How to thread drift in 720 posts!!!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I'm so impressed by you all trying your hardest to discredit me.
If I was of an opinion I could run my magneto's or vac pumps for 2000 hours untouched, and because I had done this before successfully , would you sign out my plane or would yo try to educate me in the errors of my ways?
If I was obstinate and belligerent about it what would you do?
Many of us here just want to help. Your misunderstandings are not your fault. We all had them once too.
Does this sound like an earlier post I made or the PM I sent you?
On the contrary some of us have been the subject of your attempt to discredit us. And that includes several folk on here I know are in a very well informed position.
The olive branch is still extended, just weltering under the stress.
Do NOT feed the troll!
Do NOT feed the troll!
Do NOT feed the troll!
Do NOT feed the troll!
Do NOT feed the troll!
Do NOT feed the troll!
Do NOT feed the troll!
Do NOT feed the troll!
Do NOT feed the troll!
Do NOT feed the troll!
Do NOT feed the troll!
Do NOT feed the troll!
Do NOT feed the troll!
Do NOT feed the troll!
Do NOT feed the troll!
Do NOT feed the troll!
Do NOT feed the troll!
Do NOT feed the troll!
Do NOT feed the troll!
Do NOT feed the troll!
Do NOT feed the troll!
Do NOT feed the troll!
Do NOT feed the troll!
Do NOT feed the troll!
Do NOT feed the troll!
Do NOT feed the troll!
Do NOT feed the troll!
Do NOT feed the troll!
Do NOT feed the troll!
Do NOT feed the troll!
Do NOT feed the troll!
its one thing to say that but the regs don't allow that. The poh is over ridden by the log book statement and the M/M. ------ And the biggest problem is the AWI at each section have there own ideas and enforced them that way. ----- If the poh doesn't say it you cant its very clear as someone posted earlier.
ye right,
The statement "The poh is over ridden by the log book statement and the M/M." is just plain legally wrong. CASA do not have the legal power to unilaterally amend type certification data for an aircraft not originally certified in Australia. Read CAR 138 (already quoted on this thread), the POH will be nominated in the TCDS.
"If the poh doesn't say it you cant its very clear as someone posted earlier." ---- Yes, somebody said that, but there have been many posts to the contrary, from people who actually know what they are talking about.
You seem to believe in the ideas that: All is prohibited that is not specifically permitted", in aircraft certification, the reverse is true. As Creampuff has pointed out, ( and he really does know the aviation law) there is no mention of descent in his POH, does that really mean that he has to stay up there forever, or commit a criminal offense to descend???
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 15th Apr 2014 at 07:37. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So anyway, here's the thing:
When I started as a dewy-eyed youngster, lo these many years ago, it was with a burning thirst for knowledge. I wanted to know everything I could, so as to become better at my chosen path of flying. In those early days, I lapped up whatever I was taught, because it came from those vastly more experienced than I, and who was I to question it?
Along the way, that curiosity unearthed a few contradictions in the vast global store of knowledge about how best to do the job. Occasionally I was faced with the task of sorting that which was immutable fact from mere unsupported opinion. How best to do this?
A good place to start, it seemed, would be to listen most closely to those who could back up their opinions, or claimed facts, with evidence and proof. So the rare individual who tried to browbeat or intimidate earned a lot less respect than those who were able to support their claims with fact or, even better, demonstration. And so, like many others, I learned to heed the advice that was really worthwhile, and take the rest with a grain of salt. Healthy skepticism, and a desire to keep learning, have kept me alive thus far.
Among the interesting topics I encountered along the way, thanks to these new-fangled Interwebs, was a series of articles by one John Deakin. What the hell; can't hurt to read a bit. His take on engine management seemed to border on the heretical, yet here he was, bravely espousing his views for all to read and dissect. Even more curious, he seemed to have a lot of experience and data to support his views. This was getting interesting...
One thing led to another, and I found myself in contact with a few others who seemed to have been converted to this radical new/old approach. They too had a lot of cogent data, with which to persuade me that there was indeed something to this.
Eventually the boyish curiosity found me sitting in an APS classroom with a bunch of others, eager to learn some new stuff or at least spot a few holes in their attempts to convince me. Ah, wouldn't it have been so satisfying to find that I'd been doing it right all this time!
And so, the deluge of data began. For every question raised from the floor, there was a convincing answer, usually backed by more evidence. And, curiously, none of these answers contradicted any of the others or attempted to intimidate us into belief; usually a good sign that the lecturers know their stuff. LOP operation was an important part of the teaching, but it was only introduced after careful explanation of how things actually worked inside the engine, and was just one of many topics covered.
I have to confess that I was pretty much sold on the concept before I arrived. So I took particular interest in watching those who started out as skeptics, to see how they reacted to all this information. Now, it may have been groupthink, or they may have fed us something dodgy during the breaks, but even the tough cases had accepted by the end of the course that they couldn't argue with hard data, and I didn't hear anyone who was able to debunk what had been taught. (Not that anyone sought to do so, by then. Everyone departed keen to put all this new learnin' into practice. )
With yet more youthful enthusiasm, I too set about applying what we'd been taught. And blow me down, if the results in our aircraft didn't match exactly what I'd been taught. This wasn't just about LOP operation. It had to do with reading and interpreting what the engine gauges were telling me in all phases of flight, and making informed decisions based on that. I was never taught this stuff in my former GA life. The few questions that have arisen since then have been cleared up by follow-up contact with the gentlemen who ran the course.
So (and this is where I came in) I'll believe pretty much anything that's supported by proof that I can understand. What I won't cop, is someone physically or verbally sticking a finger in my chest and insisting that I take something on faith, just because they hold a particular licence or qualification - particularly if it contradicts something I can see or prove. I've benefited from training by many highly qualified people, but curiously none of them needed to shout or demean me in order to convince me of their credibility. They had my undivided attention, because they knew their topic and could demonstrate it.
Wouldn't it be nice if things always worked the same way in here?
When I started as a dewy-eyed youngster, lo these many years ago, it was with a burning thirst for knowledge. I wanted to know everything I could, so as to become better at my chosen path of flying. In those early days, I lapped up whatever I was taught, because it came from those vastly more experienced than I, and who was I to question it?
Along the way, that curiosity unearthed a few contradictions in the vast global store of knowledge about how best to do the job. Occasionally I was faced with the task of sorting that which was immutable fact from mere unsupported opinion. How best to do this?
A good place to start, it seemed, would be to listen most closely to those who could back up their opinions, or claimed facts, with evidence and proof. So the rare individual who tried to browbeat or intimidate earned a lot less respect than those who were able to support their claims with fact or, even better, demonstration. And so, like many others, I learned to heed the advice that was really worthwhile, and take the rest with a grain of salt. Healthy skepticism, and a desire to keep learning, have kept me alive thus far.
Among the interesting topics I encountered along the way, thanks to these new-fangled Interwebs, was a series of articles by one John Deakin. What the hell; can't hurt to read a bit. His take on engine management seemed to border on the heretical, yet here he was, bravely espousing his views for all to read and dissect. Even more curious, he seemed to have a lot of experience and data to support his views. This was getting interesting...
One thing led to another, and I found myself in contact with a few others who seemed to have been converted to this radical new/old approach. They too had a lot of cogent data, with which to persuade me that there was indeed something to this.
Eventually the boyish curiosity found me sitting in an APS classroom with a bunch of others, eager to learn some new stuff or at least spot a few holes in their attempts to convince me. Ah, wouldn't it have been so satisfying to find that I'd been doing it right all this time!
And so, the deluge of data began. For every question raised from the floor, there was a convincing answer, usually backed by more evidence. And, curiously, none of these answers contradicted any of the others or attempted to intimidate us into belief; usually a good sign that the lecturers know their stuff. LOP operation was an important part of the teaching, but it was only introduced after careful explanation of how things actually worked inside the engine, and was just one of many topics covered.
I have to confess that I was pretty much sold on the concept before I arrived. So I took particular interest in watching those who started out as skeptics, to see how they reacted to all this information. Now, it may have been groupthink, or they may have fed us something dodgy during the breaks, but even the tough cases had accepted by the end of the course that they couldn't argue with hard data, and I didn't hear anyone who was able to debunk what had been taught. (Not that anyone sought to do so, by then. Everyone departed keen to put all this new learnin' into practice. )
With yet more youthful enthusiasm, I too set about applying what we'd been taught. And blow me down, if the results in our aircraft didn't match exactly what I'd been taught. This wasn't just about LOP operation. It had to do with reading and interpreting what the engine gauges were telling me in all phases of flight, and making informed decisions based on that. I was never taught this stuff in my former GA life. The few questions that have arisen since then have been cleared up by follow-up contact with the gentlemen who ran the course.
So (and this is where I came in) I'll believe pretty much anything that's supported by proof that I can understand. What I won't cop, is someone physically or verbally sticking a finger in my chest and insisting that I take something on faith, just because they hold a particular licence or qualification - particularly if it contradicts something I can see or prove. I've benefited from training by many highly qualified people, but curiously none of them needed to shout or demean me in order to convince me of their credibility. They had my undivided attention, because they knew their topic and could demonstrate it.
Wouldn't it be nice if things always worked the same way in here?
Agrajag,
A most interesting post.
I came into the aviation field from an mechanical engineering background. Right from the word go, a lot of what I was taught, flying wise, conflicted with my earlier experience, including as a student running experimental engines designed to measure octane ratings of fuels and related characteristics.
To cut a long story short, from the time I achieved my first instructor rating, through the usual steps to CP/CFI, and later instructing on somewhat larger aircraft, I told all my students about my "policy", which was:
If I state something as a fact, I will always give you a reference, so you can check and verify.
If it is just my opinion (or commonly held opinions, OWTs etc.) I will state just that, it is an opinion for you to consider, and accept or reject as you see fit.
As a matter of interest, my first knowledge of what is here discussed as LOP, came from those research engines, where burning characteristics of various petrol grades at various fuel/air rations was examined.
yr right,
When Avgas is described as 100/130, 115/145 etc, what does that mean??
You have not addressed any of the questions I have asked of you??
What happened to your claim of being the "last line of defense"??
Tootle pip!!
A most interesting post.
I came into the aviation field from an mechanical engineering background. Right from the word go, a lot of what I was taught, flying wise, conflicted with my earlier experience, including as a student running experimental engines designed to measure octane ratings of fuels and related characteristics.
To cut a long story short, from the time I achieved my first instructor rating, through the usual steps to CP/CFI, and later instructing on somewhat larger aircraft, I told all my students about my "policy", which was:
If I state something as a fact, I will always give you a reference, so you can check and verify.
If it is just my opinion (or commonly held opinions, OWTs etc.) I will state just that, it is an opinion for you to consider, and accept or reject as you see fit.
As a matter of interest, my first knowledge of what is here discussed as LOP, came from those research engines, where burning characteristics of various petrol grades at various fuel/air rations was examined.
yr right,
When Avgas is described as 100/130, 115/145 etc, what does that mean??
You have not addressed any of the questions I have asked of you??
What happened to your claim of being the "last line of defense"??
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 15th Apr 2014 at 08:07. Reason: edit
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Iraq
Age: 35
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of embarrassing them, Dan and his team at Chrisair did first start and ground runs on the most gorgeous Beaver on flloats, after priming oil system etc it came off the starter at about the third rotation.
Nine cylinders of freshly overhauled radial bellowed into life.
Young men and one young lady, maintaining a pristine example of the DHC-2B
I have some photos, if anyone knows how to post them I will send them
Nine cylinders of freshly overhauled radial bellowed into life.
Young men and one young lady, maintaining a pristine example of the DHC-2B
I have some photos, if anyone knows how to post them I will send them
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lead sled i think you should read the regs. Have a look a a log book and the m/r and actually see and read what it says. The lbs is what the aircraft has to be maintain to. But what would I know hey.
Cheers
Cheers
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Nop hoper post em here..... http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...-mk-ii-47.html
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...-mk-ii-47.html
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Hoper Please look carefully at the photos A 985 Pratt has 7 cylinders I know I own 2 of them your statement is somewhat off the mark:
Nine cylinders of freshly overhauled radial bellowed into life.
Nine cylinders of freshly overhauled radial bellowed into life.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh a costumer of mine mmm do tell
#409 @ no hoper
Finally Cockney Steve admits he knows very little about aviation maintenance.
I await the highly qualified , professional scientists and engineers calling me out as a billy -bull****ter.....the fact they haven't , leads me to think I bicht have a bit of an understanding.
#387 @ ultralights
Quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by yr right
Nah I don't need to stand up on a soap box and talk jibberish sorry...
Quote:yeah, right..
Post of the year in the Thread of the year!
Originally Posted by yr right
Nah I don't need to stand up on a soap box and talk jibberish sorry...
Quote:yeah, right..
Post of the year in the Thread of the year!
And, of course,Radio Saigon, who said so much with so little
@ Walter Atkinson, Thank you sir, for your fascinating dissertation, counter-intuitive. but entirely logical.....as a kid, I wondered how a Propellor could be able to pull an aeroplane al;ong, when there was a huge engine or cowl directly behind it.....logic said that this physical bulk would be pushed BACKWARDS by the prop, whilst the finer-pitch, weaker tips were trying to drag it forwards.....amazingly, it works and they fly.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Iraq
Age: 35
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't worry about the children wandering in and trying to stir up an argument about technical matters beyond their understanding. When I stop laughing about the metric comment I will endeavor to post the photos. Only on iPhone right now.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To tell the truth I'm a little worried about the leave of knowledge. It's apparently that even though I been doing this a long time never had a problem I been doing it all wrong. Although my mates still tell me give it away come join us at the mines. Misses like that be home atleast.
Cheers
Cheers