in this case I do think he has made a point and proved it- ...... as I think he genuinely is trying to help.
Opening my mind, what point has CH made? I don't follow? Perhaps wrongly, I understood the point which CH has tried to make as being that pilots are "bound" by a "limit" for the operation of the aircraft (a 172, of varied vintage, in this case) in a crosswind, by wording in the POH/Flight Manual. That wording has a literal, and regulatorily intended meaning, is other than what CH has advanced.
I think CH just lacks the vocabulary to put his point across. I also don't feel CH is deliberately playing stupid games.
English as a second language issues aside for the moment, it is the responsibility of those of us in aviation to understand the application of English in the intent of how the POH is to be interpreted, when using an English version. Agreed, pre mid '70's, the format of POHs was not harmonized - but it was not terribly different, just a little scattered by comparision. However, since then, the format and terminology is very consistent, and one of the roles of an instructor is to assure that the candidate understands how to use and interpret the information in a Flight Manual - at least a post '70's format edition.
If a poster here would like to be given a bit of grace with their use of English, that is fair. This is a great venue for practicing English, in an aviation environment. However, If a poster, who for whatever reason is not communicating entirely clearly, advances very specific thoughts which are dependent upon a precise use of English, they should not be surprised that other posters may see it differently, and challenge their assertion. I can assure the audience from my first hand knowledge that GtE has an outstanding command of English, and aviation. Challenge him only with a willingness to learn yourself!
Anyway , if the POH told you everything, why would you need an instructor?
I interpret this as humour. But for those who might doubt, be reminded that reading and understanding a Flight Manual is very important, but it is a fraction of what a pilot needs to know to fly
a plane! It only presents information specific to
that plane. I think Cessna is aware of this, when they write, as the second paragraph in in the introduction section:
"This handbook in not intended to be a guide for basic flight instruction or a training manual and should not be used as one. It is not a subsitute for adequate and competent flight instruction............."
But, I expect that everyone here has a command of English, and has read the flight manual to know that already!
