How much fuel do you prefer to carry?

[Mxsmanic]

When you fly, how much fuel do you prefer to carry? Do you just load enough
to meet the FARs? Do you like to add a fudge factor? If so, how much? Do
you prefer to fly with full tanks irrespective of the length of the flight?
Is it significantly more expensive to fly with the tanks topped off for every
flight on small aircraft, or does it not make much difference?

[More_Flaps]

On Aug 9, 7:43*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> When you fly, how much fuel do you prefer to carry? *Do you just load enough
> to meet the FARs? *Do you like to add a fudge factor? *If so, how much? *Do
> you prefer to fly with full tanks irrespective of the length of the flight?
> Is it significantly more expensive to fly with the tanks topped off for every
> flight on small aircraft, or does it not make much difference?

Depending on the flight -always 10% for contingencies but often more
on long x-country up to full tanks or MAUW.

Cheers

[bdl]

On Aug 8, 2:43*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> When you fly, how much fuel do you prefer to carry? *Do you just load enough
> to meet the FARs? *Do you like to add a fudge factor? *If so, how much? *Do
> you prefer to fly with full tanks irrespective of the length of the flight?
> Is it significantly more expensive to fly with the tanks topped off for every
> flight on small aircraft, or does it not make much difference?

As with all things aviation... It depends.

How far am I going? More than I can go there and back (+1 hour)?
Whats the fuel situation there? Is it expensive? Is it even
available? I once did a hunting trip to the bootheel of Missouri to
an old airstrip that had no amenities. Just a runway. No building,
no phone, no fuel especially, not even a windsock. And not much
around. In that case I carried full tanks to make sure I could make
it back.

Whats the weather like? Am I likely to have to do multiple
approaches? Would an extra hour of gas (beyond FAA reqs) give me more
outs?

How much do I need to carry? 6lb/gal can mean the difference between a
230lb person and a 180lb person.

For me and my airplane its usually a matter of having it at "tabs"
which is 34 gallons versus full which is 48 gallons. I seldom go with
less than tabs. But then again don't often go with both tanks full.

The plane will fly more efficiently when it has less weight.

I haven't flown MSX enough in a while. Is weight even a factor in
performance? I know the default W&B's usually have full tanks.
Course with flight simulator you can always add more fuel
inflight. :-)

Brian
N9093K

[Paul kgyy]

Since my plane has rubberized bladder tanks, I always fill them before
putting the plane away.

I start looking for a place to refill when I am down to a 1 hour
reserve, though if IFR might be more conservative depending on
conditions.

[Mxsmanic]

bdl writes:

> I haven't flown MSX enough in a while. Is weight even a factor in
> performance?

(I presume you mean FSX.) Yes, weight is taken into account and has an
obvious effect on behavior and performance. In simulation, fuel costs
nothing, so I usually fly with full tanks on small aircraft. On large
aircraft I fly with several hours' more fuel than I need.

> I know the default W&B's usually have full tanks.
> Course with flight simulator you can always add more fuel
> inflight.

That would be cheating. You can also set unlimited fuel, but that's cheating,
too. Still, fuel-exhaustion scenarios aren't that interesting to simulate so
I just load more than enough fuel for every flight.

[Mxsmanic]

Paul kgyy writes:

> Since my plane has rubberized bladder tanks, I always fill them before
> putting the plane away.

How does the type of tank influence this?

[Rocky Stevens]

Airlines are supposedly cutting back on the amount of fuel they carry
per flight, much to the chagrin of their pilots:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iaW8mducRtZR73_VV3o3ax783LCgD92E77M80

The article claims it saves them about $750 per trip.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

The only time you have too much fuel is when the airplane is on fire. The
type of tank is not simulated in MSFS, so you don't have to worry.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 8, 4:24*pm, bdl > wrote:
> On Aug 8, 2:43*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > When you fly, how much fuel do you prefer to carry? *Do you just load enough
> > to meet the FARs? *Do you like to add a fudge factor? *If so, how much? *Do
> > you prefer to fly with full tanks irrespective of the length of the flight?
> > Is it significantly more expensive to fly with the tanks topped off for every
> > flight on small aircraft, or does it not make much difference?
>
> As with all things aviation... It depends.
>
> How far am I going? *More than I can go there and back (+1 hour)?
> Whats the fuel situation there? *Is it expensive? *Is it even
> available? *I once did a hunting trip to the bootheel of Missouri to
> an old airstrip that had no amenities. *Just a runway. *No building,
> no phone, no fuel especially, not even a windsock. *And not much
> around. *In that case I carried full tanks to make sure I could make
> it back.
>
> Whats the weather like? *Am I likely to have to do multiple
> approaches? *Would an extra hour of gas (beyond FAA reqs) give me more
> outs?
>
> How much do I need to carry? 6lb/gal can mean the difference between a
> 230lb person and a 180lb person.
>
> For me and my airplane its usually a matter of having it at "tabs"
> which is 34 gallons versus full which is 48 gallons. I seldom go with
> less than tabs. But then again don't often go with both tanks full.
>
> The plane will fly more efficiently when it has less weight.
>
> I haven't flown MSX enough in a while. *Is weight even a factor in
> performance? *I know the default W&B's usually have full tanks.
> Course with flight simulator you can always add more fuel
> inflight. *:-)
>
> Brian
> N9093K

In that we are rarely pushing gross weight in an M20J, almost always
with full tanks.We fly away half a tank, switch to the full wing, and
burn most of that. We always land while we are still cruising on that
wing, switching to the initial tank, if it has more fuel, early in the
approach. Since we burn 9 gals an hour or so at cruise, there is lots
of range available. If it's IFR and we don't have a sold gold
alternate with a total fuel burn of 45 gallons or less we are not
going. That's 4 plus hours at 150 knots, more than enough range for
nearly every mission.

[Paul kgyy]

>
> How does the type of tank influence this?

The rubberized tanks can crack and start to leak if you don't keep
them full while the plane isn't being used.

Aluminum tanks are not affected by this AFAIK - never worried about it
when I had the Arrow.

[BT]

you don't fly... you operate a computer

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> bdl writes:
>
>> I haven't flown MSX enough in a while. Is weight even a factor in
>> performance?
>
> (I presume you mean FSX.) Yes, weight is taken into account and has an
> obvious effect on behavior and performance. In simulation, fuel costs
> nothing, so I usually fly with full tanks on small aircraft. On large
> aircraft I fly with several hours' more fuel than I need.
>
>> I know the default W&B's usually have full tanks.
>> Course with flight simulator you can always add more fuel
>> inflight.
>
> That would be cheating. You can also set unlimited fuel, but that's
> cheating,
> too. Still, fuel-exhaustion scenarios aren't that interesting to simulate
> so
> I just load more than enough fuel for every flight.

[Mxsmanic]

Rocky Stevens writes:

> Airlines are supposedly cutting back on the amount of fuel they carry
> per flight, much to the chagrin of their pilots:
> http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iaW8mducRtZR73_VV3o3ax783LCgD92E77M80
>
> The article claims it saves them about $750 per trip.

The pilot has the final say on how much extra fuel to carry, even at an
airline. However, I suppose they are being intimidated into taking extra
risks by their employers.

[buttman]

On Aug 9, 12:10*am, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Mxsmanic >
>
> >When you fly, how much fuel do you prefer to carry? *Do you just load enough
> >to meet the FARs? *Do you like to add a fudge factor? *If so, how much? *Do
> >you prefer to fly with full tanks irrespective of the length of the flight?
> >Is it significantly more expensive to fly with the tanks topped off for every
> >flight on small aircraft, or does it not make much difference?
>
> You're an idiot and so is anyone who gives you a serious answer in the belief
> that you actually want to learn something.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: N/A
>
> iQCVAwUBSJ1RT5MoscYxZNI5AQEp/wQAoxnELR5IJSp3C5/WDEpHEjrOEX9GyyeJ
> 1tWuMm+72tUy+bjP8Ciq0nTPnw1YzYcC1MXHppOlUMDoyZAUSs s0dpIboXZHqsPL
> yFLHnol9zXSEXmWXoFJV6NXzx8Ov/4zwXeA/Foz1J62LdVitc6A6fiOass4fHBST
> qdo0Xd83r98=
> =aFE1
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

why don't you go cry on the internet about it.... oh too late.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Here you go again, starting your usual trolling after an apparently innocent
question.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Aug 9, 12:10*am, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> From: Mxsmanic >
>>
>> >When you fly, how much fuel do you prefer to carry? *Do you just
>> >load
> enough
>> >to meet the FARs? *Do you like to add a fudge factor? *If so, how mu
> ch? *Do
>> >you prefer to fly with full tanks irrespective of the length of the
>> >flig
> ht?
>> >Is it significantly more expensive to fly with the tanks topped off
>> >for
> every
>> >flight on small aircraft, or does it not make much difference?
>>
>> You're an idiot and so is anyone who gives you a serious answer in
>> the be
> lief
>> that you actually want to learn something.
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: N/A
>>
>> iQCVAwUBSJ1RT5MoscYxZNI5AQEp/wQAoxnELR5IJSp3C5/WDEpHEjrOEX9GyyeJ
>> 1tWuMm+72tUy+bjP8Ciq0nTPnw1YzYcC1MXHppOlUMDoyZAUSs s0dpIboXZHqsPL
>> yFLHnol9zXSEXmWXoFJV6NXzx8Ov/4zwXeA/Foz1J62LdVitc6A6fiOass4fHBST
>> qdo0Xd83r98
>> =aFE1
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> why don't you go cry on the internet about it.... oh too late.
>



Sez king whiney.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> When you fly, how much fuel do you prefer to carry? Do you just load
> enough to meet the FARs? Do you like to add a fudge factor? If so,
> how much? Do you prefer to fly with full tanks irrespective of the
> length of the flight? Is it significantly more expensive to fly with
> the tanks topped off for every flight on small aircraft, or does it
> not make much difference?

To you? nadda. Since you will never, ever, fly.


Bertie

[Mark]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

>When you fly, how much fuel do you prefer to carry? Do you just load enough
>to meet the FARs? Do you like to add a fudge factor? If so, how much? Do
>you prefer to fly with full tanks irrespective of the length of the flight?
>Is it significantly more expensive to fly with the tanks topped off for every
>flight on small aircraft, or does it not make much difference?

Lessee, I've a 172 with 2 pax and overnight gear out of a 1200 ft
runway in light winds, only mogas available locally but I'm flying
over water and filed for 6500 in case I have to climb over some
weather en route. Avgas is available at a regional airport en route
but possibility of that field being closed to VFR and Avgas costs so
much these days. Do I fill up or not? Not so clear cut when it isn't
a sim.

[Mxsmanic]

Mark writes:

> Lessee, I've a 172 with 2 pax and overnight gear out of a 1200 ft
> runway in light winds, only mogas available locally but I'm flying
> over water and filed for 6500 in case I have to climb over some
> weather en route. Avgas is available at a regional airport en route
> but possibility of that field being closed to VFR and Avgas costs so
> much these days. Do I fill up or not? Not so clear cut when it isn't
> a sim.

Do you have a method, or do you roll dice?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Mark writes:

> > Lessee, I've a 172 with 2 pax and overnight gear out of a 1200 ft
> > runway in light winds, only mogas available locally but I'm flying
> > over water and filed for 6500 in case I have to climb over some
> > weather en route. Avgas is available at a regional airport en route
> > but possibility of that field being closed to VFR and Avgas costs so
> > much these days. Do I fill up or not? Not so clear cut when it isn't
> > a sim.

> Do you have a method, or do you roll dice?

There is no "method", there is only judgement based on experience.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Yes, the decision making process is based upon experience and knowledge. Of
course, you have neither, so why is it surprising that you don't understand?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> There is no "method", there is only judgement based on experience.

There is always a method.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> Yes, the decision making process is based upon experience and knowledge.

In that case, the decision-making process can be described.

If you don't want to answer the question, which was entirely legitimate and
interesting, why do you post at all?

[Gene Seibel]

On Aug 8, 1:43*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> When you fly, how much fuel do you prefer to carry? *Do you just load enough
> to meet the FARs? *Do you like to add a fudge factor? *If so, how much? *Do
> you prefer to fly with full tanks irrespective of the length of the flight?
> Is it significantly more expensive to fly with the tanks topped off for every
> flight on small aircraft, or does it not make much difference?

I prefer to carry none, but that creates certain problems.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > There is no "method", there is only judgement based on experience.

> There is always a method.

Yeah, it is based on using good judgement, knowledge of your airplane's
characteristics, and proper preflight planning.




--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:

> > > There is no "method", there is only judgement based on experience.

> > There is always a method.

> Yeah, it is based on using good judgement, knowledge of your airplane's
> characteristics, and proper preflight planning.

I forgot to add, and for most airplanes, the climate.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Your question was neither legitimate nor interesting to anyone who actually
flies, since the answers are obvious to all but the most unitiated, like
yourself. Since you have neither experience or knowledge, you are incapable
of understanding the concepts. Go out and take some lessons, and then you
will understand. Otherwise, stick to your game, where it doesn't make a whit
of difference, like your pedantic pronouncements.

[Howdy Doody Time]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> Your question was neither legitimate nor interesting to anyone who
> actually flies, since the answers are obvious to all but the most
> unitiated, like yourself. Since you have neither experience or knowledge,
> you are incapable of understanding the concepts. Go out and take some
> lessons, and then you will understand. Otherwise, stick to your game,
> where it doesn't make a whit of difference, like your pedantic
> pronouncements.
>
>
>
He doesn't care about any of that. You've given him the attention he needs.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, wrote:

> > Yeah, it is based on using good judgement, knowledge of your airplane's
> > characteristics, and proper preflight planning.
>
> I forgot to add, and for most airplanes, the climate.

and the airport (runway length, incline)

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

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Good point- most of his posts are obvious attempts to draw attention to
himself, although they frequently start of as apparently innocent questions.
He clearly has a pathologic need for attention, but there is always a
temptation to respond to his idiocy.

Anthony is surprisingly manipulative in this regard. He is the consumate
troll.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> Your question was neither legitimate nor interesting to anyone who actually
> flies, since the answers are obvious to all but the most unitiated, like
> yourself.

I got several interesting answers from people who appeared to have actual
flying experience. Are you saying they are imposters?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Yeah, it is based on using good judgement, knowledge of your airplane's
> characteristics, and proper preflight planning.

No doubt. So what is the method?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> I forgot to add, and for most airplanes, the climate.

And you forgot to actually answer the question. What's the method?

[[email protected]]

Bob Noel > wrote:
> In article >, wrote:

> > > Yeah, it is based on using good judgement, knowledge of your airplane's
> > > characteristics, and proper preflight planning.
> >
> > I forgot to add, and for most airplanes, the climate.

> and the airport (runway length, incline)

I'd lump that into preflight planning along with all the other
miscellaneous stuff like winds, availability and price of fuel at the
other end, probability of having to divert, ad infinitum, i.e. all
those things experience teaches you to concider beyond the basic
FAA requirements.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Another weak attempt at provocation. I, and the other real pilots here, are
not interested in engaging in your puerile and obvious cries for attention.
You simply don't matter, since you don't fly and never will, and your
motivation is obvoiusly self centric and not toward education.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

The point is simply this: you don't matter, nor do your simplistic questions
that are obviously accessible via other sources.

[Howdy Doody Time]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> The point is simply this: you don't matter, nor do your simplistic
> questions that are obviously accessible via other sources.
>
>
>
Keep feeding it, idiot. It can't stop. Can you?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > I forgot to add, and for most airplanes, the climate.

> And you forgot to actually answer the question. What's the method?

I answered the question you asked.

If you can't understand the answer, it isn't my problem.

There is no cut and dried, black and white method you can put into
a script other than fill the tanks every time you land, which no one
other than students being directed to do so by an instructor does.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Yeah, it is based on using good judgement, knowledge of your airplane's
> > characteristics, and proper preflight planning.

> No doubt. So what is the method?

One more time, there is no black and white, cut and dried "method".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Howdy Doody Time]

> wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>
>> > Yeah, it is based on using good judgement, knowledge of your airplane's
>> > characteristics, and proper preflight planning.
>
>> No doubt. So what is the method?
>
> One more time, there is no black and white, cut and dried "method".
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Keep feeding it, idiot. It can't stop. Can you?

[Viperdoc]

So what's your recommendation? Someone will always answer the village idiot,
like it or not. Ignoring him has no effect, he will never get it, and
someone will always answer. What's your choice? Any better suggestions?

[George]

On Aug 9, 1:10*am, Nomen Nescio > wrote:

> You're an idiot and so is anyone who gives you a serious answer in the belief
> that you actually want to learn something.

Well, you're an idiot for thinking he doesn't want to seriously learn
something. So there.
Not only that, you're a scared idiot since you don't want your
gibberish archived.

George

[Dave S]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> When you fly, how much fuel do you prefer to carry? Do you just load enough
> to meet the FARs? Do you like to add a fudge factor? If so, how much? Do
> you prefer to fly with full tanks irrespective of the length of the flight?
> Is it significantly more expensive to fly with the tanks topped off for every
> flight on small aircraft, or does it not make much difference?

I have at least 4 mb ram in excess of my requirements, and keep a UPS
hooked up during critical phases of flight - from hitting the "b" key
for brake release, until I hit "b" again at the end of the flight.

[Howdy Doody Time]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> So what's your recommendation? Someone will always answer the village
> idiot, like it or not. Ignoring him has no effect, he will never get it,
> and someone will always answer. What's your choice? Any better
> suggestions?
>
>

It was replying to itself a while ago for lack of attention.

Ignoring it begins with you. Nobody else can do that.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Ignoring him hasn't worked, at least not for the past few years. Any other
suggestions? Somone will always answer his initial innocent post, only to
have him follow on with some ridiculous non relevant statements that provoke
further responses.

So, other than ignoring Anthony, what are the other solutions than trying to
discredit him and shut off furher responses?

[Howdy Doody Time]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> Ignoring him hasn't worked, at least not for the past few years. Any other
> suggestions? Somone will always answer his initial innocent post, only to
> have him follow on with some ridiculous non relevant statements that
> provoke further responses.
>
> So, other than ignoring Anthony, what are the other solutions than trying
> to discredit him and shut off furher responses?
>
>
>

Watch and learn.: Ignoring your further posts will end this conversation.
Not that you're doing it for attention or anything like that.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Since you don't even make sense or contribute, you're about on the same par
as Anthony, which is pretty worthless.

[Rocky Stevens]

On Aug 10, 12:42 am, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> Somone will always answer his initial innocent post, only to
> have him follow on with some ridiculous non relevant statements that provoke
> further responses.
>

OK viperdoc, thrill me: what did the OP say that was so ridiculous
before you weighed in with your (non-helpful) first post?

Oh and not for nothing, but based on the amount of NTSB reports that
indicate lack of fuel was the cause for the accident, I would say fuel
management is a very important issue. The ASF would agree; that is
probably why they have a section on it (http://www.aopa.org/asf/
safety_topics.html#fuel).

I think we need an RFC for a new group: rev.aviation.smug.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Good point- but where was your response? Why not just answer Anthony's
question rather than respond to mine?

[[email protected]]

Nomen Nescio > wrote:



> BTW, I think we both know that this thread was started to give MX
> a chance to point out that REAL pilots run out of fuel all the time and
> can't possibly be as smart as he is.

Probably true.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

Rocky Stevens writes:

> Oh and not for nothing, but based on the amount of NTSB reports that
> indicate lack of fuel was the cause for the accident, I would say fuel
> management is a very important issue. The ASF would agree; that is
> probably why they have a section on it (http://www.aopa.org/asf/
> safety_topics.html#fuel).

Reading about the prevalence of fuel-related accidents was what prompted my
question.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> One more time, there is no black and white, cut and dried "method".

Many excellent pilots seem to have methods for doing everything when they fly.
The more methodical they are, the safer they tend to be (and this is not
limited to aviation). I was wondering what their methods might be. There are
regulatory requirements, but beyond that there are many other factors to
consider, as pointed out already, and I was wondering exactly how pilots take
these into account. There's obviously a practical threshold between trying to
consider every possible detail and just flipping a coin (or not thinking about
fuel at all).

I'm sure a few pilots prefer trial and error or guesstimates or simple
negligence when working with fuel, but they are headed for the NTSB database
and learning bad habits doesn't seem very instructive to me.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> One more time, there is no black and white, cut and dried "method".
>
> Many excellent pilots seem to have methods for doing everything when
> they fly. The more methodical they are, the safer they tend to be (and
> this is not limited to aviation). I was wondering what their methods
> might be. There are regulatory requirements, but beyond that there
> are many other factors to consider, as pointed out already, and I was
> wondering exactly how pilots take these into account. There's
> obviously a practical threshold between trying to consider every
> possible detail and just flipping a coin (or not thinking about fuel
> at all).
>
> I'm sure a few pilots prefer trial and error or guesstimates or simple
> negligence when working with fuel, but they are headed for the NTSB
> database and learning bad habits doesn't seem very instructive to me.
>

Anthony, you're question HAS been answered here. Your just too ****ing
stupid to understand it.

[Buster Hymen]

Rocky Stevens > wrote in
:

> On Aug 10, 12:42 am, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
>> Somone will always answer his initial innocent post, only to
>> have him follow on with some ridiculous non relevant statements that
>> provoke further responses.
>>
>
> OK viperdoc, thrill me: what did the OP say that was so ridiculous
> before you weighed in with your (non-helpful) first post?
>
> Oh and not for nothing, but based on the amount of NTSB reports that
> indicate lack of fuel was the cause for the accident, I would say fuel
> management is a very important issue. The ASF would agree; that is
> probably why they have a section on it (http://www.aopa.org/asf/
> safety_topics.html#fuel).
>
> I think we need an RFC for a new group: rev.aviation.smug.
>

Did Anthony give you a good hand job for that post? If not, just give
yourself one and it will be from Antohny, you dip **** sock puppet.

[Buffalo Bob]

"Howdy Doody Time" > wrote in
:

>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> writes:
>>
>>> > Yeah, it is based on using good judgement, knowledge of your
>>> > airplane's characteristics, and proper preflight planning.
>>
>>> No doubt. So what is the method?
>>
>> One more time, there is no black and white, cut and dried "method".
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> Keep feeding it, idiot. It can't stop. Can you?
>
>

Spoken like the Peanut Gallery flunk out you are.

[Rocky Stevens]

On Aug 10, 1:07 am, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> Good point- but where was your response? Why not just answer Anthony's
> question rather than respond to mine?

Yeah, you have a point. As I mentioned in another thread I am a bit of
a hypocrite; most of my posts on this group are a reaction to a
reaction to Anthony, so it ain't like I'm contributing a whole lot of
relevant stuff myself. That being said, I did respond with what I
thought was a pretty interesting link (airlines running lower on fuel
to save $$) since the OP asked about the cost savings of carrying a
minimal amount of fuel.

I couldn't answer the question directly because the only "method" I
have is telling my instructor if the tanks are not full on preflight,
and then the fuel fairies come and fill the tanks. I could have given
a textbook answer involving GPH and calculating winds and whatnot, but
I am pretty sure the OP is interested in what pilots do in the real
world.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 17:00:50 -0500, "Viperdoc"
> wrote:

>The only time you have too much fuel is when the bloody thing is on fire.

the famous quote of Sir Charles Kingsford Smith.
>
>

[[email protected]]

On Aug 10, 9:08*am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 17:00:50 -0500, "Viperdoc"
>
> > wrote:
> >The only time you have too much fuel is when the bloody thing is on fire..
>
> the famous quote of Sir Charles Kingsford Smith.
>
>

It's a cute quotation, but not true of course. Stuff 4 people into a
172 on a hot day or on a short strip and too much fuel on board will
contribute the fire because the airplane was too heavy for the
conditions.

[Rocky Stevens]

On Aug 10, 4:15 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Rocky Stevens writes:
> > Oh and not for nothing, but based on the amount of NTSB reports that
> > indicate lack of fuel was the cause for the accident, I would say fuel
> > management is a very important issue. The ASF would agree; that is
> > probably why they have a section on it (http://www.aopa.org/asf/
> > safety_topics.html#fuel).
>
> Reading about the prevalence of fuel-related accidents was what prompted my
> question.

It is shocking to me how many of these accidents exist; and it ain't
just new pilots. For example, the head instructor of the accelerated
school that was the subject of "getting my license in 7 days" (http://
www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/outdoors_news/2092132.html) died
because he ran out of gas. Right now if you were to ask me where my
greatest risk of dying lay, I would say it would be doing something
stupid like landing on the wrong runway or something (just the other
day I told ATC that I was midfield when it turns out I was really on
the upwind. Yeah, I've got a ways to go). I could also see myself
getting lost, and running out of fuel that way. First thing I do once
I get my ticket is buying a GPS.

A large number of accidents are not because of running out of fuel per
se, but bad "fuel management," i.e. forgetting to switch tanks. I'm
not quite sure why the two tanks are not connected in such a way that
they drain at an equal rate. In my current plane I do not have to
worry about that since I only have one tank.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Rocky Stevens wrote:
>
> A large number of accidents are not because of running out of fuel per
> se, but bad "fuel management," i.e. forgetting to switch tanks.

Got a citation for that? Very high on the emergency checklist of every
multiple tanked aircraft I've ever flown is "switch tanks". There's
also an item on approach lists mentioning proper tank choice in some manner.

>I'm
> not quite sure why the two tanks are not connected in such a way that
> they drain at an equal rate.

Some are, like a 172. On those, when you're out, you're done. At least
with a selector valve you've got a serious warning once one runs dry.

Personally, if I'm down to minimum fuel, I'd rather have it most of it
in one tank, for reliable pickup.

[Rocky Stevens]

On Aug 10, 10:51 am, B A R R Y > wrote:
> Rocky Stevens wrote:
>
> > A large number of accidents are not because of running out of fuel per
> > se, but bad "fuel management," i.e. forgetting to switch tanks.
>
> Got a citation for that? Very high on the emergency checklist of every
> multiple tanked aircraft I've ever flown is "switch tanks". There's
> also an item on approach lists mentioning proper tank choice in some manner.
>

I probably misspoke; I just seem to recall reading a lot of reports
that featured one tank running empty while the other was full.
> >I'm
> > not quite sure why the two tanks are not connected in such a way that
> > they drain at an equal rate.
>
> Some are, like a 172. On those, when you're out, you're done. At least
> with a selector valve you've got a serious warning once one runs dry.
>

Never thought of it that way. I ride a motorcycle, and motorcycles
have a "reserve" tank (not really a separate tank) that you can switch
to when you "run out" of gas This way you know when you are low on
fuel, since most motorcycles do not have fuel gauges. Personally I
would rather have a damned fuel gauge; trying to turn a valve by your
knee while riding at highway speeds, all the while losing engine
power, is not the safest way to go. (Sorry for the non-aviation blurb;
lack of a fuel gauge in motorcycles is just a pet peeve of mine).

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > One more time, there is no black and white, cut and dried "method".

> Many excellent pilots seem to have methods for doing everything when they fly.
> The more methodical they are, the safer they tend to be (and this is not
> limited to aviation). I was wondering what their methods might be. There are
> regulatory requirements, but beyond that there are many other factors to
> consider, as pointed out already, and I was wondering exactly how pilots take
> these into account. There's obviously a practical threshold between trying to
> consider every possible detail and just flipping a coin (or not thinking about
> fuel at all).

Fully following the regulatory requirements ensures the safety of the
flight.

Everything past that falls into catagories such as economics, convenience,
good will, etc.

Sometimes I buy fuel at an airport when I don't have any need to just
because the FBO has nice people and I want to help make sure they
stay in business.

Put that into your simulator "method" for fueling.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

on 8/9/2008 11:15 PM said the following:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>
>>> I forgot to add, and for most airplanes, the climate.
>
>> And you forgot to actually answer the question. What's the method?
>
> I answered the question you asked.
>
> If you can't understand the answer, it isn't my problem.
>
> There is no cut and dried, black and white method you can put into
> a script other than fill the tanks every time you land, which no one
> other than students being directed to do so by an instructor does.

Assuming you mean "every time you put the aircraft away" (since no one
does it after every landing - think pattern work) it's more common than
you suggest. It's standard practice in all the clubs I'm familiar with,
including my own, to return aircraft topped off.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

on 8/10/2008 9:51 AM B A R R Y said the following:
> Rocky Stevens wrote:
>>
>> A large number of accidents are not because of running out of fuel per
>> se, but bad "fuel management," i.e. forgetting to switch tanks.
>
> Got a citation for that? Very high on the emergency checklist of every
> multiple tanked aircraft I've ever flown is "switch tanks". There's
> also an item on approach lists mentioning proper tank choice in some
> manner.

And yet it happens. My club lost a 210 a few years ago when the pilot
ran one side dry and failed to switch.

(Not that I'm agreeing with the original statement. I don't have the
data to know one way of the other.)

[[email protected]]

On Aug 10, 12:45*pm, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
> > > One more time, there is no black and white, cut and dried "method".
> > Many excellent pilots seem to have methods for doing everything when they fly.
> > The more methodical they are, the safer they tend to be (and this is not
> > limited to aviation). *I was wondering what their methods might be. *There are
> > regulatory requirements, but beyond that there are many other factors to
> > consider, as pointed out already, and I was wondering exactly how pilots take
> > these into account. *There's obviously a practical threshold between trying to
> > consider every possible detail and just flipping a coin (or not thinking about
> > fuel at all).
>
> Fully following the regulatory requirements ensures the safety of the
> flight.
>
> Everything past that falls into catagories such as economics, convenience,
> good will, etc.
>
> Sometimes I buy fuel at an airport when I don't have any need to just
> because the FBO has nice people and I want to help make sure they
> stay in business.
>
> Put that into your simulator "method" for fueling.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

I think it would be more correct to say fully complying with the
regulations enhances the safety of the flight. Things fail and that
can ruin your whole day.

Although the regulations don't say it yet sooner or later we'll be
cited as failing pilots for not ANTICIPATING a critical part failure.
I had the carb heat cable break on a Mooney Ranger once. It was on a
non precision approach to an uncontrolled field in IMC, and if you
have any experience with those airplanes you know they love to form
carb ice. When it came time to fly the miss nothing happened when I
added throttle. Of course carb heat was on -- I pulled it on harder
and the cable just kept coming out of the panel. I tried everything:
landing lights, comm volume, all of that, finally learned that by
leaning the engine it would provide just enough power to get to a
nearby controlled airport with an ILS. The point of that long
paragraph is had I gone in part of the findings probably would have
found fault with my piloting. And yes, boys and girls, I did do a carb
heat check as part of the pre takeoff run up.

[Mxsmanic]

Rocky Stevens writes:

> It is shocking to me how many of these accidents exist; and it ain't
> just new pilots. For example, the head instructor of the accelerated
> school that was the subject of "getting my license in 7 days" (http://
> www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/outdoors_news/2092132.html) died
> because he ran out of gas.

It makes me wonder how often this happens with motor vehicles in general.
Aviation is the only domain in which it has short-term, unpleasant
consequences. If a car or motorcycle runs out of gas, it's just an annoyance
(usually). If a boat runs out of gas far from shore, that is a potential
problem, but not nearly as urgent as fuel exhaustion in an aircraft. So
perhaps the problem exists equally for all sorts of motor vehicles, but only
reaches the statistics in aviation, where it can cause accidents. But since
the other situations wouldn't result in an accident, I doubt that anybody has
numbers on this.

> A large number of accidents are not because of running out of fuel per
> se, but bad "fuel management," i.e. forgetting to switch tanks. I'm
> not quite sure why the two tanks are not connected in such a way that
> they drain at an equal rate. In my current plane I do not have to
> worry about that since I only have one tank.

I have read that many pilots like to switch between tanks, but it is not clear
to me that this offers real advantages. You have so much fuel, and when it
runs out, it runs out. Switching tanks isn't going to make the fuel last
longer, you'll just be reminded of the errors in your fuel calculations in a
different way. It seems that this could provide a false sense of security.
It surprises me that some aircraft make no provision for drawing equally from
tanks on both sides in the first place. Lindbergh had to worry about
switching tanks, but I should hope that aircraft designs had moved forward a
bit beyond that.

[Mxsmanic]

Rocky Stevens writes:

> Sorry for the non-aviation blurb; lack of a fuel gauge in motorcycles
> is just a pet peeve of mine.

There's no excuse for designing motorcycles without fuel gauges. Then again,
the systems of small aircraft seem just as frozen in time.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Fully following the regulatory requirements ensures the safety of the
> flight.

You're sure of that? Fully following the regulations certainly ensures the
legality of the flight, but it might be stretching things to say that it
ensures safety. The regulations often cover only the bare minimum of safety,
as here in the case of fuel loading. Lots of airline pilots like to load more
fuel than the regulations require, which implies that they don't believe that
the regulatory minimums ensure safety.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 10, 1:43*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Rocky Stevens writes:
> > It is shocking to me how many of these accidents exist; and it ain't
> > just new pilots. For example, the head instructor of the accelerated
> > school that was the subject of "getting my license in 7 days" (http://
> >www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/outdoors_news/2092132.html) died
> > because he ran out of gas.
>
> It makes me wonder how often this happens with motor vehicles in general.
> Aviation is the only domain in which it has short-term, unpleasant
> consequences. *If a car or motorcycle runs out of gas, it's just an annoyance
> (usually). *If a boat runs out of gas far from shore, that is a potential
> problem, but not nearly as urgent as fuel exhaustion in an aircraft. *So
> perhaps the problem exists equally for all sorts of motor vehicles, but only
> reaches the statistics in aviation, where it can cause accidents. *But since
> the other situations wouldn't result in an accident, I doubt that anybody has
> numbers on this.
>
> > A large number of accidents are not because of running out of fuel per
> > se, but bad "fuel management," i.e. forgetting to switch tanks. I'm
> > not quite sure why the two tanks are not connected in such a way that
> > they drain at an equal rate. In my current plane I do not have to
> > worry about that since I only have one tank.
>
> I have read that many pilots like to switch between tanks, but it is not clear
> to me that this offers real advantages. *You have so much fuel, and when it
> runs out, it runs out. *Switching tanks isn't going to make the fuel last
> longer, you'll just be reminded of the errors in your fuel calculations in a
> different way. *It seems that this could provide a false sense of security.
> It surprises me that some aircraft make no provision for drawing equally from
> tanks on both sides in the first place. *Lindbergh had to worry about
> switching tanks, but I should hope that aircraft designs had moved forward a
> bit beyond that.

If an engine's leaning is inadvertently changed (it's been known to
happen that a right seat child does something like that, or even
vibration can sometimes) or the fuel cover on a high wing airplane
comes off, or a tank begins leaking fuel use will change markedly.
Having the left wing go dry unexpectedly is a LOT better than having
both wings go dry unexpectedly. This is a real world consideration.

[Rocky Stevens]

On Aug 10, 1:43 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

>
> It makes me wonder how often this happens with motor vehicles in general.
> Aviation is the only domain in which it has short-term, unpleasant
> consequences. If a car or motorcycle runs out of gas, it's just an annoyance
> (usually). If a boat runs out of gas far from shore, that is a potential
> problem, but not nearly as urgent as fuel exhaustion in an aircraft. So
> perhaps the problem exists equally for all sorts of motor vehicles, but only
> reaches the statistics in aviation, where it can cause accidents. But since
> the other situations wouldn't result in an accident, I doubt that anybody has
> numbers on this.

I don't have the numbers, but I would bet real money that the rate of
"out of gas incidents" per mile, hour, or whatever is MUCH lower for
aircraft than other vehicles, for the very same reasons you mentioned
- losing power in a plane is a much bigger deal than a car. For
example, many pilots visually confirm the level of fuel, just in case
their gas gauge is broken; I have never heard of a driver doing that!

[[email protected]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote:
> on 8/9/2008 11:15 PM said the following:
> > Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> writes:
> >
> >>> I forgot to add, and for most airplanes, the climate.
> >
> >> And you forgot to actually answer the question. What's the method?
> >
> > I answered the question you asked.
> >
> > If you can't understand the answer, it isn't my problem.
> >
> > There is no cut and dried, black and white method you can put into
> > a script other than fill the tanks every time you land, which no one
> > other than students being directed to do so by an instructor does.

> Assuming you mean "every time you put the aircraft away" (since no one
> does it after every landing - think pattern work) it's more common than
> you suggest. It's standard practice in all the clubs I'm familiar with,
> including my own, to return aircraft topped off.

By "land" I meant end the flight, as in get out of the airplane.

If I go somewhere and have lunch and have more than enough fuel for
the return trip, do I top off the tanks?

If the price of fuel is less than at home, yes.

If the price of fuel is the same or not a lot more than at home and
the FBO "impressed" me, yes.

If by buying fuel I avoid some type of landing fee so the net cost
is less, yes.

If it happened when I was a student, yes, because the instructor and
school insisted on in.

Generally, otherwise no.

In a shared situation, I would think returning the aircraft with less
than full tanks would soon lead to a pointed conversation on the
value of courtesy.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> On Aug 10, 12:45?pm, wrote:
> > Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > > writes:
> > > > One more time, there is no black and white, cut and dried "method".
> > > Many excellent pilots seem to have methods for doing everything when they fly.
> > > The more methodical they are, the safer they tend to be (and this is not
> > > limited to aviation). ?I was wondering what their methods might be. ?There are
> > > regulatory requirements, but beyond that there are many other factors to
> > > consider, as pointed out already, and I was wondering exactly how pilots take
> > > these into account. ?There's obviously a practical threshold between trying to
> > > consider every possible detail and just flipping a coin (or not thinking about
> > > fuel at all).
> >
> > Fully following the regulatory requirements ensures the safety of the
> > flight.
> >
> > Everything past that falls into catagories such as economics, convenience,
> > good will, etc.
> >
> > Sometimes I buy fuel at an airport when I don't have any need to just
> > because the FBO has nice people and I want to help make sure they
> > stay in business.
> >
> > Put that into your simulator "method" for fueling.
> >
> > --
> > Jim Pennino
> >
> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.

> I think it would be more correct to say fully complying with the
> regulations enhances the safety of the flight. Things fail and that
> can ruin your whole day.

Unless you have a working crystal ball, there is a limit to what you
can do to minimize "things happening".

> Although the regulations don't say it yet sooner or later we'll be
> cited as failing pilots for not ANTICIPATING a critical part failure.
> I had the carb heat cable break on a Mooney Ranger once. It was on a
> non precision approach to an uncontrolled field in IMC, and if you
> have any experience with those airplanes you know they love to form
> carb ice. When it came time to fly the miss nothing happened when I
> added throttle. Of course carb heat was on -- I pulled it on harder
> and the cable just kept coming out of the panel. I tried everything:
> landing lights, comm volume, all of that, finally learned that by
> leaning the engine it would provide just enough power to get to a
> nearby controlled airport with an ILS. The point of that long
> paragraph is had I gone in part of the findings probably would have
> found fault with my piloting. And yes, boys and girls, I did do a carb
> heat check as part of the pre takeoff run up.

Unless there was a history of **** poor maintenance, I don't see how
anyone could find fault in a situation like this.

Though with government agencies, you never know...

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Fully following the regulatory requirements ensures the safety of the
> > flight.

> You're sure of that? Fully following the regulations certainly ensures the
> legality of the flight, but it might be stretching things to say that it
> ensures safety. The regulations often cover only the bare minimum of safety,
> as here in the case of fuel loading. Lots of airline pilots like to load more
> fuel than the regulations require, which implies that they don't believe that
> the regulatory minimums ensure safety.

Yes, and we were talking specifically about fuel requirements, not
anything else.

1) Where do you get your numbers that indicate "Lots of airline pilots
like to load more fuel than the regulations require".

2) Airlines are not GA.

3) Airline pilots must adhere to FAA regulation and company policy or
they will be neither airline pilots nor pilots at all for very long.

4) Fueling an airliner involves a lot more than just the pilot's "likes".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Rocky Stevens > wrote:
> On Aug 10, 1:43 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> >
> > It makes me wonder how often this happens with motor vehicles in general.
> > Aviation is the only domain in which it has short-term, unpleasant
> > consequences. If a car or motorcycle runs out of gas, it's just an annoyance
> > (usually). If a boat runs out of gas far from shore, that is a potential
> > problem, but not nearly as urgent as fuel exhaustion in an aircraft. So
> > perhaps the problem exists equally for all sorts of motor vehicles, but only
> > reaches the statistics in aviation, where it can cause accidents. But since
> > the other situations wouldn't result in an accident, I doubt that anybody has
> > numbers on this.

> I don't have the numbers, but I would bet real money that the rate of
> "out of gas incidents" per mile, hour, or whatever is MUCH lower for
> aircraft than other vehicles, for the very same reasons you mentioned
> - losing power in a plane is a much bigger deal than a car. For
> example, many pilots visually confirm the level of fuel, just in case
> their gas gauge is broken; I have never heard of a driver doing that!

On every GA aircraft I've ever seen, you are SUPPOSED to do that as part
of the preflight.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Rocky Stevens wrote:
>
> Never thought of it that way. I ride a motorcycle, and motorcycles
> have a "reserve" tank (not really a separate tank) that you can switch
> to when you "run out" of gas

There are a few old planes with the same setup.

I think some Taylorcrafts had a reserve tank.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Rich Ahrens wrote:
>
> And yet it happens. My club lost a 210 a few years ago when the pilot
> ran one side dry and failed to switch.
>

Oh, I know it does! I was simply questioning the magnitude.

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
> wrote:
> In a shared situation, I would think returning the aircraft with less
> than full tanks would soon lead to a pointed conversation on the
> value of courtesy.

Not necessarily. A Cherokee 140 for example has a seriously depleted useful
load if the tanks are full.

Andy

[[email protected]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote:
> Hi,

> In article >,
> > wrote:
> > In a shared situation, I would think returning the aircraft with less
> > than full tanks would soon lead to a pointed conversation on the
> > value of courtesy.

> Not necessarily. A Cherokee 140 for example has a seriously depleted useful
> load if the tanks are full.

And if it were a concideration in a shared environment, I would imagine
that the rules of the sharing agreement would specify what "full" means.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[george]

So far no-one has mentioned using a dip stick to physically check the
fuel level.

Anthony could get a job in aviation as he's about the biggest dipstick
I've ever encountered

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> If an engine's leaning is inadvertently changed (it's been known to
> happen that a right seat child does something like that, or even
> vibration can sometimes) or the fuel cover on a high wing airplane
> comes off, or a tank begins leaking fuel use will change markedly.
> Having the left wing go dry unexpectedly is a LOT better than having
> both wings go dry unexpectedly. This is a real world consideration.

Granted, but most fuel starvation and exhaustion accidents do not seem to
involve things like this. Pilots simply fail to plan, and then sometimes
react inappropriately when the fuel runs out or runs low.

I don't recall seeing any accidents involving mixture changes or fuel-cover
losses, but it's certainly possible. A pilot should be monitoring engine
gauges, however, and should notice a change in mixture or fuel consumption. He
might even be able to detect it by sound in some aircraft.

[Mxsmanic]

Rocky Stevens writes:

> I don't have the numbers, but I would bet real money that the rate of
> "out of gas incidents" per mile, hour, or whatever is MUCH lower for
> aircraft than other vehicles, for the very same reasons you mentioned
> - losing power in a plane is a much bigger deal than a car. For
> example, many pilots visually confirm the level of fuel, just in case
> their gas gauge is broken; I have never heard of a driver doing that!

That makes sense. Then again, motor vehicles have filling stations within
easy reach most of the time, which allows them to top off the tanks if they
see them getting low. I wonder how many fuel-exhaustion incidents there are
for motor vehicles out in the boondocks, where there are no filling stations
handy.

In any case, the number of incidents for small GA aircraft is amazing. Thank
goodness you don't see the same numbers for large commercial transports,
although with airlines pressing pilots to compromise on safety, that may
change.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Rocky Stevens writes:
>
>> Sorry for the non-aviation blurb; lack of a fuel gauge in motorcycles
>> is just a pet peeve of mine.
>
> There's no excuse for designing motorcycles without fuel gauges. Then
> again, the systems of small aircraft seem just as frozen in time.
>


You are a moron.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Although the regulations don't say it yet sooner or later we'll be
> cited as failing pilots for not ANTICIPATING a critical part failure.
> I had the carb heat cable break on a Mooney Ranger once. It was on a
> non precision approach to an uncontrolled field in IMC, and if you
> have any experience with those airplanes you know they love to form
> carb ice.

Is there some regulation you failed to comply with that could have prevented
this?

I know airliners have regularly scheduled maintenance at multiple levels that
is supposed to catch all sorts of potential problems, but do small aircraft
have the same requirements? Apart from required engine maintenance, what
other maintenance is required by regulations?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

B A R R Y > wrote in news:NPGnk.35455$ZE5.11635
@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com:

> Rocky Stevens wrote:
>>
>> Never thought of it that way. I ride a motorcycle, and motorcycles
>> have a "reserve" tank (not really a separate tank) that you can switch
>> to when you "run out" of gas
>
> There are a few old planes with the same setup.
>
> I think some Taylorcrafts had a reserve tank.
>

Bikes don't have a resere tank, they have a stand pipe that takes the
normal supply from an inch or two up in the tank. When that runs dry, you
selct reserve and you can get at all the fuel.
No airplane ever had that kind of instalation
The "reserve" in the T-craft was another tank that fed into the main in the
nose. Lots of airplanes of the period have this setup.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> 1) Where do you get your numbers that indicate "Lots of airline pilots
> like to load more fuel than the regulations require".

Every airline pilot I've read or talked to. Pilots feel more comfortable with
more fuel, because all sorts of things can happen that the regulations do not
foresee.

> 2) Airlines are not GA.

Airlines are also a lot safer than GA.

> 3) Airline pilots must adhere to FAA regulation and company policy or
> they will be neither airline pilots nor pilots at all for very long.

Are you implying that private pilots don't have to adhere to FAA regulations?
Perhaps that's part of the problem.

> 4) Fueling an airliner involves a lot more than just the pilot's "likes".

Yes, but on top of all the rest, the captain may ask for additional fuel to be
loaded at his discretion, and many pilots do exactly that.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Rocky Stevens writes:
>
>> It is shocking to me how many of these accidents exist; and it ain't
>> just new pilots. For example, the head instructor of the accelerated
>> school that was the subject of "getting my license in 7 days"
>> (http:// www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/outdoors_news/2092132.html)
>> died because he ran out of gas.
>
> It makes me wonder how often this happens with motor vehicles in
> general.

Of course it does. You have no clue as to how any machine works.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> If an engine's leaning is inadvertently changed (it's been known to
>> happen that a right seat child does something like that, or even
>> vibration can sometimes) or the fuel cover on a high wing airplane
>> comes off, or a tank begins leaking fuel use will change markedly.
>> Having the left wing go dry unexpectedly is a LOT better than having
>> both wings go dry unexpectedly. This is a real world consideration.
>
> Granted, but most fuel starvation and exhaustion accidents do not seem
> to involve things like this. Pilots simply fail to plan, and then
> sometimes react inappropriately when the fuel runs out or runs low.
>
> I don't recall seeing any accidents involving mixture changes or
> fuel-cover losses, but it's certainly possible. A pilot should be
> monitoring engine gauges, however, and should notice a change in
> mixture or fuel consumption. He might even be able to detect it by
> sound in some aircraft.
>

Hopw woudl you know?

You don't fly and you never will.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Aug 10, 5:17*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > If an engine's leaning is inadvertently changed (it's been known to
> > happen that a right seat child does something like that, or even
> > vibration can sometimes) or the fuel cover on a high wing airplane
> > comes off, or a tank begins leaking fuel use will change markedly.
> > Having the left wing go dry unexpectedly is a LOT better than having
> > both wings go dry unexpectedly. This is a real world consideration.
>
> Granted, but most fuel starvation and exhaustion accidents do not seem to
> involve things like this. *Pilots simply fail to plan, and then sometimes
> react inappropriately when the fuel runs out or runs low.
>
> I don't recall seeing any accidents involving mixture changes or fuel-cover
> losses, but it's certainly possible. *A pilot should be monitoring engine
> gauges, however, and should notice a change in mixture or fuel consumption. He
> might even be able to detect it by sound in some aircraft.

Actually, mixture problems, and carb ice on normally asperated
engines, show up on EGT first. Headsets that most pilots wear do not
allow subtle variations in engine sound through, which is why on take
off I have one ear uncovered. But mixture problems do occur, and are
one reason of several I cited as to why having the ability to select
fuel tanks, rather than drawing from both, is safer. That was the
issue, I answered it, and you are attempting to divert the
conversation from an area where your reasoning has been questioned.

Again.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 10, 5:24*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Although the regulations don't say it yet sooner or later we'll be
> > cited as failing pilots for not ANTICIPATING a critical part failure.
> > I had the carb heat cable break on a Mooney Ranger once. It was on a
> > non precision approach to an uncontrolled field in IMC, and if you
> > have any experience with those airplanes you know they love to form
> > carb ice.
>
> Is there some regulation you failed to comply with that could have prevented
> this?
>
> I know airliners have regularly scheduled maintenance at multiple levels that
> is supposed to catch all sorts of potential problems, but do small aircraft
> have the same requirements? *Apart from required engine maintenance, what
> other maintenance is required by regulations?

We fly in compliance with regs and POH. There is no regulation that
will predict the breaking of a cable connector. In some cases such a
breakage could lead to an accident. In this case I was lucky, the
accident 'chain' was broken before the airplane was.

[Buster Hymen]

Rocky Stevens > wrote in news:75a8ba62-800d-42bc-
:

> On Aug 10, 1:07 am, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
>> Good point- but where was your response? Why not just answer Anthony's
>> question rather than respond to mine?
>
> Yeah, you have a point. As I mentioned in another thread I am a bit of
> a hypocrite; most of my posts on this group are a reaction to a
> reaction to Anthony, so it ain't like I'm contributing a whole lot of
> relevant stuff myself. That being said, I did respond with what I
> thought was a pretty interesting link (airlines running lower on fuel
> to save $$) since the OP asked about the cost savings of carrying a
> minimal amount of fuel.
>
> I couldn't answer the question directly because the only "method" I
> have is telling my instructor if the tanks are not full on preflight,
> and then the fuel fairies come and fill the tanks. I could have given
> a textbook answer involving GPH and calculating winds and whatnot, but
> I am pretty sure the OP is interested in what pilots do in the real
> world.
>

They start with the textbook and add experience you fool.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Rocky Stevens writes:
>
>> Sorry for the non-aviation blurb; lack of a fuel gauge in motorcycles
>> is just a pet peeve of mine.
>
> There's no excuse for designing motorcycles without fuel gauges. Then
> again, the systems of small aircraft seem just as frozen in time.

There is no excuse for your existence, fjukwjit.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> If an engine's leaning is inadvertently changed (it's been known to
>> happen that a right seat child does something like that, or even
>> vibration can sometimes) or the fuel cover on a high wing airplane
>> comes off, or a tank begins leaking fuel use will change markedly.
>> Having the left wing go dry unexpectedly is a LOT better than having
>> both wings go dry unexpectedly. This is a real world consideration.
>
> Granted, but most fuel starvation and exhaustion accidents do not seem
> to involve things like this. Pilots simply fail to plan, and then
> sometimes react inappropriately when the fuel runs out or runs low.
>
> I don't recall seeing any accidents involving mixture changes or
> fuel-cover losses, but it's certainly possible. A pilot should be
> monitoring engine gauges, however, and should notice a change in
> mixture or fuel consumption. He might even be able to detect it by
> sound in some aircraft.

As usual Anthony, you're just spewing drivel. Retard.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I know airliners have regularly scheduled maintenance at multiple levels that
> is supposed to catch all sorts of potential problems, but do small aircraft
> have the same requirements? Apart from required engine maintenance, what
> other maintenance is required by regulations?

A preflight of the aircraft before each flight and an inspection of the
entire aircraft at least every 12 months called an "annual".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > 1) Where do you get your numbers that indicate "Lots of airline pilots
> > like to load more fuel than the regulations require".

> Every airline pilot I've read or talked to.

And how many is that?

> Pilots feel more comfortable with
> more fuel, because all sorts of things can happen that the regulations do not
> foresee.

Babbling nonsense.

> > 2) Airlines are not GA.

> Airlines are also a lot safer than GA.

Define "a lot".

Does this include the high risk activities such as crop dusting and
fire fighting?

> > 3) Airline pilots must adhere to FAA regulation and company policy or
> > they will be neither airline pilots nor pilots at all for very long.

> Are you implying that private pilots don't have to adhere to FAA regulations?
> Perhaps that's part of the problem.

I'm not implying anything.

What part of the word "and" are you having problems understanding?

> > 4) Fueling an airliner involves a lot more than just the pilot's "likes".

> Yes, but on top of all the rest, the captain may ask for additional fuel to be
> loaded at his discretion, and many pilots do exactly that.

And you know this how?

How much "additional fuel" does the typical captain ask to be loaded?

How much is in addition to company policy?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Andy Hawkins > wrote:

> Not necessarily. A Cherokee 140 for example has a seriously depleted useful
> load if the tanks are full.

well, as an owner of a cherokee 140, I'd say the 140 has a seriously depleted
useful load with any fuel load. :-/

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

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> And how many is that?

At this point? Probably a few dozen.

> Define "a lot".

If I remember my last investigation into this, the difference is about two
orders of magnitude. Small GA aircraft are about as safe as riding a
motorcycle, overall, although it depends enormously on the pilot and the state
of maintenance of the aircraft.

> Does this include the high risk activities such as crop dusting and
> fire fighting?

No, I was comparing private pilot activities to commercial airlines.

> > Are you implying that private pilots don't have to adhere to FAA regulations?
> > Perhaps that's part of the problem.
>
> I'm not implying anything.

Well, you said "pilots must adhere to FAA regulation," as if this were not
true for private pilots flying on their own.

> And you know this how?

By talking to them, or by reading what they've written.

> How much "additional fuel" does the typical captain ask to be loaded?

That would depend on the flight and other things. Enough for changes in route
due to weather, excessive time taxiing on the ground, etc. Anything that
concerns the pilot.

> How much is in addition to company policy?

That depends on the circumstances. But apparently pilots like to load extra
fuel a lot more than airlines do. Legally, pilots have the final say, but
they are under a lot of pressure to disregard their safety instincts and load
the minimum.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> And how many is that?
>
> At this point? Probably a few dozen.
>
>> Define "a lot".
>
> If I remember my last investigation into this, the difference is about
> two orders of magnitude. Small GA aircraft are about as safe as
> riding a motorcycle, overall, although it depends enormously on the
> pilot and the state of maintenance of the aircraft.
>
>> Does this include the high risk activities such as crop dusting and
>> fire fighting?
>
> No, I was comparing private pilot activities to commercial airlines.
>
You Anthony, being the asshole you are, don't know **** from Shinola. High
risk activities such as crop dusting and fire fighting are NOT commercial
airline operations and their accident rate is included in the GA
statistics. You've been told this before, but you are too ****ing stupid
to understand the concept.
>> > Are you implying that private pilots don't have to adhere to FAA
>> > regulations? Perhaps that's part of the problem.
>>
>> I'm not implying anything.
>
> Well, you said "pilots must adhere to FAA regulation," as if this were
> not true for private pilots flying on their own.
Again, Anthony, you are just being your usual ****ing moron self. All
pilots must adhere to FAA regulation. Now, go reasarch what airline op
specs are and what role they play in regulation. If you knew **** from
Shinola about this, you would realize how your response is just drivel from
an asshole.
>
>> And you know this how?
>
> By talking to them, or by reading what they've written.
>
>> How much "additional fuel" does the typical captain ask to be loaded?
>
> That would depend on the flight and other things. Enough for changes
> in route due to weather, excessive time taxiing on the ground, etc.
> Anything that concerns the pilot.
>
>> How much is in addition to company policy?
>
> That depends on the circumstances. But apparently pilots like to load
> extra fuel a lot more than airlines do. Legally, pilots have the
> final say, but they are under a lot of pressure to disregard their
> safety instincts and load the minimum.
>
Again, Anthony, you don't have the slightest ****ing idea of what options
are available to a pilot. You just spew bull **** from the vacuum that
occupies the space between your ears.

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
> wrote:
> And if it were a concideration in a shared environment, I would imagine
> that the rules of the sharing agreement would specify what "full" means.

Ah Ok. I didn't realise you were using the definition of 'full' that didn't
actually mean 'full'. :)

Andy

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bob > wrote:
> well, as an owner of a cherokee 140, I'd say the 140 has a seriously depleted
> useful load with any fuel load. :-/

Well, yes. But what I was *trying* to saw was that if someone filled the
tanks, you'd be lucky to get more than 1 or 2 people in without going over
MAUW.

Andy

[BDS[_2_]]

"Rocky Stevens" > wrote
>
> Never thought of it that way. I ride a motorcycle, and motorcycles
> have a "reserve" tank (not really a separate tank) that you can switch
> to when you "run out" of gas This way you know when you are low on
> fuel, since most motorcycles do not have fuel gauges. Personally I
> would rather have a damned fuel gauge; trying to turn a valve by your
> knee while riding at highway speeds, all the while losing engine
> power, is not the safest way to go. (Sorry for the non-aviation blurb;
> lack of a fuel gauge in motorcycles is just a pet peeve of mine).

After you gain some experience riding you will learn to fuel up after having
driven x number of miles. You will also become comfortable switching to
reserve if you need to without any trouble and while riding at highway
speeds.

Motorcycles are generally not the safest mode of transportation out there,
so if it is safety that you are primarily concerned with, perhaps a
motorcycle is a bad choice for you.

[Tim[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote
>
> Every airline pilot I've read or talked to. Pilots feel more comfortable
with
> more fuel, because all sorts of things can happen that the regulations do
not
> foresee.

Since it is illegal to run out of fuel it seems like the regulations have
all the bases covered.

Pick an activity or occupation, any at all, and you will find participants
with skill levels from incompetent to outstanding. Flying is no different -
why would you continue to think otherwise?

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> Motorcycles are generally not the safest mode of transportation out there,
> so if it is safety that you are primarily concerned with, perhaps a
> motorcycle is a bad choice for you.

Alas! The same can be said of flying small aircraft. I don't think anyone
chooses to ride a motorcycle or fly a plane because he wants to increase his
personal safety.

[Mxsmanic]

Tim writes:

> Pick an activity or occupation, any at all, and you will find participants
> with skill levels from incompetent to outstanding. Flying is no different -
> why would you continue to think otherwise?

I don't. There are highly competent pilots, some of whom I've met, and
incompetent pilots, some of whom haunt this newsgroup.

[Rocky Stevens]

On Aug 11, 10:10 am, "BDS" > wrote:
> "Rocky Stevens" > wrote
>
>
>
> > Never thought of it that way. I ride a motorcycle, and motorcycles
> > have a "reserve" tank (not really a separate tank) that you can switch
> > to when you "run out" of gas This way you know when you are low on
> > fuel, since most motorcycles do not have fuel gauges. Personally I
> > would rather have a damned fuel gauge; trying to turn a valve by your
> > knee while riding at highway speeds, all the while losing engine
> > power, is not the safest way to go. (Sorry for the non-aviation blurb;
> > lack of a fuel gauge in motorcycles is just a pet peeve of mine).
>
> After you gain some experience riding you will learn to fuel up after having
> driven x number of miles. You will also become comfortable switching to
> reserve if you need to without any trouble and while riding at highway
> speeds.
>
> Motorcycles are generally not the safest mode of transportation out there,
> so if it is safety that you are primarily concerned with, perhaps a
> motorcycle is a bad choice for you.

I rarely run out of gas BECAUSE I fill up every x number of miles.
Unfortunately this also has the effect of making the switching to
reserve a very rare event, and thus not intuitive at all. I've been
riding for about 15 years, and I still need to remind myself where it
is in relation to me when I am riding.

I've always ridden cruisers, and for the first time got a sportbike
last year. I was surprised at how great the difference in fuel
consumption was depending on how I rode it (RPM wise); this led to a
switch to the reserve tank! In any event, a fuel gauge would be very
helpful.

[bdl]

On Aug 10, 4:17*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> I don't recall seeing any accidents involving mixture changes or fuel-cover
> losses, but it's certainly possible. *A pilot should be monitoring engine
> gauges, however, and should notice a change in mixture or fuel consumption.

[Tim[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote
>
> I don't. There are highly competent pilots, some of whom I've met, and
> incompetent pilots, some of whom haunt this newsgroup.

Which ones on this NG are incompetent and how did you make that judgement?

Do you think you can really judge competency from what is written here,
especially in light of the fact that the majority of the people who respond
to you apparently do so only to yank your chain?

[Tim[_1_]]

"Rocky Stevens" > wrote
>
> I've always ridden cruisers, and for the first time got a sportbike
> last year. I was surprised at how great the difference in fuel
> consumption was depending on how I rode it (RPM wise); this led to a
> switch to the reserve tank! In any event, a fuel gauge would be very
> helpful.

Some Harleys have them.

[Mxsmanic]

bdl writes:

> How do I notice a change in fuel consumption? My plane (as most(?)
> GA light planes) doesn't have a fancy "fuel flow" guage. It has two
> fuel tanks and two fuel gauages (left and right), but that doesn't
> mean they are accurate, nor does it tell me about my actual fuel flow.

If you don't have adequate instrumentation, you'll have to rely on careful
planning and make sure you have margin enough to allow for any plausible
problem in the air.

> In the flight sim world you can always check (with digital accuracy!)
> your current tanks. But when its just you up in the air you can
> hardly go out on the wing and dip the tanks.

When flying the sim, I simply fill the tanks before departing, or I put in as
much as my payload allows. I take care to fly distances that are very
generously within the maximum range of the aircraft, e.g., I may depart with
five hours of flight in the tanks on a trip that should only last an hour or
two.

In real life I'd probably do the same thing. Since I tend to be cautious, I'd
probably pay the small additional cost of hauling the extra fuel in exchange
for the peace of mind that comes from having far more fuel than I'm likely to
need.

[Mxsmanic]

Tim writes:

> Which ones on this NG are incompetent and how did you make that judgement?

I don't see any utility in naming names.

I recognize them by their posting styles. People who are incompetent tend to
be insecure, and people who are insecure tend to be abusive as a defense
mechanism, or to hide their incompetence. Those who post in substantial
volume but never seem to actually address the topic under discussion in a
productive and objective way are usually incompetent.

Sometimes evidence is more direct. If I see them rejecting proven principles
of aviation (the need to depend solely on instruments in IMC, the need to
abstain from drinking when flying, etc.), I can safely write them off.

> Do you think you can really judge competency from what is written here,
> especially in light of the fact that the majority of the people who respond
> to you apparently do so only to yank your chain?

Yes, I do. The ones yanking my chain are invariably among the least
competent. If they were competent pilots, secure in their own knowledge,
they'd have no inclination to flame. This is an _extremely_ reliable rule in
cyberspace.

[[email protected]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote:
> Hi,

> In article >,
> > wrote:
> > And if it were a concideration in a shared environment, I would imagine
> > that the rules of the sharing agreement would specify what "full" means.

> Ah Ok. I didn't realise you were using the definition of 'full' that didn't
> actually mean 'full'. :)

It was an apparently failed attempt at humor.

The point is that in a shared situation like a club, there should be
guidelines for how an aircraft is returned, whether it be filled to
the top or to the tabs or whatever.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 11, 11:40 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tim writes:
> > Which ones on this NG are incompetent and how did you make that judgement?
>
> I don't see any utility in naming names.
>
> I recognize them by their posting styles. People who are incompetent tend to
> be insecure, and people who are insecure tend to be abusive as a defense
> mechanism, or to hide their incompetence. Those who post in substantial
> volume but never seem to actually address the topic under discussion in a
> productive and objective way are usually incompetent.
>
> Sometimes evidence is more direct. If I see them rejecting proven principles
> of aviation (the need to depend solely on instruments in IMC, the need to
> abstain from drinking when flying, etc.), I can safely write them off.
>
> > Do you think you can really judge competency from what is written here,
> > especially in light of the fact that the majority of the people who respond
> > to you apparently do so only to yank your chain?
>
> Yes, I do. The ones yanking my chain are invariably among the least
> competent. If they were competent pilots, secure in their own knowledge,
> they'd have no inclination to flame. This is an _extremely_ reliable rule in
> cyberspace.

Some very competent people have little use for imposters and expose
them in real life as well as on the internet. You may take comfort
in your opinion but that does not mean it is correct.

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
> wrote:
> It was an apparently failed attempt at humor.

Ah Ok. Too subtle for me :)

> The point is that in a shared situation like a club, there should be
> guidelines for how an aircraft is returned, whether it be filled to
> the top or to the tabs or whatever.

Agreed. And I'm sure that's the case for most groups.

Andy

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Some very competent people have little use for imposters and expose
> them in real life as well as on the internet.

I lack the bitterness that motivates people to do that. If they wish to feign
or claim greater competence than they actually have, that's their prerogative;
it's just a discussion forum, after all. But if I see signs that they are
incompetent, I won't attach much importance to what they say.

> You may take comfort in your opinion but that does not mean it is correct.

I believe that's why it is called an _opinion_.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> BDS writes:
>
>> Motorcycles are generally not the safest mode of transportation out
>> there, so if it is safety that you are primarily concerned with,
>> perhaps a motorcycle is a bad choice for you.
>
> Alas! The same can be said of flying small aircraft. I don't think
> anyone chooses to ride a motorcycle or fly a plane because he wants to
> increase his personal safety.


What's it to you? You don't fly and never will.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Tim writes:
>
>> Pick an activity or occupation, any at all, and you will find
>> participants with skill levels from incompetent to outstanding.
>> Flying is no different - why would you continue to think otherwise?
>
> I don't. There are highly competent pilots, some of whom I've met,
> and incompetent pilots, some of whom haunt this newsgroup.
>

How would you know, **** for brains? You don't fly.


Never will.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> bdl writes:
>
>> How do I notice a change in fuel consumption? My plane (as most(?)
>> GA light planes) doesn't have a fancy "fuel flow" guage. It has two
>> fuel tanks and two fuel gauages (left and right), but that doesn't
>> mean they are accurate, nor does it tell me about my actual fuel
>> flow.
>
> If you don't have adequate instrumentation, you'll have to rely on
> careful planning and make sure you have margin enough to allow for any
> plausible problem in the air.


You wouldn't know what adequate insturmentation is, fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bob F.[_2_]]

I am surprised no one has brought up the practical side of all this. Most of
the 61 / 141 flight schools or rental operations I've been involved will ask
the renters to as for the truck to "fill 'er up" when they return from a
flight so that the rental time of the next renter isn't cut in to. If the
pilot doesn't do it, then the dispatcher will. Also, a full tank helps keep
condensation from forming inside the tank overnight.

In the 135 charter operations I've worked for, this is never the case. I
always calculate the fuel required per the flight and regs and add about an
hour. For 121 / 122, the dispatcher takes care of it and I usually just
sign off.

--
Regards, BobF.
"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Some very competent people have little use for imposters and expose
>> them in real life as well as on the internet.
>
> I lack the bitterness that motivates people to do that. If they wish to
> feign
> or claim greater competence than they actually have, that's their
> prerogative;
> it's just a discussion forum, after all. But if I see signs that they are
> incompetent, I won't attach much importance to what they say.
>
>> You may take comfort in your opinion but that does not mean it is
>> correct.
>
> I believe that's why it is called an _opinion_.

[Bob F.[_2_]]

Also, I forgot to mention, that with my own airplanes that I have owned, I
always filled them up when stored overnight.

After thousands of hours of given instruction, I have never once instructed
on how to unload fuel...spoke about it, but never explained how. Nor,
during my training did any instructor show how. In GA aircraft this is not
easy to do. We've always calculated it, but never did it. All we ever did
was to try to plan ahead and if say, we were using a 172 the next day and
expected to "load it", we would contact the renter that was to have the
plane just before us and ask him not to refuel the airplane, or only put X
gallons in it.

--
Regards, BobF.
"Bob F." > wrote in message
. ..
>I am surprised no one has brought up the practical side of all this. Most
>of the 61 / 141 flight schools or rental operations I've been involved will
>ask the renters to as for the truck to "fill 'er up" when they return from
>a flight so that the rental time of the next renter isn't cut in to. If
>the pilot doesn't do it, then the dispatcher will. Also, a full tank helps
>keep condensation from forming inside the tank overnight.
>
> In the 135 charter operations I've worked for, this is never the case. I
> always calculate the fuel required per the flight and regs and add about
> an hour. For 121 / 122, the dispatcher takes care of it and I usually
> just sign off.
>
> --
> Regards, BobF.
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> writes:
>>
>>> Some very competent people have little use for imposters and expose
>>> them in real life as well as on the internet.
>>
>> I lack the bitterness that motivates people to do that. If they wish to
>> feign
>> or claim greater competence than they actually have, that's their
>> prerogative;
>> it's just a discussion forum, after all. But if I see signs that they
>> are
>> incompetent, I won't attach much importance to what they say.
>>
>>> You may take comfort in your opinion but that does not mean it is
>>> correct.
>>
>> I believe that's why it is called an _opinion_.
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Tim writes:
>
>> Which ones on this NG are incompetent and how did you make that
>> judgement?
>
> I don't see any utility in naming names.


Because you have no idea.
>
> I recognize them by their posting styles.

No you don't.


People who are incompetent
> tend to be insecure, and people who are insecure tend to be abusive as
> a defense mechanism, or to hide their incompetence. Those who post in
> substantial volume but never seem to actually address the topic under
> discussion in a productive and objective way are usually incompetent.
>
> Sometimes evidence is more direct. If I see them rejecting proven
> principles of aviation (the need to depend solely on instruments in
> IMC, the need to abstain from drinking when flying, etc.), I can
> safely write them off.


Bwawhahwhahwhahwh!

>
>> Do you think you can really judge competency from what is written
>> here, especially in light of the fact that the majority of the people
>> who respond to you apparently do so only to yank your chain?
>
> Yes, I do. The ones yanking my chain are invariably among the least
> competent. If they were competent pilots, secure in their own
> knowledge, they'd have no inclination to flame. This is an
> _extremely_ reliable rule in cyberspace.




Mmm, no it isn't.


Bertie

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> BDS writes:
>
>> Motorcycles are generally not the safest mode of transportation out
>> there, so if it is safety that you are primarily concerned with,
>> perhaps a motorcycle is a bad choice for you.
>
> Alas! The same can be said of flying small aircraft. I don't think
> anyone chooses to ride a motorcycle or fly a plane because he wants to
> increase his personal safety.
>

Antony, you are a ****ing moron who doesn't know **** from Shinola. Go
stick your head back up your ass. That is the only useful thing you've
ever done in your miserable life.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tim writes:
>
>> Pick an activity or occupation, any at all, and you will find participants
>> with skill levels from incompetent to outstanding. Flying is no different -
>> why would you continue to think otherwise?
>
> I don't. There are highly competent pilots, some of whom I've met, and
> incompetent pilots, some of whom haunt this newsgroup.

And what qualifies you to judge the competence of any pilot?

[[email protected]]

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Tim writes:
> >
> >> Pick an activity or occupation, any at all, and you will find participants
> >> with skill levels from incompetent to outstanding. Flying is no different -
> >> why would you continue to think otherwise?
> >
> > I don't. There are highly competent pilots, some of whom I've met, and
> > incompetent pilots, some of whom haunt this newsgroup.

> And what qualifies you to judge the competence of any pilot?

Incompetent pilots are those that don't agree 100% with what he thinks
is the "truth".

Did you really have to ask?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

> And what qualifies you to judge the competence of any pilot?

Serious discrepancies between what a "pilot" tells me and what the vast
majority of literature and other pilots tell me are signs of incompetence.
Severe incompetence is easy to spot.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Incompetent pilots are those that don't agree 100% with what he thinks
> is the "truth".

I see great irony in this statement.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Incompetent pilots are those that don't agree 100% with what he thinks
>> is the "truth".
>
> I see great irony in this statement.

Irony? Just simple fact describing you, you moron.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601Xl Builder writes:
>
>> And what qualifies you to judge the competence of any pilot?
>
> Serious discrepancies between what a "pilot" tells me and what the
> vast majority of literature and other pilots tell me are signs of
> incompetence. Severe incompetence is easy to spot.

Comic books don't count, moron.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 11, 11:40*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
Sometimes evidence is more direct. *If I see them rejecting proven
principles
> of aviation (the need to depend solely on instruments in IMC, the need to
> abstain from drinking when flying, etc.), I can safely write them off.
>
Did you really mean to say one should depend solely on instruments in
IMC? How would you land after an approach to minimums? How about if
you are a few hundred feet under a cloud deck, or over it. Or in 2
miles vis in haze? How about. . . oh, never mind.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Did you really mean to say one should depend solely on instruments in
> IMC?

Yes.

> How would you land after an approach to minimums?

If you still can't see out the window, you don't land, you divert. Or you
autoland.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Did you really mean to say one should depend solely on instruments in
>> IMC?
>
> Yes.
>
>> How would you land after an approach to minimums?
>
> If you still can't see out the window, you don't land, you divert. Or
> you autoland.
>

You're an idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about, moron.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 12, 12:41 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Did you really mean to say one should depend solely on instruments in
> > IMC?
>
> Yes.
>
> > How would you land after an approach to minimums?
>
> If you still can't see out the window, you don't land, you divert. Or you
> autoland.

One is flying using outside visual references, not instruments, and
those are IMCs.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder writes:
>
>> And what qualifies you to judge the competence of any pilot?
>
> Serious discrepancies between what a "pilot" tells me and what the vast
> majority of literature and other pilots tell me are signs of incompetence.
> Severe incompetence is easy to spot.

I've seen nothing that qualifies you to make even that determination.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> One is flying using outside visual references, not instruments, and
> those are IMCs.

So? Are you being disingenuous?

[[email protected]]

On Aug 12, 9:36*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > One is flying using outside visual references, not instruments, and
> > those are IMCs.
>
> So? *Are you being disingenuous?

You are demonstrating ignorance if you assert one flies only by
reference to instruments in IMC. I offered an example in which that is
not true -- in fact, where one is required to fly by outside reference
in aircraft not certified for Cat 3 operations.

There are other such examples but a single contrary example is all
that is needed to refute an absolute statement. I provided that
example.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You are demonstrating ignorance if you assert one flies only by
> reference to instruments in IMC.

No, I'm making a perfectly valid generalization. Apart from take-off and
landing, when you must be able to see the ground, you fly exclusively by
instruments in IMC; that's why it is called IMC. IMC means conditions that
legally require IFR, and IFR means flying by instruments alone.

> I offered an example in which that is
> not true -- in fact, where one is required to fly by outside reference
> in aircraft not certified for Cat 3 operations.

Only in an attempt to discredit me, which apparently is more important to you
than an objective discussion of the topic.

> There are other such examples but a single contrary example is all
> that is needed to refute an absolute statement. I provided that
> example.

My statement was no more absolute than yours concerning Cat III above.
However, if you want to play this game, I should point out that outside
references are required for Cat III operations, too, with the exception of Cat
IIIc, which nobody is certified for. So your "absolute" statement is
refuted--unless, of course, you were making a generalization, and not an
absolute statement.

My overall point, in any case, is that you must fly by instruments alone in
IMC and under IFR (landings and take-offs excepted). Some "pilots" here have
asserted that one must fly visually or by means other than instruments under
IFR in IMC, solely for the purpose of disagreeing with me (I presume), and
despite the glaring incompetence that shines from such assertions. If these
"pilots" really believe that they can fly without relying exclusively on
instruments under such conditions, they are accidents waiting to happen. If
they don't actually believe that, they are liars. In either case, their
assertions hardly inspire confidence in their piloting competence, if any.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

> I've seen nothing that qualifies you to make even that determination.

So? I don't provide online inventories of the knowledge I acquire, I simply
compare it to what I read here. If multiple sources say one thing and Joe
"Pilot" says another, I tend to assume that Joe Pilot is wrong.

USENET requires a lot of filtering, in order to discriminate between
information reliable enough to be useful, and blowing smoke. The skies in
this newsgroup are sometimes more obscured than those of Beijing, thanks to
the intensive smoke-blowing that sometimes goes on. Fortunately, I have good
filters.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 12, 11:10*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > You are demonstrating ignorance if you assert one flies only by
> > reference to instruments in IMC.
>
> No, I'm making a perfectly valid generalization. *Apart from take-off and
> landing, when you must be able to see the ground, you fly exclusively by
> instruments in IMC; that's why it is called IMC. *IMC means conditions that
> legally require IFR, and IFR means flying by instruments alone.
>
> > I offered an example in which that is
> > not true -- in fact, where one is required to fly by outside reference
> > in aircraft not certified for Cat 3 operations.
>
> Only in an attempt to discredit me, which apparently is more important to you
> than an objective discussion of the topic.
>
> > There are other such examples but a single contrary example is all
> > that is needed to refute an absolute statement. I provided that
> > example.
>
> My statement was no more absolute than yours concerning Cat III above.
> However, if you want to play this game, I should point out that outside
> references are required for Cat III operations, too, with the exception of Cat
> IIIc, which nobody is certified for. *So your "absolute" statement is
> refuted--unless, of course, you were making a generalization, and not an
> absolute statement.
>
> My overall point, in any case, is that you must fly by instruments alone in
> IMC and under IFR (landings and take-offs excepted). *Some "pilots" here have
> asserted that one must fly visually or by means other than instruments under
> IFR in IMC, solely for the purpose of disagreeing with me (I presume), and
> despite the glaring incompetence that shines from such assertions. *If these
> "pilots" really believe that they can fly without relying exclusively on
> instruments under such conditions, they are accidents waiting to happen. *If
> they don't actually believe that, they are liars. *In either case, their
> assertions hardly inspire confidence in their piloting competence, if any..


Pilots in IMC quite happily fly by outside reference when a few
hundred feet below or above a cloud deck. There is NO requirement that
one must fly by reference to instruments alone in IMC -- not one! In
order to earn the rating, one must, on the other hand, demonstrate the
ability to fly by reference to instruments alone. My assertion that
you are ignorant of many of the realities of actually flying an
airplane is validated again.

I saw no exception in your initial claim that flying in IMC is done
only by reference to instruments, that exception is noted now. Next
you can admit the paragraph immediately above this one also refutes
your 'by reference to instruments only' claim. Or, cite the regulation
that makes 'by reference to instruments' in IMC a requirement.

As for discrediting you: it's done factually often enough here to
hardly be sporting.

[yeadeagisss]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> writes:
>
>>You may take comfort in your opinion but that does not mean it is correct.
>
> I believe that's why it is called an _opinion_.

Your opinion is irrelevant.

[yeadeagisss]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> When flying the sim

"Flying" MSFS is irrelevant.

> In real life

In real life, you don't fly. What you think you'd probably do is
irrelevant.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601Xl Builder writes:
>
>> I've seen nothing that qualifies you to make even that determination.
>
> So? I don't provide online inventories of the knowledge I acquire, I
> simply compare it to what I read here. If multiple sources say one
> thing and Joe "Pilot" says another, I tend to assume that Joe Pilot is
> wrong.
>
> USENET requires a lot of filtering, in order to discriminate between
> information reliable enough to be useful, and blowing smoke. The
> skies in this newsgroup are sometimes more obscured than those of
> Beijing, thanks to the intensive smoke-blowing that sometimes goes on.
> Fortunately, I have good filters.

You don't have good filters. You are just a ****ing moron.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> You are demonstrating ignorance if you assert one flies only by
>> reference to instruments in IMC.
>
> No, I'm making a perfectly valid generalization. Apart from take-off
> and landing, when you must be able to see the ground, you fly
> exclusively by instruments in IMC; that's why it is called IMC. IMC
> means conditions that legally require IFR, and IFR means flying by
> instruments alone.
>
>> I offered an example in which that is
>> not true -- in fact, where one is required to fly by outside
>> reference in aircraft not certified for Cat 3 operations.
>
> Only in an attempt to discredit me, which apparently is more important
> to you than an objective discussion of the topic.
>
>> There are other such examples but a single contrary example is all
>> that is needed to refute an absolute statement. I provided that
>> example.
>
> My statement was no more absolute than yours concerning Cat III above.
> However, if you want to play this game, I should point out that
> outside references are required for Cat III operations, too, with the
> exception of Cat IIIc, which nobody is certified for. So your
> "absolute" statement is refuted--unless, of course, you were making a
> generalization, and not an absolute statement.
>
> My overall point, in any case, is that you must fly by instruments
> alone in IMC and under IFR (landings and take-offs excepted). Some
> "pilots" here have asserted that one must fly visually or by means
> other than instruments under IFR in IMC, solely for the purpose of
> disagreeing with me (I presume), and despite the glaring incompetence
> that shines from such assertions. If these "pilots" really believe
> that they can fly without relying exclusively on instruments under
> such conditions, they are accidents waiting to happen. If they don't
> actually believe that, they are liars. In either case, their
> assertions hardly inspire confidence in their piloting competence, if
> any.

Wrong again you ****ing nitwit. Go back and read the AIM and FARs. Try to
understand them. Especially the definition of IMC. There is at least one
set where one can be in IMC where an aircraft can legally fly VFR. Let's
see if you can find it.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Pilots in IMC quite happily fly by outside reference when a few
> hundred feet below or above a cloud deck. There is NO requirement that
> one must fly by reference to instruments alone in IMC -- not one! In
> order to earn the rating, one must, on the other hand, demonstrate the
> ability to fly by reference to instruments alone.

Why do you think that requirement exists for the rating?

[[email protected]]

On Aug 12, 8:41*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Pilots in IMC quite happily fly by outside reference when a few
> > hundred feet below or above a cloud deck. There is NO requirement that
> > one must fly by reference to instruments alone in IMC -- not one! In
> > order to earn the rating, one must, on the other hand, demonstrate the
> > ability to fly by reference to instruments alone.
>
> Why do you think that requirement exists for the rating?

The statement you made was that IMC required flight by reference to
instruments. That is in error. Your question is a very weak attempt to
divert attention from your error. Please, try a new gambit -- you've
exhausted that one.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Pilots in IMC quite happily fly by outside reference when a few
>> hundred feet below or above a cloud deck. There is NO requirement that
>> one must fly by reference to instruments alone in IMC -- not one! In
>> order to earn the rating, one must, on the other hand, demonstrate the
>> ability to fly by reference to instruments alone.
>
> Why do you think that requirement exists for the rating?

You're to stupid to understand the requirement. Now do something useful
for mankind - stick your head back up your ass moron.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The statement you made was that IMC required flight by reference to
> instruments. That is in error. Your question is a very weak attempt to
> divert attention from your error. Please, try a new gambit -- you've
> exhausted that one.

My point (as opposed to the literal statement) was that some pilots think that
they don't have to rely on instruments when stuck in IMC aloft, and that
pilots who think this tend not to be very bright or competent. Arguing
semantics or details versus the general principle does not change this.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 12, 9:57*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > The statement you made was that IMC required flight by reference to
> > instruments. That is in error. Your question is a very weak attempt to
> > divert attention from your error. Please, try a new gambit -- you've
> > exhausted that one.
>
> My point (as opposed to the literal statement) was that some pilots think that
> they don't have to rely on instruments when stuck in IMC aloft, and that
> pilots who think this tend not to be very bright or competent. *Arguing
> semantics or details versus the general principle does not change this.

Words mean things. You wrote what you wrote. Pilots who are not rated
or if rated not current should not be challenging IMC. Those of us who
are find flying in those conditions in many ways easier than flying
under VFR conditions, but hearing a non pilot spout nonsense about the
reality of flying in those conditions is laughable. Read again what
you wrote, then offer your apologetics again.

I notice it's after 10 PM here, so it's 4 AM in Paris, isn't it? Does
your real life not require you to be rested in the morning?

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> On Aug 12, 9:57?pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
> > > The statement you made was that IMC required flight by reference to
> > > instruments. That is in error. Your question is a very weak attempt to
> > > divert attention from your error. Please, try a new gambit -- you've
> > > exhausted that one.
> >
> > My point (as opposed to the literal statement) was that some pilots think that
> > they don't have to rely on instruments when stuck in IMC aloft, and that
> > pilots who think this tend not to be very bright or competent. ?Arguing
> > semantics or details versus the general principle does not change this.

> Words mean things. You wrote what you wrote. Pilots who are not rated
> or if rated not current should not be challenging IMC. Those of us who
> are find flying in those conditions in many ways easier than flying
> under VFR conditions, but hearing a non pilot spout nonsense about the
> reality of flying in those conditions is laughable. Read again what
> you wrote, then offer your apologetics again.

> I notice it's after 10 PM here, so it's 4 AM in Paris, isn't it? Does
> your real life not require you to be rested in the morning?

Real life?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ricky]

On Aug 12, 10:10*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> you fly exclusively by instruments in IMC; that's why it is called IMC. *IMC means conditions that
> legally require IFR, and IFR means flying by instruments alone.

Anthony, NO, NO, NO! You do not have to fly exclusively by instruments
in IMC. There are often conditions IN LEGAL IMC where on flys by
visual reference.

IFR DOES NOT mean "flying by instruments alone." You are wrong! Show
me where you learned this gibberish if you are so sure about it.

> My overall point, in any case, is that you must fly by instruments alone in
> IMC and under IFR (landings and take-offs excepted). *Some "pilots" here have
> asserted that one must fly visually or by means other than instruments under
> IFR in IMC, solely for the purpose of disagreeing with me (I presume),

Anthony, NO, NO, NO! You do NOT have to "fly by instruments alone in
IFR, and sometimes in IMC one flys visually.
The reason they are disagreeing with you is because you are NOT a
pilot, much less an instrument rated pilot (which I am), you do not
fly, you do not know the details of IFR and IMC, and you don't know
what you are talking about.

Ricky

[Buster Hymen]

wrote in
:

> On Aug 12, 9:57*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>> > The statement you made was that IMC required flight by reference to
>> > instruments. That is in error. Your question is a very weak attempt
>> > to divert attention from your error. Please, try a new gambit --
>> > you've exhausted that one.
>>
>> My point (as opposed to the literal statement) was that some pilots
>> think
> that
>> they don't have to rely on instruments when stuck in IMC aloft, and
>> that pilots who think this tend not to be very bright or competent.
>> *Arguing semantics or details versus the general principle does not
>> change this.
>
> Words mean things. You wrote what you wrote. Pilots who are not rated
> or if rated not current should not be challenging IMC. Those of us who
> are find flying in those conditions in many ways easier than flying
> under VFR conditions, but hearing a non pilot spout nonsense about the
> reality of flying in those conditions is laughable. Read again what
> you wrote, then offer your apologetics again.
>
> I notice it's after 10 PM here, so it's 4 AM in Paris, isn't it? Does
> your real life not require you to be rested in the morning?
>
>
>
>
>

This is Anthony's only life. He once posted his monthly income. Despite
all his claims to a superior education and skill, his income is less than
what a teen age high school drop out can earn working part time at
McDonalds.

[Dale[_3_]]

In article
>,
wrote:


>
> The statement you made was that IMC required flight by reference to
> instruments. That is in error. Your question is a very weak attempt to
> divert attention from your error. Please, try a new gambit -- you've
> exhausted that one.

IMC = Instrument Meteorological Conditions. Pretty much by definition
you'll be on the gauges if you're IMC.

[Bob F.[_2_]]

"Dale" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> >,
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> The statement you made was that IMC required flight by reference to
>> instruments. That is in error. Your question is a very weak attempt to
>> divert attention from your error. Please, try a new gambit -- you've
>> exhausted that one.
>
> IMC = Instrument Meteorological Conditions. Pretty much by definition
> you'll be on the gauges if you're IMC.

And there's the confusion. If you see the AIM definition of IMC, this may
not be the case.

"INSTRUMENT METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS-
Meteorological conditions expressed in
terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling
less than the minima specified for visual meteorological
conditions."

There is some room here between VMC and complete loss of outside references
resulting in complete reference to instruments needed.
--
Regards, BobF.

[[email protected]]

Dale > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> wrote:


> >
> > The statement you made was that IMC required flight by reference to
> > instruments. That is in error. Your question is a very weak attempt to
> > divert attention from your error. Please, try a new gambit -- you've
> > exhausted that one.

> IMC = Instrument Meteorological Conditions. Pretty much by definition
> you'll be on the gauges if you're IMC.

VFR in class E airspace above 10,000 feet is 5 miles visibility.

If visibility is 4.5 miles, you are by defininition in IMC.

Are you always solely on instruments, or is there any reason to be
on instruments at all, with a visibility of 4.5 miles?

VFR in class B, D, D, and E below 10,000 feet is 3 miles.

If visibility is 2.5 miles, you are by defininition in IMC.

Are you always solely on instruments, or is there any reason to be
on instruments at all, with a visibility of 2.5 miles?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 13, 10:46 am, Dale > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
> wrote:
>
> > The statement you made was that IMC required flight by reference to
> > instruments. That is in error. Your question is a very weak attempt to
> > divert attention from your error. Please, try a new gambit -- you've
> > exhausted that one.
>
> IMC = Instrument Meteorological Conditions. Pretty much by definition
> you'll be on the gauges if you're IMC.

Another someone who is ignorant of the realities of IMC offering an
opinion.

[Mxsmanic]

Bob F. writes:

> There is some room here between VMC and complete loss of outside references
> resulting in complete reference to instruments needed.

No, there isn't. That margin is for safety. If you're in IMC, chances are
that you won't be able to use visual references for very long, and things can
change extraordinarily fast. This has caught countless pilots, many of whom
were sure that flying in IMC visually was okay as long as they could see
something out the window.

VMC means that if you roll the dice, you're likely to win. IMC means that if
you roll the dice, you're likely to use. How much of a gambler are you?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> If visibility is 4.5 miles, you are by defininition in IMC.
>
> Are you always solely on instruments, or is there any reason to be
> on instruments at all, with a visibility of 4.5 miles?

If you're in IMC, you need to be on instruments. At 4.5 miles, you're only
60-90 seconds away from not being able to see anything. Are you ready for
that?

Hard experience has taught the aviation industry that just being clear of
low-visibility weather isn't enough; you have to keep a safety margin between
you and that weather. That means that you have to be on instruments once
you're inside that margin. If you wait until you really can't see anything,
it might be too late, especially if you are unprepared.

> Are you always solely on instruments, or is there any reason to be
> on instruments at all, with a visibility of 2.5 miles?

If you're in IMC, you need to be on instruments. In IMC, instruments become
your final reference, no matter what you see out the window. When visibility
drops, instruments are your exclusive reference, no matter what you feel.

[Mxsmanic]

Ricky writes:

> Anthony, NO, NO, NO! You do not have to fly exclusively by instruments
> in IMC. There are often conditions IN LEGAL IMC where on flys by
> visual reference.

Legally, you must be on instruments. The law isn't written that way just to
make life difficult for pilots.

You can always rely on instruments, even in the clearest weather. But you
cannot always rely on visual references. And if you are in IMC, you may only
be seconds away from a loss of visual references.

> IFR DOES NOT mean "flying by instruments alone." You are wrong! Show
> me where you learned this gibberish if you are so sure about it.

I'll quote you to the NTSB; that might make it easier for them to determine
probable cause after you're gone.

> The reason they are disagreeing with you is because you are NOT a
> pilot ...

The reason they are disagreeing with me is that their desire to prove me wrong
is so intense that it takes priority over their own safety. If they cannot
shake themselves free of this emotion, they will be a danger to themselves in
the air.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 13, 3:55*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > If visibility is 4.5 miles, you are by defininition in IMC.
>
> > Are you always solely on instruments, or is there any reason to be
> > on instruments at all, with a visibility of 4.5 miles?
>
> If you're in IMC, you need to be on instruments. *At 4.5 miles, you're only
> 60-90 seconds away from not being able to see anything. *Are you ready for
> that?
>
> Hard experience has taught the aviation industry that just being clear of
> low-visibility weather isn't enough; you have to keep a safety margin between
> you and that weather. *That means that you have to be on instruments once
> you're inside that margin. *If you wait until you really can't see anything,
> it might be too late, especially if you are unprepared.
>
> > Are you always solely on instruments, or is there any reason to be
> > on instruments at all, with a visibility of 2.5 miles?
>
> If you're in IMC, you need to be on instruments. *In IMC, instruments become
> your final reference, no matter what you see out the window. *When visibility
> drops, instruments are your exclusive reference, no matter what you feel.

You are, in this thread, at an intellectual and experience
disadvantage. You asserted a requirement to be in instruments in IMC:
that is wrong.

EVERY current instrument rated pilot does transitions between
reference to instruments and outside reference. We do it on take off,
en route, on approach, and on the miss in actual. That you don't
understand that, that it is outside your experience, does not make it
not true. You have typed yourself into a corner, and now are looking
for a way to regain some creditability, and it is not working.

[Bob F.[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Bob F. writes:
>
>> There is some room here between VMC and complete loss of outside
>> references
>> resulting in complete reference to instruments needed.
>
> No, there isn't. That margin is for safety. If you're in IMC, chances
> are
> that you won't be able to use visual references for very long, and things
> can
> change extraordinarily fast. This has caught countless pilots, many of
> whom
> were sure that flying in IMC visually was okay as long as they could see
> something out the window.
>
> VMC means that if you roll the dice, you're likely to win. IMC means that
> if
> you roll the dice, you're likely to use. How much of a gambler are you?


When I said "some room here" I meant in terms of the definition not in a
practical sense. Secondly this is all moot. Having several thousand
instrument hours and going on and off the gauges is second nature after a
while. When you sense outside references in your peripheral vision you
start to use them, and slowly transition. I've always had warning when
going back on the gauges so the transition was easy that way also. Never
had any kind of problem.

--
Regards, BobF.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > If visibility is 4.5 miles, you are by defininition in IMC.
> >
> > Are you always solely on instruments, or is there any reason to be
> > on instruments at all, with a visibility of 4.5 miles?

> If you're in IMC, you need to be on instruments. At 4.5 miles, you're only
> 60-90 seconds away from not being able to see anything. Are you ready for
> that?

If you are in class G at 10,001 feet and the visibilty is 4.5 miles,
you are in IMC.

If you drop down to 9,999 feet with the same visibilty, you are in VMC.

If you are 2001 feet horizontally from a cloud, you only about 0.3
seconds away from not being able to see anything. Are you ready for
that?

Have you a clue yet how ridiculous your absolute statements are?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Ricky writes:

> > Anthony, NO, NO, NO! You do not have to fly exclusively by instruments
> > in IMC. There are often conditions IN LEGAL IMC where on flys by
> > visual reference.

> Legally, you must be on instruments.

Care to quote the law or regulation that says you must be "on instruments"
whenever you are in IMC?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ricky]

On Aug 13, 4:05*pm, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > Ricky writes:
> > > Anthony, NO, NO, NO! You do not have to fly exclusively by instruments
> > > in IMC. There are often conditions IN LEGAL IMC where on flys by
> > > visual reference.
> > Legally, you must be on instruments.
>
> Care to quote the law or regulation that says you must be "on instruments"
> whenever you are in IMC?
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Whoa, please be careful. The above looks like I, Ricky, am the one who
said that ("Legally, you must be on instruments.")
I did not say that, our resident IFR expert Anthony did, and it most
certainly is wrong. By the way you did not trim the post/reply it
looks like I said it.
Trimming posts properly here seems to be oft ignored or done
incorrectly.

Ricky

[Ricky]

On Aug 13, 2:58*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Ricky writes:
> > Anthony, NO, NO, NO! You do not have to fly exclusively by instruments
> > in IMC. There are often conditions IN LEGAL IMC where on flys by
> > visual reference.
>
> Legally, you must be on instruments.

Anthony, that is not the truth. You are wrong.

> I'll quote you to the NTSB; that might make it easier for them to determine
> probable cause after you're gone.

Where are you pulling this out of? Thin air? How many ways do lots of
people have to say "you do not have to be on instruments in IMC or in
IFR? You can fly visually in IFR and IMC, what do you not understand
about that? I am an instrument pilot with lots and lots of hours, I
know the regs, the rules, and how to fly in IMC. Why do you insist on
continuing to make a fool out of yourself with your incorrectness?
What do you not get that IMC does not have to mean that you can't see
outside?

> The reason they are disagreeing with me is that their desire to prove me wrong
> is so intense that it takes priority over their own safety. *If they cannot
> shake themselves free of this emotion, they will be a danger to themselves in
> the air.

You don't have to be proven wrong. You simply ARE wrong. Why can't you
accept that from of a bunch of IFR pilots with thousands of hours?

Ricky

[[email protected]]

Ricky > wrote:
> On Aug 13, 4:05?pm, wrote:
> > Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > > Ricky writes:
> > > > Anthony, NO, NO, NO! You do not have to fly exclusively by instruments
> > > > in IMC. There are often conditions IN LEGAL IMC where on flys by
> > > > visual reference.
> > > Legally, you must be on instruments.
> >
> > Care to quote the law or regulation that says you must be "on instruments"
> > whenever you are in IMC?
> >
> > --
> > Jim Pennino
> >
> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.

> Whoa, please be careful. The above looks like I, Ricky, am the one who
> said that ("Legally, you must be on instruments.")
> I did not say that, our resident IFR expert Anthony did, and it most
> certainly is wrong. By the way you did not trim the post/reply it
> looks like I said it.
> Trimming posts properly here seems to be oft ignored or done
> incorrectly.

The attributions are automatic and follow the RFC's.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 13, 3:58*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Ricky writes:
> > Anthony, NO, NO, NO! You do not have to fly exclusively by instruments
> > in IMC. There are often conditions IN LEGAL IMC where on flys by
> > visual reference.
>
> Legally, you must be on instruments. *The law isn't written that way just to
> make life difficult for pilots.
>
> You can always rely on instruments, even in the clearest weather. *But you
> cannot always rely on visual references. *And if you are in IMC, you may only
> be seconds away from a loss of visual references.
>
> > IFR DOES NOT mean "flying by instruments alone." You are wrong! Show
> > me where you learned this gibberish if you are so sure about it.
>
> I'll quote you to the NTSB; that might make it easier for them to determine
> probable cause after you're gone.
>
> > The reason they are disagreeing with you is because you are NOT a
> > pilot ...
>
> The reason they are disagreeing with me is that their desire to prove me wrong
> is so intense that it takes priority over their own safety. *If they cannot
> shake themselves free of this emotion, they will be a danger to themselves in
> the air.

You have a significant problem if you think any experienced instrument
rated pilot will base his or her flying on posts you've made. We are
safe pilots because we work at developing and using superior judgment.
That you have no experience in flying, or as best we can tell, using
superior judgment in your posts tells us all we need to know about
you. You are simply, very often as demonstrated here, an ignorant
diversion.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> EVERY current instrument rated pilot does transitions between
> reference to instruments and outside reference.

When did the discussion become limited to IR pilots? Most pilots in this
newsgroup rather obviously do not have instrument ratings, if one can judge by
what they claim about IMC and IFR.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> If you are in class G at 10,001 feet and the visibilty is 4.5 miles,
> you are in IMC.
>
> If you drop down to 9,999 feet with the same visibilty, you are in VMC.
>
> If you are 2001 feet horizontally from a cloud, you only about 0.3
> seconds away from not being able to see anything. Are you ready for
> that?
>
> Have you a clue yet how ridiculous your absolute statements are?

Not having an aircraft that can manage Mach 5, it's hard for me to put your
claim in perspective.

What puzzles me is that you're trying to justify behavior that is
extraordinarily unwise. Trying to see how close you can come to inadequate
visibility without actually flying by instruments is asking for trouble. I
can only assume that you are doing this because I'm advocating reliance on
instruments, despite the fact that I'm just repeating some very
well-established principles of aviation.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 13, 10:45*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > EVERY current instrument rated *pilot does transitions between
> > reference to instruments and outside reference.
>
> When did the discussion become limited to IR pilots? *Most pilots in this
> newsgroup rather obviously do not have instrument ratings, if one can judge by
> what they claim about IMC and IFR.

You were the one making definitive statements about flight in IMC, and
you are clearly not knowledgeable.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Care to quote the law or regulation that says you must be "on instruments"
> whenever you are in IMC?

This is a bit like asking for a law that prohibits you from grabbing live
wires and electrocuting yourself. Why do you exhibit this adversarial
attitude towards instrument flight?

You can often depart SVFR in poor weather, but just because you aren't
absolutely required to be IFR doesn't mean that SVFR is a smart idea. If you
want to fly in marginal weather conditions, get an instrument rating instead
of gambling on technicalities; you'll live longer.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The attributions are automatic ...

So are autopilots, but the FAA says that you're still PIC.

[Mxsmanic]

Ricky writes:

> You don't have to be proven wrong. You simply ARE wrong. Why can't you
> accept that from of a bunch of IFR pilots with thousands of hours?

Most pilots here are not instrument rated, and some of those who are are more
interested in scoring points against me in a one-sided game than in following
the path of safety. I will not yield to this, so there's no sense in trying
it.

[Bob F.[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
On Aug 13, 10:45 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > EVERY current instrument rated pilot does transitions between
> > reference to instruments and outside reference.
>
> When did the discussion become limited to IR pilots? Most pilots in this
> newsgroup rather obviously do not have instrument ratings, if one can
> judge by
> what they claim about IMC and IFR.

One can NOT.

You were the one making definitive statements about flight in IMC, and
you are clearly not knowledgeable.



--
Regards, BobF.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You have a significant problem if you think any experienced instrument
> rated pilot will base his or her flying on posts you've made.

An experienced instrument pilot already knows the point I'm trying to make
(whether he's willing to publicly admit that or not is a separate question).

> We are safe pilots because we work at developing and using superior judgment.

Superior judgement includes the ability to rely solely on instruments when
necessary, and always on instruments as a final authority.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 13, 11:00*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > You have a significant problem if you think any experienced instrument
> > rated pilot will base his or her flying on posts you've made.
>
> An experienced instrument pilot already knows the point I'm trying to make
> (whether he's willing to publicly admit that or not is a separate question).
>
> > We are safe pilots because we work at developing and using superior judgment.
>
> Superior judgement includes the ability to rely solely on instruments when
> necessary, and always on instruments as a final authority.

That's a retreat from your earlier dogma.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You were the one making definitive statements about flight in IMC, and
> you are clearly not knowledgeable.

Flight in IMC and instrument-rated pilots are two different things. And you
haven't answered my question.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> If you are in class G at 10,001 feet and the visibilty is 4.5 miles,
>> you are in IMC.
>>
>> If you drop down to 9,999 feet with the same visibilty, you are in VMC.
>>
>> If you are 2001 feet horizontally from a cloud, you only about 0.3
>> seconds away from not being able to see anything. Are you ready for
>> that?
>>
>> Have you a clue yet how ridiculous your absolute statements are?
>
> Not having an aircraft that can manage Mach 5, it's hard for me to put your
> claim in perspective.

Babbling nonsense on oh so many levels.

> What puzzles me is that you're trying to justify behavior that is
> extraordinarily unwise. Trying to see how close you can come to inadequate
> visibility without actually flying by instruments is asking for trouble. I
> can only assume that you are doing this because I'm advocating reliance on
> instruments, despite the fact that I'm just repeating some very
> well-established principles of aviation.

What puzzles you is everything most everyone else says.

I was stating facts.

Do you concider 4.5 miles "inadequate visibility"?

You are not "repeating some very well-established principles of aviation",
you are voicing your interpretation with zero experience to back it up.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> The attributions are automatic ...
>
> So are autopilots, but the FAA says that you're still PIC.

Thank you Mr. State The Obvious.

You got a statement correct, so now you've "won" and can go away
proud of your accomplishment.

Too bad you snipped the rest of the quote which made your comment
a non sequitur.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Care to quote the law or regulation that says you must be "on instruments"
>> whenever you are in IMC?
>
> This is a bit like asking for a law that prohibits you from grabbing live
> wires and electrocuting yourself. Why do you exhibit this adversarial
> attitude towards instrument flight?

You're the one that said legally you must be on instruments whenever
you are in IMC.

Where's the reg to back up that statement or did you just make it up?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> That's a retreat from your earlier dogma.

I consistently overestimate my audience. Some things seem to me self-evident,
but apparently they are not to others. Or many people are simply being
disingenuous, which is certainly a strong possibility (I hope, for their
sakes).

[Ricky]

On Aug 13, 9:49*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> What puzzles me is that you're trying to justify behavior that is
> extraordinarily unwise. *Trying to see how close you can come to inadequate
> visibility without actually flying by instruments is asking for trouble.

You just don't get it. Transitioning between outside visual reference
and reference to instruments is not "extraordinarily unwise," it is
normal, natural, and happens all the time.
I remember well my first solo long cross country with a new instrument
ticket in my wallet.
My ride was one of Le Tourneau University's air-conditioned Piper
Archers from Longview, TX. to San Antonio. There was lots of scattered
puffy white clouds nearly the entire way. I purposefully asked ATC for
an altitude that put me right in the middle of them. Very bumpy ride
but boy, I sure wanted to be in & out of the clouds as much as
possible as a hot, new IFR pilot. When I was not in the clouds I flew
by visual reference to the clouds & horizon. As the Archer penetrated
a cloud I transitioned my reference or view back onto the instruments.
I had an auto pilot but no way was I going to use it! That long cross
country was on an official IFR flight plan, in IMC, yet much of the
time I was flying by visual reference, much of the time I was flying
by instruments. Anthony? You with me? Did you read that?
That remains as one of the most enjoyable IFR flights I've ever taken,
so much fun. San Antonio approach was obviously taken aback that I
wanted the ILS to 12 R (the big jet runway) instead of a visual to 12
L (the smaller GA runway) it was a nice VFR day down low but I was
determined to end that flight just right. I do believe that was the
most accurate ILS I've ever shot with my hands alone. Fun, fun, fun!

Ricky

[Ricky]

On Aug 13, 9:56*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> You can often depart SVFR in poor weather, but just because you aren't
> absolutely required to be IFR doesn't mean that SVFR is a smart idea. *

Oh, no! Now you are going to attempt to educate us on SVFR? THIS is
going to be good!
Anthony, you are digging a really, really deep hole for yourself, boy!

Ricky

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> If visibility is 4.5 miles, you are by defininition in IMC.
>>
>> Are you always solely on instruments, or is there any reason to be
>> on instruments at all, with a visibility of 4.5 miles?
>
> If you're in IMC, you need to be on instruments. At 4.5 miles, you're
> only 60-90 seconds away from not being able to see anything. Are you
> ready for that?
>

No we are not, you moron. We ARE NOT FLYING at 180 to 270 MPH.

Take another guess, stupid. Make an even bigger ass of yourself.

[Benjamin Dover]

wrote in :

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>>
>>> The attributions are automatic ...
>>
>> So are autopilots, but the FAA says that you're still PIC.
>
> Thank you Mr. State The Obvious.
>
> You got a statement correct, so now you've "won" and can go away
> proud of your accomplishment.
>
> Too bad you snipped the rest of the quote which made your comment
> a non sequitur.
>
>

Standard Anthony Atkielski tactic.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Ricky writes:
>
>> You don't have to be proven wrong. You simply ARE wrong. Why can't
>> you accept that from of a bunch of IFR pilots with thousands of
>> hours?
>
> Most pilots here are not instrument rated, and some of those who are
> are more interested in scoring points against me in a one-sided game
> than in following the path of safety. I will not yield to this, so
> there's no sense in trying it.
>

Translation: I, Anthony Atkielski, am a ****ing moron and damn proud of
it!

[[email protected]]

On Aug 14, 3:59*am, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > Ricky writes:
>
> >> You don't have to be proven wrong. You simply ARE wrong. Why can't
> >> you accept that from of a bunch of IFR pilots with thousands of
> >> hours?
>
> > Most pilots here are not instrument rated, and some of those who are
> > are more interested in scoring points against me in a one-sided game
> > than in following the path of safety. *I will not yield to this, so
> > there's no sense in trying it.
>
> Translation: *I, Anthony Atkielski, am a ****ing moron and damn proud of
The other aspect of his personality is last-word-itis. Don't you
really enjoy getting tutorials from a non pilot recluse living in a
hovel in Paris? It isn't that wisdom can't come from such a location,
but this particular fountain doesn't offer wisdom, but self gratifying
babble.

We do give him attention, though, so that justifies his postings.

I'll follow viperdoc's suggestion though, and attempt to ignore him
for a while. Exchanges are no longer entertaining.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Care to quote the law or regulation that says you must be "on instruments"
>> whenever you are in IMC?
>
> This is a bit like asking for a law that prohibits you from grabbing live
> wires and electrocuting yourself. Why do you exhibit this adversarial
> attitude towards instrument flight?
>
> You can often depart SVFR in poor weather, but just because you aren't
> absolutely required to be IFR doesn't mean that SVFR is a smart idea. If you
> want to fly in marginal weather conditions, get an instrument rating instead
> of gambling on technicalities; you'll live longer.

Ant, you are the one that said it was illegal.

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 21:43:19 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>When you fly, how much fuel do you prefer to carry? Do you just load enough
>to meet the FARs? Do you like to add a fudge factor? If so, how much? Do
>you prefer to fly with full tanks irrespective of the length of the flight?
>Is it significantly more expensive to fly with the tanks topped off for every
>flight on small aircraft, or does it not make much difference?

I almost always carry full fuel (70 gallons). That is opposed to also
filling the tip tanks for a total of 30 more gallons. I'm paranoid
about fuel. Even a 20 mile trip may turn into several hundred miles
due to weather. The weather isn't always as predictable as some think.

Significant is a nebulous term. Yes, it costs more to haul an extra
30 or 40 gallons (180# to 240#). and yes, I've had weather that was
forecast to be clear and unlimited visibility result in one of the
roughest rides I've ever had in IMC.

Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> I almost always carry full fuel (70 gallons). That is opposed to also
> filling the tip tanks for a total of 30 more gallons. I'm paranoid
> about fuel. Even a 20 mile trip may turn into several hundred miles
> due to weather. The weather isn't always as predictable as some think.

You can't be too careful in aviation.

> Significant is a nebulous term. Yes, it costs more to haul an extra
> 30 or 40 gallons (180# to 240#). and yes, I've had weather that was
> forecast to be clear and unlimited visibility result in one of the
> roughest rides I've ever had in IMC.

Airlines seem to worry about the cost of hauling fuel. I don't know how much
that cost amounts to in small aircraft; probably not very much. At least from
my cautious point of view, I see it as cheap insurance.

[Fillard Millmore]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> I almost always carry full fuel (70 gallons). That is opposed to also
>> filling the tip tanks for a total of 30 more gallons. I'm paranoid
>> about fuel. Even a 20 mile trip may turn into several hundred miles
>> due to weather. The weather isn't always as predictable as some think.
>
> You can't be too careful in aviation.
>
>> Significant is a nebulous term. Yes, it costs more to haul an extra
>> 30 or 40 gallons (180# to 240#). and yes, I've had weather that was
>> forecast to be clear and unlimited visibility result in one of the
>> roughest rides I've ever had in IMC.
>
> Airlines seem to worry about the cost of hauling fuel. I don't know how
> much
> that cost amounts to in small aircraft; probably not very much. At least
> from
> my cautious point of view, I see it as cheap insurance.

Makes no difference, moron, all you every fly is a desk.

[Ricky]

On Aug 21, 8:16*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

Since you never came up with that "reliable information" you claim to
use it means you are lying.
Anthony, you are a liar and not telling the truth. Where are your
cites from the necessity of flying by reference to instruments while
IMC, hmmm? I knew you didn't have any, as does everyone else which
makes you a liar. Nothing you say on here can be trusted unless you
back up your words.

Ricky

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 21, 6:16*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > I almost always carry full fuel (70 gallons). *That is opposed to also
> > filling the tip tanks for a total of 30 more gallons. *I'm paranoid
> > about fuel. *Even a 20 mile trip may turn into several hundred miles
> > due to weather. The weather isn't always as predictable as some think.
>
> You can't be too careful in aviation.

But you certainly can have too much fuel.

-Robert

[Walker]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:46:12 -0700 (PDT), Ricky wrote:

> Anthony, you are a liar and not telling the truth.

That's prolific, copyrighted?

He's also go the longest lineage of pulling morons like you around by
their dicks in Usenet history. Isn't it fun to be a part of Imbecilics
Hall of ****ing Fame

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> But you certainly can have too much fuel.

You can't have too much fuel, but you can be overweight.

[gatt[_5_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
>
>>But you certainly can have too much fuel.
>
> You can't have too much fuel, but you can be overweight.

That's a ridiculous statement. I'm not going to bother explaining why.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
>> But you certainly can have too much fuel.
>
> You can't have too much fuel, but you can be overweight.

Q. What could make one overweight?

A. Too much fuel.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 22, 10:18*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:
> > But you certainly can have too much fuel.
>
> You can't have too much fuel, but you can be overweight.

That's true. You can have as much weightless fuel as you would like to
carry.

-Robert

[Bob F.[_2_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 22, 10:18 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:
> > But you certainly can have too much fuel.
>
> You can't have too much fuel, but you can be overweight.

That's true. You can have as much weightless fuel as you would like to
carry.

-Robert


Like hydrogen?
--
Regards, BobF.

[Morgans[_2_]]

> He's also go the longest lineage of pulling morons like you around by
> their dicks in Usenet history. Isn't it fun to be a part of Imbecilics
> Hall of ****ing Fame

Amazing, isn't it?

You would think that pilots would have well above average intelligence.

You would further think that they have good enough judgment to let imbeciles
prattle in silence.

I guess the need to weigh in, and prove their intelligence trumps good
judgment.
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> You would think that pilots would have well above average intelligence.

Why? Flying isn't that difficult. Pilots may tend to be more intelligent
than average, since that is generally true of anyone exercising a skilled
activity. Even high-school graduates are marginally above average in
intelligence. However, there's no reason to believe that pilots are "well
above average."

> You would further think that they have good enough judgment to let imbeciles
> prattle in silence.

If that were true, there wouldn't be crashes every day.

> I guess the need to weigh in, and prove their intelligence trumps good
> judgment.

The need to weigh in does not prove intelligence.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Q. What could make one overweight?
>
> A. Too much fuel.

I don't know of any aircraft that cannot remain within weight limitations with
a full load of fuel, if the payload is reduced sufficiently. It wouldn't make
sense to design an aircraft that is overweight when empty with full fuel.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Q. What could make one overweight?
>>
>> A. Too much fuel.
>
> I don't know of any aircraft that cannot remain within weight limitations with
> a full load of fuel, if the payload is reduced sufficiently. It wouldn't make
> sense to design an aircraft that is overweight when empty with full fuel.

Then you obviously don't know much about real airplanes.

What payload would you leave behind, the pilot and all passengers?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 22, 6:05*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Q. What could make one overweight?
>
> > A. Too much fuel.
>
> I don't know of any aircraft that cannot remain within weight limitations with
> a full load of fuel, if the payload is reduced sufficiently. *It wouldn't make
> sense to design an aircraft that is overweight when empty with full fuel.

I can think of a reason. But I guess if you don't know about it, it
doesn't exist?

[george]

On Aug 23, 1:55 pm, wrote:

> Then you obviously don't know much about real airplanes.
>
> What payload would you leave behind, the pilot and all passengers?

Anthony.
That one was easy

[Walker]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:14:43 -0400, Morgans wrote:

>> He's also go the longest lineage of pulling morons like you around by
>> their dicks in Usenet history. Isn't it fun to be a part of Imbecilics
>> Hall of ****ing Fame
>
> Amazing, isn't it?
>
> You would think that pilots would have well above average intelligence.

Special skill orientation.

> You would further think that they have good enough judgment to let imbeciles
> prattle in silence.
>
> I guess the need to weigh in, and prove their intelligence trumps good
> judgment.

I hope they sleep like crap knowing that the hundreds they run off, the
potential learning that doesn't occur, the tragedies that /do/ happen
because of wasting this aviation resource, I sure hope that haunts them
for all their days.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Then you obviously don't know much about real airplanes.

Name an aircraft that will be overweight with a full load of fuel even with
only the required pilot(s) aboard.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Then you obviously don't know much about real airplanes.
>
> Name an aircraft that will be overweight with a full load of fuel even with
> only the required pilot(s) aboard.

Here's a clue or two for you:

What is currently the weight of a FAA standard person, what was it
previously and when did it change last?

Does a pilot fly naked?

Does a pilot need to carry anything with him?

Are all pilots under 5 foot 9 inches tall?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bob F.[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>>
>>> Then you obviously don't know much about real airplanes.
>>
>> Name an aircraft that will be overweight with a full load of fuel even
>> with
>> only the required pilot(s) aboard.
>
> Here's a clue or two for you:
>
> What is currently the weight of a FAA standard person, what was it
> previously and when did it change last?
>
> Does a pilot fly naked?
>
> Does a pilot need to carry anything with him?
>
> Are all pilots under 5 foot 9 inches tall?
>
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.


Instead of asking more questions, please answer him directly? That is:
"Name an aircraft that will be overweight with a full load of fuel even with
only the required pilot(s) aboard."

--
Regards, BobF.

[Bart[_3_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans writes:
>
>> You would think that pilots would have well above average intelligence.
>
> Why? Flying isn't that difficult. Pilots may tend to be more intelligent
> than average, since that is generally true of anyone exercising a skilled
> activity. Even high-school graduates are marginally above average in
> intelligence. However, there's no reason to believe that pilots are "well
> above average."
>
>> You would further think that they have good enough judgment to let
>> imbeciles
>> prattle in silence.
>
> If that were true, there wouldn't be crashes every day.
>
>> I guess the need to weigh in, and prove their intelligence trumps good
>> judgment.
>
> The need to weigh in does not prove intelligence.

You're a dumb ass, but don't let that stop you from weighing in.

[Bart[_3_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Q. What could make one overweight?
>>
>> A. Too much fuel.
>
> I don't know of any aircraft that cannot remain within weight limitations
> with
> a full load of fuel, if the payload is reduced sufficiently. It wouldn't
> make
> sense to design an aircraft that is overweight when empty with full fuel.

But the list of things you "don't know about" is almost endless.

[Bart[_3_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Then you obviously don't know much about real airplanes.
>
> Name an aircraft that will be overweight with a full load of fuel even
> with
> only the required pilot(s) aboard.

Now you are just trolling.

[Bart[_3_]]

"Bob F." > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Instead of asking more questions, please answer him directly? That is:
> "Name an aircraft that will be overweight with a full load of fuel even
> with only the required pilot(s) aboard."
>
> --
> Regards, BobF.

Why? If you can't make fun of the ignorant ass, why answer at all?

[[email protected]]

Bob F. > wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> writes:
>>>
>>>> Then you obviously don't know much about real airplanes.
>>>
>>> Name an aircraft that will be overweight with a full load of fuel even
>>> with
>>> only the required pilot(s) aboard.
>>
>> Here's a clue or two for you:
>>
>> What is currently the weight of a FAA standard person, what was it
>> previously and when did it change last?
>>
>> Does a pilot fly naked?
>>
>> Does a pilot need to carry anything with him?
>>
>> Are all pilots under 5 foot 9 inches tall?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
>
> Instead of asking more questions, please answer him directly? That is:
> "Name an aircraft that will be overweight with a full load of fuel even with
> only the required pilot(s) aboard."

He is well aware that on many 2 and 4 place aircraft you can't fill the
seats with adults and fill the tanks without the W&B being out, so he
phrased his question in such a way that he thinks he will "win" the
discussion.

This is a standard mxmanic deflection tactic.

When his question is viewed in context with what has already been said,
and which he has snipped, his question is basically irrelevant and absurd.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bob F.[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> Bob F. > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Then you obviously don't know much about real airplanes.
>>>>
>>>> Name an aircraft that will be overweight with a full load of fuel even
>>>> with
>>>> only the required pilot(s) aboard.
>>>
>>> Here's a clue or two for you:
>>>
>>> What is currently the weight of a FAA standard person, what was it
>>> previously and when did it change last?
>>>
>>> Does a pilot fly naked?
>>>
>>> Does a pilot need to carry anything with him?
>>>
>>> Are all pilots under 5 foot 9 inches tall?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jim Pennino
>>>
>>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>>
>>
>> Instead of asking more questions, please answer him directly? That is:
>> "Name an aircraft that will be overweight with a full load of fuel even
>> with
>> only the required pilot(s) aboard."
>
> He is well aware that on many 2 and 4 place aircraft you can't fill the
> seats with adults and fill the tanks without the W&B being out, so he
> phrased his question in such a way that he thinks he will "win" the
> discussion.
>
> This is a standard mxmanic deflection tactic.
>
> When his question is viewed in context with what has already been said,
> and which he has snipped, his question is basically irrelevant and absurd.
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.


....and correct. So just explain it that way.

--
Regards, BobF.

[george]

On Aug 24, 12:03 am, "Bob F." > wrote:

> Instead of asking more questions, please answer him directly? That is:
> "Name an aircraft that will be overweight with a full load of fuel even with
> only the required pilot(s) aboard."
>

Let's see
Two morbidly obese pilots in a C152.
There are some 300 pound plus people out there

[[email protected]]

Bob F. > wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bob F. > wrote:
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>>> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you obviously don't know much about real airplanes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Name an aircraft that will be overweight with a full load of fuel even
>>>>> with
>>>>> only the required pilot(s) aboard.
>>>>
>>>> Here's a clue or two for you:
>>>>
>>>> What is currently the weight of a FAA standard person, what was it
>>>> previously and when did it change last?
>>>>
>>>> Does a pilot fly naked?
>>>>
>>>> Does a pilot need to carry anything with him?
>>>>
>>>> Are all pilots under 5 foot 9 inches tall?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jim Pennino
>>>>
>>>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>>>
>>>
>>> Instead of asking more questions, please answer him directly? That is:
>>> "Name an aircraft that will be overweight with a full load of fuel even
>>> with
>>> only the required pilot(s) aboard."
>>
>> He is well aware that on many 2 and 4 place aircraft you can't fill the
>> seats with adults and fill the tanks without the W&B being out, so he
>> phrased his question in such a way that he thinks he will "win" the
>> discussion.
>>
>> This is a standard mxmanic deflection tactic.
>>
>> When his question is viewed in context with what has already been said,
>> and which he has snipped, his question is basically irrelevant and absurd.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
>
> ...and correct. So just explain it that way.

No, he is not.

A little searching will find several single place LSA class (now)
airplanes that can't carry much weight at all and I know lots of
quite heavy pilots, especially when adding the weight of clothes
and the flight bag.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bob F.[_2_]]

"george" > wrote in message
...
> On Aug 24, 12:03 am, "Bob F." > wrote:
>
>> Instead of asking more questions, please answer him directly? That is:
>> "Name an aircraft that will be overweight with a full load of fuel even
>> with
>> only the required pilot(s) aboard."
>>
>
> Let's see
> Two morbidly obese pilots in a C152.
> There are some 300 pound plus people out there


I don't think the C152 requires 2 pilots and we are talking about standard
pilot weights. Can you think of a correct answer?

--
Regards, BobF.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> He is well aware that on many 2 and 4 place aircraft you can't fill the
> seats with adults and fill the tanks without the W&B being out, so he
> phrased his question in such a way that he thinks he will "win" the
> discussion.
>
> This is a standard mxmanic deflection tactic.

The only deflection is yours. You still have not answered my question: Name
an aircraft that will be overweight with a full load of fuel even with only
the required pilot(s) on board.

The fact is, there is no such aircraft, and you know that, which is why you
won't answer the question, and it is also why you try to divert attention from
the fact that you have not answered the question.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> A little searching will find several single place LSA class (now)
> airplanes that can't carry much weight at all and I know lots of
> quite heavy pilots, especially when adding the weight of clothes
> and the flight bag.

Name a single-place LSA-class airplane that will be overweight with a full
load of fuel and only the required pilot(s) aboard.

[Frank Olson]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> When you fly, how much fuel do you prefer to carry?

When you eat your Smarties, do you eat the red ones last?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> A little searching will find several single place LSA class (now)
>> airplanes that can't carry much weight at all and I know lots of
>> quite heavy pilots, especially when adding the weight of clothes
>> and the flight bag.
>
> Name a single-place LSA-class airplane that will be overweight with a full
> load of fuel and only the required pilot(s) aboard.

No.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> He is well aware that on many 2 and 4 place aircraft you can't fill the
>> seats with adults and fill the tanks without the W&B being out, so he
>> phrased his question in such a way that he thinks he will "win" the
>> discussion.
>>
>> This is a standard mxmanic deflection tactic.
>
> The only deflection is yours. You still have not answered my question:

Your question is irrelevant and absurd and already got all the answer
it deservers.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bob F.[_3_]]

> wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>>
>>> A little searching will find several single place LSA class (now)
>>> airplanes that can't carry much weight at all and I know lots of
>>> quite heavy pilots, especially when adding the weight of clothes
>>> and the flight bag.
>>
>> Name a single-place LSA-class airplane that will be overweight with a
>> full
>> load of fuel and only the required pilot(s) aboard.
>
> No.
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Bob F.

[[email protected]]

Bob F. > wrote:
> "george" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Aug 24, 12:03 am, "Bob F." > wrote:
>>
>>> Instead of asking more questions, please answer him directly? That is:
>>> "Name an aircraft that will be overweight with a full load of fuel even
>>> with
>>> only the required pilot(s) aboard."
>>>
>>
>> Let's see
>> Two morbidly obese pilots in a C152.
>> There are some 300 pound plus people out there
>
>
> I don't think the C152 requires 2 pilots and we are talking about standard
> pilot weights. Can you think of a correct answer?

"Standard pilot weight" wasn't part of the original discussion.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bob F.[_3_]]

> wrote in message
...
> Bob F. > wrote:
>> "george" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Aug 24, 12:03 am, "Bob F." > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Instead of asking more questions, please answer him directly? That
>>>> is:
>>>> "Name an aircraft that will be overweight with a full load of fuel even
>>>> with
>>>> only the required pilot(s) aboard."
>>>>
>>>
>>> Let's see
>>> Two morbidly obese pilots in a C152.
>>> There are some 300 pound plus people out there
>>
>>
>> I don't think the C152 requires 2 pilots and we are talking about
>> standard
>> pilot weights. Can you think of a correct answer?
>
> "Standard pilot weight" wasn't part of the original discussion.
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

....and we weren't talking about "two morbidly obese pilots" either.

[[email protected]]

Robert M. Gary > wrote:
> On Aug 22, 6:05?pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>> > Q. What could make one overweight?
>>
>> > A. Too much fuel.
>>
>> I don't know of any aircraft that cannot remain within weight limitations with
>> a full load of fuel, if the payload is reduced sufficiently. ?It wouldn't make
>> sense to design an aircraft that is overweight when empty with full fuel.
>
> I can think of a reason. But I guess if you don't know about it, it
> doesn't exist?

One of which might be that the wife would be highly ****ed if one were
to take of to Vegas for three days solo just so the tanks would be
full on take off.

It would never occur to mx that in the real world reducing the payload
by leaving the wife behind is not a viable option nor that in the
real world all people aren't FAA standard weight.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[george]

On Aug 24, 9:08 am, "Bob F." > wrote:
> "george" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Aug 24, 12:03 am, "Bob F." > wrote:
>
> >> Instead of asking more questions, please answer him directly? That is:
> >> "Name an aircraft that will be overweight with a full load of fuel even
> >> with
> >> only the required pilot(s) aboard."
>
> > Let's see
> > Two morbidly obese pilots in a C152.
> > There are some 300 pound plus people out there
>
> I don't think the C152 requires 2 pilots and we are talking about standard
> pilot weights. Can you think of a correct answer?
>
Okay 1 400 pounder.
I'd go look up the heaviest person living but he'd not be able to get
into an aeroplane

[Bob F.[_3_]]

"george" > wrote in message
...
> On Aug 24, 9:08 am, "Bob F." > wrote:
>> "george" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > On Aug 24, 12:03 am, "Bob F." > wrote:
>>
>> >> Instead of asking more questions, please answer him directly? That
>> >> is:
>> >> "Name an aircraft that will be overweight with a full load of fuel
>> >> even
>> >> with
>> >> only the required pilot(s) aboard."
>>
>> > Let's see
>> > Two morbidly obese pilots in a C152.
>> > There are some 300 pound plus people out there
>>
>> I don't think the C152 requires 2 pilots and we are talking about
>> standard
>> pilot weights. Can you think of a correct answer?
>>
> Okay 1 400 pounder.
> I'd go look up the heaviest person living but he'd not be able to get
> into an aeroplane
>
First of all, I'll bet he wouldn't even be able to fit in a C152. Second of
all, It would be nice if someone would take a serious shot at answering the
question. I answered the OP question a long time ago. We are on a
tangential question now.
"Name an aircraft that will be overweight with a full load of fuel even
with only the required pilot(s) aboard." Please don't take a Bill Clinton
position and ask for a definition for each of the words. You know exactly
what this question is asking.

[[email protected]]

Bob F. > wrote:
>
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bob F. > wrote:
>>> "george" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Aug 24, 12:03 am, "Bob F." > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Instead of asking more questions, please answer him directly? That
>>>>> is:
>>>>> "Name an aircraft that will be overweight with a full load of fuel even
>>>>> with
>>>>> only the required pilot(s) aboard."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let's see
>>>> Two morbidly obese pilots in a C152.
>>>> There are some 300 pound plus people out there
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think the C152 requires 2 pilots and we are talking about
>>> standard
>>> pilot weights. Can you think of a correct answer?
>>
>> "Standard pilot weight" wasn't part of the original discussion.
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> ...and we weren't talking about "two morbidly obese pilots" either.

OK, since you asked and not a certain other person...

First the ground rule: we are talking about the real world.

Take the Titan Tornado I which has a full fuel payload of 315 lb.

That's for the factory built airplane with nothing other than the
basic stuff required to fly.

Home builts almost never come out under weight and are almost allways
over the factory numbers when finished.

Let's say it is only 15 lb over the factory numbers and we are down
to 300 lb.

Add a nav/com, panel mount GPS, antennas, wiring, circuit breakers,
etc. to make it usefull and throw in position and strobe lights so
the thing is visible on hazy days, a few other options like the vent
kit, stabilizor and stabilator tips, electrical system to run the
avionic and you can easily add another 50 lb.

Now you are down to 250 lb.

Fully dressed to fly and before breakfast, holding my flight bag with
all the junk like the backup handheld, headset, spare batteries, charts,
etc. I weight 250 lb and according to my doctor am about 15 lb over what
my weight should be, so we're not talking about a morbidly obese pilot.

So, all I need to do is have a three egg omelete for breakfast and
a cup of coffee and I would be over max gross in this airplane.

I am by no means the heaviest pilot I know nor is the Tornado the only
airplane with a payload of only a few hundred pounds.

However, this whole discussion is pointless to the orignal subject of
off loading payload to be under gross.

Often offloading payload is not an option.

Not to mention most wives and girlfriends would object to being called
payload, not that mx would know anything about wives or girlfriends.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bob F.[_3_]]

> wrote in message
...
> Bob F. > wrote:
>>
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Bob F. > wrote:
>>>> "george" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Aug 24, 12:03 am, "Bob F." > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead of asking more questions, please answer him directly? That
>>>>>> is:
>>>>>> "Name an aircraft that will be overweight with a full load of fuel
>>>>>> even
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> only the required pilot(s) aboard."
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's see
>>>>> Two morbidly obese pilots in a C152.
>>>>> There are some 300 pound plus people out there
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think the C152 requires 2 pilots and we are talking about
>>>> standard
>>>> pilot weights. Can you think of a correct answer?
>>>
>>> "Standard pilot weight" wasn't part of the original discussion.
>>> --
>>> Jim Pennino
>>>
>>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>>
>> ...and we weren't talking about "two morbidly obese pilots" either.
>
> OK, since you asked and not a certain other person...
>
> First the ground rule: we are talking about the real world.
>
> Take the Titan Tornado I which has a full fuel payload of 315 lb.
>
> That's for the factory built airplane with nothing other than the
> basic stuff required to fly.
>
> Home builts almost never come out under weight and are almost allways
> over the factory numbers when finished.
>
> Let's say it is only 15 lb over the factory numbers and we are down
> to 300 lb.
>
> Add a nav/com, panel mount GPS, antennas, wiring, circuit breakers,
> etc. to make it usefull and throw in position and strobe lights so
> the thing is visible on hazy days, a few other options like the vent
> kit, stabilizor and stabilator tips, electrical system to run the
> avionic and you can easily add another 50 lb.
>
> Now you are down to 250 lb.
>
> Fully dressed to fly and before breakfast, holding my flight bag with
> all the junk like the backup handheld, headset, spare batteries, charts,
> etc. I weight 250 lb and according to my doctor am about 15 lb over what
> my weight should be, so we're not talking about a morbidly obese pilot.
>
> So, all I need to do is have a three egg omelete for breakfast and
> a cup of coffee and I would be over max gross in this airplane.
>
> I am by no means the heaviest pilot I know nor is the Tornado the only
> airplane with a payload of only a few hundred pounds.
>
> However, this whole discussion is pointless to the orignal subject of
> off loading payload to be under gross.
>
> Often offloading payload is not an option.
>
> Not to mention most wives and girlfriends would object to being called
> payload, not that mx would know anything about wives or girlfriends.
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Good response. although we have not identified an aircraft the satisfies the
question since items were added in your real world scenario that preclude
this." No problem. I understand your answer.

--
Regards, Bob F.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> "Standard pilot weight" wasn't part of the original discussion.

Which pilot weight was, then, and why?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> "Standard pilot weight" wasn't part of the original discussion.
>
> Which pilot weight was, then, and why?

Obviously whatever a pilot weighs because that is what the pilot weighs and
must be carried by the airplane.

The real world is difficult for you to understand, isn't it?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[george]

On Aug 24, 11:57 am, george > wrote:
> On Aug 24, 9:08 am, "Bob F." > wrote:
>
> > "george" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > On Aug 24, 12:03 am, "Bob F." > wrote:
>
> > >> Instead of asking more questions, please answer him directly? That is:
> > >> "Name an aircraft that will be overweight with a full load of fuel even
> > >> with
> > >> only the required pilot(s) aboard."
>
> > > Let's see
> > > Two morbidly obese pilots in a C152.
> > > There are some 300 pound plus people out there
>
> > I don't think the C152 requires 2 pilots and we are talking about standard
> > pilot weights. Can you think of a correct answer?
>
> Okay 1 400 pounder.
> I'd go look up the heaviest person living but he'd not be able to get
> into an aeroplane

Just looked up the W&B for a C152.
If the pilot weighs in at 300 and the aircraft has a full fuel load
he's off scale

[[email protected]]

george > wrote:
> On Aug 24, 11:57 am, george > wrote:
>> On Aug 24, 9:08 am, "Bob F." > wrote:
>>
>> > "george" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > > On Aug 24, 12:03 am, "Bob F." > wrote:
>>
>> > >> Instead of asking more questions, please answer him directly? That is:
>> > >> "Name an aircraft that will be overweight with a full load of fuel even
>> > >> with
>> > >> only the required pilot(s) aboard."
>>
>> > > Let's see
>> > > Two morbidly obese pilots in a C152.
>> > > There are some 300 pound plus people out there
>>
>> > I don't think the C152 requires 2 pilots and we are talking about standard
>> > pilot weights. Can you think of a correct answer?
>>
>> Okay 1 400 pounder.
>> I'd go look up the heaviest person living but he'd not be able to get
>> into an aeroplane
>
> Just looked up the W&B for a C152.
> If the pilot weighs in at 300 and the aircraft has a full fuel load
> he's off scale

Which really isn't that much for a tall, big boned individual with
cloths, a flight bag, backup handheld, spare batteries, headset, AFD,
charts, a bottle of water, etc.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[george]

On Aug 24, 5:25 pm, wrote:

> Which really isn't that much for a tall, big boned individual with
> cloths, a flight bag, backup handheld, spare batteries, headset, AFD,
> charts, a bottle of water, etc.
>

One might have to ask as to how he could get a check ride :-)

[[email protected]]

george > wrote:
> On Aug 24, 5:25 pm, wrote:
>
>> Which really isn't that much for a tall, big boned individual with
>> cloths, a flight bag, backup handheld, spare batteries, headset, AFD,
>> charts, a bottle of water, etc.
>>
>
> One might have to ask as to how he could get a check ride :-)

Which is why I never got checked out in a C-152 at 250 lb with all
my crap.

The only instructor light enough such that we could carry enough fuel
left before I got around to it.

Nor can I get a tail wheel endoresment from the local guy with a Champ
as between the two of us we can't carry enough fuel.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Wilhelm]

"Bob F." > wrote in message
. ..
>
>>
> First of all, I'll bet he wouldn't even be able to fit in a C152. Second
> of all, It would be nice if someone would take a serious shot at answering
> the question. I answered the OP question a long time ago. We are on a
> tangential question now.
> "Name an aircraft that will be overweight with a full load of fuel even
> with only the required pilot(s) aboard." Please don't take a Bill Clinton
> position and ask for a definition for each of the words. You know exactly
> what this question is asking.

Because it's just another one of his bull**** questions, that serve no
purpose.

How many REAL PILOTS, do you think will go to sleep tonight pondering the
answer to this question?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Embrace it you magnificent k00k!


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

>
> "Bob F." > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>>>
>> First of all, I'll bet he wouldn't even be able to fit in a C152.
>> Second of all, It would be nice if someone would take a serious shot
>> at answering the question. I answered the OP question a long time
>> ago. We are on a tangential question now.
>> "Name an aircraft that will be overweight with a full load of fuel
>> even with only the required pilot(s) aboard." Please don't take a
>> Bill Clinton position and ask for a definition for each of the words.
>> You know exactly what this question is asking.
>
> Because it's just another one of his bull**** questions, that serve no
> purpose.
>
> How many REAL PILOTS, do you think will go to sleep tonight pondering
> the answer to this question?
>
>
>


Not you, anyway, but since you're not a real pilot anyway......



Bertie
>

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Bob F. wrote:
>
>I don't think the C152 requires 2 pilots and we are talking about standard
>pilot weights. Can you think of a correct answer?
>

I hesitated to get into this thread, since I've got a feeling that this is
a trick question.

A late '70s C150 with a moderately equipped panel (1 navcom & txp) has a
useful load of ~450 lbs. Subtract 144 lbs. for a full fuel load and you're
left with 306 lbs.

A pre-solo training flight requires both a student and an instructor. They
would have to average 153 lbs. each to meet the weight limit. Well below
even the old standard of 170 lbs.

Go ahead and pick away.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200808/1

[Bob F.[_3_]]

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:8936de105464c@uwe...
> Bob F. wrote:
>>
>>I don't think the C152 requires 2 pilots and we are talking about standard
>>pilot weights. Can you think of a correct answer?
>>
>
> I hesitated to get into this thread, since I've got a feeling that this
> is
> a trick question.
>
> A late '70s C150 with a moderately equipped panel (1 navcom & txp) has a
> useful load of ~450 lbs. Subtract 144 lbs. for a full fuel load and
> you're
> left with 306 lbs.
>
> A pre-solo training flight requires both a student and an instructor.
> They
> would have to average 153 lbs. each to meet the weight limit. Well below
> even the old standard of 170 lbs.
>
> Go ahead and pick away.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
> --
> Message posted via AviationKB.com
> http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200808/1
>
You're right...it was a trick question.

--
Regards, Bob F.