How much fuel do you prefer to carry?

On Aug 9, 1:10*am, Nomen Nescio wrote:

You're an idiot and so is anyone who gives you a serious answer in the belief
that you actually want to learn something.

Well, you're an idiot for thinking he doesn't want to seriously learn
something. So there.
Not only that, you're a scared idiot since you don't want your
gibberish archived.

George

Mxsmanic wrote:
When you fly, how much fuel do you prefer to carry? Do you just load enough
to meet the FARs? Do you like to add a fudge factor? If so, how much? Do
you prefer to fly with full tanks irrespective of the length of the flight?
Is it significantly more expensive to fly with the tanks topped off for every
flight on small aircraft, or does it not make much difference?

I have at least 4 mb ram in excess of my requirements, and keep a UPS
hooked up during critical phases of flight - from hitting the "b" key
for brake release, until I hit "b" again at the end of the flight.

"Viperdoc" wrote in message
...
So what's your recommendation? Someone will always answer the village
idiot, like it or not. Ignoring him has no effect, he will never get it,
and someone will always answer. What's your choice? Any better
suggestions?



It was replying to itself a while ago for lack of attention.

Ignoring it begins with you. Nobody else can do that.

Ignoring him hasn't worked, at least not for the past few years. Any other
suggestions? Somone will always answer his initial innocent post, only to
have him follow on with some ridiculous non relevant statements that provoke
further responses.

So, other than ignoring Anthony, what are the other solutions than trying to
discredit him and shut off furher responses?

"Viperdoc" wrote in message
...
Ignoring him hasn't worked, at least not for the past few years. Any other
suggestions? Somone will always answer his initial innocent post, only to
have him follow on with some ridiculous non relevant statements that
provoke further responses.

So, other than ignoring Anthony, what are the other solutions than trying
to discredit him and shut off furher responses?




Watch and learn.: Ignoring your further posts will end this conversation.
Not that you're doing it for attention or anything like that.

Since you don't even make sense or contribute, you're about on the same par
as Anthony, which is pretty worthless.

On Aug 10, 12:42 am, "Viperdoc" wrote:
Somone will always answer his initial innocent post, only to
have him follow on with some ridiculous non relevant statements that provoke
further responses.


OK viperdoc, thrill me: what did the OP say that was so ridiculous
before you weighed in with your (non-helpful) first post?

Oh and not for nothing, but based on the amount of NTSB reports that
indicate lack of fuel was the cause for the accident, I would say fuel
management is a very important issue. The ASF would agree; that is
probably why they have a section on it (http://www.aopa.org/asf/
safety_topics.html#fuel).

I think we need an RFC for a new group: rev.aviation.smug.

Good point- but where was your response? Why not just answer Anthony's
question rather than respond to mine?

Nomen Nescio wrote:



BTW, I think we both know that this thread was started to give MX
a chance to point out that REAL pilots run out of fuel all the time and
can't possibly be as smart as he is.

Probably true.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Rocky Stevens writes:

Oh and not for nothing, but based on the amount of NTSB reports that
indicate lack of fuel was the cause for the accident, I would say fuel
management is a very important issue. The ASF would agree; that is
probably why they have a section on it (http://www.aopa.org/asf/
safety_topics.html#fuel).

Reading about the prevalence of fuel-related accidents was what prompted my
question.