If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#291
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
Wingnut writes:
does not say anything like that; it only says she has a commercial pilot's license, with no further detail. Since that is the post that we are debating here, as far as I am concerned everyone bringing up Cessnas is pulling them directly out of their ass. Patti DeLuna herself indicated that she only had about 300 hours of experience, and has only flown small Cessna aircraft (specifically, a Cessna 210). Our givens are solely that she has a commercial pilot's license and was able to successfully assume the copilot's role during the landing of a jumbo jet. She did not "assume the copilot's role," an assertion that many first officers might resent. She merely sat in the copilot's seat and followed the pilot's instructions. ... as part of your efforts, in partnership with Mxsmanic, to denigrate me. Nobody is in partnership with me. Assuming facts not in evidence is, of course, an illicit debating move. Looking things up, on the other hand, is pretty effective. This claim *might* have been more credible had it come from someone who could spell "certified" correctly. "Certificate" is a real word. It is slightly different in meaning from "certify." To certify means to attest to something. To certificate means to issue a certification. However, the FAA and others use certificate mainly because it contains more syllables and therefore sounds more important. In the meantime, the important matter here is not the absolute number but the percentage, about which no claim has yet been made by you. The majority of commercial pilots fly little planes. Remember that airline pilots generally hold airline transport pilot certifications, which are not the same as commercial licenses. Personal anecdotes are a notoriously poor substitute for actual evidence. But research goes a long way, and so does an understanding of how the FAA certifies pilots. Yes, your opinion of me is unfortunately quite clear to all, as is the fact that you're the type of person to air such opinions, about people who have done nothing offensive to you to provoke you, in public. You should grow like an onion with your head in the ground. Why not discuss the topic, instead of other people? |
#292
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
Stephen! writes:
Hmmm... In over 850 landings, I honestly can't remember ever referring to the altimeter while landing. On approach in the soup? Of course... but never during a visual approach. That's what the windows are for... I check the radio altimeter occasionally during instrument landings, and more often if the weather is IMC. |
#293
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:27:33 +0200, Mxsmanic spent about fifty paragraphs
to call me a liar over and over again without actually engaging in productive debate. I therefore didn't bother to quote any of it, except for his parting shot, which I shall address momentarily. Suffice it to say that I am growing weary of these unprovoked attacks from Mxsmanic and Dudley Henriques. I did nothing to provoke these relentless and unpleasant criticisms; all I did was say this: Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience would have become quite relevant indeed. Nothing any SANE person would respond to with the hostility and sheer TENACITY exhibited by Mxsmanic, in particular. I further observe that Mxsmanic seems to have a large number of detractors, all sharing the same general opinion: Mxsmanic is a self- styled know-it-all that actually knows nothing. Presumably, putting others down while making inflated claims about his own expertise is his primary means of ego tripping. Sad, if true. Why not discuss the topic, instead of other people? A very good question. Why not, Mxsmanic? In the last two weeks you have spent post after post, dozens of them in all, being subtly hostile and insulting towards me without apparent provocation. I made a simple statement that should have been uncontroversial and you attacked it. I responded in my own defense and you attacked that, and so on. Then your "legions of admiring fans" showed up to flame you for your silliness, and even then I remained the primary focus of your attention. You have replied to a handful of the others' posts but to nearly every single one of mine. Clearly you have a problem of some sort with me. I doubt it's the simple fact that I disagree with you about something. Perhaps it's that I dare to CONTINUE to disagree with you even after you've made it clear that we disagree, instead of instantly confessing to having been stupid and swearing to always believe whatever you say in the future? Actually, what would genuinely be stupid of me would be to give in to that sort of intellectual bullying and start believing blindly in the first thing anyone told me to believe "or else". In fact, your behaviorally-implied "start agreeing with me or I'll flame you and flame you and flame without end" amounts to an illegitimate, logically-void argument from force. The only problem is, it seems we have you outnumbered. You have what, one ally here? And at least half a dozen enemies, including one new one -- me. Probably one more enemy than you could afford to make. You messed up big time deciding to pick a fight with me on Fri, 18 Jun 2010 19:51:12 +0200. That timestamp shall someday be indelibly burned in your memory, when all is said and done; you will rue that day, hour, minute, and second perhaps for the rest of your life. Well, unless I decide to have mercy on your poor, misguided, silly little soul. Of course, I can't vouch for your half a dozen OTHER enemies, who you probably ****ed off in much the same way as you got my back up, by popping up out of nowhere one day to keep not merely disagreeing with some particular random, innocuous statement they'd made but including repeated suggestions of stupidity, incompetence, or dishonesty on their parts, conveyed with a condescending tone, while not actually knowing what you're talking about. Perhaps you should ask them for forgiveness. Oh, and stop verbally attacking me or anybody else. |
#294
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
On Jun 29, 3:27*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Wingnut writes: does not say anything like that; it only says she has a commercial pilot's license, with no further detail. Since that is the post that we are debating here, as far as I am concerned everyone bringing up Cessnas is pulling them directly out of their ass. Patti DeLuna herself indicated that she only had about 300 hours of experience, and has only flown small Cessna aircraft (specifically, a Cessna 210). Our givens are solely that she has a commercial pilot's license and was able to successfully assume the copilot's role during the landing of a jumbo jet. She did not "assume the copilot's role," an assertion that many first officers might resent. She merely sat in the copilot's seat and followed the pilot's instructions. ... as part of your efforts, in partnership with Mxsmanic, to denigrate me. Nobody is in partnership with me. Assuming facts not in evidence is, of course, an illicit debating move. Looking things up, on the other hand, is pretty effective. This claim *might* have been more credible had it come from someone who could spell "certified" correctly. "Certificate" is a real word. It is slightly different in meaning from "certify." To certify means to attest to something. To certificate means to issue a certification. However, the FAA and others use certificate mainly because it contains more syllables and therefore sounds more important. In the meantime, the important matter here is not the absolute number but the percentage, about which no claim has yet been made by you. The majority of commercial pilots fly little planes. Remember that airline pilots generally hold airline transport pilot certifications, which are not the same as commercial licenses. Personal anecdotes are a notoriously poor substitute for actual evidence. But research goes a long way, and so does an understanding of how the FAA certifies pilots. Yes, your opinion of me is unfortunately quite clear to all, as is the fact that you're the type of person to air such opinions, about people who have done nothing offensive to you to provoke you, in public. You should grow like an onion with your head in the ground. Why not discuss the topic, instead of other people? As a matter of minor interest, there's an interesting logic trap in play here. I think it is safe to say all holders of the airline transport rating also hold commercial certificates at least in the US. |
#295
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
a writes:
As a matter of minor interest, there's an interesting logic trap in play here. I think it is safe to say all holders of the airline transport rating also hold commercial certificates at least in the US. Since the commercial certificate is subsumed in the ATP, your assertion is universally true. The FAA issues several types of certificates, and each type main include multiple ratings. The pilot certificate types are as follows: Student Sport Recreational Private Commercial Airline Transport Pilot (There are many other non-pilot certificates, such as mechanic and dispatcher.) For each certificate type, you can hold several ratings. Examples of ratings include: ASEL - Land airplane single-engine AMEL - Land airplane multi-engine INSTA - Instrument airplane GL - Glider HEL - Rotorcraft helicopter You can be a student pilot for gliders, for example, while being a commercial pilot for multi-engine airplanes. Some pilot certificates implicitly include the privileges of other certificates. For example, an ATP includes commercial and private privileges, and also includes an instrument rating (the only pilot certificate for which a separate instrument rating is not necessary). I don't know why the FAA has made it so complicated, but it has. |
#296
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
On Jun 29, 5:59*am, Wingnut wrote:
Suffice it to say that I am growing weary of these unprovoked attacks from Mxsmanic and Dudley Henriques. I did nothing to provoke these relentless and unpleasant criticisms. Dudley Henriques wrote; I have no opinion of you at all really. You simply come with Usenet. No problem at all. You have as much right to an opinion here as anyone here. :-)))))))) Dudley Henriques Interesting logic trail you have going here. I admit I'm a bit puzzled to discover exactly where you are finding all these "relentless and unpleasant criticisms". If you mean to imply that I am in disagreement with your position or your argument, you would be correct. I do believe however that I have gone out of my way to accompany my dissent with a tempered approach..........sort of as I'm continuing to do now :-)))))))))) Dudley Henriques |
#297
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
Ari Silverstein wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 05:22:25 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote: On Jun 19, 6:40*am, Ari Silverstein wrote: On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:11:10 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote: All this is just a fancy way of saying that prior experience in a Cessna 150 might not matter in a 767 being landed by a newbie following detailed instruction. Like Atta? Tell Dekker and Hilliard that. lol -- A fireside chat not with Ari!http://tr.im/holj Motto: Live To Spooge It! I fail to see your point. Brush up on your 9/11 history. Ata and his fellow terrorists trained specifically in full motion simulators designed to duplicate the exact type of aircraft they took over and flew. There were no landings involved in their actions. Tell Dekker and Hilliard that. Then wait for the laugh. Hopsicker keeps posting observations about Huffman. He has deja vu with Mena. http://www.madcowprod.com/ |
#298
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
On Jun 29, 2:28*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Stephen! writes: Hmmm... *In over 850 landings, I honestly can't remember ever referring to the altimeter while landing. *On approach in the soup? *Of course... * but never during a visual approach. *That's what the windows are for.... I check the radio altimeter occasionally during instrument landings, and more often if the weather is IMC. Lets be REAL CLEAR about what you do. You are using MSFS, which is not comparable to what Stephen does. YOU ARE NOT IN IMC, you are simulating IMC in front of a desktop computer, which DOES NOT compare to what Stephen does. |
#299
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 04:34:36 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
wrote:\ On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:13:28 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote: Secondly, there are literally thousands of pilots certificated as commercial pilots in the United States who have never flown anything more complicated than a light complex. This claim *might* have been more credible had it come from someone who could spell "certified" correctly. From dictionary.com: certificate Main Entry: cer·tif·i·cate Pronunciation: \-?ti-f?-?ka-t\ Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): cer·tif·i·cat·ed; cer·tif·i·cat·ing Date: 1818: to testify to or authorize by a certificate; especially : certify It's a good idea to look things up before assuming they're wrong and especially before claiming they're wrong in public. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#300
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
On Jun 26, 8:35*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
It takes a lot more than basics to fly a 747. *In a Cessna 152, there isn't much else beyond the basics, but in a large commercial airliner, almost everything is beyond the basics. George is right and YOU are WRONG. WRONG AND SO WRONG. YOU really are CLUELESS about flying an airplane. Tell this to Sully AND CREW who's glider rating got him to FLY and LAND a large commercial airliner into the Hudson...... If my memory serves me correct the skies had a very loaded down glider in the flavor of a 747 going through volcanic ash before they got their engines restarted. Tell me, what kept that plane flying besides the basic rules of flight????? LET ME GUESS, YOU WON'T answer. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pilot nearly crashes in IMC, Controller helps | pimenthal | Piloting | 32 | September 27th 05 01:06 PM |
Aviation Conspiracy: Toronto Plane Pilot Was Allowed To Land In "Red Alert" Weather | Bill Mulcahy | General Aviation | 24 | August 19th 05 10:48 PM |
2 pilot/small airplane CRM | Mitty | Instrument Flight Rules | 35 | September 1st 04 11:19 PM |
non-pilot lands airplane | Cub Driver | Piloting | 3 | August 14th 04 12:08 AM |
Home Builders are Sick Sick Puppies | pacplyer | Home Built | 11 | March 26th 04 12:39 AM |