Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:07:50 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:
ever seen a plane crash where every single person died except two
people lived?

the two people were married.

Oh, no.

It's happened.

Somebody's birthed a horrible mutation.

The self-feeding troll.

Usenet is now officially doomed.

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 11:01:22 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Lord, you'll NEVER know how I absolutely HATE to chime in on this thread
again. 235 postings back and forth, everybody shouting at everybody else
with the same old tired song. Man, I mean you guys might actually be
going for a Usenet record here :-))))))))))))))))

If so, we have a loooong way to go.

Here's one of the middling-length *ahem* "discussions" I've seen on
Usenet:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....browse_thread/
thread/ce27f65ea7256d97

"Messages 1 - 25 of 5277" should be your first hint of how far we still
have to go here. :-)

If you browse that thread, you'll see it all: flames of all kinds, from
horrible sex-related accusations to the usual assortment of epithets
("idiot", "retard", "nutcase", etc.) and swear words; star ratings on
Google Groups that show clear signs of heavy voting by multiple
participants on each side (e.g. 3-star ratings with 9 or 10 voters --
nobody actually votes three stars and hardly anyone votes anything but
one or five); the same points being reiterated hundreds of times.

It's a vi/emacs editor war of course, via topic drift about thirty posts
in. Abortion and gun control can't hold a candle to which editor is best
when measured by how much passionate debate they can generate in a single
usenet thread. The twist, if you'll pardon the pun, is that there's a
third side in this editor war advocating Windows GUI editors over both
traditional Unix editors, for some reason unfathomable to the computer
geek mind.

Me? I use vi. And I mostly stay out of editor war threads, though
sometimes I lurk in them. This one bored me by about the 300th post, but
eventually I got mildly interested again when I kept seeing it bumped to
the top of my newsreader even after much of a whole year had passed.

It actually has MORE than the listed 5277 posts: by mutual agreement the
participants stopped cluttering up cljp with this crap and moved the
discussion over to alt.offtopic. Google's archive for that group is
*dominated* by the results, another several thousand posts spread among a
couple of dozen threads mostly titled "Lies, damn lies and statistics".
Subsequently, it seems to have petered out gradually, terminating this
January.

Yes, that makes it a single editor war that lasted almost two and a half
full years and consists of around 8000 individual posts, some of them
quite long.

(For those that are curious, the last words were "I wouldn't know. I've
never tried it. Why the wild tangent? Picking up some more bad habits
from Bent?" posted by someone calling himself "Handkea fumosa", which
Google tells me is some kind of puffball fungus that grows in California.
It was a comeback in response to "How does it feel sticking your head
into the sand?" posted by a vi advocate that was there from the very
start in August 2007. But the insult exchange that ended the debate
apparently arose from discussion not of vi but of emacs.)

So to beat that, we'd have to debate the relative merits of Microsoft
Flight Simulator vs. *real* aeronautical training until Mayan doomsday
(literally) and destroy several whole newsgroups.

And I've seen *worse*, elsewhere on Usenet. More than once. The most
recent actually-worse one was in alt.conspiracy and involved 9/11
"truthers" vs. their debunkers. It exceeded 10,000 posts. Rumors exist of
flamewars exceeding 20,000 posts, however.

Wingnut writes:

And there goes the Cessna strawman again. When, exactly, did the subject
morph from being a commercial pilot to being a private pilot, by the way?

Commercial pilots fly Cessnas all the time, including the small ones.

The only difference between a private pilot and a commercial pilot is that the
commercial pilot can fly for hire. Apparently there is some widespread
misconception that all commercial pilots are flying airliners, but that is not
at all the case.

On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 12:21:10 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

Wingnut writes:

And there goes the Cessna strawman again. When, exactly, did the
subject morph from being a commercial pilot to being a private pilot,
by the way?

Commercial pilots fly Cessnas all the time, including the small ones.

Nobody said they don't; just that their experience tends to be broader
than *just* Cessnas.

Wingnut writes:

Nobody said they don't; just that their experience tends to be broader
than *just* Cessnas.

That can be said of private pilots as well.

On Jun 28, 7:44*am, Wingnut wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 12:21:10 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
Wingnut writes:

And there goes the Cessna strawman again. When, exactly, did the
subject morph from being a commercial pilot to being a private pilot,
by the way?

Commercial pilots fly Cessnas all the time, including the small ones.

Nobody said they don't; just that their experience tends to be broader
than *just* Cessnas.

Well, a commercial certificate means the holder has demonstrated a
different level of piloting proficiency, passed a different written
and is required to hold a different physical certificate. Not that
private pilots can't be as proficient, but they are not required to
be. Most would agree the instrument rating is more difficult to get
than the commercial license, so long as the pilot can pass the
physical. I needed a waiver for the physical (vision).

My airplane is a business (ie point to point travel) tool, I simply
don't need more than a private pilot certificate since neither the
ariplane nor I are for hire.


Cessna strawmen and annoying pilots are MX's strong points. It's been
pretty clear for a long time he doesn't have much of a real life,
spends lots of time in sim and offering his 'wisdom' here.

On Jun 28, 5:21*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
. Apparently there is some widespread
misconception that all commercial pilots are flying airliners, but that is not
at all the case.

NO, IT's YOUR MISCONCEPTION.

The real world knows the difference between commercial pilot and ATP.

On Jun 28, 5:39*am, Wingnut wrote:


And there goes the Cessna strawman again. When, exactly, did the subject
morph from being a commercial pilot to being a private pilot, by the way?

Don't know why all the fuss about "Cessna
strawmen". :-)))))))))))))))))

First of all, the lady in question herself during a televised news
interview said quite plainly that her "commercial experience" was
limited to light aircraft and Cessna was mentioned. 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.
I personally know many of these pilots myself. One is a commercial ag
operator who has been dusting crops for 30 years and has never flown
anything heavier than a 182 Cessna. He makes a good living flying a
Pawnee. I know another who runs a banner towing business and flies
Citabrias. MANY I know are CFI's in light aircraft holding commercial
ratings.
You can add to this literally thousands of pilots in the United States
who own light aircraft, many not even complex aircraft, who have
obtained commercials simply for the added education involved.
The lady said she had a commercial and said her experience was limited
to light aircraft. I find absolutely nothing inconsistent with her
comment whatsoever. The inference by ANYONE that her having a
commercial rating indicates she has had experience in heavier aircraft
than those she mentioned is totally flawed in my opinion.
Dudley Henriques

On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:13:28 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:

On Jun 28, 5:39Â*am, Wingnut wrote:


And there goes the Cessna strawman again. When, exactly, did the
subject morph from being a commercial pilot to being a private pilot,
by the way?

Don't know why all the fuss about "Cessna strawmen". :-)))))))))))))))))

First of all, the lady in question herself during a televised news
interview said quite plainly that her "commercial experience" was
limited to light aircraft and Cessna was mentioned.

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.

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. Assuming anything beyond that, either negative or positive,
seems unwarranted. This "televised news interview" has not been entered
into evidence, unlike the content of the original post
, so you are assuming facts not in evidence
as part of your efforts, in partnership with Mxsmanic, to denigrate me.
Assuming facts not in evidence is, of course, an illicit debating move.

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. 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.

I personally know many of these pilots myself.

Personal anecdotes are a notoriously poor substitute for actual evidence.
Small, uncontrolled, biased samples are the bane of every statistician.

One is a commercial ag operator who has been dusting crops for 30 years
and has never flown anything heavier than a 182 Cessna.

Aside from the time he flew an FA-18 straight up into the nozzle of an
alien superweapon, of course.

Sorry, fictional characters make particularly poor evidence. :-)

totally flawed in my opinion. Dudley Henriques

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.

On Jun 29, 12:34*am, Wingnut wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:13:28 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:
On Jun 28, 5:39*am, Wingnut wrote:

And there goes the Cessna strawman again. When, exactly, did the
subject morph from being a commercial pilot to being a private pilot,
by the way?

Don't know why all the fuss about "Cessna strawmen". :-)))))))))))))))))

First of all, the lady in question herself during a televised news
interview said quite plainly that her "commercial experience" was
limited to light aircraft and Cessna was mentioned.

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.

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. Assuming anything beyond that, either negative or positive,
seems unwarranted. This "televised news interview" has not been entered
into evidence, unlike the content of the original post
, so you are assuming facts not in evidence
as part of your efforts, in partnership with Mxsmanic, to denigrate me.
Assuming facts not in evidence is, of course, an illicit debating move.

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. 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.

I personally know many of these pilots myself.

Personal anecdotes are a notoriously poor substitute for actual evidence.
Small, uncontrolled, biased samples are the bane of every statistician.

One is a commercial ag operator who has been dusting crops for 30 years
and has never flown anything heavier than a 182 Cessna.

Aside from the time he flew an FA-18 straight up into the nozzle of an
alien superweapon, of course.

Sorry, fictional characters make particularly poor evidence. :-)

totally flawed in my opinion. Dudley Henriques

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.

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