The real VNE (moved from J B for more input)(and merged)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kent
Age: 61
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take a look at:
DG300 Flutter
DG300 Flutter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was so much older then ...
Back when I had about 1 000 hours and knew so much more than I do now, I was working as a flight instructor.
I could fly the Cessna 150/152 right to its limits, so that I could land it fairly short, just past the 'numbers', but a fellow instructor told me that he could 'land on the numbers'. I didn't understand how he could manage that trick, so that I asked him to show me.
This really didn't matter in practical terms, given that you needed more runway to depart than to land, but I was just curious to see what I was missing.
It turned out the way to manage this was to hang the little Cessna on its prop, just above Vs, and then 'chop' the throttle so that the aircraft quit flying just as it reached the threshold. When you get it exactly right it lands with a gentle thump, a little pressure on the brakes, and there you are. I was impressed! We stopped right on the numbers. I just said, "Durn! Who showed you how to do this?'
'My instructor. Why?'
I asked my friend if we could now go out in the practice area; I had something else I wanted to see. Okay, so off we went.
Once there I asked for a demonstration of slow flight. Soon we were motoring around with full flaps just above Vs, when he had the aircraft under perfect control, albeit with a hell of a lot of rudder input. Then I asked him, 'Hey! What's that over there?' pointing so that he had to look over his left shoulder. Of course, when he did that he relaxed on the rudder pedals just enough that we went immediately into an uncommanded spin. As we were coming through 180 degrees of roll I said, 'I have the flaps,' raising them, since one is not supposed to spin that type with the flaps down. He was still trying to figure out why the view thourgh the windscreen was now of the ground where just a second ago all we could see was sky.
He made a normal spin recovery, but he was asking all the while, 'What did you do there? What was that?' I just told him we could talk about this once we had landed, so that I wanted to go back now.
Once we got back and had put the aircraft away we went to have some Dr Pepper in a quiet place, when I explained that I hadn't touched anything, that the Cessna had spun because he had asked it to by relaxing that right rudder he had been holding, once I had distracted him.
Then I pointed out that we had been in the same configuration at 30 feet on approach, so that we had been perfectly set up for the classic 'stall-spin in the pattern' sort of accident that we always found so hard to understand. Well, in terms of how a reasonably skilful pilot could let himself be caught out in such an obvious way. So now we knew; it was just that human failure to 'connect the dots.' My colleague knew how to land short, he knew how to do slow flight and (a requirement in those days) he knew how to do spins and spin recoveries. But he had overlooked the way all of these things could combine. He was focussed on one task so that he overlooked some of the other things he was also asking the airplane to do.
I might have read the same book about aerobatics, but I went out with an instructor to try barrel rolls. Just as well, because I sure screwed up the first one I tried, when the instructor took the T-67 away from me and sorted out the mess I had made. If I had been by myself trying this I might well have done some damage there.
I could fly the Cessna 150/152 right to its limits, so that I could land it fairly short, just past the 'numbers', but a fellow instructor told me that he could 'land on the numbers'. I didn't understand how he could manage that trick, so that I asked him to show me.
This really didn't matter in practical terms, given that you needed more runway to depart than to land, but I was just curious to see what I was missing.
It turned out the way to manage this was to hang the little Cessna on its prop, just above Vs, and then 'chop' the throttle so that the aircraft quit flying just as it reached the threshold. When you get it exactly right it lands with a gentle thump, a little pressure on the brakes, and there you are. I was impressed! We stopped right on the numbers. I just said, "Durn! Who showed you how to do this?'
'My instructor. Why?'
I asked my friend if we could now go out in the practice area; I had something else I wanted to see. Okay, so off we went.
Once there I asked for a demonstration of slow flight. Soon we were motoring around with full flaps just above Vs, when he had the aircraft under perfect control, albeit with a hell of a lot of rudder input. Then I asked him, 'Hey! What's that over there?' pointing so that he had to look over his left shoulder. Of course, when he did that he relaxed on the rudder pedals just enough that we went immediately into an uncommanded spin. As we were coming through 180 degrees of roll I said, 'I have the flaps,' raising them, since one is not supposed to spin that type with the flaps down. He was still trying to figure out why the view thourgh the windscreen was now of the ground where just a second ago all we could see was sky.
He made a normal spin recovery, but he was asking all the while, 'What did you do there? What was that?' I just told him we could talk about this once we had landed, so that I wanted to go back now.
Once we got back and had put the aircraft away we went to have some Dr Pepper in a quiet place, when I explained that I hadn't touched anything, that the Cessna had spun because he had asked it to by relaxing that right rudder he had been holding, once I had distracted him.
Then I pointed out that we had been in the same configuration at 30 feet on approach, so that we had been perfectly set up for the classic 'stall-spin in the pattern' sort of accident that we always found so hard to understand. Well, in terms of how a reasonably skilful pilot could let himself be caught out in such an obvious way. So now we knew; it was just that human failure to 'connect the dots.' My colleague knew how to land short, he knew how to do slow flight and (a requirement in those days) he knew how to do spins and spin recoveries. But he had overlooked the way all of these things could combine. He was focussed on one task so that he overlooked some of the other things he was also asking the airplane to do.
I might have read the same book about aerobatics, but I went out with an instructor to try barrel rolls. Just as well, because I sure screwed up the first one I tried, when the instructor took the T-67 away from me and sorted out the mess I had made. If I had been by myself trying this I might well have done some damage there.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Columbia?
I used to live in Columbia, District of. Or do you mean that country normally known as Colombia?
Some of the stuff you claim to be doing is rather dangerous, in my opinion. That it is illegal is without a doubt, just in terms of intentionally operating outside the aircraft's limitations. You post this stuff here asking for comments, which you get. If you don't like the answers, well, tough!
Speaking just for myself, I was lucky to outgrow that phase of sometimes thinking that rules and limitations were just some sort of paper exercise not applicable to such whizzes as self. You still seem to be there, just judging from what you have written here.
There are a lot of dumb things we might do that are so dangerous the odds of surviving to learn from them are too high. Motoring along a runway below Vs while yawing the aircraft is an open invitation to the poor, provoked thing to turn around and BITE you by flipping over on its back with no chance to recover. This is not rocket science but a well-established fact.
I always wonder, when out riding in the rain, just how much wet-weather grip my motorcycle's tires have, today. Good question, but there's only one way to answer that, getting right out there on the ragged edge and then hoping to catch the resulting slide. No problem if you happen to be Valentino Rossi, but me? So I usually slow down a bit.
Same way, I once watched Bob Hoover putting a Rockwell Shrike through a routine where he did a series of loops with both engines feathered. Somehow, though, this did not awake in my breast the desire to attempt this. Aerobatics in an aerobatic aircraft with an instructor is about as far as I have got. Boring, I know, but I have a wife and two children. And you?
Some of the stuff you claim to be doing is rather dangerous, in my opinion. That it is illegal is without a doubt, just in terms of intentionally operating outside the aircraft's limitations. You post this stuff here asking for comments, which you get. If you don't like the answers, well, tough!
Speaking just for myself, I was lucky to outgrow that phase of sometimes thinking that rules and limitations were just some sort of paper exercise not applicable to such whizzes as self. You still seem to be there, just judging from what you have written here.
There are a lot of dumb things we might do that are so dangerous the odds of surviving to learn from them are too high. Motoring along a runway below Vs while yawing the aircraft is an open invitation to the poor, provoked thing to turn around and BITE you by flipping over on its back with no chance to recover. This is not rocket science but a well-established fact.
I always wonder, when out riding in the rain, just how much wet-weather grip my motorcycle's tires have, today. Good question, but there's only one way to answer that, getting right out there on the ragged edge and then hoping to catch the resulting slide. No problem if you happen to be Valentino Rossi, but me? So I usually slow down a bit.
Same way, I once watched Bob Hoover putting a Rockwell Shrike through a routine where he did a series of loops with both engines feathered. Somehow, though, this did not awake in my breast the desire to attempt this. Aerobatics in an aerobatic aircraft with an instructor is about as far as I have got. Boring, I know, but I have a wife and two children. And you?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Outer-roa
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAPTION COMPETITION!!
http://www.onera.fr/cahierdelabo/video/hq/aleg2a_hq.mov
"During his bumbling first solo attempt at the mile high club, he managed to catch the inside of his trousers on the control stick."
"During his bumbling first solo attempt at the mile high club, he managed to catch the inside of his trousers on the control stick."
pneumono
ultramicroscopic
silicovolcano
coniosis
ultramicroscopic
silicovolcano
coniosis
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
barbershopquartets
It's called VNE for a reason. 'Velocity NEVER Exceed'
Sure Vd is design speed - 10% margin over VNE - but the aircraft will have never intentionally been flown at Vd.
When the design goes through testing the test pilot will only take the aircraft up to 'Vdf' which is only halfway between Vne and Vd - 5%
Beyond these marging you become a test pilot yourself - not a good scenario.
If faced with a situation which means either busting Vne or pulling too much 'g' then I have always been instructed to pull too much 'g'
You may well bend the aircraft but remain flyable however, busting Vne - Vd is more likely to cause a catastrophic failure of the airframe.
I had a terrifying experience whilst flying an aerobatic sequence in a comp.
Inverted 45 down line on Vne.....big -4g push and the whole rear end started to flutter.
The big pin (and its bushes) that held the tailplane on were worn beyond limits and this had not been picked up on the C of A.
They started to flutter and then the whole rear end (fin too) started to throw themselves around.
Sound was terrifying.
I pushed into an inverted up line to bleed the speed whilst preparing to make a hasty exit (parachute) if need be.
Surprisingly the whole back end continued to flutter until the speed had bled off to about 70 knts.
Got it back on the ground ok - ashen faced and scared.
The judges had heard the whole thing 4,000' below and 1km away!
Also, 5 knts off Vne off the bottom of a comp spin exit when the airbrake caps decided to lift and chatter at very high speed and volume - sounded like a machine gun going off in the cockpit. Nearly Sh*t myself - would of been very easy to overreact and pull too much 'g' and resultant overstress - luckily maintained my focus.
barbershopquartets - It aint no joke - it's a risky place to be if you don't know what you're doing.
Get some proper training and If you do exceed any limits - TELL SOMEONE.
The next guy in the aircraft may well end up your victim in a manslaughter case.
It's called VNE for a reason. 'Velocity NEVER Exceed'
Sure Vd is design speed - 10% margin over VNE - but the aircraft will have never intentionally been flown at Vd.
When the design goes through testing the test pilot will only take the aircraft up to 'Vdf' which is only halfway between Vne and Vd - 5%
Beyond these marging you become a test pilot yourself - not a good scenario.
If faced with a situation which means either busting Vne or pulling too much 'g' then I have always been instructed to pull too much 'g'
You may well bend the aircraft but remain flyable however, busting Vne - Vd is more likely to cause a catastrophic failure of the airframe.
I had a terrifying experience whilst flying an aerobatic sequence in a comp.
Inverted 45 down line on Vne.....big -4g push and the whole rear end started to flutter.
The big pin (and its bushes) that held the tailplane on were worn beyond limits and this had not been picked up on the C of A.
They started to flutter and then the whole rear end (fin too) started to throw themselves around.
Sound was terrifying.
I pushed into an inverted up line to bleed the speed whilst preparing to make a hasty exit (parachute) if need be.
Surprisingly the whole back end continued to flutter until the speed had bled off to about 70 knts.
Got it back on the ground ok - ashen faced and scared.
The judges had heard the whole thing 4,000' below and 1km away!
Also, 5 knts off Vne off the bottom of a comp spin exit when the airbrake caps decided to lift and chatter at very high speed and volume - sounded like a machine gun going off in the cockpit. Nearly Sh*t myself - would of been very easy to overreact and pull too much 'g' and resultant overstress - luckily maintained my focus.
barbershopquartets - It aint no joke - it's a risky place to be if you don't know what you're doing.
Get some proper training and If you do exceed any limits - TELL SOMEONE.
The next guy in the aircraft may well end up your victim in a manslaughter case.
Last edited by Go Smoke; 30th Sep 2005 at 11:27.
I'matightbastard
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RJM excellent link, but it does raise one question, the new262s that are being made might have different engines, but they have supposedly the exact same airframe. I wonder if they too could make the transition and if so, wht effects it would have and what, if anything, is being designed in to stop it from happennig?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ireland
Age: 44
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Onan,
Apparently the new 262 engines are much more powerful too - I doubt anything will be done to prevent them exceeding M1 - although it has to be said that the aircraft were built in wartime, in a hurry, just out of the experimental phase - I'm sure the new ones are far more stringently tested.
Apparently the new 262 engines are much more powerful too - I doubt anything will be done to prevent them exceeding M1 - although it has to be said that the aircraft were built in wartime, in a hurry, just out of the experimental phase - I'm sure the new ones are far more stringently tested.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: A place with no name
Age: 46
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bbsq,
I think this site is great for asking questions and getting some good (actually fantastic) insight into the practicalities and therories of flying.
You are right for posting questions and trying to learn, good on ya. The issues that the others, including myself, seem to have had with your posts is that the flying scenarios you outline are extremely dangerous. Not just to yourself but others as well (since you seem to use a shared aircraft)
I have learn't so much from others mistakes and I hope not to learn something from one of your mistakes if you become a statistic. While the replies to your posts may seem harsh and unhelpful to you, they are correct in stating, "Don't go there". If you look into it further everyone has been trying to help you live a little longer albeit if they're abrupt.
I therfore have a few suggestions for you;
1) I emplore you to seek an instructor for your aerobatics
2) Don't fly at Vs +5 only 30' above the runway unless you're entering the flare to land
3) Do experiments as high as you can, in the right type of a/c with a certified experienced instructor
4) Learn to love the rule book. It may be a pain in the ass, but at least you're alive to feel that pain! It's keeping you alive (and anyone else who uses an aircraft after you)
Flying is fun and exhilirating so go out there and enjoy it but for Godsake heed the warnings that the what you call self appointed FAA are giving you.
I think this site is great for asking questions and getting some good (actually fantastic) insight into the practicalities and therories of flying.
You are right for posting questions and trying to learn, good on ya. The issues that the others, including myself, seem to have had with your posts is that the flying scenarios you outline are extremely dangerous. Not just to yourself but others as well (since you seem to use a shared aircraft)
I have learn't so much from others mistakes and I hope not to learn something from one of your mistakes if you become a statistic. While the replies to your posts may seem harsh and unhelpful to you, they are correct in stating, "Don't go there". If you look into it further everyone has been trying to help you live a little longer albeit if they're abrupt.
I therfore have a few suggestions for you;
1) I emplore you to seek an instructor for your aerobatics
2) Don't fly at Vs +5 only 30' above the runway unless you're entering the flare to land
3) Do experiments as high as you can, in the right type of a/c with a certified experienced instructor
4) Learn to love the rule book. It may be a pain in the ass, but at least you're alive to feel that pain! It's keeping you alive (and anyone else who uses an aircraft after you)
Flying is fun and exhilirating so go out there and enjoy it but for Godsake heed the warnings that the what you call self appointed FAA are giving you.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Under the boardwalk
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey barbershopquartets, it's all very well getting defensive with me, but it seems you'll need to do the same with all the other sane people posting comments on what they think of your actions too! It might be a good idea to take a little notice of what many experienced people have said here. I'd like to think that you'll survive to become one of the aviation greats in due course.
Not quite correct Go smoke.
Vd is the design limit, which is the lowest speed generated by a huge list of issues, which might include:-
- (that's the speed at which the wings twist off)
- Structural limit of the tailplane
- Predicted canopy buckling limit
- Predicted flutter onset.
- Predicted wing drag structural limit.
All modified by various safety factors.
Then, when a new aircraft type is flight tested the speeds are slowly increased, until either something goes wrong (actual flutter, actual canopy bucking, any unexpected handling deficiency), OR Vd itself is reached. This speed is now set at Vdf (the diving limit).
The flight test evaluation is then carried out up to that speed, and everything confirmed satisfactory (there are a whole stack of things that are investigated).
It may be that things are then done to modify Vdf - in either direction, for example it may be too low and a particular design feature is modified to stop it distorting/fluttering/etc.
Then, finally, Vne is set to a value selected by the design team, but it's not allowed to exceed 90% of Vdf. The odds are, that they'll probably actually set it to 90%Vdf.
The other factor that's relevant is Vh - the maximum achievable speed in level flight. There is a margin that this may not exceed below Vd (the design structural limit). The margin will vary depending upon the size and shape of aeroplane, but as a general rule it's probably not allowed for Vh to be greater than Vd/1.25.
Either as a Test Pilot or Flight Test Engineer, I've exceeded Vne more times than I'd care to count - it's particularly interesting when you have the builder of a kitplane in the right hand seat
. What's really scarey however, is finding the value of Vdf!
G
Vd is the design limit, which is the lowest speed generated by a huge list of issues, which might include:-
- (that's the speed at which the wings twist off)
- Structural limit of the tailplane
- Predicted canopy buckling limit
- Predicted flutter onset.
- Predicted wing drag structural limit.
All modified by various safety factors.
Then, when a new aircraft type is flight tested the speeds are slowly increased, until either something goes wrong (actual flutter, actual canopy bucking, any unexpected handling deficiency), OR Vd itself is reached. This speed is now set at Vdf (the diving limit).
The flight test evaluation is then carried out up to that speed, and everything confirmed satisfactory (there are a whole stack of things that are investigated).
It may be that things are then done to modify Vdf - in either direction, for example it may be too low and a particular design feature is modified to stop it distorting/fluttering/etc.
Then, finally, Vne is set to a value selected by the design team, but it's not allowed to exceed 90% of Vdf. The odds are, that they'll probably actually set it to 90%Vdf.
The other factor that's relevant is Vh - the maximum achievable speed in level flight. There is a margin that this may not exceed below Vd (the design structural limit). The margin will vary depending upon the size and shape of aeroplane, but as a general rule it's probably not allowed for Vh to be greater than Vd/1.25.
Either as a Test Pilot or Flight Test Engineer, I've exceeded Vne more times than I'd care to count - it's particularly interesting when you have the builder of a kitplane in the right hand seat
. What's really scarey however, is finding the value of Vdf! G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 30th Sep 2005 at 19:51.
Flying Farmer, I couldn't agree more.
To your:
I would add:
"...or someone else flying that aircraft becomes the accident statistic on your behalf".
If (s)he isn't trolling, then
To your:
I would take a step backwards and consider the implications of what you are asking here before you become another accident statistic.
"...or someone else flying that aircraft becomes the accident statistic on your behalf".
If (s)he isn't trolling, then
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its probably worth adding that Vdf is usually demonstrated on the aircraft when its new. VNE is set to 0.9 Vdf or less.
But what about when the aeroplane is old? Those small amounts of slop in the trim tab and hinges, the odd dent, can errode the margin.
So its best not to assume there is any margin available above VNE before you may be sitting suddenly outside the aircraft with no means of support.
But what about when the aeroplane is old? Those small amounts of slop in the trim tab and hinges, the odd dent, can errode the margin.
So its best not to assume there is any margin available above VNE before you may be sitting suddenly outside the aircraft with no means of support.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Orstralia
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OTC The replica 262's should have better rivets, at least!
I've been following the progress of the Snyder (Stormbird) replica project for a while. Here's some info about the new engine setup:
'A modern turbine engine, the GE J-85,_was chosen to power the replicas. This engine was designed in the 1960s for the military and_ powered such planes as the F-5 and T-38. A civilian version powered the original Lear Jet.
_
The Jumo engine produced about 1800 pounds of thrust. The J85 produces about 2850 pounds of thrust on 40% less fuel. This much thrust should allow the replica Me 262 to reach 600mph, but since the airframe is not designed for those speeds, its placard top speed is 500mph.' (speaking of Vne!)
I've been following the progress of the Snyder (Stormbird) replica project for a while. Here's some info about the new engine setup:
'A modern turbine engine, the GE J-85,_was chosen to power the replicas. This engine was designed in the 1960s for the military and_ powered such planes as the F-5 and T-38. A civilian version powered the original Lear Jet.
_
The Jumo engine produced about 1800 pounds of thrust. The J85 produces about 2850 pounds of thrust on 40% less fuel. This much thrust should allow the replica Me 262 to reach 600mph, but since the airframe is not designed for those speeds, its placard top speed is 500mph.' (speaking of Vne!)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Columbia
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Pruners
Hope you are all doing well and thanks for your replies over the weekend.
If I could clarify a little about my post regarding self appointed reps from the FAA (VitaminGee - it be the feds i'm talking about). It seems to me that the real beauty of this site is that it allows a person to get the answers to those questions they would never dare ask a flying instructor, for fear (rightly or wrongly) of putting their license in jeopardy. I'm not just talking about the responses to my own posts but to a number that i've seen around the site. Example: In the training forum there was a guy who posted a question about JAA medicals and testing for Marijuana use. Out of all the replies to his post, 90% offered no useful information and the majority proceeded to abuse him, call him names, comment that he shouldn't be allowed near a cockpit, whatever whatever. Basically took the chance to vent their own strongly held beliefs about whether or not it was right to use marijuana instead of answering his question.
And I just don't get it. If the guy likes drugs do they really believe that hurling four letter words is going to prompt him to change his lifestyle? Personally i'd think that if they were so concerned about safety within aviation they'd go dig up some facts about pot smoking and the short/long term effects on cognitive processing, hand eye coordination and other bodily fuctions essential to being a pilot. Armed with the facts, chances are he'd feel like an idiot for mixing drugs and flying once he saw the risk he was taking. Whereas with hate mail all he's gonna do is write off all the people who put him down, assume that they're narrow minded bible bashing safety susans and keep on going down that road.
If they really cared about safety, that is. But what they really care about is trying to make everyone conform to their view of the world. It's intolerant, it's immature, it's hatred that sparks more hatred and it's the stuff that wars are made of.
In regards to my posts, replies that I believe are in danger of falling into this category are Captain Sund Dune's (what did you think your reply would achieve?), Ms Fawthorts (first was borderline but your second one was more constructive - you won me with the well wishes...), Farrell (what do you want me to do, abuse you in return? Isn't that just a little childish? abusing a pseudonym on an international web forum equates roughly to swearing at someone on TV, though I hope it made you feel better)
On the other hand, the responses from SoundBarrier, Go Smoke, Ckuks (thanks for the many replies) and especially arcniz made me cringe at myself. So I won't go busting Vne again.
Boss Eyed and Flying Farmer, yes - i'm for real. I posted in Jet Blast because it said 'stay out if you are faint hearted' and hoped I might find some aviators who would be constructive....
Jerricho - I only ever ingest substances and go flying when I have a safety pilot on bored who is unintoxicated. Sometimes a friend of mine lets me go ICUS so I can see how these things really alter and affect your abilities. So in answer to your question, I would have to say 'before'.
Hope you are all doing well and thanks for your replies over the weekend.
If I could clarify a little about my post regarding self appointed reps from the FAA (VitaminGee - it be the feds i'm talking about). It seems to me that the real beauty of this site is that it allows a person to get the answers to those questions they would never dare ask a flying instructor, for fear (rightly or wrongly) of putting their license in jeopardy. I'm not just talking about the responses to my own posts but to a number that i've seen around the site. Example: In the training forum there was a guy who posted a question about JAA medicals and testing for Marijuana use. Out of all the replies to his post, 90% offered no useful information and the majority proceeded to abuse him, call him names, comment that he shouldn't be allowed near a cockpit, whatever whatever. Basically took the chance to vent their own strongly held beliefs about whether or not it was right to use marijuana instead of answering his question.
And I just don't get it. If the guy likes drugs do they really believe that hurling four letter words is going to prompt him to change his lifestyle? Personally i'd think that if they were so concerned about safety within aviation they'd go dig up some facts about pot smoking and the short/long term effects on cognitive processing, hand eye coordination and other bodily fuctions essential to being a pilot. Armed with the facts, chances are he'd feel like an idiot for mixing drugs and flying once he saw the risk he was taking. Whereas with hate mail all he's gonna do is write off all the people who put him down, assume that they're narrow minded bible bashing safety susans and keep on going down that road.
If they really cared about safety, that is. But what they really care about is trying to make everyone conform to their view of the world. It's intolerant, it's immature, it's hatred that sparks more hatred and it's the stuff that wars are made of.
In regards to my posts, replies that I believe are in danger of falling into this category are Captain Sund Dune's (what did you think your reply would achieve?), Ms Fawthorts (first was borderline but your second one was more constructive - you won me with the well wishes...), Farrell (what do you want me to do, abuse you in return? Isn't that just a little childish? abusing a pseudonym on an international web forum equates roughly to swearing at someone on TV, though I hope it made you feel better)
On the other hand, the responses from SoundBarrier, Go Smoke, Ckuks (thanks for the many replies) and especially arcniz made me cringe at myself. So I won't go busting Vne again.
Boss Eyed and Flying Farmer, yes - i'm for real. I posted in Jet Blast because it said 'stay out if you are faint hearted' and hoped I might find some aviators who would be constructive....
Jerricho - I only ever ingest substances and go flying when I have a safety pilot on bored who is unintoxicated. Sometimes a friend of mine lets me go ICUS so I can see how these things really alter and affect your abilities. So in answer to your question, I would have to say 'before'.
Ah, I get it now. Ignoring aircraft limits and leaving a potentially dangerous aircraft for succeeding pilots and pax is simply "living an alternative lifestyle".
I'm glad to hear, though, that you won't be
I'm glad to hear, though, that you won't be
busting Vne again.