Things not to do while working on your private ticket... [Archive]

Mike[_22_]

August 5th 08, 05:05 AM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
> m:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
>>> m:
>>>
>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>> Taking off with your wife and daughter would have to be pretty high
>>>>> on the list:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080731X01135
>>>>>
>>>>> The plane was a '59 145hp 172. DA would have been around 3,500.
>>>>> You can draw your own conclusions.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From the report...
>>>>
>>>> "The personal flight was being conducted under the provisions of
>>>> Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91..."
>>>>
>>>> No it wasn't. Hell they could really stick it to him and say it was
>>>> under part 121. He didn't have a certificate for that either.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why would they say it was under part 121?
>>>
>>>
>>> And where does it say he was not operating under the provisions of
>>> 91? If any regs were broken, and that is no tclear, it would have
>>> been 61 in any case.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>
>> Jeez Bertie it was a joke. The guy didn't have a license yet he went
>> X-C to pick up his wife and child. He might get charged with child
>> endangerment. He would if I was the DA there.
>>
> Ah, OK. Well, you dtill don't know he didn't have a licence yet. Often
> there's a bigger picture behind NTSB reports like that, which was the
> subtle point i was making.
>
> In any case, it's also not at all clear he did anything stupid as far as
> his flying was concerned.
> Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I just don't like seeing people lynched..

The word on the street even before the prelim NTSB was the "pilot" involved
had bought his plane to get his ticket, but never did and even his student
ticket had expired.

Mike[_22_]

August 5th 08, 05:17 AM

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> news:pgIlk.165$ZV1.149@trnddc07...
>> Taking off with your wife and daughter would have to be pretty high on
>> the list:
>>
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080731X01135
>>
>> The plane was a '59 145hp 172. DA would have been around 3,500. You can
>> draw your own conclusions.
>>
>>
> Not much there to draw any conclusion from, beyond the assertion about the
> certificate issue. There was plenty of runway for the conditions; so if
> the fuel was good, the prop was not repitched for some special purpose,
> and the engine continued to run correctly we would all have none the
> wiser.
>
> And yes, am familiar with the model and vintage, although not the same
> tail number.

Actually there's quite a bit. The plane appears to have been transferred in
2004, so it's reasonable to assume the new owner (who at one time was issued
a student certificate) had attempted to gain a PP-SEL and never completed.
If you want to go down the road of conjecture, someone who has such a
blatant disregard for the FAR possibly didn't have a current annual on the
plane either and possibly wasn't worried too much about weight and balance,
density altitude, or any other pesky little detail. The full NTSB report
should be even more interesting.

Mike[_22_]

August 5th 08, 05:19 AM

"Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
m...
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
>> m:
>>
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>> Taking off with your wife and daughter would have to be pretty high on
>>>> the list:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080731X01135
>>>>
>>>> The plane was a '59 145hp 172. DA would have been around 3,500. You
>>>> can draw your own conclusions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> From the report...
>>>
>>> "The personal flight was being conducted under the provisions of Title
>>> 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91..."
>>>
>>> No it wasn't. Hell they could really stick it to him and say it was
>>> under part 121. He didn't have a certificate for that either.
>>>
>>
>> Why would they say it was under part 121? And where does it say he was
>> not operating under the provisions of 91? If any regs were broken, and
>> that is no tclear, it would have been 61 in any case. Bertie
>>
>
> Jeez Bertie it was a joke. The guy didn't have a license yet he went X-C
> to pick up his wife and child. He might get charged with child
> endangerment. He would if I was the DA there.

There's probably a good chance of some type of state charges and the FAA may
go after him on criminal charges as well. He was pretty stupid to speak to
FSDO on the phone and should have let a lawyer handle it, but a guy like
that can't be too smart to begin with.

Mike[_22_]

August 5th 08, 05:21 AM

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
> Mike wrote:
>> Taking off with your wife and daughter would have to be pretty high on
>> the list:
>>
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080731X01135
>
> I kind of wonder if he was even working on his private ticket, or just
> flying outside of regs as usual.

My guess is he probably was just getting around to it and had full
intentions of doing so, but it appears as if he was 2 years or so out of
date on everything.

buttman

August 5th 08, 05:59 AM

On Aug 4, 10:17*pm, "Mike" > wrote:
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > "Mike" > wrote in message
> >news:pgIlk.165$ZV1.149@trnddc07...
> >> Taking off with your wife and daughter would have to be pretty high on
> >> the list:
>
> >>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080731X01135
>
> >> The plane was a '59 145hp 172. *DA would have been around 3,500. *You can
> >> draw your own conclusions.
>
> > Not much there to draw any conclusion from, beyond the assertion about the
> > certificate issue. *There was plenty of *runway for the conditions; so if
> > the fuel was good, the prop was not repitched for some special purpose,
> > and the engine continued to run correctly we would all have none the
> > wiser.
>
> > And yes, am familiar with the model and vintage, although not the same
> > tail number.
>
> Actually there's quite a bit. *The plane appears to have been transferred in
> 2004, so it's reasonable to assume the new owner (who at one time was issued
> a student certificate) had attempted to gain a PP-SEL and never completed..
> If you want to go down the road of conjecture, someone who has such a
> blatant disregard for the FAR possibly didn't have a current annual on the
> plane either and possibly wasn't worried too much about weight and balance,
> density altitude, or any other pesky little detail.

he also probably raped his daughter and also most likely murdered a
few people as well. Because when you show willingness to break one
rule, there is no limit of what you're capable of, right?

Mike[_22_]

August 5th 08, 10:59 AM

"buttman" > wrote in message
...
> On Aug 4, 10:17 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
> > "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Mike" > wrote in message
> > >news:pgIlk.165$ZV1.149@trnddc07...
> > >> Taking off with your wife and daughter would have to be pretty high
> > >> on
> > >> the list:
> >
> > >>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080731X01135
> >
> > >> The plane was a '59 145hp 172. DA would have been around 3,500. You
> > >> can
> > >> draw your own conclusions.
> >
> > > Not much there to draw any conclusion from, beyond the assertion about
> > > the
> > > certificate issue. There was plenty of runway for the conditions; so
> > > if
> > > the fuel was good, the prop was not repitched for some special
> > > purpose,
> > > and the engine continued to run correctly we would all have none the
> > > wiser.
> >
> > > And yes, am familiar with the model and vintage, although not the same
> > > tail number.
> >
> > Actually there's quite a bit. The plane appears to have been transferred
> > in
> > 2004, so it's reasonable to assume the new owner (who at one time was
> > issued
> > a student certificate) had attempted to gain a PP-SEL and never
> > completed.
> > If you want to go down the road of conjecture, someone who has such a
> > blatant disregard for the FAR possibly didn't have a current annual on
> > the
> > plane either and possibly wasn't worried too much about weight and
> > balance,
> > density altitude, or any other pesky little detail.
>
> he also probably raped his daughter and also most likely murdered a
> few people as well. Because when you show willingness to break one
> rule, there is no limit of what you're capable of, right?

Ah, what was I thinking? I'm sure he's a fine, capable airman with several
hundred hours gained by only the very best decision making skills, and the
fact that his student ticket expired two years ago, and he had no medical,
and he was unauthorized to carry passengers (or himself for that matter)
really only boils down to breaking only one rule and is simply a minor
infraction caused most likely by a paperwork error by the FAA. Surely he
had complete regard for all the REST of the rules, right?

[email protected]

August 5th 08, 11:46 AM

On Aug 5, 5:59*am, "Mike" > wrote:
> "buttman" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Aug 4, 10:17 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
> > > "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> > > > "Mike" > wrote in message
> > > >news:pgIlk.165$ZV1.149@trnddc07...
> > > >> Taking off with your wife and daughter would have to be pretty high
> > > >> on
> > > >> the list:
>
> > > >>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080731X01135
>
> > > >> The plane was a '59 145hp 172. DA would have been around 3,500. You
> > > >> can
> > > >> draw your own conclusions.
>
> > > > Not much there to draw any conclusion from, beyond the assertion about
> > > > the
> > > > certificate issue. There was plenty of runway for the conditions; so
> > > > if
> > > > the fuel was good, the prop was not repitched for some special
> > > > purpose,
> > > > and the engine continued to run correctly we would all have none the
> > > > wiser.
>
> > > > And yes, am familiar with the model and vintage, although not the same
> > > > tail number.
>
> > > Actually there's quite a bit. The plane appears to have been transferred
> > > in
> > > 2004, so it's reasonable to assume the new owner (who at one time was
> > > issued
> > > a student certificate) had attempted to gain a PP-SEL and never
> > > completed.
> > > If you want to go down the road of conjecture, someone who has such a
> > > blatant disregard for the FAR possibly didn't have a current annual on
> > > the
> > > plane either and possibly wasn't worried too much about weight and
> > > balance,
> > > density altitude, or any other pesky little detail.
>
> > he also probably raped his daughter and also most likely murdered a
> > few people as well. Because when you show willingness to break one
> > rule, there is no limit of what you're capable of, right?
>
> Ah, what was I thinking? *I'm sure he's a fine, capable airman with several
> hundred hours gained by only the very best decision making skills, and the
> fact that his student ticket expired two years ago, and he had no medical,
> and he was unauthorized to carry passengers (or himself for that matter)
> really only boils down to breaking only one rule and is simply a minor
> infraction caused most likely by a paperwork error by the FAA. *Surely he
> had complete regard for all the REST of the rules, right?

Would you care to speculate that he'll claim to have kept proficient
by flying his flight simulator Beech Barren?

Mxsmanic

August 5th 08, 12:39 PM

buttman writes:

> he also probably raped his daughter and also most likely murdered a
> few people as well. Because when you show willingness to break one
> rule, there is no limit of what you're capable of, right?

A willingness to break one law does indeed correlate with a willingness to
break other laws. However, you also need motivation to break a law, and
motivation to fly illegally does not correlate with motivation to rape or
murder.

Mxsmanic

August 5th 08, 12:40 PM

writes:

> Would you care to speculate that he'll claim to have kept proficient
> by flying his flight simulator Beech Barren?

If he is willing and able to fly a real airplane without a license, why would
he bother with simulation?

[email protected]

August 5th 08, 01:15 PM

On Aug 5, 7:40*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Would you care to speculate that he'll claim to have kept proficient
> > by flying his flight simulator Beech Barren?
>
> If he is willing and able to fly a real airplane without a license, why would
> he bother with simulation?

Some here has told us repeatedly about the advantages of self
stimulation -- ah, simulation -- in his otherwise barren life.Why
would you think someone else would not want to experience the full
richness of that, as well as flying as an uncredentialed pilot?

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 5th 08, 02:09 PM

"Mike" > wrote in news:kkQlk.208$EL2.6@trnddc01:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
>> m:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
>>>> m:
>>>>
>>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>>> Taking off with your wife and daughter would have to be pretty
>>>>>> high on the list:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080731X01135
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The plane was a '59 145hp 172. DA would have been around 3,500.
>>>>>> You can draw your own conclusions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From the report...
>>>>>
>>>>> "The personal flight was being conducted under the provisions of
>>>>> Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91..."
>>>>>
>>>>> No it wasn't. Hell they could really stick it to him and say it
>>>>> was under part 121. He didn't have a certificate for that either.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why would they say it was under part 121?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And where does it say he was not operating under the provisions of
>>>> 91? If any regs were broken, and that is no tclear, it would have
>>>> been 61 in any case.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>
>>> Jeez Bertie it was a joke. The guy didn't have a license yet he went
>>> X-C to pick up his wife and child. He might get charged with child
>>> endangerment. He would if I was the DA there.
>>>
>> Ah, OK. Well, you dtill don't know he didn't have a licence yet.
>> Often there's a bigger picture behind NTSB reports like that, which
>> was the subtle point i was making.
>>
>> In any case, it's also not at all clear he did anything stupid as far
>> as his flying was concerned.
>> Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I just don't like seeing people
>> lynched..
>
> The word on the street even before the prelim NTSB was the "pilot"
> involved had bought his plane to get his ticket, but never did and
> even his student ticket had expired.
>

So that made the airplane fall out of the sky?

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

August 5th 08, 02:51 PM

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Aug 4, 10:17*pm, "Mike" > wrote:
>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Mike" > wrote in message
>> >news:pgIlk.165$ZV1.149@trnddc07...
>> >> Taking off with your wife and daughter would have to be pretty
>> >> high on the list:
>>
>> >>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080731X01135
>>
>> >> The plane was a '59 145hp 172. *DA would have been around 3,500. *
> You can
>> >> draw your own conclusions.
>>
>> > Not much there to draw any conclusion from, beyond the assertion
>> > about
> the
>> > certificate issue. *There was plenty of *runway for the conditions;
> so if
>> > the fuel was good, the prop was not repitched for some special
>> > purpose, and the engine continued to run correctly we would all
>> > have none the wiser.
>>
>> > And yes, am familiar with the model and vintage, although not the
>> > same tail number.
>>
>> Actually there's quite a bit. *The plane appears to have been
>> transferr
> ed in
>> 2004, so it's reasonable to assume the new owner (who at one time was
>> iss
> ued
>> a student certificate) had attempted to gain a PP-SEL and never
>> completed
> .
>> If you want to go down the road of conjecture, someone who has such a
>> blatant disregard for the FAR possibly didn't have a current annual
>> on th
> e
>> plane either and possibly wasn't worried too much about weight and
>> balanc
> e,
>> density altitude, or any other pesky little detail.
>
> he also probably raped his daughter and also most likely murdered a
> few people as well. Because when you show willingness to break one
> rule, there is no limit of what you're capable of, right?
>

PKB

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 5th 08, 02:52 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> buttman writes:
>
>> he also probably raped his daughter and also most likely murdered a
>> few people as well. Because when you show willingness to break one
>> rule, there is no limit of what you're capable of, right?
>
> A willingness to break one law does indeed correlate with a
> willingness to break other laws. However, you also need motivation to
> break a law,

Pretty juch makes you the most law abiding person to ever have lived.

Bertie

Gig 601Xl Builder

August 5th 08, 02:57 PM

Jim Logajan wrote:
> "Mike" > wrote:
>> Taking off with your wife and daughter would have to be pretty high on
>> the list:
>>
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080731X01135
>>
>> The plane was a '59 145hp 172. DA would have been around 3,500. You
>> can draw your own conclusions.
>
> The report lists the N-number and states that the non-certificated pilot is
> also the owner. The aircraft number can be located in the FAA aircraft
> database, which provides the owner name. The FAA license database can be
> searched for the owner's name to see what, if any, certificates the owner
> holds or held.
>
> Bottom line appears to suggest:
> The listed owner bought the aircraft in 2004 about a month prior to getting
> a student pilot certificate. Doesn't appear to have gone past that stage. I
> don't know if or how the database handles renewals so the owner might still
> have a student license, though were that the case I assume the NTSB report
> would have stated "student pilot" not "non-certificated" pilot.

http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20...WS08/808030343

"The investigation into the crash of a Cessna 172 last weekend in the
Athens area raised the questions when the newspaper learned the pilot,
Paul Kaemmerling, of Liberty, does not hold any type of pilot
certification, though he owns an airplane.

“He had a student pilot certificate, but that expired May 31, 2006, so
he did not have any pilot certificate at the time of the crash,”
National Transportation and Safety Board Safety Investigator Jennifer
Kaiser said earlier in the week. "

Gig 601Xl Builder

August 5th 08, 03:02 PM

Peter Dohm wrote:
> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>
> much snipped
>> The guy didn't have a license yet he went X-C to pick
>> up his wife and child. He might get charged with child endangerment. He
>> would if I was the DA there.
>
> IMHO, you are a Nazi, and therefore a major irritant!
>
> Peter
>
>
>

I'm a NAZI because I think a person that puts their child and wife in
danger by flying them while legally and obviously actually unqualified
to do so should be charged with child endangerment?

Gig 601Xl Builder

August 5th 08, 03:04 PM

Mike wrote:
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
>> m:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
>>>> m:
>>>>
>>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>>> Taking off with your wife and daughter would have to be pretty high
>>>>>> on the list:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080731X01135
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The plane was a '59 145hp 172. DA would have been around 3,500.
>>>>>> You can draw your own conclusions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From the report...
>>>>>
>>>>> "The personal flight was being conducted under the provisions of
>>>>> Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91..."
>>>>>
>>>>> No it wasn't. Hell they could really stick it to him and say it was
>>>>> under part 121. He didn't have a certificate for that either.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why would they say it was under part 121?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And where does it say he was not operating under the provisions of
>>>> 91? If any regs were broken, and that is no tclear, it would have
>>>> been 61 in any case.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>
>>> Jeez Bertie it was a joke. The guy didn't have a license yet he went
>>> X-C to pick up his wife and child. He might get charged with child
>>> endangerment. He would if I was the DA there.
>>>
>> Ah, OK. Well, you dtill don't know he didn't have a licence yet. Often
>> there's a bigger picture behind NTSB reports like that, which was the
>> subtle point i was making.
>>
>> In any case, it's also not at all clear he did anything stupid as far as
>> his flying was concerned.
>> Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I just don't like seeing people lynched..
>
> The word on the street even before the prelim NTSB was the "pilot"
> involved had bought his plane to get his ticket, but never did and even
> his student ticket had expired.

Actually I did know he didn't have a license when I wrote that.

Gig 601Xl Builder

August 5th 08, 03:08 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>
> So that made the airplane fall out of the sky?
>
>
> Bertie

Well in this case, it might have had something to do with the guy not
being able to keep the plane in the air.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 5th 08, 03:10 PM

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
m:

> Peter Dohm wrote:
>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>
>>
>> much snipped
>>> The guy didn't have a license yet he went X-C to
>>> pick
>>> up his wife and child. He might get charged with child endangerment.
>>> He would if I was the DA there.
>>
>> IMHO, you are a Nazi, and therefore a major irritant!
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
>
> I'm a NAZI because I think a person that puts their child and wife in
> danger by flying them while legally and obviously actually unqualified
> to do so should be charged with child endangerment?

I wouldn't say you're a nazi, but to say that a piece of paper makes
someone a good pilot is not what I'd call reason.
I read the preliminary reoprt and there is no indication that it was
pilot error. It might have been, but you've leapt well beyond what the
evidence suggests. You might well be right about it, and chances are
good, but a piece of paperis, of itself, meaningless.
And, as is often said, a private pilot's licence is a licence to learn.
It might also be aptly applied to any licence. I've seen ATRs, examiners
and people you would most definitely not expect to do so make even
bigger errors in judgement than that which you are accucing this guy.
A fully fueled 172 with three SOB taking off out of a 4,000 foot strip
with a 3,500 foot density altitude is not what could even remotely be
called a tight situation.

Bertie

[email protected]

August 5th 08, 03:18 PM

On Aug 5, 10:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote innews:n4Kdnes90ILuwAXVnZ2dnUVZ_v3inZ2d@supernews. com:
>
>
>
> > Peter Dohm wrote:
> >> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
> m...
>
> >> much snipped
> >>> * * * * * * * * * * The guy didn't have a license yet he went X-C to
> >>> * * * * * * * * * * pick
> >>> up his wife and child. He might get charged with child endangerment.
> >>> He would if I was the DA there.
>
> >> IMHO, you are a Nazi, and therefore a major irritant!
>
> >> Peter
>
> > I'm a NAZI because I think a person that puts their child and wife in
> > danger by flying them while legally and obviously actually unqualified
> > to do so should be charged with child endangerment?
>
> I wouldn't say you're a nazi, but to say that a piece of paper makes
> someone a good pilot is not what I'd call reason.
> I read the preliminary reoprt and there is no indication that it was
> pilot error. It might have been, but you've leapt well beyond what the
> evidence suggests. You might well be right about it, and chances are
> good, but a piece of paperis, of itself, meaningless.
> And, as is often said, a private pilot's licence is a licence to learn.
> It might also be aptly applied to any licence. I've seen ATRs, examiners
> and people you would most definitely not expect to do so make even
> bigger errors in judgement than that which you are accucing this guy.
> A fully fueled 172 with three SOB taking off out of a 4,000 foot strip
> with a 3,500 foot density altitude is not what could even remotely be
> called a tight situation.
>
> Bertie

The credentials document the subject had demonstrated some level of
competency to an examiner. This pilot did not do that. It does not
mean he was not Sire Dud in drag, but the way to bet is that he was a
doofus. That is was likely unlawful is a further assessment of his
lack of judgment.

Of course all would be forgiven if he stayed at a Holiday Inn last
night (playing MSFS of course).

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 5th 08, 03:27 PM

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
m:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>
>> So that made the airplane fall out of the sky?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Well in this case, it might have had something to do with the guy not
> being able to keep the plane in the air.
>

Might being the operative word. In my experience, it's very unwise to point
a finger at another pilot's apparent error until you have all the facts.

Here's a case in point. When the prelim accounts of the Kegworth 737
accident came out nearly every pro pilot on earth either said straight out,
or privately thought, that these guys had made so fundamental a fjukup as
to defy belief. When all the results were in, all but the idiots realised
that anyone might have, and indeed, probably would have, made exactly the
same error...
To a lesser extent, the Air Florida accident is another one. There is more
BS talked about that accident than you'd find in a chicago cattle yard..
Most of that BS originates from the monday morning quarterbacking that took
place in the hours immediatly following the accident.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 5th 08, 03:37 PM

wrote in
:

> On Aug 5, 10:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote
>> innews:n4Kdnes90ILuwA
> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > Peter Dohm wrote:
>> >> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>
>> >> much snipped
>> >>> * * * * * * * * * * The guy didn't have a license
> yet he went X-C to
>> >>> * * * * * * * * * * pick
>> >>> up his wife and child. He might get charged with child
>> >>> endangerment. He would if I was the DA there.
>>
>> >> IMHO, you are a Nazi, and therefore a major irritant!
>>
>> >> Peter
>>
>> > I'm a NAZI because I think a person that puts their child and wife
>> > in danger by flying them while legally and obviously actually
>> > unqualified to do so should be charged with child endangerment?
>>
>> I wouldn't say you're a nazi, but to say that a piece of paper makes
>> someone a good pilot is not what I'd call reason.
>> I read the preliminary reoprt and there is no indication that it was
>> pilot error. It might have been, but you've leapt well beyond what
>> the evidence suggests. You might well be right about it, and chances
>> are good, but a piece of paperis, of itself, meaningless.
>> And, as is often said, a private pilot's licence is a licence to
>> learn. It might also be aptly applied to any licence. I've seen ATRs,
>> examiners and people you would most definitely not expect to do so
>> make even bigger errors in judgement than that which you are accucing
>> this guy. A fully fueled 172 with three SOB taking off out of a 4,000
>> foot strip with a 3,500 foot density altitude is not what could even
>> remotely be called a tight situation.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> The credentials document the subject had demonstrated some level of
> competency to an examiner. This pilot did not do that. It does not
> mean he was not Sire Dud in drag, but the way to bet is that he was a
> doofus. That is was likely unlawful is a further assessment of his
> lack of judgment.

I agree that it's likely. but it's not proven by any means. In any case,
even a dufus should be able to get a 172 out of a long strip even on a
high DA day.
The 172 was designed with the dufus in mind.
My real objection to this is that the paper is, in of itself, no
gauruntee against idiocy. Lots of pilots at every level are complete
morons. The two things that grate me about this sort of monday morning
quarterbacking in the absence of almost any sort of facts are these.
One, you're hanging the guy without due process, which is geting
altogether too commonplace in this day and age, and secondly, and more
imprtantly. the oportunity to learn something from the accident is lost.
"Get a licence and you'll be safer" is not a good lesson.
>
> Of course all would be forgiven if he stayed at a Holiday Inn last
> night (playing MSFS of course).
>

[email protected]

August 5th 08, 03:52 PM

On Aug 5, 10:37*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Aug 5, 10:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote
> >> innews:n4Kdnes90ILuwA
> > :
>
> >> > Peter Dohm wrote:
> >> >> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
> >> m...
>
> >> >> much snipped
> >> >>> * * * * * * * * * * The guy didn't have a license
> > *yet he went X-C to
> >> >>> * * * * * * * * * * pick
> >> >>> up his wife and child. He might get charged with child
> >> >>> endangerment. He would if I was the DA there.
>
> >> >> IMHO, you are a Nazi, and therefore a major irritant!
>
> >> >> Peter
>
> >> > I'm a NAZI because I think a person that puts their child and wife
> >> > in danger by flying them while legally and obviously actually
> >> > unqualified to do so should be charged with child endangerment?
>
> >> I wouldn't say you're a nazi, but to say that a piece of paper makes
> >> someone a good pilot is not what I'd call reason.
> >> I read the preliminary reoprt and there is no indication that it was
> >> pilot error. It might have been, but you've leapt well beyond what
> >> the evidence suggests. You might well be right about it, and chances
> >> are good, but a piece of paperis, of itself, meaningless.
> >> And, as is often said, a private pilot's licence is a licence to
> >> learn. It might also be aptly applied to any licence. I've seen ATRs,
> >> examiners and people you would most definitely not expect to do so
> >> make even bigger errors in judgement than that which you are accucing
> >> this guy. A fully fueled 172 with three SOB taking off out of a 4,000
> >> foot strip with a 3,500 foot density altitude is not what could even
> >> remotely be called a tight situation.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > The credentials document the subject had demonstrated some level of
> > competency to an examiner. This pilot did not do that. It does not
> > mean he was not Sire Dud in drag, but the way to bet is that he was a
> > doofus. That is was likely unlawful is a * further assessment of his
> > lack of judgment.
>
> I agree that it's likely. but it's not proven by any means. In any case,
> even a dufus should be able to get a 172 out of a long strip even on a
> high DA day.
> The 172 was designed with the dufus in mind.
> My real objection to this is that the paper is, in of itself, no
> gauruntee against idiocy. Lots of pilots at every level are complete
> morons. The two things that grate me about this sort of monday morning
> quarterbacking in the absence of almost any sort of facts are these.
> One, you're hanging the guy without due process, which is geting
> altogether too commonplace in this day and age, and secondly, and more
> imprtantly. the oportunity to learn something from the accident is lost.
> "Get a licence and you'll be safer" is not a good lesson.
>
>
>
> > Of course all would be forgiven if he stayed at a Holiday Inn last
> > night (playing MSFS of course).

Demonstrating some level of competence to a disinterested examiner is,
however, a good lesson. Otherwise one becomes a self professed expert
-- does Anthony come to mind?

Gig 601Xl Builder

August 5th 08, 04:01 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> I wouldn't say you're a nazi, but to say that a piece of paper makes
> someone a good pilot is not what I'd call reason.
> I read the preliminary reoprt and there is no indication that it was
> pilot error. It might have been, but you've leapt well beyond what the
> evidence suggests. You might well be right about it, and chances are
> good, but a piece of paperis, of itself, meaningless.
> And, as is often said, a private pilot's licence is a licence to learn.
> It might also be aptly applied to any licence. I've seen ATRs, examiners
> and people you would most definitely not expect to do so make even
> bigger errors in judgement than that which you are accucing this guy.
> A fully fueled 172 with three SOB taking off out of a 4,000 foot strip
> with a 3,500 foot density altitude is not what could even remotely be
> called a tight situation.
>
>
> Bertie
>

Of course a piece of paper doesn't make someone a good pilot. But the
lack of one would be enough in most states to show beyond a reasonable
doubt that what this guy did was a violation under the scope and spirit
of most state's child endangerment laws even if an accident had not
happened. The fact that an accident did happen just makes the case easier.

For the record the ONLY error in judgment I'm accusing this guy of is
flying without a license and specifically doing it with his wife and
child aboard.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 5th 08, 04:20 PM

wrote in
:

> On Aug 5, 10:37*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote
>> innews:4c9c7f43-25bf-4b2a-890b-88f57b2efb41@d77g2
> 000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 5, 10:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote
>> >> innews:n4Kdnes90ILuwA
>> > :
>>
>> >> > Peter Dohm wrote:
>> >> >> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in
>> >> >> message
>> >> m...
>>
>> >> >> much snipped
>> >> >>> * * * * * * * * * * The guy didn't have a lice
> nse
>> > *yet he went X-C to
>> >> >>> * * * * * * * * * * pick
>> >> >>> up his wife and child. He might get charged with child
>> >> >>> endangerment. He would if I was the DA there.
>>
>> >> >> IMHO, you are a Nazi, and therefore a major irritant!
>>
>> >> >> Peter
>>
>> >> > I'm a NAZI because I think a person that puts their child and
>> >> > wife in danger by flying them while legally and obviously
>> >> > actually unqualified to do so should be charged with child
>> >> > endangerment?
>>
>> >> I wouldn't say you're a nazi, but to say that a piece of paper
>> >> makes someone a good pilot is not what I'd call reason.
>> >> I read the preliminary reoprt and there is no indication that it
>> >> was pilot error. It might have been, but you've leapt well beyond
>> >> what the evidence suggests. You might well be right about it, and
>> >> chances are good, but a piece of paperis, of itself, meaningless.
>> >> And, as is often said, a private pilot's licence is a licence to
>> >> learn. It might also be aptly applied to any licence. I've seen
>> >> ATRs, examiners and people you would most definitely not expect to
>> >> do so make even bigger errors in judgement than that which you are
>> >> accucing this guy. A fully fueled 172 with three SOB taking off
>> >> out of a 4,000 foot strip with a 3,500 foot density altitude is
>> >> not what could even remotely be called a tight situation.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > The credentials document the subject had demonstrated some level of
>> > competency to an examiner. This pilot did not do that. It does not
>> > mean he was not Sire Dud in drag, but the way to bet is that he was
>> > a doofus. That is was likely unlawful is a * further assessment of
>> > his lack of judgment.
>>
>> I agree that it's likely. but it's not proven by any means. In any
>> case, even a dufus should be able to get a 172 out of a long strip
>> even on a high DA day.
>> The 172 was designed with the dufus in mind.
>> My real objection to this is that the paper is, in of itself, no
>> gauruntee against idiocy. Lots of pilots at every level are complete
>> morons. The two things that grate me about this sort of monday
>> morning quarterbacking in the absence of almost any sort of facts are
>> these. One, you're hanging the guy without due process, which is
>> geting altogether too commonplace in this day and age, and secondly,
>> and more imprtantly. the oportunity to learn something from the
>> accident is lost. "Get a licence and you'll be safer" is not a good
>> lesson.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Of course all would be forgiven if he stayed at a Holiday Inn last
>> > night (playing MSFS of course).
>
> Demonstrating some level of competence to a disinterested examiner is,
> however, a good lesson. Otherwise one becomes a self professed expert
> -- does Anthony come to mind?

I'm not arguing that. You're implying its the underlying cause of the
accident, either intentionally or not. It may be, but to dismiss it as
such this early in the investigation is to close your mind and that is
just about never in the interest of promoting a better approach to
flying.

Bertie

>

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 5th 08, 04:22 PM

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
m:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't say you're a nazi, but to say that a piece of paper makes
>> someone a good pilot is not what I'd call reason.
>> I read the preliminary reoprt and there is no indication that it was
>> pilot error. It might have been, but you've leapt well beyond what
>> the evidence suggests. You might well be right about it, and chances
>> are good, but a piece of paperis, of itself, meaningless.
>> And, as is often said, a private pilot's licence is a licence to
>> learn. It might also be aptly applied to any licence. I've seen ATRs,
>> examiners and people you would most definitely not expect to do so
>> make even bigger errors in judgement than that which you are accucing
>> this guy. A fully fueled 172 with three SOB taking off out of a 4,000
>> foot strip with a 3,500 foot density altitude is not what could even
>> remotely be called a tight situation.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Of course a piece of paper doesn't make someone a good pilot. But the
> lack of one would be enough in most states to show beyond a reasonable
> doubt that what this guy did was a violation under the scope and
> spirit of most state's child endangerment laws even if an accident had
> not happened. The fact that an accident did happen just makes the case
> easier.

>
> For the record the ONLY error in judgment I'm accusing this guy of is
> flying without a license and specifically doing it with his wife and
> child aboard.

What has that got do do with the accident, then?

Bertie

[email protected]

August 5th 08, 04:33 PM

On Aug 5, 11:20*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Aug 5, 10:37*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> wrote
> >> innews:4c9c7f43-25bf-4b2a-890b-88f57b2efb41@d77g2
> > 000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > On Aug 5, 10:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote
> >> >> innews:n4Kdnes90ILuwA
> >> > :
>
> >> >> > Peter Dohm wrote:
> >> >> >> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in
> >> >> >> message
> >> >> m...
>
> >> >> >> much snipped
> >> >> >>> * * * * * * * * * * The guy didn't have a lice
> > nse
> >> > *yet he went X-C to
> >> >> >>> * * * * * * * * * * pick
> >> >> >>> up his wife and child. He might get charged with child
> >> >> >>> endangerment. He would if I was the DA there.
>
> >> >> >> IMHO, you are a Nazi, and therefore a major irritant!
>
> >> >> >> Peter
>
> >> >> > I'm a NAZI because I think a person that puts their child and
> >> >> > wife in danger by flying them while legally and obviously
> >> >> > actually unqualified to do so should be charged with child
> >> >> > endangerment?
>
> >> >> I wouldn't say you're a nazi, but to say that a piece of paper
> >> >> makes someone a good pilot is not what I'd call reason.
> >> >> I read the preliminary reoprt and there is no indication that it
> >> >> was pilot error. It might have been, but you've leapt well beyond
> >> >> what the evidence suggests. You might well be right about it, and
> >> >> chances are good, but a piece of paperis, of itself, meaningless.
> >> >> And, as is often said, a private pilot's licence is a licence to
> >> >> learn. It might also be aptly applied to any licence. I've seen
> >> >> ATRs, examiners and people you would most definitely not expect to
> >> >> do so make even bigger errors in judgement than that which you are
> >> >> accucing this guy. A fully fueled 172 with three SOB taking off
> >> >> out of a 4,000 foot strip with a 3,500 foot density altitude is
> >> >> not what could even remotely be called a tight situation.
>
> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> > The credentials document the subject had demonstrated some level of
> >> > competency to an examiner. This pilot did not do that. It does not
> >> > mean he was not Sire Dud in drag, but the way to bet is that he was
> >> > a doofus. That is was likely unlawful is a * further assessment of
> >> > his lack of judgment.
>
> >> I agree that it's likely. but it's not proven by any means. In any
> >> case, even a dufus should be able to get a 172 out of a long strip
> >> even on a high DA day.
> >> The 172 was designed with the dufus in mind.
> >> My real objection to this is that the paper is, in of itself, no
> >> gauruntee against idiocy. Lots of pilots at every level are complete
> >> morons. The two things that grate me about this sort of monday
> >> morning quarterbacking in the absence of almost any sort of facts are
> >> these. One, you're hanging the guy without due process, which is
> >> geting altogether too commonplace in this day and age, and secondly,
> >> and more imprtantly. the oportunity to learn something from the
> >> accident is lost. "Get a licence and you'll be safer" is not a good
> >> lesson.
>
> >> > Of course all would be forgiven if he stayed at a Holiday Inn last
> >> > night (playing MSFS of course).
>
> > Demonstrating some level of competence to a disinterested examiner is,
> > however, a good lesson. Otherwise one becomes a self professed expert
> > -- does Anthony come to mind?
>
> I'm not arguing that. You're implying its the underlying cause of the
> accident, either intentionally or not. It may be, but to dismiss it as
> such this early in the investigation is to close your mind and that is
> just about never in the interest of promoting a better approach to
> flying.
>
> Bertie
>
>

The preliminary evidence, and it is a rebuttable assumption, is that
the pilot/owner would make an anal sphincter look good by comparison.
My view is that there's a lesson learned from the way the Navy does
searches at sea. They start close to where they think the target is,
then search in expanding circles -- actually straight edged patterns
-- centered around that point. Sure the assumption could be wrong, but
at this point it's more or less finding someone shot in the head 4
times and deciding it was probably not a suicide. Be nice to see the
guy exonerated, but that is not the way to bet in this case.

Gig 601Xl Builder

August 5th 08, 04:38 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
> m:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>> I wouldn't say you're a nazi, but to say that a piece of paper makes
>>> someone a good pilot is not what I'd call reason.
>>> I read the preliminary reoprt and there is no indication that it was
>>> pilot error. It might have been, but you've leapt well beyond what
>>> the evidence suggests. You might well be right about it, and chances
>>> are good, but a piece of paperis, of itself, meaningless.
>>> And, as is often said, a private pilot's licence is a licence to
>>> learn. It might also be aptly applied to any licence. I've seen ATRs,
>>> examiners and people you would most definitely not expect to do so
>>> make even bigger errors in judgement than that which you are accucing
>>> this guy. A fully fueled 172 with three SOB taking off out of a 4,000
>>> foot strip with a 3,500 foot density altitude is not what could even
>>> remotely be called a tight situation.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>> Of course a piece of paper doesn't make someone a good pilot. But the
>> lack of one would be enough in most states to show beyond a reasonable
>> doubt that what this guy did was a violation under the scope and
>> spirit of most state's child endangerment laws even if an accident had
>> not happened. The fact that an accident did happen just makes the case
>> easier.
>
>
>> For the record the ONLY error in judgment I'm accusing this guy of is
>> flying without a license and specifically doing it with his wife and
>> child aboard.
>
> What has that got do do with the accident, then?
>
>
> Bertie
>
>
>

Other than it was the final outcome of a flight that in itself would
violation of the child endangerment laws of most states? Not much.

gatt[_5_]

August 5th 08, 05:24 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> "Get a licence and you'll be safer" is not a good lesson.

Oh, noooo..... Who wants to bet that the sim jockey is going to make
Bertie regret writing that? :>

I would submit that getting the training required to earn a license
makes you safer than somebody who bought an airplane and took it flying.

But, who knows. He might have had hundreds of hours of endorsed solo
flight and simply never taken the checkride, and flown hundreds of
unregulated hours snce then.

-c

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 5th 08, 06:16 PM

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in news:66-
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
>> m:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wouldn't say you're a nazi, but to say that a piece of paper
makes
>>>> someone a good pilot is not what I'd call reason.
>>>> I read the preliminary reoprt and there is no indication that it
was
>>>> pilot error. It might have been, but you've leapt well beyond what
>>>> the evidence suggests. You might well be right about it, and
chances
>>>> are good, but a piece of paperis, of itself, meaningless.
>>>> And, as is often said, a private pilot's licence is a licence to
>>>> learn. It might also be aptly applied to any licence. I've seen
ATRs,
>>>> examiners and people you would most definitely not expect to do so
>>>> make even bigger errors in judgement than that which you are
accucing
>>>> this guy. A fully fueled 172 with three SOB taking off out of a
4,000
>>>> foot strip with a 3,500 foot density altitude is not what could
even
>>>> remotely be called a tight situation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>> Of course a piece of paper doesn't make someone a good pilot. But
the
>>> lack of one would be enough in most states to show beyond a
reasonable
>>> doubt that what this guy did was a violation under the scope and
>>> spirit of most state's child endangerment laws even if an accident
had
>>> not happened. The fact that an accident did happen just makes the
case
>>> easier.
>>
>>
>>> For the record the ONLY error in judgment I'm accusing this guy of
is
>>> flying without a license and specifically doing it with his wife and
>>> child aboard.
>>
>> What has that got do do with the accident, then?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
>>
>
> Other than it was the final outcome of a flight that in itself would
> violation of the child endangerment laws of most states? Not much.

you dont know that.

Your name Lynch, by any chance?

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 5th 08, 06:17 PM

wrote in
:

> On Aug 5, 11:20*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote
>> innews:f222dc0a-21e5-4e45-8f2b-cd30d9f16911@k30g
> 2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 5, 10:37*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> wrote
>> >> innews:4c9c7f43-25bf-4b2a-890b-88f57b2efb41@d77g2
>> > 000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> > On Aug 5, 10:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote
>> >> >> innews:n4Kdnes90ILuwA
>> >> > :
>>
>> >> >> > Peter Dohm wrote:
>> >> >> >> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in
>> >> >> >> message
>> >> >> m...
>>
>> >> >> >> much snipped
>> >> >> >>> * * * * * * * * * * The guy didn't have a l
> ice
>> > nse
>> >> > *yet he went X-C to
>> >> >> >>> * * * * * * * * * * pick
>> >> >> >>> up his wife and child. He might get charged with child
>> >> >> >>> endangerment. He would if I was the DA there.
>>
>> >> >> >> IMHO, you are a Nazi, and therefore a major irritant!
>>
>> >> >> >> Peter
>>
>> >> >> > I'm a NAZI because I think a person that puts their child and
>> >> >> > wife in danger by flying them while legally and obviously
>> >> >> > actually unqualified to do so should be charged with child
>> >> >> > endangerment?
>>
>> >> >> I wouldn't say you're a nazi, but to say that a piece of paper
>> >> >> makes someone a good pilot is not what I'd call reason.
>> >> >> I read the preliminary reoprt and there is no indication that
>> >> >> it was pilot error. It might have been, but you've leapt well
>> >> >> beyond what the evidence suggests. You might well be right
>> >> >> about it, and chances are good, but a piece of paperis, of
>> >> >> itself, meaningless. And, as is often said, a private pilot's
>> >> >> licence is a licence to learn. It might also be aptly applied
>> >> >> to any licence. I've seen ATRs, examiners and people you would
>> >> >> most definitely not expect to do so make even bigger errors in
>> >> >> judgement than that which you are accucing this guy. A fully
>> >> >> fueled 172 with three SOB taking off out of a 4,000 foot strip
>> >> >> with a 3,500 foot density altitude is not what could even
>> >> >> remotely be called a tight situation.
>>
>> >> >> Bertie
>>
>> >> > The credentials document the subject had demonstrated some level
>> >> > of competency to an examiner. This pilot did not do that. It
>> >> > does not mean he was not Sire Dud in drag, but the way to bet is
>> >> > that he was a doofus. That is was likely unlawful is a * further
>> >> > assessment of his lack of judgment.
>>
>> >> I agree that it's likely. but it's not proven by any means. In any
>> >> case, even a dufus should be able to get a 172 out of a long strip
>> >> even on a high DA day.
>> >> The 172 was designed with the dufus in mind.
>> >> My real objection to this is that the paper is, in of itself, no
>> >> gauruntee against idiocy. Lots of pilots at every level are
>> >> complete morons. The two things that grate me about this sort of
>> >> monday morning quarterbacking in the absence of almost any sort of
>> >> facts are these. One, you're hanging the guy without due process,
>> >> which is geting altogether too commonplace in this day and age,
>> >> and secondly, and more imprtantly. the oportunity to learn
>> >> something from the accident is lost. "Get a licence and you'll be
>> >> safer" is not a good lesson.
>>
>> >> > Of course all would be forgiven if he stayed at a Holiday Inn
>> >> > last night (playing MSFS of course).
>>
>> > Demonstrating some level of competence to a disinterested examiner
>> > is, however, a good lesson. Otherwise one becomes a self professed
>> > expert -- does Anthony come to mind?
>>
>> I'm not arguing that. You're implying its the underlying cause of the
>> accident, either intentionally or not. It may be, but to dismiss it
>> as such this early in the investigation is to close your mind and
>> that is just about never in the interest of promoting a better
>> approach to flying.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
>
> The preliminary evidence, and it is a rebuttable assumption, is that
> the pilot/owner would make an anal sphincter look good by comparison.
> My view is that there's a lesson learned from the way the Navy does
> searches at sea. They start close to where they think the target is,
> then search in expanding circles -- actually straight edged patterns
> -- centered around that point. Sure the assumption could be wrong, but
> at this point it's more or less finding someone shot in the head 4
> times and deciding it was probably not a suicide. Be nice to see the
> guy exonerated, but that is not the way to bet in this case.

it's not a horse race.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 5th 08, 06:19 PM

gatt > wrote in news:236kdo.i58.19.1
@integratelecom.com:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> "Get a licence and you'll be safer" is not a good lesson.
>
> Oh, noooo..... Who wants to bet that the sim jockey is going to make
> Bertie regret writing that? :>
>
> I would submit that getting the training required to earn a license
> makes you safer than somebody who bought an airplane and took it flying.
>

Yep.

> But, who knows. He might have had hundreds of hours of endorsed solo
> flight and simply never taken the checkride, and flown hundreds of
> unregulated hours snce then.

Exactly. in general, i agree wiht the sentiment, but to dismiss it as the
cause of the accident, and backpedal though they may, that is exactly what
they were doing, is to be as stupid as they suppose this guy to be.

Bertie

[email protected]

August 5th 08, 06:25 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> A willingness to break one law does indeed correlate with a willingness to
> break other laws.

Utter nonsense.

Normal, socialized people break laws they concider to be unreasonable,
as in the 55 MPH speed limit, the laws against aiding escaped slaves
of the 19th century, and Prohibition of the 20th century.

Abnormal, unsocialized people don't pay attention to any laws.

Your generalizations, as usual, are crap.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mike[_22_]

August 5th 08, 06:38 PM

Peter Dohm

August 5th 08, 07:27 PM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
> m:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> So that made the airplane fall out of the sky?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Well in this case, it might have had something to do with the guy not
>> being able to keep the plane in the air.
>>
>
> Might being the operative word. In my experience, it's very unwise to
> point
> a finger at another pilot's apparent error until you have all the facts.
>
> Here's a case in point. When the prelim accounts of the Kegworth 737
> accident came out nearly every pro pilot on earth either said straight
> out,
> or privately thought, that these guys had made so fundamental a fjukup as
> to defy belief. When all the results were in, all but the idiots realised
> that anyone might have, and indeed, probably would have, made exactly the
> same error...
> To a lesser extent, the Air Florida accident is another one. There is more
> BS talked about that accident than you'd find in a chicago cattle yard..
> Most of that BS originates from the monday morning quarterbacking that
> took
> place in the hours immediatly following the accident.
>
> Bertie

Bertie,

These are both truly outstanding examples, and your entire position on this
thread has been far better than my mere expression of annoyance. However, I
do plan to take a break from posting to usenet.

Peter

Gig 601Xl Builder

August 5th 08, 07:31 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in news:66-

>>>
>> Other than it was the final outcome of a flight that in itself would
>> violation of the child endangerment laws of most states? Not much.
>
>
> you dont know that.
>
> Your name Lynch, by any chance?
>
>

What don't I know? There is little doubt that the flight ended in an
accident.

No it's not. My name is in my e-mail address.

More_Flaps

August 5th 08, 08:59 PM

On Aug 6, 2:02*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> Peter Dohm wrote:
> > "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
> m...
>
> > much snipped
> >> * * * * * * * * * * The guy didn't have a license yet he went X-C to pick
> >> up his wife and child. He might get charged with child endangerment. He
> >> would if I was the DA there.
>
> > IMHO, you are a Nazi, and therefore a major irritant!
>
> > Peter
>
> I'm a NAZI because I think a person that puts their child and wife in
> danger by flying them while legally and obviously actually unqualified
> to do so should be charged with child endangerment?

He may be legally unqualified but that does not _automatically_ mean
he was any less capable as a 172 pilot than any other. Certification
does not increase skill levels...

Cheers

More_Flaps

August 5th 08, 09:04 PM

On Aug 6, 3:20*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Aug 5, 10:37*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> wrote
> >> innews:4c9c7f43-25bf-4b2a-890b-88f57b2efb41@d77g2
> > 000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > On Aug 5, 10:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote
> >> >> innews:n4Kdnes90ILuwA
> >> > :
>
> >> >> > Peter Dohm wrote:
> >> >> >> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in
> >> >> >> message
> >> >> m...
>
> >> >> >> much snipped
> >> >> >>> * * * * * * * * * * The guy didn't have a lice
> > nse
> >> > *yet he went X-C to
> >> >> >>> * * * * * * * * * * pick
> >> >> >>> up his wife and child. He might get charged with child
> >> >> >>> endangerment. He would if I was the DA there.
>
> >> >> >> IMHO, you are a Nazi, and therefore a major irritant!
>
> >> >> >> Peter
>
> >> >> > I'm a NAZI because I think a person that puts their child and
> >> >> > wife in danger by flying them while legally and obviously
> >> >> > actually unqualified to do so should be charged with child
> >> >> > endangerment?
>
> >> >> I wouldn't say you're a nazi, but to say that a piece of paper
> >> >> makes someone a good pilot is not what I'd call reason.
> >> >> I read the preliminary reoprt and there is no indication that it
> >> >> was pilot error. It might have been, but you've leapt well beyond
> >> >> what the evidence suggests. You might well be right about it, and
> >> >> chances are good, but a piece of paperis, of itself, meaningless.
> >> >> And, as is often said, a private pilot's licence is a licence to
> >> >> learn. It might also be aptly applied to any licence. I've seen
> >> >> ATRs, examiners and people you would most definitely not expect to
> >> >> do so make even bigger errors in judgement than that which you are
> >> >> accucing this guy. A fully fueled 172 with three SOB taking off
> >> >> out of a 4,000 foot strip with a 3,500 foot density altitude is
> >> >> not what could even remotely be called a tight situation.
>
> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> > The credentials document the subject had demonstrated some level of
> >> > competency to an examiner. This pilot did not do that. It does not
> >> > mean he was not Sire Dud in drag, but the way to bet is that he was
> >> > a doofus. That is was likely unlawful is a * further assessment of
> >> > his lack of judgment.
>
> >> I agree that it's likely. but it's not proven by any means. In any
> >> case, even a dufus should be able to get a 172 out of a long strip
> >> even on a high DA day.
> >> The 172 was designed with the dufus in mind.
> >> My real objection to this is that the paper is, in of itself, no
> >> gauruntee against idiocy. Lots of pilots at every level are complete
> >> morons. The two things that grate me about this sort of monday
> >> morning quarterbacking in the absence of almost any sort of facts are
> >> these. One, you're hanging the guy without due process, which is
> >> geting altogether too commonplace in this day and age, and secondly,
> >> and more imprtantly. the oportunity to learn something from the
> >> accident is lost. "Get a licence and you'll be safer" is not a good
> >> lesson.
>
> >> > Of course all would be forgiven if he stayed at a Holiday Inn last
> >> > night (playing MSFS of course).
>
> > Demonstrating some level of competence to a disinterested examiner is,
> > however, a good lesson. Otherwise one becomes a self professed expert
> > -- does Anthony come to mind?
>
> I'm not arguing that. You're implying its the underlying cause of the
> accident, either intentionally or not. It may be, but to dismiss it as
> such this early in the investigation is to close your mind and that is
> just about never in the interest of promoting a better approach to
> flying.
>

I thought the report said the engine lost power?

Cheers

More_Flaps

August 5th 08, 09:13 PM

On Aug 6, 6:31*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in news:66-
>
> >> Other than it was the final outcome of a flight that in itself would
> >> violation of the child endangerment laws of most states? Not much.
>
> > you dont know that.
>
> > Your name Lynch, by any chance?
>
> What don't I know? There is little doubt that the flight ended in an
> accident.
>
I note you say accident not incident. What you don't know is if he was
a skilled pilot and the extent to which improper operation contributed
to the incident. He didn't stall but carried out a controlled crash
landing apparently. Not a bad outcome for engine loss over a wooded
area -suggesting some skill doncha think?

Cheers

[email protected]

August 5th 08, 09:41 PM

On Aug 5, 4:13*pm, More_Flaps > wrote:
> On Aug 6, 6:31*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > > Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in news:66-
>
> > >> Other than it was the final outcome of a flight that in itself would
> > >> violation of the child endangerment laws of most states? Not much.
>
> > > you dont know that.
>
> > > Your name Lynch, by any chance?
>
> > What don't I know? There is little doubt that the flight ended in an
> > accident.
>
> I note you say accident not incident. What you don't know is if he was
> a skilled pilot and the extent to which improper operation contributed
> to the incident. He didn't stall but carried out a controlled crash
> landing apparently. Not a bad outcome for engine loss over a wooded
> area -suggesting some skill doncha think?
>
> Cheers

It's hard to argue with the fact that the crash was a success. The
question is would it have been more likely avoided had the PIC
undergone PPL training. Even well trained pilots make mistakes, but we
often read here of pilot wannabes who, without the training, just
don't understand some of the realities of flying an airplane. The PICs
lack of competence as demonstrated to an examiner opens a pretty wide
door for speculation, wouldn't you agree?

Do you remember the JFK Jr crash? Nearly all of us came to the early
conclusion that was later found to be the primary reason for the
accident. It may not be a duck but if it walks like one and talks like
one, to use a tired phrase, the rebuttable assumption is pretty
obvious.

I'm sure there's much more to be learned, but this is not an accident
review board, it's the 'net. The interesting thing of course is even
in the face of whatever of objective evidence is found, some of us
will stick to our own conclusions. Why let facts intrude?

.

More_Flaps

August 5th 08, 09:55 PM

On Aug 6, 8:41*am, wrote:
> On Aug 5, 4:13*pm, More_Flaps > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 6, 6:31*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> > wrote:> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > > > Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in news:66-
>
> > > >> Other than it was the final outcome of a flight that in itself would
> > > >> violation of the child endangerment laws of most states? Not much.
>
> > > > you dont know that.
>
> > > > Your name Lynch, by any chance?
>
> > > What don't I know? There is little doubt that the flight ended in an
> > > accident.
>
> > I note you say accident not incident. What you don't know is if he was
> > a skilled pilot and the extent to which improper operation contributed
> > to the incident. He didn't stall but carried out a controlled crash
> > landing apparently. Not a bad outcome for engine loss over a wooded
> > area -suggesting some skill doncha think?
>
> > Cheers
>
> It's hard to argue with the fact that the crash was a success. The
> question is would it have been more likely avoided had the PIC
> undergone PPL training.

He must have had PPL training. He did not take a flight test tho' and
I'm not sure a PPL would have stopped an engine failure (even icing
induced?).

Cheers

Mxsmanic

August 5th 08, 10:02 PM

gatt writes:

> I would submit that getting the training required to earn a license
> makes you safer than somebody who bought an airplane and took it flying.

Learning makes you a good pilot; getting training does not.

> But, who knows. He might have had hundreds of hours of endorsed solo
> flight and simply never taken the checkride, and flown hundreds of
> unregulated hours snce then.

Yup. Like all those unlicensed pilots in Alaska.

Mxsmanic

August 5th 08, 10:02 PM

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

> For the record the ONLY error in judgment I'm accusing this guy of is
> flying without a license and specifically doing it with his wife and
> child aboard.

That's not an error in judgement, it's just illegal.

Mxsmanic

August 5th 08, 10:04 PM

writes:

> It's hard to argue with the fact that the crash was a success. The
> question is would it have been more likely avoided had the PIC
> undergone PPL training.

How do you know what training he has or has not undergone?

> Even well trained pilots make mistakes, but we
> often read here of pilot wannabes who, without the training, just
> don't understand some of the realities of flying an airplane.

As well as licensed pilots who, despite having managed to pass the tests,
still don't know how to fly safely.

> The PICs lack of competence as demonstrated to an examiner opens a pretty wide
> door for speculation, wouldn't you agree?

Yes. Unfortunately speculation isn't fact.

> Do you remember the JFK Jr crash? Nearly all of us came to the early
> conclusion that was later found to be the primary reason for the
> accident. It may not be a duck but if it walks like one and talks like
> one, to use a tired phrase, the rebuttable assumption is pretty
> obvious.

Why did JFK crash? He was a licensed pilot, after all, so he should not have
crashed.

Mxsmanic

August 5th 08, 10:06 PM

writes:

> Normal, socialized people break laws they concider to be unreasonable,
> as in the 55 MPH speed limit, the laws against aiding escaped slaves
> of the 19th century, and Prohibition of the 20th century.

Once they have broken a law and gotten away with it, there are fewer
psychological obstacles to breaking other laws.

Gig 601Xl Builder

August 5th 08, 10:06 PM

More_Flaps wrote:
> On Aug 6, 2:02 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>> Peter Dohm wrote:
>>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
>>> m...
>>> much snipped
>>>> The guy didn't have a license yet he went X-C to pick
>>>> up his wife and child. He might get charged with child endangerment. He
>>>> would if I was the DA there.
>>> IMHO, you are a Nazi, and therefore a major irritant!
>>> Peter
>> I'm a NAZI because I think a person that puts their child and wife in
>> danger by flying them while legally and obviously actually unqualified
>> to do so should be charged with child endangerment?
>
> He may be legally unqualified but that does not _automatically_ mean
> he was any less capable as a 172 pilot than any other. Certification
> does not increase skill levels...
>
> Cheers

It does as far as the law is concerned.

Mxsmanic

August 5th 08, 10:07 PM

nobody writes:

> We know you have no motivation to fly (legally or illegally),
> but that has no correlate with motivation to rape.

I don't recall saying that I have _no_ motivation to fly.

Flydive

August 5th 08, 10:39 PM

Mike wrote:
> First of all, in this case a "pilot" wasn't involved to begin with.

So if a student pilot crashes in his solo flight no pilots were involved

gatt[_5_]

August 5th 08, 11:25 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gatt writes:
>
>
>>I would submit that getting the training required to earn a license
>>makes you safer than somebody who bought an airplane and took it flying.
>
> Learning makes you a good pilot; getting training does not.

Not interested in peanut-gallery flight training philosophy from
somebody who's never even tried flight training. But, thanks anyway.

-c

Jim Logajan

August 6th 08, 01:06 AM

Clark > wrote:
> More_Flaps > wrote:
>> He must have had PPL training. He did not take a flight test tho' and
>> I'm not sure a PPL would have stopped an engine failure (even icing
>> induced?).
> Icing on departure? Ummm, itsn't that the least likely case?

Well, consider:
Symptom was lack of power, not total loss of power, so fuel starvation
seems unlikely. Pilot claimed he did preflight and runup after fueling, so
carburetor icing seems to be a reasonable guess.

On this page about the subject,
http://whitts.alioth.net/Pagea9Carburetor%20Ice%20and%20Heat.htm
Gene Whitt states that "Carburetor icing during takeoff is not as rare as
some would like to believe."

[email protected]

August 6th 08, 02:51 AM

On Aug 5, 5:04*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > It's hard to argue with the fact that the crash was a success. The
> > question is would it have been more likely avoided had the PIC
> > undergone PPL training.
>
> How do you know what training he has or has not undergone?
>
> > Even well trained pilots make mistakes, but we
> > often read here of pilot wannabes who, without the training, just
> > don't understand some of the realities of flying an airplane.
>
> As well as licensed pilots who, despite having managed to pass the tests,
> still don't know how to fly safely.
>
> > The PICs lack of competence as demonstrated to an examiner opens a pretty wide
> > door for speculation, wouldn't you agree?
>
> Yes. *Unfortunately speculation isn't fact.
>
> > Do you remember the JFK Jr crash? Nearly all of us came to the early
> > conclusion that was later found to be the primary reason for the
> > accident. It may not be a duck but if it walks like one and talks like
> > one, to use a tired phrase, the rebuttable assumption is pretty
> > obvious.
>
> Why did JFK crash? *He was a licensed pilot, after all, so he should not have
> crashed.

Read the NTSB report re JFK Jr -- in fact I think you have, so why are
you asking this question?

[email protected]

August 6th 08, 02:55 AM

On Aug 4, 2:55*pm, "Mike" > wrote:
> Taking off with your wife and daughter would have to be pretty high on the
> list:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080731X01135
>
> The plane was a '59 145hp 172. *DA would have been around 3,500. *You can
> draw your own conclusions.

Rather makes you wonder about the quality of the run up, doesn't it?
Or the scan just before pulling a little back pressure on the yoke,
you know, that last check that makes you think this thing will fly?

I could happen to any of us, I suppose, it'll be interesting to hear
what really happened. Conditions are marginal for carb ice, aren't
they, but he might have grown some on the taxi out and not cleared
it.

Mxsmanic

August 6th 08, 05:04 AM

writes:

> Read the NTSB report re JFK Jr -- in fact I think you have, so why are
> you asking this question?

Because other people here seem to think that having a license makes one a
competent pilot. JFK is a fine example proving that a license means hardly
anything.

Buster Hymen

August 6th 08, 05:39 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Read the NTSB report re JFK Jr -- in fact I think you have, so why
>> are you asking this question?
>
> Because other people here seem to think that having a license makes
> one a competent pilot. JFK is a fine example proving that a license
> means hardly anything.

Just like your posting to r.a.p. means hardly anything. If fact, it means
absolutely nothing.

More_Flaps

August 6th 08, 11:19 AM

On Aug 6, 11:07*am, Clark > wrote:
> More_Flaps > wrote in news:7fa28711-ed56-49c3-bcd5-
> :
>
>
>
> > On Aug 6, 8:41*am, wrote:
> >> On Aug 5, 4:13*pm, More_Flaps > wrote:
>
> >> > On Aug 6, 6:31*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> >> > wrote:> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >> > > > Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in news:66-
>
> >> > > >> Other than it was the final outcome of a flight that in itself
> wou
> > ld
> >> > > >> violation of the child endangerment laws of most states? Not
> much.
>
> >> > > > you dont know that.
>
> >> > > > Your name Lynch, by any chance?
>
> >> > > What don't I know? There is little doubt that the flight ended in an
> >> > > accident.
>
> >> > I note you say accident not incident. What you don't know is if he was
> >> > a skilled pilot and the extent to which improper operation contributed
> >> > to the incident. He didn't stall but carried out a controlled crash
> >> > landing apparently. Not a bad outcome for engine loss over a wooded
> >> > area -suggesting some skill doncha think?
>
> >> > Cheers
>
> >> It's hard to argue with the fact that the crash was a success. The
> >> question is would it have been more likely avoided had the PIC
> >> undergone PPL training.
>
> > He must have had PPL training. He did not take a flight test tho' and
> > I'm not sure a PPL would have stopped an engine failure (even icing
> > induced?).
>
> Icing on departure? Ummm, itsn't that the least likely case?
>

Nope seen it myself.

Cheers

Gig 601Xl Builder

August 6th 08, 02:18 PM

Flydive wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > First of all, in this case a "pilot" wasn't involved to begin with.
>
> So if a student pilot crashes in his solo flight no pilots were involved

Assuming he has a student certificate a pilot is involved.

[email protected]

August 6th 08, 03:58 PM

On Aug 4, 2:55 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
> Taking off with your wife and daughter would have to be pretty high on the
> list:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080731X01135
>
> The plane was a '59 145hp 172. DA would have been around 3,500. You can
> draw your own conclusions.

My question says it all. Experience and ratings are a factor when we
buy hull and liability insurance. This guy may be self insured (OK,
the airplane isn't worth a fortune, but liability could be huge). I
wonder what his exposure is? I have no idea if our umbrella polices
would include coverage for me if I took a seaplane or multi engine
land for an unsupervised flight that ended in a crash, given I am
rated for neither.,

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 6th 08, 04:02 PM

More_Flaps > wrote in
:

> On Aug 6, 3:20*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote
>> innews:f222dc0a-21e5-4e45-8f2b-cd30d9f16911@k30g
> 2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 5, 10:37*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> wrote
>> >> innews:4c9c7f43-25bf-4b2a-890b-88f57b2efb41@d77g2
>> > 000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> > On Aug 5, 10:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote
>> >> >> innews:n4Kdnes90ILuwA
>> >> > :
>>
>> >> >> > Peter Dohm wrote:
>> >> >> >> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in
>> >> >> >> message
>> >> >> m...
>>
>> >> >> >> much snipped
>> >> >> >>> * * * * * * * * * * The guy didn't have a l
> ice
>> > nse
>> >> > *yet he went X-C to
>> >> >> >>> * * * * * * * * * * pick
>> >> >> >>> up his wife and child. He might get charged with child
>> >> >> >>> endangerment. He would if I was the DA there.
>>
>> >> >> >> IMHO, you are a Nazi, and therefore a major irritant!
>>
>> >> >> >> Peter
>>
>> >> >> > I'm a NAZI because I think a person that puts their child and
>> >> >> > wife in danger by flying them while legally and obviously
>> >> >> > actually unqualified to do so should be charged with child
>> >> >> > endangerment?
>>
>> >> >> I wouldn't say you're a nazi, but to say that a piece of paper
>> >> >> makes someone a good pilot is not what I'd call reason.
>> >> >> I read the preliminary reoprt and there is no indication that
>> >> >> it was pilot error. It might have been, but you've leapt well
>> >> >> beyond what the evidence suggests. You might well be right
>> >> >> about it, and chances are good, but a piece of paperis, of
>> >> >> itself, meaningless. And, as is often said, a private pilot's
>> >> >> licence is a licence to learn. It might also be aptly applied
>> >> >> to any licence. I've seen ATRs, examiners and people you would
>> >> >> most definitely not expect to do so make even bigger errors in
>> >> >> judgement than that which you are accucing this guy. A fully
>> >> >> fueled 172 with three SOB taking off out of a 4,000 foot strip
>> >> >> with a 3,500 foot density altitude is not what could even
>> >> >> remotely be called a tight situation.
>>
>> >> >> Bertie
>>
>> >> > The credentials document the subject had demonstrated some level
>> >> > of competency to an examiner. This pilot did not do that. It
>> >> > does not mean he was not Sire Dud in drag, but the way to bet is
>> >> > that he was a doofus. That is was likely unlawful is a * further
>> >> > assessment of his lack of judgment.
>>
>> >> I agree that it's likely. but it's not proven by any means. In any
>> >> case, even a dufus should be able to get a 172 out of a long strip
>> >> even on a high DA day.
>> >> The 172 was designed with the dufus in mind.
>> >> My real objection to this is that the paper is, in of itself, no
>> >> gauruntee against idiocy. Lots of pilots at every level are
>> >> complete morons. The two things that grate me about this sort of
>> >> monday morning quarterbacking in the absence of almost any sort of
>> >> facts are these. One, you're hanging the guy without due process,
>> >> which is geting altogether too commonplace in this day and age,
>> >> and secondly, and more imprtantly. the oportunity to learn
>> >> something from the accident is lost. "Get a licence and you'll be
>> >> safer" is not a good lesson.
>>
>> >> > Of course all would be forgiven if he stayed at a Holiday Inn
>> >> > last night (playing MSFS of course).
>>
>> > Demonstrating some level of competence to a disinterested examiner
>> > is, however, a good lesson. Otherwise one becomes a self professed
>> > expert -- does Anthony come to mind?
>>
>> I'm not arguing that. You're implying its the underlying cause of the
>> accident, either intentionally or not. It may be, but to dismiss it
>> as such this early in the investigation is to close your mind and
>> that is just about never in the interest of promoting a better
>> approach to flying.
>>
>
> I thought the report said the engine lost power?
>

seemed to be a lack of power, was what he actually said. Could have been
any one of a thousand things. Mechanical, carb ice, who knows? A final
report would give a better picture, though.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 6th 08, 04:04 PM

"Mike" > wrote in news:Be0mk.241$_H1.178@trnddc05:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
>> m:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So that made the airplane fall out of the sky?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Well in this case, it might have had something to do with the guy
>>> not being able to keep the plane in the air.
>>>
>>
>> Might being the operative word. In my experience, it's very unwise to
>> point
>> a finger at another pilot's apparent error until you have all the
>> facts.
>
> First of all, in this case a "pilot" wasn't involved to begin with.
>

Yes, there was. Licenced or not, that is what you call the guy at the
stick.

> Next, I very clearly stated the facts and even instructed the readers
> to draw their own conclusions. Any conjecture on my part was clearly
> stated as such to anyone approaching full literacy.

Yeah, right. "he's a rapist, or so I've heard"

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 6th 08, 04:04 PM

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
m:

> Flydive wrote:
>> Mike wrote:
>> > First of all, in this case a "pilot" wasn't involved to begin with.
>>
>> So if a student pilot crashes in his solo flight no pilots were involved
>
> Assuming he has a student certificate a pilot is involved.

So, the Wrights weren't pilots?

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 6th 08, 04:06 PM

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
>> m:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So that made the airplane fall out of the sky?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Well in this case, it might have had something to do with the guy
>>> not being able to keep the plane in the air.
>>>
>>
>> Might being the operative word. In my experience, it's very unwise to
>> point
>> a finger at another pilot's apparent error until you have all the
>> facts.
>>
>> Here's a case in point. When the prelim accounts of the Kegworth 737
>> accident came out nearly every pro pilot on earth either said
>> straight out,
>> or privately thought, that these guys had made so fundamental a
>> fjukup as to defy belief. When all the results were in, all but the
>> idiots realised that anyone might have, and indeed, probably would
>> have, made exactly the same error...
>> To a lesser extent, the Air Florida accident is another one. There is
>> more BS talked about that accident than you'd find in a chicago
>> cattle yard.. Most of that BS originates from the monday morning
>> quarterbacking that took
>> place in the hours immediatly following the accident.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Bertie,
>
> These are both truly outstanding examples, and your entire position on
> this thread has been far better than my mere expression of annoyance.
> However, I do plan to take a break from posting to usenet.

OK. Be sure to get your beach towel out early so I can pee on it.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 6th 08, 04:06 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601Xl Builder writes:
>
>> For the record the ONLY error in judgment I'm accusing this guy of is
>> flying without a license and specifically doing it with his wife and
>> child aboard.
>
> That's not an error in judgement, it's just illegal.

You're an idiot.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 6th 08, 04:07 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> It's hard to argue with the fact that the crash was a success. The
>> question is would it have been more likely avoided had the PIC
>> undergone PPL training.
>
> How do you know what training he has or has not undergone?
>
>> Even well trained pilots make mistakes, but we
>> often read here of pilot wannabes who, without the training, just
>> don't understand some of the realities of flying an airplane.
>
> As well as licensed pilots who, despite having managed to pass the
> tests, still don't know how to fly safely.
>
>> The PICs lack of competence as demonstrated to an examiner opens a
>> pretty wide door for speculation, wouldn't you agree?
>
> Yes. Unfortunately speculation isn't fact.
>
>> Do you remember the JFK Jr crash? Nearly all of us came to the early
>> conclusion that was later found to be the primary reason for the
>> accident. It may not be a duck but if it walks like one and talks
>> like one, to use a tired phrase, the rebuttable assumption is pretty
>> obvious.
>
> Why did JFK crash? He was a licensed pilot, after all, so he should
> not have crashed.
>

You are an idiot.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 6th 08, 04:10 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Read the NTSB report re JFK Jr -- in fact I think you have, so why
>> are you asking this question?
>
> Because other people here seem to think that having a license makes
> one a competent pilot. JFK is a fine example proving that a license
> means hardly anything.

You are an idiot and you will never be a competent anything.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 6th 08, 04:11 PM

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
m:

> More_Flaps wrote:
>> On Aug 6, 2:02 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
>> wrote:
>>> Peter Dohm wrote:
>>>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
>>>> m...
>>>> much snipped
>>>>> The guy didn't have a license yet he went X-C
>>>>> to pick
>>>>> up his wife and child. He might get charged with child
>>>>> endangerment. He would if I was the DA there.
>>>> IMHO, you are a Nazi, and therefore a major irritant!
>>>> Peter
>>> I'm a NAZI because I think a person that puts their child and wife
>>> in danger by flying them while legally and obviously actually
>>> unqualified to do so should be charged with child endangerment?
>>
>> He may be legally unqualified but that does not _automatically_ mean
>> he was any less capable as a 172 pilot than any other. Certification
>> does not increase skill levels...
>>
>> Cheers
>
> It does as far as the law is concerned.
>

No, it doesn't.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 6th 08, 04:11 PM

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
m:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in news:66-
>
>>>>
>>> Other than it was the final outcome of a flight that in itself would
>>> violation of the child endangerment laws of most states? Not much.
>>
>>
>> you dont know that.
>>
>> Your name Lynch, by any chance?
>>
>>
>
> What don't I know? There is little doubt that the flight ended in an
> accident.

What are you, a walking catalogue of spurious arguments?
>
> No it's not. My name is in my e-mail address

Whoosh.

Bertie
>

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 6th 08, 04:14 PM

wrote in
:

> On Aug 5, 4:13*pm, More_Flaps > wrote:
>> On Aug 6, 6:31*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
>> wrote:> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> > > Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in news:66-
>>
>> > >> Other than it was the final outcome of a flight that in itself
>> > >> would violation of the child endangerment laws of most states?
>> > >> Not much.
>>
>> > > you dont know that.
>>
>> > > Your name Lynch, by any chance?
>>
>> > What don't I know? There is little doubt that the flight ended in
>> > an accident.
>>
>> I note you say accident not incident. What you don't know is if he
>> was a skilled pilot and the extent to which improper operation
>> contributed to the incident. He didn't stall but carried out a
>> controlled crash landing apparently. Not a bad outcome for engine
>> loss over a wooded area -suggesting some skill doncha think?
>>
>> Cheers
>
> It's hard to argue with the fact that the crash was a success. The
> question is would it have been more likely avoided had the PIC
> undergone PPL training. Even well trained pilots make mistakes, but we
> often read here of pilot wannabes who, without the training, just
> don't understand some of the realities of flying an airplane. The PICs
> lack of competence as demonstrated to an examiner opens a pretty wide
> door for speculation, wouldn't you agree?
>
> Do you remember the JFK Jr crash? Nearly all of us came to the early
> conclusion that was later found to be the primary reason for the
> accident. It may not be a duck but if it walks like one and talks like
> one, to use a tired phrase, the rebuttable assumption is pretty
> obvious.
>
> I'm sure there's much more to be learned, but this is not an accident
> review board, it's the 'net. The interesting thing of course is even
> in the face of whatever of objective evidence is found, some of us
> will stick to our own conclusions. Why let facts intrude?
>
> .
>
>

Xachery.

bertie

Gig 601Xl Builder

August 6th 08, 04:17 PM

wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2:55 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
>> Taking off with your wife and daughter would have to be pretty high on the
>> list:
>>
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080731X01135
>>
>> The plane was a '59 145hp 172. DA would have been around 3,500. You can
>> draw your own conclusions.
>
> My question says it all. Experience and ratings are a factor when we
> buy hull and liability insurance. This guy may be self insured (OK,
> the airplane isn't worth a fortune, but liability could be huge). I
> wonder what his exposure is? I have no idea if our umbrella polices
> would include coverage for me if I took a seaplane or multi engine
> land for an unsupervised flight that ended in a crash, given I am
> rated for neither.,

Oh the guy is screwed as far as liability goes. He damaged at least a
light pole and from the news reports at least one transformer. He will
be getting a bill for that and the labor to replace it. They ain't cheap.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 6th 08, 04:18 PM

Clark > wrote in
:

> More_Flaps > wrote in
> news:7fa28711-ed56-49c3-bcd5-
> :
>
>> On Aug 6, 8:41*am, wrote:
>>> On Aug 5, 4:13*pm, More_Flaps > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Aug 6, 6:31*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
>>> > wrote:> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> > > > Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
>>> > > > news:66-
>>>
>>> > > >> Other than it was the final outcome of a flight that in
>>> > > >> itself
> wou
>> ld
>>> > > >> violation of the child endangerment laws of most states? Not
> much.
>>>
>>> > > > you dont know that.
>>>
>>> > > > Your name Lynch, by any chance?
>>>
>>> > > What don't I know? There is little doubt that the flight ended
>>> > > in an accident.
>>>
>>> > I note you say accident not incident. What you don't know is if he
>>> > was a skilled pilot and the extent to which improper operation
>>> > contributed to the incident. He didn't stall but carried out a
>>> > controlled crash landing apparently. Not a bad outcome for engine
>>> > loss over a wooded area -suggesting some skill doncha think?
>>>
>>> > Cheers
>>>
>>> It's hard to argue with the fact that the crash was a success. The
>>> question is would it have been more likely avoided had the PIC
>>> undergone PPL training.
>>
>> He must have had PPL training. He did not take a flight test tho' and
>> I'm not sure a PPL would have stopped an engine failure (even icing
>> induced?).
> Icing on departure? Ummm, itsn't that the least likely case?
>
>
>

Nope, not with an O 300. The report will tel.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 6th 08, 04:19 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> I would submit that getting the training required to earn a license
>> makes you safer than somebody who bought an airplane and took it flying.
>
> Learning makes you a good pilot; getting training does not.

You are a moron.

Bertie

Gig 601Xl Builder

August 6th 08, 04:20 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
> m:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in news:66-
>>>> Other than it was the final outcome of a flight that in itself would
>>>> violation of the child endangerment laws of most states? Not much.
>>>
>>> you dont know that.
>>>
>>> Your name Lynch, by any chance?
>>>
>>>
>> What don't I know? There is little doubt that the flight ended in an
>> accident.
>
>

Bertie you are being an ass again. I asked you a legit question i order
to respond to your post. You wrote, "you don't know that" and I asked
what didn't I know. There was no argument in my reply spurious or
otherwise.

> What are you, a walking catalogue of spurious arguments?
>> No it's not. My name is in my e-mail address
>
>
> Whoosh.
>
>

Yes, in this case, I agree.

[email protected]

August 6th 08, 04:30 PM

On Aug 6, 11:17 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Aug 4, 2:55 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
> >> Taking off with your wife and daughter would have to be pretty high on the
> >> list:
>
> >>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080731X01135
>
> >> The plane was a '59 145hp 172. DA would have been around 3,500. You can
> >> draw your own conclusions.
>
> > My question says it all. Experience and ratings are a factor when we
> > buy hull and liability insurance. This guy may be self insured (OK,
> > the airplane isn't worth a fortune, but liability could be huge). I
> > wonder what his exposure is? I have no idea if our umbrella polices
> > would include coverage for me if I took a seaplane or multi engine
> > land for an unsupervised flight that ended in a crash, given I am
> > rated for neither.,
>
> Oh the guy is screwed as far as liability goes. He damaged at least a
> light pole and from the news reports at least one transformer. He will
> be getting a bill for that and the labor to replace it. They ain't cheap.

If his policy covers him, I want to know the carrier's name.

Rocky Stevens

August 6th 08, 04:54 PM

I would be surprised if the report did not fault the pilot if for no
other reason than it seems that EVERY NTSB report faults the pilot, at
least to some degree. What's more, it seems that a lot of the reports
do not seem to add much info, e.g. if a plane crashes into the ground,
often the probable cause says something to the effect of "crash was
due to failure of pilot to keep aircraft from crashing into the
ground." Now obviously that is huge exaggeration of the reports, but
they really do not seem to shed much light on the situation in many
instances.

The main exception to this seems to be when the pilot runs out of gas;
in fact, I'm surprised (and disturbed) by how many fatalities are due
to "fuel management" issues!

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 6th 08, 05:00 PM

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
m:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
>> m:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in news:66-
>>>>> Other than it was the final outcome of a flight that in itself
would
>>>>> violation of the child endangerment laws of most states? Not much.
>>>>
>>>> you dont know that.
>>>>
>>>> Your name Lynch, by any chance?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> What don't I know? There is little doubt that the flight ended in an
>>> accident.
>>
>>
>
> Bertie you are being an ass again.

Nope.

I asked you a legit question i order
> to respond to your post. You wrote, "you don't know that" and I asked
> what didn't I know. There was no argument in my reply spurious or
> otherwise.
>

Your question is disingenious and you know it.

>
>
>
>> What are you, a walking catalogue of spurious arguments?
>>> No it's not. My name is in my e-mail address
>>
>>
>> Whoosh.
>>
>>
>
> Yes, in this case, I agree.

Oh no! Got me with the lethal IKYABWAI argument.

Ouch.

Bertie
>

Peter Dohm

August 6th 08, 05:53 PM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> OK. Be sure to get your beach towel out early so I can pee on it.
>
> Bertie
>
Harrumph!

Peter
(Another good idea down the drain...)

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 6th 08, 06:17 PM

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in news:tEkmk.5754$IB6.5349
@bignews8.bellsouth.net:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> OK. Be sure to get your beach towel out early so I can pee on it.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
> Harrumph!
>
> Peter
> (Another good idea down the drain...)
>
Well, if you're bored you could annex something..

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 6th 08, 06:20 PM

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
m:

> wrote:
>> On Aug 4, 2:55 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
>>> Taking off with your wife and daughter would have to be pretty high
>>> on the list:
>>>
>>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080731X01135
>>>
>>> The plane was a '59 145hp 172. DA would have been around 3,500.
>>> You can draw your own conclusions.
>>
>> My question says it all. Experience and ratings are a factor when we
>> buy hull and liability insurance. This guy may be self insured (OK,
>> the airplane isn't worth a fortune, but liability could be huge). I
>> wonder what his exposure is? I have no idea if our umbrella polices
>> would include coverage for me if I took a seaplane or multi engine
>> land for an unsupervised flight that ended in a crash, given I am
>> rated for neither.,
>
>
> Oh the guy is screwed as far as liability goes. He damaged at least a
> light pole and from the news reports at least one transformer. He will
> be getting a bill for that and the labor to replace it. They ain't
> cheap.
>

Jes can't wait to hang him, eh?

Bertie

Jim Logajan

August 6th 08, 06:37 PM

Clark > wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> Well, consider:
>> Symptom was lack of power, not total loss of power, so fuel
>> starvation seems unlikely. Pilot claimed he did preflight and runup
>> after fueling, so
>> carburetor icing seems to be a reasonable guess.
>>
>> On this page about the subject,
>> http://whitts.alioth.net/Pagea9Carburetor%20Ice%20and%20Heat.htm
>> Gene Whitt states that "Carburetor icing during takeoff is not as
>> rare as some would like to believe."
>>
>
> In Texas in August?

Sure. Check out Figure 5-9 of the FAA publication "Pilot's Handbook of
Aeronautical Knowledge". That chart shows it is possible to get carb icing
with outsde air temperatures as high as 100 degrees Fahrenheit so long as
relative humidity is above 50%. There's a variant of that chart on this web
page, among many others:

http://www.ez.org/carb_ice.htm

Jim Logajan

August 6th 08, 07:06 PM

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
> Flydive wrote:
>> Mike wrote:
>> > First of all, in this case a "pilot" wasn't involved to begin with.
>>
>> So if a student pilot crashes in his solo flight no pilots were involved
>
> Assuming he has a student certificate a pilot is involved.

The FARs define the phrase "pilot in command" but, as far as I can see, not
the isolated word "pilot". According to a dictionary he was a pilot,
according to the FARs he was not a "pilot in command" since the FAR
definition requires the "person" "hold" the appropriate certificated
ratings.

Jim Logajan

August 6th 08, 07:32 PM

Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Rocky Stevens >
>
>>The main exception to this seems to be when the pilot runs out of gas;
>>in fact, I'm surprised (and disturbed) by how many fatalities are due
>>to "fuel management" issues!
>
> Don't worry too much, Anthony. You'll never fly.

Fascinating Pavlovian response.

Gig 601Xl Builder

August 6th 08, 07:52 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>> Oh the guy is screwed as far as liability goes. He damaged at least a
>> light pole and from the news reports at least one transformer. He will
>> be getting a bill for that and the labor to replace it. They ain't
>> cheap.
>>
>
> Jes can't wait to hang him, eh?

So what? You seem to want to blow the guy.

Rocky Stevens

August 6th 08, 08:32 PM

On Aug 6, 2:32 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> > From: Rocky Stevens >
>
> >>The main exception to this seems to be when the pilot runs out of gas;
> >>in fact, I'm surprised (and disturbed) by how many fatalities are due
> >>to "fuel management" issues!
>
> > Don't worry too much, Anthony. You'll never fly.
>
> Fascinating Pavlovian response.

Actually at this rate, unless one defines "flying" as "sitting in a
plane while your instructor does almost everything for you," he's not
too far off :(

More_Flaps

August 6th 08, 09:11 PM

On Aug 7, 5:21*am, Clark > wrote:
> More_Flaps > wrote in news:d146a80e-acc8-4dd2-b395-
> :
>
>
>
> > On Aug 6, 11:07*am, Clark > wrote:
> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:7fa28711-ed56-49c3-bcd5-
> >> :
>
> >> > On Aug 6, 8:41*am, wrote:
> >> >> On Aug 5, 4:13*pm, More_Flaps > wrote:
>
> >> >> > On Aug 6, 6:31*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> >> >> > wrote:> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >> >> > > > Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in news:66-
>
> >> >> > > >> Other than it was the final outcome of a flight that in itself
> >> wou
> >> > ld
> >> >> > > >> violation of the child endangerment laws of most states? Not
> >> much.
>
> >> >> > > > you dont know that.
>
> >> >> > > > Your name Lynch, by any chance?
>
> >> >> > > What don't I know? There is little doubt that the flight ended in
> > an
> >> >> > > accident.
>
> >> >> > I note you say accident not incident. What you don't know is if he
> w
> > as
> >> >> > a skilled pilot and the extent to which improper operation
> contribut
> > ed
> >> >> > to the incident. He didn't stall but carried out a controlled crash
> >> >> > landing apparently. Not a bad outcome for engine loss over a wooded
> >> >> > area -suggesting some skill doncha think?
>
> >> >> > Cheers
>
> >> >> It's hard to argue with the fact that the crash was a success. The
> >> >> question is would it have been more likely avoided had the PIC
> >> >> undergone PPL training.
>
> >> > He must have had PPL training. He did not take a flight test tho' and
> >> > I'm not sure a PPL would have stopped an engine failure (even icing
> >> > induced?).
>
> >> Icing on departure? Ummm, itsn't that the least likely case?
>
> > Nope seen it myself.
>
> With 100 F OAT? Come on.
>

Was OAT really 100 when the engine started to loose power (I don't
think you know the OAT)... BUT even at 100 OAT icing is possible.

Cheers

More_Flaps

August 6th 08, 09:13 PM

On Aug 7, 6:52*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >> Oh the guy is screwed as far as liability goes. He damaged at least a
> >> light pole and from the news reports at least one transformer. He will
> >> be getting a bill for that and the labor to replace it. They ain't
> >> cheap.
>
> > Jes can't wait to hang him, eh?
>
> So what? You seem to want to blow the guy.

Uh ho. Fightin' talk.

Cheers

Mxsmanic

August 6th 08, 09:48 PM

Clark writes:

> With 100 F OAT? Come on.

The temperature may drop by 70 degrees inside the carburetor, which means that
even at 100 F OAT the temperature may be below freezing inside the carb.

[email protected]

August 6th 08, 10:30 PM

On Aug 6, 4:48*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Clark writes:
> > With 100 F OAT? Come on.
>
> The temperature may drop by 70 degrees inside the carburetor, which means that
> even at 100 F OAT the temperature may be below freezing inside the carb.

Under what conditions would you expect such a temperature drop?

Peter Dohm

August 7th 08, 04:29 AM

"Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
m...
> wrote:
>> On Aug 4, 2:55 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
>>> Taking off with your wife and daughter would have to be pretty high on
>>> the
>>> list:
>>>
>>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080731X01135
>>>
>>> The plane was a '59 145hp 172. DA would have been around 3,500. You
>>> can
>>> draw your own conclusions.
>>
>> My question says it all. Experience and ratings are a factor when we
>> buy hull and liability insurance. This guy may be self insured (OK,
>> the airplane isn't worth a fortune, but liability could be huge). I
>> wonder what his exposure is? I have no idea if our umbrella polices
>> would include coverage for me if I took a seaplane or multi engine
>> land for an unsupervised flight that ended in a crash, given I am
>> rated for neither.,
>
>
> Oh the guy is screwed as far as liability goes. He damaged at least a
> light pole and from the news reports at least one transformer. He will be
> getting a bill for that and the labor to replace it. They ain't cheap.

I shall make it a point of honor to be at least as non-judgemental as you,
when your name comes up.

Peter

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

August 7th 08, 04:53 AM

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in news:xK6dnd-
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>> Oh the guy is screwed as far as liability goes. He damaged at least a
>>> light pole and from the news reports at least one transformer. He will
>>> be getting a bill for that and the labor to replace it. They ain't
>>> cheap.
>>>
>>
>> Jes can't wait to hang him, eh?
>
> So what? You seem to want to blow the guy.
>

Ah.

Gay lames.

Congrats or your ascendency to kookdom.

Bertie

Frank Olson

August 7th 08, 05:36 AM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
> m:
>
>> Flydive wrote:
>>> Mike wrote:
>>> > First of all, in this case a "pilot" wasn't involved to begin with.
>>>
>>> So if a student pilot crashes in his solo flight no pilots were involved
>> Assuming he has a student certificate a pilot is involved.
>
> So, the Wrights weren't pilots?

Nope. They were bicycle mechanics with their heads in the clouds and a
really good understanding of aerodynamics. ;-)

yod-yog+ais

August 7th 08, 05:51 AM

On 8/5/2008 9:04 PM Mxsmanic ignored two million years of human
evolution to write:

> Because other people here seem to think that having a license makes one a
> competent pilot.

What you think is irrelevant. You don't fly. You never will.

Frank Olson

August 7th 08, 05:52 AM

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
> Peter Dohm wrote:
>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>
>>
>> much snipped
>>> The guy didn't have a license yet he went X-C to
>>> pick up his wife and child. He might get charged with child
>>> endangerment. He would if I was the DA there.
>>
>> IMHO, you are a Nazi, and therefore a major irritant!
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
>
> I'm a NAZI because I think a person that puts their child and wife in
> danger by flying them while legally and obviously actually unqualified
> to do so should be charged with child endangerment?
>

Actually I once witnessed a crash involving a properly licensed pilot
who decided to "show off" to the bosses daughter by taking her up in a
twin Apache that he wasn't current on (he hadn't flown for over two
months). He was practicing "touch and goes" and wound up taking the
aircraft through the fence at the end of the runway, across a busy
highway, and into a ditch. He missed hitting a truck by a whisker. The
"boss" wasn't impressed either. He'd left carb heat "on" for both
engines, should have nailed the brakes instead of attempting to take off
(particularly as he'd landed "long" and had allowed too much speed to
bleed off). Pam told me later (when I went to visit her in the
hospital) how he was busy reading the check-list when he looked up to
see the end of the runway approaching.

Buster Hymen

August 7th 08, 06:07 AM

Rocky Stevens > wrote in news:21938d22-dd7e-4ea6-
:

> On Aug 6, 2:32 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> Nomen Nescio > wrote:
>> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> > From: Rocky Stevens >
>>
>> >>The main exception to this seems to be when the pilot runs out of gas;
>> >>in fact, I'm surprised (and disturbed) by how many fatalities are due
>> >>to "fuel management" issues!
>>
>> > Don't worry too much, Anthony. You'll never fly.
>>
>> Fascinating Pavlovian response.
>
> Actually at this rate, unless one defines "flying" as "sitting in a
> plane while your instructor does almost everything for you," he's not
> too far off :(
>

Desperate for another hand job again Rocky?

C J Campbell[_1_]

August 7th 08, 06:31 AM

On 2008-08-04 15:47:22 -0700, Jim Logajan > said:

> "Mike" > wrote:
>> Taking off with your wife and daughter would have to be pretty high on
>> the list:
>>
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080731X01135
>>
>> The plane was a '59 145hp 172. DA would have been around 3,500. You
>> can draw your own conclusions.
>
> The report lists the N-number and states that the non-certificated pilot is
> also the owner. The aircraft number can be located in the FAA aircraft
> database, which provides the owner name. The FAA license database can be
> searched for the owner's name to see what, if any, certificates the owner
> holds or held.
>
> Bottom line appears to suggest:
> The listed owner bought the aircraft in 2004 about a month prior to getting
> a student pilot certificate. Doesn't appear to have gone past that stage. I
> don't know if or how the database handles renewals so the owner might still
> have a student license, though were that the case I assume the NTSB report
> would have stated "student pilot" not "non-certificated" pilot.

I seem to recall reading in AOPA Pilot that the owner of Aviat Aircraft
flew a Pitts for a long time with nothing but a student pilot
certificate. Apparently he was too busy to take the check ride, but he
was pretty good at aerobatics. This was a few years back (but not too
many years back). I suspect he has finished his pilot certificate by
now, though. :-)

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

More_Flaps

August 7th 08, 11:47 AM

On Aug 7, 2:36*pm, Clark > wrote:
> More_Flaps > wrote in news:94db93d6-f516-4e3f-a8c0-
> :
>
>
>
> > On Aug 7, 5:21*am, Clark > wrote:
> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:d146a80e-acc8-4dd2-b395-
> >> :
>
> >> > On Aug 6, 11:07*am, Clark > wrote:
> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:7fa28711-ed56-49c3-
> bcd5
> > -
> >> >> :
>
> >> >> > On Aug 6, 8:41*am, wrote:
> >> >> >> On Aug 5, 4:13*pm, More_Flaps > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > On Aug 6, 6:31*am, Gig 601Xl Builder
>
> >> >> >> > wrote:> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >> >> >> > > > Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
> news:6
> > 6-
>
> >> >> >> > > >> Other than it was the final outcome of a flight that in
> itse
> > lf
> >> >> wou
> >> >> > ld
> >> >> >> > > >> violation of the child endangerment laws of most states?
> Not
> >> >> much.
>
> >> >> >> > > > you dont know that.
>
> >> >> >> > > > Your name Lynch, by any chance?
>
> >> >> >> > > What don't I know? There is little doubt that the flight ended
> > in
> >> > an
> >> >> >> > > accident.
>
> >> >> >> > I note you say accident not incident. What you don't know is if
> h
> > e
> >> w
> >> > as
> >> >> >> > a skilled pilot and the extent to which improper operation
> >> contribut
> >> > ed
> >> >> >> > to the incident. He didn't stall but carried out a controlled
> cra
> > sh
> >> >> >> > landing apparently. Not a bad outcome for engine loss over a
> wood
> > ed
> >> >> >> > area -suggesting some skill doncha think?
>
> >> >> >> > Cheers
>
> >> >> >> It's hard to argue with the fact that the crash was a success. The
> >> >> >> question is would it have been more likely avoided had the PIC
> >> >> >> undergone PPL training.
>
> >> >> > He must have had PPL training. He did not take a flight test tho'
> an
> > d
> >> >> > I'm not sure a PPL would have stopped an engine failure (even icing
> >> >> > induced?).
>
> >> >> Icing on departure? Ummm, itsn't that the least likely case?
>
> >> > Nope seen it myself.
>
> >> With 100 F OAT? Come on.
>
> > Was OAT really 100 when the engine started to loose power (I don't
> > think you know the OAT)... BUT even at 100 OAT icing is possible.
>
> Well, gee, the density altitude was mentioned to be 3500 feet at an airport
> only a couple hundred feet above sea level. It was Texas in the summer
> time. I'm willing to bet the temperature was a heck-of-a-lot closer to 100
> than it was to 40 or 50 or even 60 where we really might expect carb icing.
>
> The guy should have been at max power which is the least likely time to see
> carb ice form. If he did the run-up correctly then carb ice was not a
> likely problem since it would have been detected during the full power
> turn-up.
>
>
> Oh, I notice you didn't answer my question.
>
What question? You don't expect an answer to a rhetorical question do
you? Anyway, what altitude did his engine start to fail and what was
the temperature that day?
Cheers

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 7th 08, 07:35 PM

Frank Olson > wrote in
news:aZumk.62125$nD.33979@pd7urf1no:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
>> m:
>>
>>> Flydive wrote:
>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>> > First of all, in this case a "pilot" wasn't involved to begin
>>>> > with.
>>>>
>>>> So if a student pilot crashes in his solo flight no pilots were
>>>> involved
>>> Assuming he has a student certificate a pilot is involved.
>>
>> So, the Wrights weren't pilots?
>
>
> Nope. They were bicycle mechanics with their heads in the clouds and
> a really good understanding of aerodynamics. ;-)
>

Bull****.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 8th 08, 05:26 AM

wrote in
:

> On Aug 6, 4:48*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Clark writes:
>> > With 100 F OAT? Come on.
>>
>> The temperature may drop by 70 degrees inside the carburetor, which
>> means
> that
>> even at 100 F OAT the temperature may be below freezing inside the
>> carb.
>
> Under what conditions would you expect such a temperature drop?
>

at idle with a MP of around 12 inches, you would have a drop of about 60F
without taking into consideration evaporative cooliing which would easily
bring it down below freezing.

Bertie

[email protected]

August 8th 08, 10:27 AM

On Aug 8, 12:26 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote :
>
> > On Aug 6, 4:48 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> Clark writes:
> >> > With 100 F OAT? Come on.
>
> >> The temperature may drop by 70 degrees inside the carburetor, which
> >> means
> > that
> >> even at 100 F OAT the temperature may be below freezing inside the
> >> carb.
>
> > Under what conditions would you expect such a temperature drop?
>
> at idle with a MP of around 12 inches, you would have a drop of about 60F
> without taking into consideration evaporative cooliing which would easily
> bring it down below freezing.
>
> Bertie

Pilots know that, Bertie, that's one of the reasons we do a carb heat
check as part of run up. I wondered if sim jocks knew it. Well, they
do now, so if they endure a long hold before takeoff and pay attention
they are less likely to disturb a large number of real electrons by
having a simulated power loss and crash on takeoff.

More_Flaps

August 8th 08, 11:42 AM

On Aug 8, 11:10*am, Clark > wrote:
> More_Flaps > wrote in news:ccfc27f6-c7c3-4acd-ba90-
> :
>
>
>
> > On Aug 7, 2:36*pm, Clark > wrote:
> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:94db93d6-f516-4e3f-a8c0-
> >> :
>
> >> > On Aug 7, 5:21*am, Clark > wrote:
> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:d146a80e-acc8-4dd2-
> b395
> > -
> >> >> :
>
> >> >> > On Aug 6, 11:07*am, Clark > wrote:
> >> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:7fa28711-ed56-49c3-
> >> bcd5
> >> > -
> >> >> >> :
>
> >> >> >> > On Aug 6, 8:41*am, wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Aug 5, 4:13*pm, More_Flaps > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> > On Aug 6, 6:31*am, Gig 601Xl Builder <wrgiac...@REMOVEgmail.
> > com
>
> >> >> >> >> > wrote:> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > > > Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
> >> news:6
> >> > 6-
>
> >> >> >> >> > > >> Other than it was the final outcome of a flight that in
> >> itse
> >> > lf
> >> >> >> wou
> >> >> >> > ld
> >> >> >> >> > > >> violation of the child endangerment laws of most states?
> >> Not
> >> >> >> much.
>
> >> >> >> >> > > > you dont know that.
>
> >> >> >> >> > > > Your name Lynch, by any chance?
>
> >> >> >> >> > > What don't I know? There is little doubt that the flight
> end
> > ed
> >> > in
> >> >> > an
> >> >> >> >> > > accident.
>
> >> >> >> >> > I note you say accident not incident. What you don't know is
> i
> > f
> >> h
> >> > e
> >> >> w
> >> >> > as
> >> >> >> >> > a skilled pilot and the extent to which improper operation
> >> >> contribut
> >> >> > ed
> >> >> >> >> > to the incident. He didn't stall but carried out a controlled
> >> cra
> >> > sh
> >> >> >> >> > landing apparently. Not a bad outcome for engine loss over a
> >> wood
> >> > ed
> >> >> >> >> > area -suggesting some skill doncha think?
>
> >> >> >> >> > Cheers
>
> >> >> >> >> It's hard to argue with the fact that the crash was a success..
> T
> > he
> >> >> >> >> question is would it have been more likely avoided had the PIC
> >> >> >> >> undergone PPL training.
>
> >> >> >> > He must have had PPL training. He did not take a flight test
> tho'
> >> an
> >> > d
> >> >> >> > I'm not sure a PPL would have stopped an engine failure (even
> ici
> > ng
> >> >> >> > induced?).
>
> >> >> >> Icing on departure? Ummm, itsn't that the least likely case?
>
> >> >> > Nope seen it myself.
>
> >> >> With 100 F OAT? Come on.
>
> >> > Was OAT really 100 when the engine started to loose power (I don't
> >> > think you know the OAT)... BUT even at 100 OAT icing is possible.
>
> >> Well, gee, the density altitude was mentioned to be 3500 feet at an
> airpo
> > rt
> >> only a couple hundred feet above sea level. It was Texas in the summer
> >> time. I'm willing to bet the temperature was a heck-of-a-lot closer to
> 10
> > 0
> >> than it was to 40 or 50 or even 60 where we really might expect carb
> icin
> > g.
>
> >> The guy should have been at max power which is the least likely time to
> s
> > ee
> >> carb ice form. If he did the run-up correctly then carb ice was not a
> >> likely problem since it would have been detected during the full power
> >> turn-up.
>
> >> Oh, I notice you didn't answer my question.
>
> > What question? You don't expect an answer to a rhetorical question do
> > you? Anyway, what altitude did his engine start to fail and what was
> > the temperature that day?
> > Cheers
>
> Here ya go since you're too lazy or stubborn to look it up for yourself:
>
> Tabular Listing: July 26, 2008 - 8:00 through July 27, 2008 - 09:00 CDT
> Time(CDT) * * * Temperature * * Dew * * Relative * * * *Wind * *Wind * *Quality Pressure
> * * * * Sea level * * * Altimeter * * * Weather Visibility
> * * * * * * * * Point * Humidity * * * *Speed * Direction * * * check * * * * * pressure * * * *
> * * * * conditions * * *
> * * * * ° F * *° F * *% * * * *mph * * * * * * * * * * in * * *in * * *in * * * * * * *miles
> 8:53 * *81.0 * *66.9 * *62 * * *8 * * * WSW * * OK * * *29.41 * 29.97 * 29.99 * clear * 9.00
> 7:53 * *78.1 * *64.9 * *64 * * *8 * * * SW * * *OK * * *29.41 * 29.96 * 29.99 * clear * 9.00
> 6:53 * *75.9 * *64.9 * *69 * * *6 * * * SW * * *OK * * *29.40 * 29.95 * 29.98 * clear * 9.00
> 5:53 * *78.1 * *64.0 * *62 * * *9 * * * SW * * *OK * * *29.38 * 29.94 * 29.96 * clear * 10.00
> 4:53 * *80.1 * *64.0 * *58 * * *7 * * * SW * * *OK * * *29.39 * 29.94 * 29.97 * clear * 10.00
> 3:53 * *81.0 * *64.0 * *57 * * *8 * * * SSW * * OK * * *29.39 * 29.94 * 29.97 * clear * 10.00
> 2:53 * *79.0 * *63.0 * *58 * * *6 * * * SSW * * OK * * *29.40 * 29.95 * 29.98 * clear * 10.00
> 1:53 * *77.0 * *62.1 * *60 * * *5 * * * S * * * OK * * *29.39 * 29.95 * 29.97 * clear * 10.00
> 0:53 * *77.0 * *62.1 * *60 * * *5 * * * S * * * OK * * *29.41 * 29.96 * 29.99 * clear * 10.00
> 23:53 * 80.1 * *63.0 * *56 * * *0 * * * * * * * OK * * *29.41 * 29.96 * 29.99 * clear * 10.00
> 22:53 * 82.9 * *63.0 * *51 * * *0 * * * * * * * OK * * *29.41 * 29.96 * 29.99 * clear * 10.00
> 21:53 * 84.0 * *60.1 * *45 * * *5 * * * ESE * * OK * * *29.39 * 29.95 * 29.97 * clear * 10.00
> 20:53 * 86.0 * *61.0 * *43 * * *3 * * * E * * * OK * * *29.37 * 29.92 * 29.95 * clear * 10.00
> 19:53 * 93.0 * *57.9 * *31 * * *0 * * * * * * * OK * * *29.38 * 29.93 * 29.96 * clear * 10.00
> 18:53 * 96.1 * *55.0 * *25 * * *5 * * * SE * * *OK * * *29.38 * 29.93 * 29.96 * clear * 10.00
> 17:53 * 96.1 * *55.0 * *25 * * *5 * * * WNW * * OK * * *29.40 * 29.96 * 29.98 * clear * 10.00
> 16:53 * 97.0 * *54.0 * *24 * * *5 * * * SSW * * OK * * *29.42 * 29.98 * 30.00 * clear * 10.00
> 15:53 * 97.0 * *57.9 * *28 * * *12 * * *SW * * *OK * * *29.46 * 30.01 * 30.04 * clear * 10.00
> 14:53 * 96.1 * *64.0 * *35 * * *9 * * * WSW * * OK * * *29.48 * 30.03 * 30.06 * clear * 10.00
> 13:53 * 93.9 * *66.9 * *41 * * *7 * * * * * * * OK * * *29.51 * 30.06 * 30.09 * clear * 10.00
> 12:53 * 91.9 * *68.0 * *46 * * *12 * * *WSW * * OK * * *29.53 * 30.09 * 30.11 * clear * 10.00
> 11:53 * 90.0 * *69.1 * *51 * * *9 * * * WSW * * OK * * *29.55 * 30.10 * 30.13 * mostly clear * *10.00
> 10:53 * 87.1 * *70.0 * *57 * * *9 * * * SW * * *OK * * *29.56 * 30.11 * 30.14 * clear * 10.00
> 9:53 * *84.0 * *71.1 * *65 * * *10 * * *WSW * * OK * * *29.56 * 30.11 * 30.14 * clear * 9.00
> 8:53 * *80.1 * *72.0 * *76 * * *10 * * *WSW * * OK * * *29.56 * 30.12 * 30.14 * mostly clear * *8.00
>
> Like I said, it's a heck of a lot closer to 100 than 60. Ice would not be
> likely for wide-open-throttle.
>
> Had enough yet or do you still want to argue your hopeless position?
>

So if that's surface temp, tell us the altitude the engine loss of
power occured at. Are you saying icing is impossible?

Cheers

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 8th 08, 06:24 PM

wrote in
:

> On Aug 8, 12:26 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote
>> innews:f166e81d-bf10-4e94-8fe4-

>> om:
>>
>> > On Aug 6, 4:48 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> >> Clark writes:
>> >> > With 100 F OAT? Come on.
>>
>> >> The temperature may drop by 70 degrees inside the carburetor,
>> >> which means
>> > that
>> >> even at 100 F OAT the temperature may be below freezing inside the
>> >> carb.
>>
>> > Under what conditions would you expect such a temperature drop?
>>
>> at idle with a MP of around 12 inches, you would have a drop of about
>> 60F without taking into consideration evaporative cooliing which
>> would easily bring it down below freezing.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Pilots know that, Bertie, that's one of the reasons we do a carb heat
> check as part of run up. I wondered if sim jocks knew it. Well, they
> do now, so if they endure a long hold before takeoff and pay attention
> they are less likely to disturb a large number of real electrons by
> having a simulated power loss and crash on takeoff.

Ah, OK. With you now.

BTW, we have a similar issue with jets. The pressure around the intake
is considerably lower, obviously, so icing of the fan and, perhaps more
importantly, the P2 probe which is what many engines use as part of the
primary power indication, can ice well above freezing. Depending on
type, we have the engine anti ice on anytime it's below +10 C and
there's visible moisture.

Bertie

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 8th 08, 06:33 PM

jeremy > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Bull****.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You are correct, they did not have a good grasp on aerodynamics, but
> there bicycles were not so hot either :-)
>

They had an excellent grasp of serodynamics. In fact it was staggering.
Some of the aerodynamic refinements on the 03 flyer were nearly equal to
what could be accomplised with a computer today. The props, for example,
were alomost perfect for the application. The airfoil was also pretty good,
though something better could be created today. They understood decalage to
a degree that's simply mindblowing. The canard was rigged so that decalage
was altered, as well as the camber of the surfaces, in order to maximize
the flow at all times. As it happens, this was an unneccesay nicety, but
all the same, for a first try, pretty impressive.

They were also very good pilots by anyone's standard. Let's see anyone
trained today fly one of those right out of the box.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1mscspl-VU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg46QLzO3b0&feature=related

Bertie

[email protected]

August 8th 08, 07:32 PM

On Aug 8, 1:33*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> jeremy > wrote :
>
> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> >> Bull****.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > You are correct, they did not have a good grasp on aerodynamics, but
> > there bicycles were not so hot either :-)
>
> They had an excellent grasp of serodynamics. In fact it was staggering.
> Some of the aerodynamic refinements on the 03 flyer were nearly equal to
> what could be accomplised with a computer today. The props, for example,
> were alomost perfect for the application. The airfoil was also pretty good,
> though something better could be created today. They understood decalage to
> a degree that's simply mindblowing. The canard was rigged so that decalage
> was altered, as well as the camber of the surfaces, in order to maximize
> the flow at all times. As it happens, this was an unneccesay nicety, but
> all the same, for a first try, pretty impressive.
>
> They were also very good pilots by anyone's standard. Let's see anyone
> trained today fly one of those right out of the box.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1mscspl-VUhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg46QLzO3b0&feature=related
>
> Bertie

It's worth remembering the brothers also figured out that lift to drag
ratios could be determined by the angle a tethered glider's rope made
with the horizon -- that is a remarkable piece of experimental
aerodynamics.

More_Flaps

August 8th 08, 08:59 PM

On Aug 9, 12:06*am, Clark > wrote:
>
> I've pointed out that carb ice is one of the least likely causes and I've
> explaied why that is by noting the temperature and expected throttle
> setting. I have never said that carb ice is impossible. Maybe the guy idled
> for a loooong time and failed to check carb heat on run-up. Maybe he failed
> to verify max rpm on the run-up and/or take-off roll. It is possible that
> he had carb ice but at 92 degrees and less than 50% humidity and a hot
> engine it is just not a likely cause.
>

I notice you did not answer my altitude question. I'm honored that you
agree that carb ice cannot be ruled out simply by high ambient
_ground_ temperature. Now what else might be an explanation for power
steadily dropping?

Cheers.

More_Flaps

August 8th 08, 09:03 PM

On Aug 9, 6:32*am, wrote:
> On Aug 8, 1:33*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
>
> > jeremy > wrote :
>
> > > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> > >> Bull****.
>
> > >> Bertie
>
> > > You are correct, they did not have a good grasp on aerodynamics, but
> > > there bicycles were not so hot either :-)
>
> > They had an excellent grasp of serodynamics. In fact it was staggering.
> > Some of the aerodynamic refinements on the 03 flyer were nearly equal to
> > what could be accomplised with a computer today. The props, for example,
> > were alomost perfect for the application. The airfoil was also pretty good,
> > though something better could be created today. They understood decalage to
> > a degree that's simply mindblowing. The canard was rigged so that decalage
> > was altered, as well as the camber of the surfaces, in order to maximize
> > the flow at all times. As it happens, this was an unneccesay nicety, but
> > all the same, for a first try, pretty impressive.
>
> > They were also very good pilots by anyone's standard. Let's see anyone
> > trained today fly one of those right out of the box.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1mscspl-VUhttp://www.youtube.com/watc....
>
> > Bertie
>
> It's worth remembering the brothers also figured out that lift to drag
> ratios could be determined by the angle a tethered glider's rope made
> with the horizon -- that is a remarkable piece of experimental
> aerodynamics.

I thought it was simple trigonometry which would have been well known.

Cheers

[email protected]

August 8th 08, 09:21 PM

On Aug 8, 4:03*pm, More_Flaps > wrote:
> On Aug 9, 6:32*am, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 8, 1:33*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > > jeremy > wrote :
>
> > > > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> > > >> Bull****.
>
> > > >> Bertie
>
> > > > You are correct, they did not have a good grasp on aerodynamics, but
> > > > there bicycles were not so hot either :-)
>
> > > They had an excellent grasp of serodynamics. In fact it was staggering.
> > > Some of the aerodynamic refinements on the 03 flyer were nearly equal to
> > > what could be accomplised with a computer today. The props, for example,
> > > were alomost perfect for the application. The airfoil was also pretty good,
> > > though something better could be created today. They understood decalage to
> > > a degree that's simply mindblowing. The canard was rigged so that decalage
> > > was altered, as well as the camber of the surfaces, in order to maximize
> > > the flow at all times. As it happens, this was an unneccesay nicety, but
> > > all the same, for a first try, pretty impressive.
>
> > > They were also very good pilots by anyone's standard. Let's see anyone
> > > trained today fly one of those right out of the box.
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1mscspl-VUhttp://www.youtube.com/watc...
>
> > > Bertie
>
> > It's worth remembering the brothers also figured out that lift to drag
> > ratios could be determined by the angle a tethered glider's rope made
> > with the horizon -- that is a remarkable piece of experimental
> > aerodynamics.
>
> I thought it was simple trigonometry which would have been well known.
>
> Cheers

If you visit the Outer Banks near Jockey's Ridge you'll see some
photographic evidence of their experiments -- I seem to remember a
wind tunnel, but am not sure of that.

I don't think the 'simple trig' relationship for lift/drag as
evidenced by the teather angle was widely appreciated in that era, but
could be wrong about that. In fact, terminal velocities of different
shapes can be estimated that way today by dangling them from a window
of a moving car (subject to some interesting limitations,of course).

More_Flaps

August 9th 08, 04:18 AM

On Aug 9, 9:51*am, Clark > wrote:
> More_Flaps > wrote in news:ae58b49a-6d9c-4b51-957a-
> :
>
>
>
> > On Aug 9, 12:06*am, Clark > wrote:
>
> >> I've pointed out that carb ice is one of the least likely causes and
> I've
> >> explaied why that is by noting the temperature and expected throttle
> >> setting. I have never said that carb ice is impossible. Maybe the guy
> idl
> > ed
> >> for a loooong time and failed to check carb heat on run-up. Maybe he
> fail
> > ed
> >> to verify max rpm on the run-up and/or take-off roll. It is possible
> that
> >> he had carb ice but at 92 degrees and less than 50% humidity and a hot
> >> engine it is just not a likely cause.
>
> > I notice you did not answer my altitude question. I'm honored that you
> > agree that carb ice cannot be ruled out simply by high ambient
> > _ground_ temperature. Now what else might be an explanation for power
> > steadily dropping?
>
> > Cheers.
>
> Bull**** on not answering the altitude question. Read the NTSB report (that
> you snipped) for yourself. The altitude is quite clear for anyone who can
> comprehend what they read.
>

I see no statement of altitude. Are you on drugs?

Cheers

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 9th 08, 06:14 PM

wrote in
:

> On Aug 8, 1:33*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> jeremy > wrote
>> innews:8KYmk.14754$LG4.12208@nlpi065.
> nbdc.sbc.com:
>>
>> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> >> Bull****.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > You are correct, they did not have a good grasp on aerodynamics,
>> > but there bicycles were not so hot either :-)
>>
>> They had an excellent grasp of serodynamics. In fact it was
>> staggering. Some of the aerodynamic refinements on the 03 flyer were
>> nearly equal to what could be accomplised with a computer today. The
>> props, for example, were alomost perfect for the application. The
>> airfoil was also pretty goo
> d,
>> though something better could be created today. They understood
>> decalage
> to
>> a degree that's simply mindblowing. The canard was rigged so that
>> decalag
> e
>> was altered, as well as the camber of the surfaces, in order to
>> maximize the flow at all times. As it happens, this was an unneccesay
>> nicety, but all the same, for a first try, pretty impressive.
>>
>> They were also very good pilots by anyone's standard. Let's see
>> anyone trained today fly one of those right out of the box.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1mscspl-
VUhttp://www.youtube.com/watch
>> ?
> v=kg46QLzO3b0&feature=related
>>
>> Bertie
>
> It's worth remembering the brothers also figured out that lift to drag
> ratios could be determined by the angle a tethered glider's rope made
> with the horizon -- that is a remarkable piece of experimental
> aerodynamics.
>

Didn't know that. That is pretty amazing. How does that work?

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 9th 08, 06:17 PM

More_Flaps > wrote in
:

> On Aug 9, 6:32*am, wrote:
>> On Aug 8, 1:33*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > jeremy > wrote
>> > innews:8KYmk.14754$LG4.12208@nlpi06
> 5.nbdc.sbc.com:
>>
>> > > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> > >> Bull****.
>>
>> > >> Bertie
>>
>> > > You are correct, they did not have a good grasp on aerodynamics,
>> > > but there bicycles were not so hot either :-)
>>
>> > They had an excellent grasp of serodynamics. In fact it was
>> > staggering. Some of the aerodynamic refinements on the 03 flyer
>> > were nearly equal t
> o
>> > what could be accomplised with a computer today. The props, for
>> > example
> ,
>> > were alomost perfect for the application. The airfoil was also
>> > pretty g
> ood,
>> > though something better could be created today. They understood
>> > decalag
> e to
>> > a degree that's simply mindblowing. The canard was rigged so that
>> > decal
> age
>> > was altered, as well as the camber of the surfaces, in order to
>> > maximiz
> e
>> > the flow at all times. As it happens, this was an unneccesay
>> > nicety, bu
> t
>> > all the same, for a first try, pretty impressive.
>>
>> > They were also very good pilots by anyone's standard. Let's see
>> > anyone trained today fly one of those right out of the box.
>>
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1mscspl-
VUhttp://www.youtube.com/watc
>> >.
> ..
>>
>> > Bertie
>>
>> It's worth remembering the brothers also figured out that lift to
>> drag ratios could be determined by the angle a tethered glider's rope
>> made with the horizon -- that is a remarkable piece of experimental
>> aerodynamics.
>
> I thought it was simple trigonometry which would have been well known.
>

Before them, not much about flight was known at all. There was a lot of
supposition and they found that the info available at the time was
completely wrong, which is why they started form scratch with a wind
tunnel.
The accomplishments encommpassed in that first airplane are simply
astounding.
Not to mention what they learned about control. Between the kite
experiments and the early gliders they had learned a lot about
controlling their machines.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 9th 08, 06:23 PM

jeremy > wrote in news:nD7nk.18562$89.18095
@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> They were also very good pilots by anyone's standard. Let's see anyone
>> trained today fly one of those right out of the box.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1mscspl-VU
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg46QLzO3b0&feature=related
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You missed my point but I was a bit obtuse. They learned the art of both
> flying and aerodynamics and invented some ways of getting around the
> limitations of their competitors to win the race to fly a course.

They did indeed. But they were also so far ahead of their competition in
almost every way as to make almost all of their contributions combined
insignificant. In spite of all the alternative arguments as to who might
have flown first, the others were just aping birds or working on half baked
notions or the inaccurate info available at the time.

Bertie

[email protected]

August 9th 08, 07:05 PM

On Aug 9, 1:14*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Aug 8, 1:33*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> jeremy > wrote
> >> innews:8KYmk.14754$LG4.12208@nlpi065.
> > nbdc.sbc.com:
>
> >> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> >> >> Bull****.
>
> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> > You are correct, they did not have a good grasp on aerodynamics,
> >> > but there bicycles were not so hot either :-)
>
> >> They had an excellent grasp of serodynamics. In fact it was
> >> staggering. Some of the aerodynamic refinements on the 03 flyer were
> >> nearly equal to what could be accomplised with a computer today. The
> >> props, for example, were alomost perfect for the application. The
> >> airfoil was also pretty goo
> > d,
> >> though something better could be created today. They understood
> >> decalage
> > to
> >> a degree that's simply mindblowing. The canard was rigged so that
> >> decalag
> > e
> >> was altered, as well as the camber of the surfaces, in order to
> >> maximize the flow at all times. As it happens, this was an unneccesay
> >> nicety, but all the same, for a first try, pretty impressive.
>
> >> They were also very good pilots by anyone's standard. Let's see
> >> anyone trained today fly one of those right out of the box.
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1mscspl-
>
> VUhttp://www.youtube.com/watch
>
> >> ?
> > v=kg46QLzO3b0&feature=related
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > It's worth remembering the brothers also figured out that lift to drag
> > ratios could be determined by the angle a tethered glider's rope made
> > with the horizon -- that is a remarkable piece of experimental
> > aerodynamics.
>
> Didn't know that. That is pretty amazing. How does that work? *
>
> Bertie

I think you're joking with me about not knowing, but just in case: the
lift vector is of course proportional to the vertical component of the
triangle made by the tether, and the drag component is equal to the
horizontal component of the triangle. Opposite over adjacent sides is
the tangent of the angle. If the tether is at 45 degrees, for that
wind condition lift to drag is 1 to 1. There are some photographs at
the Outer Banks showing their gliders almost right overhead.

If you think about the experimental problems, among other things the
tether line attachment has to have a specific relationship to the cg
and center of lift. It makes my head hurt to think of the problems
they solved in getting the Flyer to fly.,

Now here's an extension of the tether experiment. If you want to
estimate the terminal velocity of a regularly shaped body, tie a
string to it and hold it out the window of your moving car. There are
a list of important conditions that have to be met, but when the
tether is at about 45 degrees, glance at the speedometer. That's the
approximate terminal velocity. How do I know? The Wrights told me so.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 9th 08, 08:28 PM

wrote in
:

> On Aug 9, 1:14*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote
>> innews:d45bc771-9a78-4e0a-85dd-e7ff9808df06@34g20
> 00hsh.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 8, 1:33*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> jeremy > wrote
>> >> innews:8KYmk.14754$LG4.12208@nlpi065.
>> > nbdc.sbc.com:
>>
>> >> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Bull****.
>>
>> >> >> Bertie
>>
>> >> > You are correct, they did not have a good grasp on aerodynamics,
>> >> > but there bicycles were not so hot either :-)
>>
>> >> They had an excellent grasp of serodynamics. In fact it was
>> >> staggering. Some of the aerodynamic refinements on the 03 flyer
>> >> were nearly equal to what could be accomplised with a computer
>> >> today. The props, for example, were alomost perfect for the
>> >> application. The airfoil was also pretty goo
>> > d,
>> >> though something better could be created today. They understood
>> >> decalage
>> > to
>> >> a degree that's simply mindblowing. The canard was rigged so that
>> >> decalag
>> > e
>> >> was altered, as well as the camber of the surfaces, in order to
>> >> maximize the flow at all times. As it happens, this was an
>> >> unneccesay nicety, but all the same, for a first try, pretty
>> >> impressive.
>>
>> >> They were also very good pilots by anyone's standard. Let's see
>> >> anyone trained today fly one of those right out of the box.
>>
>> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1mscspl-
>>
>> VUhttp://www.youtube.com/watch
>>
>> >> ?
>> > v=kg46QLzO3b0&feature=related
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > It's worth remembering the brothers also figured out that lift to
>> > drag ratios could be determined by the angle a tethered glider's
>> > rope made with the horizon -- that is a remarkable piece of
>> > experimental aerodynamics.
>>
>> Didn't know that. That is pretty amazing. How does that work? *
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I think you're joking with me about not knowing, but just in case: the
> lift vector is of course proportional to the vertical component of the
> triangle made by the tether, and the drag component is equal to the
> horizontal component of the triangle. Opposite over adjacent sides is
> the tangent of the angle. If the tether is at 45 degrees, for that
> wind condition lift to drag is 1 to 1. There are some photographs at
> the Outer Banks showing their gliders almost right overhead.
>
> If you think about the experimental problems, among other things the
> tether line attachment has to have a specific relationship to the cg
> and center of lift. It makes my head hurt to think of the problems
> they solved in getting the Flyer to fly.,
>
> Now here's an extension of the tether experiment. If you want to
> estimate the terminal velocity of a regularly shaped body, tie a
> string to it and hold it out the window of your moving car. There are
> a list of important conditions that have to be met, but when the
> tether is at about 45 degrees, glance at the speedometer. That's the
> approximate terminal velocity. How do I know? The Wrights told me so.
>

Hmm. no, wasn't joking. Just never thought of it in quite that way
before. Lends a new perspective.

Bertie

More_Flaps

August 9th 08, 08:34 PM

On Aug 10, 5:17*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> More_Flaps > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Aug 9, 6:32*am, wrote:
> >> On Aug 8, 1:33*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> > jeremy > wrote
> >> > innews:8KYmk.14754$LG4.12208@nlpi06
> > 5.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
> >> > > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> >> > >> Bull****.
>
> >> > >> Bertie
>
> >> > > You are correct, they did not have a good grasp on aerodynamics,
> >> > > but there bicycles were not so hot either :-)
>
> >> > They had an excellent grasp of serodynamics. In fact it was
> >> > staggering. Some of the aerodynamic refinements on the 03 flyer
> >> > were nearly equal t
> > o
> >> > what could be accomplised with a computer today. The props, for
> >> > example
> > ,
> >> > were alomost perfect for the application. The airfoil was also
> >> > pretty g
> > ood,
> >> > though something better could be created today. They understood
> >> > decalag
> > e to
> >> > a degree that's simply mindblowing. The canard was rigged so that
> >> > decal
> > age
> >> > was altered, as well as the camber of the surfaces, in order to
> >> > maximiz
> > e
> >> > the flow at all times. As it happens, this was an unneccesay
> >> > nicety, bu
> > t
> >> > all the same, for a first try, pretty impressive.
>
> >> > They were also very good pilots by anyone's standard. Let's see
> >> > anyone trained today fly one of those right out of the box.
>
> >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1mscspl-
>
> VUhttp://www.youtube.com/watc
>
> >> >.
> > ..
>
> >> > Bertie
>
> >> It's worth remembering the brothers also figured out that lift to
> >> drag ratios could be determined by the angle a tethered glider's rope
> >> made with the horizon -- that is a remarkable piece of experimental
> >> aerodynamics.
>
> > I thought it was simple trigonometry which would have been well known.
>
> Before them, not much about flight was known at all. There was a lot of
> supposition and they found that the info available at the time was
> completely wrong, which is why they started form scratch with a wind
> tunnel.
> The accomplishments encommpassed in that first airplane are simply
> astounding.
> Not to mention what they learned about control. Between the kite
> experiments and the early gliders they had learned a lot about
> controlling their machines.
>

I think there were two main issues. Model planes had already been
built and flown but real flight needed control as you said plus enough
lift. It was their systematic experimenting ht gave them success
rather than genius I think.

Cheers

More_Flaps

August 9th 08, 08:38 PM

On Aug 9, 3:47*pm, Clark > wrote:
> More_Flaps > wrote in news:4638dcb3-05ba-4e44-97f1-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 9, 9:51*am, Clark > wrote:
> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:ae58b49a-6d9c-4b51-957a-
> >> :
>
> >> > On Aug 9, 12:06*am, Clark > wrote:
>
> >> >> I've pointed out that carb ice is one of the least likely causes and
> >> I've
> >> >> explaied why that is by noting the temperature and expected throttle
> >> >> setting. I have never said that carb ice is impossible. Maybe the guy
> >> idl
> >> > ed
> >> >> for a loooong time and failed to check carb heat on run-up. Maybe he
> >> fail
> >> > ed
> >> >> to verify max rpm on the run-up and/or take-off roll. It is possible
> >> that
> >> >> he had carb ice but at 92 degrees and less than 50% humidity and a
> hot
> >> >> engine it is just not a likely cause.
>
> >> > I notice you did not answer my altitude question. I'm honored that you
> >> > agree that carb ice cannot be ruled out simply by high ambient
> >> > _ground_ temperature. Now what else might be an explanation for power
> >> > steadily dropping?
>
> >> > Cheers.
>
> >> Bull**** on not answering the altitude question. Read the NTSB report
> (th
> > at
> >> you snipped) for yourself. The altitude is quite clear for anyone who
> can
> >> comprehend what they read.
>
> > I see no statement of altitude. Are you on drugs?
>
> > Cheers
>
> What part of departure do you not understand? Maybe you should get an adult
> to read the NTSB report to you and explain the meaning of each sentence.
> No, cancel that. Not maybe, make it for-sure that you get help with
> understanding the report.
>

Do you know the altitude? It's not contained in the word departure is
it?
Cheers

More_Flaps

August 9th 08, 08:54 PM

On Aug 10, 6:05*am, wrote:
> On Aug 9, 1:14*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
>
> > wrote :
>
> > > On Aug 8, 1:33*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> > >> jeremy > wrote
> > >> innews:8KYmk.14754$LG4.12208@nlpi065.
> > > nbdc.sbc.com:
>
> > >> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> > >> >> Bull****.
>
> > >> >> Bertie
>
> > >> > You are correct, they did not have a good grasp on aerodynamics,
> > >> > but there bicycles were not so hot either :-)
>
> > >> They had an excellent grasp of serodynamics. In fact it was
> > >> staggering. Some of the aerodynamic refinements on the 03 flyer were
> > >> nearly equal to what could be accomplised with a computer today. The
> > >> props, for example, were alomost perfect for the application. The
> > >> airfoil was also pretty goo
> > > d,
> > >> though something better could be created today. They understood
> > >> decalage
> > > to
> > >> a degree that's simply mindblowing. The canard was rigged so that
> > >> decalag
> > > e
> > >> was altered, as well as the camber of the surfaces, in order to
> > >> maximize the flow at all times. As it happens, this was an unneccesay
> > >> nicety, but all the same, for a first try, pretty impressive.
>
> > >> They were also very good pilots by anyone's standard. Let's see
> > >> anyone trained today fly one of those right out of the box.
>
> > >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1mscspl-
>
> > VUhttp://www.youtube.com/watch
>
> > >> ?
> > > v=kg46QLzO3b0&feature=related
>
> > >> Bertie
>
> > > It's worth remembering the brothers also figured out that lift to drag
> > > ratios could be determined by the angle a tethered glider's rope made
> > > with the horizon -- that is a remarkable piece of experimental
> > > aerodynamics.
>
> > Didn't know that. That is pretty amazing. How does that work? *
>
> > Bertie
>
> I think you're joking with me about not knowing, but just in case: the
> lift vector is of course proportional to the vertical component of the
> triangle made by the tether, and the drag component is equal to the
> horizontal component of the triangle. Opposite over adjacent sides is
> the tangent of the angle. If the tether is at 45 degrees, for that
> wind condition lift to drag is 1 to 1. There are some photographs at
> the Outer Banks showing their gliders almost right overhead.
>
> If you think about the experimental problems, among other things the
> tether line attachment has to have a specific relationship to the cg
> and center of lift. It makes my head hurt to think of the problems
> they solved in getting the Flyer to fly.,
>

The tether point just adjusts pitch trim. Well known from kite flying.
What you do us put the tether on a bridle so the craft, if reasonably
stable, can find it's own position. Again a simple obvious method.

Cheers

More_Flaps

August 9th 08, 09:11 PM

On Aug 10, 5:23*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> jeremy > wrote in news:nD7nk.18562$89.18095
> @nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> >> They were also very good pilots by anyone's standard. Let's see anyone
> >> trained today fly one of those right out of the box.
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1mscspl-VU
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg46QLzO3b0&feature=related
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > You missed my point but I was a bit obtuse. They learned the art of both
> > flying and aerodynamics and invented some ways of getting around the
> > limitations of their competitors to win the race to fly a course.
>
> They did indeed. But they were also so far ahead of their competition in
> almost every way as to make almost all of their contributions combined
> insignificant. In spite of all the alternative arguments as to who might
> have flown first, the others were just aping birds or working on half baked *
> notions or the inaccurate info available at the time. *
>

Not so. The Wrights were driven by commercial goals and used the work
of others freely. Look at the work of Chanute for one:

"Chanute corresponded with many of the important figures in aviation,
including Otto Lilienthal in Germany and the Wright brothers in the
United States. In 1896, he began experimenting with gliders in a camp
on the shores of Lake Michigan near Chicago. He built, along with
Augustus Herring, a glider that was the most advanced of its time and
made about 2,000 gliding flights without an accident. The data he
collected would prove useful to the Wright brothers when they were
developing their early glider designs.

Chanute freely shared his knowledge about aviation with anyone who was
interested and expected others to do the same. This led to some
friction with the Wright brothers, who wanted to protect their
invention through patents."

Centennial of flight.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 9th 08, 11:10 PM

More_Flaps > wrote in
:

> On Aug 10, 5:17*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> More_Flaps > wrote
>> innews:8915ec10-fe86-488d-87c0-81e
> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 9, 6:32*am, wrote:
>> >> On Aug 8, 1:33*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> > jeremy > wrote
>> >> > innews:8KYmk.14754$LG4.12208@nlpi06
>> > 5.nbdc.sbc.com:
>>
>> >> > > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> >> > >> Bull****.
>>
>> >> > >> Bertie
>>
>> >> > > You are correct, they did not have a good grasp on
>> >> > > aerodynamics, but there bicycles were not so hot either :-)
>>
>> >> > They had an excellent grasp of serodynamics. In fact it was
>> >> > staggering. Some of the aerodynamic refinements on the 03 flyer
>> >> > were nearly equal t
>> > o
>> >> > what could be accomplised with a computer today. The props, for
>> >> > example
>> > ,
>> >> > were alomost perfect for the application. The airfoil was also
>> >> > pretty g
>> > ood,
>> >> > though something better could be created today. They understood
>> >> > decalag
>> > e to
>> >> > a degree that's simply mindblowing. The canard was rigged so
>> >> > that decal
>> > age
>> >> > was altered, as well as the camber of the surfaces, in order to
>> >> > maximiz
>> > e
>> >> > the flow at all times. As it happens, this was an unneccesay
>> >> > nicety, bu
>> > t
>> >> > all the same, for a first try, pretty impressive.
>>
>> >> > They were also very good pilots by anyone's standard. Let's see
>> >> > anyone trained today fly one of those right out of the box.
>>
>> >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1mscspl-
>>
>> VUhttp://www.youtube.com/watc
>>
>> >> >.
>> > ..
>>
>> >> > Bertie
>>
>> >> It's worth remembering the brothers also figured out that lift to
>> >> drag ratios could be determined by the angle a tethered glider's
>> >> rope made with the horizon -- that is a remarkable piece of
>> >> experimental aerodynamics.
>>
>> > I thought it was simple trigonometry which would have been well
>> > known.
>>
>> Before them, not much about flight was known at all. There was a lot
>> of supposition and they found that the info available at the time was
>> completely wrong, which is why they started form scratch with a wind
>> tunnel.
>> The accomplishments encommpassed in that first airplane are simply
>> astounding.
>> Not to mention what they learned about control. Between the kite
>> experiments and the early gliders they had learned a lot about
>> controlling their machines.
>>
>
> I think there were two main issues. Model planes had already been
> built and flown but real flight needed control as you said plus enough
> lift. It was their systematic experimenting ht gave them success
> rather than genius I think.
>

Well, the models werent anythign like as aerodynamically sophisticated
as their machine. Definitely is was hard work and determination above
all else, but there was something in their approach that led them to
places noone else had gone..

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 9th 08, 11:12 PM

More_Flaps > wrote in
:

> On Aug 10, 5:23*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> jeremy > wrote in news:nD7nk.18562$89.18095
>> @nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com:
>>
>> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> >> They were also very good pilots by anyone's standard. Let's see
>> >> anyone trained today fly one of those right out of the box.
>>
>> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1mscspl-VU
>> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg46QLzO3b0&feature=related
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > You missed my point but I was a bit obtuse. They learned the art of
>> > bot
> h
>> > flying and aerodynamics and invented some ways of getting around
>> > the limitations of their competitors to win the race to fly a
>> > course.
>>
>> They did indeed. But they were also so far ahead of their competition
>> in almost every way as to make almost all of their contributions
>> combined insignificant. In spite of all the alternative arguments as
>> to who might have flown first, the others were just aping birds or
>> working on half bak
> ed *
>> notions or the inaccurate info available at the time. *
>>
>
> Not so. The Wrights were driven by commercial goals and used the work
> of others freely. Look at the work of Chanute for one:

>
> "Chanute corresponded with many of the important figures in aviation,
> including Otto Lilienthal in Germany and the Wright brothers in the
> United States. In 1896, he began experimenting with gliders in a camp
> on the shores of Lake Michigan near Chicago. He built, along with
> Augustus Herring, a glider that was the most advanced of its time and
> made about 2,000 gliding flights without an accident. The data he
> collected would prove useful to the Wright brothers when they were
> developing their early glider designs.
>
> Chanute freely shared his knowledge about aviation with anyone who was
> interested and expected others to do the same. This led to some
> friction with the Wright brothers, who wanted to protect their
> invention through patents."
>
> Centennial of flight.

It's true they communicated with Chanute and they did build on the work
of the others, but the point is they found most of it pretty useless and
wildly innacurate. That's why they built their own wind tunnel and
colleced their own data.

Bertie
>

[email protected]

August 9th 08, 11:58 PM

On Aug 9, 6:12*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> More_Flaps > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Aug 10, 5:23*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> jeremy > wrote in news:nD7nk.18562$89.18095
> >> @nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
> >> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> >> >> They were also very good pilots by anyone's standard. Let's see
> >> >> anyone trained today fly one of those right out of the box.
>
> >> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1mscspl-VU
> >> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg46QLzO3b0&feature=related
>
> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> > You missed my point but I was a bit obtuse. They learned the art of
> >> > bot
> > h
> >> > flying and aerodynamics and invented some ways of getting around
> >> > the limitations of their competitors to win the race to fly a
> >> > course.
>
> >> They did indeed. But they were also so far ahead of their competition
> >> in almost every way as to make almost all of their contributions
> >> combined insignificant. In spite of all the alternative arguments as
> >> to who might have flown first, the others were just aping birds or
> >> working on half bak
> > ed *
> >> notions or the inaccurate info available at the time. *
>
> > Not so. The Wrights were driven by commercial goals and used the work
> > of others freely. Look at the work of Chanute for one:
>
> > "Chanute corresponded with many of the important figures in aviation,
> > including Otto Lilienthal in Germany and the Wright brothers in the
> > United States. In 1896, he began experimenting with gliders in a camp
> > on the shores of Lake Michigan near Chicago. He built, along with
> > Augustus Herring, a glider that was the most advanced of its time and
> > made about 2,000 gliding flights without an accident. The data he
> > collected would prove useful to the Wright brothers when they were
> > developing their early glider designs.
>
> > Chanute freely shared his knowledge about aviation with anyone who was
> > interested and expected others to do the same. This led to some
> > friction with the Wright brothers, who wanted to protect their
> > invention through patents."
>
> > Centennial of flight.
>
> It's true they communicated with Chanute and they did build on the work
> of the others, but the point is they found most of it pretty useless and
> wildly innacurate. That's why they built their own wind tunnel and
> colleced their own data.
>
> Bertie
>
>

Nah, it's time to face reality. It was Al Gore the Wrights copied
from. He did aviation just before he mentored that guy who plagiarized
his ideas about relativity and no one appreciates Gore's work on the
double helix. It links back to aviation, of course -- just think of
how obvious the shape of DNA is to pilots who are taught to avoid the
death spiral, and think of the link between hot air and climate change.

[email protected]

August 10th 08, 01:18 AM

On Aug 4, 11:55 am, "Mike" > wrote:

> The plane was a '59 145hp 172. DA would have been around 3,500. You can
> draw your own conclusions.

I'd like to know the temp and dewpoint at the time. The
loss of power was a classic symptom of carb ice, which can occur at
ambient temperatures of up to 100 degrees F if the humidity is high
enough.

Dan

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 10th 08, 04:36 AM

wrote in
:

> On Aug 9, 6:12*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> More_Flaps > wrote
>> innews:8bba4426-e87e-434c-93a8-1e2
> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 10, 5:23*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> jeremy > wrote in news:nD7nk.18562$89.18095
>> >> @nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com:
>>
>> >> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> >> >> They were also very good pilots by anyone's standard. Let's see
>> >> >> anyone trained today fly one of those right out of the box.
>>
>> >> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1mscspl-VU
>> >> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg46QLzO3b0&feature=related
>>
>> >> >> Bertie
>>
>> >> > You missed my point but I was a bit obtuse. They learned the art
>> >> > of bot
>> > h
>> >> > flying and aerodynamics and invented some ways of getting around
>> >> > the limitations of their competitors to win the race to fly a
>> >> > course.
>>
>> >> They did indeed. But they were also so far ahead of their
>> >> competition in almost every way as to make almost all of their
>> >> contributions combined insignificant. In spite of all the
>> >> alternative arguments as to who might have flown first, the others
>> >> were just aping birds or working on half bak
>> > ed *
>> >> notions or the inaccurate info available at the time. *
>>
>> > Not so. The Wrights were driven by commercial goals and used the
>> > work of others freely. Look at the work of Chanute for one:
>>
>> > "Chanute corresponded with many of the important figures in
>> > aviation, including Otto Lilienthal in Germany and the Wright
>> > brothers in the United States. In 1896, he began experimenting with
>> > gliders in a camp on the shores of Lake Michigan near Chicago. He
>> > built, along with Augustus Herring, a glider that was the most
>> > advanced of its time and made about 2,000 gliding flights without
>> > an accident. The data he collected would prove useful to the Wright
>> > brothers when they were developing their early glider designs.
>>
>> > Chanute freely shared his knowledge about aviation with anyone who
>> > was interested and expected others to do the same. This led to some
>> > friction with the Wright brothers, who wanted to protect their
>> > invention through patents."
>>
>> > Centennial of flight.
>>
>> It's true they communicated with Chanute and they did build on the
>> work of the others, but the point is they found most of it pretty
>> useless and wildly innacurate. That's why they built their own wind
>> tunnel and colleced their own data.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
>
> Nah, it's time to face reality. It was Al Gore the Wrights copied
> from. He did aviation just before he mentored that guy who plagiarized
> his ideas about relativity and no one appreciates Gore's work on the
> double helix. It links back to aviation, of course -- just think of
> how obvious the shape of DNA is to pilots who are taught to avoid the
> death spiral, and think of the link between hot air and climate
> change.
>

Uh, OK

Bertie

More_Flaps

August 10th 08, 11:13 AM

On Aug 10, 10:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> More_Flaps > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Aug 10, 5:17*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> More_Flaps > wrote
> >> innews:8915ec10-fe86-488d-87c0-81e
> > :
>
> >> > On Aug 9, 6:32*am, wrote:
> >> >> On Aug 8, 1:33*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> >> > jeremy > wrote
> >> >> > innews:8KYmk.14754$LG4.12208@nlpi06
> >> > 5.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
> >> >> > > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> >> >> > >> Bull****.
>
> >> >> > >> Bertie
>
> >> >> > > You are correct, they did not have a good grasp on
> >> >> > > aerodynamics, but there bicycles were not so hot either :-)
>
> >> >> > They had an excellent grasp of serodynamics. In fact it was
> >> >> > staggering. Some of the aerodynamic refinements on the 03 flyer
> >> >> > were nearly equal t
> >> > o
> >> >> > what could be accomplised with a computer today. The props, for
> >> >> > example
> >> > ,
> >> >> > were alomost perfect for the application. The airfoil was also
> >> >> > pretty g
> >> > ood,
> >> >> > though something better could be created today. They understood
> >> >> > decalag
> >> > e to
> >> >> > a degree that's simply mindblowing. The canard was rigged so
> >> >> > that decal
> >> > age
> >> >> > was altered, as well as the camber of the surfaces, in order to
> >> >> > maximiz
> >> > e
> >> >> > the flow at all times. As it happens, this was an unneccesay
> >> >> > nicety, bu
> >> > t
> >> >> > all the same, for a first try, pretty impressive.
>
> >> >> > They were also very good pilots by anyone's standard. Let's see
> >> >> > anyone trained today fly one of those right out of the box.
>
> >> >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1mscspl-
>
> >> VUhttp://www.youtube.com/watc
>
> >> >> >.
> >> > ..
>
> >> >> > Bertie
>
> >> >> It's worth remembering the brothers also figured out that lift to
> >> >> drag ratios could be determined by the angle a tethered glider's
> >> >> rope made with the horizon -- that is a remarkable piece of
> >> >> experimental aerodynamics.
>
> >> > I thought it was simple trigonometry which would have been well
> >> > known.
>
> >> Before them, not much about flight was known at all. There was a lot
> >> of supposition and they found that the info available at the time was
> >> completely wrong, which is why they started form scratch with a wind
> >> tunnel.
> >> The accomplishments encommpassed in that first airplane are simply
> >> astounding.
> >> Not to mention what they learned about control. Between the kite
> >> experiments and the early gliders they had learned a lot about
> >> controlling their machines.
>
> > I think there were two main issues. Model planes had already been
> > built and flown but real flight needed control as you said plus enough
> > lift. It was their systematic experimenting ht gave them success
> > rather than genius I think.
>
> Well, the models werent anythign like as aerodynamically sophisticated
> as their machine. Definitely is was hard work and determination above
> all else, but there was something in their approach that led them to
> places noone else had gone..
>
Aww c'on Bertie look at the pictures. Their canard was inspired by the
desire to avoid the *better* tailplane used by others.

Cheers

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 10th 08, 02:23 PM

More_Flaps > wrote in
:

> On Aug 10, 10:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> More_Flaps > wrote
>> innews:8a243588-4558-4c54-b45b-c2b
> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 10, 5:17*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> More_Flaps > wrote
>> >> innews:8915ec10-fe86-488d-87c0-81e
>> > :
>>
>> >> > On Aug 9, 6:32*am, wrote:
>> >> >> On Aug 8, 1:33*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > jeremy > wrote
>> >> >> > innews:8KYmk.14754$LG4.12208@nlpi06
>> >> > 5.nbdc.sbc.com:
>>
>> >> >> > > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > >> Bull****.
>>
>> >> >> > >> Bertie
>>
>> >> >> > > You are correct, they did not have a good grasp on
>> >> >> > > aerodynamics, but there bicycles were not so hot either :-)
>>
>> >> >> > They had an excellent grasp of serodynamics. In fact it was
>> >> >> > staggering. Some of the aerodynamic refinements on the 03
>> >> >> > flyer were nearly equal t
>> >> > o
>> >> >> > what could be accomplised with a computer today. The props,
>> >> >> > for example
>> >> > ,
>> >> >> > were alomost perfect for the application. The airfoil was
>> >> >> > also pretty g
>> >> > ood,
>> >> >> > though something better could be created today. They
>> >> >> > understood decalag
>> >> > e to
>> >> >> > a degree that's simply mindblowing. The canard was rigged so
>> >> >> > that decal
>> >> > age
>> >> >> > was altered, as well as the camber of the surfaces, in order
>> >> >> > to maximiz
>> >> > e
>> >> >> > the flow at all times. As it happens, this was an unneccesay
>> >> >> > nicety, bu
>> >> > t
>> >> >> > all the same, for a first try, pretty impressive.
>>
>> >> >> > They were also very good pilots by anyone's standard. Let's
>> >> >> > see anyone trained today fly one of those right out of the
>> >> >> > box.
>>
>> >> >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1mscspl-
>>
>> >> VUhttp://www.youtube.com/watc
>>
>> >> >> >.
>> >> > ..
>>
>> >> >> > Bertie
>>
>> >> >> It's worth remembering the brothers also figured out that lift
>> >> >> to drag ratios could be determined by the angle a tethered
>> >> >> glider's rope made with the horizon -- that is a remarkable
>> >> >> piece of experimental aerodynamics.
>>
>> >> > I thought it was simple trigonometry which would have been well
>> >> > known.
>>
>> >> Before them, not much about flight was known at all. There was a
>> >> lot of supposition and they found that the info available at the
>> >> time was completely wrong, which is why they started form scratch
>> >> with a wind tunnel.
>> >> The accomplishments encommpassed in that first airplane are simply
>> >> astounding.
>> >> Not to mention what they learned about control. Between the kite
>> >> experiments and the early gliders they had learned a lot about
>> >> controlling their machines.
>>
>> > I think there were two main issues. Model planes had already been
>> > built and flown but real flight needed control as you said plus
>> > enough lift. It was their systematic experimenting ht gave them
>> > success rather than genius I think.
>>
>> Well, the models werent anythign like as aerodynamically
>> sophisticated as their machine. Definitely is was hard work and
>> determination above all else, but there was something in their
>> approach that led them to places noone else had gone..
>>
> Aww c'on Bertie look at the pictures. Their canard was inspired by the
> desire to avoid the *better* tailplane used by others.
>

Others?

In any case, foremost n their thoughts was mauneuverability as well as
just sheer lifting ability. For that airplane, what's considered today
to be a conventional tailplane would have gone nto the minus column in
the lift department. Something they could ill afford with the very
limited power available. It also certainly made the airplane
maueuverable! There's a lot of things they could have done better, with
hindsight, but the thing as a first attempt at powered flight for them
is simply astounding. For many technologies, the evolution is
incremental and the contributions tend to be made by many different
individuals. Take Karl Benz and the car, for instance. He had a lot of
different technoligies already fairly well sorted out to combine into
that machine. Great achievemnet, OK, but there wasn't anything on it
that hadn't existed somewhere before. On the Wright's early airplanes,
there were aerodynamic inventions galore, and all with a sound basis
even by today's standards.

Bertie

Bertie

Neil Gould

August 10th 08, 03:33 PM

More_Flaps wrote:
> On Aug 10, 5:17 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> Before them, not much about flight was known at all. There was a lot
>> of
>> supposition and they found that the info available at the time was
>> completely wrong, which is why they started form scratch with a wind
>> tunnel.
>> The accomplishments encommpassed in that first airplane are simply
>> astounding.
>> Not to mention what they learned about control. Between the kite
>> experiments and the early gliders they had learned a lot about
>> controlling their machines.
>>
>
> I think there were two main issues. Model planes had already been
> built and flown but real flight needed control as you said plus enough
> lift. It was their systematic experimenting ht gave them success
> rather than genius I think.
>
I'd certainly call their accomplishment the result of genius, considering
that in the century that followed the contributions of thousands of
brilliant aeronautical engineers were comparatively minor tweaks of the
Wrights' systematic experiments.

Neil

More_Flaps

August 10th 08, 08:35 PM

On Aug 11, 6:30*am, Clark > wrote:
> More_Flaps > wrote in news:0344026b-cf53-4b18-92dd-
> :
>
>
>
> > On Aug 9, 3:47*pm, Clark > wrote:
> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:4638dcb3-05ba-4e44-97f1-
> >> :
>
> >> > On Aug 9, 9:51*am, Clark > wrote:
> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:ae58b49a-6d9c-4b51-
> 957a
> > -
> >> >> :
>
> >> >> > On Aug 9, 12:06*am, Clark > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> I've pointed out that carb ice is one of the least likely causes
> an
> > d
> >> >> I've
> >> >> >> explaied why that is by noting the temperature and expected
> throttl
> > e
> >> >> >> setting. I have never said that carb ice is impossible. Maybe the
> g
> > uy
> >> >> idl
> >> >> > ed
> >> >> >> for a loooong time and failed to check carb heat on run-up. Maybe
> h
> > e
> >> >> fail
> >> >> > ed
> >> >> >> to verify max rpm on the run-up and/or take-off roll. It is
> possibl
> > e
> >> >> that
> >> >> >> he had carb ice but at 92 degrees and less than 50% humidity and a
> >> hot
> >> >> >> engine it is just not a likely cause.
>
> >> >> > I notice you did not answer my altitude question. I'm honored that
> y
> > ou
> >> >> > agree that carb ice cannot be ruled out simply by high ambient
> >> >> > _ground_ temperature. Now what else might be an explanation for
> powe
> > r
> >> >> > steadily dropping?
>
> >> >> > Cheers.
>
> >> >> Bull**** on not answering the altitude question. Read the NTSB report
> >> (th
> >> > at
> >> >> you snipped) for yourself. The altitude is quite clear for anyone who
> >> can
> >> >> comprehend what they read.
>
> >> > I see no statement of altitude. Are you on drugs?
>
> >> > Cheers
>
> >> What part of departure do you not understand? Maybe you should get an
> adu
> > lt
> >> to read the NTSB report to you and explain the meaning of each sentence.
> >> No, cancel that. Not maybe, make it for-sure that you get help with
> >> understanding the report.
>
> > Do you know the altitude? It's not contained in the word departure is
> > it?
> > Cheers
>
> Look up the airport elevation yerself. Departure would be climbing out in
> other words within a thousand feet or so of the airport since you don't
> seem to understand the term.
>

Nope. Departure is the phase before enroute. It is NOT within 1000' of
the airport. How about you take some classes?

Cheers

[email protected]

August 10th 08, 09:07 PM

On Aug 10, 3:35*pm, More_Flaps > wrote:
> On Aug 11, 6:30*am, Clark > wrote:
>
>
>
> > More_Flaps > wrote in news:0344026b-cf53-4b18-92dd-
> > :
>
> > > On Aug 9, 3:47*pm, Clark > wrote:
> > >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:4638dcb3-05ba-4e44-97f1-
> > >> :
>
> > >> > On Aug 9, 9:51*am, Clark > wrote:
> > >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:ae58b49a-6d9c-4b51-
> > 957a
> > > -
> > >> >> :
>
> > >> >> > On Aug 9, 12:06*am, Clark > wrote:
>
> > >> >> >> I've pointed out that carb ice is one of the least likely causes
> > an
> > > d
> > >> >> I've
> > >> >> >> explaied why that is by noting the temperature and expected
> > throttl
> > > e
> > >> >> >> setting. I have never said that carb ice is impossible. Maybe the
> > g
> > > uy
> > >> >> idl
> > >> >> > ed
> > >> >> >> for a loooong time and failed to check carb heat on run-up. Maybe
> > h
> > > e
> > >> >> fail
> > >> >> > ed
> > >> >> >> to verify max rpm on the run-up and/or take-off roll. It is
> > possibl
> > > e
> > >> >> that
> > >> >> >> he had carb ice but at 92 degrees and less than 50% humidity and a
> > >> hot
> > >> >> >> engine it is just not a likely cause.
>
> > >> >> > I notice you did not answer my altitude question. I'm honored that
> > y
> > > ou
> > >> >> > agree that carb ice cannot be ruled out simply by high ambient
> > >> >> > _ground_ temperature. Now what else might be an explanation for
> > powe
> > > r
> > >> >> > steadily dropping?
>
> > >> >> > Cheers.
>
> > >> >> Bull**** on not answering the altitude question. Read the NTSB report
> > >> (th
> > >> > at
> > >> >> you snipped) for yourself. The altitude is quite clear for anyone who
> > >> can
> > >> >> comprehend what they read.
>
> > >> > I see no statement of altitude. Are you on drugs?
>
> > >> > Cheers
>
> > >> What part of departure do you not understand? Maybe you should get an
> > adu
> > > lt
> > >> to read the NTSB report to you and explain the meaning of each sentence.
> > >> No, cancel that. Not maybe, make it for-sure that you get help with
> > >> understanding the report.
>
> > > Do you know the altitude? It's not contained in the word departure is
> > > it?
> > > Cheers
>
> > Look up the airport elevation yerself. Departure would be climbing out in
> > other words within a thousand feet or so of the airport since you don't
> > seem to understand the term.
>
> Nope. Departure is the phase before enroute. It is NOT within 1000' of
> the airport. How about you take some classes?
>
> Cheers

It would appear from the newspaper report associated with this
accident that it happened on the grounds of the airport. It's unlikely
the airplane was very high.

[email protected]

August 11th 08, 02:08 AM

On Aug 6, 7:36 pm, Clark > wrote:

> Well, gee, the density altitude was mentioned to be 3500 feet at an airport
> only a couple hundred feet above sea level. It was Texas in the summer
> time. I'm willing to bet the temperature was a heck-of-a-lot closer to 100
> than it was to 40 or 50 or even 60 where we really might expect carb icing.
>
> The guy should have been at max power which is the least likely time to see
> carb ice form. If he did the run-up correctly then carb ice was not a
> likely problem since it would have been detected during the full power
> turn-up.
>
> As a final note, yes, carb ice might form at 100 F but it most likely won't
> form at max power at 100 F.

There have been accidents caused by carb ice that formed after the
runup while taxiing to the takeoff runway. The airplane can get
airborne but has trouble climbing, and the ice that formed before
takeoff is not only reducing the power but causing a larger pressure
drop in the carb, creating the conditions that cause more ice to form.
I fly a Continental, and I often have to use carb heat right up until
I open the throttle for takeoff. And I don't even live in a
particularly wet climate.
If you search AOPA's accident database for "Carburetor Icing"
you'll find hundredsdozens of cases where the only plausible
explanation was carb ice. The atmospheric conditions were ripe for it,
the situation allowed it, and the pilot, in many cases, didn't know
enough about it. I work in the flight training environment and know
first-hand about carb ice and how few people understand it or care to
understand it, and how some people just will not believe that it can
happen at full power on a warm day. People like you. Sooner or later
they get a wake-up, and they either handle it right or they have an
accident. I lost a flying friend that way, and too often we hear of
more carb ice accidents.
Folks older and wiser than you did a lot of research and
experimenting and came up with those icing charts, charts that have a
section that says "serious icing at ANY power setting." Pay attention.

Dan

Jim Logajan

August 11th 08, 04:57 AM

Clark > wrote:
> Now on to the meat of it. Look at those charts again and note that the
> serious icing risk sections aren't near 100 F.

Well ... based on historical conditions reported at FTW (Fort Worth, about
90-100 miles away) at noon of that day (15 minutes prior to the accident),
I believe the temperature appears to have been closer to ~90 F (32 C) at
the time of the accident. Dewpoint appears to have been somewhere in the
neighborhood of ~67 F (19 C). So somewhere around ~48% humidity. I'm using
this chart for reference for when carb icing takes place:

http://ibis.experimentals.de/images/carbicingfromcaassl14.gif

Drawing a vertical line from the 32 C point up to where it intersects a
horizontal line at 19 C results in a point just inside the orange area that
marks "Serious icing - descent power".

Getting back to the post that started this thread: there are many possible
causes for the accident, but not having a private pilot license was, IMHO,
probably not causal for this particular accident. (If the pilot never
learned about carb ice and the need to add carb heat in warm humid
conditions and icing did happen, then not having a license I suppose could
be considered causal.)

All that said, I'd be interested in knowing what other possible causes you
have in mind that happen often enough to exhibit the reported problems that
you consider them more probable than carb icing. I would find it
instructive.

More_Flaps

August 11th 08, 05:46 AM

On Aug 11, 8:48*am, Clark > wrote:
> More_Flaps > wrote in news:7de3c2a7-0640-4079-ba38-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 11, 6:30*am, Clark > wrote:
> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:0344026b-cf53-4b18-92dd-
> >> :
>
> >> > On Aug 9, 3:47*pm, Clark > wrote:
> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:4638dcb3-05ba-4e44-
> 97f1
> > -
> >> >> :
>
> >> >> > On Aug 9, 9:51*am, Clark > wrote:
> >> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:ae58b49a-6d9c-4b51-
> >> 957a
> >> > -
> >> >> >> :
>
> >> >> >> > On Aug 9, 12:06*am, Clark > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> I've pointed out that carb ice is one of the least likely
> causes
> >> an
> >> > d
> >> >> >> I've
> >> >> >> >> explaied why that is by noting the temperature and expected
> >> throttl
> >> > e
> >> >> >> >> setting. I have never said that carb ice is impossible. Maybe
> th
> > e
> >> g
> >> > uy
> >> >> >> idl
> >> >> >> > ed
> >> >> >> >> for a loooong time and failed to check carb heat on run-up.
> Mayb
> > e
> >> h
> >> > e
> >> >> >> fail
> >> >> >> > ed
> >> >> >> >> to verify max rpm on the run-up and/or take-off roll. It is
> >> possibl
> >> > e
> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> >> he had carb ice but at 92 degrees and less than 50% humidity
> and
> > *a
> >> >> hot
> >> >> >> >> engine it is just not a likely cause.
>
> >> >> >> > I notice you did not answer my altitude question. I'm honored
> tha
> > t
> >> y
> >> > ou
> >> >> >> > agree that carb ice cannot be ruled out simply by high ambient
> >> >> >> > _ground_ temperature. Now what else might be an explanation for
> >> powe
> >> > r
> >> >> >> > steadily dropping?
>
> >> >> >> > Cheers.
>
> >> >> >> Bull**** on not answering the altitude question. Read the NTSB
> repo
> > rt
> >> >> (th
> >> >> > at
> >> >> >> you snipped) for yourself. The altitude is quite clear for anyone
> w
> > ho
> >> >> can
> >> >> >> comprehend what they read.
>
> >> >> > I see no statement of altitude. Are you on drugs?
>
> >> >> > Cheers
>
> >> >> What part of departure do you not understand? Maybe you should get an
> >> adu
> >> > lt
> >> >> to read the NTSB report to you and explain the meaning of each
> sentenc
> > e.
> >> >> No, cancel that. Not maybe, make it for-sure that you get help with
> >> >> understanding the report.
>
> >> > Do you know the altitude? It's not contained in the word departure is
> >> > it?
> >> > Cheers
>
> >> Look up the airport elevation yerself. Departure would be climbing out
> in
> >> other words within a thousand feet or so of the airport since you don't
> >> seem to understand the term.
>
> > Nope. Departure is the phase before enroute. It is NOT within 1000' of
> > the airport. How about you take some classes?
>
> Hey, everywhere around here has a pattern altitude of about a thousand
> feet. If you're beyond that then you've departed the airspace. QED
>

Nope, airspace is not determined just by vertical extent and certainly
not by the extent of the "pattern". I guess thart makes you
bombastically wrong AGAIN. Here's a simple test for you, what is the
horizontal validity of a METAR? Hint: It's not 1000'...

Cheers

More_Flaps

August 11th 08, 05:48 AM

On Aug 11, 8:07*am, wrote:
> On Aug 10, 3:35*pm, More_Flaps > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 11, 6:30*am, Clark > wrote:
>
> > > More_Flaps > wrote in news:0344026b-cf53-4b18-92dd-
> > > :
>
> > > > On Aug 9, 3:47*pm, Clark > wrote:
> > > >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:4638dcb3-05ba-4e44-97f1-
> > > >> :
>
> > > >> > On Aug 9, 9:51*am, Clark > wrote:
> > > >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:ae58b49a-6d9c-4b51-
> > > 957a
> > > > -
> > > >> >> :
>
> > > >> >> > On Aug 9, 12:06*am, Clark > wrote:
>
> > > >> >> >> I've pointed out that carb ice is one of the least likely causes
> > > an
> > > > d
> > > >> >> I've
> > > >> >> >> explaied why that is by noting the temperature and expected
> > > throttl
> > > > e
> > > >> >> >> setting. I have never said that carb ice is impossible. Maybe the
> > > g
> > > > uy
> > > >> >> idl
> > > >> >> > ed
> > > >> >> >> for a loooong time and failed to check carb heat on run-up. Maybe
> > > h
> > > > e
> > > >> >> fail
> > > >> >> > ed
> > > >> >> >> to verify max rpm on the run-up and/or take-off roll. It is
> > > possibl
> > > > e
> > > >> >> that
> > > >> >> >> he had carb ice but at 92 degrees and less than 50% humidity and a
> > > >> hot
> > > >> >> >> engine it is just not a likely cause.
>
> > > >> >> > I notice you did not answer my altitude question. I'm honored that
> > > y
> > > > ou
> > > >> >> > agree that carb ice cannot be ruled out simply by high ambient
> > > >> >> > _ground_ temperature. Now what else might be an explanation for
> > > powe
> > > > r
> > > >> >> > steadily dropping?
>
> > > >> >> > Cheers.
>
> > > >> >> Bull**** on not answering the altitude question. Read the NTSB report
> > > >> (th
> > > >> > at
> > > >> >> you snipped) for yourself. The altitude is quite clear for anyone who
> > > >> can
> > > >> >> comprehend what they read.
>
> > > >> > I see no statement of altitude. Are you on drugs?
>
> > > >> > Cheers
>
> > > >> What part of departure do you not understand? Maybe you should get an
> > > adu
> > > > lt
> > > >> to read the NTSB report to you and explain the meaning of each sentence.
> > > >> No, cancel that. Not maybe, make it for-sure that you get help with
> > > >> understanding the report.
>
> > > > Do you know the altitude? It's not contained in the word departure is
> > > > it?
> > > > Cheers
>
> > > Look up the airport elevation yerself. Departure would be climbing out in
> > > other words within a thousand feet or so of the airport since you don't
> > > seem to understand the term.
>
> > Nope. Departure is the phase before enroute. It is NOT within 1000' of
> > the airport. How about you take some classes?
>
> > Cheers
>
> It would appear from the newspaper report associated with this
> accident that it happened on the grounds of the airport. It's unlikely
> the airplane was very high.

Errr OK if the airport has trees on it's grounds... Never seen that
myself but maybe we were too rash at cutting them to make an
aerodrome.

Cheers

More_Flaps

August 11th 08, 05:55 AM

On Aug 11, 8:48*am, Clark > wrote:
> More_Flaps > wrote in news:7de3c2a7-0640-4079-ba38-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 11, 6:30*am, Clark > wrote:
> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:0344026b-cf53-4b18-92dd-
> >> :
>
> >> > On Aug 9, 3:47*pm, Clark > wrote:
> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:4638dcb3-05ba-4e44-
> 97f1
> > -
> >> >> :
>
> >> >> > On Aug 9, 9:51*am, Clark > wrote:
> >> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:ae58b49a-6d9c-4b51-
> >> 957a
> >> > -
> >> >> >> :
>
> >> >> >> > On Aug 9, 12:06*am, Clark > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> I've pointed out that carb ice is one of the least likely
> causes
> >> an
> >> > d
> >> >> >> I've
> >> >> >> >> explaied why that is by noting the temperature and expected
> >> throttl
> >> > e
> >> >> >> >> setting. I have never said that carb ice is impossible. Maybe
> th
> > e
> >> g
> >> > uy
> >> >> >> idl
> >> >> >> > ed
> >> >> >> >> for a loooong time and failed to check carb heat on run-up.
> Mayb
> > e
> >> h
> >> > e
> >> >> >> fail
> >> >> >> > ed
> >> >> >> >> to verify max rpm on the run-up and/or take-off roll. It is
> >> possibl
> >> > e
> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> >> he had carb ice but at 92 degrees and less than 50% humidity
> and
> > *a
> >> >> hot
> >> >> >> >> engine it is just not a likely cause.
>
> >> >> >> > I notice you did not answer my altitude question. I'm honored
> tha
> > t
> >> y
> >> > ou
> >> >> >> > agree that carb ice cannot be ruled out simply by high ambient
> >> >> >> > _ground_ temperature. Now what else might be an explanation for
> >> powe
> >> > r
> >> >> >> > steadily dropping?
>
> >> >> >> > Cheers.
>
> >> >> >> Bull**** on not answering the altitude question. Read the NTSB
> repo
> > rt
> >> >> (th
> >> >> > at
> >> >> >> you snipped) for yourself. The altitude is quite clear for anyone
> w
> > ho
> >> >> can
> >> >> >> comprehend what they read.
>
> >> >> > I see no statement of altitude. Are you on drugs?
>
> >> >> > Cheers
>
> >> >> What part of departure do you not understand? Maybe you should get an
> >> adu
> >> > lt
> >> >> to read the NTSB report to you and explain the meaning of each
> sentenc
> > e.
> >> >> No, cancel that. Not maybe, make it for-sure that you get help with
> >> >> understanding the report.
>
> >> > Do you know the altitude? It's not contained in the word departure is
> >> > it?
> >> > Cheers
>
> >> Look up the airport elevation yerself. Departure would be climbing out
> in
> >> other words within a thousand feet or so of the airport since you don't
> >> seem to understand the term.
>
> > Nope. Departure is the phase before enroute. It is NOT within 1000' of
> > the airport. How about you take some classes?
>
>
> Now to really destroy your altitude question. Do you really expect carb
> icing to suddenly develop at high altitude while on departure at full
> throttle or even cruise power??? Prior to this exchange of posts I would
> have assumed that you do understand that very low manifold pressure is
> required for there to be any chance of carb ice in Texas in the summer at
> Skyhawk attainable altitudes. Obviously my assumption was incorrect and
> clearly you have no grasp the causes of carb icing.
>
Nope I would not, as trained pilot, rule it out without testing for
it. Jumping to conclusions without facts can get you killed. You will
note that my original observation was a paranthetic question, which
you dismissed because it couldn't possibly happen? How do _you_ know
that ice build up had not started -was manifold pressure available to
the pilot and did he look at it?

Cheers

[email protected]

August 11th 08, 01:31 PM

On Aug 11, 8:23*am, Clark > wrote:
> More_Flaps > wrote in news:1e21c1be-8850-4f80-91d4-
> :
>
>
>
> > On Aug 11, 8:48*am, Clark > wrote:
> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:7de3c2a7-0640-4079-ba38-
> >> :
>
> >> > On Aug 11, 6:30*am, Clark > wrote:
> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:0344026b-cf53-4b18-
> 92dd
> > -
> >> >> :
>
> >> >> > On Aug 9, 3:47*pm, Clark > wrote:
> >> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:4638dcb3-05ba-4e44-
> >> 97f1
> >> > -
> >> >> >> :
>
> >> >> >> > On Aug 9, 9:51*am, Clark > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:ae58b49a-6d9c-
> 4b5
> > 1-
> >> >> 957a
> >> >> > -
> >> >> >> >> :
>
> >> >> >> >> > On Aug 9, 12:06*am, Clark > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> I've pointed out that carb ice is one of the least likely
> >> causes
> >> >> an
> >> >> > d
> >> >> >> >> I've
> >> >> >> >> >> explaied why that is by noting the temperature and expected
> >> >> throttl
> >> >> > e
> >> >> >> >> >> setting. I have never said that carb ice is impossible.
> Maybe
> >> th
> >> > e
> >> >> g
> >> >> > uy
> >> >> >> >> idl
> >> >> >> >> > ed
> >> >> >> >> >> for a loooong time and failed to check carb heat on run-up..
> >> Mayb
> >> > e
> >> >> h
> >> >> > e
> >> >> >> >> fail
> >> >> >> >> > ed
> >> >> >> >> >> to verify max rpm on the run-up and/or take-off roll. It is
> >> >> possibl
> >> >> > e
> >> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> >> >> he had carb ice but at 92 degrees and less than 50% humidity
> >> and
> >> > *a
> >> >> >> hot
> >> >> >> >> >> engine it is just not a likely cause.
>
> >> >> >> >> > I notice you did not answer my altitude question. I'm honored
> >> tha
> >> > t
> >> >> y
> >> >> > ou
> >> >> >> >> > agree that carb ice cannot be ruled out simply by high
> ambient
> >> >> >> >> > _ground_ temperature. Now what else might be an explanation
> fo
> > r
> >> >> powe
> >> >> > r
> >> >> >> >> > steadily dropping?
>
> >> >> >> >> > Cheers.
>
> >> >> >> >> Bull**** on not answering the altitude question. Read the NTSB
> >> repo
> >> > rt
> >> >> >> (th
> >> >> >> > at
> >> >> >> >> you snipped) for yourself. The altitude is quite clear for
> anyon
> > e
> >> w
> >> > ho
> >> >> >> can
> >> >> >> >> comprehend what they read.
>
> >> >> >> > I see no statement of altitude. Are you on drugs?
>
> >> >> >> > Cheers
>
> >> >> >> What part of departure do you not understand? Maybe you should get
> > an
> >> >> adu
> >> >> > lt
> >> >> >> to read the NTSB report to you and explain the meaning of each
> >> sentenc
> >> > e.
> >> >> >> No, cancel that. Not maybe, make it for-sure that you get help
> with
> >> >> >> understanding the report.
>
> >> >> > Do you know the altitude? It's not contained in the word departure
> i
> > s
> >> >> > it?
> >> >> > Cheers
>
> >> >> Look up the airport elevation yerself. Departure would be climbing
> out
> >> in
> >> >> other words within a thousand feet or so of the airport since you
> don'
> > t
> >> >> seem to understand the term.
>
> >> > Nope. Departure is the phase before enroute. It is NOT within 1000' of
> >> > the airport. How about you take some classes?
>
> >> Now to really destroy your altitude question. Do you really expect carb
> >> icing to suddenly develop at high altitude while on departure at full
> >> throttle or even cruise power??? Prior to this exchange of posts I would
> >> have assumed that you do understand that very low manifold pressure is
> >> required for there to be any chance of carb ice in Texas in the summer
> at
> >> Skyhawk attainable altitudes. Obviously my assumption was incorrect and
> >> clearly you have no grasp the causes of carb icing.
>
> > Nope I would not, as trained pilot, rule it out without testing for
> > it. Jumping to conclusions without facts can get you killed. You will
> > note that my original observation was a paranthetic question, which
> > you dismissed because it couldn't possibly happen? How do _you_ know
> > that ice build up had not started -was manifold pressure available to
> > the pilot and did he look at it?
>
> Get real dufuss. I noted that carb icing isn't the most likely cause. Do
> try to keep up now.
>
> --
> ---
> there should be a "sig" here

It's been a long long time since I flew a normally carberated
airplane, but just had this thought. What would have been the results
if in 90 degree temps someone did try to take off with the carb heat
full on? Would the loss of power be significant? I'm thinking it's one
thing to check for carb ice and carb heat function during run up, but
the amount of heat available during full throttle takeoff could be
something very different. I know it may have nothing to do with this
case, but hope someone can provide an insightful answer anyhow.

Gig 601Xl Builder

August 11th 08, 02:36 PM

More_Flaps wrote:

> Errr OK if the airport has trees on it's grounds... Never seen that
> myself but maybe we were too rash at cutting them to make an
> aerodrome.
>
> Cheers

Well, feel free to visit KELD. We have so many trees on the airport
property that they produce income for the airport.

More_Flaps

August 11th 08, 03:12 PM

On Aug 12, 12:23*am, Clark > wrote:
> More_Flaps > wrote in news:1e21c1be-8850-4f80-91d4-
> :
>
>
>
> > On Aug 11, 8:48*am, Clark > wrote:
> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:7de3c2a7-0640-4079-ba38-
> >> :
>
> >> > On Aug 11, 6:30*am, Clark > wrote:
> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:0344026b-cf53-4b18-
> 92dd
> > -
> >> >> :
>
> >> >> > On Aug 9, 3:47*pm, Clark > wrote:
> >> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:4638dcb3-05ba-4e44-
> >> 97f1
> >> > -
> >> >> >> :
>
> >> >> >> > On Aug 9, 9:51*am, Clark > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:ae58b49a-6d9c-
> 4b5
> > 1-
> >> >> 957a
> >> >> > -
> >> >> >> >> :
>
> >> >> >> >> > On Aug 9, 12:06*am, Clark > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> I've pointed out that carb ice is one of the least likely
> >> causes
> >> >> an
> >> >> > d
> >> >> >> >> I've
> >> >> >> >> >> explaied why that is by noting the temperature and expected
> >> >> throttl
> >> >> > e
> >> >> >> >> >> setting. I have never said that carb ice is impossible.
> Maybe
> >> th
> >> > e
> >> >> g
> >> >> > uy
> >> >> >> >> idl
> >> >> >> >> > ed
> >> >> >> >> >> for a loooong time and failed to check carb heat on run-up..
> >> Mayb
> >> > e
> >> >> h
> >> >> > e
> >> >> >> >> fail
> >> >> >> >> > ed
> >> >> >> >> >> to verify max rpm on the run-up and/or take-off roll. It is
> >> >> possibl
> >> >> > e
> >> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> >> >> he had carb ice but at 92 degrees and less than 50% humidity
> >> and
> >> > *a
> >> >> >> hot
> >> >> >> >> >> engine it is just not a likely cause.
>
> >> >> >> >> > I notice you did not answer my altitude question. I'm honored
> >> tha
> >> > t
> >> >> y
> >> >> > ou
> >> >> >> >> > agree that carb ice cannot be ruled out simply by high
> ambient
> >> >> >> >> > _ground_ temperature. Now what else might be an explanation
> fo
> > r
> >> >> powe
> >> >> > r
> >> >> >> >> > steadily dropping?
>
> >> >> >> >> > Cheers.
>
> >> >> >> >> Bull**** on not answering the altitude question. Read the NTSB
> >> repo
> >> > rt
> >> >> >> (th
> >> >> >> > at
> >> >> >> >> you snipped) for yourself. The altitude is quite clear for
> anyon
> > e
> >> w
> >> > ho
> >> >> >> can
> >> >> >> >> comprehend what they read.
>
> >> >> >> > I see no statement of altitude. Are you on drugs?
>
> >> >> >> > Cheers
>
> >> >> >> What part of departure do you not understand? Maybe you should get
> > an
> >> >> adu
> >> >> > lt
> >> >> >> to read the NTSB report to you and explain the meaning of each
> >> sentenc
> >> > e.
> >> >> >> No, cancel that. Not maybe, make it for-sure that you get help
> with
> >> >> >> understanding the report.
>
> >> >> > Do you know the altitude? It's not contained in the word departure
> i
> > s
> >> >> > it?
> >> >> > Cheers
>
> >> >> Look up the airport elevation yerself. Departure would be climbing
> out
> >> in
> >> >> other words within a thousand feet or so of the airport since you
> don'
> > t
> >> >> seem to understand the term.
>
> >> > Nope. Departure is the phase before enroute. It is NOT within 1000' of
> >> > the airport. How about you take some classes?
>
> >> Now to really destroy your altitude question. Do you really expect carb
> >> icing to suddenly develop at high altitude while on departure at full
> >> throttle or even cruise power??? Prior to this exchange of posts I would
> >> have assumed that you do understand that very low manifold pressure is
> >> required for there to be any chance of carb ice in Texas in the summer
> at
> >> Skyhawk attainable altitudes. Obviously my assumption was incorrect and
> >> clearly you have no grasp the causes of carb icing.
>
> > Nope I would not, as trained pilot, rule it out without testing for
> > it. Jumping to conclusions without facts can get you killed. You will
> > note that my original observation was a paranthetic question, which
> > you dismissed because it couldn't possibly happen? How do _you_ know
> > that ice build up had not started -was manifold pressure available to
> > the pilot and did he look at it?
>
> Get real dufuss. I noted that carb icing isn't the most likely cause. Do
> try to keep up now.
>

Then wtf are you arguing for?

Cheers

More_Flaps

August 11th 08, 03:24 PM

On Aug 12, 12:22*am, Clark > wrote:
> More_Flaps > wrote in news:7f20452f-565d-4868-8cb1-
> :
>
>
>
> > On Aug 11, 8:48*am, Clark > wrote:
> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:7de3c2a7-0640-4079-ba38-
> >> :
>
> >> > On Aug 11, 6:30*am, Clark > wrote:
> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:0344026b-cf53-4b18-
> 92dd
> > -
> >> >> :
>
> >> >> > On Aug 9, 3:47*pm, Clark > wrote:
> >> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:4638dcb3-05ba-4e44-
> >> 97f1
> >> > -
> >> >> >> :
>
> >> >> >> > On Aug 9, 9:51*am, Clark > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:ae58b49a-6d9c-
> 4b5
> > 1-
> >> >> 957a
> >> >> > -
> >> >> >> >> :
>
> >> >> >> >> > On Aug 9, 12:06*am, Clark > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> I've pointed out that carb ice is one of the least likely
> >> causes
> >> >> an
> >> >> > d
> >> >> >> >> I've
> >> >> >> >> >> explaied why that is by noting the temperature and expected
> >> >> throttl
> >> >> > e
> >> >> >> >> >> setting. I have never said that carb ice is impossible.
> Maybe
> >> th
> >> > e
> >> >> g
> >> >> > uy
> >> >> >> >> idl
> >> >> >> >> > ed
> >> >> >> >> >> for a loooong time and failed to check carb heat on run-up..
> >> Mayb
> >> > e
> >> >> h
> >> >> > e
> >> >> >> >> fail
> >> >> >> >> > ed
> >> >> >> >> >> to verify max rpm on the run-up and/or take-off roll. It is
> >> >> possibl
> >> >> > e
> >> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> >> >> he had carb ice but at 92 degrees and less than 50% humidity
> >> and
> >> > *a
> >> >> >> hot
> >> >> >> >> >> engine it is just not a likely cause.
>
> >> >> >> >> > I notice you did not answer my altitude question. I'm honored
> >> tha
> >> > t
> >> >> y
> >> >> > ou
> >> >> >> >> > agree that carb ice cannot be ruled out simply by high
> ambient
> >> >> >> >> > _ground_ temperature. Now what else might be an explanation
> fo
> > r
> >> >> powe
> >> >> > r
> >> >> >> >> > steadily dropping?
>
> >> >> >> >> > Cheers.
>
> >> >> >> >> Bull**** on not answering the altitude question. Read the NTSB
> >> repo
> >> > rt
> >> >> >> (th
> >> >> >> > at
> >> >> >> >> you snipped) for yourself. The altitude is quite clear for
> anyon
> > e
> >> w
> >> > ho
> >> >> >> can
> >> >> >> >> comprehend what they read.
>
> >> >> >> > I see no statement of altitude. Are you on drugs?
>
> >> >> >> > Cheers
>
> >> >> >> What part of departure do you not understand? Maybe you should get
> > an
> >> >> adu
> >> >> > lt
> >> >> >> to read the NTSB report to you and explain the meaning of each
> >> sentenc
> >> > e.
> >> >> >> No, cancel that. Not maybe, make it for-sure that you get help
> with
> >> >> >> understanding the report.
>
> >> >> > Do you know the altitude? It's not contained in the word departure
> i
> > s
> >> >> > it?
> >> >> > Cheers
>
> >> >> Look up the airport elevation yerself. Departure would be climbing
> out
> >> in
> >> >> other words within a thousand feet or so of the airport since you
> don'
> > t
> >> >> seem to understand the term.
>
> >> > Nope. Departure is the phase before enroute. It is NOT within 1000' of
> >> > the airport. How about you take some classes?
>
> >> Hey, everywhere around here has a pattern altitude of about a thousand
> >> feet. If you're beyond that then you've departed the airspace. QED
>
> > Nope, airspace is not determined just by vertical extent and certainly
> > not by the extent of the "pattern". I guess thart makes you
> > bombastically wrong AGAIN. Here's a simple test for you, what is the
> > horizontal validity of a METAR? Hint: It's not 1000'...
>
> Airspace is not determined just by vertical extent? What? Are you nuts.
> Where is Class A airspace.
>
> Now a little more to the point, if you're above pattern altitude how
> exactly are you in an uncontrolled airport's airspace? Hmmmm? You're not
> now are you.
>

Drunk again? Do try to comprehend what is written and remember what
_you_ wrote old chap. Extent of airspace is not just determined by
altitude, there's a horizontal extent too. It's usually marked by
colored lines on charts. You need to pay attention to that -try taking
some lessons and ask your teacher what the ATZ is and what are the
legal regulations for flying in it. I'll tell you for free that its
bigger than the pattern. You're obviously not a pilot.

Cheers

More_Flaps

August 11th 08, 03:25 PM

On Aug 12, 1:36*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> More_Flaps wrote:
> > Errr OK if the airport has trees on it's grounds... Never seen that
> > myself but maybe we were too rash at cutting them to make an
> > aerodrome.
>
> > Cheers
>
> Well, feel free to visit KELD. We have so many trees on the airport
> property that they produce income for the airport.

They may on the property but not in the aerodrome surely.

Cheers

More_Flaps

August 11th 08, 03:32 PM

On Aug 12, 12:19*am, Clark > wrote:

>
> Well Jimmy, all we really know is the aircraft did not successfully depart
> the airport. Maybe he was overgross and couldn't fly out of ground effect..
> That's pretty common. Throw in the fact that the pilot was obviously not
> honest about obtaining a certificate to legally pilot the aircraft and I
> think that it's reasonable to assume the story about losing power is false
> reporting.
>

Please don't ever accept jury duty Clark. No, It's not "reasonable" at
all. Certification does not make you more honest.

Cheers

More_Flaps

August 11th 08, 03:38 PM

On Aug 12, 12:19*am, Clark > wrote:

> Maybe he was overgross and couldn't fly out of ground effect.

Given the obesity of the average 'merkin I would say this is a very
useful direction for thought and getting on the backside of the power
curve _out of ground effect_ is yet more likely.

Cheers

More_Flaps

August 11th 08, 03:50 PM

On Aug 12, 12:22*am, Clark > wrote:
> More_Flaps > wrote in news:7f20452f-565d-4868-8cb1-
> :
>
>
>
> > On Aug 11, 8:48*am, Clark > wrote:
> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:7de3c2a7-0640-4079-ba38-
> >> :
>
> >> > On Aug 11, 6:30*am, Clark > wrote:
> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:0344026b-cf53-4b18-
> 92dd
> > -
> >> >> :
>
> >> >> > On Aug 9, 3:47*pm, Clark > wrote:
> >> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:4638dcb3-05ba-4e44-
> >> 97f1
> >> > -
> >> >> >> :
>
> >> >> >> > On Aug 9, 9:51*am, Clark > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:ae58b49a-6d9c-
> 4b5
> > 1-
> >> >> 957a
> >> >> > -
> >> >> >> >> :
>
> >> >> >> >> > On Aug 9, 12:06*am, Clark > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> I've pointed out that carb ice is one of the least likely
> >> causes
> >> >> an
> >> >> > d
> >> >> >> >> I've
> >> >> >> >> >> explaied why that is by noting the temperature and expected
> >> >> throttl
> >> >> > e
> >> >> >> >> >> setting. I have never said that carb ice is impossible.
> Maybe
> >> th
> >> > e
> >> >> g
> >> >> > uy
> >> >> >> >> idl
> >> >> >> >> > ed
> >> >> >> >> >> for a loooong time and failed to check carb heat on run-up..
> >> Mayb
> >> > e
> >> >> h
> >> >> > e
> >> >> >> >> fail
> >> >> >> >> > ed
> >> >> >> >> >> to verify max rpm on the run-up and/or take-off roll. It is
> >> >> possibl
> >> >> > e
> >> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> >> >> he had carb ice but at 92 degrees and less than 50% humidity
> >> and
> >> > *a
> >> >> >> hot
> >> >> >> >> >> engine it is just not a likely cause.
>
> >> >> >> >> > I notice you did not answer my altitude question. I'm honored
> >> tha
> >> > t
> >> >> y
> >> >> > ou
> >> >> >> >> > agree that carb ice cannot be ruled out simply by high
> ambient
> >> >> >> >> > _ground_ temperature. Now what else might be an explanation
> fo
> > r
> >> >> powe
> >> >> > r
> >> >> >> >> > steadily dropping?
>
> >> >> >> >> > Cheers.
>
> >> >> >> >> Bull**** on not answering the altitude question. Read the NTSB
> >> repo
> >> > rt
> >> >> >> (th
> >> >> >> > at
> >> >> >> >> you snipped) for yourself. The altitude is quite clear for
> anyon
> > e
> >> w
> >> > ho
> >> >> >> can
> >> >> >> >> comprehend what they read.
>
> >> >> >> > I see no statement of altitude. Are you on drugs?
>
> >> >> >> > Cheers
>
> >> >> >> What part of departure do you not understand? Maybe you should get
> > an
> >> >> adu
> >> >> > lt
> >> >> >> to read the NTSB report to you and explain the meaning of each
> >> sentenc
> >> > e.
> >> >> >> No, cancel that. Not maybe, make it for-sure that you get help
> with
> >> >> >> understanding the report.
>
> >> >> > Do you know the altitude? It's not contained in the word departure
> i
> > s
> >> >> > it?
> >> >> > Cheers
>
> >> >> Look up the airport elevation yerself. Departure would be climbing
> out
> >> in
> >> >> other words within a thousand feet or so of the airport since you
> don'
> > t
> >> >> seem to understand the term.
>
> >> > Nope. Departure is the phase before enroute. It is NOT within 1000' of
> >> > the airport. How about you take some classes?
>
> >> Hey, everywhere around here has a pattern altitude of about a thousand
> >> feet. If you're beyond that then you've departed the airspace. QED
>
> > Nope, airspace is not determined just by vertical extent and certainly
> > not by the extent of the "pattern". I guess thart makes you
> > bombastically wrong AGAIN. Here's a simple test for you, what is the
> > horizontal validity of a METAR? Hint: It's not 1000'...
>
> Airspace is not determined just by vertical extent? What? Are you nuts.
> Where is Class A airspace.
>

So now you think he was flying in class A? Do you know anything about
airspace? Try reading FAR part.71.

71.101 Class A airspace
The Director shall classify as class A airspace that controlled
airspace where the Director considers it
necessary in the interests of aviation safety that—
(1) separation is required between all flights; and
(2) VFR flights are not permitted.

Note (2). You are not a pilot are you?

Cheers

Gig 601Xl Builder

August 11th 08, 09:27 PM

More_Flaps wrote:
> On Aug 12, 1:36 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>> More_Flaps wrote:
>>> Errr OK if the airport has trees on it's grounds... Never seen that
>>> myself but maybe we were too rash at cutting them to make an
>>> aerodrome.
>>> Cheers
>> Well, feel free to visit KELD. We have so many trees on the airport
>> property that they produce income for the airport.
>
> They may on the property but not in the aerodrome surely.
>
> Cheers

They're not in the middle of the runway but... well you be the judge.

http://tinyurl.com/KELD01

If those aren't close enough for you look at are smaller airport.

http://tinyurl.com/F43001

Benjamin Dover

August 11th 08, 10:18 PM

Clark > wrote in
:

> More_Flaps > wrote in
> news:7f20452f-565d-4868-8cb1-
> :
>
>> On Aug 11, 8:48*am, Clark > wrote:
>>> More_Flaps > wrote in
>>> news:7de3c2a7-0640-4079-ba38-
>>> :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Aug 11, 6:30*am, Clark > wrote:
>>> >> More_Flaps > wrote in
>>> >> news:0344026b-cf53-4b18-
> 92dd
>> -
>>> >> :
>>>
>>> >> > On Aug 9, 3:47*pm, Clark > wrote:
>>> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in
>>> >> >> news:4638dcb3-05ba-4e44-
>>> 97f1
>>> > -
>>> >> >> :
>>>
>>> >> >> > On Aug 9, 9:51*am, Clark > wrote:
>>> >> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in
>>> >> >> >> news:ae58b49a-6d9c-
> 4b5
>> 1-
>>> >> 957a
>>> >> > -
>>> >> >> >> :
>>>
>>> >> >> >> > On Aug 9, 12:06*am, Clark > wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> >> >> I've pointed out that carb ice is one of the least
>>> >> >> >> >> likely
>>> causes
>>> >> an
>>> >> > d
>>> >> >> >> I've
>>> >> >> >> >> explaied why that is by noting the temperature and
>>> >> >> >> >> expected
>>> >> throttl
>>> >> > e
>>> >> >> >> >> setting. I have never said that carb ice is impossible.
> Maybe
>>> th
>>> > e
>>> >> g
>>> >> > uy
>>> >> >> >> idl
>>> >> >> >> > ed
>>> >> >> >> >> for a loooong time and failed to check carb heat on
>>> >> >> >> >> run-up.
>>> Mayb
>>> > e
>>> >> h
>>> >> > e
>>> >> >> >> fail
>>> >> >> >> > ed
>>> >> >> >> >> to verify max rpm on the run-up and/or take-off roll. It
>>> >> >> >> >> is
>>> >> possibl
>>> >> > e
>>> >> >> >> that
>>> >> >> >> >> he had carb ice but at 92 degrees and less than 50%
>>> >> >> >> >> humidity
>>> and
>>> > *a
>>> >> >> hot
>>> >> >> >> >> engine it is just not a likely cause.
>>>
>>> >> >> >> > I notice you did not answer my altitude question. I'm
>>> >> >> >> > honored
>>> tha
>>> > t
>>> >> y
>>> >> > ou
>>> >> >> >> > agree that carb ice cannot be ruled out simply by high
> ambient
>>> >> >> >> > _ground_ temperature. Now what else might be an
>>> >> >> >> > explanation
> fo
>> r
>>> >> powe
>>> >> > r
>>> >> >> >> > steadily dropping?
>>>
>>> >> >> >> > Cheers.
>>>
>>> >> >> >> Bull**** on not answering the altitude question. Read the
>>> >> >> >> NTSB
>>> repo
>>> > rt
>>> >> >> (th
>>> >> >> > at
>>> >> >> >> you snipped) for yourself. The altitude is quite clear for
> anyon
>> e
>>> w
>>> > ho
>>> >> >> can
>>> >> >> >> comprehend what they read.
>>>
>>> >> >> > I see no statement of altitude. Are you on drugs?
>>>
>>> >> >> > Cheers
>>>
>>> >> >> What part of departure do you not understand? Maybe you should
>>> >> >> get
>> an
>>> >> adu
>>> >> > lt
>>> >> >> to read the NTSB report to you and explain the meaning of each
>>> sentenc
>>> > e.
>>> >> >> No, cancel that. Not maybe, make it for-sure that you get help
> with
>>> >> >> understanding the report.
>>>
>>> >> > Do you know the altitude? It's not contained in the word
>>> >> > departure
> i
>> s
>>> >> > it?
>>> >> > Cheers
>>>
>>> >> Look up the airport elevation yerself. Departure would be
>>> >> climbing
> out
>>> in
>>> >> other words within a thousand feet or so of the airport since you
> don'
>> t
>>> >> seem to understand the term.
>>>
>>> > Nope. Departure is the phase before enroute. It is NOT within
>>> > 1000' of the airport. How about you take some classes?
>>>
>>> Hey, everywhere around here has a pattern altitude of about a
>>> thousand feet. If you're beyond that then you've departed the
>>> airspace. QED
>>>
>>
>>
>> Nope, airspace is not determined just by vertical extent and
>> certainly not by the extent of the "pattern". I guess thart makes you
>> bombastically wrong AGAIN. Here's a simple test for you, what is the
>> horizontal validity of a METAR? Hint: It's not 1000'...
>>
> Airspace is not determined just by vertical extent? What? Are you
> nuts. Where is Class A airspace.
>
> Now a little more to the point, if you're above pattern altitude how
> exactly are you in an uncontrolled airport's airspace? Hmmmm? You're
> not now are you.
>
> Try again dufuss...

Do you think just because you are at FL 220 directly over PHNL that you are
in class A airpace?

More_Flaps

August 11th 08, 10:52 PM

On Aug 12, 8:27*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> More_Flaps wrote:
> > On Aug 12, 1:36 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> > wrote:
> >> More_Flaps wrote:
> >>> Errr OK if the airport has trees on it's grounds... Never seen that
> >>> myself but maybe we were too rash at cutting them to make an
> >>> aerodrome.
> >>> Cheers
> >> Well, feel free to visit KELD. We have so many trees on the airport
> >> property that they produce income for the airport.
>
> > They may on the property but not in the aerodrome surely.
>
> > Cheers
>
> They're not in the middle of the runway but... well you be the judge.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/KELD01
>
> If those aren't close enough for you look at are smaller airport.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/F43001

The latter one has trees close but not that unusual. Nice long runways
tho.

Cheers

More_Flaps

August 12th 08, 11:02 AM

On Aug 12, 12:20*pm, Clark > wrote:
> wrote in news:a3ecf52c-af97-49f0-9c5f-f1b315695566@
> 26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 11, 8:23*am, Clark > wrote:
> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:1e21c1be-8850-4f80-91d4-
> >> :
>
> >> > On Aug 11, 8:48*am, Clark > wrote:
> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:7de3c2a7-0640-4079-
> ba38
> > -
> >> >> :
>
> >> >> > On Aug 11, 6:30*am, Clark > wrote:
> >> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:0344026b-cf53-4b18-
> >> 92dd
> >> > -
> >> >> >> :
>
> >> >> >> > On Aug 9, 3:47*pm, Clark > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:4638dcb3-05ba-
> 4e4
> > 4-
> >> >> 97f1
> >> >> > -
> >> >> >> >> :
>
> >> >> >> >> > On Aug 9, 9:51*am, Clark > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:ae58b49a-
> 6d9c-
> >> 4b5
> >> > 1-
> >> >> >> 957a
> >> >> >> > -
> >> >> >> >> >> :
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > On Aug 9, 12:06*am, Clark > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> I've pointed out that carb ice is one of the least likely
> >> >> causes
> >> >> >> an
> >> >> >> > d
> >> >> >> >> >> I've
> >> >> >> >> >> >> explaied why that is by noting the temperature and
> expecte
> > d
> >> >> >> throttl
> >> >> >> > e
> >> >> >> >> >> >> setting. I have never said that carb ice is impossible.
> >> Maybe
> >> >> th
> >> >> > e
> >> >> >> g
> >> >> >> > uy
> >> >> >> >> >> idl
> >> >> >> >> >> > ed
> >> >> >> >> >> >> for a loooong time and failed to check carb heat on run-
> up
> > .
> >> >> Mayb
> >> >> > e
> >> >> >> h
> >> >> >> > e
> >> >> >> >> >> fail
> >> >> >> >> >> > ed
> >> >> >> >> >> >> to verify max rpm on the run-up and/or take-off roll. It
> i
> > s
> >> >> >> possibl
> >> >> >> > e
> >> >> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> >> >> >> he had carb ice but at 92 degrees and less than 50%
> humidi
> > ty
> >> >> and
> >> >> > *a
> >> >> >> >> hot
> >> >> >> >> >> >> engine it is just not a likely cause.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > I notice you did not answer my altitude question. I'm
> honor
> > ed
> >> >> tha
> >> >> > t
> >> >> >> y
> >> >> >> > ou
> >> >> >> >> >> > agree that carb ice cannot be ruled out simply by high
> >> ambient
> >> >> >> >> >> > _ground_ temperature. Now what else might be an
> explanation
> >> fo
> >> > r
> >> >> >> powe
> >> >> >> > r
> >> >> >> >> >> > steadily dropping?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > Cheers.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Bull**** on not answering the altitude question. Read the
> NTS
> > B
> >> >> repo
> >> >> > rt
> >> >> >> >> (th
> >> >> >> >> > at
> >> >> >> >> >> you snipped) for yourself. The altitude is quite clear for
> >> anyon
> >> > e
> >> >> w
> >> >> > ho
> >> >> >> >> can
> >> >> >> >> >> comprehend what they read.
>
> >> >> >> >> > I see no statement of altitude. Are you on drugs?
>
> >> >> >> >> > Cheers
>
> >> >> >> >> What part of departure do you not understand? Maybe you should
> g
> > et
> >> > an
> >> >> >> adu
> >> >> >> > lt
> >> >> >> >> to read the NTSB report to you and explain the meaning of each
> >> >> sentenc
> >> >> > e.
> >> >> >> >> No, cancel that. Not maybe, make it for-sure that you get help
> >> with
> >> >> >> >> understanding the report.
>
> >> >> >> > Do you know the altitude? It's not contained in the word
> departur
> > e
> >> i
> >> > s
> >> >> >> > it?
> >> >> >> > Cheers
>
> >> >> >> Look up the airport elevation yerself. Departure would be climbing
> >> out
> >> >> in
> >> >> >> other words within a thousand feet or so of the airport since you
> >> don'
> >> > t
> >> >> >> seem to understand the term.
>
> >> >> > Nope. Departure is the phase before enroute. It is NOT within
> 1000'
> > of
> >> >> > the airport. How about you take some classes?
>
> >> >> Now to really destroy your altitude question. Do you really expect
> car
> > b
> >> >> icing to suddenly develop at high altitude while on departure at full
> >> >> throttle or even cruise power??? Prior to this exchange of posts I
> wou
> > ld
> >> >> have assumed that you do understand that very low manifold pressure
> is
> >> >> required for there to be any chance of carb ice in Texas in the
> summer
> >> at
> >> >> Skyhawk attainable altitudes. Obviously my assumption was incorrect
> an
> > d
> >> >> clearly you have no grasp the causes of carb icing.
>
> >> > Nope I would not, as trained pilot, rule it out without testing for
> >> > it. Jumping to conclusions without facts can get you killed. You will
> >> > note that my original observation was a paranthetic question, which
> >> > you dismissed because it couldn't possibly happen? How do _you_ know
> >> > that ice build up had not started -was manifold pressure available to
> >> > the pilot and did he look at it?
>
> >> Get real dufuss. I noted that carb icing isn't the most likely cause. Do
> >> try to keep up now.
>
> >> --
> >> ---
> >> there should be a "sig" here
>
> > It's been a long long time since I flew a normally carberated
> > airplane, but just had this thought. What would have been the results
> > if in 90 degree temps someone did try to take off with the carb heat
> > full on? Would the loss of power be significant? I'm thinking it's one
> > thing to check for carb ice and carb heat function during run up, but
> > the amount of heat available during full throttle takeoff could be
> > something very different. I know it may have nothing to do with this
> > case, but hope someone can provide an insightful answer anyhow.
>
> A couple of examples: Typical rpm drop for carb heat check is about 100
> down from 1700 on the Skyhawks I trained in. Call it about a 5% power loss.
>
> In slow flight with full (40deg) flaps, I typically could not hold altitude
> at full throttle with carb heat on.
>
> I suspect departure with carb heat on and a density altitude of 3500 feet
> would be alot like taking off at about 6,000 feet. I'm assuming a 2%
> performance loss for every 1,000 feet. It's should be within the
> capabilities of the Skyhawk but it'll take just a bit more runway and
> climbout will be slow, really slow if near max gross.
>

But 40 flaps is not a take off config.

Cheers

More_Flaps

August 13th 08, 12:43 PM

On Aug 13, 1:53*pm, Clark > wrote:
> More_Flaps > wrote in news:4d4ae514-7bec-4914-9810-
> :
>
>
>
> > On Aug 12, 12:20*pm, Clark > wrote:
> >> wrote in news:a3ecf52c-af97-49f0-9c5f-f1b315695566@
> >> 26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > On Aug 11, 8:23*am, Clark > wrote:
> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:1e21c1be-8850-4f80-
> 91d4
> > -
> >> >> :
>
> >> >> > On Aug 11, 8:48*am, Clark > wrote:
> >> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:7de3c2a7-0640-4079-
> >> ba38
> >> > -
> >> >> >> :
>
> >> >> >> > On Aug 11, 6:30*am, Clark > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:0344026b-cf53-
> 4b1
> > 8-
> >> >> 92dd
> >> >> > -
> >> >> >> >> :
>
> >> >> >> >> > On Aug 9, 3:47*pm, Clark > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:4638dcb3-
> 05ba-
> >> 4e4
> >> > 4-
> >> >> >> 97f1
> >> >> >> > -
> >> >> >> >> >> :
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > On Aug 9, 9:51*am, Clark > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:ae58b49a-
> >> 6d9c-
> >> >> 4b5
> >> >> > 1-
> >> >> >> >> 957a
> >> >> >> >> > -
> >> >> >> >> >> >> :
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Aug 9, 12:06*am, Clark > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I've pointed out that carb ice is one of the least
> like
> > ly
> >> >> >> causes
> >> >> >> >> an
> >> >> >> >> > d
> >> >> >> >> >> >> I've
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> explaied why that is by noting the temperature and
> >> expecte
> >> > d
> >> >> >> >> throttl
> >> >> >> >> > e
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> setting. I have never said that carb ice is
> impossible.
> >> >> Maybe
> >> >> >> th
> >> >> >> > e
> >> >> >> >> g
> >> >> >> >> > uy
> >> >> >> >> >> >> idl
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ed
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> for a loooong time and failed to check carb heat on
> run
> > -
> >> up
> >> > .
> >> >> >> Mayb
> >> >> >> > e
> >> >> >> >> h
> >> >> >> >> > e
> >> >> >> >> >> >> fail
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ed
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to verify max rpm on the run-up and/or take-off roll..
> I
> > t
> >> i
> >> > s
> >> >> >> >> possibl
> >> >> >> >> > e
> >> >> >> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> he had carb ice but at 92 degrees and less than 50%
> >> humidi
> >> > ty
> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> > *a
> >> >> >> >> >> hot
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> engine it is just not a likely cause.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I notice you did not answer my altitude question. I'm
> >> honor
> >> > ed
> >> >> >> tha
> >> >> >> > t
> >> >> >> >> y
> >> >> >> >> > ou
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > agree that carb ice cannot be ruled out simply by high
> >> >> ambient
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > _ground_ temperature. Now what else might be an
> >> explanation
> >> >> fo
> >> >> > r
> >> >> >> >> powe
> >> >> >> >> > r
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > steadily dropping?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Cheers.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Bull**** on not answering the altitude question. Read the
> >> NTS
> >> > B
> >> >> >> repo
> >> >> >> > rt
> >> >> >> >> >> (th
> >> >> >> >> >> > at
> >> >> >> >> >> >> you snipped) for yourself. The altitude is quite clear
> for
> >> >> anyon
> >> >> > e
> >> >> >> w
> >> >> >> > ho
> >> >> >> >> >> can
> >> >> >> >> >> >> comprehend what they read.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > I see no statement of altitude. Are you on drugs?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > Cheers
>
> >> >> >> >> >> What part of departure do you not understand? Maybe you
> shoul
> > d
> >> g
> >> > et
> >> >> > an
> >> >> >> >> adu
> >> >> >> >> > lt
> >> >> >> >> >> to read the NTSB report to you and explain the meaning of
> eac
> > h
> >> >> >> sentenc
> >> >> >> > e.
> >> >> >> >> >> No, cancel that. Not maybe, make it for-sure that you get
> hel
> > p
> >> >> with
> >> >> >> >> >> understanding the report.
>
> >> >> >> >> > Do you know the altitude? It's not contained in the word
> >> departur
> >> > e
> >> >> i
> >> >> > s
> >> >> >> >> > it?
> >> >> >> >> > Cheers
>
> >> >> >> >> Look up the airport elevation yerself. Departure would be
> climbi
> > ng
> >> >> out
> >> >> >> in
> >> >> >> >> other words within a thousand feet or so of the airport since
> yo
> > u
> >> >> don'
> >> >> > t
> >> >> >> >> seem to understand the term.
>
> >> >> >> > Nope. Departure is the phase before enroute. It is NOT within
> >> 1000'
> >> > of
> >> >> >> > the airport. How about you take some classes?
>
> >> >> >> Now to really destroy your altitude question. Do you really expect
> >> car
> >> > b
> >> >> >> icing to suddenly develop at high altitude while on departure at
> fu
> > ll
> >> >> >> throttle or even cruise power??? Prior to this exchange of posts I
> >> wou
> >> > ld
> >> >> >> have assumed that you do understand that very low manifold
> pressure
> >> is
> >> >> >> required for there to be any chance of carb ice in Texas in the
> >> summer
> >> >> at
> >> >> >> Skyhawk attainable altitudes. Obviously my assumption was
> incorrect
> >> an
> >> > d
> >> >> >> clearly you have no grasp the causes of carb icing.
>
> >> >> > Nope I would not, as trained pilot, rule it out without testing for
> >> >> > it. Jumping to conclusions without facts can get you killed. You
> wil
> > l
> >> >> > note that my original observation was a paranthetic question, which
> >> >> > you dismissed because it couldn't possibly happen? How do _you_
> know
> >> >> > that ice build up had not started -was manifold pressure available
> t
> > o
> >> >> > the pilot and did he look at it?
>
> >> >> Get real dufuss. I noted that carb icing isn't the most likely cause.
> > Do
> >> >> try to keep up now.
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> ---
> >> >> there should be a "sig" here
>
> >> > It's been a long long time since I flew a normally carberated
> >> > airplane, but just had this thought. What would have been the results
> >> > if in 90 degree temps someone did try to take off with the carb heat
> >> > full on? Would the loss of power be significant? I'm thinking it's one
> >> > thing to check for carb ice and carb heat function during run up, but
> >> > the amount of heat available during full throttle takeoff could be
> >> > something very different. I know it may have nothing to do with this
> >> > case, but hope someone can provide an insightful answer anyhow.
>
> >> A couple of examples: Typical rpm drop for carb heat check is about 100
> >> down from 1700 on the Skyhawks I trained in. Call it about a 5% power
> los
> > s.
>
> >> In slow flight with full (40deg) flaps, I typically could not hold
> altitu
> > de
> >> at full throttle with carb heat on.
>
> >> I suspect departure with carb heat on and a density altitude of 3500
> feet
> >> would be alot like taking off at about 6,000 feet. I'm assuming a 2%
> >> performance loss for every 1,000 feet. It's should be within the
> >> capabilities of the Skyhawk but it'll take just a bit more runway and
> >> climbout will be slow, really slow if near max gross.
>
> > But 40 flaps is not a take off config.
>
> Why don't you just respond with something along the lines of "nothing
> useful to contribute but ego drives a response"
>
> Wait, that's 'zactly what you did...
>
> Give up doofus, you don't have a chance of salvaging even a little bit of
> respect.
>

Why do you remind me of a trumpeting pachyderm?
LOL

Cheers

[email protected]

August 13th 08, 05:16 PM

On Aug 13, 7:43 am, More_Flaps > wrote:
> On Aug 13, 1:53 pm, Clark > wrote:
>
>
>
> > More_Flaps > wrote in news:4d4ae514-7bec-4914-9810-
> > :
>
> > > On Aug 12, 12:20 pm, Clark > wrote:
> > >> wrote in news:a3ecf52c-af97-49f0-9c5f-f1b315695566@
> > >> 26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com:
>
> > >> > On Aug 11, 8:23 am, Clark > wrote:
> > >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:1e21c1be-8850-4f80-
> > 91d4
> > > -
> > >> >> :
>
> > >> >> > On Aug 11, 8:48 am, Clark > wrote:
> > >> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:7de3c2a7-0640-4079-
> > >> ba38
> > >> > -
> > >> >> >> :
>
> > >> >> >> > On Aug 11, 6:30 am, Clark > wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:0344026b-cf53-
> > 4b1
> > > 8-
> > >> >> 92dd
> > >> >> > -
> > >> >> >> >> :
>
> > >> >> >> >> > On Aug 9, 3:47 pm, Clark > wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:4638dcb3-
> > 05ba-
> > >> 4e4
> > >> > 4-
> > >> >> >> 97f1
> > >> >> >> > -
> > >> >> >> >> >> :
>
> > >> >> >> >> >> > On Aug 9, 9:51 am, Clark > wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:ae58b49a-
> > >> 6d9c-
> > >> >> 4b5
> > >> >> > 1-
> > >> >> >> >> 957a
> > >> >> >> >> > -
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> :
>
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Aug 9, 12:06 am, Clark > wrote:
>
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I've pointed out that carb ice is one of the least
> > like
> > > ly
> > >> >> >> causes
> > >> >> >> >> an
> > >> >> >> >> > d
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> I've
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> explaied why that is by noting the temperature and
> > >> expecte
> > >> > d
> > >> >> >> >> throttl
> > >> >> >> >> > e
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> setting. I have never said that carb ice is
> > impossible.
> > >> >> Maybe
> > >> >> >> th
> > >> >> >> > e
> > >> >> >> >> g
> > >> >> >> >> > uy
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> idl
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > ed
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> for a loooong time and failed to check carb heat on
> > run
> > > -
> > >> up
> > >> > .
> > >> >> >> Mayb
> > >> >> >> > e
> > >> >> >> >> h
> > >> >> >> >> > e
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> fail
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > ed
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to verify max rpm on the run-up and/or take-off roll.
> > I
> > > t
> > >> i
> > >> > s
> > >> >> >> >> possibl
> > >> >> >> >> > e
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> that
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> he had carb ice but at 92 degrees and less than 50%
> > >> humidi
> > >> > ty
> > >> >> >> and
> > >> >> >> > a
> > >> >> >> >> >> hot
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> engine it is just not a likely cause.
>
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > I notice you did not answer my altitude question. I'm
> > >> honor
> > >> > ed
> > >> >> >> tha
> > >> >> >> > t
> > >> >> >> >> y
> > >> >> >> >> > ou
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > agree that carb ice cannot be ruled out simply by high
> > >> >> ambient
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > _ground_ temperature. Now what else might be an
> > >> explanation
> > >> >> fo
> > >> >> > r
> > >> >> >> >> powe
> > >> >> >> >> > r
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > steadily dropping?
>
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Cheers.
>
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Bull**** on not answering the altitude question. Read the
> > >> NTS
> > >> > B
> > >> >> >> repo
> > >> >> >> > rt
> > >> >> >> >> >> (th
> > >> >> >> >> >> > at
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> you snipped) for yourself. The altitude is quite clear
> > for
> > >> >> anyon
> > >> >> > e
> > >> >> >> w
> > >> >> >> > ho
> > >> >> >> >> >> can
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> comprehend what they read.
>
> > >> >> >> >> >> > I see no statement of altitude. Are you on drugs?
>
> > >> >> >> >> >> > Cheers
>
> > >> >> >> >> >> What part of departure do you not understand? Maybe you
> > shoul
> > > d
> > >> g
> > >> > et
> > >> >> > an
> > >> >> >> >> adu
> > >> >> >> >> > lt
> > >> >> >> >> >> to read the NTSB report to you and explain the meaning of
> > eac
> > > h
> > >> >> >> sentenc
> > >> >> >> > e.
> > >> >> >> >> >> No, cancel that. Not maybe, make it for-sure that you get
> > hel
> > > p
> > >> >> with
> > >> >> >> >> >> understanding the report.
>
> > >> >> >> >> > Do you know the altitude? It's not contained in the word
> > >> departur
> > >> > e
> > >> >> i
> > >> >> > s
> > >> >> >> >> > it?
> > >> >> >> >> > Cheers
>
> > >> >> >> >> Look up the airport elevation yerself. Departure would be
> > climbi
> > > ng
> > >> >> out
> > >> >> >> in
> > >> >> >> >> other words within a thousand feet or so of the airport since
> > yo
> > > u
> > >> >> don'
> > >> >> > t
> > >> >> >> >> seem to understand the term.
>
> > >> >> >> > Nope. Departure is the phase before enroute. It is NOT within
> > >> 1000'
> > >> > of
> > >> >> >> > the airport. How about you take some classes?
>
> > >> >> >> Now to really destroy your altitude question. Do you really expect
> > >> car
> > >> > b
> > >> >> >> icing to suddenly develop at high altitude while on departure at
> > fu
> > > ll
> > >> >> >> throttle or even cruise power??? Prior to this exchange of posts I
> > >> wou
> > >> > ld
> > >> >> >> have assumed that you do understand that very low manifold
> > pressure
> > >> is
> > >> >> >> required for there to be any chance of carb ice in Texas in the
> > >> summer
> > >> >> at
> > >> >> >> Skyhawk attainable altitudes. Obviously my assumption was
> > incorrect
> > >> an
> > >> > d
> > >> >> >> clearly you have no grasp the causes of carb icing.
>
> > >> >> > Nope I would not, as trained pilot, rule it out without testing for
> > >> >> > it. Jumping to conclusions without facts can get you killed. You
> > wil
> > > l
> > >> >> > note that my original observation was a paranthetic question, which
> > >> >> > you dismissed because it couldn't possibly happen? How do _you_
> > know
> > >> >> > that ice build up had not started -was manifold pressure available
> > t
> > > o
> > >> >> > the pilot and did he look at it?
>
> > >> >> Get real dufuss. I noted that carb icing isn't the most likely cause.
> > > Do
> > >> >> try to keep up now.
>
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> ---
> > >> >> there should be a "sig" here
>
> > >> > It's been a long long time since I flew a normally carberated
> > >> > airplane, but just had this thought. What would have been the results
> > >> > if in 90 degree temps someone did try to take off with the carb heat
> > >> > full on? Would the loss of power be significant? I'm thinking it's one
> > >> > thing to check for carb ice and carb heat function during run up, but
> > >> > the amount of heat available during full throttle takeoff could be
> > >> > something very different. I know it may have nothing to do with this
> > >> > case, but hope someone can provide an insightful answer anyhow.
>
> > >> A couple of examples: Typical rpm drop for carb heat check is about 100
> > >> down from 1700 on the Skyhawks I trained in. Call it about a 5% power
> > los
> > > s.
>
> > >> In slow flight with full (40deg) flaps, I typically could not hold
> > altitu
> > > de
> > >> at full throttle with carb heat on.
>
> > >> I suspect departure with carb heat on and a density altitude of 3500
> > feet
> > >> would be alot like taking off at about 6,000 feet. I'm assuming a 2%
> > >> performance loss for every 1,000 feet. It's should be within the
> > >> capabilities of the Skyhawk but it'll take just a bit more runway and
> > >> climbout will be slow, really slow if near max gross.
>
> > > But 40 flaps is not a take off config.
>
> > Why don't you just respond with something along the lines of "nothing
> > useful to contribute but ego drives a response"
>
> > Wait, that's 'zactly what you did...
>
> > Give up doofus, you don't have a chance of salvaging even a little bit of
> > respect.
>
> Why do you remind me of a trumpeting pachyderm?
> LOL
>
> Cheers

Wise and powerful with a good memory?

[email protected]

August 13th 08, 05:42 PM

On Aug 11, 6:20 pm, Clark > wrote:

> A couple of examples: Typical rpm drop for carb heat check is about 100
> down from 1700 on the Skyhawks I trained in. Call it about a 5% power loss.

Here's a sentence from the original post:

"The plane was a '59 145hp 172. DA would have been around 3,500. You
can
draw your own conclusions."

A 1959 172 has a Continental O-300 of 145 hp. The Continental
has a couple of huge differences from the Lycoming O-320 -powered 172s
you fly. First, the carb on the Continental is mounted on a carb
"spider" intake manifold fitting mounted below the crankcase. The
Lycoming's carb is mounted right on the bottom of the crankcase's oil
sump, with the intake manifold cast right into the sump.
The Lycoming's carb is warmed by the heat of the oil. When the
engine is "cold," even the first startup of a warm day, carb ice is
sometimes noted if the temp and dewpoint are close enough. Once the
oil is hot carb ice is much less likely, and so Lycoming's carb heat
muff is nothing more than an open-sided box measuring about three
inches by four, mounted on the backside of the #1 exhaust riser. It
doesn't provide much heat at all, because it doesn't need to.
The Continental's carb gets no heat from the crankcase. The
spider isolates it and the only heat it might get is what cooling air
coming around the case might carry to it, which is about the same as a
Lyc's carb might get in addition to the oil heating. So Continental
engines have a full shroud around one of the mufflers to provide
intake air that is heated far hotter than Lyc's tiny box does, and if
carb heat is applied we'll get a really serious RPM drop, and often
roughness with it since the mixture gets so rich. 200 RPM or more
isn't uncommon, and we had a 180 (Continental O-470) that had so much
carb heat that we couldn't use it all on final on warm days unless we
leaned the engine or the engine would threaten to quit.
A carb heat valve that isn't closing all the way can cost some
power, and it sure isn't impossible to have a misrigged control or a
cable sheath that has slipped.
Continentals will ice up much more easily than Lycomings when
in operation and the engine is warmed up. The OP, in pointing out that
it was such an old 172, triggered that thought right away. Students
who learn in Lyc-powered airplanes and then go buy an old Continental-
powered ship will often get caught by carb icing, especially if they
haven't been thoroughly educated on the risk factors of carb ice and
been checked out in that airplane on days when ice is almost certain.

>
> In slow flight with full (40deg) flaps, I typically could not hold altitude
> at full throttle with carb heat on.

That's normal but that's a lot of flap.

> I suspect departure with carb heat on and a density altitude of 3500 feet
> would be alot like taking off at about 6,000 feet. I'm assuming a 2%
> performance loss for every 1,000 feet. It's should be within the
> capabilities of the Skyhawk but it'll take just a bit more runway and
> climbout will be slow, really slow if near max gross.

An old Continental with carb heat on would experience a DA of
more like 10,000 feet. The air is too hot. It would also present the
risk of detonation at full throttle.

Dan

More_Flaps

August 13th 08, 09:54 PM

On Aug 14, 4:16*am, wrote:
> On Aug 13, 7:43 am, More_Flaps > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 13, 1:53 pm, Clark > wrote:
>
> > > More_Flaps > wrote in news:4d4ae514-7bec-4914-9810-
> > > :
>
> > > > On Aug 12, 12:20 pm, Clark > wrote:
> > > >> wrote in news:a3ecf52c-af97-49f0-9c5f-f1b315695566@
> > > >> 26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > >> > On Aug 11, 8:23 am, Clark > wrote:
> > > >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:1e21c1be-8850-4f80-
> > > 91d4
> > > > -
> > > >> >> :
>
> > > >> >> > On Aug 11, 8:48 am, Clark > wrote:
> > > >> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:7de3c2a7-0640-4079-
> > > >> ba38
> > > >> > -
> > > >> >> >> :
>
> > > >> >> >> > On Aug 11, 6:30 am, Clark > wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:0344026b-cf53-
> > > 4b1
> > > > 8-
> > > >> >> 92dd
> > > >> >> > -
> > > >> >> >> >> :
>
> > > >> >> >> >> > On Aug 9, 3:47 pm, Clark > wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:4638dcb3-
> > > 05ba-
> > > >> 4e4
> > > >> > 4-
> > > >> >> >> 97f1
> > > >> >> >> > -
> > > >> >> >> >> >> :
>
> > > >> >> >> >> >> > On Aug 9, 9:51 am, Clark > wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> More_Flaps > wrote in news:ae58b49a-
> > > >> 6d9c-
> > > >> >> 4b5
> > > >> >> > 1-
> > > >> >> >> >> 957a
> > > >> >> >> >> > -
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> :
>
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Aug 9, 12:06 am, Clark > wrote:
>
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I've pointed out that carb ice is one of the least
> > > like
> > > > ly
> > > >> >> >> causes
> > > >> >> >> >> an
> > > >> >> >> >> > d
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> I've
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> explaied why that is by noting the temperature and
> > > >> expecte
> > > >> > d
> > > >> >> >> >> throttl
> > > >> >> >> >> > e
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> setting. I have never said that carb ice is
> > > impossible.
> > > >> >> Maybe
> > > >> >> >> th
> > > >> >> >> > e
> > > >> >> >> >> g
> > > >> >> >> >> > uy
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> idl
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > ed
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> for a loooong time and failed to check carb heat on
> > > run
> > > > -
> > > >> up
> > > >> > .
> > > >> >> >> Mayb
> > > >> >> >> > e
> > > >> >> >> >> h
> > > >> >> >> >> > e
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> fail
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > ed
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to verify max rpm on the run-up and/or take-off roll.
> > > I
> > > > t
> > > >> i
> > > >> > s
> > > >> >> >> >> possibl
> > > >> >> >> >> > e
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> that
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> he had carb ice but at 92 degrees and less than 50%
> > > >> humidi
> > > >> > ty
> > > >> >> >> and
> > > >> >> >> > *a
> > > >> >> >> >> >> hot
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> engine it is just not a likely cause.
>
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > I notice you did not answer my altitude question. I'm
> > > >> honor
> > > >> > ed
> > > >> >> >> tha
> > > >> >> >> > t
> > > >> >> >> >> y
> > > >> >> >> >> > ou
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > agree that carb ice cannot be ruled out simply by high
> > > >> >> ambient
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > _ground_ temperature. Now what else might be an
> > > >> explanation
> > > >> >> fo
> > > >> >> > r
> > > >> >> >> >> powe
> > > >> >> >> >> > r
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > steadily dropping?
>
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Cheers.
>
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Bull**** on not answering the altitude question. Read the
> > > >> NTS
> > > >> > B
> > > >> >> >> repo
> > > >> >> >> > rt
> > > >> >> >> >> >> (th
> > > >> >> >> >> >> > at
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> you snipped) for yourself. The altitude is quite clear
> > > for
> > > >> >> anyon
> > > >> >> > e
> > > >> >> >> w
> > > >> >> >> > ho
> > > >> >> >> >> >> can
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> comprehend what they read.
>
> > > >> >> >> >> >> > I see no statement of altitude. Are you on drugs?
>
> > > >> >> >> >> >> > Cheers
>
> > > >> >> >> >> >> What part of departure do you not understand? Maybe you
> > > shoul
> > > > d
> > > >> g
> > > >> > et
> > > >> >> > an
> > > >> >> >> >> adu
> > > >> >> >> >> > lt
> > > >> >> >> >> >> to read the NTSB report to you and explain the meaning of
> > > eac
> > > > h
> > > >> >> >> sentenc
> > > >> >> >> > e.
> > > >> >> >> >> >> No, cancel that. Not maybe, make it for-sure that you get
> > > hel
> > > > p
> > > >> >> with
> > > >> >> >> >> >> understanding the report.
>
> > > >> >> >> >> > Do you know the altitude? It's not contained in the word
> > > >> departur
> > > >> > e
> > > >> >> i
> > > >> >> > s
> > > >> >> >> >> > it?
> > > >> >> >> >> > Cheers
>
> > > >> >> >> >> Look up the airport elevation yerself. Departure would be
> > > climbi
> > > > ng
> > > >> >> out
> > > >> >> >> in
> > > >> >> >> >> other words within a thousand feet or so of the airport since
> > > yo
> > > > u
> > > >> >> don'
> > > >> >> > t
> > > >> >> >> >> seem to understand the term.
>
> > > >> >> >> > Nope. Departure is the phase before enroute. It is NOT within
> > > >> 1000'
> > > >> > of
> > > >> >> >> > the airport. How about you take some classes?
>
> > > >> >> >> Now to really destroy your altitude question. Do you really expect
> > > >> car
> > > >> > b
> > > >> >> >> icing to suddenly develop at high altitude while on departure at
> > > fu
> > > > ll
> > > >> >> >> throttle or even cruise power??? Prior to this exchange of posts I
> > > >> wou
> > > >> > ld
> > > >> >> >> have assumed that you do understand that very low manifold
> > > pressure
> > > >> is
> > > >> >> >> required for there to be any chance of carb ice in Texas in the
> > > >> summer
> > > >> >> at
> > > >> >> >> Skyhawk attainable altitudes. Obviously my assumption was
> > > incorrect
> > > >> an
> > > >> > d
> > > >> >> >> clearly you have no grasp the causes of carb icing.
>
> > > >> >> > Nope I would not, as trained pilot, rule it out without testing for
> > > >> >> > it. Jumping to conclusions without facts can get you killed. You
> > > wil
> > > > l
> > > >> >> > note that my original observation was a paranthetic question, which
> > > >> >> > you dismissed because it couldn't possibly happen? How do _you_
> > > know
> > > >> >> > that ice build up had not started -was manifold pressure available
> > > t
> > > > o
> > > >> >> > the pilot and did he look at it?
>
> > > >> >> Get real dufuss. I noted that carb icing isn't the most likely cause.
> > > > Do
> > > >> >> try to keep up now.
>
> > > >> >> --
> > > >> >> ---
> > > >> >> there should be a "sig" here
>
> > > >> > It's been a long long time since I flew a normally carberated
> > > >> > airplane, but just had this thought. What would have been the results
> > > >> > if in 90 degree temps someone did try to take off with the carb heat
> > > >> > full on? Would the loss of power be significant? I'm thinking it's one
> > > >> > thing to check for carb ice and carb heat function during run up, but
> > > >> > the amount of heat available during full throttle takeoff could be
> > > >> > something very different. I know it may have nothing to do with this
> > > >> > case, but hope someone can provide an insightful answer anyhow.
>
> > > >> A couple of examples: Typical rpm drop for carb heat check is about 100
> > > >> down from 1700 on the Skyhawks I trained in. Call it about a 5% power
> > > los
> > > > s.
>
> > > >> In slow flight with full (40deg) flaps, I typically could not hold
> > > altitu
> > > > de
> > > >> at full throttle with carb heat on.
>
> > > >> I suspect departure with carb heat on and a density altitude of 3500
> > > feet
> > > >> would be alot like taking off at about 6,000 feet. I'm assuming a 2%
> > > >> performance loss for every 1,000 feet. It's should be within the
> > > >> capabilities of the Skyhawk but it'll take just a bit more runway and
> > > >> climbout will be slow, really slow if near max gross.
>
> > > > But 40 flaps is not a take off config.
>
> > > Why don't you just respond with something along the lines of "nothing
> > > useful to contribute but ego drives a response"
>
> > > Wait, that's 'zactly what you did...
>
> > > Give up doofus, you don't have a chance of salvaging even a little bit of
> > > respect.
>
> > Why do you remind me of a trumpeting pachyderm?
> > LOL
>
> > Cheers
>
> Wise and powerful with a good memory?

LOL. Excitable, heavy and noisy?.

Cheers

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

August 17th 08, 02:00 PM

wrote in
:

> On Aug 11, 6:20 pm, Clark > wrote:
>
>> A couple of examples: Typical rpm drop for carb heat check is about
>> 100 down from 1700 on the Skyhawks I trained in. Call it about a 5%
>> power loss.
>
> Here's a sentence from the original post:
>
> "The plane was a '59 145hp 172. DA would have been around 3,500. You
> can
> draw your own conclusions."
>
> A 1959 172 has a Continental O-300 of 145 hp. The Continental
> has a couple of huge differences from the Lycoming O-320 -powered 172s
> you fly. First, the carb on the Continental is mounted on a carb
> "spider" intake manifold fitting mounted below the crankcase. The
> Lycoming's carb is mounted right on the bottom of the crankcase's oil
> sump, with the intake manifold cast right into the sump.
> The Lycoming's carb is warmed by the heat of the oil. When the
> engine is "cold," even the first startup of a warm day, carb ice is
> sometimes noted if the temp and dewpoint are close enough. Once the
> oil is hot carb ice is much less likely, and so Lycoming's carb heat
> muff is nothing more than an open-sided box measuring about three
> inches by four, mounted on the backside of the #1 exhaust riser. It
> doesn't provide much heat at all, because it doesn't need to.
> The Continental's carb gets no heat from the crankcase. The
> spider isolates it and the only heat it might get is what cooling air
> coming around the case might carry to it, which is about the same as a
> Lyc's carb might get in addition to the oil heating. So Continental
> engines have a full shroud around one of the mufflers to provide
> intake air that is heated far hotter than Lyc's tiny box does, and if
> carb heat is applied we'll get a really serious RPM drop, and often
> roughness with it since the mixture gets so rich. 200 RPM or more
> isn't uncommon, and we had a 180 (Continental O-470) that had so much
> carb heat that we couldn't use it all on final on warm days unless we
> leaned the engine or the engine would threaten to quit.
> A carb heat valve that isn't closing all the way can cost some
> power, and it sure isn't impossible to have a misrigged control or a
> cable sheath that has slipped.
> Continentals will ice up much more easily than Lycomings when
> in operation and the engine is warmed up. The OP, in pointing out that
> it was such an old 172, triggered that thought right away. Students
> who learn in Lyc-powered airplanes and then go buy an old Continental-
> powered ship will often get caught by carb icing, especially if they
> haven't been thoroughly educated on the risk factors of carb ice and
> been checked out in that airplane on days when ice is almost certain.

All true except for one thing. Not all Continentals have large carb heat
shrouds. And in fact, you're supposed to take off with carb heat on in
the 8A.(Luscombe) At least one instalation doesn't even have carb heat,
it just uses slightly warmed air under the cowling with an automotive
type round air filter! (Jodel)
>
>>
>> In slow flight with full (40deg) flaps, I typically could not hold
>> altitude at full throttle with carb heat on.
>
> That's normal but that's a lot of flap.
>
>> I suspect departure with carb heat on and a density altitude of 3500
>> feet would be alot like taking off at about 6,000 feet. I'm assuming
>> a 2% performance loss for every 1,000 feet. It's should be within the
>> capabilities of the Skyhawk but it'll take just a bit more runway and
>> climbout will be slow, really slow if near max gross.
>
> An old Continental with carb heat on would experience a DA of
> more like 10,000 feet. The air is too hot. It would also present the
> risk of detonation at full throttle.

Really? How?

Bertie