Glaze Ice

Mxsmanic wrote:
Sam Spade writes:


How many times have you operated jet transports into a place like
Chicago O'Hare (KORD) when ATC has you slowed down to 160 knots and
number 20 in line for the approach in light to moderate icing conditions?


I stay away from parts of the U.S. that have Siberian weather patterns. And I
avoid flying on commercial flights in poor weather, because I know that
airlines push the envelope.


Heavy icing conditions are quite unusual except during freezing rain or
sleet. No air carrier is allowed to operate in or out of an airport
reporting heaving freezing rain. Of course you knew that.


Yup. Then again, sometimes you find out about freezing rain by flying through
it.

How many encounters have you had with freezing rain?

Plenty, but it's never been heavy, which was not allowed. And, if it
was icing up the runway we went somewhere else. Often though, you would
fly out of it prior to the airport.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Sam Spade writes:


He was working in an environment with seasoned test pilots and had
access to controlled icing experiments. He wasn't pulling his
observations out of his backside.


But he and I agree. So I cannot be wrong if he is right.

You're missing the point. You have no experience flying a real
airplane, not even student pilot pre-solo training. So, you can't
possibly know about the variables of serious instrument flying, which
has one set of skill requirements and operating limitations for light
aircraft IFR, and a different but related skill set and operating
limitations for flying transport jet aircraft. And, you don't have a
support system of highly trained and experienced test pilots; which
wouldn't do you any good in any case.

The gentleman to which you refer had a full team of technical experts
and equipment for testing and experimentation. And, he brought
considerable academic credentials to the table. I am sure he would be
thrilled to learn that you agree with him, for he could rest knowing
that the world's greatest PC pilot has validated his work.

Sam..

Do you remember that guys name?
I would like to find that article again...

Dave



On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 01:41:49 -0800, Sam Spade
wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Dave writes:


HOW he got his information, is not relevent... I learned, (was
taught) BEFORE I became a licenced pilot. One does not HAVE to be a
pilot and be lucky enough to "escape" icing to be knowledgable about
it. The NASA engineer who wrote that very comprensive paper about
icing was not a pilot either, but he has probably forgotten more about
it than most "pilots" will ever know.


Yes. Some of the stuff from NASA is extremely interesting.

He was working in an environment with seasoned test pilots and had
access to controlled icing experiments. He wasn't pulling his
observations out of his backside.

Sam Spade writes:

Mxsmanic wrote:
Sam Spade writes:


He was working in an environment with seasoned test pilots and had
access to controlled icing experiments. He wasn't pulling his
observations out of his backside.


But he and I agree. So I cannot be wrong if he is right.

You're missing the point. You have no experience flying a real
airplane, not even student pilot pre-solo training.

As I've just said, since I agree with him, I cannot be wrong if he is right.
Either we are both wrong (unlikely given his research and experience), or we
are both right (much more probable).

It doesn't matter what experience I have with a real airplane. I got my
knowledge from him. He is a much more reliable source than you are. And the
information in question is unrelated to real flying experience, anyway. Pilots
can fly a real airplane for decades without ever understanding how icing works
.... until they get stuck in it, and then it's too late.

So, you can't possibly know about the variables of serious instrument
flying ...

You're wasting a lot of time concentrating on the poster rather than the post.
What I say is either right or wrong. In this case, since I merely echo what
all the experts say, inevitably I am right. Quarreling with me simply because
you cannot separate your personal animosity towards me from objective reality
is counterproductive and immature. The facts remain the same. Icing is bad.

I am sure he would be
thrilled to learn that you agree with him, for he could rest knowing
that the world's greatest PC pilot has validated his work.

I suspect that he might not have his judgement clouded by the same
preoccupation with personality that appears to be afflicting you.

I'm tired of accommodating your issues. Unless you are willing to discuss only
the topic of the thread, rather than me, my interaction with you has ended.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Sam Spade writes:


Mxsmanic wrote:

Sam Spade writes:



He was working in an environment with seasoned test pilots and had
access to controlled icing experiments. He wasn't pulling his
observations out of his backside.


But he and I agree. So I cannot be wrong if he is right.

You're missing the point. You have no experience flying a real
airplane, not even student pilot pre-solo training.


As I've just said, since I agree with him, I cannot be wrong if he is right.
Either we are both wrong (unlikely given his research and experience), or we
are both right (much more probable).

It doesn't matter what experience I have with a real airplane. I got my
knowledge from him. He is a much more reliable source than you are. And the
information in question is unrelated to real flying experience, anyway. Pilots
can fly a real airplane for decades without ever understanding how icing works
... until they get stuck in it, and then it's too late.


So, you can't possibly know about the variables of serious instrument
flying ...


You're wasting a lot of time concentrating on the poster rather than the post.
What I say is either right or wrong. In this case, since I merely echo what
all the experts say, inevitably I am right. Quarreling with me simply because
you cannot separate your personal animosity towards me from objective reality
is counterproductive and immature. The facts remain the same. Icing is bad.


I am sure he would be
thrilled to learn that you agree with him, for he could rest knowing
that the world's greatest PC pilot has validated his work.


I suspect that he might not have his judgement clouded by the same
preoccupation with personality that appears to be afflicting you.

I'm tired of accommodating your issues. Unless you are willing to discuss only
the topic of the thread, rather than me, my interaction with you has ended.

Your personality IS the issue. You are so full of ****.

Dave wrote:

Sam..

Do you remember that guys name?
I would like to find that article again...

Dave



On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 01:41:49 -0800, Sam Spade

I have view the NASA tail plane film but not read the author's work.
That is Maniac's claim.

On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:05:03 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

Jim Logajan writes:

All the information you need to answer that trivially simple question is
already available.

If it's trivially simple, you can answer it in fewer words than it took to
avoid answering.

Trolls Are Attracted To Idiots; Idiots Respond to Trolls