Apology re mxsmanic

Mxsmanic wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin writes:

In fact, my estimation of what pilots knew was far greater both before
ground school and before I made my post and before I read the Barry
Schiff's book.

Pilots know about as much about aerodynamics as TV show directors know about
television engineering. They know what they need to know to fly in most
situations. Going beyond that is not necessary and is difficult for many
students. You need to know about flight and lift in detail to design
aircraft, but you don't need to know all the detail just to fly.



I'll notify the Naval Test Pilot School immediately. They'll need this
important revelation :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

On Feb 13, 2:40*pm, Nomen Nescio wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Le Chaud Lapin

I haven't communicated enough with Mxsmanic enough to judge him,
though I strongly disagree with his "action under wing only"
philosphy, if he still believes that.

Why don't you just look in the mirror and ask him?

Are you implying Le Chaud and Mxs are the same person? I find that
very hard to believe. Totally different attitude.
Terry

On Feb 12, 12:41*pm, AJ wrote:
Terry, welcome to the club! *Apology not necessary since you conducted
yourself as a gentleman while learning what everyone else here
learned, and in the same manner -- the hard way.

Next week we'll show you the secret handshake.

AJ

So, I have been participating for a little while now, when will I be
initiated?

Wil

Dudley Henriques writes:

I'll notify the Naval Test Pilot School immediately. They'll need this
important revelation :-)

They should already know.

terry writes:

Are you implying Le Chaud and Mxs are the same person? I find that
very hard to believe. Totally different attitude.

Many people simplify their perception of others by categorizing everyone as
"one of us" or "one of them." Since they may have trouble understanding
viewpoints other than their own, very often they confuse the identities of
those with whom they disagree (in the latter group) and assimilate them all
into a single sort of metaperson or bogeyman. It may also console them to
think that only one person is behind all the personalities with whom they
disagree, since the alternative would be to acknowledge that there are more
such people than they might like to believe.

On 12 Feb, 23:19, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Feb 11, 11:42*pm, terry wrote:

sometime ago I criticised *pilots on this group about the harsh way
they were treating one mxsmanic. *It seemed to me at the time to be a
bunch of egotistical pilots snubbing their nose at someone who was
genuinely interested in finding out about aviation, but didnt have the
wherewithall financially or intellectually to actually participate in
the real thing. *No matter what your profession is, it always seemed
to me that promoting that profession in a good light to others was
part of what being a professional is all about. It has always been my
approach. *I have now come to understand what a complete waste of time
trying to help this person is. I have never in all my life come across
an individual with an attitude like this. If any of you regulars
actually remember me for those comments, I unreservedly apologise.
Terry
PPL Downunder

I haven't communicated enough with Mxsmanic enough to judge him,
though I strongly disagree with his "action under wing only"
philosphy, if he still believes that.

In any case, your old point-of-view and your new point-of view are not
mutually-exclusive.

Whether Mxsmanic is a kook, I have still found a few of the regulars
in this group to be somewhat ogrish. *It's almost as if they feel that
having a pilot's license gives them the right to abuse those who do
not.

I posted an article a while back about backwash causing lift, because
I was genuinely interested in exploring the topic, and the explanation
given in my student handbook conflicted with basic Newtonian physics,
and tried to start a discussion, and the ad-hominen attacks were
almost immediate:

http://tinyurl.com/34tfeq

It was as if the pilots in this group were not ready to hear that what
they had learned for X years might be wrong, even though one
individual posted a link from NASA saying that at conventional wisdom
might be wrong. *I also did a bit of research myself and discovered
that there are *many* university researchers in aero/astro who do
*not* agree that theory of flight is a settled issue, contrary to what
some of the pilots in here were claiming. Also, a couple of famous
pilots who have written books also agreed that much of the
conventional wisdom is wrong. *The more I looked, the more I saw
disagreement in academia, while many people here were saying "it's
well-understood, leave it alone!" There were posters stepping in only
to say something rude, then leave. *I was a bit suprised to be
honest. *It completely changed my image of the pilot, though I guess
that's to be expected, since until starting flight school and coming
to this group, my only "experience" had been on the way to my seat,
passing a captain or FO who would smile by default to all passengers.
Of course, this group is not representative of the pilot community (or
is it?).

When you have so many esteemed institutions and individuals offering
alternative explanations, what's wrong with a bit of disucssion? It
can't hurt...and even if what's put forth turns out the be wrong, the
person who is wrong might learn something. There also might be lurkers
who learn from reading the posts.

I guess the most important thing that I learned is that a pilot's
group might not the best place on USENET to broach taboo subjects on
the theory of flight.

Whatever the reason planes fly, there is no excuse for being rude if
the person you are being rude toward has not been rude to you, IMO.
There is always the option to simply ignore the person whom you don't
agree with.

-Le Chaud Lapin-
[student pilot, very much interested in theory of flight]

No, you aren't. You are an Anthony clone intersted in the smae things
he is.



Bertie the Ogre

On 13 Feb, 15:07, Mxsmanic wrote:
terry writes:
Are you implying Le Chaud and Mxs are the same person? *I find that
very hard to believe. *Totally different attitude.

Many people simplify their perception of others by categorizing everyone as
"one of us" or "one of them." *

What, like you do with your "tree house club"

I couldn't care less if the guy has a licence or not. Just ask the FO
I just had.



Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote:
Dudley Henriques writes:

I'll notify the Naval Test Pilot School immediately. They'll need this
important revelation :-)

They should already know.


Trust me, the Naval Test Pilot School knows all it needs to know and so
do I.

--
Dudley Henriques

On Feb 14, 3:34*am, Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:
On 13 Feb, 15:07, Mxsmanic wrote:

terry writes:
Are you implying Le Chaud and Mxs are the same person? *I find that
very hard to believe. *Totally different attitude.

Many people simplify their perception of others by categorizing everyone as
"one of us" or "one of them." *

What, like you do with your "tree house club"

I couldn't care less if the guy has a licence or not. Just ask the FO
I just had.

Whaaaaaat? you had an FO without a license? Geez, I got pulled up
in the run up area by a CFI and asked to shut down immediately and
vacate the aircraft - cos I didnt have my piece of paper physically on
me. He knew I had a license but the rules say you have to have it with
you in the aircraft, and of course you are less likely to crash if
you have it wtih you .

On Feb 14, 6:09*am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Dudley Henriques writes:

I'll notify the Naval Test Pilot School immediately. They'll need this
important revelation :-)

They should already know.

Trust me, the Naval Test Pilot School knows all it needs to know and so
do I.

Then how come they dont know they should be driving boats , not
planes :)
Terry