F per 1000' or 7°C per 1000m. Unless you are in frikkin
> California right now where there is an inversion layer trapping all this
> GD smoke and making it a hellhole to live in. And I **AM** at 3000' MSL
> at home (the contour line runs right through the garden).
>
> Jim
>

You're at 3000 MSL but you are at 0' AGL. I'd just about bet that it feels
hotter at your house than some distance away where the air temp at that
altitude is the same but 3000' MSL is also 2500'AGL. Add to that the fact
that there is an inversion layer and the fact that you live in Calif and I
imagine it is pretty miserable where you live :-)

TP

[Mxsmanic]

RST Engineering writes:

> In a standard atmosphere, 43C at sea level would translate to 35C at
> 4000MSL.

Thirty-five degrees is still intolerable. And Gila Bend is at 789 feet MSL.
And that temperature is outside the aircraft, not inside, where it will be
hotter.

[muff528]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> muff528 writes:
>
>> If it's still too hot at 3000 feet just go higher till you cool off!
>> You're
>> in an airplane!
>
> In this case, the service ceiling of the aircraft would make it difficult
> to
> cool off by climbing.

If that's as high as your airplane will go you probably should get another
airplane. At least don't fly around out west where the hills are higher than
that. Sometimes even the ground is higher than that! :-)
TP

[Mxsmanic]

muff528 writes:

> If that's as high as your airplane will go you probably should get another
> airplane. At least don't fly around out west where the hills are higher than
> that. Sometimes even the ground is higher than that! :-)

I try to avoid the mountains when flying a small plane. There are some
extensive flat areas in the American west, but it is true that sometimes to
get between two points it's hard to avoid the mountains, short of crossing
half the continent to go around them. Even if the aircraft has the requisite
ceiling, carrying oxygen for everyone is awkward and will not inspire
confidence in passengers.

[muff528]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> muff528 writes:
>
>> If that's as high as your airplane will go you probably should get
>> another
>> airplane. At least don't fly around out west where the hills are higher
>> than
>> that. Sometimes even the ground is higher than that! :-)
>
> I try to avoid the mountains when flying a small plane.

I would extend that thought to include *any* plane :-)

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> muff528 writes:
>
>> If it's still too hot at 3000 feet just go higher till you cool off!
>> You're in an airplane!
>
> In this case, the service ceiling of the aircraft would make it
> difficult to cool off by climbing.
>

BULL****. You don't know what you are talking about.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> muff528 writes:
>
>> If that's as high as your airplane will go you probably should get
>> another airplane. At least don't fly around out west where the hills
>> are higher than that. Sometimes even the ground is higher than that!
>> :-)
>
> I try to avoid the mountains when flying a small plane. There are
> some extensive flat areas in the American west, but it is true that
> sometimes to get between two points it's hard to avoid the mountains,
> short of crossing half the continent to go around them. Even if the
> aircraft has the requisite ceiling, carrying oxygen for everyone is
> awkward and will not inspire confidence in passengers.

More mindless twaddle from a moron.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> RST Engineering writes:
>
>> In a standard atmosphere, 43C at sea level would translate to 35C at
>> 4000MSL.
>
> Thirty-five degrees is still intolerable. And Gila Bend is at 789
> feet MSL. And that temperature is outside the aircraft, not inside,
> where it will be hotter.
>

Wrong again, moron.

[Mike[_22_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Stealth Pilot writes:
>
>> on the contrary it is a hell of a lot of fun.
>> just how long do you think it stays 43 C when you are flying for real?
>
> Most of the flight, at moderate altitudes, or at least it stays too hot
> for
> most of the flight. My baron has an "air conditioning" switch, but it's
> not
> clear whether or not this is the real thing, since the real thing requires
> a
> compressor.

The "real thing" doesn't necessarily require a compressor.

[Mike[_22_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> muff528 writes:
>
>> I doubt it would be uncomfortably hot at 3-4000 feet if it's 43° C on the
>> ground. Maybe you're flying too close to the ground.
>
> The difference would only be a few degrees at 4000 feet, and that's not
> enough
> when the temperature at the surface is 43° C. Additionally, the
> temperature
> inside the aircraft would be higher at all times.

I was flying just yesterday and the temp was around 38° C nominal and easily
3-4° C hotter on the ramp. Once you get the big fan blowing in the front
and open the windows, it's certainly tolerable. We were flying locally at
about 4000 MSL and with the photo window open providing extra ventilation,
it was quite nice.

Right now at KTUS it's about 38° C on the ground, 25° C @ 6000 MSL, 17° C @
9000 MSL.

Even normally aspirated piston aircraft can generally get to 9000 MSL even
on hot days. Turbocharged aircraft can generally get to at least twice
that. Even above TUS today during the hottest part of the day if you're
above 12000 MSL you're probably going to be running the heater.

And yes, even on a 43° C it's a helluva lot more fun flying a real aircraft
than flying a computer in a climate controlled room.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> terry writes:
>
>> Not being a simmer myself, but dont you guys look at performance
>> charts and weather reports and make pretend flight plans and all that
>> sort of stuff that real pilots do? or do you just jump on the
>> computer and take off?
>
> It depends on the simmer. Some go to extremes with details, others do
> not. In simulation, you can simulate the part you enjoy, and skip the
> part you don't, which is one of its key advantages.


It has no advantages since it isn't flight you stupid fjukk.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> terry writes:
>
>> Why do you worry? Worrying to me implies some sort of sonsequences if
>> you screw up. Can you please elaborate on the consequences you are
>> worried about, I am really intrigued.
>
> I might have an accident.
>

Here ya go.

www.diapersetc.com



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> More_Flaps writes:
>
>> Sweat dripping onto your keyboard and BO attracting the landlord.
>
> The hot weather was in the sim, not in real life (fortunately).
> That's another advantage of simulation. There would be nothing fun
> about flying at 43° C in real life.
>

Yes, there would, you dumb ****.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Stealth Pilot writes:
>
>> on the contrary it is a hell of a lot of fun.
>> just how long do you think it stays 43 C when you are flying for
>> real?
>
> Most of the flight, at moderate altitudes, or at least it stays too
> hot for most of the flight. My baron has an "air conditioning"
> switch, but it's not clear whether or not this is the real thing,
> since the real thing requires a compressor.
>

You don't have a Baon, you fjukkkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"muff528" > wrote in
news:axM9k.107$713.97@trnddc03:

>
> "Lou" > wrote in message
> news:1baf5547-5c49-43a0-938c-6f66d7acc503
@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com.
> .. On Jun 29, 8:32 am, "muff528" > wrote:
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > More_Flaps writes:
>>
>> >> Sweat dripping onto your keyboard and BO attracting the landlord.
>>
>> > The hot weather was in the sim, not in real life (fortunately).
>> > That's another advantage of simulation. There would be nothing fun
>> > about flying
>> > at
>> > 43° C in real life.
>>
>> I doubt it would be uncomfortably hot at 3-4000 feet if it's 43° C on
>> the ground. Maybe you're flying too close to the ground.
>>
>> Tony P.
>
> I'll disagree, 43° C (109 f.) is extremely uncomfortable at 3000'.
> Unless you have A/C in the plane, I don't.
> Lou
>
> Yep, 43° C (109 f.) WOULD be extremely uncomfortable at 3000'. But it
> probably not that hot at 3000 if it's 43C on the ground.
>

It's be 37 and most likely below that, in fact.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

B A R R Y > wrote in news:oLM9k.5801$LG4.5340
@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com:

> muff528 wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yep, 43° C (109 f.) WOULD be extremely uncomfortable at 3000'. But it
>> probably not that hot at 3000 if it's 43C on the ground.
>
> Do you fly?
>
> 109F on the ground would be at or near 100F at 3,000. That's still hot,
> especially with the sun beating on you through the windows.
>

Actually, it would probably be lower, but it depends on the stability of
the air on the day...



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> muff528 writes:
>
>> If it's still too hot at 3000 feet just go higher till you cool off!
>> You're in an airplane!
>
> In this case, the service ceiling of the aircraft would make it
> difficult to cool off by climbing.
>

No, it wouldn't, moron.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> muff528 writes:
>
>> If that's as high as your airplane will go you probably should get
>> another airplane. At least don't fly around out west where the hills
>> are higher than that. Sometimes even the ground is higher than that!
>> :-)
>
> I try to avoid the mountains when flying a small plane.


No, you don't. you don't fly and there are no mountains in your computer,
you fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> muff528 writes:
>
>> I doubt it would be uncomfortably hot at 3-4000 feet if it's 43° C on
>> the ground. Maybe you're flying too close to the ground.
>
> The difference would only be a few degrees at 4000 feet, and that's
> not enough when the temperature at the surface is 43° C.
> Additionally, the temperature inside the aircraft would be higher at
> all times.
>

No, t wouldn't you fjukkwit.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> RST Engineering writes:
>
>> In a standard atmosphere, 43C at sea level would translate to 35C at
>> 4000MSL.
>
> Thirty-five degrees is still intolerable. And Gila Bend is at 789
> feet MSL. And that temperature is outside the aircraft, not inside,
> where it will be hotter.
>

No it wouldn;'t fjukkwit.


it doesn't matter since you will never, ever be in a Baron anywhere, hot or
cold


Bertie

[Benjamin Dover]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> terry writes:
>>
>>> Why do you worry? Worrying to me implies some sort of sonsequences if
>>> you screw up. Can you please elaborate on the consequences you are
>>> worried about, I am really intrigued.
>>
>> I might have an accident.
>>
>
> Here ya go.
>
> www.diapersetc.com
>
>
>
> Bertie

Anthony will have to add that to his begging list on Amazon.com. He can't
afford it otherwise.

[Benjamin Dover]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> muff528 writes:
>>
>>> If it's still too hot at 3000 feet just go higher till you cool off!
>>> You're in an airplane!
>>
>> In this case, the service ceiling of the aircraft would make it
>> difficult to cool off by climbing.
>>
>
> No, it wouldn't, moron.
>
>
>
> Bertie
>

Mixi's airplanes all have a service ceiling of about 4.5' AGL, the height
of his computer on his table.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Mike" > wrote in news:i2R9k.122$K%2.0@trnddc02:

> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> muff528 writes:
>>
>>> I doubt it would be uncomfortably hot at 3-4000 feet if it's 43° C
>>> on the ground. Maybe you're flying too close to the ground.
>>
>> The difference would only be a few degrees at 4000 feet, and that's
>> not enough
>> when the temperature at the surface is 43° C. Additionally, the
>> temperature
>> inside the aircraft would be higher at all times.
>
> I was flying just yesterday and the temp was around 38° C nominal and
> easily 3-4° C hotter on the ramp. Once you get the big fan blowing in
> the front and open the windows, it's certainly tolerable. We were
> flying locally at about 4000 MSL and with the photo window open
> providing extra ventilation, it was quite nice.
>
> Right now at KTUS it's about 38° C on the ground, 25° C @ 6000 MSL,
> 17° C @ 9000 MSL.
>
> Even normally aspirated piston aircraft can generally get to 9000 MSL
> even on hot days. Turbocharged aircraft can generally get to at least
> twice that. Even above TUS today during the hottest part of the day
> if you're above 12000 MSL you're probably going to be running the
> heater.
>
> And yes, even on a 43° C it's a helluva lot more fun flying a real
> aircraft than flying a computer in a climate controlled room.
>
>

Climate controlled? He lives by begging. You really think he has AC?


Bertie

[Mike[_22_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Mike" > wrote in news:i2R9k.122$K%2.0@trnddc02:
>
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> muff528 writes:
>>>
>>>> I doubt it would be uncomfortably hot at 3-4000 feet if it's 43° C
>>>> on the ground. Maybe you're flying too close to the ground.
>>>
>>> The difference would only be a few degrees at 4000 feet, and that's
>>> not enough
>>> when the temperature at the surface is 43° C. Additionally, the
>>> temperature
>>> inside the aircraft would be higher at all times.
>>
>> I was flying just yesterday and the temp was around 38° C nominal and
>> easily 3-4° C hotter on the ramp. Once you get the big fan blowing in
>> the front and open the windows, it's certainly tolerable. We were
>> flying locally at about 4000 MSL and with the photo window open
>> providing extra ventilation, it was quite nice.
>>
>> Right now at KTUS it's about 38° C on the ground, 25° C @ 6000 MSL,
>> 17° C @ 9000 MSL.
>>
>> Even normally aspirated piston aircraft can generally get to 9000 MSL
>> even on hot days. Turbocharged aircraft can generally get to at least
>> twice that. Even above TUS today during the hottest part of the day
>> if you're above 12000 MSL you're probably going to be running the
>> heater.
>>
>> And yes, even on a 43° C it's a helluva lot more fun flying a real
>> aircraft than flying a computer in a climate controlled room.
>>
>>
>
> Climate controlled? He lives by begging. You really think he has AC?

There's always the library.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Mike" > wrote in news:_TR9k.69$al3.23@trnddc06:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Mike" > wrote in news:i2R9k.122$K%2.0@trnddc02:
>>
>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> muff528 writes:
>>>>
>>>>> I doubt it would be uncomfortably hot at 3-4000 feet if it's 43° C
>>>>> on the ground. Maybe you're flying too close to the ground.
>>>>
>>>> The difference would only be a few degrees at 4000 feet, and that's
>>>> not enough
>>>> when the temperature at the surface is 43° C. Additionally, the
>>>> temperature
>>>> inside the aircraft would be higher at all times.
>>>
>>> I was flying just yesterday and the temp was around 38° C nominal
and
>>> easily 3-4° C hotter on the ramp. Once you get the big fan blowing
in
>>> the front and open the windows, it's certainly tolerable. We were
>>> flying locally at about 4000 MSL and with the photo window open
>>> providing extra ventilation, it was quite nice.
>>>
>>> Right now at KTUS it's about 38° C on the ground, 25° C @ 6000 MSL,
>>> 17° C @ 9000 MSL.
>>>
>>> Even normally aspirated piston aircraft can generally get to 9000
MSL
>>> even on hot days. Turbocharged aircraft can generally get to at
least
>>> twice that. Even above TUS today during the hottest part of the day
>>> if you're above 12000 MSL you're probably going to be running the
>>> heater.
>>>
>>> And yes, even on a 43° C it's a helluva lot more fun flying a real
>>> aircraft than flying a computer in a climate controlled room.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Climate controlled? He lives by begging. You really think he has AC?
>
> There's always the library.

He prolly gets tossed in the Seine fairly regularly for correcting the
local's french..



Bertie
>
>

[Mxsmanic]

Mike writes:

> The "real thing" doesn't necessarily require a compressor.

So how does it work?

[Mxsmanic]

muff528 writes:

> I would extend that thought to include *any* plane :-)

High-performance aircraft that can fly well above mountain ranges shouldn't be
a problem.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike writes:

> Even normally aspirated piston aircraft can generally get to 9000 MSL even
> on hot days.

True, but then you have to start thinking about oxygen.

> And yes, even on a 43° C it's a helluva lot more fun flying a real aircraft
> than flying a computer in a climate controlled room.

That is a matter of opinion. Nothing is fun at 43° C.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Mike writes:
>
>> Even normally aspirated piston aircraft can generally get to 9000 MSL
>> even on hot days.
>
> True, but then you have to start thinking about oxygen.
>
>> And yes, even on a 43° C it's a helluva lot more fun flying a real
>> aircraft than flying a computer in a climate controlled room.
>
> That is a matter of opinion. Nothing is fun at 43° C.
>

Nothing is fun in your life, period.



Bertie

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic > wrote:
> muff528 writes:
>
>> If that's as high as your airplane will go you probably should get another
>> airplane. At least don't fly around out west where the hills are higher than
>> that. Sometimes even the ground is higher than that! :-)
>
> I try to avoid the mountains when flying a small plane. There are some
> extensive flat areas in the American west, but it is true that sometimes to
> get between two points it's hard to avoid the mountains, short of crossing
> half the continent to go around them. Even if the aircraft has the requisite
> ceiling, carrying oxygen for everyone is awkward and will not inspire
> confidence in passengers.

You don't legally need oxygen for the passengers until 15,000ft, and even
the "it's a good idea even though it's not required" range probably isn't
until 10,000ft or so. If you start out at sea level, those will get you
into nice cool air.

At the risk of turning this thread into something useful, does anyone have
any recommendations as to when it's a good idea to give oxygen to
passengers? I'm not talking about the legal requirements, but just when
it's the smart thing to do. For example, as the pilot I like to start my
oxygen at about 10,000ft even though it's not required until quite a bit
higher. But then again, it doesn't really matter too much if my passengers
have mildly impaired judgement during the flight, even though I'd really
want to avoid that myself.

This is really an academic question since I don't plan to take anybody
that high to begin with, but I'm curious.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Michael Ash >
wrote:

> At the risk of turning this thread into something useful, does anyone have
> any recommendations as to when it's a good idea to give oxygen to
> passengers? I'm not talking about the legal requirements, but just when
> it's the smart thing to do. For example, as the pilot I like to start my
> oxygen at about 10,000ft even though it's not required until quite a bit
> higher. But then again, it doesn't really matter too much if my passengers
> have mildly impaired judgement during the flight, even though I'd really
> want to avoid that myself.

Those oximeter things are pretty inexpensive now. You could use one of those
to monitor your own status as well as your pax's need for supplemental oxygen.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Michael Ash writes:

> You don't legally need oxygen for the passengers until 15,000ft ...

I know, but I prefer not to wait until the law requires it to take
precautions. Some people show signs of hypoxia at half that altitude. Why
take the risk?

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> B A R R Y > wrote in news:oLM9k.5801$LG4.5340
> @nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
>> muff528 wrote:
>>>
>>> Yep, 43° C (109 f.) WOULD be extremely uncomfortable at 3000'. But it
>>> probably not that hot at 3000 if it's 43C on the ground.
>> Do you fly?
>>
>> 109F on the ground would be at or near 100F at 3,000. That's still hot,
>> especially with the sun beating on you through the windows.
>>
>
> Actually, it would probably be lower, but it depends on the stability of
> the air on the day...
>

Like what? Maybe 97 or 98? <G>

Wouldn't that be NEAR 100? <G>

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Michael Ash > wrote:
>
> At the risk of turning this thread into something useful,

Heaven forfend!

> does anyone have
> any recommendations as to when it's a good idea to give oxygen to
> passengers? I'm not talking about the legal requirements, but just when
> it's the smart thing to do. For example, as the pilot I like to start my
> oxygen at about 10,000ft even though it's not required until quite a bit
> higher. But then again, it doesn't really matter too much if my passengers
> have mildly impaired judgement during the flight, even though I'd really
> want to avoid that myself.
>
> This is really an academic question since I don't plan to take anybody
> that high to begin with, but I'm curious.

Depends on the person, really.

I have a friend who begins to exhibit severe headaches and some cyanosis
(his lips and fingernails start to go purple) above about 8000'. He's
been warned to be very cautious about higher elevations, as he's
probably a prime candidate for mountain sickness. So much for his dreams
of trekking the Himalayas.

That's a bit extreme, but it's worth watching for if you have a
passenger who's never been at altitude before.

Heavy smokers, or anyone with compromised cardiopulmonary function
should be cautious, probably.

There are affordable blood oxygenation meters, typically used by
clipping on a finger, to determine blood O2 levels if you spend much
time at higher elevations without supplementary oxygen.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Bob Noel > wrote:
> In article >, Michael Ash >
> wrote:
>
>> At the risk of turning this thread into something useful, does anyone have
>> any recommendations as to when it's a good idea to give oxygen to
>> passengers? I'm not talking about the legal requirements, but just when
>> it's the smart thing to do. For example, as the pilot I like to start my
>> oxygen at about 10,000ft even though it's not required until quite a bit
>> higher. But then again, it doesn't really matter too much if my passengers
>> have mildly impaired judgement during the flight, even though I'd really
>> want to avoid that myself.
>
> Those oximeter things are pretty inexpensive now. You could use one of those
> to monitor your own status as well as your pax's need for supplemental oxygen.

A good point. I was actually looking at the prices the other day. It's
right on my threshold for buying one. The only reason I wouldn't is just
because I so rarely have the opportunity to get up to the altitudes where
it would be useful to have one. Maybe come winter when high-altitude
flying is possible (I'm a glider guy) I'll get one.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Michael Ash writes:
>
>> You don't legally need oxygen for the passengers until 15,000ft ...
>
> I know, but I prefer not to wait until the law requires it to take
> precautions. Some people show signs of hypoxia at half that altitude. Why
> take the risk?

You know, I addressed this point, and you snipped it. Why did you do that?

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Steve Hix > wrote:
> In article >,
> Michael Ash > wrote:
>>
>> At the risk of turning this thread into something useful,
>
> Heaven forfend!
>
>> does anyone have
>> any recommendations as to when it's a good idea to give oxygen to
>> passengers? I'm not talking about the legal requirements, but just when
>> it's the smart thing to do. For example, as the pilot I like to start my
>> oxygen at about 10,000ft even though it's not required until quite a bit
>> higher. But then again, it doesn't really matter too much if my passengers
>> have mildly impaired judgement during the flight, even though I'd really
>> want to avoid that myself.
>>
>> This is really an academic question since I don't plan to take anybody
>> that high to begin with, but I'm curious.
>
> Depends on the person, really.

Good point!

> I have a friend who begins to exhibit severe headaches and some cyanosis
> (his lips and fingernails start to go purple) above about 8000'. He's
> been warned to be very cautious about higher elevations, as he's
> probably a prime candidate for mountain sickness. So much for his dreams
> of trekking the Himalayas.
>
> That's a bit extreme, but it's worth watching for if you have a
> passenger who's never been at altitude before.
>
> Heavy smokers, or anyone with compromised cardiopulmonary function
> should be cautious, probably.

Do I correctly understand that you would be happy with monitoring for
symptoms during the flight and making the decision then? I don't want to
do this as the pilot, but only because judgement is one of the first
things to go. For passengers this seems to be entirely reasonable.

> There are affordable blood oxygenation meters, typically used by
> clipping on a finger, to determine blood O2 levels if you spend much
> time at higher elevations without supplementary oxygen.

Mentioned in another post as well. As I said in the reply, I might well
get one once high-altitude season rolls around again.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Mike[_22_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Mike writes:
>
>> Even normally aspirated piston aircraft can generally get to 9000 MSL
>> even
>> on hot days.
>
> True, but then you have to start thinking about oxygen.

I have a Skyox 4-place system, so that's not a problem, but you certainly
don't need O2 at 9000'.

>> And yes, even on a 43° C it's a helluva lot more fun flying a real
>> aircraft
>> than flying a computer in a climate controlled room.
>
> That is a matter of opinion. Nothing is fun at 43° C.

Of course. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Some are just more
relevant than others.

[Mike[_22_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Mike writes:
>
>> The "real thing" doesn't necessarily require a compressor.
>
> So how does it work?

Some older planes had a non-compressor based system that required water. I
assume it was some sort of evaporative cooling setup. I lived in El Paso,
Texas where the temps routinely got above 43° C and I had an evaporative
cooler in my home that worked just fine.

You can also buy aftermarket systems that use ice.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike writes:

> Some older planes had a non-compressor based system that required water. I
> assume it was some sort of evaporative cooling setup. I lived in El Paso,
> Texas where the temps routinely got above 43° C and I had an evaporative
> cooler in my home that worked just fine.

That would be a swamp cooler rather than true air conditioning. It would work
in an aircraft if the humidity were low enough, but the weight of the
necessary water sounds like a major drawback.

> You can also buy aftermarket systems that use ice.

Still not true A/C, but better than nothing.

I suppose adding a compressor to an engine would raise all sorts of issues
with certification, testing, performance, etc.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike writes:

> I have a Skyox 4-place system, so that's not a problem, but you certainly
> don't need O2 at 9000'.

It doesn't hurt, and it's a good idea at night.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Michael Ash > wrote:

> In rec.aviation.student Steve Hix > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Michael Ash > wrote:
> >>
> >> At the risk of turning this thread into something useful,
> >
> > Heaven forfend!
> >
> >> does anyone have
> >> any recommendations as to when it's a good idea to give oxygen to
> >> passengers? I'm not talking about the legal requirements, but just when
> >> it's the smart thing to do. For example, as the pilot I like to start my
> >> oxygen at about 10,000ft even though it's not required until quite a bit
> >> higher. But then again, it doesn't really matter too much if my passengers
> >> have mildly impaired judgement during the flight, even though I'd really
> >> want to avoid that myself.
> >>
> >> This is really an academic question since I don't plan to take anybody
> >> that high to begin with, but I'm curious.
> >
> > Depends on the person, really.
>
> Good point!
>
> > I have a friend who begins to exhibit severe headaches and some cyanosis
> > (his lips and fingernails start to go purple) above about 8000'. He's
> > been warned to be very cautious about higher elevations, as he's
> > probably a prime candidate for mountain sickness. So much for his dreams
> > of trekking the Himalayas.
> >
> > That's a bit extreme, but it's worth watching for if you have a
> > passenger who's never been at altitude before.
> >
> > Heavy smokers, or anyone with compromised cardiopulmonary function
> > should be cautious, probably.
>
> Do I correctly understand that you would be happy with monitoring for
> symptoms during the flight and making the decision then? I don't want to
> do this as the pilot, but only because judgement is one of the first
> things to go. For passengers this seems to be entirely reasonable.

For passengers, mostly.

I've done some testing previously, and have determined that up to at
least 11,500' there're no noticeable effects for me. (Modulo fatigue,
recovery from illness, etc.) The initial checks I did with another
pilot, my instructor at the time, and he brought oxygen along.

Over the past several decades, I've been tested for VO2max, and I'm on
the high side of the population. I used to cycle competitively, which
was initially the reason to check, after that just curiousity.

Has to be careful choice of grandparents; I've lived essentially at sea
level for my whole life (California coastal, mostly).

My son smokes; him I'd want to check if we cross the Sierra Nevada or
points east.

[Steve Hix]

In article <PTV9k.157$K%2.34@trnddc02>, "Mike" >
wrote:

> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Mike writes:
> >
> >> The "real thing" doesn't necessarily require a compressor.
> >
> > So how does it work?
>
> Some older planes had a non-compressor based system that required water. I
> assume it was some sort of evaporative cooling setup. I lived in El Paso,
> Texas where the temps routinely got above 43° C and I had an evaporative
> cooler in my home that worked just fine.
>
> You can also buy aftermarket systems that use ice.

There are also state-change systems that just need a heat source to
drive them, like Dometic kerosene refrigerators. Not very useful for
aircraft use, granted.

[muff528]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> muff528 writes:
>
>> I would extend that thought to include *any* plane :-)
>
> High-performance aircraft that can fly well above mountain ranges
> shouldn't be
> a problem.

Well, wouldn't that be considered "avoiding the mountains"?

TP

[Mxsmanic]

muff528 writes:

> Well, wouldn't that be considered "avoiding the mountains"?

Potentially, yes.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 29, 7:23 pm, Steve Hix >
wrote:
> In article <PTV9k.157$K%2.34@trnddc02>, "Mike" >
> wrote:
>
> > "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Mike writes:
>
> > >> The "real thing" doesn't necessarily require a compressor.
>
> > > So how does it work?
>
> > Some older planes had a non-compressor based system that required water. I
> > assume it was some sort of evaporative cooling setup. I lived in El Paso,
> > Texas where the temps routinely got above 43° C and I had an evaporative
> > cooler in my home that worked just fine.
>
> > You can also buy aftermarket systems that use ice.
>
> There are also state-change systems that just need a heat source to
> drive them, like Dometic kerosene refrigerators. Not very useful for
> aircraft use, granted.

Turbine engined airplanes don't have AC compressors. They bleed
some compressed air from the compressor stage of the engine, run that
through an exchanger to cool it, then drop its pressure, which lowers
its temperature a whole bunch. Mixing this really cold air with hot
bleed air provides whatever temperature the pilot wants.
A piston engine with a larger turbocharger could use some of
the same effect but it would be less effective since the pressures are
lower.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in
:

> On Jun 29, 7:23 pm, Steve Hix >
> wrote:
>> In article <PTV9k.157$K%2.34@trnddc02>, "Mike" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > > Mike writes:
>>
>> > >> The "real thing" doesn't necessarily require a compressor.
>>
>> > > So how does it work?
>>
>> > Some older planes had a non-compressor based system that required
>> > water.
> I
>> > assume it was some sort of evaporative cooling setup. I lived in
>> > El Pas
> o,
>> > Texas where the temps routinely got above 43° C and I had an
>> > evaporati
> ve
>> > cooler in my home that worked just fine.
>>
>> > You can also buy aftermarket systems that use ice.
>>
>> There are also state-change systems that just need a heat source to
>> drive them, like Dometic kerosene refrigerators. Not very useful for
>> aircraft use, granted.
>
> Turbine engined airplanes don't have AC compressors. They bleed
> some compressed air from the compressor stage of the engine, run that
> through an exchanger to cool it, then drop its pressure, which lowers
> its temperature a whole bunch. Mixing this really cold air with hot
> bleed air provides whatever temperature the pilot wants.
> A piston engine with a larger turbocharger could use some of
> the same effect but it would be less effective since the pressures are
> lower.
>

Actually, some turbines do use compressers, like the old RR Dart, for
instance (they call it a spupercharger, it's a rootes type compressor)

The 787 is going back to them in an effort to get away from the problem
of cabin fumes...


Bertie
>

[Steve Hix]

In article <RgX9k.272$bn3.204@trnddc07>,
"muff528" > wrote:

> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
> > muff528 writes:
> >
> >> I would extend that thought to include *any* plane :-)
> >
> > High-performance aircraft that can fly well above mountain ranges
> > shouldn't be
> > a problem.
>
> Well, wouldn't that be considered "avoiding the mountains"?

Only for those thinking in 3D terms.

[Benjamin Dover]

Nomen Nescio > wrote in
:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Mxsmanic >
>
>>I know, but I prefer not to wait until the law requires it to take
>>precautions. Some people show signs of hypoxia at half that altitude.
>> Why take the risk?
>
>
> Un-F**kin'- Believable!
>
> An I the only one picturing the dip****, sitting in front of his
> computer, shoving a tube up his nose at an "altimeter" reading
> of 7000 ft?
>
>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: N/A
>
> iQCVAwUBSGhJu5MoscYxZNI5AQGSUQP/TTxpYKPSk0Y1F+v1AqhGet8cZahLiJ5I
> lE9DD1LQ08E1y2DNaR/kUrpQzcZxAq5AdoRgf7xdleGnf1O1JeAXW0a8oSY0zQGJ
> mxrw8J1cNPSbHJ/Uz7Qz5DUMdzxRowSegKEntP2fHwoNm41N7yP2gQVhepa3a/wk
> VCoUwsx8ktE=
> =VCXH
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>

No, you are not alone in your picture. You just left out that he has the
other end up his ass so he can fart and pretent he is getting O2.

[Allen[_1_]]

> wrote in message
...
On Jun 29, 7:23 pm, Steve Hix >
wrote:
> In article <PTV9k.157$K%2.34@trnddc02>, "Mike" >
> wrote
>
> There are also state-change systems that just need a heat source to
> drive them, like Dometic kerosene refrigerators. Not very useful for
> aircraft use, granted.

Turbine engined airplanes don't have AC compressors. They bleed
some compressed air from the compressor stage of the engine, run that
through an exchanger to cool it, then drop its pressure, which lowers
its temperature a whole bunch. Mixing this really cold air with hot
bleed air provides whatever temperature the pilot wants.
A piston engine with a larger turbocharger could use some of
the same effect but it would be less effective since the pressures are
lower.

Dan

Well...some turbine powered airplanes have AC compressors. The one I flew
had one, we used it to pre-cool the cabin and up to 18,000 feet. We also
used it as a de-humidifier when going into humid areas so the windshield
would not fog up.

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

[Peter Clark]

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:16:33 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>On Jun 29, 7:23 pm, Steve Hix >
>wrote:
>> In article <PTV9k.157$K%2.34@trnddc02>, "Mike" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > > Mike writes:
>>
>> > >> The "real thing" doesn't necessarily require a compressor.
>>
>> > > So how does it work?
>>
>> > Some older planes had a non-compressor based system that required water. I
>> > assume it was some sort of evaporative cooling setup. I lived in El Paso,
>> > Texas where the temps routinely got above 43° C and I had an evaporative
>> > cooler in my home that worked just fine.
>>
>> > You can also buy aftermarket systems that use ice.
>>
>> There are also state-change systems that just need a heat source to
>> drive them, like Dometic kerosene refrigerators. Not very useful for
>> aircraft use, granted.
>
> Turbine engined airplanes don't have AC compressors. They bleed
>some compressed air from the compressor stage of the engine, run that
>through an exchanger to cool it, then drop its pressure, which lowers
>its temperature a whole bunch. Mixing this really cold air with hot
>bleed air provides whatever temperature the pilot wants.
> A piston engine with a larger turbocharger could use some of
>the same effect but it would be less effective since the pressures are
>lower.

Or they can install a Keith style all-electric compressor rather than
the Malibu style compressor which is belt-driven off the engine next
to the alternator belts. Needs a beefy electrical system though, it
draws darn near 50 amps.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:38:54 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Stealth Pilot writes:
>
>> on the contrary it is a hell of a lot of fun.
>> just how long do you think it stays 43 C when you are flying for real?
>
>Most of the flight, at moderate altitudes, or at least it stays too hot for
>most of the flight. My baron has an "air conditioning" switch, but it's not
>clear whether or not this is the real thing, since the real thing requires a
>compressor.

you truely are an idiot.

I fly across the nullabor plain in summer with temperatures on the
ground near 45 degrees celcius, my aircraft has no cooling or
airconditioning whatsoever and yet I fly in temperatures between 0
degrees and 5 degrees absolutely reliably.

can your little brain figure out how I do it.
every pilot here can do it.

Stealth Pilot

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:17:47 -0500, Michael Ash >
wrote:

>In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> muff528 writes:
>>
>>> If that's as high as your airplane will go you probably should get another
>>> airplane. At least don't fly around out west where the hills are higher than
>>> that. Sometimes even the ground is higher than that! :-)
>>
>> I try to avoid the mountains when flying a small plane. There are some
>> extensive flat areas in the American west, but it is true that sometimes to
>> get between two points it's hard to avoid the mountains, short of crossing
>> half the continent to go around them. Even if the aircraft has the requisite
>> ceiling, carrying oxygen for everyone is awkward and will not inspire
>> confidence in passengers.
>
>You don't legally need oxygen for the passengers until 15,000ft, and even
>the "it's a good idea even though it's not required" range probably isn't
>until 10,000ft or so. If you start out at sea level, those will get you
>into nice cool air.
>
>At the risk of turning this thread into something useful, does anyone have
>any recommendations as to when it's a good idea to give oxygen to
>passengers? I'm not talking about the legal requirements, but just when
>it's the smart thing to do. For example, as the pilot I like to start my
>oxygen at about 10,000ft even though it's not required until quite a bit
>higher. But then again, it doesn't really matter too much if my passengers
>have mildly impaired judgement during the flight, even though I'd really
>want to avoid that myself.
>
>This is really an academic question since I don't plan to take anybody
>that high to begin with, but I'm curious.

mike it depends entirely on your level of blood oxygenation.
go and buy yourself a little device that clips over your finger called
a 'Pulse Oximeter'. you can get little battery powered ones.
they shine two lasers of different frequencies through your tissue and
infer the oxygenation from the ratio of the attenuation. they are
quite accurate.
if your blood oxygenation drops below 95% you can start up the oygen.

the commercial aviation standard of 8,000ft is based on the onset of
difficulty that an obese person will have.
obesity means increased tissue to perfuse, compared to a normal weight
person, with just the same lung surface area. obesity brings on
hypoxia earlier.

Stealth Pilot

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Steve Hix > wrote:
> In article >,
> Michael Ash > wrote:
>> Do I correctly understand that you would be happy with monitoring for
>> symptoms during the flight and making the decision then? I don't want to
>> do this as the pilot, but only because judgement is one of the first
>> things to go. For passengers this seems to be entirely reasonable.
>
> For passengers, mostly.
>
> I've done some testing previously, and have determined that up to at
> least 11,500' there're no noticeable effects for me. (Modulo fatigue,
> recovery from illness, etc.) The initial checks I did with another
> pilot, my instructor at the time, and he brought oxygen along.
>
> Over the past several decades, I've been tested for VO2max, and I'm on
> the high side of the population. I used to cycle competitively, which
> was initially the reason to check, after that just curiousity.
>
> Has to be careful choice of grandparents; I've lived essentially at sea
> level for my whole life (California coastal, mostly).
>
> My son smokes; him I'd want to check if we cross the Sierra Nevada or
> points east.

Thanks for the additional details, very interesting. It's particularly
interesting that you say you're on the high side of the population and yet
you still seem to come in well below the FAA requirements for passenger
oxygen. I guess this is one case where they don't err heavily on the side
of caution.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> What are the main things I have to give special consideration to when
> preparing to fly in very hot weather (43° C)?

If you don't know the answer to this question, you should not be flying.

If you are playing with MSFS (as I suspect) you should ask this question on
a group that has members familiar with how Microsoft simulates atmospheric
conditions.

HTH

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Michael Ash > wrote:

> In rec.aviation.student Steve Hix > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Michael Ash > wrote:
> >> Do I correctly understand that you would be happy with monitoring for
> >> symptoms during the flight and making the decision then? I don't want to
> >> do this as the pilot, but only because judgement is one of the first
> >> things to go. For passengers this seems to be entirely reasonable.
> >
> > For passengers, mostly.
> >
> > I've done some testing previously, and have determined that up to at
> > least 11,500' there're no noticeable effects for me. (Modulo fatigue,
> > recovery from illness, etc.) The initial checks I did with another
> > pilot, my instructor at the time, and he brought oxygen along.
> >
> > Over the past several decades, I've been tested for VO2max, and I'm on
> > the high side of the population. I used to cycle competitively, which
> > was initially the reason to check, after that just curiousity.
> >
> > Has to be careful choice of grandparents; I've lived essentially at sea
> > level for my whole life (California coastal, mostly).
> >
> > My son smokes; him I'd want to check if we cross the Sierra Nevada or
> > points east.
>
> Thanks for the additional details, very interesting. It's particularly
> interesting that you say you're on the high side of the population and yet
> you still seem to come in well below the FAA requirements for passenger
> oxygen.

?? Something got scrambled in translation...

If it wasn't clear, I didn't resort to oxygen, we just had it along on
the flight, just in case.

I've never used supplementary oxygen, but the highest density altitude
I've experienced was Mt. Whitney at about 14,500'. It's not exactly
comparable, but it was a one-day up and back hike.

> I guess this is one case where they don't err heavily on the side of caution.

I think they still do, certainly judging from my altitude-intolerant
friend.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> If you don't know the answer to this question, you should not be flying.

Most people don't fly in extremely hot weather.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> If you don't know the answer to this question, you should not be flying.
>
> Most people don't fly in extremely hot weather.
>

Yes, they do,, cretin.



Bertie

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Steve Foley writes:

> > If you don't know the answer to this question, you should not be flying.

> Most people don't fly in extremely hot weather.

If by "most people" you mean the majority of the people in the world,
you are correct.

If by "most people" you mean the people who live in warm climates
don't fly in hot weather, you are wrong.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> If by "most people" you mean the majority of the people in the world,
> you are correct.
>
> If by "most people" you mean the people who live in warm climates
> don't fly in hot weather, you are wrong.

I didn't qualify the term, so I mean most people in the world. Someone who
always flies in moderate weather might easily forget the special precautions
that must be taken in extremely hot weather, which invalidates the assertion
that people (pilots) who don't know the answer to my question should not be
flying.

Likewise, someone who flies in a desert climate where icing and rain are
rarely issues might easily forget the special precautions that apply in such
conditions.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> If by "most people" you mean the majority of the people in the world,
>> you are correct.
>>
>> If by "most people" you mean the people who live in warm climates
>> don't fly in hot weather, you are wrong.
>
> I didn't qualify the term, so I mean most people in the world.
> Someone who always flies in moderate weather might easily forget the
> special precautions that must be taken in extremely hot weather, which
> invalidates the assertion that people (pilots) who don't know the
> answer to my question should not be flying.
>
> Likewise, someone who flies in a desert climate where icing and rain
> are rarely issues might easily forget the special precautions that
> apply in such conditions.

Wrong again, fjuktjard.

[Maxwell's Butt]

On Jun 30, 7:11 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > If by "most people" you mean the majority of the people in the world,
> > you are correct.
>
> > If by "most people" you mean the people who live in warm climates
> > don't fly in hot weather, you are wrong.
>
> I didn't qualify the term, so I mean most people in the world. Someone who
> always flies in moderate weather might easily forget the special precautions
> that must be taken in extremely hot weather

You like the important of wearing underwear that can absorb butt sweat
without getting sticky or riding up your crack? Max always forgets
that one, the thoughtless *******.

> Likewise, someone who flies in a desert climate where icing and rain are
> rarely issues might easily forget the special precautions that apply in such
> conditions.

I got shaved the other day. Now I'm smooth and soft. Do you shave
your butt?

[terry]

On Jul 1, 11:11*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > If by "most people" you mean the majority of the people in the world,
> > you are correct.
>
> > If by "most people" you mean the people who live in warm climates
> > don't fly in hot weather, you are wrong.
>
> I didn't qualify the term, so I mean most people in the world. *Someone who
> always flies in moderate weather might easily forget the special precautions
> that must be taken in extremely hot weather, which invalidates the assertion
> that people (pilots) who don't know the answer to my question should not be
> flying.
>
> Likewise, someone who flies in a desert climate where icing and rain are
> rarely issues might easily forget the special precautions that apply in such
> conditions.

This is mind boggling. It is like dealing with an extra terestrial
who has come to earth, after having watched and assimilated the entire
series of Gilligans Island as his only earthly experience.
But I supose it is a perfectly understandable statement to make in
that context. But no, pilots dont forget special precautions just
because they dont fly in certain conditions, because no matter where
they live the weather varies, enough that a pilot has to understand
the effects of variation whether it is from -20 to +20 or +20 to +
50 C and it is one of the most critically assessed components of their
training, because it can kill you ( well not you , but real pilots)
Density of air ( I and others have already tried to explain that to
you) effects lift and engine performance, the denser the better.
hotter weather generally means less dense , but not always, which is
why we look at combined effect of pressure and temperature, which
gives density. We have tools in our airplanes , ie a thermometer and
an altimeter to guage the density. You could use a thermometer and a
barometer in your apartment if you wanted to calculate the density and
check it vs your Barrons performance chart, but you would have to
believe what the scientific community accepts as fact , that you can
calculate the density in the atmosphere ( even your apartment ) from
the ideal gas law, from pressure and temperature. Density can
have a big effect on take off roll and climb gradient acheivable, thus
the CRITICAL importance of performance ( takeoff and landing )charts,
if you dont want to crash your Barron into obstacles at the end of the
runway. Some aircraft may suffer from overheating on very hot days.
Fuel burn is also a function of density altitude, and this is where
flight manuals come in handy. Pilots also need to understand
conditions that can lead to icing either structural or carburetor,
icing can happen anywhere in the world including desert
environments.

Oh and if you think rain is not an issue in the desert , go an read
about VIRGA.
Terry
PPL Downunder

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> But no, pilots dont forget special precautions just
> because they dont fly in certain conditions, because no matter where
> they live the weather varies, enough that a pilot has to understand
> the effects of variation whether it is from -20 to +20 or +20 to +
> 50 C and it is one of the most critically assessed components of their
> training, because it can kill you ( well not you , but real pilots)

Yes, they forget, and that's why so many get killed. They forget all sorts of
things; some are important, some aren't.

> Oh and if you think rain is not an issue in the desert , go an read
> about VIRGA.

I know about virga. But typically the skies in the desert have no clouds at
all, or clouds so small and insignificant that they are hard to even see.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:

> > But no, pilots dont forget special precautions just
> > because they dont fly in certain conditions, because no matter where
> > they live the weather varies, enough that a pilot has to understand
> > the effects of variation whether it is from -20 to +20 or +20 to +
> > 50 C and it is one of the most critically assessed components of their
> > training, because it can kill you ( well not you , but real pilots)

> Yes, they forget, and that's why so many get killed. They forget all sorts of
> things; some are important, some aren't.

> > Oh and if you think rain is not an issue in the desert , go an read
> > about VIRGA.

> I know about virga. But typically the skies in the desert have no clouds at
> all, or clouds so small and insignificant that they are hard to even see.

Totally and absolutely wrong.

Maybe in a Microsoft simulated desert, but not a real desert.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Steve Hix > wrote:
> In article >,
> Michael Ash > wrote:
>
>> In rec.aviation.student Steve Hix > wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> > Michael Ash > wrote:
>> >> Do I correctly understand that you would be happy with monitoring for
>> >> symptoms during the flight and making the decision then? I don't want to
>> >> do this as the pilot, but only because judgement is one of the first
>> >> things to go. For passengers this seems to be entirely reasonable.
>> >
>> > For passengers, mostly.
>> >
>> > I've done some testing previously, and have determined that up to at
>> > least 11,500' there're no noticeable effects for me. (Modulo fatigue,
>> > recovery from illness, etc.) The initial checks I did with another
>> > pilot, my instructor at the time, and he brought oxygen along.
>> >
>> > Over the past several decades, I've been tested for VO2max, and I'm on
>> > the high side of the population. I used to cycle competitively, which
>> > was initially the reason to check, after that just curiousity.
>> >
>> > Has to be careful choice of grandparents; I've lived essentially at sea
>> > level for my whole life (California coastal, mostly).
>> >
>> > My son smokes; him I'd want to check if we cross the Sierra Nevada or
>> > points east.
>>
>> Thanks for the additional details, very interesting. It's particularly
>> interesting that you say you're on the high side of the population and yet
>> you still seem to come in well below the FAA requirements for passenger
>> oxygen.
>
> ?? Something got scrambled in translation...
>
> If it wasn't clear, I didn't resort to oxygen, we just had it along on
> the flight, just in case.
>
> I've never used supplementary oxygen, but the highest density altitude
> I've experienced was Mt. Whitney at about 14,500'. It's not exactly
> comparable, but it was a one-day up and back hike.

Sorry, thought you were implying that 11,500 was your limit.

>> I guess this is one case where they don't err heavily on the side of caution.
>
> I think they still do, certainly judging from my altitude-intolerant
> friend.

If some people start to suffer at 8,000ft then I'm surprised that the FAA
puts the limit for us non-airline folk at 15,000ft instead of something
closer to 8,000ft.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
wrote:

> In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > terry writes:
>
> > > But no, pilots dont forget special precautions just
> > > because they dont fly in certain conditions, because no matter where
> > > they live the weather varies, enough that a pilot has to understand
> > > the effects of variation whether it is from -20 to +20 or +20 to +
> > > 50 C and it is one of the most critically assessed components of their
> > > training, because it can kill you ( well not you , but real pilots)
>
> > Yes, they forget, and that's why so many get killed. They forget all sorts
> > of
> > things; some are important, some aren't.
>
> > > Oh and if you think rain is not an issue in the desert , go an read
> > > about VIRGA.
>
> > I know about virga. But typically the skies in the desert have no clouds
> > at
> > all, or clouds so small and insignificant that they are hard to even see.
>
> Totally and absolutely wrong.
>
> Maybe in a Microsoft simulated desert, but not a real desert.

More and more it looks like mxsmaniac doesn't get out much.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Michael Ash > wrote:

> In rec.aviation.student Steve Hix > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Michael Ash > wrote:
> >
> >> In rec.aviation.student Steve Hix >
> >> wrote:
> >> > In article >,
> >> > Michael Ash > wrote:
> >> >> Do I correctly understand that you would be happy with monitoring for
> >> >> symptoms during the flight and making the decision then? I don't want
> >> >> to
> >> >> do this as the pilot, but only because judgement is one of the first
> >> >> things to go. For passengers this seems to be entirely reasonable.
> >> >
> >> > For passengers, mostly.
> >> >
> >> > I've done some testing previously, and have determined that up to at
> >> > least 11,500' there're no noticeable effects for me. (Modulo fatigue,
> >> > recovery from illness, etc.) The initial checks I did with another
> >> > pilot, my instructor at the time, and he brought oxygen along.
> >> >
> >> > Over the past several decades, I've been tested for VO2max, and I'm on
> >> > the high side of the population. I used to cycle competitively, which
> >> > was initially the reason to check, after that just curiousity.
> >> >
> >> > Has to be careful choice of grandparents; I've lived essentially at sea
> >> > level for my whole life (California coastal, mostly).
> >> >
> >> > My son smokes; him I'd want to check if we cross the Sierra Nevada or
> >> > points east.
> >>
> >> Thanks for the additional details, very interesting. It's particularly
> >> interesting that you say you're on the high side of the population and yet
> >> you still seem to come in well below the FAA requirements for passenger
> >> oxygen.
> >
> > ?? Something got scrambled in translation...
> >
> > If it wasn't clear, I didn't resort to oxygen, we just had it along on
> > the flight, just in case.
> >
> > I've never used supplementary oxygen, but the highest density altitude
> > I've experienced was Mt. Whitney at about 14,500'. It's not exactly
> > comparable, but it was a one-day up and back hike.
>
> Sorry, thought you were implying that 11,500 was your limit.
>
> >> I guess this is one case where they don't err heavily on the side of
> >> caution.
> >
> > I think they still do, certainly judging from my altitude-intolerant
> > friend.
>
> If some people start to suffer at 8,000ft then I'm surprised that the FAA
> puts the limit for us non-airline folk at 15,000ft instead of something
> closer to 8,000ft.

Probably a case of making the cutoff somewhere at the beginning of the
tail instead of the end.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Steve Hix > wrote:
> In article >,
> wrote:

> > In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > > terry writes:
> >
> > > > But no, pilots dont forget special precautions just
> > > > because they dont fly in certain conditions, because no matter where
> > > > they live the weather varies, enough that a pilot has to understand
> > > > the effects of variation whether it is from -20 to +20 or +20 to +
> > > > 50 C and it is one of the most critically assessed components of their
> > > > training, because it can kill you ( well not you , but real pilots)
> >
> > > Yes, they forget, and that's why so many get killed. They forget all sorts
> > > of
> > > things; some are important, some aren't.
> >
> > > > Oh and if you think rain is not an issue in the desert , go an read
> > > > about VIRGA.
> >
> > > I know about virga. But typically the skies in the desert have no clouds
> > > at
> > > all, or clouds so small and insignificant that they are hard to even see.
> >
> > Totally and absolutely wrong.
> >
> > Maybe in a Microsoft simulated desert, but not a real desert.

> More and more it looks like mxsmaniac doesn't get out much.

He never gets out at all; the real world terrifys him.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Pilots are taught about density altitude in their training, and the
POH documents aircraft performance as well. Competent pilots give
consideration to conditions related to their flying all the time.
Freezing rain or embedded thunderstorms would certainly raise the
discomfort level for this pilot more than would temps > 100 degrees F.

Oh. I said pilot. Maybe that's the difference.




On Jun 28, 8:56 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> What are the main things I have to give special consideration to when
> preparing to fly in very hot weather (43° C)?

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:11:14 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:


>
>Most people don't fly in extremely hot weather.


my bloody oath they do you clueless loser.
if you want to fly crosscountry (note here ACTUALLY fly) in day vfr
conditions you need the longest hours of sunlight, which, hellooo,
also coincide with the hottest period of the year.
so you are totally wrong.
most people fly long distances in the hottest weather, however they
dont do it in the heat. they fly up at altitude and make use of
adiabatic cooling.

you are so unbelievably incompetent in your understanding of aviation.
Stealth Pilot

[Peter Dohm]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> If by "most people" you mean the majority of the people in the world,
>> you are correct.
>>
>> If by "most people" you mean the people who live in warm climates
>> don't fly in hot weather, you are wrong.
>
> I didn't qualify the term, so I mean most people in the world. Someone
> who
> always flies in moderate weather might easily forget the special
> precautions
> that must be taken in extremely hot weather, which invalidates the
> assertion
> that people (pilots) who don't know the answer to my question should not
> be
> flying.
>
> Likewise, someone who flies in a desert climate where icing and rain are
> rarely issues might easily forget the special precautions that apply in
> such
> conditions.

Since you clarify it in that manner--most people don't fly in average
weather.

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> I didn't qualify the term, so I mean most people in the world. Someone
who
> always flies in moderate weather might easily forget the special
precautions
> that must be taken in extremely hot weather, which invalidates the
assertion
> that people (pilots) who don't know the answer to my question should not
be
> flying.

This knowledge is required for a private pilot in the USA. I suspect it's
similar for other countries as well. Someone who doesn't know this either is
not a pilot, or somehow has beaten the system. In either case he/she should
not be flying.

[Frank Olson]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> muff528 writes:
>
>> If that's as high as your airplane will go you probably should get another
>> airplane. At least don't fly around out west where the hills are higher than
>> that. Sometimes even the ground is higher than that! :-)
>
> I try to avoid the mountains when flying a small plane.

I love mountain flying... Give me a Piper Supercub on floats (about as
"small" as you can get when I regularly fly a C-185 on amphib floats)
and I'll fly it practically anywhere in the Lower Mainland (and we have
a lot of mountains to the North and East)... :-)

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> This knowledge is required for a private pilot in the USA. I suspect it's
> similar for other countries as well.

It may be required to pass a test. But pilots aren't tested every day.

> Someone who doesn't know this either is
> not a pilot, or somehow has beaten the system. In either case he/she should
> not be flying.

There are many people with drivers licenses who shouldn't be driving, and yet,
there they are.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Freezing rain or embedded thunderstorms would certainly raise the
> discomfort level for this pilot more than would temps > 100 degrees F.

Not necessarily. Heat kills more readily than cold.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 1, 5:35 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Freezing rain or embedded thunderstorms would certainly raise the
> > discomfort level for this pilot more than would temps > 100 degrees F.
>
> Not necessarily. Heat kills more readily than cold.


Oh, I LOVE this. A sim player is telling me, a real card carrying
pilot, that I do not necessarily worry more about flying when there is
freezing rain and embedded thunderstorms than I do about flying when
it's hot? Would you rather fly when there's freezing rain in the
forecast, or embedded thunderstroms, than when it's over 43 C?

Since you're telling me what I should think, why not tell me what I
thing about your opinion?

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Freezing rain or embedded thunderstorms would certainly raise the
>> discomfort level for this pilot more than would temps > 100 degrees F.
>
> Not necessarily. Heat kills more readily than cold.

Slithering like a snake again, aren't you Anthony. Fjuktjard.

[yeedyeegiiss]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> What are the main things I have to give special consideration to when
> preparing to fly in very hot weather (43° C)?

Irrelevant. You don't fly. You aren't preparing to fly. It isn't
43 deg C where you are right now.

[yeedyeegiiss]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> I might have an accident.

So?

[yeedyeegiiss]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> I try to avoid the mountains when flying a small plane.

You don't fly a plane of any size. Therefore, you don't have any
mountains to avoid.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Would you rather fly when there's freezing rain in the
> forecast, or embedded thunderstroms, than when it's over 43 C?

I wouldn't be imprudent enough to fly in either situation.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 1, 7:35 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Would you rather fly when there's freezing rain in the
> > forecast, or embedded thunderstroms, than when it's over 43 C?
>
> I wouldn't be imprudent enough to fly in either situation.

HA!!!!

You chose not to answer my question, so I will. I think your opinions
are worse than worthless.

[yeedyeegiiss]

wrote:

> On Jul 1, 7:35 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
writes:
>>
>>>Would you rather fly when there's freezing rain in the
>>>forecast, or embedded thunderstroms, than when it's over 43 C?
>>
>>I wouldn't be imprudent enough to fly in either situation.
>
> HA!!!!
>
> You chose not to answer my question, so I will. I think your opinions
> are worse than worthless.

I'll save you the bother of reading Anthony's response:

<Anthony>What you think is irrelevant.</Anthony>

Trust me, it's all he has. Anthony would rather bloviate than honestly
answer your question.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Would you rather fly when there's freezing rain in the
>> forecast, or embedded thunderstroms, than when it's over 43 C?
>
> I wouldn't be imprudent enough to fly in either situation.
>

You don't fly, moron.

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Would you rather fly when there's freezing rain in the
>> forecast, or embedded thunderstroms, than when it's over 43 C?
>
> I wouldn't be imprudent enough to fly in either situation.

either --> any

[K l e i n[_2_]]

On Jun 29, 6:53*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
> > Why do you worry? *Worrying to me implies some sort of sonsequences if
> > you screw up. *Can you please elaborate on the consequences you are
> > worried about, I am really intrigued.
>
> I might have an accident.

OTOH, you might have a life.

K l e i n

[[email protected]]

On Jul 1, 3:35 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Freezing rain or embedded thunderstorms would certainly raise the
> > discomfort level for this pilot more than would temps > 100 degrees F.
>
> Not necessarily. Heat kills more readily than cold.

So you haven't been here on the Canadian Prairies in winter, either.
Every winter someone will get a vehicle stuck on a country road and
try to walk a mile or two for help, in a 20-knot wind at -20C. They
don't make it. And it gets much colder than that sometimes. Death
comes quickly. In very cold water, near freezing, an unprotected human
is unconscious in under 20 minutes and dead shortly after that, if he
doesn't drown first. I haven't heard of an unprotected human dying in
a half-hour on the desert at 45C.

Dan

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> So you haven't been here on the Canadian Prairies in winter, either.
> Every winter someone will get a vehicle stuck on a country road and
> try to walk a mile or two for help, in a 20-knot wind at -20C. They
> don't make it.

The hot weather equivalent of -20° C is 60° C, and nobody makes it in that,
either. You can dress to protect yourself against -20° C, but nothing you
might wear can protect you against 60° C.

> In very cold water, near freezing, an unprotected human
> is unconscious in under 20 minutes and dead shortly after that, if he
> doesn't drown first.

But that's just it: You can protect yourself in cold weather. In hot
weather, you can't.

> I haven't heard of an unprotected human dying in a half-hour
> on the desert at 45C.

Since you say that you're on the Canadian prairies, that doesn't surprise me.
More than fifteen thousand people in Europe died in 2003 in such temperatures.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

K l e i n > wrote in news:5cb3677f-c185-4b14-93db-
:

> On Jun 29, 6:53*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> terry writes:
>> > Why do you worry? *Worrying to me implies some sort of sonsequences if
>
>> > you screw up. *Can you please elaborate on the consequences you are
>> > worried about, I am really intrigued.
>>
>> I might have an accident.
>
> OTOH, you might have a life.
>


I wouldn't bet on it.


Bertie
>

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> So you haven't been here on the Canadian Prairies in winter, either.
>> Every winter someone will get a vehicle stuck on a country road and
>> try to walk a mile or two for help, in a 20-knot wind at -20C. They
>> don't make it.
>
> The hot weather equivalent of -20° C is 60° C, and nobody makes it in
> that, either. You can dress to protect yourself against -20° C, but
> nothing you might wear can protect you against 60° C.
>
>> In very cold water, near freezing, an unprotected human
>> is unconscious in under 20 minutes and dead shortly after that, if he
>> doesn't drown first.
>
> But that's just it: You can protect yourself in cold weather. In hot
> weather, you can't.
>
>> I haven't heard of an unprotected human dying in a half-hour
>> on the desert at 45C.
>
> Since you say that you're on the Canadian prairies, that doesn't
> surprise me. More than fifteen thousand people in Europe died in 2003
> in such temperatures.
>

You're a moron.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> So you haven't been here on the Canadian Prairies in winter, either.
>> Every winter someone will get a vehicle stuck on a country road and
>> try to walk a mile or two for help, in a 20-knot wind at -20C. They
>> don't make it.
>
> The hot weather equivalent of -20° C is 60° C, and nobody makes it in
> that, either. You can dress to protect yourself against -20° C, but
> nothing you might wear can protect you against 60° C.
>
>> In very cold water, near freezing, an unprotected human
>> is unconscious in under 20 minutes and dead shortly after that, if he
>> doesn't drown first.
>
> But that's just it: You can protect yourself in cold weather. In hot
> weather, you can't.
>
>> I haven't heard of an unprotected human dying in a half-hour
>> on the desert at 45C.
>
> Since you say that you're on the Canadian prairies, that doesn't
> surprise me. More than fifteen thousand people in Europe died in 2003
> in such temperatures.
>

Unfortunately, you were not one of them.

[Benjamin Dover]

Buster Hymen > wrote in
8:

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> writes:
>>
>>> So you haven't been here on the Canadian Prairies in winter, either.
>>> Every winter someone will get a vehicle stuck on a country road and
>>> try to walk a mile or two for help, in a 20-knot wind at -20C. They
>>> don't make it.
>>
>> The hot weather equivalent of -20° C is 60° C, and nobody makes it in
>> that, either. You can dress to protect yourself against -20° C, but
>> nothing you might wear can protect you against 60° C.
>>
>>> In very cold water, near freezing, an unprotected human
>>> is unconscious in under 20 minutes and dead shortly after that, if he
>>> doesn't drown first.
>>
>> But that's just it: You can protect yourself in cold weather. In hot
>> weather, you can't.
>>
>>> I haven't heard of an unprotected human dying in a half-hour
>>> on the desert at 45C.
>>
>> Since you say that you're on the Canadian prairies, that doesn't
>> surprise me. More than fifteen thousand people in Europe died in 2003
>> in such temperatures.
>>
>
> Unfortunately, you were not one of them.
>
>

I'll second that!

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> So you haven't been here on the Canadian Prairies in winter, either.
>> Every winter someone will get a vehicle stuck on a country road and
>> try to walk a mile or two for help, in a 20-knot wind at -20C. They
>> don't make it.
>
> The hot weather equivalent of -20? C is 60? C, and nobody makes it in that,
> either. You can dress to protect yourself against -20? C, but nothing you
> might wear can protect you against 60? C.

This is completely ridiculous. I assume you just took 20C as an average,
then added and subtracted. You can't do that! 60C is higher than the
hottest recorded temperature on the planet. -20C is routine and common in
a great many inhabited locations. They're absolutely not equivalent.

>> In very cold water, near freezing, an unprotected human
>> is unconscious in under 20 minutes and dead shortly after that, if he
>> doesn't drown first.
>
> But that's just it: You can protect yourself in cold weather. In hot
> weather, you can't.

Of course you can. You can wear light clothes, carry shade, and drink lots
of water.

It never ceases to amuse me just how far you will sink for the sake of
argument. You're a smart guy, I know you are from your posting history.
Yet the things you say are completely ridiculous and nonsensical so much
of the time. There has to be some little voice inside you saying "This
makes no sense! You can't say that -20C is equivalent to 60C!" Such a
position does not survive a moment's critical thinking. And yet you will
apparently make a thousand such assertions before you will ever once say,
"You're right, I made a mistake."

Well, if you can't be reasonable or wise, at least you can be hilarious.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Mxsmanic]

Michael Ash writes:

> This is completely ridiculous. I assume you just took 20C as an average,
> then added and subtracted. You can't do that!

Sure I can. Twenty degrees Celsius is not only close to the average
temperature of the planet, it is also roughly the ideal temperature for human
habitation, according to studies I've read. Minus twenty is forty degrees
below that; therefore the hot-weather equivalent would be forty degrees above
that.

> 60C is higher than the
> hottest recorded temperature on the planet. -20C is routine and common in
> a great many inhabited locations. They're absolutely not equivalent.

Their incidence is unrelated to their survivability.

The reason that there is more cold weather than hot among human beings is that
it's far easier to survive in cold weather. A species with an ideal
temperature of 0° C would not be able to survive in an environment with a
maximum of 50+ degrees. Because all living species must shed heat, their
ideal "operating temperatures" are skewed towards the high end of planetary
temperatures by evolution. This in itself shows that heat is more dangerous
than cold.

> Of course you can. You can wear light clothes, carry shade, and drink lots
> of water.

That will not help in extreme heat. The laws of thermodynamics prevent it.
You can survive in extreme cold with insulation alone, by conserving the heat
that your body continuously produces. But you cannot survive in extreme heat
without actively shedding body heat, and beyond a certain temperature, that
cannot be done quickly enough to maintain core temperature, and you die.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

<Inane ranting by ****** Anthony deleted.>


Anthony - you are so ****ing stupid you need to boost your IQ by a few
million orders of magnitude just to reach the level of moron.

[More_Flaps]

On Jul 2, 2:22*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > So you haven't been here on the Canadian Prairies in winter, either.
> > Every winter someone will get a vehicle stuck on a country road and
> > try to walk a mile or two for help, in a 20-knot wind at -20C. They
> > don't make it.
>
> The hot weather equivalent of -20° C is 60° C, and nobody makes it in that,
> either. *You can dress to protect yourself against -20° C, but nothing you
> might wear can protect you against 60° C.
>

Never been in a sauna?

Cheers

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 23:31:23 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Steve Foley writes:
>
>> This knowledge is required for a private pilot in the USA. I suspect it's
>> similar for other countries as well.
>
>It may be required to pass a test. But pilots aren't tested every day.
>
>> Someone who doesn't know this either is
>> not a pilot, or somehow has beaten the system. In either case he/she should
>> not be flying.
>
>There are many people with drivers licenses who shouldn't be driving, and yet,
>there they are.

there are many who are too incompetent to be trusted, and yet here you
are.

Stealth Pilot

[Mxsmanic]

More_Flaps writes:

> Never been in a sauna?

No. The extreme heat of a sauna is dangerous and uncomfortable, and I don't
see any advantage to them.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 2, 8:39 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> More_Flaps writes:
> > Never been in a sauna?
>
> No. The extreme heat of a sauna is dangerous and uncomfortable, and I don't
> see any advantage to them.

What a remarkable sheltered and pathetic life you must lead. A life of
nots -- not flying, not hot, not cold, without friends, all wrapped up
in an opinionated judgmental persona. You offer us a benchmark to
remind us to be joyful for our lives.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> What a remarkable sheltered and pathetic life you must lead. A life of
> nots -- not flying, not hot, not cold, without friends, all wrapped up
> in an opinionated judgmental persona. You offer us a benchmark to
> remind us to be joyful for our lives.

That's quite a complex conclusion to draw from a simple dislike of saunas.

[Steve Foley]

> wrote in message
...
> On Jul 2, 8:39 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > > Never been in a sauna?
> > No.

> What a remarkable sheltered and pathetic life you must lead. A life of
> nots -- not flying, not hot, not cold, without friends, all wrapped up
> in an opinionated judgmental persona. You offer us a benchmark to
> remind us to be joyful for our lives.

I was thinking exactly that yesterday.

In the morning I walked outside and had to choose weather to drive or ride
to work. Anthony chooses between walking and the subway. (I chose to ride)

At lunchtime, I decided to ride home and have leftovers from a home-cooked
meal for lunch. Anthony has stated that he doesn't cook (someone once gave
him a rice cooker, but I doubt he ever used it), so he gets to pick from the
various fast food establishments in Paris.

After work today, I'll ride to the airport, get in my plane and go flying.
If I need fuel, I'll put it in, leave a note saying how much I took, and pay
for it at the end of the month. Anthony may fire up his computer and pretend
to fly.

The truly sad part is that Anthony chooses to live in poverty. We are both
about the same age (47), and have similar educations. The difference is that
when Anthony hit hard times, he let it destroy him. When I hit hard times
(roughly the same time frame that he did) , I sulked a little (probably too
much), but kept trying. I ended up going backwards in pay by five years, but
found a job that pays the bills, and pays for my toys.

I presume he would display the same superior attitude in a job interview
that he does here, which explains why he's still trying to get by on less
per month than I pay in taxes.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 2, 9:28 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > What a remarkable sheltered and pathetic life you must lead. A life of
> > nots -- not flying, not hot, not cold, without friends, all wrapped up
> > in an opinionated judgmental persona. You offer us a benchmark to
> > remind us to be joyful for our lives.
>
> That's quite a complex conclusion to draw from a simple dislike of saunas.

It is drawn from the body of your postings, a self consistent image
supported by your writings on your web site as well. Your comments
regarding saunas, like so many others of your typings, just supports
my observation. One need not have all of the pieces of a jig saw
puzzle to begin reaching a conclusion about the final scene.

In my view you do have a redeeming quality, you provide sport, and
rarely, intellectual content, to the newsgroup.

Do continue.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> It is drawn from the body of your postings, a self consistent image
> supported by your writings on your web site as well. Your comments
> regarding saunas, like so many others of your typings, just supports
> my observation. One need not have all of the pieces of a jig saw
> puzzle to begin reaching a conclusion about the final scene.

Your mistake is in believing that there is a fixed correlation between flying,
enduring extreme temperatures, socializing, etc., and happiness. There isn't.
Many of the things that make many people happy (particularly the extroverts)
do nothing for me, and so I don't do those things. I am not any less happy in
consequence. If they made me happy, I would do them, but they don't. There
are many people in the world with similar attitudes, even if we are not the
majority.

For example, I occasionally turn down invitations for social events because I
enjoy flight simulation or other relatively solitary activities, and
socialization for its own sake tends to bore me. And while most people seem
to enjoy travel, I hate it, and so I turn down even opportunites for travel
with all expenses paid. I could cite many other examples.

One of the problems with extroverts is the difficulty they seem to have in
understanding any viewpoint other than their own. Anyone who doesn't want to
spend every free evening drinking to a stupor in a local pub with friends
while engaging in incredibly boring small talk is labeled a sufferer of
Asperger's syndrome.

It is interesting to note that piloting an aircraft is often a very solitary
activity. Perhaps private pilots are defective because they prefer flying to
other, more extroverted activities.

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> I am not any less happy in consequence.

Have you cheered up any since 2006? You seemed pretty unhappy when you wrote
this:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060424115600/http://aprenta.blogspot.com/

> Anyone who doesn't want to
> spend every free evening drinking to a stupor in a local pub with friends
> while engaging in incredibly boring small talk is labeled a sufferer of
> Asperger's syndrome.

That's not a very good description of AS, but it is pretty typical of how an
AS sufferer describes the rest of the world.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 2, 10:24 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > It is drawn from the body of your postings, a self consistent image
> > supported by your writings on your web site as well. Your comments
> > regarding saunas, like so many others of your typings, just supports
> > my observation. One need not have all of the pieces of a jig saw
> > puzzle to begin reaching a conclusion about the final scene.
>
> Your mistake is in believing that there is a fixed correlation between flying,
> enduring extreme temperatures, socializing, etc., and happiness. There isn't.
> Many of the things that make many people happy (particularly the extroverts)
> do nothing for me, and so I don't do those things. I am not any less happy in
> consequence. If they made me happy, I would do them, but they don't. There
> are many people in the world with similar attitudes, even if we are not the
> majority.
>
> For example, I occasionally turn down invitations for social events because I
> enjoy flight simulation or other relatively solitary activities, and
> socialization for its own sake tends to bore me. And while most people seem
> to enjoy travel, I hate it, and so I turn down even opportunites for travel
> with all expenses paid. I could cite many other examples.
>
> One of the problems with extroverts is the difficulty they seem to have in
> understanding any viewpoint other than their own. Anyone who doesn't want to
> spend every free evening drinking to a stupor in a local pub with friends
> while engaging in incredibly boring small talk is labeled a sufferer of
> Asperger's syndrome.
>
> It is interesting to note that piloting an aircraft is often a very solitary
> activity. Perhaps private pilots are defective because they prefer flying to
> other, more extroverted activities.


> It is interesting to note that piloting an aircraft is often a very solitary
> activity. Perhaps private pilots are defective because they prefer flying to
> other, more extroverted activities.

Interesting observations. Somehow I never considered flying under IFR
a solitary activity: there are real people on the ground I communicate
with very frequently, in meaningful ways.

Another point is people here don't offer posts looking for handouts,
or confess not having enough money to enjoy a McDonald's hamburger
either. Or for that matter wondering if they can afford to buy a
joystick so they might be able to play MSFS better.. These are things
you've done, and are a measure of a less than fruitful life.

You do have one characteristic that is interesting, however. I am
often in a mentoring role, and I people I work with to make a habit of
spending time with others whose traits they admire. One is more apt to
become successful if they are able to be chosen as a friend by others
who happen to be successful. An outstanding example of success by
association might be Nobel Laureates -- especially among the sciences,
they are separated by many fewer degrees than elsewhere (using the
words as they were intended in the "Six Degrees or Separation"
model). On the other extreme, if kids associate with gang members for
ego gratification reasons, they are likely to go in that direction.

You, a non pilot, spend time involved in this newsgroup, which seems
to have a large fraction of its membership actively involved in
general aviation. You may wish to think of them as peers, except of
course you present yourself as superior. Then you let your words
betray your ignorance. So you're half right -- you chose the right
bunch to hang out with, you just tend to hang in ways that are
perceived as obnoxious.

But do keep it up -- it is a form of comic relief, and the length of
the threads involving you is ample proof of your popularity in that
context.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> Have you cheered up any since 2006?
>
> My happiness depends on money, and I don't have any more money now
> than I did then.
>
>> That's not a very good description of AS, but it is pretty typical of
>> how an AS sufferer describes the rest of the world.
>
> As opposed to the way extroverts describe the world? Who's right?
>

You are an idiot.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> Have you cheered up any since 2006?

My happiness depends on money, and I don't have any more money now than I did
then.

> That's not a very good description of AS, but it is pretty typical of how an
> AS sufferer describes the rest of the world.

As opposed to the way extroverts describe the world? Who's right?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Interesting observations. Somehow I never considered flying under IFR
>> a solitary activity: there are real people on the ground I
>> communicate with very frequently, in meaningful ways.
>
> I communicate with real people when I fly in simulation.

No, you don't. You don't fly and you do not communicate



Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Interesting observations. Somehow I never considered flying under IFR
> a solitary activity: there are real people on the ground I communicate
> with very frequently, in meaningful ways.

I communicate with real people when I fly in simulation. Does that count,
too?

> Another point is people here don't offer posts looking for handouts,
> or confess not having enough money to enjoy a McDonald's hamburger
> either.

Most people are too proud to discuss their failings.

> Or for that matter wondering if they can afford to buy a
> joystick so they might be able to play MSFS better.. These are things
> you've done, and are a measure of a less than fruitful life.

Or perhaps I don't see any reason to keep such things a secret.

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> My happiness depends on money

More sadness. Maybe if that line of t-storms comes through, I'll send you
the money that I'm planning to spend on avgas this afternoon.

> As opposed to the way extroverts describe the world? Who's right?

If the only choices are you and extroverts, and exactly one is right, then
it has to be the extroverts.

[More_Flaps]

On Jul 3, 1:40*am, "Steve Foley" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Jul 2, 8:39 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > > > Never been in a sauna?
> > > No.
> > What a remarkable sheltered and pathetic life you must lead. A life of
> > nots -- not flying, not hot, not cold, without friends, all wrapped up
> > in an opinionated judgmental persona. You offer us a benchmark to
> > remind us to be joyful for our lives.
>
> I was thinking exactly that yesterday.
>
> In the morning I walked outside and had to choose weather to drive or ride
> to work.

If it's sunny I assume you walk.

Cheers

[yeadeagisss]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Steve Foley writes:
>
>>Have you cheered up any since 2006?
>
> My happiness depends on money, and I don't have any more money now than I did
> then.

That makes you a rather miserable sort, then.

You've had years - literally years - to figure out how to make some
money, and yet you've failed. Do you have any idea at all as to why?

>>That's not a very good description of AS, but it is pretty typical of how an
>>AS sufferer describes the rest of the world.
>
> As opposed to the way extroverts describe the world?

You know nothing about how extroverts describe the world.

> Who's right?

You're not.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> If the only choices are you and extroverts, and exactly one is right,
>> then it has to be the extroverts.
>
> Introverts and extroverts. Introverts spend far less time on
> self-promotion, so they are often disdained.
>

You're an idiot, it's a s simple as that.

bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> If the only choices are you and extroverts, and exactly one is right, then
> it has to be the extroverts.

Introverts and extroverts. Introverts spend far less time on self-promotion,
so they are often disdained.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 2, 3:15 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Interesting observations. Somehow I never considered flying under IFR
> > a solitary activity: there are real people on the ground I communicate
> > with very frequently, in meaningful ways.
>
> I communicate with real people when I fly in simulation. Does that count,
> too?
>
> > Another point is people here don't offer posts looking for handouts,
> > or confess not having enough money to enjoy a McDonald's hamburger
> > either.
>
> Most people are too proud to discuss their failings.
>
> > Or for that matter wondering if they can afford to buy a
> > joystick so they might be able to play MSFS better.. These are things
> > you've done, and are a measure of a less than fruitful life.
>
> Or perhaps I don't see any reason to keep such things a secret.



If talking to simulated controllers when you simulate flight with MSFS
gives you pleasure it counts for you.

If posting seemingly authoritative opinions here brings you pleasure,
even when it takes Clinton-like distortions of the language to pretend
you're not in error, that's fine too.

But so long as you make note of your economic situation without
correcting it, don't expect to be taken seriously. Flying has a price,
and most here are willing to pay that price.

The thing that puzzles me is that you did do a courageous thing --
perhaps not wise, but courageous, when you moved to Paris. I wonder
what changed that drove your life to where it is, and that prevents
you from doing something to correct that. It sounds like depression,
but who knows?

In any event, keep on posting. This isn't a psychological self help
group, so you can expect to be treated like one of the group's clowns.
As is evident from the amount of responses you get, you are providing
pleasure to the newsgroup readers -- everyone wins.

Post away.

[yeadeagisss]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Introverts spend far less time on self-promotion,
> so they are often disdained.

You're simply disdained. Whether or not you are an introvert is
irrelevant.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> If talking to simulated controllers when you simulate flight with MSFS
> gives you pleasure it counts for you.

Good.

> But so long as you make note of your economic situation without
> correcting it, don't expect to be taken seriously. Flying has a price,
> and most here are willing to pay that price.

Flying has an extremely high price, which imposes a very high threshold of
interest in aviation for pilots, even those with lots of money. It's an
extremely expensive hobby.

[muff528]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> If talking to simulated controllers when you simulate flight with MSFS
>> gives you pleasure it counts for you.
>
> Good.
>
>> But so long as you make note of your economic situation without
>> correcting it, don't expect to be taken seriously. Flying has a price,
>> and most here are willing to pay that price.
>
> Flying has an extremely high price, which imposes a very high threshold of
> interest in aviation for pilots, even those with lots of money. It's an
> extremely expensive hobby.

I think I have an answer for that. You could take up skydiving! If you could
somehow get through the initial training and gear expenses you would only
have to pay for half a ride at a time. About $25.00. And you wouldn't have
to worry about being scared out of your wits by landing in the plane. Of
course, you don't get to drive.

TP

[Rocky Stevens]

On Jul 2, 3:13*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Steve Foley writes:
> > Have you cheered up any since 2006?
>
> My happiness depends on money, and I don't have any more money now than I did
> then.
>
> > That's not a very good description of AS, but it is pretty typical of how an
> > AS sufferer describes the rest of the world.
>
> As opposed to the way extroverts describe the world? *Who's right?

How did you come to find yourself in such dire economic straits? I
know you do ESL and tours now; what was your profession before?

I love Paris, but it is one expensive city to live in!

[Mxsmanic]

Rocky Stevens writes:

> How did you come to find yourself in such dire economic straits?

An unhappy conbination of circumstances.

> I know you do ESL and tours now; what was your profession before?

I have a background in IT.

> I love Paris, but it is one expensive city to live in!

Agreed.

[Mxsmanic]

muff528 writes:

> I think I have an answer for that. You could take up skydiving! If you could
> somehow get through the initial training and gear expenses you would only
> have to pay for half a ride at a time. About $25.00. And you wouldn't have
> to worry about being scared out of your wits by landing in the plane. Of
> course, you don't get to drive.

Unfortunately, nothing about skydiving piques my interest. I've liked
machines and vehicles since childhood, and in fact I've liked airplanes for as
far back as I can remember.

[Steve Foley]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:LRQak.162$qW.43@trndny03...

> Maybe if that line of t-storms comes through, I'll send you
> the money that I'm planning to spend on avgas this afternoon.

The T-storms came and went, so I went flying.

No cash for you today. Maybe next week.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Flying has an extremely high price, which imposes a very high threshold of
> interest in aviation for pilots, even those with lots of money. It's an
> extremely expensive hobby.

I cut my club a check for $400 approxmiately every two months. This year
I've averaged about three flights (and three hours) per month. Even
counting the cost of the 70-mile drive to the airport each time, this is
not a particularly expensive hobby. Certainly there are hobbies that are
much worse. I know guys who spend more than this each month on movies and
music. And I'm at the high end in my club; I've been told that the average
cost to the membership is $100/month per person.

As with any hobby you can pretty much spend what you want to. In flying
you need a certain minimum in order to remain proficient and safe, but
that ultimately isn't remarkably expensive. Unless you live in Paris in
the fashion of a starving student, anyway.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[terry]

On Jul 3, 5:13*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Steve Foley writes:
> > Have you cheered up any since 2006?
>
> My happiness depends on money, and I don't have any more money now than I did then.

If your happiness depends on money then presumably you have had at
least 2 years to do some serious soul searching on why you dont have
money?
What skills do you lack to find a well paying job? You obviously dont
lack confidence in your intellectual abilities. Are you doing
anything to redress any deficiencies? or are you just going to
continue to deny you have them?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> If talking to simulated controllers when you simulate flight with
>> MSFS gives you pleasure it counts for you.
>
> Good.
>
>> But so long as you make note of your economic situation without
>> correcting it, don't expect to be taken seriously. Flying has a
>> price, and most here are willing to pay that price.
>
> Flying has an extremely high price, which imposes a very high
> threshold of interest in aviation for pilots, even those with lots of
> money. It's an extremely expensive hobby.
>

No it isn't


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> muff528 writes:
>
>> I think I have an answer for that. You could take up skydiving! If
>> you could somehow get through the initial training and gear expenses
>> you would only have to pay for half a ride at a time. About $25.00.
>> And you wouldn't have to worry about being scared out of your wits by
>> landing in the plane. Of course, you don't get to drive.
>
> Unfortunately, nothing about skydiving piques my interest.


Too bad, you're the perfect meat bomb.



I've liked
> machines and vehicles since childhood, and in fact I've liked
> airplanes for as far back as I can remember.

And still you don't fly.

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> If your happiness depends on money then presumably you have had at
> least 2 years to do some serious soul searching on why you dont have
> money?

Yes.

> What skills do you lack to find a well paying job?

I have skills, but where I live, skills are only a small part of getting a
job. You have to be of the right ethnicity, have the right contacts, be the
right age, be a graduate of the right schools (just having a degree may not be
sufficient, if it's not from the right place), and so on. Skills come last.

For some jobs, you can also be too skilled. Many companies want to hire
someone who has the requisite skills but no others, because it's perceived as
being cheaper. In this case, it's easy to be overqualified.

> You obviously dont lack confidence in your intellectual abilities.

You can't earn money with intellectual ability alone.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> terry writes:
>
>> If your happiness depends on money then presumably you have had at
>> least 2 years to do some serious soul searching on why you dont have
>> money?
>
> Yes.
>
>> What skills do you lack to find a well paying job?
>
> I have skills, but where I live, skills are only a small part of
> getting a job. You have to be of the right ethnicity, have the right
> contacts, be the right age, be a graduate of the right schools (just
> having a degree may not be sufficient, if it's not from the right
> place), and so on. Skills come last.
>
> For some jobs, you can also be too skilled. Many companies want to
> hire someone who has the requisite skills but no others, because it's
> perceived as being cheaper. In this case, it's easy to be
> overqualified.
>
>> You obviously dont lack confidence in your intellectual abilities.
>
> You can't earn money with intellectual ability alone.
>

Well, you can't



Bertie

[terry]

On Jul 3, 11:16*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
> > If your happiness depends on money then presumably you have had at
> > least 2 years to do some serious soul searching on why you dont have
> > money?
>
> Yes.
>
> > What skills do you lack to find a well paying job?
>
> I have skills, but where I live, skills are only a small part of getting a
> job. *You have to be of the right ethnicity, have the right contacts, be the
> right age, be a graduate of the right schools (just having a degree may not be
> sufficient, if it's not from the right place), and so on. *Skills come last.
>
> For some jobs, you can also be too skilled. *Many companies want to hire
> someone who has the requisite skills but no others, because it's perceived as
> being cheaper. *In this case, it's easy to be overqualified.

Why am I not surprised at your response. I knew when I posted this
that if you did respond with reasons, they would all be someone else's
fault. Not only can you never admit you are wrong you just cannot
admit to any shortcomings. If where you live is the main issue
( unlikely) surely there is a solution to that. Who chose to live in
Paris? Are you imprsioned there?

[[email protected]]

On Jul 3, 9:16*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
> > If your happiness depends on money then presumably you have had at
> > least 2 years to do some serious soul searching on why you dont have
> > money?
>
> Yes.
>
> > What skills do you lack to find a well paying job?
>
> I have skills, but where I live, skills are only a small part of getting a
> job. *You have to be of the right ethnicity, have the right contacts, be the
> right age, be a graduate of the right schools (just having a degree may not be
> sufficient, if it's not from the right place), and so on. *Skills come last.
>
> For some jobs, you can also be too skilled. *Many companies want to hire
> someone who has the requisite skills but no others, because it's perceived as
> being cheaper. *In this case, it's easy to be overqualified.
>
> > You obviously dont lack confidence in your intellectual abilities.
>
> You can't earn money with intellectual ability alone.

In fact, many of us do, with APPLIED intellectual ability. Some of us
have even changed careers and succeeded (in some cases) again. It's
the utilization of those skills that matter. Did you not, some time
ago, tell us how many hours you spent with MSFS? What if those hours
had been spent more productively? There's a time for effective work,
and a time for effective play. If one's priorities are inverted bad
things happen -- poverty, depression, excuse making rather than
problem solving. If you want something different than what you have,
you're going to have to do something different than what you do. As
Nike likes to say, "(Get off your ass and) Just Do it".

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:

> > If your happiness depends on money then presumably you have had at
> > least 2 years to do some serious soul searching on why you dont have
> > money?

> Yes.

> > What skills do you lack to find a well paying job?

> I have skills, but where I live, skills are only a small part of getting a
> job. You have to be of the right ethnicity, have the right contacts, be the
> right age, be a graduate of the right schools (just having a degree may not be
> sufficient, if it's not from the right place), and so on. Skills come last.

Ah yes, it is everyone else's fault.

And who's fault is it that you live where you live?

> For some jobs, you can also be too skilled. Many companies want to hire
> someone who has the requisite skills but no others, because it's perceived as
> being cheaper. In this case, it's easy to be overqualified.

> > You obviously dont lack confidence in your intellectual abilities.

> You can't earn money with intellectual ability alone.

Correct, it also takes some level of social skills to land and keep a
decent job.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> Why am I not surprised at your response. I knew when I posted this
> that if you did respond with reasons, they would all be someone else's
> fault.

Obviously, if they were my fault, I could correct them. But I cannot change
my name, my ethnicity, my history, etc.

> If where you live is the main issue
> ( unlikely) surely there is a solution to that. Who chose to live in
> Paris? Are you imprsioned there?

No, but it's important to live in a city you like (which is part of what money
allows).

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> In fact, many of us do, with APPLIED intellectual ability. Some of us
> have even changed careers and succeeded (in some cases) again. It's
> the utilization of those skills that matter.

If you examine large populations, this is often true. The devil is in the
details, however.

> Did you not, some time ago, tell us how many hours you spent with MSFS?

I probably gave an estimate; I don't know the exact number.

> What if those hours had been spent more productively?

What is counterproductive about flight simulation?

> There's a time for effective work, and a time for effective play.

The time I spend on MSFS isn't that significant. I have a small amount of
free time and I spend it on what few leisure activities I can afford. All
work and no play makes Jack a dull boy, and working long hours is particularly
unlikely to produce happiness when the monetary yield is very low.

> If one's priorities are inverted bad
> things happen -- poverty, depression, excuse making rather than
> problem solving. If you want something different than what you have,
> you're going to have to do something different than what you do. As
> Nike likes to say, "(Get off your ass and) Just Do it".

I've heard all the pep talks. Try it sometime. Nobody spends more time
considering my situation than I do, but I still have not found any promising
solutions.

[Jon]

On Jul 3, 9:38*am, terry > wrote:
> On Jul 3, 11:16*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>
>
> > terry writes:
> > > If your happiness depends on money then presumably you have had at

"Cause I am a material girl" - Madonna :D

> > > least 2 years to do some serious soul searching on why you dont have
> > > money?

So, given the current exchange rate, if he was in the U.S, he'd have
more like 3 years :D .... yet the intrusive thoughts would still be a
barrier to any search hits being returned...

> > Yes.
>
> > > What skills do you lack to find a well paying job?

The ability to deal with the mirror?

> > I have skills, but where I live, skills are only a small part of getting a
> > job. *You have to be of the right ethnicity, have the right contacts, be the
> > right age, be a graduate of the right schools (just having a degree may not be
> > sufficient, if it's not from the right place), and so on. *Skills come last.
>
> > For some jobs, you can also be too skilled. *Many companies want to hire
> > someone who has the requisite skills but no others, because it's perceived as
> > being cheaper. *In this case, it's easy to be overqualified.
>
> Why am I not surprised at your response. I knew when I posted this
> that if you did respond with reasons, they would all be someone else's
> fault. *Not only can you never admit you are wrong you just cannot
> admit to any shortcomings.

He's too proud to dumb it down. Being poor rather than learning to
suspend the ego is a choice which helps to feed the self-imposed place
from which he can't escape.

To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion...

>*If where you live is the main issue
> ( unlikely) surely there is a solution to that. *Who chose to live in
> Paris? * Are you imprsioned there?

Imprisoned metaphorically as well...



"Wear your grudge like a crown of negativity.
Calculate what we will or will not tolerate.
Desperate to control all and everything.
Unable to forgive your scarlet lettermen.

Clutch it like a cornerstone. otherwise it all comes down.
Justify denials and grip it to the lonesome end.
Clutch it like a cornerstone. otherwise it all comes down.
Terrified of being wrong. ultimatum prison cell.
[...]

Give away the stone. let the oceans take and transmutate this cold and
fated
Anchor.
Give away the stone. let the waters kiss and transmutate these leaden
grudges
Into gold.

Let go." - "Grudge" - Tool

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Ah yes, it is everyone else's fault.

Not everyone else's fault, but an unfortunate combination of circumstances.

> And who's fault is it that you live where you live?

Since I don't live in a bad place, fault is not the correct word to use.

> Correct, it also takes some level of social skills to land and keep a
> decent job.

It often takes a lot of socialization, more so than skills, in some societies.
The world is biased in favor of extroverts. But introverts cannot become
extroverts any more than extroverts can become introverts.

[Jon]

On Jul 3, 10:14*am, wrote:
> On Jul 3, 9:16*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>
>
> > terry writes:
> > > If your happiness depends on money then presumably you have had at
> > > least 2 years to do some serious soul searching on why you dont have
> > > money?
>
> > Yes.
>
> > > What skills do you lack to find a well paying job?
>
> > I have skills, but where I live, skills are only a small part of getting a
> > job. *You have to be of the right ethnicity, have the right contacts, be the
> > right age, be a graduate of the right schools (just having a degree may not be
> > sufficient, if it's not from the right place), and so on. *Skills come last.
>
> > For some jobs, you can also be too skilled. *Many companies want to hire
> > someone who has the requisite skills but no others, because it's perceived as
> > being cheaper. *In this case, it's easy to be overqualified.
>
> > > You obviously dont lack confidence in your intellectual abilities.
>
> > You can't earn money with intellectual ability alone.
>
> In fact, many of us do, with APPLIED intellectual ability.

Some days are better than others; but I try to step up to the plate
every day.

> Some of us
> have even changed careers and succeeded (in some cases) again. It's
> the utilization of those skills that matter. Did you not, some time
> ago, tell us how many hours you spent with MSFS? What if those hours
> had been spent more productively?

I honestly can't remember the last time I played a video game...

xyzzy

> There's a time for effective work, and a time for effective play.

"I swear it's not too late."

;)

> If one's priorities are inverted bad
> things happen -- *poverty, depression, excuse making rather than
> problem solving. If you want something different than what you have,
> you're going to have to do something different than what you do. As
> Nike likes to say, "(Get off your ass and) Just Do it".

Nice!

[Jon]

On Jul 3, 10:59*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > If one's priorities are inverted bad
> > things happen -- *poverty, depression, excuse making rather than
> > problem solving. If you want something different than what you have,
> > you're going to have to do something different than what you do. As
> > Nike likes to say, "(Get off your ass and) Just Do it".
>
> I've heard all the pep talks. *Try it sometime. *Nobody spends more time
> considering my situation than I do, but I still have not found any promising
> solutions.

Because you think too much...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> terry writes:
>
>> Why am I not surprised at your response. I knew when I posted this
>> that if you did respond with reasons, they would all be someone
>> else's fault.
>
> Obviously, if they were my fault, I could correct them. But I cannot
> change my name, my ethnicity, my history, etc.
>
>> If where you live is the main issue
>> ( unlikely) surely there is a solution to that. Who chose to live in
>> Paris? Are you imprsioned there?
>
> No, but it's important to live in a city you like (which is part of
> what money allows).
>

You're an idiot.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jul 3, 10:59 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > In fact, many of us do, with APPLIED intellectual ability. Some of us
> > have even changed careers and succeeded (in some cases) again. It's
> > the utilization of those skills that matter.
>
> If you examine large populations, this is often true. The devil is in the
> details, however.
>
> > Did you not, some time ago, tell us how many hours you spent with MSFS?
>
> I probably gave an estimate; I don't know the exact number.
>
Let me refresh your memory. Last October 27th you wrote


This past year I've put in over 720 hours of simulation. If I wanted
to do
that in real life, even on a very tiny airplane, it would cost me
$253,800 in
rental fees (not counting $56,000 to get the pilot's license and IR).
Overall, even if the sim doesn't provide quite the same experience, it
provides a lot more bang for the buck. And unless you're absolutely
hellbent
on experiencing some aspect of flying that only the real aircraft
provides,
simulation can be more than sufficient to deal with a love of
aviation.

The situation is even more lopsided if you like to fly airliners.


I would point out a typical work year is 2000 hours, so you spent a
third of a work year playing.

Continue to post, you amuse us, but if you want to do something with
the rest of your life get off your ass. Someone with your intellect
should, in 700 hours, be able to figure out something unless the
underlying mental problems can't be overcome.

[Rocky Stevens]

On Jul 3, 9:16*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
> > If your happiness depends on money then presumably you have had at
> > least 2 years to do some serious soul searching on why you dont have
> > money?
>
> Yes.
>
> > What skills do you lack to find a well paying job?
>
> I have skills, but where I live, skills are only a small part of getting a
> job. *You have to be of the right ethnicity, have the right contacts, be the
> right age, be a graduate of the right schools (just having a degree may not be
> sufficient, if it's not from the right place), and so on. *Skills come last.
>
> For some jobs, you can also be too skilled. *Many companies want to hire
> someone who has the requisite skills but no others, because it's perceived as
> being cheaper. *In this case, it's easy to be overqualified.
>
> > You obviously dont lack confidence in your intellectual abilities.
>
> You can't earn money with intellectual ability alone.

Real quick post, as I am about out the door, but I would recommend
looking at rentacoder.com. The money ain't great, since you are
competing against Bangalore and the U.S.dollar is in the tank, but it
is something. The biggest complaint of customers on that site is
vendors' lack of attention to detail, so you would offer a competitive
edge. Plus there is very little real human interaction, so the
introvert thing shouldn't pose much of a problem.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic > wrote:
> I've heard all the pep talks. Try it sometime. Nobody spends more time
> considering my situation than I do, but I still have not found any promising
> solutions.

I know you didn't ask for advice, and you probably won't listen, but what
the heck....

Get out of Paris. I haven't lived in Paris but I've lived in the area and
I know it's a bad place to be poor and out of work. You say you like it
there, but you also say that money is important for you. Paris is
expensive and not friendly to job hunters, so you ought to escape. Leave
France, for that matter; it's tough enough for a French person to find
work, let alone foreigners.

Come back to the US, find a job here, and use the money to visit France as
much as you wish or are able to. You won't be in Paris, but you'll have a
much nicer life in other respects. Even with the current crappy exchange
rate, if you make visiting France your main hobby you won't spend an
exceptionally large amount of money.

I used to be poor in France. It was great, but not having money was no
fun. Now I work full time in the US. I miss France sometimes, but the
extra money more than makes up for it. I can go back any time I feel like
it, after all.

This is, of course, just my unsolicited opinion. Take it for what it's
worth.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Let me refresh your memory. Last October 27th you wrote
>
> > This past year I've put in over 720 hours of simulation.

That was online simulation, for which I have exact figures.

> I would point out a typical work year is 2000 hours, so you spent a
> third of a work year playing.

Essentially all my leisure time.

[Mxsmanic]

Michael Ash writes:

> Get out of Paris. I haven't lived in Paris but I've lived in the area and
> I know it's a bad place to be poor and out of work. You say you like it
> there, but you also say that money is important for you.

One of the reasons for having money is so that you can live where you want.
Visiting Paris or moving to Paris is much more expensive than living in Paris,
so if you have no money and you are in Paris, it's logical to remain there, as
you might never be able to afford to move there or visit there.

> Paris is expensive and not friendly to job hunters, so you ought to escape.
> Leave France, for that matter; it's tough enough for a French person to find
> work, let alone foreigners.

What you say is true, but most other cities are dumps. I didn't select Paris
at random.

> Come back to the US, find a job here, and use the money to visit France as
> much as you wish or are able to.

That is not cost-effective. A year in Paris as a tourist costs about
$120,000; as a resident, it can cost only %10-%20 of that. That's why I moved
to Paris in the first place.

> You won't be in Paris, but you'll have a much nicer life in other respects.

What other respects? Living in some dump city 90% of the year? That doesn't
make sense.

> Even with the current crappy exchange
> rate, if you make visiting France your main hobby you won't spend an
> exceptionally large amount of money.

After twenty years, I would have spent about six months in Paris. If I live
in the city, I can do that in ... six months.

> I used to be poor in France. It was great, but not having money was no
> fun. Now I work full time in the US. I miss France sometimes, but the
> extra money more than makes up for it. I can go back any time I feel like
> it, after all.

And what city do you live in? Cleveland?

[Mxsmanic]

Rocky Stevens writes:

> Real quick post, as I am about out the door, but I would recommend
> looking at rentacoder.com. The money ain't great, since you are
> competing against Bangalore and the U.S.dollar is in the tank, but it
> is something. The biggest complaint of customers on that site is
> vendors' lack of attention to detail, so you would offer a competitive
> edge. Plus there is very little real human interaction, so the
> introvert thing shouldn't pose much of a problem.

An interesting concept, and I'll look at it, although I suspect it requires
infrastructure that I do not have.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:

> > Why am I not surprised at your response. I knew when I posted this
> > that if you did respond with reasons, they would all be someone else's
> > fault.

> Obviously, if they were my fault, I could correct them. But I cannot change
> my name, my ethnicity, my history, etc.

Oh yeah, the world has it in for white males...

As for your history, how many convictions do you have?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Michael Ash writes:

> > Get out of Paris. I haven't lived in Paris but I've lived in the area and
> > I know it's a bad place to be poor and out of work. You say you like it
> > there, but you also say that money is important for you.

> One of the reasons for having money is so that you can live where you want.
> Visiting Paris or moving to Paris is much more expensive than living in Paris,
> so if you have no money and you are in Paris, it's logical to remain there, as
> you might never be able to afford to move there or visit there.

> > Paris is expensive and not friendly to job hunters, so you ought to escape.
> > Leave France, for that matter; it's tough enough for a French person to find
> > work, let alone foreigners.

> What you say is true, but most other cities are dumps. I didn't select Paris
> at random.

Was it perhaps because they don't extradite for the offence or recognize the
court you are in trouble with?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Ah yes, it is everyone else's fault.

> Not everyone else's fault, but an unfortunate combination of circumstances.

> > And who's fault is it that you live where you live?

> Since I don't live in a bad place, fault is not the correct word to use.

Then why are you blaming where you live for lack of a decent job?

> > Correct, it also takes some level of social skills to land and keep a
> > decent job.

> It often takes a lot of socialization, more so than skills, in some societies.
> The world is biased in favor of extroverts. But introverts cannot become
> extroverts any more than extroverts can become introverts.

Being an introvert/extrovert has nothing to do with 90% of all jobs, you
just have to be something other than an arrogant ass.

You said you had a background in IT, which is full of introverts, yet
you couldn't hack it there.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Oh yeah, the world has it in for white males...

No, but foreigners are not well liked.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Then why are you blaming where you live for lack of a decent job?

I'm not blaming my city of residence. The same problems exist elsewhere.

> Being an introvert/extrovert has nothing to do with 90% of all jobs, you
> just have to be something other than an arrogant ass.

Socialization is very important in most jobs. That's why incompetent
extroverts can find work more easily than competent introverts.

> You said you had a background in IT, which is full of introverts, yet
> you couldn't hack it there.

The IT market in the developed world has dramatically changed.

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> The IT market in the developed world has dramatically changed.

There's one I won't argue with.

I will point out an apparent contradiction. You often speak of the
sacrifices that pilots must endure in order to enjoy their hobby, yet you
completely disregard the sacrafices you are willing to make because you
don't want to live in the USA.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Oh yeah, the world has it in for white males...

> No, but foreigners are not well liked.

So mayby you shouldn't have moved to a country where foreigners
are not well liked.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Then why are you blaming where you live for lack of a decent job?

> I'm not blaming my city of residence. The same problems exist elsewhere.

> > Being an introvert/extrovert has nothing to do with 90% of all jobs, you
> > just have to be something other than an arrogant ass.

> Socialization is very important in most jobs. That's why incompetent
> extroverts can find work more easily than competent introverts.

Except for sales and marketing, wrong.

> > You said you had a background in IT, which is full of introverts, yet
> > you couldn't hack it there.

> The IT market in the developed world has dramatically changed.

Maybe, but the proportion of introverts in IT hasn't.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Rocky Stevens writes:

> > Real quick post, as I am about out the door, but I would recommend
> > looking at rentacoder.com. The money ain't great, since you are
> > competing against Bangalore and the U.S.dollar is in the tank, but it
> > is something. The biggest complaint of customers on that site is
> > vendors' lack of attention to detail, so you would offer a competitive
> > edge. Plus there is very little real human interaction, so the
> > introvert thing shouldn't pose much of a problem.

> An interesting concept, and I'll look at it, although I suspect it requires
> infrastructure that I do not have.

An excuse for failure right out of the box; what a surprise.

Last year I paid $99,585 to part time people who worked from home and
who's "infrastructure" consists of a PC and an Internet connection.

And guess what, they are all introverts.

And guess what else, two of them are immigrants.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Michael Ash writes:
>
>> Get out of Paris. I haven't lived in Paris but I've lived in the area and
>> I know it's a bad place to be poor and out of work. You say you like it
>> there, but you also say that money is important for you.
>
> One of the reasons for having money is so that you can live where you want.

Apparently it's not the only reason. You said quite directly that your
happiness depends on money and that you have none. Living where you want
is clearly not enough to make you happy.

> Visiting Paris or moving to Paris is much more expensive than living in Paris,
> so if you have no money and you are in Paris, it's logical to remain there, as
> you might never be able to afford to move there or visit there.

Not true. You're skipping over the whole risk analysis. Yes, it's possible
that if you move away then you'll be stuck somewhere else with no money.
It's also possible that you'll find a good job and have money and the
means to visit often. *Logically*, you should make the move if the
probability of success multiplied by the value of success is greater than
the probability of failure multiplied by the negative value of failure.

You can further reduce the risk by not moving until you've found a job at
your destination. These days it's entirely possible to apply for a job and
go through much of the interview process remotely. This is especially true
in IT and especially if you're one of the best in whatever niche you have.
If you're not one of the best, maybe you ought to dedicate some of your
time to becoming one.

>> Paris is expensive and not friendly to job hunters, so you ought to escape.
>> Leave France, for that matter; it's tough enough for a French person to find
>> work, let alone foreigners.
>
> What you say is true, but most other cities are dumps. I didn't select Paris
> at random.

Of course not, but there are plenty of other cities that aren't dumps. If
you insist on seeing the negatives, any city can be a dump, even Paris.
Hell, especially Paris. One thing I never miss about France is the dog
crap on the sidewalk. I mean, how can people even possibly think that's
acceptable?

>> Come back to the US, find a job here, and use the money to visit France as
>> much as you wish or are able to.
>
> That is not cost-effective. A year in Paris as a tourist costs about
> $120,000; as a resident, it can cost only %10-%20 of that. That's why I moved
> to Paris in the first place.

Non sequiter. This analysis would only make sense if the entire goal of
your life is to live in Paris. I submit this cannot be true of you. If it
were true, you should be happy, because you have achieved your singular
goal. But you also want money, as you said.

You have to realize that you have two mutually incompatible desires, here.
You've said as much. Your position is such that you're not going to both
live in Paris and have money. So if you want to better attain those goals,
you're going to need to find a substitute. It's really difficult to find a
substitute for money. But visiting Paris on occasion can be a very good
substitute for living there. It's not as good, that's why it's called a
substitute, but it's still a fine thing.

>> You won't be in Paris, but you'll have a much nicer life in other respects.
>
> What other respects? Living in some dump city 90% of the year? That doesn't
> make sense.

Of course it doesn't make sense, because you just made that up. I never
proposed moving to a "dump". Move to a nice city. Yes, they exist. Even in
the US. Even in places where you can find a job.

>> Even with the current crappy exchange
>> rate, if you make visiting France your main hobby you won't spend an
>> exceptionally large amount of money.
>
> After twenty years, I would have spent about six months in Paris. If I live
> in the city, I can do that in ... six months.

Only relevant if your goal is maximizing your time in the city and nothing
else. I have it straight from you that this is not actually the case,
though.

>> I used to be poor in France. It was great, but not having money was no
>> fun. Now I work full time in the US. I miss France sometimes, but the
>> extra money more than makes up for it. I can go back any time I feel like
>> it, after all.
>
> And what city do you live in? Cleveland?

I live in Alexandria, Virginia. It's across the river from Washington, DC,
on the Potomac. I'm a short walk from three grocery stores, a movie
theater, the regular kind of theater, a bicycle shop, two post offices, a
whole bunch of good restaurants, and various other shops. I'm a short
bicycle ride away from Alexandria's Old Town, which is a really nice place
to visit, and from various trails and parks. I'm a slightly longer ride
from all the DC monuments and museums, and a lot of other nice commercial
centers in the area. But I'm not actually *in* DC, so I don't have to deal
the crapitude over there. And I own my own place, relatively small, but
still 1000sqft with two bedrooms. I practically live in a park, with lots
of small buildings and trees and open spaces. And I'm only about an
80-minute drive from the gliderport which, while a bit long sometimes, is
really not that bad.

You seem to be in this sort of paradoxical situation where you need money
to be happy but are unwilling to make any changes to your life to achieve
it, because you're too afraid of losing what you have. Well, what's so
great about what you have? You are by your own admission not happy, so why
is it worthwhile to keep things as they are? I can't guarantee that you'll
be happy if you change, but I can guarantee that you will continue to be
*un*happy if you don't.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Steve Hix]

In article
>,
wrote:

> On Jul 3, 10:59 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >
> Let me refresh your memory. Last October 27th you wrote
>
> This past year I've put in over 720 hours of simulation. If I wanted
> to do that in real life, even on a very tiny airplane, it would cost me
> $253,800 in rental fees

What "very tiny airplane" are you trying to rent at $353.50/hr?!

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Socialization is very important in most jobs. That's why incompetent
> extroverts can find work more easily than competent introverts.

This is simply not true. In the past six months I've turned down three
jobs. I am not actually looking for a new job, they merely find me and try
to hire me away. One was a firm offer, one got fairly deep into
interviewing, and one I turned down at an early stage. I have no doubt
that I could grab either of the latter two in short order if I felt like
it.

Try doing that as an incompetent extravert. I'm nowhere near as socially
awkward as some, but I'm definitely an introvert. I'm not trying to brag
here, but if you're in the computer field and you're good at what you do
then finding work in the US is not particularly hard.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[[email protected]]

On Jul 3, 3:11*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Oh yeah, the world has it in for white males...
>
> No, but foreigners are not well liked.

So let us understand. You want to live in Paris, the city of lights,
so (as you mentioned somewhere else in this thread) you can reject
social opportunities in order to play with your sim, you spent 700 or
800 hours a year doing that. Why, you could live in Fargo NC, or in
the rust belt, and do that. You have, you claim, skills in IT, you
presumably are fluent in French and English, and you can't turn your
skill set into a worthwhile job, if not in Paris elsewhere? Good Lord.
You may not like it, but if it walks like a depressive and talks like
a depressive it's reasonable to suggest some professional help would
go a long way.

These threads are SO much fun!

[G Paleologopoulos]

"Michael Ash" > wrote
...
>
>snip TONS of blather
>
> Mike Ash
> Radio Free Earth
> Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon


Do you really, really give that much of a **** what someone else is doing or
expounding????????????
Oh for ****'s sake.....................................

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Michael Ash wrote:
> In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Michael Ash writes:
>>
>>> Get out of Paris. I haven't lived in Paris but I've lived in the area and
>>> I know it's a bad place to be poor and out of work. You say you like it
>>> there, but you also say that money is important for you.
>>
>> One of the reasons for having money is so that you can live where you want.
>
> Apparently it's not the only reason. You said quite directly that your
> happiness depends on money and that you have none. Living where you want
> is clearly not enough to make you happy.


You are arguing with a lump of clay. Your time is surely more valuable.
Anthony's is worthless so he is happy to engage you endlessly in all the reasons
why he cannot be anything other than a failure.


--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"terry" > wrote in message
...

If your happiness depends on money then presumably you have had at
least 2 years to do some serious soul searching on why you dont have
money?
What skills do you lack to find a well paying job? You obviously dont
lack confidence in your intellectual abilities. Are you doing
anything to redress any deficiencies? or are you just going to
continue to deny you have them?


---------------
Anthony is a expert at everthing except improving his own condition. That
persuit would require actual results, his public speaking career is pretty
fool proof.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

on 7/3/2008 2:55 PM Michael Ash said the following:
> These days it's entirely possible to apply for a job and go through
> much of the interview process remotely. This is especially true in IT
> and especially if you're one of the best in whatever niche you have.

I'm doing a fair amount of interviewing of IT people these days. I would
certainly never hire someone based entirely on international remote
interviews precisely because I might end up with someone with Anthony's
personality. I can just imagine what he'd be like in a face-to-face
interview... Of course, I also expect he'd argue with a prospective
employer in any interview setting, so I doubt he'd get past an initial
screening, either in person or remotely.

[muff528]

"Jon" > wrote in message
...
On Jul 3, 10:14 am, wrote:
>> On Jul 3, 9:16 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>> (other stuff)

>> There's a time for effective work, and a time for effective play.

> "I swear it's not too late."
>
> ;)

Why do I suddenly hear a 12-string Rick playing in my head??

:-) TP

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> So mayby you shouldn't have moved to a country where foreigners
> are not well liked.

Every country shows some animosity towards foreigners.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> So let us understand. You want to live in Paris, the city of lights,
> so (as you mentioned somewhere else in this thread) you can reject
> social opportunities in order to play with your sim, you spent 700 or
> 800 hours a year doing that.

Right now I have very little money or time, and flight simulation is a
convenient and cheap leisure activity. In the days when I had money and time,
I went out more (but not to socialize).

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Hix writes:

> What "very tiny airplane" are you trying to rent at $353.50/hr?!

That's not an exceptional rate for Europe, assuming you can find a place that
will rent airplanes.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

on 7/3/2008 3:09 PM Michael Ash said the following:
> Try doing that as an incompetent extravert. I'm nowhere near as socially
> awkward as some, but I'm definitely an introvert. I'm not trying to brag
> here, but if you're in the computer field and you're good at what you do
> then finding work in the US is not particularly hard.

That pesky second part, "good at what you do," is undoubtedly where he
strikes out.

[Mxsmanic]

Michael Ash writes:

> Apparently it's not the only reason. You said quite directly that your
> happiness depends on money and that you have none. Living where you want
> is clearly not enough to make you happy.

True, but it leaves me happier than living where I don't want to live, all
else being equal. Money allowed me to move to where I wanted to live.

> Not true. You're skipping over the whole risk analysis. Yes, it's possible
> that if you move away then you'll be stuck somewhere else with no money.
> It's also possible that you'll find a good job and have money and the
> means to visit often. *Logically*, you should make the move if the
> probability of success multiplied by the value of success is greater than
> the probability of failure multiplied by the negative value of failure.

It isn't.

> You can further reduce the risk by not moving until you've found a job at
> your destination. These days it's entirely possible to apply for a job and
> go through much of the interview process remotely. This is especially true
> in IT and especially if you're one of the best in whatever niche you have.
> If you're not one of the best, maybe you ought to dedicate some of your
> time to becoming one.

Nobody will hire from a foreign country when there are plenty of locals. And
I don't want to move to Fargo.

> Of course not, but there are plenty of other cities that aren't dumps.

None of them is Paris.

> Non sequiter. This analysis would only make sense if the entire goal of
> your life is to live in Paris.

Living in a place you like is important. One of the things that people spend
a lot of money on is a place to live.

> It's really difficult to find a
> substitute for money. But visiting Paris on occasion can be a very good
> substitute for living there.

No, it cannot. I know this from experience. True for all cities, in fact.

> Of course it doesn't make sense, because you just made that up. I never
> proposed moving to a "dump". Move to a nice city. Yes, they exist. Even in
> the US. Even in places where you can find a job.

A nice city is Paris. Many people obviously agree, since the cost of living
is high.

> Only relevant if your goal is maximizing your time in the city and nothing
> else. I have it straight from you that this is not actually the case,
> though.

One reason for having money is to be able to live where you want, all the
time. I live where I want all the time, even with no money, because I had the
foresight to move to where I wanted to live when I had the money to do so.

> I live in Alexandria, Virginia. It's across the river from Washington, DC,
> on the Potomac. I'm a short walk from three grocery stores, a movie
> theater, the regular kind of theater, a bicycle shop, two post offices, a
> whole bunch of good restaurants, and various other shops. I'm a short
> bicycle ride away from Alexandria's Old Town, which is a really nice place
> to visit, and from various trails and parks. I'm a slightly longer ride
> from all the DC monuments and museums, and a lot of other nice commercial
> centers in the area. But I'm not actually *in* DC, so I don't have to deal
> the crapitude over there. And I own my own place, relatively small, but
> still 1000sqft with two bedrooms. I practically live in a park, with lots
> of small buildings and trees and open spaces. And I'm only about an
> 80-minute drive from the gliderport which, while a bit long sometimes, is
> really not that bad.

The climate is terrible there.

> You seem to be in this sort of paradoxical situation where you need money
> to be happy but are unwilling to make any changes to your life to achieve
> it, because you're too afraid of losing what you have.

I'm unwilling to move. That's only one change, and it's a huge one.

> Well, what's so great about what you have?

It's Paris.

> You are by your own admission not happy, so why is it worthwhile to keep
> things as they are?

I'm not trying to keep things as they are, except that I wish to continue
living in Paris. That isn't _everything_.

[Mxsmanic]

Rich Ahrens writes:

> I can just imagine what he'd be like in a face-to-face
> interview ...

With one exception, every interview I've had has led to an offer.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> I will point out an apparent contradiction. You often speak of the
> sacrifices that pilots must endure in order to enjoy their hobby, yet you
> completely disregard the sacrafices you are willing to make because you
> don't want to live in the USA.

What sacrifices?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> An excuse for failure right out of the box; what a surprise.

It's a possibility I've considered in depth many times in the past. The
infrastructure obstacle is real, unfortunately.

> Last year I paid $99,585 to part time people who worked from home and
> who's "infrastructure" consists of a PC and an Internet connection.

A PC with what on it?

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > So mayby you shouldn't have moved to a country where foreigners
> > are not well liked.

> Every country shows some animosity towards foreigners.

It makes a good excuse but it isn't true.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > An excuse for failure right out of the box; what a surprise.

> It's a possibility I've considered in depth many times in the past. The
> infrastructure obstacle is real, unfortunately.

> > Last year I paid $99,585 to part time people who worked from home and
> > who's "infrastructure" consists of a PC and an Internet connection.

> A PC with what on it?

Windows, you cretin.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Windows, you cretin.

You can't do anything with just Windows on the machine.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 3, 6:42*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Windows, you cretin.
>
> You can't do anything with just Windows on the machine.

As a matter of interest IBM in RTP in NC has fully 40% of its
employees telecommute to work. My wife works effectively with co
investigators in the UK over the net -- yahoo IM no less. It can and
is done by folks who just do it.

And then there's Anthony.

This thread is no longer fun. How about starting another one, Mx?

[Maxwell[_2_]]

In article >, Maxwell teh imposter
says...

>
> "terry" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> If your happiness depends on money then presumably you have had at
> least 2 years to do some serious soul searching on why you dont have
> money?
> What skills do you lack to find a well paying job? You obviously dont
> lack confidence in your intellectual abilities. Are you doing
> anything to redress any deficiencies? or are you just going to
> continue to deny you have them?
>
>
> ---------------
> Anthony is a expert at everthing except improving his own condition. That
> persuit would require actual results, his public speaking career is pretty
> fool proof.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> This thread is no longer fun. How about starting another one, Mx?

Sounds good to me. How about discussing aviation, including the original
topic of this thread?

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Windows, you cretin.

> You can't do anything with just Windows on the machine.

You may not be able to, but the people I had working for me managed
to do $99,585 worth of work with just Windows on their machines.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting wrote:
> On Jul 3, 6:42?pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
> > > Windows, you cretin.
> >
> > You can't do anything with just Windows on the machine.

> As a matter of interest IBM in RTP in NC has fully 40% of its
> employees telecommute to work. My wife works effectively with co
> investigators in the UK over the net -- yahoo IM no less. It can and
> is done by folks who just do it.

Just about 100% of my and my subcontractor's work is done via the
net.

The only thing not done through telecommuting is a once a month
status meeting with me, my program manager, and the customer.

One of the subcontractors does his thing next to the pool with WiFi
and his laptop when the weather's nice.

> And then there's Anthony.

And then there's poor, poor, Anthony with virtually the entire world
scheming to keep him poor and unsuccessful.

> This thread is no longer fun. How about starting another one, Mx?

Oh, I don't know, it is kind of fun seeing all his excuses crumble.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

It's pretty obvious this time Burtie.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 3, 7:51*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > This thread is no longer fun. How about starting another one, Mx?
>
> Sounds good to me. *How about discussing aviation, including the original
> topic of this thread?

Sure.

Aviation in high temperatures is covered in the POH and in private
pilot training. Biggest concern would be density altitude, see the POH
and refer to the training manuals. On a personal basis be sure you're
hydrated.

Next post?

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > This thread is no longer fun. How about starting another one, Mx?

> Sounds good to me.

Why, are you running out of excuses for your failure in life?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

In article >, Maxwell says...

> It's pretty obvious this time Burtie.

What's pretty obvious, Maxine?

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Why, are you running out of excuses for your failure in life?

No, it's just that this is an aviation newsgroup, and I come here to discuss
aviation. If you are truly fascinated by me personally, you can start a fan
club.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You may not be able to, but the people I had working for me managed
> to do $99,585 worth of work with just Windows on their machines.

What work did they do that required only Windows? Writing with Notepad?

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> "Go **** Yourself ! " is NOT an offer.

Granted, but I don't see the connection with interviewing.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Why, are you running out of excuses for your failure in life?

> No, it's just that this is an aviation newsgroup, and I come here to discuss
> aviation.

To quote the neighbor's kid, "Lier, lier, pants on fire".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > You may not be able to, but the people I had working for me managed
> > to do $99,585 worth of work with just Windows on their machines.

> What work did they do that required only Windows? Writing with Notepad?

Mostly generating requirements and specs, then writting ANSI C code
based on the specs; thousands of lines of ANSI C code.

None of that requires any tools that don't come with Windows or can't
be downloaded for free.

Oh, yeah, one guy used telnet in a command prompt window to login to
the clients machine and create some Oracle tables.

If you had to ask it is no wonder you can't find any decent work in IT.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Mostly generating requirements and specs, then writting ANSI C code
> based on the specs; thousands of lines of ANSI C code.

And they did that all in Notepad?

> None of that requires any tools that don't come with Windows or can't
> be downloaded for free.

You said they had only Windows. Now you're saying that they downloaded
things.

> If you had to ask it is no wonder you can't find any decent work in IT.

I know what Windows itself includes, and it's not much, certainly not very
useful for doing productive work.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Mostly generating requirements and specs, then writting ANSI C code
> > based on the specs; thousands of lines of ANSI C code.

> And they did that all in Notepad?

No moron, the documents were done in Word format.

For those that don't have Word, OpenOffice is a free download.

The C code is in text format, which can be done with lots of things that
either come with Windows or is a free download.

> > None of that requires any tools that don't come with Windows or can't
> > be downloaded for free.

> You said they had only Windows. Now you're saying that they downloaded
> things.

I said they had Windows; learn to read.

I know of no one running Windows that hasn't downloaded piles of free
stuff.

Are you really so stupid you don't know that?

> > If you had to ask it is no wonder you can't find any decent work in IT.

> I know what Windows itself includes, and it's not much, certainly not very
> useful for doing productive work.

No wonder you can't find work.

You can't even work up the initiative to download free tools.

And for what it's worth, they could have just as easily used a free Linux
with free tools.

So your whining about not being able to do contract stuff for lack of
"infrastructure" is just more whining excuses for your utter failure.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 3, 11:56*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Steve Hix writes:
> > What "very tiny airplane" are you trying to rent at $353.50/hr?!
>
> That's not an exceptional rate for Europe, assuming you can find a place that
> will rent airplanes.


For $353.50/hr you can rent my very tiny C150 anytime you like. And I
bring it to a field near Paris and I pick you up to bring you to the
field if you rent it for >= 3 hrs/week.

BTW. A week ago I was in France and a very tiny plane was €85/hr wet
including instruction.

-Kees

[Steve Hix]

In article
>,
wrote:

> On Jul 3, 11:56*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > Steve Hix writes:
> > > What "very tiny airplane" are you trying to rent at $353.50/hr?!
> >
> > That's not an exceptional rate for Europe, assuming you can find a place
> > that will rent airplanes.
>
>
> For $353.50/hr you can rent my very tiny C150 anytime you like. And I
> bring it to a field near Paris and I pick you up to bring you to the
> field if you rent it for >= 3 hrs/week.
>
> BTW. A week ago I was in France and a very tiny plane was ¤85/hr wet
> including instruction.

That sounds a lot more like it.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> No moron, the documents were done in Word format.

Then they were not using just Windows; Windows doesn't include Word. QED.

> The C code is in text format, which can be done with lots of things that
> either come with Windows or is a free download.

How do they do unit testing and compilation?

> I know of no one running Windows that hasn't downloaded piles of free
> stuff.

Me.

> You can't even work up the initiative to download free tools.

Serious contracts often require more than just a free download. You have to
compile and test code. You may need an entire testbed, which sometimes
requires a dedicated machine.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 4, 6:43*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > No moron, the documents were done in Word format.
>
> Then they were not using just Windows; Windows doesn't include Word. *QED.
>
> > The C code is in text format, which can be done with lots of things that
> > either come with Windows or is a free download.
>
> How do they do unit testing and compilation?
>
> > I know of no one running Windows that hasn't downloaded piles of free
> > stuff.
>
> Me.
>
> > You can't even work up the initiative to download free tools.
>
> Serious contracts often require more than just a free download. *You have to
> compile and test code. *You may need an entire testbed, which sometimes
> requires a dedicated machine.

You can't even lead this horse to water, but he does whine very well.
He's a professional loser.

Where is Darwin when we need him. Oh, wait, Anthony seemingly isn't
interested in propagating his gene set so it's unlikely our kids will
have to put up with his kids.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:03:43 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Rich Ahrens writes:
>
>> I can just imagine what he'd be like in a face-to-face
>> interview ...
>
>With one exception, every interview I've had has led to an offer.

"thankyou but the door is that way" is not an offer.

the only thing you are expert at is stupidity.
there has never been a market for that.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 3, 6:03*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Rich Ahrens writes:
> > I can just imagine what he'd be like in a face-to-face
> > interview ...
>
> With one exception, every interview I've had has led to an offer.

If that's true, why do you not have a well paying job? Or could it be
you had only one interview?

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > No moron, the documents were done in Word format.

> Then they were not using just Windows; Windows doesn't include Word. QED.

Idiot.

> > The C code is in text format, which can be done with lots of things that
> > either come with Windows or is a free download.

> How do they do unit testing and compilation?

They don't, the integrator does.

> > I know of no one running Windows that hasn't downloaded piles of free
> > stuff.

> Me.

That's because you are an idiot.

So you don't have Firefox, Adobe Reader, Flash Player, or anything else?

> > You can't even work up the initiative to download free tools.

> Serious contracts often require more than just a free download. You have to
> compile and test code. You may need an entire testbed, which sometimes
> requires a dedicated machine.

I would call a half million dollar contract a serious contract.

Have you ever seen a half million dollars?

SOMEONE has to compile and test the code, but it doesn't necessarily
have to be the person that wrote the code.

I can see why you are not in IT and that you know about as much about
IT in the real world as you know about flying in the real world.

In summary:

OP: You can get work as a coder you do at home.

YOU: I probably don't have the infrastructure.

ME: I've paid such coders nearly $100,000 in the last year who's
infrastructure consists of a PC and an Internet connection, so
infrastructure isn't a big deal.

YOU: A bunch of arm waving about downloading free tools which enable
people to make a real living.

The bottom line is that there are people in the world doing coding at
home where the infrastructure expense on top of the PC and Internet
connection is zero and who are making a LOT of money.

The biggest problem I had with these people was that they are so busy
with other work we had to juggle schedules to get things done.

All your arm waving idiotic arguements that free tools don't come
bundled with the PC when delivered are just nonsense excuses for your
failures.

If you weren't such a whining, incompetent loser, and actually had
any IT talent, you could have been one of them and made a big chunk
of the $100,000 for a few months work.

But you will never make any money because you are too busy making
excuses why you can't and engaging in idiotic arguements to justify
your failures.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Rich Ahrens > wrote:
> on 7/3/2008 2:55 PM Michael Ash said the following:
>> These days it's entirely possible to apply for a job and go through
>> much of the interview process remotely. This is especially true in IT
>> and especially if you're one of the best in whatever niche you have.
>
> I'm doing a fair amount of interviewing of IT people these days. I would
> certainly never hire someone based entirely on international remote
> interviews precisely because I might end up with someone with Anthony's
> personality. I can just imagine what he'd be like in a face-to-face
> interview... Of course, I also expect he'd argue with a prospective
> employer in any interview setting, so I doubt he'd get past an initial
> screening, either in person or remotely.

Oh sure, I said much of the interview process, not all of it. Although I
did get my current job without ever meeting anyone from the company in
person. But then again, it's a remote work position, so that makes some
sense. I didn't meet my boss until three months after I was hired.

More normally, you'll do some phone screens while they decide if you have
the potential to be worthwhile, and then if you're worth it they'll bring
you on-site for a real interview, at their expense. The point being that
you can get a job and *then* move, rather than taking a giant leap into
the unknown, if your goal is to get out of town.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Michael Ash writes:
>
>> Apparently it's not the only reason. You said quite directly that your
>> happiness depends on money and that you have none. Living where you want
>> is clearly not enough to make you happy.
>
> True, but it leaves me happier than living where I don't want to live, all
> else being equal. Money allowed me to move to where I wanted to live.

My whole point is that all else *won't* be equal.

>> You can further reduce the risk by not moving until you've found a job at
>> your destination. These days it's entirely possible to apply for a job and
>> go through much of the interview process remotely. This is especially true
>> in IT and especially if you're one of the best in whatever niche you have.
>> If you're not one of the best, maybe you ought to dedicate some of your
>> time to becoming one.
>
> Nobody will hire from a foreign country when there are plenty of locals.

That's why you need to be good at a niche where there won't be plenty of
locals. If you aren't good at such a niche, become good.

> And
> I don't want to move to Fargo.

Non sequiter. Never suggested it.

>> Of course not, but there are plenty of other cities that aren't dumps.
>
> None of them is Paris.

Obvious and therefore pointless to state.

>> Non sequiter. This analysis would only make sense if the entire goal of
>> your life is to live in Paris.
>
> Living in a place you like is important. One of the things that people spend
> a lot of money on is a place to live.

Being happy is important. Living in a place you like isn't making you
happy. Time to try something else.

>> Of course it doesn't make sense, because you just made that up. I never
>> proposed moving to a "dump". Move to a nice city. Yes, they exist. Even in
>> the US. Even in places where you can find a job.
>
> A nice city is Paris. Many people obviously agree, since the cost of living
> is high.

Never disagreed.

>> Only relevant if your goal is maximizing your time in the city and nothing
>> else. I have it straight from you that this is not actually the case,
>> though.
>
> One reason for having money is to be able to live where you want, all the
> time. I live where I want all the time, even with no money, because I had the
> foresight to move to where I wanted to live when I had the money to do so.

And yet by your own admission you are not happy there, so what purpose
does it really serve? You're less unhappy than you would be if you were an
unsuccessful beggar living in some other city?

>> I live in Alexandria, Virginia. It's across the river from Washington, DC,
>> on the Potomac. I'm a short walk from three grocery stores, a movie
>> theater, the regular kind of theater, a bicycle shop, two post offices, a
>> whole bunch of good restaurants, and various other shops. I'm a short
>> bicycle ride away from Alexandria's Old Town, which is a really nice place
>> to visit, and from various trails and parks. I'm a slightly longer ride
>> from all the DC monuments and museums, and a lot of other nice commercial
>> centers in the area. But I'm not actually *in* DC, so I don't have to deal
>> the crapitude over there. And I own my own place, relatively small, but
>> still 1000sqft with two bedrooms. I practically live in a park, with lots
>> of small buildings and trees and open spaces. And I'm only about an
>> 80-minute drive from the gliderport which, while a bit long sometimes, is
>> really not that bad.
>
> The climate is terrible there.

No worse than Paris.

>> You are by your own admission not happy, so why is it worthwhile to keep
>> things as they are?
>
> I'm not trying to keep things as they are, except that I wish to continue
> living in Paris. That isn't _everything_.

It's been years, nothing has changed. Nothing is *going* to change unless
you change that.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> An excuse for failure right out of the box; what a surprise.
>
> It's a possibility I've considered in depth many times in the past. The
> infrastructure obstacle is real, unfortunately.

Utter bull****. With a PC and an internet connection you have the means to
obtain everything you need to work a lot of well-paid jobs. There are
scads of good, free developer tools out there just waiting for you to
download and start using them to earn money.

But of course you'd rather have your grievances.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[[email protected]]

On Jul 4, 7:13*pm, Michael Ash > wrote:
> In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > writes:
>
> >> An excuse for failure right out of the box; what a surprise.
>
> > It's a possibility I've considered in depth many times in the past. *The
> > infrastructure obstacle is real, unfortunately.
>
> Utter bull****. With a PC and an internet connection you have the means to
> obtain everything you need to work a lot of well-paid jobs. There are
> scads of good, free developer tools out there just waiting for you to
> download and start using them to earn money.
>
> But of course you'd rather have your grievances.
>
> --
> Mike Ash
> Radio Free Earth
> Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

I think there is ample evidence M Anthony is a loser with no desire to
change that state. His utility here is to post questions that lead to
long and sometimes humorous threads. It's especially fun to read his
posts as a way of gaining insight into a mind with some seemingly
interesting deviations from normal.

He's a standard deviation or two away from normal for many parameters,
but not the ones he's claim, like wisdom, insight or intelligence.

I look often for him to open a new topic, but that'll be delayed
because this one still has legs.

He is fun, isn't he?

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student wrote:
> I think there is ample evidence M Anthony is a loser with no desire to
> change that state. His utility here is to post questions that lead to
> long and sometimes humorous threads. It's especially fun to read his
> posts as a way of gaining insight into a mind with some seemingly
> interesting deviations from normal.

Yep, I have to agree with you there.

> He's a standard deviation or two away from normal for many parameters,
> but not the ones he's claim, like wisdom, insight or intelligence.

I think he's pretty intelligent. From what I can see, a lot of the really
inane stuff he posts comes from a strange compulsion to disagree with
almost anything anyone says, no matter how sensible it may be. Wise or
insightful, no way.

> I look often for him to open a new topic, but that'll be delayed
> because this one still has legs.

Well, I'm pretty much done with my part. I've made all the points I wanted
to make, and unless he surprises me, he'll devolve into repetition now.

> He is fun, isn't he?

Sure is. I've known a few like him over the years. They annoy me at first,
then I get to understand how they work and they're just amusing.

I was actually friends with one of them in real life for a while, after
I'd talked to him online for a few years first. We ended up at the same
college and started hanging out. It was interesting because he wasn't
nearly as weird in real life as he was on the internet. He was still a
little kooky, but not any more kooky than many of my other college
friends.

Given MX's extreme anti-social bent I doubt he'd be interesting to meet in
real life, though.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[yod-yog+ais]

On 7/4/2008 8:01 PM Michael Ash ignored two million years of human
evolution to write:

> I've made all the points I wanted
> to make, and unless he surprises me, he'll devolve into repetition now.

Actually, most of Anthony's posts in this thread have already devolved
into repetition. It's all the same familiar loser tripe he's posted
in other newsgroups: I'm unhappy because I'm poor, money is the source
of happiness, I don't want to leave Paris to improve my financial lot
elsewhere even though I can't do it here, blah blah blah. He's repeated
it over and over, and has been particularly notorious for it in, say,
rec.travel.europe (yes, Anthony attempts to participate in a newsgroup
about travel, but of course he hates to travel), but his style has
pretty much gotten the same reception in many of the other fora in which
he participates. The boy's denial mechanisms are tightly coiled and
eternally ready to engage.

And the responses, particularly from well-meaning types who try to offer
constructive criticism and advice, are also well-known and have been
seen elsewhere, so much so that it's almost like, well, maybe Anthony's
just trolling. But Anthony couldn't possibly be trolling, right? Just
because he will continue to participate in threads like this one, while
simultaneously claiming that he comes here to discuss aviation: not
trolling at all, right? But that's another unsurprising thing about
Anthony: he's a habitual liar, and he does that repetitiously - and,
let's face it, manipulatively - too.

Oh, and he's doing this for years and years. He never ever gets tired
of it. Given how few the boy's choices of pleasurable activities are,
this, too, should be unsurprising.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> If that's true, why do you not have a well paying job?

Getting interviews is difficult.

[Mxsmanic]

Michael Ash writes:

> My whole point is that all else *won't* be equal.

It has been sufficiently so in this case.

> That's why you need to be good at a niche where there won't be plenty of
> locals. If you aren't good at such a niche, become good.

Which niche, and how? There are many. It is necessary to find a niche that
justifies the investment of becoming "good."

> Obvious and therefore pointless to state.

No more so than "there are plenty of other cities that aren't dumps."

> Being happy is important. Living in a place you like isn't making you
> happy. Time to try something else.

Living in a place that is worse will not make me happier.

> And yet by your own admission you are not happy there, so what purpose
> does it really serve?

It does not make me unhappy to live where I live, so why move?

> You're less unhappy than you would be if you were an unsuccessful
> beggar living in some other city?

Yes.

> No worse than Paris.

Considerably worse than Paris, if you look at the numbers. Both too hot in
summer and too cold in winter.

> It's been years, nothing has changed. Nothing is *going* to change unless
> you change that.

Moving won't change it.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You can't even lead this horse to water, but he does whine very well.
> He's a professional loser.

A personal attack cannot conceal the fact that I am right.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:E_dbk.15654$i55.8880
@newsfe22.lga:

> It's pretty obvious this time Burtie.
>
>
>

What is?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

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

>
> "terry" > wrote in message
> news:bc39776f-f089-4e46-87bf-301840cd2be1
@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com.
> ..
>
> If your happiness depends on money then presumably you have had at
> least 2 years to do some serious soul searching on why you dont have
> money?
> What skills do you lack to find a well paying job? You obviously dont
> lack confidence in your intellectual abilities. Are you doing
> anything to redress any deficiencies? or are you just going to
> continue to deny you have them?
>
>
> ---------------
> Anthony is a expert at everthing except improving his own condition.
> That persuit would require actual results, his public speaking career
> is pretty fool proof.
>
>


Wow, nuther great PKB post there Maxie!


Bertie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Idiot.

A personal attack cannot conceal the fact that I am right.

> They don't, the integrator does.

It's not worth much to just write code and never compile or test it.

> That's because you are an idiot.

That's because I have a legal license for everything I use, and because most
freeware is worth no more than you pay for it (otherwise nobody would be
buying the payware).

> So you don't have Firefox, Adobe Reader, Flash Player, or anything else?

I have them, but those are only three downloads, not "piles" of downloads.

> I would call a half million dollar contract a serious contract.

One person paid half a million dollars for writing uncompiled, untested code
with freeware at home?

> SOMEONE has to compile and test the code, but it doesn't necessarily
> have to be the person that wrote the code.

If it's not, the person who writes the code is worth a lot less.

> I can see why you are not in IT and that you know about as much about
> IT in the real world as you know about flying in the real world.

I know a lot about IT, so I'm much harder to lead astray than I might be in
aviation, and even in aviation I can detect who is blowing smoke most of the
time.

> OP: You can get work as a coder you do at home.
>
> YOU: I probably don't have the infrastructure.
>
> ME: I've paid such coders nearly $100,000 in the last year who's
> infrastructure consists of a PC and an Internet connection, so
> infrastructure isn't a big deal.

How many coders, how much work did they do, and what were they paid
individually? What workflow? How many bugs did you detect and have to send
pack after your remote compilation and integration?

> The bottom line is that there are people in the world doing coding at
> home where the infrastructure expense on top of the PC and Internet
> connection is zero and who are making a LOT of money.

How much money is a lot of money?

> The biggest problem I had with these people was that they are so busy
> with other work we had to juggle schedules to get things done.

If they make a lot of money doing this work, why do they have so much of it?

> If you weren't such a whining, incompetent loser, and actually had
> any IT talent, you could have been one of them and made a big chunk
> of the $100,000 for a few months work.

A big chunk of $100,000 is not a lot of money.

[Mxsmanic]

Michael Ash writes:

> Utter bull****. With a PC and an internet connection you have the means to
> obtain everything you need to work a lot of well-paid jobs.

Then why isn't everyone with a PC and Internet connection rich?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Idiot.
>
> A personal attack cannot conceal the fact that I am right.


Why not? In your universe insisting somethign over and over again in the
face of overhelming evidence to the contrary seems to conceal, to your
mind, in any case, te fact that you are consistently wrong.


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Michael Ash writes:
>
>> Utter bull****. With a PC and an internet connection you have the
>> means to obtain everything you need to work a lot of well-paid jobs.
>
> Then why isn't everyone with a PC and Internet connection rich?
>

They all are. onyl you aren't,.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jul 4, 7:13*pm, Michael Ash > wrote:
> In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > writes:
>
> >> An excuse for failure right out of the box; what a surprise.
>
> > It's a possibility I've considered in depth many times in the past. *The
> > infrastructure obstacle is real, unfortunately.
>
> Utter bull****. With a PC and an internet connection you have the means to
> obtain everything you need to work a lot of well-paid jobs. There are
> scads of good, free developer tools out there just waiting for you to
> download and start using them to earn money.
>
> But of course you'd rather have your grievances.
>
> --
> Mike Ash
> Radio Free Earth
> Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Many of us have hired what I call 1099ers (to those not in the US,
Internal Rev, Service form 1099 is how payments to consultants or
contract workers are reported) without ever seeing them in person. We
simply agree on a work product -- usually intellectual property in the
form of a report-- and how to define when it's done. If there's a
skill set I don't have in house that's how the void is filled. What
has to happen, though, is people with unique 'skill sets' for lack of
a better word, have to make themselves known to prospective buyers.

I found it interesting to learn I had hired one such person who lived
in Germany -- it was only well into the contract I found that out.

Here's a thought experiment. Suppose someone would take a year's worth
of sim time -- oh, 700 or 800 hours -- and devote that time to
positioning themselves with a marketable skill set. Do you think they
could find themselves living comfortably anywhere for the following
years?

I thought the beverage of choice in France was wine, not whine.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 5, 12:32*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > If that's true, why do you not have a well paying job?
>
> Getting interviews is difficult.

Do you have any sense at all at how stupid it is to first claim all
but one of your interviews has resulted in offers, then to state
getting interviews is difficult. I would agree there is nothing
inconsistent in those two statements, but the image you attempt to set
in one -- "I ace interviews" -- is defeated in the other.

Whatever mirror you use to view yourself is offering distortions.
You're stuck in a bad place in terms of mental health, and a dozen
sessions with a good cognitive shrink would probably help.

In the meantime, do continue to amuse us.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 04:59:10 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Mxsmanic > wrote in
:
>
>> writes:
>>
>>> Idiot.
>>
>> A personal attack cannot conceal the fact that I am right.
>
>
>Why not? In your universe insisting somethign over and over again in the
>face of overhelming evidence to the contrary seems to conceal, to your
>mind, in any case, te fact that you are consistently wrong.
>
>
>Bertie
>>

You can see an amazing pattern in Mxsmanic's posts.

"Living in Paris" is an abstract concept locked in his head.
I doubt that a dumpster existence even equates as anything related to
"Paris" in his mind so the elegance of the fantasy remains as an
escape unassailed by the moronic reality of his life.

as someone who has worked in computer systems for 26 years I can
assure the readers that this kid has not got a clue about computer
based systems. his knowledge, if it amounts to anything, is based on
an obsession with the computer in front of him. networked systems,
servers, any of the real basis for modern computing, is so far over
his head that he will not ever be useful in IT.
His rantings are so much like the religions of tibet, "we have all the
world's knowledge". when the west explored the society of the region
it turned out that all that they had was the chant "we have all the
world's knowledge" and nothing else. technology had yet to be
appreciated. the manic one is soooo tibettan.

on aviation knowledge the kid does not have a clue. I often wonder
whether he has ever actually put his hand on an aeroplane.

he would bring an enormous amount of peace to his life if he ceased
posting to R.A.Student and the rest of the aviation newsgroups.
He should confine his posts to the simmers, but even there he'd get
toasted for his assinine stupidity.

intelligent???? maybe in the manner of an idiot savant but give us a
break, there is more intelligence running around in 8 bit chips on the
moon.

this kid has the most amazing retinue of excuses of any person I've
encountered. Failure with a capital F is locked into his psyche right
beside the abstraction of "Living in Paris"

the only good aspect to all this is the fact that he is too stupid to
be able to ever actually fly an aircraft.

Stealth Pilot

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

Why are we wasting time with Anthony?

His favorite topic is himself.
He will never admit that he's mistaken.
He will never take responsibility for his own actions.
The only logic he uses is circular, to support his own twisted
assertions.
He can't find or hold a job on either of two continents.
He does not fly, never has, and never will.

Yes, it is fun to insult him and his faulty logic- it is kind of Usenet
Wack-a-mole, but he will never, ever "get it". It simply isn't worth
engaging him in any reasonable discourse.

It gets old pretty quickly.

[No Name]

Jul 5, 8:32*am, "viperdoc" > wrote: on jul
5, 8:32*am, "viperdoc" > wrote: on jul 5,
> Why are we wasting time with Anthony?
>
> * * His favorite topic is himself.
> * * He will never admit that he's mistaken.
> * * He will never take responsibility for his own actions.
> * * The only logic he uses is circular, to support his own twisted
> assertions.
> * * He can't find or hold a job on either of two continents.
> * * He does not fly, never has, and never will.
>
> Yes, it is fun to insult him and his faulty logic- it is kind of Usenet
> Wack-a-mole, but he will never, ever "get it". It simply isn't worth
> engaging him in any reasonable discourse.
>
> It gets old pretty quickly.

So predictable, othese threal connectionalizationalizations. oh,
excharacter been some, others his he other been some with with it with
mine -- anthony amuses make money with it with it windows" as hers
here). the only some oney with with windows" as his care its time. i
keep hopingly some one -- anthony amuses on that older that does on that
disappointment, but is carefuted some (and than his he reful parsince i
had seemine could make it does on that older flaw of "well it's are it
disappointment is careful parsince i had seen some, and that does make
more it get on that does me (and thers he reful parsince i had seemine
-- anthony amuses me others her threal comeone's areful parsing of "well
it didn't content it's before its time. i had seeminimal
connectionalizational content, but it does only reful parsince i keep
hoping of mine -- anthony amuses on that older flaw of "well it get only
someone -- anthony amuses make it disappointment, but is his argument,
but it's argument these threads.

Had a great joke on us if the someone who flies heavy is a time if the
someone was a time if the reat joke on pa. i had assumed had assumed a
made was a made was a persona for the living in paris and had as and
serving assumed a time if he reat joke on pa. i had a persona for a
guide who flies here. it wondered for that's been exposed assumed had
wondered for the sport of it. i am afraid, though, heavy iron us if
hered for a greally iron paris the might in fact been exposed had
assumed for the sorry clown the might in, say, scranton paris though, he
living from someone was and serving in pa. i am afraid, the might in,
say, scranton and serving from someone who flies hered as a persona.

I'll contil i do be a given amountinue these to, some of that, i will
continue that, i find although i'm activen amountil i will admit i will
continue to read, and one's life, and one's life, and one i'm actively
in eve to reads. having othese to reads. having other vices, until i do
be a given amount of threads. having said that, i find one's life, and
althould believe that, i will admit i do be a given amountinue that, i
find althould believe to read, and one i'll.

It does thread: -- but it does this is it has much to plane on airplay
pinehust #2 -- it's still cheaper thread: -- but it does to plane on an
pebble. this to play pinehust #2 -- but it does to fly basis as much to
play pinehust #2 -- it does topic even costing me as been costing me as
is as much to play pinehust #2 -- it does to plane on an pebble. this
pretty far off topic even for thread: -- it.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 5, 8:32*am, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> Why are we wasting time with Anthony?
>
> * * His favorite topic is himself.
> * * He will never admit that he's mistaken.
> * * He will never take responsibility for his own actions.
> * * The only logic he uses is circular, to support his own twisted
> assertions.
> * * He can't find or hold a job on either of two continents.
> * * He does not fly, never has, and never will.
>
> Yes, it is fun to insult him and his faulty logic- it is kind of Usenet
> Wack-a-mole, but he will never, ever "get it". It simply isn't worth
> engaging him in any reasonable discourse.
>
> It gets old pretty quickly.

Oh, exchanges on these threads expose a character flaw of mine --
Anthony amuses me (and seemingly some others here). Textbook
rationalizations. The only real disappointment is his are so
predictable, and that does make it get older before its time. I keep
hoping for more original content, but it's been a while since I had
seen some, other than his careful parsing of "well it didn't come with
windows" as he refuted someone's argument that one could make money
with IT with minimal connections.

I had wondered for a time if he might in fact be someone who flies
heavy iron and had assumed a persona for the sport of it. It would be
a great joke on us if the living in Paris and serving as a guide was a
made up something from someone living in, say, Scranton PA. I am
afraid, though, he really is the sorry clown that's been exposed here.

Having said that, I will admit I do believe there should be a given
amount of vice in everyone's life, and although I'm actively
interviewing other vices, until I find one I'll continue to read, and
post to, some of these threads.

This is pretty far off topic even for this thread: -- it has been
costing me as much to fly my own airplane on an hourly basis as it
does to play Pinehust #2 -- but it's still cheaper than Pebble.

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Idiot.
>
> A personal attack cannot conceal the fact that I am right.

If you were, as you claim, refractory to personal attacks, you would not
have posted this message.

Or don't you understand what refractory means?

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

Not that I really care- I do believe Anthony is a real person, and does live
in Paris.

He obviously has some significant problems with social adjustment, and this
is the reason why he can't find or hold a job, although he blames others for
his own failures and shortcomings.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 5, 8:43*am, > wrote:
> Jul 5, 8:32*am, "viperdoc" > wrote: on jul
> 5, 8:32*am, "viperdoc" > wrote: on jul 5,
>
> > Why are we wasting time with Anthony?
>
> > * * His favorite topic is himself.
> > * * He will never admit that he's mistaken.
> > * * He will never take responsibility for his own actions.
> > * * The only logic he uses is circular, to support his own twisted
> > assertions.
> > * * He can't find or hold a job on either of two continents.
> > * * He does not fly, never has, and never will.
>
> > Yes, it is fun to insult him and his faulty logic- it is kind of Usenet
> > Wack-a-mole, but he will never, ever "get it". It simply isn't worth
> > engaging him in any reasonable discourse.
>
> > It gets old pretty quickly.
>
> So predictable, othese threal connectionalizationalizations. oh,
> excharacter been some, others his he other been some with with it with
> mine -- anthony amuses make money with it with it windows" as hers
> here). the only some oney with with windows" as his care its time. i
> keep hopingly some one -- anthony amuses on that older that does on that
> disappointment, but is carefuted some (and than his he reful parsince i
> had seemine could make it does on that older flaw of "well it's are it
> disappointment is careful parsince i had seen some, and that does make
> more it get on that does me (and thers he reful parsince i had seemine
> -- anthony amuses me others her threal comeone's areful parsing of "well
> it didn't content it's before its time. i had seeminimal
> connectionalizational content, but it does only reful parsince i keep
> hoping of mine -- anthony amuses on that older flaw of "well it get only
> someone -- anthony amuses make it disappointment, but is his argument,
> but it's argument these threads.
>
> Had a great joke on us if the someone who flies heavy is a time if the
> someone was a time if the reat joke on pa. i had assumed had assumed a
> made was a made was a persona for the living in paris and had as and
> serving assumed a time if he reat joke on pa. i had a persona for a
> guide who flies here. it wondered for that's been exposed assumed had
> wondered for the sport of it. i am afraid, though, heavy iron us if
> hered for a greally iron paris the might in fact been exposed had
> assumed for the sorry clown the might in, say, scranton paris though, he
> living from someone was and serving in pa. i am afraid, the might in,
> say, scranton and serving from someone who flies hered as a persona.
>
> I'll contil i do be a given amountinue these to, some of that, i will
> continue that, i find although i'm activen amountil i will admit i will
> continue to read, and one's life, and one's life, and one i'm actively
> in eve to reads. having othese to reads. having other vices, until i do
> be a given amount of threads. having said that, i find one's life, and
> althould believe that, i will admit i do be a given amountinue that, i
> find althould believe to read, and one i'll.
>
> It does thread: -- but it does this is it has much to plane on airplay
> pinehust #2 -- it's still cheaper thread: -- but it does to plane on an
> pebble. this to play pinehust #2 -- but it does to fly basis as much to
> play pinehust #2 -- it does topic even costing me as been costing me as
> is as much to play pinehust #2 -- it does to plane on an pebble. this
> pretty far off topic even for thread: -- it.

Oh, very cute.