Just push the blue button!

[Darkwing]

Cirrus has added a new auto level button on their latest planes. Will a
button on the stick that you push to automatically reset the plane to
straight and level make any difference on Cirrus accidents or is it just a
gimmick? What say you?

[Mike]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
> Cirrus has added a new auto level button on their latest planes. Will a
> button on the stick that you push to automatically reset the plane to
> straight and level make any difference on Cirrus accidents or is it just a
> gimmick? What say you?

Diamond already has this on some of their aircraft. I don't know that it
has ever made a difference, however there are a large number of fatalities
caused by VFR to IMC (just like John-John).

[Gezellig]

On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 21:28:05 -0400, Darkwing wrote:

> Cirrus has added a new auto level button on their latest planes. Will a
> button on the stick that you push to automatically reset the plane to
> straight and level make any difference on Cirrus accidents or is it just a
> gimmick? What say you?

Auto trim?

[Bob Noel[_2_]]

Mike wrote:

> Diamond already has this on some of their aircraft. I don't know that
> it has ever made a difference, however there are a large number of
> fatalities caused by VFR to IMC (just like John-John).

John-John was VFR to IMC?

[Mike]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> Mike wrote:
>
>> Diamond already has this on some of their aircraft. I don't know that it
>> has ever made a difference, however there are a large number of
>> fatalities caused by VFR to IMC (just like John-John).
>
> John-John was VFR to IMC?

Yep.

[Bob Noel[_2_]]

Mike wrote:
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mike wrote:
>>
>>> Diamond already has this on some of their aircraft. I don't know
>>> that it has ever made a difference, however there are a large number
>>> of fatalities caused by VFR to IMC (just like John-John).
>>
>> John-John was VFR to IMC?
>
> Yep.

hmmm, all the wx reports I saw were legal VMC (not smart VMC, but still
legal). Do you have reference to reports that the conditions were not
VMC?

[Mike]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> Mike wrote:
>> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>
>>>> Diamond already has this on some of their aircraft. I don't know that
>>>> it has ever made a difference, however there are a large number of
>>>> fatalities caused by VFR to IMC (just like John-John).
>>>
>>> John-John was VFR to IMC?
>>
>> Yep.
>
> hmmm, all the wx reports I saw were legal VMC (not smart VMC, but still
> legal). Do you have reference to reports that the conditions were not
> VMC?

That doesn't mean he was VMC at the time of the accident. Based on what
happend I believe he wasn't, but the question I would have for you was why
do you feel the burning desire to ask questions in which you are already
convinced of the answer?

[Tman]

Bob Noel wrote:

> hmmm, all the wx reports I saw were legal VMC (not smart VMC, but still \
I think you're confusing VMC and VFR.
It may have been legal VFR.
> legal). Do you have reference to reports that the conditions were not
> VMC?
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot's failure to maintain control of the airplane during a descent
over water at night, which was a result of spatial disorientation.
Factors in the accident were haze, and the dark night.

That's IMC buddy. Could be a clear VACU night over water with no
moonlight, and if you can't maintain a horizon due to those factors,
thats IMC even though it is also very much legal VFR.

[Mike]

"Tman" <x@x> wrote in message
. ..
> Bob Noel wrote:
>
>> hmmm, all the wx reports I saw were legal VMC (not smart VMC, but still \
> I think you're confusing VMC and VFR.
> It may have been legal VFR.
>> legal). Do you have reference to reports that the conditions were not
>> VMC?
> The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s)
> of this accident as follows:
> The pilot's failure to maintain control of the airplane during a descent
> over water at night, which was a result of spatial disorientation. Factors
> in the accident were haze, and the dark night.
>
> That's IMC buddy. Could be a clear VACU night over water with no
> moonlight, and if you can't maintain a horizon due to those factors, thats
> IMC even though it is also very much legal VFR.

No, that's not necessarily IMC. IMC means less than legal VFR.

I believe he WAS in IMC, however there's little doubt he was at least in
instrument conditions, which is not the same as IMC.

[Bob F.[_2_]]

"Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote in message
...
> "Tman" <x@x> wrote in message
> . ..
>> Bob Noel wrote:
>>
>>> hmmm, all the wx reports I saw were legal VMC (not smart VMC, but still
>>> \
>> I think you're confusing VMC and VFR.
>> It may have been legal VFR.
>>> legal). Do you have reference to reports that the conditions were not
>>> VMC?
>> The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s)
>> of this accident as follows:
>> The pilot's failure to maintain control of the airplane during a descent
>> over water at night, which was a result of spatial disorientation.
>> Factors in the accident were haze, and the dark night.
>>
>> That's IMC buddy. Could be a clear VACU night over water with no
>> moonlight, and if you can't maintain a horizon due to those factors,
>> thats IMC even though it is also very much legal VFR.
>
> No, that's not necessarily IMC. IMC means less than legal VFR.
>
> I believe he WAS in IMC, however there's little doubt he was at least in
> instrument conditions, which is not the same as IMC.


As they say, looks like he flew into Cumulo-Granite.

--
Regards, Bob F.

[James Robinson]

Bob Noel > wrote:
>
> Mike wrote:
>>
>> "Bob Noel" > wrote:
>>
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>
>>>> Diamond already has this on some of their aircraft. I don't know
>>>> that it has ever made a difference, however there are a large number
>>>> of fatalities caused by VFR to IMC (just like John-John).
>>>
>>> John-John was VFR to IMC?
>>
>> Yep.
>
> hmmm, all the wx reports I saw were legal VMC (not smart VMC, but still
> legal). Do you have reference to reports that the conditions were not
> VMC?

Conditions were reported at above VFR minimums. The FAA manager at the
airport said that conditions were likely better than the official reports
at the time of the accident.

The NTSB report simply said that there can be illusions when flying over
sparcely-populated areas or over water in hazy conditions. In this case,
the loss of horizon:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X19354&key=1

[Thomas Borchert]

Tman,

> That's IMC buddy.
>

Show me the regs! Show me where it says in the regs that IMC is defined
as "any weather in which only flight by reference to instruments is
possible" or something to that effect. And good luck!

The conditions may have been such that you could not maintain your
flight attitude without reference to instruments - but that's got
nothing to do with IMC.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mike]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
.. .
> Bob Noel > wrote:
>>
>> Mike wrote:
>>>
>>> "Bob Noel" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Diamond already has this on some of their aircraft. I don't know
>>>>> that it has ever made a difference, however there are a large number
>>>>> of fatalities caused by VFR to IMC (just like John-John).
>>>>
>>>> John-John was VFR to IMC?
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>
>> hmmm, all the wx reports I saw were legal VMC (not smart VMC, but still
>> legal). Do you have reference to reports that the conditions were not
>> VMC?
>
> Conditions were reported at above VFR minimums. The FAA manager at the
> airport said that conditions were likely better than the official reports
> at the time of the accident.
>
> The NTSB report simply said that there can be illusions when flying over
> sparcely-populated areas or over water in hazy conditions. In this case,
> the loss of horizon:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X19354&key=1

He didn't crash at the airport. Also any conditions reported by automated
wx stations only report conditions on the ground. Nantucket was reporting 4
miles visibility with mist in the area at the time. So even going by the
ground stations, clearly there were conditions in the general area that were
damn close to IMC. He didn't loose it near the ground either, he lost it at
altitude and probably around 2-3,000'.

One pilot reported visibilities as low as 2 miles in the area. Another flew
over Martha's Vinyard and thought there was a power outage because he saw no
lights. Most pilots in the area reported conditions much lower than was
forcast. Furthermore no pilot operating under VFR is going to tell the NTSB
they were in IMC.

At the time of the accident, John-John was training to get his instrument
ticket and he had flown in IMC with an instructor at night. Although he
wasn't ready for his checkride, he also wasn't completely ignorant of IFR.
Clearly he was a victim of spatial disorientation, which certainly can
happen at night, but that particular night he had at least some moonlight.
That's why I think he probably got into a bit of IMC and lost it before the
crash. I think it would have taken more than just a bit of haze to trip him
up.

[Gezellig]

On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 16:08:06 GMT, Mike wrote:

> At the time of the accident, John-John was training to get his instrument
> ticket and he had flown in IMC with an instructor at night. Although he
> wasn't ready for his checkride, he also wasn't completely ignorant of IFR.
> Clearly he was a victim of spatial disorientation, which certainly can
> happen at night, but that particular night he had at least some moonlight.
> That's why I think he probably got into a bit of IMC and lost it before the
> crash. I think it would have taken more than just a bit of haze to trip him
> up.

He couldn't multi-task and was in MT overload adding spatial
disorientation, pitiful pre-flight and a bad foot. He screwed the pooch
when he failed to redirect his bank prior to pitch, spiral city.

His CFIs should have picked up on this MT thing..perhaps.

[Peter Dohm]

"Bob F." > wrote in message
. ..
> "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote in message
> ...
>> "Tman" <x@x> wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> Bob Noel wrote:
>>>
>>>> hmmm, all the wx reports I saw were legal VMC (not smart VMC, but still
>>>> \
>>> I think you're confusing VMC and VFR.
>>> It may have been legal VFR.
>>>> legal). Do you have reference to reports that the conditions were not
>>>> VMC?
>>> The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
>>> cause(s) of this accident as follows:
>>> The pilot's failure to maintain control of the airplane during a descent
>>> over water at night, which was a result of spatial disorientation.
>>> Factors in the accident were haze, and the dark night.
>>>
>>> That's IMC buddy. Could be a clear VACU night over water with no
>>> moonlight, and if you can't maintain a horizon due to those factors,
>>> thats IMC even though it is also very much legal VFR.
>>
>> No, that's not necessarily IMC. IMC means less than legal VFR.
>>
>> I believe he WAS in IMC, however there's little doubt he was at least in
>> instrument conditions, which is not the same as IMC.
>
>
> As they say, looks like he flew into Cumulo-Granite.
>
> --
> Regards, Bob F.
Loks like you are combining multiple accidents:

1. J.F.Kennedy Jr. was asserted to be VFR in VMC sans horizon with
horizontal visiblility well above minimum. He was generally regarded as a
novice pilot and may have shown poor decision making and instrument skills.

2. Some have recently speculated that Steve Fossett may have encountered a
mountain while in or exiting a brief period of IMC; but that has certainly
not been established. He was regarded as an excellent pilot with, so far as
I know, no detractors.

Somehow, the parallel is not obvious.

[Mike]

"Gezellig" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 16:08:06 GMT, Mike wrote:
>
>> At the time of the accident, John-John was training to get his instrument
>> ticket and he had flown in IMC with an instructor at night. Although he
>> wasn't ready for his checkride, he also wasn't completely ignorant of
>> IFR.
>> Clearly he was a victim of spatial disorientation, which certainly can
>> happen at night, but that particular night he had at least some
>> moonlight.
>> That's why I think he probably got into a bit of IMC and lost it before
>> the
>> crash. I think it would have taken more than just a bit of haze to trip
>> him
>> up.
>
> He couldn't multi-task and was in MT overload adding spatial
> disorientation, pitiful pre-flight and a bad foot. He screwed the pooch
> when he failed to redirect his bank prior to pitch, spiral city.
>
> His CFIs should have picked up on this MT thing..perhaps.

They did.

"The CFI stated that the pilot's basic instrument flying skills and
simulator work were excellent. However, the CFI stated that the pilot had
trouble managing multiple tasks while flying, which he felt was normal for
the pilot's level of experience."

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
:

> Cirrus has added a new auto level button on their latest planes. Will
> a button on the stick that you push to automatically reset the plane
> to straight and level make any difference on Cirrus accidents or is it
> just a gimmick? What say you?
>

Great, now peoaple as dumb as anthony wil start flying.


Bertie

[Tech Support]

On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 21:28:05 -0400, "Darkwing"
<theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:

>Cirrus has added a new auto level button on their latest planes. Will a
>button on the stick that you push to automatically reset the plane to
>straight and level make any difference on Cirrus accidents or is it just a
>gimmick? What say you?
************************************************** ***********

Darkwing

I'm told that some of the latest Fighters have a sensor that detects
if the pilot blacks out due to the high 'G's' the newest fighters can
pull and hold and that it returns the aircraft to level flight at
cruise power settings, automatically.

I know of several accidents that would have been prevented if that
system had been in plane as the performance of Fighters increased and
they could hold sustained high "G's" at structural limit.

The F-20, two of which were lost due to, "G" induced pilot
incapacitation.

First was at Goose Bay, Labrador. Bird was on way to Paris Air Show
and pilot went up to practice his show routine. After some maneuvers
bird flew into ground in a long shallow glide angle and accident
report cited pilot blackout as cause.

The second was in Korea when a Koran General was being given a demo
ride. Same thing and two more fatalities.

The last, of three built, was given to the Air and Space Gallery in
LA when Air Force and overseas sales did not materialize and F-16 was
bought instead. Politics was involved as the F-20 out classed F-16 in
many respects.

Big John

[Tech Support]

On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 14:12:29 -0500, Tech Support <> wrote:

>On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 21:28:05 -0400, "Darkwing"
><theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Cirrus has added a new auto level button on their latest planes. Will a
>>button on the stick that you push to automatically reset the plane to
>>straight and level make any difference on Cirrus accidents or is it just a
>>gimmick? What say you?
>************************************************** ***********
>
>Darkwing
>
>I'm told that some of the latest Fighters have a sensor that detects
>if the pilot blacks out due to the high 'G's' the newest fighters can
>pull and hold and that it returns the aircraft to level flight at
>cruise power settings, automatically.
>
>I know of several accidents that would have been prevented if that
>system had been in plane as the performance of Fighters increased and
>they could hold sustained high "G's" at structural limit.
>
>The F-20, two of which were lost due to, "G" induced pilot
>incapacitation.
>
>First was at Goose Bay, Labrador. Bird was on way to Paris Air Show
>and pilot went up to practice his show routine. After some maneuvers
>bird flew into ground in a long shallow glide angle and accident
>report cited pilot blackout as cause.
>
>The second was in Korea when a Koran General was being given a demo
>ride. Same thing and two more fatalities.
>
>The last, of three built, was given to the Air and Space Gallery in
>LA when Air Force and overseas sales did not materialize and F-16 was
>bought instead. Politics was involved as the F-20 out classed F-16 in
>many respects.
>
>Big John
************************************************** ***********************

Some more data on the auto recovery feature.

The F-36 has it.

Birds structual limits are +14 and -6 'G's".

Auto recovery feature puts bird in a slight climb at 300 kts until
pilot recovers and retakes control.

Big John

[Mike]

"Tech Support" wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 21:28:05 -0400, "Darkwing"
> <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Cirrus has added a new auto level button on their latest planes. Will a
>>button on the stick that you push to automatically reset the plane to
>>straight and level make any difference on Cirrus accidents or is it just a
>>gimmick? What say you?
> ************************************************** ***********
>
> Darkwing
>
> I'm told that some of the latest Fighters have a sensor that detects
> if the pilot blacks out due to the high 'G's' the newest fighters can
> pull and hold and that it returns the aircraft to level flight at
> cruise power settings, automatically.
>
> I know of several accidents that would have been prevented if that
> system had been in plane as the performance of Fighters increased and
> they could hold sustained high "G's" at structural limit.
>
> The F-20, two of which were lost due to, "G" induced pilot
> incapacitation.
>
> First was at Goose Bay, Labrador. Bird was on way to Paris Air Show
> and pilot went up to practice his show routine. After some maneuvers
> bird flew into ground in a long shallow glide angle and accident
> report cited pilot blackout as cause.
>
> The second was in Korea when a Koran General was being given a demo
> ride. Same thing and two more fatalities.
>
> The last, of three built, was given to the Air and Space Gallery in
> LA when Air Force and overseas sales did not materialize and F-16 was
> bought instead. Politics was involved as the F-20 out classed F-16 in
> many respects.
>
> Big John

That's rather like comparing a formula one race car to the family sedan and
saying what is a great idea for one is automatically a great idea for the
other.

It very well may be a great idea, but you certainly can't justify it using a
military aircraft as an example. There's not too many Cirrus pilots who are
likely to experience a G induced blackout, and even if they did they
probably will have bigger problems to worry about anyway.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> The conditions may have been such that you could not maintain your
> flight attitude without reference to instruments - but that's got
> nothing to do with IMC.

It doesn't matter, since you risk ending up dead either way.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike writes:

> I think it would have taken more than just a bit of haze to trip him
> up.

From what I've heard about him, it sounds like a bit of haze would be more
than enough to trip him up.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> The conditions may have been such that you could not maintain your
>> flight attitude without reference to instruments - but that's got
>> nothing to do with IMC.
>
> It doesn't matter, since you risk ending up dead either way.
>

You're an idiot.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Mike writes:
>
>> I think it would have taken more than just a bit of haze to trip him
>> up.
>
> From what I've heard about him, it sounds like a bit of haze would be
> more than enough to trip him up.


Like you'd know, fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Anthony, how would you know about Kennedy, Lindberg, or anyone else? Have
you ever flown with them? Of course not. Have you ever flown at all- of
course not.

So, you've never flown or even taken a lesson, yet you presume to judge
others who have actually gone through the process?

Not likely by any criteria.

[Bill Denton[_3_]]

One thing regarding Steve Fossett...

He was flying a Super Decathlon, many of which do not carry any gyro
instruments.

Gyros do not like aerobatics, which is one of the primary missions of the
Super Decathlon.



"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Bob F." > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Tman" <x@x> wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> Bob Noel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> hmmm, all the wx reports I saw were legal VMC (not smart VMC, but
>>>>> still \
>>>> I think you're confusing VMC and VFR.
>>>> It may have been legal VFR.
>>>>> legal). Do you have reference to reports that the conditions were not
>>>>> VMC?
>>>> The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
>>>> cause(s) of this accident as follows:
>>>> The pilot's failure to maintain control of the airplane during a
>>>> descent over water at night, which was a result of spatial
>>>> disorientation. Factors in the accident were haze, and the dark night.
>>>>
>>>> That's IMC buddy. Could be a clear VACU night over water with no
>>>> moonlight, and if you can't maintain a horizon due to those factors,
>>>> thats IMC even though it is also very much legal VFR.
>>>
>>> No, that's not necessarily IMC. IMC means less than legal VFR.
>>>
>>> I believe he WAS in IMC, however there's little doubt he was at least in
>>> instrument conditions, which is not the same as IMC.
>>
>>
>> As they say, looks like he flew into Cumulo-Granite.
>>
>> --
>> Regards, Bob F.
> Loks like you are combining multiple accidents:
>
> 1. J.F.Kennedy Jr. was asserted to be VFR in VMC sans horizon with
> horizontal visiblility well above minimum. He was generally regarded as a
> novice pilot and may have shown poor decision making and instrument
> skills.
>
> 2. Some have recently speculated that Steve Fossett may have encountered
> a mountain while in or exiting a brief period of IMC; but that has
> certainly not been established. He was regarded as an excellent pilot
> with, so far as I know, no detractors.
>
> Somehow, the parallel is not obvious.
>
>
>

[Bob Noel[_2_]]

Mike wrote:
> but the question I would have for you was
> why do you feel the burning desire to ask questions in which you are
> already convinced of the answer?

You are making an invalid assumption. I merely asked if you (or anyone)
had seen wx reports that the conditions were IMC. I was seeking
information. Please don't attempt to read more into the question
than that.

[Mike]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> Mike wrote:
>> but the question I would have for you was
>> why do you feel the burning desire to ask questions in which you are
>> already convinced of the answer?
>
> You are making an invalid assumption. I merely asked if you (or anyone)
> had seen wx reports that the conditions were IMC. I was seeking
> information. Please don't attempt to read more into the question
> than that.

No, that's not what you asked. Go back and read it again.

You asked a question and when you didn't like the response you answered it
yourself. Where I come from, that's known as CS. YMMV.

[Bob Noel[_3_]]

In article >,
"Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:

> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Mike wrote:
> >> but the question I would have for you was
> >> why do you feel the burning desire to ask questions in which you are
> >> already convinced of the answer?
> >
> > You are making an invalid assumption. I merely asked if you (or anyone)
> > had seen wx reports that the conditions were IMC. I was seeking
> > information. Please don't attempt to read more into the question
> > than that.
>
> No, that's not what you asked. Go back and read it again.

To the contrary. It is what I asked. quote "hmmm, all the wx reports
I saw were legal VMC (not smart VMC, but still legal). Do you have
reference to reports that the conditions were not VMC?"

[Big John]

On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 19:53:05 GMT, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com>
wrote:

>"Tech Support" wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 21:28:05 -0400, "Darkwing"
>> <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Cirrus has added a new auto level button on their latest planes. Will a
>>>button on the stick that you push to automatically reset the plane to
>>>straight and level make any difference on Cirrus accidents or is it just a
>>>gimmick? What say you?
>> ************************************************** ***********
>>
>> Darkwing
>>
>> I'm told that some of the latest Fighters have a sensor that detects
>> if the pilot blacks out due to the high 'G's' the newest fighters can
>> pull and hold and that it returns the aircraft to level flight at
>> cruise power settings, automatically.
>>
>> I know of several accidents that would have been prevented if that
>> system had been in plane as the performance of Fighters increased and
>> they could hold sustained high "G's" at structural limit.
>>
>> The F-20, two of which were lost due to, "G" induced pilot
>> incapacitation.
>>
>> First was at Goose Bay, Labrador. Bird was on way to Paris Air Show
>> and pilot went up to practice his show routine. After some maneuvers
>> bird flew into ground in a long shallow glide angle and accident
>> report cited pilot blackout as cause.
>>
>> The second was in Korea when a Koran General was being given a demo
>> ride. Same thing and two more fatalities.
>>
>> The last, of three built, was given to the Air and Space Gallery in
>> LA when Air Force and overseas sales did not materialize and F-16 was
>> bought instead. Politics was involved as the F-20 out classed F-16 in
>> many respects.
>>
>> Big John
>
>That's rather like comparing a formula one race car to the family sedan and
>saying what is a great idea for one is automatically a great idea for the
>other.
>
>It very well may be a great idea, but you certainly can't justify it using a
>military aircraft as an example. There's not too many Cirrus pilots who are
>likely to experience a G induced blackout, and even if they did they
>probably will have bigger problems to worry about anyway.
************************************************** *****

Mike

Sorry. Didn't mean to advocate putting a military system in Ga but
original question was about a blue button that would recover Cirrus
aircraft. My post was to show that a system was in operation that
would do it in heavy iron (either automatically or pilot activated) so
technology is there.

Big John

[Gezellig]

On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 16:45:48 GMT, Mike wrote:

> "Gezellig" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 16:08:06 GMT, Mike wrote:
>>
>>> At the time of the accident, John-John was training to get his instrument
>>> ticket and he had flown in IMC with an instructor at night. Although he
>>> wasn't ready for his checkride, he also wasn't completely ignorant of
>>> IFR.
>>> Clearly he was a victim of spatial disorientation, which certainly can
>>> happen at night, but that particular night he had at least some
>>> moonlight.
>>> That's why I think he probably got into a bit of IMC and lost it before
>>> the
>>> crash. I think it would have taken more than just a bit of haze to trip
>>> him
>>> up.
>>
>> He couldn't multi-task and was in MT overload adding spatial
>> disorientation, pitiful pre-flight and a bad foot. He screwed the pooch
>> when he failed to redirect his bank prior to pitch, spiral city.
>>
>> His CFIs should have picked up on this MT thing..perhaps.
>
> They did.
>
> "The CFI stated that the pilot's basic instrument flying skills and
> simulator work were excellent. However, the CFI stated that the pilot had
> trouble managing multiple tasks while flying, which he felt was normal for
> the pilot's level of experience."

Hmmmm, 300 hours dual and still having this problem. It was his
decision, probably thinking that he could auto pilot most of the way. So
many majorly bad decisions.

[Mike]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Mike wrote:
>> >> but the question I would have for you was
>> >> why do you feel the burning desire to ask questions in which you are
>> >> already convinced of the answer?
>> >
>> > You are making an invalid assumption. I merely asked if you (or
>> > anyone)
>> > had seen wx reports that the conditions were IMC. I was seeking
>> > information. Please don't attempt to read more into the question
>> > than that.
>>
>> No, that's not what you asked. Go back and read it again.
>
> To the contrary. It is what I asked. quote "hmmm, all the wx reports
> I saw were legal VMC (not smart VMC, but still legal). Do you have
> reference to reports that the conditions were not VMC?"

Not quite, Bob. The question you originally asked was:

"John-John was VFR to IMC?"

After you received my answer, you proceeded to answer it yourself. So the
real reason you asked it was simply to be argumentative. In other words,
CS. If you don't agree with my assertion, then provide your own references
and we can discuss it like two rational people. If you want to go down the
road of CS, then expect such to be noted.

To answer your latest question, yes I do.

One report:
"Another pilot had flown from Bar Harbor, Maine, to Long Island, New York,
and crossed the Long Island Sound on the same evening, about 1930. This
pilot stated that during his preflight weather briefing from an FSS, the
specialist indicated VMC for his flight. The pilot filed an IFR flight plan
and conducted the flight at 6,000 feet. He stated that he encountered
visibilities of 2 to 3 miles throughout the flight because of haze. He also
stated that the lowest visibility was over water, between Cape Cod,
Massachusetts, and eastern Long Island."

So here we have a pilot reporting IMC in the exact area and he goes on to
say the worst of it was over water. I put a high degree of reliability on
his estimate for a couple of reasons. One, his report came when there was
still daylight and he could better judge visibility. Two, he was IFR and
had no reason to overstate the visibility as a pilot of a VFR flight might.

Another pilot:
The pilot stated that he departed TEB "...in daylight and good flight
conditions and reasonable visibility. The horizon was not obscured by haze.
I could easily pick our land marks at least five [miles] away." The pilot
also stated that he did not request or receive flight information after his
departure from TEB. Once clear of the New York Class B airspace, he stated
that he climbed his airplane to 17,500 feet and proceeded towards Nantucket.
He reported that above 14,000 feet, the visibility was unrestricted;
however, he also reported that during his descent to Nantucket, when his
global positioning system (GPS) receiver indicated that he was over Martha's
Vineyard, he looked down and "...there was nothing to see. There was no
horizon and no light....I turned left toward Martha's Vineyard to see if it
was visible but could see no lights of any kind nor any evidence of the
island...I thought the island might [have] suffered a power failure."

So here we have another pilot who was flying over Martha's Vinyard on his
approach to ACK. It doesn't mention altitude, but he did say that he was on
his descent. So he was somewhere between 17,500 and probably around 12,000.
That's 2-3 miles up and he can't see the lights. There were no low level
clouds that night. That indicates the haze was very thick and visibilities
would have been very low in the haze layer.

The only other report comes from a pilot of a VFR flight (who almost
certainly isn't going to report visibilities of less than 3 miles) and even
he says he doesn't remember seeing the Gay Head lighthouse. Even his
estimation says it was "3-5 miles" which was right on the edge of IMC.

So what references do you have, Bob?

MVY might have been reporting VMC, but that was on the surface, over dry
land, and about 18 miles away from the crash site.

[Mike]

"Gezellig" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 16:45:48 GMT, Mike wrote:
>
>> "Gezellig" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 16:08:06 GMT, Mike wrote:
>>>
>>>> At the time of the accident, John-John was training to get his
>>>> instrument
>>>> ticket and he had flown in IMC with an instructor at night. Although
>>>> he
>>>> wasn't ready for his checkride, he also wasn't completely ignorant of
>>>> IFR.
>>>> Clearly he was a victim of spatial disorientation, which certainly can
>>>> happen at night, but that particular night he had at least some
>>>> moonlight.
>>>> That's why I think he probably got into a bit of IMC and lost it before
>>>> the
>>>> crash. I think it would have taken more than just a bit of haze to
>>>> trip
>>>> him
>>>> up.
>>>
>>> He couldn't multi-task and was in MT overload adding spatial
>>> disorientation, pitiful pre-flight and a bad foot. He screwed the pooch
>>> when he failed to redirect his bank prior to pitch, spiral city.
>>>
>>> His CFIs should have picked up on this MT thing..perhaps.
>>
>> They did.
>>
>> "The CFI stated that the pilot's basic instrument flying skills and
>> simulator work were excellent. However, the CFI stated that the pilot had
>> trouble managing multiple tasks while flying, which he felt was normal
>> for
>> the pilot's level of experience."
>
> Hmmmm, 300 hours dual and still having this problem. It was his
> decision, probably thinking that he could auto pilot most of the way. So
> many majorly bad decisions.

1) He didn't have 300 hours of dual, but even if he did that would be mostly
irrelevant. You learn how to multitask better solo than you do with another
pilot on board.

2) What part of "...he felt was normal for the pilot's level of experience."
didn't you understand?

I've flown with plenty of 300 hour pilots who don't multitask well and some
of them had their instrument and commercial. I didn't multitask well at 300
hours. That's something you pick up with experience.

[Mike]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 19:53:05 GMT, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Tech Support" wrote in message
...
>>> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 21:28:05 -0400, "Darkwing"
>>> <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Cirrus has added a new auto level button on their latest planes. Will a
>>>>button on the stick that you push to automatically reset the plane to
>>>>straight and level make any difference on Cirrus accidents or is it just
>>>>a
>>>>gimmick? What say you?
>>> ************************************************** ***********
>>>
>>> Darkwing
>>>
>>> I'm told that some of the latest Fighters have a sensor that detects
>>> if the pilot blacks out due to the high 'G's' the newest fighters can
>>> pull and hold and that it returns the aircraft to level flight at
>>> cruise power settings, automatically.
>>>
>>> I know of several accidents that would have been prevented if that
>>> system had been in plane as the performance of Fighters increased and
>>> they could hold sustained high "G's" at structural limit.
>>>
>>> The F-20, two of which were lost due to, "G" induced pilot
>>> incapacitation.
>>>
>>> First was at Goose Bay, Labrador. Bird was on way to Paris Air Show
>>> and pilot went up to practice his show routine. After some maneuvers
>>> bird flew into ground in a long shallow glide angle and accident
>>> report cited pilot blackout as cause.
>>>
>>> The second was in Korea when a Koran General was being given a demo
>>> ride. Same thing and two more fatalities.
>>>
>>> The last, of three built, was given to the Air and Space Gallery in
>>> LA when Air Force and overseas sales did not materialize and F-16 was
>>> bought instead. Politics was involved as the F-20 out classed F-16 in
>>> many respects.
>>>
>>> Big John
>>
>>That's rather like comparing a formula one race car to the family sedan
>>and
>>saying what is a great idea for one is automatically a great idea for the
>>other.
>>
>>It very well may be a great idea, but you certainly can't justify it using
>>a
>>military aircraft as an example. There's not too many Cirrus pilots who
>>are
>>likely to experience a G induced blackout, and even if they did they
>>probably will have bigger problems to worry about anyway.
> ************************************************** *****
>
> Mike
>
> Sorry. Didn't mean to advocate putting a military system in Ga but
> original question was about a blue button that would recover Cirrus
> aircraft. My post was to show that a system was in operation that
> would do it in heavy iron (either automatically or pilot activated) so
> technology is there.
>
> Big John

The technology is certainly available. As I said previously, Diamond had it
years before Cirrus. I don't consider it a bad idea. The cost is low
because it's really not much more than an additional function added to the
autopilot. The question the OP asked is a hard one to answer. Even if it's
actually saved someone's bacon, I doubt too many are going to report back
with that information.

[James Robinson]

"Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:

> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > Mike wrote:
>>> >> but the question I would have for you was
>>> >> why do you feel the burning desire to ask questions in which you
>>> >> are already convinced of the answer?
>>> >
>>> > You are making an invalid assumption. I merely asked if you (or
>>> > anyone)
>>> > had seen wx reports that the conditions were IMC. I was seeking
>>> > information. Please don't attempt to read more into the question
>>> > than that.
>>>
>>> No, that's not what you asked. Go back and read it again.
>>
>> To the contrary. It is what I asked. quote "hmmm, all the wx
>> reports I saw were legal VMC (not smart VMC, but still legal). Do
>> you have reference to reports that the conditions were not VMC?"
>
> Not quite, Bob. The question you originally asked was:
>
> "John-John was VFR to IMC?"
>
> After you received my answer, you proceeded to answer it yourself. So
> the real reason you asked it was simply to be argumentative. In other
> words, CS. If you don't agree with my assertion, then provide your
> own references and we can discuss it like two rational people. If you
> want to go down the road of CS, then expect such to be noted.
>
> To answer your latest question, yes I do.
>
> One report:
> "Another pilot had flown from Bar Harbor, Maine, to Long Island, New
> York, and crossed the Long Island Sound on the same evening, about
> 1930. This pilot stated that during his preflight weather briefing
> from an FSS, the specialist indicated VMC for his flight. The pilot
> filed an IFR flight plan and conducted the flight at 6,000 feet. He
> stated that he encountered visibilities of 2 to 3 miles throughout the
> flight because of haze. He also stated that the lowest visibility was
> over water, between Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and eastern Long Island."
>
> So here we have a pilot reporting IMC in the exact area and he goes on
> to say the worst of it was over water. I put a high degree of
> reliability on his estimate for a couple of reasons. One, his report
> came when there was still daylight and he could better judge
> visibility. Two, he was IFR and had no reason to overstate the
> visibility as a pilot of a VFR flight might.
>
> Another pilot:
> The pilot stated that he departed TEB "...in daylight and good flight
> conditions and reasonable visibility. The horizon was not obscured by
> haze. I could easily pick our land marks at least five [miles] away."
> The pilot also stated that he did not request or receive flight
> information after his departure from TEB. Once clear of the New York
> Class B airspace, he stated that he climbed his airplane to 17,500
> feet and proceeded towards Nantucket. He reported that above 14,000
> feet, the visibility was unrestricted; however, he also reported that
> during his descent to Nantucket, when his global positioning system
> (GPS) receiver indicated that he was over Martha's Vineyard, he looked
> down and "...there was nothing to see. There was no horizon and no
> light....I turned left toward Martha's Vineyard to see if it was
> visible but could see no lights of any kind nor any evidence of the
> island...I thought the island might [have] suffered a power failure."
>
> So here we have another pilot who was flying over Martha's Vinyard on
> his approach to ACK. It doesn't mention altitude, but he did say that
> he was on his descent. So he was somewhere between 17,500 and
> probably around 12,000. That's 2-3 miles up and he can't see the
> lights. There were no low level clouds that night. That indicates
> the haze was very thick and visibilities would have been very low in
> the haze layer.
>
> The only other report comes from a pilot of a VFR flight (who almost
> certainly isn't going to report visibilities of less than 3 miles) and
> even he says he doesn't remember seeing the Gay Head lighthouse. Even
> his estimation says it was "3-5 miles" which was right on the edge of
> IMC.
>
> So what references do you have, Bob?
>
> MVY might have been reporting VMC, but that was on the surface, over
> dry land, and about 18 miles away from the crash site.

The most likely problem was poor visibility, but the following suggests
that the haze might have been localized:

During an interview, the tower manager stated that no actions were taken
regarding the ASOS during his shift, which ended just after the accident
occurred. He also stated, "The visibility, present weather, and sky
condition at the approximate time of the accident was probably a little
better than what was being reported. I say this because I remember
aircraft on visual approaches saying they had the airport in sight
between 10 and 12 miles out. I do recall being able to see those aircraft
and I do remember seeing the stars out that night.... To the best of my
knowledge, the ASOS was working as advertised that day with no reported
problems or systems log errors."

[Mike]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >,
>>> "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> > Mike wrote:
>>>> >> but the question I would have for you was
>>>> >> why do you feel the burning desire to ask questions in which you
>>>> >> are already convinced of the answer?
>>>> >
>>>> > You are making an invalid assumption. I merely asked if you (or
>>>> > anyone)
>>>> > had seen wx reports that the conditions were IMC. I was seeking
>>>> > information. Please don't attempt to read more into the question
>>>> > than that.
>>>>
>>>> No, that's not what you asked. Go back and read it again.
>>>
>>> To the contrary. It is what I asked. quote "hmmm, all the wx
>>> reports I saw were legal VMC (not smart VMC, but still legal). Do
>>> you have reference to reports that the conditions were not VMC?"
>>
>> Not quite, Bob. The question you originally asked was:
>>
>> "John-John was VFR to IMC?"
>>
>> After you received my answer, you proceeded to answer it yourself. So
>> the real reason you asked it was simply to be argumentative. In other
>> words, CS. If you don't agree with my assertion, then provide your
>> own references and we can discuss it like two rational people. If you
>> want to go down the road of CS, then expect such to be noted.
>>
>> To answer your latest question, yes I do.
>>
>> One report:
>> "Another pilot had flown from Bar Harbor, Maine, to Long Island, New
>> York, and crossed the Long Island Sound on the same evening, about
>> 1930. This pilot stated that during his preflight weather briefing
>> from an FSS, the specialist indicated VMC for his flight. The pilot
>> filed an IFR flight plan and conducted the flight at 6,000 feet. He
>> stated that he encountered visibilities of 2 to 3 miles throughout the
>> flight because of haze. He also stated that the lowest visibility was
>> over water, between Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and eastern Long Island."
>>
>> So here we have a pilot reporting IMC in the exact area and he goes on
>> to say the worst of it was over water. I put a high degree of
>> reliability on his estimate for a couple of reasons. One, his report
>> came when there was still daylight and he could better judge
>> visibility. Two, he was IFR and had no reason to overstate the
>> visibility as a pilot of a VFR flight might.
>>
>> Another pilot:
>> The pilot stated that he departed TEB "...in daylight and good flight
>> conditions and reasonable visibility. The horizon was not obscured by
>> haze. I could easily pick our land marks at least five [miles] away."
>> The pilot also stated that he did not request or receive flight
>> information after his departure from TEB. Once clear of the New York
>> Class B airspace, he stated that he climbed his airplane to 17,500
>> feet and proceeded towards Nantucket. He reported that above 14,000
>> feet, the visibility was unrestricted; however, he also reported that
>> during his descent to Nantucket, when his global positioning system
>> (GPS) receiver indicated that he was over Martha's Vineyard, he looked
>> down and "...there was nothing to see. There was no horizon and no
>> light....I turned left toward Martha's Vineyard to see if it was
>> visible but could see no lights of any kind nor any evidence of the
>> island...I thought the island might [have] suffered a power failure."
>>
>> So here we have another pilot who was flying over Martha's Vinyard on
>> his approach to ACK. It doesn't mention altitude, but he did say that
>> he was on his descent. So he was somewhere between 17,500 and
>> probably around 12,000. That's 2-3 miles up and he can't see the
>> lights. There were no low level clouds that night. That indicates
>> the haze was very thick and visibilities would have been very low in
>> the haze layer.
>>
>> The only other report comes from a pilot of a VFR flight (who almost
>> certainly isn't going to report visibilities of less than 3 miles) and
>> even he says he doesn't remember seeing the Gay Head lighthouse. Even
>> his estimation says it was "3-5 miles" which was right on the edge of
>> IMC.
>>
>> So what references do you have, Bob?
>>
>> MVY might have been reporting VMC, but that was on the surface, over
>> dry land, and about 18 miles away from the crash site.
>
> The most likely problem was poor visibility, but the following suggests
> that the haze might have been localized:
>
> During an interview, the tower manager stated that no actions were taken
> regarding the ASOS during his shift, which ended just after the accident
> occurred. He also stated, "The visibility, present weather, and sky
> condition at the approximate time of the accident was probably a little
> better than what was being reported. I say this because I remember
> aircraft on visual approaches saying they had the airport in sight
> between 10 and 12 miles out. I do recall being able to see those aircraft
> and I do remember seeing the stars out that night.... To the best of my
> knowledge, the ASOS was working as advertised that day with no reported
> problems or systems log errors."

That's my point exactly. I have little doubt that visibilities were good at
the airport, but that doesn't mean they were good over the water. Kennedy
crashed about 18 miles away from the airport and there's little doubt his
problems started well before that. Judith point was actually about the same
distance to the crash site and Kennedy flew right over it on the way to MVY.

Point Judith, Rhode Island
2000...Cloudy, 3 miles visibility in haze, winds south-southwest at 10
knots.
2300...Cloudy, 2 miles visibility, winds southwest at 10 knots.

[Tech Support]

On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 18:32:59 GMT, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com>
wrote:

>"Big John" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 19:53:05 GMT, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Tech Support" wrote in message
...
>>>> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 21:28:05 -0400, "Darkwing"
>>>> <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Cirrus has added a new auto level button on their latest planes. Will a
>>>>>button on the stick that you push to automatically reset the plane to
>>>>>straight and level make any difference on Cirrus accidents or is it just
>>>>>a
>>>>>gimmick? What say you?
>>>> ************************************************** ***********
>>>>
>>>> Darkwing
>>>>
>>>> I'm told that some of the latest Fighters have a sensor that detects
>>>> if the pilot blacks out due to the high 'G's' the newest fighters can
>>>> pull and hold and that it returns the aircraft to level flight at
>>>> cruise power settings, automatically.
>>>>
>>>> I know of several accidents that would have been prevented if that
>>>> system had been in plane as the performance of Fighters increased and
>>>> they could hold sustained high "G's" at structural limit.
>>>>
>>>> The F-20, two of which were lost due to, "G" induced pilot
>>>> incapacitation.
>>>>
>>>> First was at Goose Bay, Labrador. Bird was on way to Paris Air Show
>>>> and pilot went up to practice his show routine. After some maneuvers
>>>> bird flew into ground in a long shallow glide angle and accident
>>>> report cited pilot blackout as cause.
>>>>
>>>> The second was in Korea when a Koran General was being given a demo
>>>> ride. Same thing and two more fatalities.
>>>>
>>>> The last, of three built, was given to the Air and Space Gallery in
>>>> LA when Air Force and overseas sales did not materialize and F-16 was
>>>> bought instead. Politics was involved as the F-20 out classed F-16 in
>>>> many respects.
>>>>
>>>> Big John
>>>
>>>That's rather like comparing a formula one race car to the family sedan
>>>and
>>>saying what is a great idea for one is automatically a great idea for the
>>>other.
>>>
>>>It very well may be a great idea, but you certainly can't justify it using
>>>a
>>>military aircraft as an example. There's not too many Cirrus pilots who
>>>are
>>>likely to experience a G induced blackout, and even if they did they
>>>probably will have bigger problems to worry about anyway.
>> ************************************************** *****
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> Sorry. Didn't mean to advocate putting a military system in Ga but
>> original question was about a blue button that would recover Cirrus
>> aircraft. My post was to show that a system was in operation that
>> would do it in heavy iron (either automatically or pilot activated) so
>> technology is there.
>>
>> Big John
>
>The technology is certainly available. As I said previously, Diamond had it
>years before Cirrus. I don't consider it a bad idea. The cost is low
>because it's really not much more than an additional function added to the
>autopilot. The question the OP asked is a hard one to answer. Even if it's
>actually saved someone's bacon, I doubt too many are going to report back
>with that information.
************************************************** *******

Mike

U are probably correct. Many people would not report use of system.

Alternative would be to make system record use and need a shop with
key to reset. They could report use to give some stats which could
help sell system as life saver.

Big John

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote in
:

> "James Robinson" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In article >,
>>>> "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>> > Mike wrote:
>>>>> >> but the question I would have for you was
>>>>> >> why do you feel the burning desire to ask questions in which
>>>>> >> you are already convinced of the answer?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > You are making an invalid assumption. I merely asked if you (or
>>>>> > anyone)
>>>>> > had seen wx reports that the conditions were IMC. I was seeking
>>>>> > information. Please don't attempt to read more into the
>>>>> > question than that.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, that's not what you asked. Go back and read it again.
>>>>
>>>> To the contrary. It is what I asked. quote "hmmm, all the wx
>>>> reports I saw were legal VMC (not smart VMC, but still legal). Do
>>>> you have reference to reports that the conditions were not VMC?"
>>>
>>> Not quite, Bob. The question you originally asked was:
>>>
>>> "John-John was VFR to IMC?"
>>>
>>> After you received my answer, you proceeded to answer it yourself.
>>> So the real reason you asked it was simply to be argumentative. In
>>> other words, CS. If you don't agree with my assertion, then provide
>>> your own references and we can discuss it like two rational people.
>>> If you want to go down the road of CS, then expect such to be noted.
>>>
>>> To answer your latest question, yes I do.
>>>
>>> One report:
>>> "Another pilot had flown from Bar Harbor, Maine, to Long Island, New
>>> York, and crossed the Long Island Sound on the same evening, about
>>> 1930. This pilot stated that during his preflight weather briefing
>>> from an FSS, the specialist indicated VMC for his flight. The pilot
>>> filed an IFR flight plan and conducted the flight at 6,000 feet. He
>>> stated that he encountered visibilities of 2 to 3 miles throughout
>>> the flight because of haze. He also stated that the lowest
>>> visibility was over water, between Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and
>>> eastern Long Island."
>>>
>>> So here we have a pilot reporting IMC in the exact area and he goes
>>> on to say the worst of it was over water. I put a high degree of
>>> reliability on his estimate for a couple of reasons. One, his
>>> report came when there was still daylight and he could better judge
>>> visibility. Two, he was IFR and had no reason to overstate the
>>> visibility as a pilot of a VFR flight might.
>>>
>>> Another pilot:
>>> The pilot stated that he departed TEB "...in daylight and good
>>> flight conditions and reasonable visibility. The horizon was not
>>> obscured by haze. I could easily pick our land marks at least five
>>> [miles] away." The pilot also stated that he did not request or
>>> receive flight information after his departure from TEB. Once clear
>>> of the New York Class B airspace, he stated that he climbed his
>>> airplane to 17,500 feet and proceeded towards Nantucket. He reported
>>> that above 14,000 feet, the visibility was unrestricted; however, he
>>> also reported that during his descent to Nantucket, when his global
>>> positioning system (GPS) receiver indicated that he was over
>>> Martha's Vineyard, he looked down and "...there was nothing to see.
>>> There was no horizon and no light....I turned left toward Martha's
>>> Vineyard to see if it was visible but could see no lights of any
>>> kind nor any evidence of the island...I thought the island might
>>> [have] suffered a power failure."
>>>
>>> So here we have another pilot who was flying over Martha's Vinyard
>>> on his approach to ACK. It doesn't mention altitude, but he did say
>>> that he was on his descent. So he was somewhere between 17,500 and
>>> probably around 12,000. That's 2-3 miles up and he can't see the
>>> lights. There were no low level clouds that night. That indicates
>>> the haze was very thick and visibilities would have been very low in
>>> the haze layer.
>>>
>>> The only other report comes from a pilot of a VFR flight (who almost
>>> certainly isn't going to report visibilities of less than 3 miles)
>>> and even he says he doesn't remember seeing the Gay Head lighthouse.
>>> Even his estimation says it was "3-5 miles" which was right on the
>>> edge of IMC.
>>>
>>> So what references do you have, Bob?
>>>
>>> MVY might have been reporting VMC, but that was on the surface, over
>>> dry land, and about 18 miles away from the crash site.
>>
>> The most likely problem was poor visibility, but the following
>> suggests that the haze might have been localized:
>>
>> During an interview, the tower manager stated that no actions were
>> taken regarding the ASOS during his shift, which ended just after the
>> accident occurred. He also stated, "The visibility, present weather,
>> and sky condition at the approximate time of the accident was
>> probably a little better than what was being reported. I say this
>> because I remember aircraft on visual approaches saying they had the
>> airport in sight between 10 and 12 miles out. I do recall being able
>> to see those aircraft and I do remember seeing the stars out that
>> night.... To the best of my knowledge, the ASOS was working as
>> advertised that day with no reported problems or systems log errors."
>
> That's my point exactly. I have little doubt that visibilities were
> good at the airport, but that doesn't mean they were good over the
> water.


Even if they were good, that doesn't mean there was a clear horizon..


Bertie

[Gezellig]

On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 18:28:40 GMT, Mike wrote:

> "Gezellig" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 16:45:48 GMT, Mike wrote:
>>
>>> "Gezellig" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 16:08:06 GMT, Mike wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> At the time of the accident, John-John was training to get his
>>>>> instrument
>>>>> ticket and he had flown in IMC with an instructor at night. Although
>>>>> he
>>>>> wasn't ready for his checkride, he also wasn't completely ignorant of
>>>>> IFR.
>>>>> Clearly he was a victim of spatial disorientation, which certainly can
>>>>> happen at night, but that particular night he had at least some
>>>>> moonlight.
>>>>> That's why I think he probably got into a bit of IMC and lost it before
>>>>> the
>>>>> crash. I think it would have taken more than just a bit of haze to
>>>>> trip
>>>>> him
>>>>> up.
>>>>
>>>> He couldn't multi-task and was in MT overload adding spatial
>>>> disorientation, pitiful pre-flight and a bad foot. He screwed the pooch
>>>> when he failed to redirect his bank prior to pitch, spiral city.
>>>>
>>>> His CFIs should have picked up on this MT thing..perhaps.
>>>
>>> They did.
>>>
>>> "The CFI stated that the pilot's basic instrument flying skills and
>>> simulator work were excellent. However, the CFI stated that the pilot had
>>> trouble managing multiple tasks while flying, which he felt was normal
>>> for
>>> the pilot's level of experience."
>>
>> Hmmmm, 300 hours dual and still having this problem. It was his
>> decision, probably thinking that he could auto pilot most of the way. So
>> many majorly bad decisions.
>
> 1) He didn't have 300 hours of dual, but even if he did that would be mostly
> irrelevant. You learn how to multitask better solo than you do with another
> pilot on board.

That concept worked real good for Kennedy, didn't it? Multi-tasking is
both a learned and an ingrained art. Some are best taught with co-pilot
guidance. Which do you think Kennedy was considering his fate?

> 2) What part of "...he felt was normal for the pilot's level of experience."
> didn't you understand?

None.

> I've flown with plenty of 300 hour pilots who don't multitask well and some
> of them had their instrument and commercial. I didn't multitask well at 300
> hours. That's something you pick up with experience.

I've flown with many that have picked up MT skills well under 300. It's
not a black-white consideration.

[Mike]

"Gezellig" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 18:28:40 GMT, Mike wrote:
>
>> "Gezellig" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 16:45:48 GMT, Mike wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Gezellig" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 16:08:06 GMT, Mike wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> At the time of the accident, John-John was training to get his
>>>>>> instrument
>>>>>> ticket and he had flown in IMC with an instructor at night. Although
>>>>>> he
>>>>>> wasn't ready for his checkride, he also wasn't completely ignorant of
>>>>>> IFR.
>>>>>> Clearly he was a victim of spatial disorientation, which certainly
>>>>>> can
>>>>>> happen at night, but that particular night he had at least some
>>>>>> moonlight.
>>>>>> That's why I think he probably got into a bit of IMC and lost it
>>>>>> before
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> crash. I think it would have taken more than just a bit of haze to
>>>>>> trip
>>>>>> him
>>>>>> up.
>>>>>
>>>>> He couldn't multi-task and was in MT overload adding spatial
>>>>> disorientation, pitiful pre-flight and a bad foot. He screwed the
>>>>> pooch
>>>>> when he failed to redirect his bank prior to pitch, spiral city.
>>>>>
>>>>> His CFIs should have picked up on this MT thing..perhaps.
>>>>
>>>> They did.
>>>>
>>>> "The CFI stated that the pilot's basic instrument flying skills and
>>>> simulator work were excellent. However, the CFI stated that the pilot
>>>> had
>>>> trouble managing multiple tasks while flying, which he felt was normal
>>>> for
>>>> the pilot's level of experience."
>>>
>>> Hmmmm, 300 hours dual and still having this problem. It was his
>>> decision, probably thinking that he could auto pilot most of the way. So
>>> many majorly bad decisions.
>>
>> 1) He didn't have 300 hours of dual, but even if he did that would be
>> mostly
>> irrelevant. You learn how to multitask better solo than you do with
>> another
>> pilot on board.
>
> That concept worked real good for Kennedy, didn't it? Multi-tasking is
> both a learned and an ingrained art. Some are best taught with co-pilot
> guidance. Which do you think Kennedy was considering his fate?
>
>> 2) What part of "...he felt was normal for the pilot's level of
>> experience."
>> didn't you understand?
>
> None.
>
>> I've flown with plenty of 300 hour pilots who don't multitask well and
>> some
>> of them had their instrument and commercial. I didn't multitask well at
>> 300
>> hours. That's something you pick up with experience.
>
> I've flown with many that have picked up MT skills well under 300. It's
> not a black-white consideration.

Some do, but it's certainly not out of line that he didn't. As far as his
decision making goes, the actual conditions turned out worse than anyone had
forecast. Flying at night can always turn into a hazardous situation, but
Kennedy had flown a considerable amount of time with an instructor at night,
and he was working on his instrument ticket. So he was genuinely interested
in improving his flying skills and there's nothing to indicate he made any
bad decisions. My guess is he probably attempted too steep of a turn and
had no idea he was in any danger of spacial disorientation because he didn't
recognize that he was in instrument conditions. Unfortunately it's a common
mistake for low time pilots and lots of them kill themselves that way.

[a[_3_]]

On Oct 4, 10:43*am, Bob Noel > wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Mike wrote:
>
> >>> Diamond already has this on some of their aircraft. *I don't know
> >>> that it has ever made a difference, however there are a large number
> >>> of fatalities caused by VFR to IMC (just like John-John).
>
> >> John-John was VFR to IMC?
>
> > Yep.
>
> hmmm, all the wx reports I saw were legal VMC (not smart VMC, but still
> legal). *Do you have reference to reports that the conditions were not
> VMC?

It doesn't matter if it was IMC for JFK Jr. On a moonless night over
water -- toss in a high overcast -- there's nothing but black to be
seen out of the window. In terms of flying, it's the same as being
inside a cloud. It could be 10,000 feet and 50 miles vis, without a
doubt legal vfr, but if you're not flying the gauges you're gonna die.
He most likely had marginal VFR, but was in conditions not too
different from what I had described above -- flying by outside
reference could have been close to impossible, even if VFR. John John
was a known risk taker, his family would rarely fly with him because
of that (ref -- the book "The Day John Died"). If you accept what his
friends said about him, he really was an accident looking for a place
to happen. The "Master of Disaster" was recovering from an ankle
injury he got earlier from an unltra light accident on -- ready for
this? -- the same Martha's Vineyard he was flying to.

Add in to his multi tasking that he was under major stress with the
magazine George, did not sleep at home the night before because of
arguments with his wife, and you have, in my opinion, a guy who
shouldn't have been trusted riding a two wheel bike, let alone a
tricycle with wings.

[Gezellig]

On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:45:00 GMT, Mike wrote:

>>> I've flown with plenty of 300 hour pilots who don't multitask well and
>>> some
>>> of them had their instrument and commercial. I didn't multitask well at
>>> 300
>>> hours. That's something you pick up with experience.
>>
>> I've flown with many that have picked up MT skills well under 300. It's
>> not a black-white consideration.
>
> Some do, but it's certainly not out of line that he didn't. As far as his
> decision making goes, the actual conditions turned out worse than anyone had
> forecast. Flying at night can always turn into a hazardous situation, but
> Kennedy had flown a considerable amount of time with an instructor at night,
> and he was working on his instrument ticket. So he was genuinely interested
> in improving his flying skills and there's nothing to indicate he made any
> bad decisions.

If you mean before he spun, I would heavily disagree.

> My guess is he probably attempted too steep of a turn and
> had no idea he was in any danger of spacial disorientation because he didn't
> recognize that he was in instrument conditions. Unfortunately it's a common
> mistake for low time pilots and lots of them kill themselves that way.

This is your neck of the woods, if he had called you up, would you have
said "Go"?

[Gezellig]

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 06:05:22 -0700 (PDT), a wrote:

> It doesn't matter if it was IMC for JFK Jr. On a moonless night over
> water -- toss in a high overcast -- there's nothing but black to be
> seen out of the window. In terms of flying, it's the same as being
> inside a cloud. It could be 10,000 feet and 50 miles vis, without a
> doubt legal vfr, but if you're not flying the gauges you're gonna die.
> He most likely had marginal VFR, but was in conditions not too
> different from what I had described above -- flying by outside
> reference could have been close to impossible, even if VFR. John John
> was a known risk taker, his family would rarely fly with him because
> of that (ref -- the book "The Day John Died"). If you accept what his
> friends said about him, he really was an accident looking for a place
> to happen. The "Master of Disaster" was recovering from an ankle
> injury he got earlier from an unltra light accident on -- ready for
> this? -- the same Martha's Vineyard he was flying to.
>
> Add in to his multi tasking that he was under major stress with the
> magazine George, did not sleep at home the night before because of
> arguments with his wife, and you have, in my opinion, a guy who
> shouldn't have been trusted riding a two wheel bike, let alone a
> tricycle with wings.

IMO, it was a collection of minor to major mistakes matched with a
resistant to death personality. Which being a Kennedy is either a
defense mechanism or utter stupidity...or both.

[a[_3_]]

*My guess is he probably attempted too steep of a turn and
> had no idea he was in any danger of spacial disorientation because he didn't
> recognize that he was in instrument conditions. *Unfortunately it's a common
> mistake for low time pilots and lots of them kill themselves that way.

He was tracking right towards the airport, I'd assume on a/p. My guess
is he chose to hand fly and started his descent and lost it. There was
zero need for a turn at the place of the accident. A wings level
descent from 5500 feet to pattern altitude in 15 miles is what was
needed, so he needed to lose 4500 feet or so in 7 or 8 minutes. I
would rather go down slower, but less than 1000 fpm is not in itself
bad. Any turn other than course correction was not needed.

[Mike]

"Gezellig" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:45:00 GMT, Mike wrote:
>
>>>> I've flown with plenty of 300 hour pilots who don't multitask well and
>>>> some
>>>> of them had their instrument and commercial. I didn't multitask well
>>>> at
>>>> 300
>>>> hours. That's something you pick up with experience.
>>>
>>> I've flown with many that have picked up MT skills well under 300. It's
>>> not a black-white consideration.
>>
>> Some do, but it's certainly not out of line that he didn't. As far as
>> his
>> decision making goes, the actual conditions turned out worse than anyone
>> had
>> forecast. Flying at night can always turn into a hazardous situation,
>> but
>> Kennedy had flown a considerable amount of time with an instructor at
>> night,
>> and he was working on his instrument ticket. So he was genuinely
>> interested
>> in improving his flying skills and there's nothing to indicate he made
>> any
>> bad decisions.
>
> If you mean before he spun, I would heavily disagree.
>
>> My guess is he probably attempted too steep of a turn and
>> had no idea he was in any danger of spacial disorientation because he
>> didn't
>> recognize that he was in instrument conditions. Unfortunately it's a
>> common
>> mistake for low time pilots and lots of them kill themselves that way.
>
> This is your neck of the woods, if he had called you up, would you have
> said "Go"?

I never tell anyone if they should go or not. That's their own decision to
make.

20% of fatal GA accidents are at night even though night flights make up
only 5% of the GA traffic. Of those fatal accidents, the most common is
exactly the situation that Kennedy found himself. So it wasn't as if
Kennedy was in an easy situation and did something monumentally stupid.

[Mike]

"a" > wrote in message
...
> My guess is he probably attempted too steep of a turn and
> > had no idea he was in any danger of spacial disorientation because he
> > didn't
> > recognize that he was in instrument conditions. Unfortunately it's a
> > common
> > mistake for low time pilots and lots of them kill themselves that way.
>
> He was tracking right towards the airport, I'd assume on a/p. My guess
> is he chose to hand fly and started his descent and lost it. There was
> zero need for a turn at the place of the accident. A wings level
> descent from 5500 feet to pattern altitude in 15 miles is what was
> needed, so he needed to lose 4500 feet or so in 7 or 8 minutes. I
> would rather go down slower, but less than 1000 fpm is not in itself
> bad. Any turn other than course correction was not needed.

His aircraft was having intermittent problems with its autopilot. He may
have been preoccupied with it.

Personally I like to stay as high as I can, as long as I can. This would be
especially true over water. Making a 1000 fpm descent is preferable to
descending too soon and needing that extra altitude at some point.

[Mike]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote in
> :
>
>> "James Robinson" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> > Mike wrote:
>>>>>> >> but the question I would have for you was
>>>>>> >> why do you feel the burning desire to ask questions in which
>>>>>> >> you are already convinced of the answer?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > You are making an invalid assumption. I merely asked if you (or
>>>>>> > anyone)
>>>>>> > had seen wx reports that the conditions were IMC. I was seeking
>>>>>> > information. Please don't attempt to read more into the
>>>>>> > question than that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, that's not what you asked. Go back and read it again.
>>>>>
>>>>> To the contrary. It is what I asked. quote "hmmm, all the wx
>>>>> reports I saw were legal VMC (not smart VMC, but still legal). Do
>>>>> you have reference to reports that the conditions were not VMC?"
>>>>
>>>> Not quite, Bob. The question you originally asked was:
>>>>
>>>> "John-John was VFR to IMC?"
>>>>
>>>> After you received my answer, you proceeded to answer it yourself.
>>>> So the real reason you asked it was simply to be argumentative. In
>>>> other words, CS. If you don't agree with my assertion, then provide
>>>> your own references and we can discuss it like two rational people.
>>>> If you want to go down the road of CS, then expect such to be noted.
>>>>
>>>> To answer your latest question, yes I do.
>>>>
>>>> One report:
>>>> "Another pilot had flown from Bar Harbor, Maine, to Long Island, New
>>>> York, and crossed the Long Island Sound on the same evening, about
>>>> 1930. This pilot stated that during his preflight weather briefing
>>>> from an FSS, the specialist indicated VMC for his flight. The pilot
>>>> filed an IFR flight plan and conducted the flight at 6,000 feet. He
>>>> stated that he encountered visibilities of 2 to 3 miles throughout
>>>> the flight because of haze. He also stated that the lowest
>>>> visibility was over water, between Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and
>>>> eastern Long Island."
>>>>
>>>> So here we have a pilot reporting IMC in the exact area and he goes
>>>> on to say the worst of it was over water. I put a high degree of
>>>> reliability on his estimate for a couple of reasons. One, his
>>>> report came when there was still daylight and he could better judge
>>>> visibility. Two, he was IFR and had no reason to overstate the
>>>> visibility as a pilot of a VFR flight might.
>>>>
>>>> Another pilot:
>>>> The pilot stated that he departed TEB "...in daylight and good
>>>> flight conditions and reasonable visibility. The horizon was not
>>>> obscured by haze. I could easily pick our land marks at least five
>>>> [miles] away." The pilot also stated that he did not request or
>>>> receive flight information after his departure from TEB. Once clear
>>>> of the New York Class B airspace, he stated that he climbed his
>>>> airplane to 17,500 feet and proceeded towards Nantucket. He reported
>>>> that above 14,000 feet, the visibility was unrestricted; however, he
>>>> also reported that during his descent to Nantucket, when his global
>>>> positioning system (GPS) receiver indicated that he was over
>>>> Martha's Vineyard, he looked down and "...there was nothing to see.
>>>> There was no horizon and no light....I turned left toward Martha's
>>>> Vineyard to see if it was visible but could see no lights of any
>>>> kind nor any evidence of the island...I thought the island might
>>>> [have] suffered a power failure."
>>>>
>>>> So here we have another pilot who was flying over Martha's Vinyard
>>>> on his approach to ACK. It doesn't mention altitude, but he did say
>>>> that he was on his descent. So he was somewhere between 17,500 and
>>>> probably around 12,000. That's 2-3 miles up and he can't see the
>>>> lights. There were no low level clouds that night. That indicates
>>>> the haze was very thick and visibilities would have been very low in
>>>> the haze layer.
>>>>
>>>> The only other report comes from a pilot of a VFR flight (who almost
>>>> certainly isn't going to report visibilities of less than 3 miles)
>>>> and even he says he doesn't remember seeing the Gay Head lighthouse.
>>>> Even his estimation says it was "3-5 miles" which was right on the
>>>> edge of IMC.
>>>>
>>>> So what references do you have, Bob?
>>>>
>>>> MVY might have been reporting VMC, but that was on the surface, over
>>>> dry land, and about 18 miles away from the crash site.
>>>
>>> The most likely problem was poor visibility, but the following
>>> suggests that the haze might have been localized:
>>>
>>> During an interview, the tower manager stated that no actions were
>>> taken regarding the ASOS during his shift, which ended just after the
>>> accident occurred. He also stated, "The visibility, present weather,
>>> and sky condition at the approximate time of the accident was
>>> probably a little better than what was being reported. I say this
>>> because I remember aircraft on visual approaches saying they had the
>>> airport in sight between 10 and 12 miles out. I do recall being able
>>> to see those aircraft and I do remember seeing the stars out that
>>> night.... To the best of my knowledge, the ASOS was working as
>>> advertised that day with no reported problems or systems log errors."
>>
>> That's my point exactly. I have little doubt that visibilities were
>> good at the airport, but that doesn't mean they were good over the
>> water.
>
>
> Even if they were good, that doesn't mean there was a clear horizon..

But it would mean he would have had visual references like the moonlight
shining off the water, the lighthouse at Gay Head, and the lights from
numerous ships and buoys in the shipping channel below. These are things he
could have used to keep the dirty side down.

[a[_3_]]

On Oct 6, 2:59*pm, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
> "a" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > My guess is he probably attempted too steep of a turn and
> > > had no idea he was in any danger of spacial disorientation because he
> > > didn't
> > > recognize that he was in instrument conditions. Unfortunately it's a
> > > common
> > > mistake for low time pilots and lots of them kill themselves that way..
>
> > He was tracking right towards the airport, I'd assume on a/p. My guess
> > is he chose to hand fly and started his descent and lost it. There was
> > zero need for a turn at the place of the accident. A wings level
> > descent from 5500 feet to pattern altitude in 15 miles is what was
> > needed, so he needed to lose 4500 feet or so in 7 or 8 minutes. I
> > would rather go down slower, but less than 1000 fpm is not in itself
> > bad. Any turn other than course correction was not needed.
>
> His aircraft was having intermittent problems with its autopilot. *He may
> have been preoccupied with it.
>
> Personally I like to stay as high as I can, as long as I can. *This would be
> especially true over water. *Making a 1000 fpm descent is preferable to
> descending too soon and needing that extra altitude at some point.

I don't remember reading about the a/p problems. But your notion of
too steep a turn planned by the pilot seems to be refuted by the
airplane heading and airport location. There is little doubt he did
enter too steep a turn but the narrative suggests several turns in
different directions as well as variations in altitude that would not
have been justified by rational pilot decisions. He was without a
visible horizon and without the skills to fly without one.

[Mike]

"a" > wrote in message
...
> On Oct 6, 2:59 pm, "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
> > "a" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > My guess is he probably attempted too steep of a turn and
> > > > had no idea he was in any danger of spacial disorientation because
> > > > he
> > > > didn't
> > > > recognize that he was in instrument conditions. Unfortunately it's a
> > > > common
> > > > mistake for low time pilots and lots of them kill themselves that
> > > > way.
> >
> > > He was tracking right towards the airport, I'd assume on a/p. My guess
> > > is he chose to hand fly and started his descent and lost it. There was
> > > zero need for a turn at the place of the accident. A wings level
> > > descent from 5500 feet to pattern altitude in 15 miles is what was
> > > needed, so he needed to lose 4500 feet or so in 7 or 8 minutes. I
> > > would rather go down slower, but less than 1000 fpm is not in itself
> > > bad. Any turn other than course correction was not needed.
> >
> > His aircraft was having intermittent problems with its autopilot. He may
> > have been preoccupied with it.
> >
> > Personally I like to stay as high as I can, as long as I can. This would
> > be
> > especially true over water. Making a 1000 fpm descent is preferable to
> > descending too soon and needing that extra altitude at some point.
>
> I don't remember reading about the a/p problems. But your notion of
> too steep a turn planned by the pilot seems to be refuted by the
> airplane heading and airport location. There is little doubt he did
> enter too steep a turn but the narrative suggests several turns in
> different directions as well as variations in altitude that would not
> have been justified by rational pilot decisions. He was without a
> visible horizon and without the skills to fly without one.

So is everyone who flies VFR over the top or on a moonless night. Are all
those pilots irrational as well? Perhaps, but if that's the case Kennedy
was no more or less irrational than thousands of other pilots who put
themselves into similar situations. That's my point.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote in
:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> "James Robinson" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>> "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>> "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> > Mike wrote:
>>>>>>> >> but the question I would have for you was
>>>>>>> >> why do you feel the burning desire to ask questions in which
>>>>>>> >> you are already convinced of the answer?
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > You are making an invalid assumption. I merely asked if you
>>>>>>> > (or anyone)
>>>>>>> > had seen wx reports that the conditions were IMC. I was
>>>>>>> > seeking information. Please don't attempt to read more into
>>>>>>> > the question than that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, that's not what you asked. Go back and read it again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To the contrary. It is what I asked. quote "hmmm, all the wx
>>>>>> reports I saw were legal VMC (not smart VMC, but still legal).
>>>>>> Do you have reference to reports that the conditions were not
>>>>>> VMC?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Not quite, Bob. The question you originally asked was:
>>>>>
>>>>> "John-John was VFR to IMC?"
>>>>>
>>>>> After you received my answer, you proceeded to answer it yourself.
>>>>> So the real reason you asked it was simply to be argumentative.
>>>>> In other words, CS. If you don't agree with my assertion, then
>>>>> provide your own references and we can discuss it like two
>>>>> rational people. If you want to go down the road of CS, then
>>>>> expect such to be noted.
>>>>>
>>>>> To answer your latest question, yes I do.
>>>>>
>>>>> One report:
>>>>> "Another pilot had flown from Bar Harbor, Maine, to Long Island,
>>>>> New York, and crossed the Long Island Sound on the same evening,
>>>>> about 1930. This pilot stated that during his preflight weather
>>>>> briefing from an FSS, the specialist indicated VMC for his flight.
>>>>> The pilot filed an IFR flight plan and conducted the flight at
>>>>> 6,000 feet. He stated that he encountered visibilities of 2 to 3
>>>>> miles throughout the flight because of haze. He also stated that
>>>>> the lowest visibility was over water, between Cape Cod,
>>>>> Massachusetts, and eastern Long Island."
>>>>>
>>>>> So here we have a pilot reporting IMC in the exact area and he
>>>>> goes on to say the worst of it was over water. I put a high
>>>>> degree of reliability on his estimate for a couple of reasons.
>>>>> One, his report came when there was still daylight and he could
>>>>> better judge visibility. Two, he was IFR and had no reason to
>>>>> overstate the visibility as a pilot of a VFR flight might.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another pilot:
>>>>> The pilot stated that he departed TEB "...in daylight and good
>>>>> flight conditions and reasonable visibility. The horizon was not
>>>>> obscured by haze. I could easily pick our land marks at least five
>>>>> [miles] away." The pilot also stated that he did not request or
>>>>> receive flight information after his departure from TEB. Once
>>>>> clear of the New York Class B airspace, he stated that he climbed
>>>>> his airplane to 17,500 feet and proceeded towards Nantucket. He
>>>>> reported that above 14,000 feet, the visibility was unrestricted;
>>>>> however, he also reported that during his descent to Nantucket,
>>>>> when his global positioning system (GPS) receiver indicated that
>>>>> he was over Martha's Vineyard, he looked down and "...there was
>>>>> nothing to see. There was no horizon and no light....I turned left
>>>>> toward Martha's Vineyard to see if it was visible but could see no
>>>>> lights of any kind nor any evidence of the island...I thought the
>>>>> island might [have] suffered a power failure."
>>>>>
>>>>> So here we have another pilot who was flying over Martha's Vinyard
>>>>> on his approach to ACK. It doesn't mention altitude, but he did
>>>>> say that he was on his descent. So he was somewhere between
>>>>> 17,500 and probably around 12,000. That's 2-3 miles up and he
>>>>> can't see the lights. There were no low level clouds that night.
>>>>> That indicates the haze was very thick and visibilities would have
>>>>> been very low in the haze layer.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only other report comes from a pilot of a VFR flight (who
>>>>> almost certainly isn't going to report visibilities of less than 3
>>>>> miles) and even he says he doesn't remember seeing the Gay Head
>>>>> lighthouse.
>>>>> Even his estimation says it was "3-5 miles" which was right on
>>>>> the
>>>>> edge of IMC.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what references do you have, Bob?
>>>>>
>>>>> MVY might have been reporting VMC, but that was on the surface,
>>>>> over dry land, and about 18 miles away from the crash site.
>>>>
>>>> The most likely problem was poor visibility, but the following
>>>> suggests that the haze might have been localized:
>>>>
>>>> During an interview, the tower manager stated that no actions were
>>>> taken regarding the ASOS during his shift, which ended just after
>>>> the accident occurred. He also stated, "The visibility, present
>>>> weather, and sky condition at the approximate time of the accident
>>>> was probably a little better than what was being reported. I say
>>>> this because I remember aircraft on visual approaches saying they
>>>> had the airport in sight between 10 and 12 miles out. I do recall
>>>> being able to see those aircraft and I do remember seeing the stars
>>>> out that night.... To the best of my knowledge, the ASOS was
>>>> working as advertised that day with no reported problems or systems
>>>> log errors."
>>>
>>> That's my point exactly. I have little doubt that visibilities were
>>> good at the airport, but that doesn't mean they were good over the
>>> water.
>>
>>
>> Even if they were good, that doesn't mean there was a clear horizon..
>
> But it would mean he would have had visual references like the
> moonlight shining off the water, the lighthouse at Gay Head, and the
> lights from numerous ships and buoys in the shipping channel below.
> These are things he could have used to keep the dirty side down.
>
>

Well, it doesn't take long and things like the moon on the water can
have exactly the opposite effect. when the whole thing gets past a
certain poiint someone whp's not so good with instruments can lose it
fast.



Bertie

[Gezellig]

On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:54:44 GMT, Mike wrote:

> "Gezellig" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:45:00 GMT, Mike wrote:
>>
>>>>> I've flown with plenty of 300 hour pilots who don't multitask well and
>>>>> some
>>>>> of them had their instrument and commercial. I didn't multitask well
>>>>> at
>>>>> 300
>>>>> hours. That's something you pick up with experience.
>>>>
>>>> I've flown with many that have picked up MT skills well under 300. It's
>>>> not a black-white consideration.
>>>
>>> Some do, but it's certainly not out of line that he didn't. As far as
>>> his
>>> decision making goes, the actual conditions turned out worse than anyone
>>> had
>>> forecast. Flying at night can always turn into a hazardous situation,
>>> but
>>> Kennedy had flown a considerable amount of time with an instructor at
>>> night,
>>> and he was working on his instrument ticket. So he was genuinely
>>> interested
>>> in improving his flying skills and there's nothing to indicate he made
>>> any
>>> bad decisions.
>>
>> If you mean before he spun, I would heavily disagree.
>>
>>> My guess is he probably attempted too steep of a turn and
>>> had no idea he was in any danger of spacial disorientation because he
>>> didn't
>>> recognize that he was in instrument conditions. Unfortunately it's a
>>> common
>>> mistake for low time pilots and lots of them kill themselves that way.
>>
>> This is your neck of the woods, if he had called you up, would you have
>> said "Go"?
>
> I never tell anyone if they should go or not. That's their own decision to
> make.
>
> 20% of fatal GA accidents are at night even though night flights make up
> only 5% of the GA traffic. Of those fatal accidents, the most common is
> exactly the situation that Kennedy found himself. So it wasn't as if
> Kennedy was in an easy situation and did something monumentally stupid.

The chain of mistakes he made was at least a small monument to
stupidity, imo.

[Gezellig]

On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 19:24:22 GMT, Mike wrote:

>>> His aircraft was having intermittent problems with its autopilot. He may
>>> have been preoccupied with it.
>>>
>>> Personally I like to stay as high as I can, as long as I can. This would
>>> be
>>> especially true over water. Making a 1000 fpm descent is preferable to
>>> descending too soon and needing that extra altitude at some point.
>>
>> I don't remember reading about the a/p problems. But your notion of
>> too steep a turn planned by the pilot seems to be refuted by the
>> airplane heading and airport location. There is little doubt he did
>> enter too steep a turn but the narrative suggests several turns in
>> different directions as well as variations in altitude that would not
>> have been justified by rational pilot decisions. He was without a
>> visible horizon and without the skills to fly without one.
>
> So is everyone who flies VFR over the top or on a moonless night. Are all
> those pilots irrational as well? Perhaps, but if that's the case Kennedy
> was no more or less irrational than thousands of other pilots who put
> themselves into similar situations. That's my point.

"Clearly he was a victim of spatial disorientation, which certainly can
happen at night, but that particular night he had at least some
moonlight." Your comment from a previous post, Mike.

[Mike]

"Gezellig" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:54:44 GMT, Mike wrote:
>
>> "Gezellig" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:45:00 GMT, Mike wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> I've flown with plenty of 300 hour pilots who don't multitask well
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> some
>>>>>> of them had their instrument and commercial. I didn't multitask well
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> 300
>>>>>> hours. That's something you pick up with experience.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've flown with many that have picked up MT skills well under 300.
>>>>> It's
>>>>> not a black-white consideration.
>>>>
>>>> Some do, but it's certainly not out of line that he didn't. As far as
>>>> his
>>>> decision making goes, the actual conditions turned out worse than
>>>> anyone
>>>> had
>>>> forecast. Flying at night can always turn into a hazardous situation,
>>>> but
>>>> Kennedy had flown a considerable amount of time with an instructor at
>>>> night,
>>>> and he was working on his instrument ticket. So he was genuinely
>>>> interested
>>>> in improving his flying skills and there's nothing to indicate he made
>>>> any
>>>> bad decisions.
>>>
>>> If you mean before he spun, I would heavily disagree.
>>>
>>>> My guess is he probably attempted too steep of a turn and
>>>> had no idea he was in any danger of spacial disorientation because he
>>>> didn't
>>>> recognize that he was in instrument conditions. Unfortunately it's a
>>>> common
>>>> mistake for low time pilots and lots of them kill themselves that way.
>>>
>>> This is your neck of the woods, if he had called you up, would you have
>>> said "Go"?
>>
>> I never tell anyone if they should go or not. That's their own decision
>> to
>> make.
>>
>> 20% of fatal GA accidents are at night even though night flights make up
>> only 5% of the GA traffic. Of those fatal accidents, the most common is
>> exactly the situation that Kennedy found himself. So it wasn't as if
>> Kennedy was in an easy situation and did something monumentally stupid.
>
> The chain of mistakes he made was at least a small monument to
> stupidity, imo.

No more so than the dozens of people who manage to kill themselves the same
way each year. To simply dismiss Kennedy as stupid and unskilled negates
any educational value which can be derived from the accident. Personally I
prefer to learn from the mistakes of others.

[Mike]

"Gezellig" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 19:24:22 GMT, Mike wrote:
>
>>>> His aircraft was having intermittent problems with its autopilot. He
>>>> may
>>>> have been preoccupied with it.
>>>>
>>>> Personally I like to stay as high as I can, as long as I can. This
>>>> would
>>>> be
>>>> especially true over water. Making a 1000 fpm descent is preferable to
>>>> descending too soon and needing that extra altitude at some point.
>>>
>>> I don't remember reading about the a/p problems. But your notion of
>>> too steep a turn planned by the pilot seems to be refuted by the
>>> airplane heading and airport location. There is little doubt he did
>>> enter too steep a turn but the narrative suggests several turns in
>>> different directions as well as variations in altitude that would not
>>> have been justified by rational pilot decisions. He was without a
>>> visible horizon and without the skills to fly without one.
>>
>> So is everyone who flies VFR over the top or on a moonless night. Are
>> all
>> those pilots irrational as well? Perhaps, but if that's the case Kennedy
>> was no more or less irrational than thousands of other pilots who put
>> themselves into similar situations. That's my point.
>
> "Clearly he was a victim of spatial disorientation, which certainly can
> happen at night, but that particular night he had at least some
> moonlight." Your comment from a previous post, Mike.

And I still stand by it. What's your point?

[Mxsmanic]

Mike writes:

> To simply dismiss Kennedy as stupid and unskilled negates
> any educational value which can be derived from the accident.

Other sources I've read indicate that he wasn't very skilled or intelligent
and had a tendency to be careless.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

"Mxsmanic" >
> Other sources I've read indicate that he wasn't very skilled or
> intelligent
> and had a tendency to be careless.

At least he was actually a pilot and flew real airplanes, which is a few
orders of magnitude more than you've ever done.

[a[_3_]]

On Oct 8, 11:14*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Mike writes:
> > To simply dismiss Kennedy as stupid and unskilled negates
> > any educational value which can be derived from the accident.
>
> Other sources I've read indicate that he wasn't very skilled or intelligent
> and had a tendency to be careless.

Would you care to offer a reference for your comment regarding Jfk
Jr's intelligence? I had reason to look into this crash and pilot and
found ample evidence regarding bad judgment and risk taking but no
references regarding intelligence (as the word is commonly understood
-- distortions of its meaning are not welcome.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Mike writes:
>
>> To simply dismiss Kennedy as stupid and unskilled negates
>> any educational value which can be derived from the accident.
>
> Other sources I've read indicate that he wasn't very skilled or
> intelligent and had a tendency to be careless.
>

You're a fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Gezellig]

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 23:05:13 GMT, Mike wrote:

>>> I never tell anyone if they should go or not. That's their own decision
>>> to
>>> make.
>>>
>>> 20% of fatal GA accidents are at night even though night flights make up
>>> only 5% of the GA traffic. Of those fatal accidents, the most common is
>>> exactly the situation that Kennedy found himself. So it wasn't as if
>>> Kennedy was in an easy situation and did something monumentally stupid.
>>
>> The chain of mistakes he made was at least a small monument to
>> stupidity, imo.
>
> No more so than the dozens of people who manage to kill themselves the same
> way each year. To simply dismiss Kennedy as stupid and unskilled negates
> any educational value which can be derived from the accident. Personally I
> prefer to learn from the mistakes of others.

To claim that stupidity is rampant doesn't dilute Kennedy's chain of
stupid mistakes. I dismissed nothing, I made an opine which was clear.

Is it not educational to learn when someone made a slew of stupid
mistakes?

[Gezellig]

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 21:17:35 -0700 (PDT), a wrote:

> I had reason to look into this crash and pilot and
> found ample evidence regarding bad judgment and risk taking but no
> references regarding intelligence (as the word is commonly understood
> -- distortions of its meaning are not welcome.

He was very intelligent, anyone who listened to him would have to admit
that. That he was a high riskroller was an oft reported "given" of his
personality. These are important parts of the lessons to be learned, to
twist them is to murky the learning to be had.

[Gezellig]

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 23:07:20 GMT, Mike wrote:

>>> So is everyone who flies VFR over the top or on a *moonless* night. Are
>>> all
>>> those pilots irrational as well? Perhaps, but if that's the case Kennedy
>>> was no more or less irrational than thousands of other pilots who put
>>> themselves into similar situations. That's my point.
>>
>> "Clearly he was a victim of spatial disorientation, which certainly can
>> happen at night, but that particular night he had at least some
>> *moonlight*." Your comment from a previous post, Mike.
>
> And I still stand by it. What's your point?

If it's not obvious, no sense in discussing it.

[Mike]

"Gezellig" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 23:05:13 GMT, Mike wrote:
>
>>>> I never tell anyone if they should go or not. That's their own
>>>> decision
>>>> to
>>>> make.
>>>>
>>>> 20% of fatal GA accidents are at night even though night flights make
>>>> up
>>>> only 5% of the GA traffic. Of those fatal accidents, the most common
>>>> is
>>>> exactly the situation that Kennedy found himself. So it wasn't as if
>>>> Kennedy was in an easy situation and did something monumentally stupid.
>>>
>>> The chain of mistakes he made was at least a small monument to
>>> stupidity, imo.
>>
>> No more so than the dozens of people who manage to kill themselves the
>> same
>> way each year. To simply dismiss Kennedy as stupid and unskilled negates
>> any educational value which can be derived from the accident. Personally
>> I
>> prefer to learn from the mistakes of others.
>
> To claim that stupidity is rampant doesn't dilute Kennedy's chain of
> stupid mistakes. I dismissed nothing, I made an opine which was clear.
>
> Is it not educational to learn when someone made a slew of stupid
> mistakes?

It is when you start thinking you are immune to stupidity.

[Mike]

"Gezellig" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 23:07:20 GMT, Mike wrote:
>
>>>> So is everyone who flies VFR over the top or on a *moonless* night.
>>>> Are
>>>> all
>>>> those pilots irrational as well? Perhaps, but if that's the case
>>>> Kennedy
>>>> was no more or less irrational than thousands of other pilots who put
>>>> themselves into similar situations. That's my point.
>>>
>>> "Clearly he was a victim of spatial disorientation, which certainly can
>>> happen at night, but that particular night he had at least some
>>> *moonlight*." Your comment from a previous post, Mike.
>>
>> And I still stand by it. What's your point?
>
> If it's not obvious, no sense in discussing it.

Your implication was that I wasn't being consistent, yet how you came to
that conclusion is anyone's guess. For all I know English is not your first
language and something was lost in translation. If you can't back up your
assertion, then so be it.

[Gezellig]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:27:25 GMT, Mike wrote:

>>> No more so than the dozens of people who manage to kill themselves the
>>> same
>>> way each year. To simply dismiss Kennedy as stupid and unskilled negates
>>> any educational value which can be derived from the accident. Personally
>>> I
>>> prefer to learn from the mistakes of others.
>>
>> To claim that stupidity is rampant doesn't dilute Kennedy's chain of
>> stupid mistakes. I dismissed nothing, I made an opine which was clear.
>>
>> Is it not educational to learn when someone made a slew of stupid
>> mistakes?
>
> It is when you start thinking you are immune to stupidity.

Ok, you can argue in circles, I'll sit by and watch you feint.

[Gezellig]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:30:26 GMT, Mike wrote:

> "Gezellig" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 23:07:20 GMT, Mike wrote:
>>
>>>>> So is everyone who flies VFR over the top or on a *moonless* night.
>>>>> Are
>>>>> all
>>>>> those pilots irrational as well? Perhaps, but if that's the case
>>>>> Kennedy
>>>>> was no more or less irrational than thousands of other pilots who put
>>>>> themselves into similar situations. That's my point.
>>>>
>>>> "Clearly he was a victim of spatial disorientation, which certainly can
>>>> happen at night, but that particular night he had at least some
>>>> *moonlight*." Your comment from a previous post, Mike.
>>>
>>> And I still stand by it. What's your point?
>>
>> If it's not obvious, no sense in discussing it.
>
> Your implication was that I wasn't being consistent, yet how you came to
> that conclusion is anyone's guess. For all I know English is not your first
> language and something was lost in translation. If you can't back up your
> assertion, then so be it.

heh

I apologize for having the temerity to suggest that your post was
inaccurate or your use of English was, well, shall we say sub-
optimal? I can see that no-one can tell you that you are wrong, but
it might be a good idea to see a clinical psychologist to discuss your
last suggestion and the emotions that gave rise to it.

You could have simply said that you are unable to grasp the concept of
comprehending context. Maybe if you if you read the entire post before
leaping to your baseless conclusion you'll have better luck.

If you insist on prompting your flawed perspective then I suggest that
you
go fornicate yourself with a broken bottle. HTH & HAND.
You have no point - you are a blitherer who brings up irrelevancies. I
dispose of them, not to convince a moron like you, but for the benefit
of others not intractably stupid like you. You, a compulsive imbecile,
have convincingly demonstrated that you will continue to bring up such
inanities repeatedly, even after they have been utterly shot down, just
as a dog will return to its vomit.

A lumbering, listing, weaving and bobbing idiot like a drunk lurching
and staggering slowly along the sidewalk from one lamppost to the next,
post after post, as you plow along, burping and belching, through a
swamp of sewage in order to drape your flabby self into a chair, reeking
tired beer fumes with every exhalation. It takes a special kind of
Usenet k00k-- a village drunkard of RAP -- to produce senseless posts
like this, and you seem to have cornered the market.

TO ALL:

Come and meet Mike, all-round pig-headed oaf.*With cabbages*as his
intellectual equals, he excels at spectacular*self-nukes, turning
himself into piles of radioactive dust with every post. You've probably
seen blind-drunk old men with two left feet and only one leg avoid fresh
pools of warm vomit on the footpath with more skill and finesse than
Mike has at avoiding the inevitable... yet another spectacular
self-nuke.

But wait, he will entertain you with a flurry of posts to the
Ulti-Troll, Mxmaniac, who sucks in the least brained and most
defenseless turning those, like Mike here, into Trick ****ing Ponies,
asses bared, Mxed screwed like the box-o-rocks idiots they are.

Off with you, Little Boy, I have a life and now that I have denigrated
yours in front of all of your buddy-wuddies, I can only hope, slightly
and not for more than a nanosecond, you don't stall, spin and crash in
real flight as you have hear in this thread.

[Mike]

"Gezellig" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:27:25 GMT, Mike wrote:
>
>>>> No more so than the dozens of people who manage to kill themselves the
>>>> same
>>>> way each year. To simply dismiss Kennedy as stupid and unskilled
>>>> negates
>>>> any educational value which can be derived from the accident.
>>>> Personally
>>>> I
>>>> prefer to learn from the mistakes of others.
>>>
>>> To claim that stupidity is rampant doesn't dilute Kennedy's chain of
>>> stupid mistakes. I dismissed nothing, I made an opine which was clear.
>>>
>>> Is it not educational to learn when someone made a slew of stupid
>>> mistakes?
>>
>> It is when you start thinking you are immune to stupidity.
>
> Ok, you can argue in circles, I'll sit by and watch you feint.

Hmm, well I don't think that one came out exactly as you intended, but I
doubt you have the literacy level to know why.

[Mike]

"Gezellig" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:30:26 GMT, Mike wrote:
>
>> "Gezellig" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 23:07:20 GMT, Mike wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> So is everyone who flies VFR over the top or on a *moonless* night.
>>>>>> Are
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> those pilots irrational as well? Perhaps, but if that's the case
>>>>>> Kennedy
>>>>>> was no more or less irrational than thousands of other pilots who put
>>>>>> themselves into similar situations. That's my point.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Clearly he was a victim of spatial disorientation, which certainly
>>>>> can
>>>>> happen at night, but that particular night he had at least some
>>>>> *moonlight*." Your comment from a previous post, Mike.
>>>>
>>>> And I still stand by it. What's your point?
>>>
>>> If it's not obvious, no sense in discussing it.
>>
>> Your implication was that I wasn't being consistent, yet how you came to
>> that conclusion is anyone's guess. For all I know English is not your
>> first
>> language and something was lost in translation. If you can't back up
>> your
>> assertion, then so be it.
>
> heh
>
> I apologize for having the temerity to suggest that your post was
> inaccurate or your use of English was, well, shall we say sub-
> optimal? I can see that no-one can tell you that you are wrong, but
> it might be a good idea to see a clinical psychologist to discuss your
> last suggestion and the emotions that gave rise to it.

You posted the following, and you have the nerve to make such implications?

Try looking in the mirror sometime, sonny. You might be surprised what
you'll find.

>
> You could have simply said that you are unable to grasp the concept of
> comprehending context. Maybe if you if you read the entire post before
> leaping to your baseless conclusion you'll have better luck.
>
> If you insist on prompting your flawed perspective then I suggest that
> you
> go fornicate yourself with a broken bottle. HTH & HAND.
> You have no point - you are a blitherer who brings up irrelevancies. I
> dispose of them, not to convince a moron like you, but for the benefit
> of others not intractably stupid like you. You, a compulsive imbecile,
> have convincingly demonstrated that you will continue to bring up such
> inanities repeatedly, even after they have been utterly shot down, just
> as a dog will return to its vomit.
>
> A lumbering, listing, weaving and bobbing idiot like a drunk lurching
> and staggering slowly along the sidewalk from one lamppost to the next,
> post after post, as you plow along, burping and belching, through a
> swamp of sewage in order to drape your flabby self into a chair, reeking
> tired beer fumes with every exhalation. It takes a special kind of
> Usenet k00k-- a village drunkard of RAP -- to produce senseless posts
> like this, and you seem to have cornered the market.
>
> TO ALL:
>
> Come and meet Mike, all-round pig-headed oaf. With cabbages as his
> intellectual equals, he excels at spectacular self-nukes, turning
> himself into piles of radioactive dust with every post. You've probably
> seen blind-drunk old men with two left feet and only one leg avoid fresh
> pools of warm vomit on the footpath with more skill and finesse than
> Mike has at avoiding the inevitable... yet another spectacular
> self-nuke.
>
> But wait, he will entertain you with a flurry of posts to the
> Ulti-Troll, Mxmaniac, who sucks in the least brained and most
> defenseless turning those, like Mike here, into Trick ****ing Ponies,
> asses bared, Mxed screwed like the box-o-rocks idiots they are.
>
> Off with you, Little Boy, I have a life and now that I have denigrated
> yours in front of all of your buddy-wuddies, I can only hope, slightly
> and not for more than a nanosecond, you don't stall, spin and crash in
> real flight as you have hear in this thread.

Ah, how cute. Gezellig found an automated giberish generator and now he
really thinks he's quite the wit. I must at least give him half credit in
that regard.

You're not, son. You're just another spew bag with nothing useful to offer
(other than entertainment).

In the end, the best you could do is try to make the case on how you are
better and smarter than everyone else and no such thing would ever happen to
you. If you want to think that, go ahead son. It's your funeral. Just
don't get so bent out of shape next time when someone points out how full of
$hit you are.

[Gezellig]

> heh
>
> I apologize for having the temerity to suggest that your post was
> inaccurate or your use of English was, well, shall we say sub-
> optimal? I can see that no-one can tell you that you are wrong, but
> it might be a good idea to see a clinical psychologist to discuss your
> last suggestion and the emotions that gave rise to it.

> You could have simply said that you are unable to grasp the concept of
> comprehending context. Maybe if you if you read the entire post before
> leaping to your baseless conclusion you'll have better luck.
>
> If you insist on prompting your flawed perspective then I suggest that
> you
> go fornicate yourself with a broken bottle. HTH & HAND.
> You have no point - you are a blitherer who brings up irrelevancies. I
> dispose of them, not to convince a moron like you, but for the benefit
> of others not intractably stupid like you. You, a compulsive imbecile,
> have convincingly demonstrated that you will continue to bring up such
> inanities repeatedly, even after they have been utterly shot down, just
> as a dog will return to its vomit.
>
> A lumbering, listing, weaving and bobbing idiot like a drunk lurching
> and staggering slowly along the sidewalk from one lamppost to the next,
> post after post, as you plow along, burping and belching, through a
> swamp of sewage in order to drape your flabby self into a chair, reeking
> tired beer fumes with every exhalation. It takes a special kind of
> Usenet k00k-- a village drunkard of RAP -- to produce senseless posts
> like this, and you seem to have cornered the market.
>
> TO ALL:
>
> Come and meet Mike, all-round pig-headed oaf.*With cabbages*as his
> intellectual equals, he excels at spectacular*self-nukes, turning
> himself into piles of radioactive dust with every post. You've probably
> seen blind-drunk old men with two left feet and only one leg avoid fresh
> pools of warm vomit on the footpath with more skill and finesse than
> Mike has at avoiding the inevitable... yet another spectacular
> self-nuke.
>
> But wait, he will entertain you with a flurry of posts to the
> Ulti-Troll, Mxmaniac, who sucks in the least brained and most
> defenseless turning those, like Mike here, into Trick ****ing Ponies,
> asses bared, Mxed screwed like the box-o-rocks idiots they are.
>
> Off with you, Little Boy, I have a life and now that I have denigrated
> yours in front of all of your buddy-wuddies, I can only hope, slightly
> and not for more than a nanosecond, you don't stall, spin and crash in
> real flight as you have hear in this thread.


Mike quickly vomited before hitting the killfile

> You

*PLONK*

[Mike]

"Gezellig" > wrote in message
...
>
>> heh
>>
>> I apologize for having the temerity to suggest that your post was
>> inaccurate or your use of English was, well, shall we say sub-
>> optimal? I can see that no-one can tell you that you are wrong, but
>> it might be a good idea to see a clinical psychologist to discuss your
>> last suggestion and the emotions that gave rise to it.
>
>> You could have simply said that you are unable to grasp the concept of
>> comprehending context. Maybe if you if you read the entire post before
>> leaping to your baseless conclusion you'll have better luck.
>>
>> If you insist on prompting your flawed perspective then I suggest that
>> you
>> go fornicate yourself with a broken bottle. HTH & HAND.
>> You have no point - you are a blitherer who brings up irrelevancies. I
>> dispose of them, not to convince a moron like you, but for the benefit
>> of others not intractably stupid like you. You, a compulsive imbecile,
>> have convincingly demonstrated that you will continue to bring up such
>> inanities repeatedly, even after they have been utterly shot down, just
>> as a dog will return to its vomit.
>>
>> A lumbering, listing, weaving and bobbing idiot like a drunk lurching
>> and staggering slowly along the sidewalk from one lamppost to the next,
>> post after post, as you plow along, burping and belching, through a
>> swamp of sewage in order to drape your flabby self into a chair, reeking
>> tired beer fumes with every exhalation. It takes a special kind of
>> Usenet k00k-- a village drunkard of RAP -- to produce senseless posts
>> like this, and you seem to have cornered the market.
>>
>> TO ALL:
>>
>> Come and meet Mike, all-round pig-headed oaf. With cabbages as his
>> intellectual equals, he excels at spectacular self-nukes, turning
>> himself into piles of radioactive dust with every post. You've probably
>> seen blind-drunk old men with two left feet and only one leg avoid fresh
>> pools of warm vomit on the footpath with more skill and finesse than
>> Mike has at avoiding the inevitable... yet another spectacular
>> self-nuke.
>>
>> But wait, he will entertain you with a flurry of posts to the
>> Ulti-Troll, Mxmaniac, who sucks in the least brained and most
>> defenseless turning those, like Mike here, into Trick ****ing Ponies,
>> asses bared, Mxed screwed like the box-o-rocks idiots they are.
>>
>> Off with you, Little Boy, I have a life and now that I have denigrated
>> yours in front of all of your buddy-wuddies, I can only hope, slightly
>> and not for more than a nanosecond, you don't stall, spin and crash in
>> real flight as you have hear in this thread.
>
>
> Mike quickly vomited before hitting the killfile
>
>> You
>
> *PLONK*

Music to my ears.

[Tim Blite]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:47:14 GMT, Mike wrote:

> "Gezellig" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:30:26 GMT, Mike wrote:
>>
>>> "Gezellig" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 23:07:20 GMT, Mike wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> So is everyone who flies VFR over the top or on a *moonless* night.
>>>>>>> Are
>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>> those pilots irrational as well? Perhaps, but if that's the case
>>>>>>> Kennedy
>>>>>>> was no more or less irrational than thousands of other pilots who put
>>>>>>> themselves into similar situations. That's my point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Clearly he was a victim of spatial disorientation, which certainly
>>>>>> can
>>>>>> happen at night, but that particular night he had at least some
>>>>>> *moonlight*." Your comment from a previous post, Mike.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I still stand by it. What's your point?
>>>>
>>>> If it's not obvious, no sense in discussing it.
>>>
>>> Your implication was that I wasn't being consistent, yet how you came to
>>> that conclusion is anyone's guess. For all I know English is not your
>>> first
>>> language and something was lost in translation. If you can't back up
>>> your
>>> assertion, then so be it.
>>
>> heh
>>
>> I apologize for having the temerity to suggest that your post was
>> inaccurate or your use of English was, well, shall we say sub-
>> optimal? I can see that no-one can tell you that you are wrong, but
>> it might be a good idea to see a clinical psychologist to discuss your
>> last suggestion and the emotions that gave rise to it.
>
> You posted the following,

Stay down, Dickhead, for Crissakes STAY DOWN!!!!
--
Will in New Haven

[John M. Martin Jr.]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:02:59 GMT, Mike wrote:

> "Gezellig" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>> heh
>>>
>>> I apologize for having the temerity to suggest that your post was
>>> inaccurate or your use of English was, well, shall we say sub-
>>> optimal? I can see that no-one can tell you that you are wrong, but
>>> it might be a good idea to see a clinical psychologist to discuss your
>>> last suggestion and the emotions that gave rise to it.
>>
>>> You could have simply said that you are unable to grasp the concept of
>>> comprehending context. Maybe if you if you read the entire post before
>>> leaping to your baseless conclusion you'll have better luck.
>>>
>>> If you insist on prompting your flawed perspective then I suggest that
>>> you
>>> go fornicate yourself with a broken bottle. HTH & HAND.
>>> You have no point - you are a blitherer who brings up irrelevancies. I
>>> dispose of them, not to convince a moron like you, but for the benefit
>>> of others not intractably stupid like you. You, a compulsive imbecile,
>>> have convincingly demonstrated that you will continue to bring up such
>>> inanities repeatedly, even after they have been utterly shot down, just
>>> as a dog will return to its vomit.
>>>
>>> A lumbering, listing, weaving and bobbing idiot like a drunk lurching
>>> and staggering slowly along the sidewalk from one lamppost to the next,
>>> post after post, as you plow along, burping and belching, through a
>>> swamp of sewage in order to drape your flabby self into a chair, reeking
>>> tired beer fumes with every exhalation. It takes a special kind of
>>> Usenet k00k-- a village drunkard of RAP -- to produce senseless posts
>>> like this, and you seem to have cornered the market.
>>>
>>> TO ALL:
>>>
>>> Come and meet Mike, all-round pig-headed oaf. With cabbages as his
>>> intellectual equals, he excels at spectacular self-nukes, turning
>>> himself into piles of radioactive dust with every post. You've probably
>>> seen blind-drunk old men with two left feet and only one leg avoid fresh
>>> pools of warm vomit on the footpath with more skill and finesse than
>>> Mike has at avoiding the inevitable... yet another spectacular
>>> self-nuke.
>>>
>>> But wait, he will entertain you with a flurry of posts to the
>>> Ulti-Troll, Mxmaniac, who sucks in the least brained and most
>>> defenseless turning those, like Mike here, into Trick ****ing Ponies,
>>> asses bared, Mxed screwed like the box-o-rocks idiots they are.
>>>
>>> Off with you, Little Boy, I have a life and now that I have denigrated
>>> yours in front of all of your buddy-wuddies, I can only hope, slightly
>>> and not for more than a nanosecond, you don't stall, spin and crash in
>>> real flight as you have hear in this thread.
>>
>>
>> Mike quickly vomited before hitting the killfile
>>
>>> You
>>
>> *PLONK*
>
> Music to my ears.

D00d, you got sooooooo *OWNED*
--
I bought a $450,000 house for $720,000. Bright, huh?

[Mike]

"John M. Martin Jr." > wrote in message
...
>>> *PLONK*
>>
>> Music to my ears.
>
> D00d, you got sooooooo *OWNED*

Hmmm, by someone who chose to comment on something he knew little about and
couldn't handle it when someone called BS and responded with nonsense from
an auto giberish generator?

Oh yes, I am "sooooooo *OWNED*"

Just so you know, the opinions of someone who uses words like "D00d" are not
those I value highly, especially from someone who has contributed exactly
zip to any actual discussions regarding aviation.