Lu Zuckerman: CV/Resume
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 119
Likes: 2
From: Worldwide
to everybody on this thread, why don't you take it easy in life; there's more to be had than hot and exhaustive mails. We are all valuable members of the aviation brotherhood ( I am convinced); so be easy on each other and tolerate other opinions on any matter as long as they are no lifethreatening. DIFFERENT COMPANIES, DIFFERENT OPS-MANUALS; NO BOTHER AS LONG AS THEY ARE SAFE
Iconoclast
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
From: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
To: Helmet Fire
Early on in my association with PPRuNe I got into some very hairy arguments with a British Army Pilot regarding POF. He used terms that I was unfamiliar with such as flapping to equality and several others. I could not understand why he was so hostile towards me when I mentioned such things as gyroscopic precession and retreating blade stall and how it and several other phenomena that effected disc position were related to gyroscopic precession. This went on for several weeks and there was no convincing him and I certainly wasn’t bending in his direction either. It wasn’t that I was speaking in American English and he was speaking in British English. It was that we were speaking in two different technical languages. We were both describing similar phenomena but the terminology we were using was alien to the other guy. You and the others have often accused me of intransigence in not being able to accept your explanations as being the truth and my explanations as being false or wrong. If you go back to many of my posts you will see that I have accepted the various explanations as being an alternate to the theory I was professing. As much as RW-1 may criticize this alternate theory as being a bunch of crap and that I am unwilling to accept the word of as he refers to all of you as being experts and as such to admit I was wrong. If you go back to the various postings countering my theory of POF you will see that there is no common ground between all of my detractors. This doesn’t make you wrong or me right or to the contrary you being right and me being wrong.
Put a Mullah, a Rabbi, a Priest and a Protestant minister in the same room and each in his own way will describe God to the point that the other clergyman will say that the other guy is wrong. What they fail to understand that there is only one God and each man will see him / her in his own way. In the case of POF there are many ways of teaching it and although the philosophies are different the helicopter continues to fly. If it works for you then go with it but don’t tell the other guy that he is wrong because you chose to disagree with him.
Regarding HUMS I became familiar with the concept as it was built into the dynamic systems of the EH-101. The only problem I can see with it is that the vibratory temperature limits and acoustic parameters that are programmed into it are developed under controlled conditions. This black box is then installed into a helicopter that may have several thousand operating hours. If the programming does not cater to the older helicopter that may be perfectly good but it is operating at higher temps, higher vibratory levels and generating acoustic patterns that are close to the allowable limit for a new helicopter but still be perfectly acceptable for a helicopter with high hours and my assumptions are correct the HUMS system will result in a high pull rate of dynamics components that are still serviceable. But then again, what do I know?
Early on in my association with PPRuNe I got into some very hairy arguments with a British Army Pilot regarding POF. He used terms that I was unfamiliar with such as flapping to equality and several others. I could not understand why he was so hostile towards me when I mentioned such things as gyroscopic precession and retreating blade stall and how it and several other phenomena that effected disc position were related to gyroscopic precession. This went on for several weeks and there was no convincing him and I certainly wasn’t bending in his direction either. It wasn’t that I was speaking in American English and he was speaking in British English. It was that we were speaking in two different technical languages. We were both describing similar phenomena but the terminology we were using was alien to the other guy. You and the others have often accused me of intransigence in not being able to accept your explanations as being the truth and my explanations as being false or wrong. If you go back to many of my posts you will see that I have accepted the various explanations as being an alternate to the theory I was professing. As much as RW-1 may criticize this alternate theory as being a bunch of crap and that I am unwilling to accept the word of as he refers to all of you as being experts and as such to admit I was wrong. If you go back to the various postings countering my theory of POF you will see that there is no common ground between all of my detractors. This doesn’t make you wrong or me right or to the contrary you being right and me being wrong.
Put a Mullah, a Rabbi, a Priest and a Protestant minister in the same room and each in his own way will describe God to the point that the other clergyman will say that the other guy is wrong. What they fail to understand that there is only one God and each man will see him / her in his own way. In the case of POF there are many ways of teaching it and although the philosophies are different the helicopter continues to fly. If it works for you then go with it but don’t tell the other guy that he is wrong because you chose to disagree with him.
Regarding HUMS I became familiar with the concept as it was built into the dynamic systems of the EH-101. The only problem I can see with it is that the vibratory temperature limits and acoustic parameters that are programmed into it are developed under controlled conditions. This black box is then installed into a helicopter that may have several thousand operating hours. If the programming does not cater to the older helicopter that may be perfectly good but it is operating at higher temps, higher vibratory levels and generating acoustic patterns that are close to the allowable limit for a new helicopter but still be perfectly acceptable for a helicopter with high hours and my assumptions are correct the HUMS system will result in a high pull rate of dynamics components that are still serviceable. But then again, what do I know?
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,084
Likes: 1
From: the cockpit
Lu, I understand your point of view but.....
The religious representatives you allude to are discussing concepts/philosophies. Accordingly, each is going to have a different answer, however I would wager that if you asked each to put his hand in boiling water, they would each report the same.....It's hot (although the expletives may differ somewhat)! Similarly, we are examining actual rotor dynamics, not philosophies about rotor dynamics, therefore there is likely to be one answer of fact, not many of different opinions. I go back to the question previously posted..have you asked yourself why universities, the Air Force acadamy and test pilot schools teach aerodynamic precession? Why would they merely teach "an opinion"?
The HUMS stuff would be good on the HUMS thread. Your post is a good read.
The religious representatives you allude to are discussing concepts/philosophies. Accordingly, each is going to have a different answer, however I would wager that if you asked each to put his hand in boiling water, they would each report the same.....It's hot (although the expletives may differ somewhat)! Similarly, we are examining actual rotor dynamics, not philosophies about rotor dynamics, therefore there is likely to be one answer of fact, not many of different opinions. I go back to the question previously posted..have you asked yourself why universities, the Air Force acadamy and test pilot schools teach aerodynamic precession? Why would they merely teach "an opinion"?
The HUMS stuff would be good on the HUMS thread. Your post is a good read.
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
From: Australasia
Folks,
My greatest disappointment is that a hugely beneficial forum has degenerated into a pissing contest that is not helping anyone's reputation. It has become personal, vindictive and deeply boring.
We have established the credentials of each of the players and their respective faults - let us just read their posts with that in mind and filter things accordingly. If you feel obliged to disagree, please do so with civility, professional courtesy and appropriate brevity.
We have expanded our audience substantially - please let us not drive them away.
My greatest disappointment is that a hugely beneficial forum has degenerated into a pissing contest that is not helping anyone's reputation. It has become personal, vindictive and deeply boring.
We have established the credentials of each of the players and their respective faults - let us just read their posts with that in mind and filter things accordingly. If you feel obliged to disagree, please do so with civility, professional courtesy and appropriate brevity.
We have expanded our audience substantially - please let us not drive them away.
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,018
Likes: 73
From: Pewsey, UK
4dogs :
Well said.
RW-1 :
I think we're aware by now that you've got little or no respect for Lu. Please don't let that lead you into ruining each and every thread with a contribution from Lu for other people.
Lu :
Impressive CV - but then you don't get old without learning a few things, right ?
Well said.
RW-1 :
I think we're aware by now that you've got little or no respect for Lu. Please don't let that lead you into ruining each and every thread with a contribution from Lu for other people.
Lu :
Impressive CV - but then you don't get old without learning a few things, right ?
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
From: Sunrise, Fl. U.S.A.
To NR Fairy,
Unlike LZ, There have been threads he has made comments in not related to this continual flawed reality Robbie crusade, and in such threads I have not made any input. Find them, and go look. But if he returns yet again to this flawed crap I WILL be there, just as he stated he would continue to bring it up. I need not argue the dynamics, for that has been done, we are now dealing with a obsessed person who delves deeper into the excuse bucket, bringing up more and more misdirection to get off topic.
This has nothing to do with respect, respect is earned. He certainly has not earned mine, nor do I care what he thinks of me, for at the very least I do not proclaim myself to be the aero god that he does. And you hav eseen no childish excuses from me when I have been pointed out as incorrect. As evidence late back last year I made a statement about elastomeric bearings, and it happens LZ informed me on some incorrect conceptions, I apologized after further reading and determining he was right. However you see no such behaviour from LZ. You get (refer to quoted part down below).
But I will not respect misdirection, and poor excuses to what is a closed issue on the topic except to the thread starter.
I will not except the weak justification that all here have to prove this flawed concept correct. Neither should any of you. If he cannot understand it, and plenty of people here have shown in different ways why it isn't, then it is over, for all we hear now is touted proposals, factual responses, and then a string of childish excuses.
He has the knowledge to know that he must go out and prove his concept correct himself, that will NOT happen for he would rather argue it thru books and silly excuses, and the flawed interpretations that he has made from them contributed to the beginning of this in the first place.
And he will never bring it into court against Robinson either, he will say he doesn't wish to do it, or it is a money issue (why not use all that $$$$ you seem to have LZ hmm? If it is so dire an issue, you will argue it to death but not take action?) Reason: he cannot prove it in court, for again, he has 0 data to support it, and that is the first thing the opposing lawyer is going to ask for...
LZ,
You are as flawed as your concept.
You would now have us believe you over the experts in the field because:
You have a long maint resume without any DESIGN experience to match them.
Because you are PAID far greater than any of us. (what a joke ... you have 0 credibility after using that one ...)
ROUND AND ROUND, RIGHT BACK TO THIS EXCUSE...
WE ARE NOT GOING BACK TO THIS NONSENSE !!!
PEOPLE HERE HAVE PRESENTED FACTUAL DATA TO CONTRADICT YOUR CONCEPT.
QUIT TELLING EVERYONE HERE THAT THE FACTS THEY PRESENTED TO YOU ARE AN "ALTERNATE THEORY" THAT YOU "ACCEPTED".
FOR THE RESPONSES ARE NOT. THEY ARE ACTUAL FLIGHT RESULTS THAT WE SEE EVERY DAY WE MOVE THE CYCLIC, SOMETHING YOU REFUSE TO GO OUT AND DO YOURSELF. OR ACTUAL PROVEN DYNAMICS, FOR WHICH YOU HAVE NO COUNTERARGUMENT BUT TO SAY:
But I have a large resume, I make more $$$, my detreactors cannot agree, well they do agree that you are wrong, refer back to Helmut fire's answer to your excuse on that.
WELL IF YOU HAVE SO MUCH MORE $$$ THAN US, THEN GO OUT AND FLY A ROBBIE FOR A TEST ARTICLE, QUIT THE EXCUSES AND GO FLY, GET DATA.
YOU HAVE NO "THEORY", YOU HAVE A FLAWED INTERPRETATION/CONCEPT BASED UPON A MISUNDERSTANGING OF COMBINED BASIC AERODYNAMIC PRINCIPLES. PERIOD.
AND AGAIN I REMIND YOU THAT YOU CANNOT CHANGE THEM INTO THEORY OR FACT WITHOUT FLIGHT TEST DATA, GO OUT AND GET SOME, FOR THEN WE MAY HEAR YOUR APOLOGY.
ARGUE YOUR BOOK READING ALL YOU WANT, BUT ALL HERE HAVE AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER REPORTED TO YOU THAT YOU ARE OFF, THE ROTOR DOESN'T DO WHAT YOU PREDICT.
PUT UP OR SHUT UP TIME.
Helmet Fire has done a excellent job of refuting your desire to make this a philosophical issue, so lets NOT bring it or the "alternate explanations(FACTUAL) to my theory(NOT THEORY,
MISUNTERSTANDINGS/CONCEPT)" up again.
Another weak misdirection, so now we are going to make it a philosophical issue with you?
You CANNOT learn, that is very apparent.
If the Lord God on high came down and told you you were wrong, I suppose you would add that statement to yotu "Alternate theory" list. I would love to see you argue it with God.
You are now a pathetic, arrogant, ignorant, old child, and haven't given a STRAIGHT response to any of the questions posed to you in this thread.
What tangent shall we see next PPRuNer's?
Will he claim some zodiac sign is not in the right location in the sky?
Will he claim that space aliens are purposefully controlling everyones minds but his?
We've seen just about everything else, and each time someone here has taken it out of the excuse list, current one was done by Helmet Fire.
[ 25 August 2001: Message edited by: RW-1 ]
Unlike LZ, There have been threads he has made comments in not related to this continual flawed reality Robbie crusade, and in such threads I have not made any input. Find them, and go look. But if he returns yet again to this flawed crap I WILL be there, just as he stated he would continue to bring it up. I need not argue the dynamics, for that has been done, we are now dealing with a obsessed person who delves deeper into the excuse bucket, bringing up more and more misdirection to get off topic.
This has nothing to do with respect, respect is earned. He certainly has not earned mine, nor do I care what he thinks of me, for at the very least I do not proclaim myself to be the aero god that he does. And you hav eseen no childish excuses from me when I have been pointed out as incorrect. As evidence late back last year I made a statement about elastomeric bearings, and it happens LZ informed me on some incorrect conceptions, I apologized after further reading and determining he was right. However you see no such behaviour from LZ. You get (refer to quoted part down below).
But I will not respect misdirection, and poor excuses to what is a closed issue on the topic except to the thread starter.
I will not except the weak justification that all here have to prove this flawed concept correct. Neither should any of you. If he cannot understand it, and plenty of people here have shown in different ways why it isn't, then it is over, for all we hear now is touted proposals, factual responses, and then a string of childish excuses.
He has the knowledge to know that he must go out and prove his concept correct himself, that will NOT happen for he would rather argue it thru books and silly excuses, and the flawed interpretations that he has made from them contributed to the beginning of this in the first place.
And he will never bring it into court against Robinson either, he will say he doesn't wish to do it, or it is a money issue (why not use all that $$$$ you seem to have LZ hmm? If it is so dire an issue, you will argue it to death but not take action?) Reason: he cannot prove it in court, for again, he has 0 data to support it, and that is the first thing the opposing lawyer is going to ask for...
LZ,
You are as flawed as your concept.
You would now have us believe you over the experts in the field because:
You have a long maint resume without any DESIGN experience to match them.
Because you are PAID far greater than any of us. (what a joke ... you have 0 credibility after using that one ...)
If you go back to many of my posts you will see that I have accepted the various explanations as being an alternate to the theory I was professing.
WE ARE NOT GOING BACK TO THIS NONSENSE !!!
PEOPLE HERE HAVE PRESENTED FACTUAL DATA TO CONTRADICT YOUR CONCEPT.
QUIT TELLING EVERYONE HERE THAT THE FACTS THEY PRESENTED TO YOU ARE AN "ALTERNATE THEORY" THAT YOU "ACCEPTED".
FOR THE RESPONSES ARE NOT. THEY ARE ACTUAL FLIGHT RESULTS THAT WE SEE EVERY DAY WE MOVE THE CYCLIC, SOMETHING YOU REFUSE TO GO OUT AND DO YOURSELF. OR ACTUAL PROVEN DYNAMICS, FOR WHICH YOU HAVE NO COUNTERARGUMENT BUT TO SAY:
But I have a large resume, I make more $$$, my detreactors cannot agree, well they do agree that you are wrong, refer back to Helmut fire's answer to your excuse on that.
WELL IF YOU HAVE SO MUCH MORE $$$ THAN US, THEN GO OUT AND FLY A ROBBIE FOR A TEST ARTICLE, QUIT THE EXCUSES AND GO FLY, GET DATA.
YOU HAVE NO "THEORY", YOU HAVE A FLAWED INTERPRETATION/CONCEPT BASED UPON A MISUNDERSTANGING OF COMBINED BASIC AERODYNAMIC PRINCIPLES. PERIOD.
AND AGAIN I REMIND YOU THAT YOU CANNOT CHANGE THEM INTO THEORY OR FACT WITHOUT FLIGHT TEST DATA, GO OUT AND GET SOME, FOR THEN WE MAY HEAR YOUR APOLOGY.
ARGUE YOUR BOOK READING ALL YOU WANT, BUT ALL HERE HAVE AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER REPORTED TO YOU THAT YOU ARE OFF, THE ROTOR DOESN'T DO WHAT YOU PREDICT.
PUT UP OR SHUT UP TIME.
Similarly, we are examining actual rotor dynamics, not philosophies about rotor dynamics, therefore there is likely to be one answer of fact, not many of different opinions. I go back to the question previously posted... have you asked yourself why universities, the Air Force acadamy and test pilot schools teach aerodynamic precession? Why would they merely teach "an opinion"?
MISUNTERSTANDINGS/CONCEPT)" up again.
Another weak misdirection, so now we are going to make it a philosophical issue with you?
You CANNOT learn, that is very apparent.
If the Lord God on high came down and told you you were wrong, I suppose you would add that statement to yotu "Alternate theory" list. I would love to see you argue it with God.
You are now a pathetic, arrogant, ignorant, old child, and haven't given a STRAIGHT response to any of the questions posed to you in this thread.
What tangent shall we see next PPRuNer's?
Will he claim some zodiac sign is not in the right location in the sky?
Will he claim that space aliens are purposefully controlling everyones minds but his?
We've seen just about everything else, and each time someone here has taken it out of the excuse list, current one was done by Helmet Fire.
[ 25 August 2001: Message edited by: RW-1 ]
Iconoclast
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
From: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
To: RW-1 and Helmet Fire
A quote from Helmet Fire relating to a statement I made in response to one made by Nick Lappos. “Similarly, we are examining actual rotor dynamics, not philosophies about rotor dynamics, therefore there is likely to be one answer of fact, not many of different opinions. I go back to the question previously posted... have you asked yourself why universities, the Air Force academy and test pilot schools teach aerodynamic precession? Why would they merely teach "an opinion"?
Nick made a statement as to why I constantly refer to training at the technician and pilot level relative to the teaching of POF. I replied that it is in the technical training environment for both pilots and mechanics that they learn about the basics of POF. Nick criticized the fact that I did not reference engineering texts and the interrelation of the dynamics of a rotor system in order to explain the basics of POF. My reply was that these texts might very well be used in the training of Air Force Academy students, University students and attendees at military test pilot schools. The reason for this is that these individuals are being trained at the engineering level and not the operational level. It does not matter to me if the engineering text addresses POF stressing aerodynamic precession or gyroscopic precession and I don’t believe I stated that at the engineering level they teach one theory to the exclusion of the other.
It comes down to this. I teach the principles of flight the way I do because it can be easily related to the actions of a gyroscope. This does not make me right and you wrong if you believe in aerodynamic precession because both theories work. There is one irrefutable fact in both theories and that is, both philosophies have a common thread and that is precession.
You can not explain away the design of most helicopter flight control systems as they are designed so that the maximum pitch input occurs 90 degrees ahead of the desired response. From this point on you can promote the idea that the response vs. input is caused by aerodynamics or it is caused by physical laws that govern gyroscopic precession. Both philosophies can be proven and both are valid. If this is the case, then why are we still beating this dead horse?
To: RW-1
Since you do such a good job of going through past threads and document all of my errors in theory or my unwillingness to admit my errors, I would request that you go through all of the threads if you haven’t done that already and list those elements that still need to be addressed. I would request that you not include any comments about Robinson certification or the precession angle of the Robinson Rotorhead. Regarding your constant reference to my not performing the necessary test to demonstrate my theory I will say this one more time and hopefully it sinks in. The only R22 in this area suffered a dynamic roll over and was written off for the hull insurance. When I have access to an R22 or, an R44 I will contract for one hour and have the pilot perform certain tests none of which will endanger him or the helicopter.
A quote from Helmet Fire relating to a statement I made in response to one made by Nick Lappos. “Similarly, we are examining actual rotor dynamics, not philosophies about rotor dynamics, therefore there is likely to be one answer of fact, not many of different opinions. I go back to the question previously posted... have you asked yourself why universities, the Air Force academy and test pilot schools teach aerodynamic precession? Why would they merely teach "an opinion"?
Nick made a statement as to why I constantly refer to training at the technician and pilot level relative to the teaching of POF. I replied that it is in the technical training environment for both pilots and mechanics that they learn about the basics of POF. Nick criticized the fact that I did not reference engineering texts and the interrelation of the dynamics of a rotor system in order to explain the basics of POF. My reply was that these texts might very well be used in the training of Air Force Academy students, University students and attendees at military test pilot schools. The reason for this is that these individuals are being trained at the engineering level and not the operational level. It does not matter to me if the engineering text addresses POF stressing aerodynamic precession or gyroscopic precession and I don’t believe I stated that at the engineering level they teach one theory to the exclusion of the other.
It comes down to this. I teach the principles of flight the way I do because it can be easily related to the actions of a gyroscope. This does not make me right and you wrong if you believe in aerodynamic precession because both theories work. There is one irrefutable fact in both theories and that is, both philosophies have a common thread and that is precession.
You can not explain away the design of most helicopter flight control systems as they are designed so that the maximum pitch input occurs 90 degrees ahead of the desired response. From this point on you can promote the idea that the response vs. input is caused by aerodynamics or it is caused by physical laws that govern gyroscopic precession. Both philosophies can be proven and both are valid. If this is the case, then why are we still beating this dead horse?
To: RW-1
Since you do such a good job of going through past threads and document all of my errors in theory or my unwillingness to admit my errors, I would request that you go through all of the threads if you haven’t done that already and list those elements that still need to be addressed. I would request that you not include any comments about Robinson certification or the precession angle of the Robinson Rotorhead. Regarding your constant reference to my not performing the necessary test to demonstrate my theory I will say this one more time and hopefully it sinks in. The only R22 in this area suffered a dynamic roll over and was written off for the hull insurance. When I have access to an R22 or, an R44 I will contract for one hour and have the pilot perform certain tests none of which will endanger him or the helicopter.
Guest
Posts: n/a
RW,
Don't even try to convince him of anything! He signs himself "the Cat" for good reason. Have you ever been able to train a cat to do anything?
I am a bit miffed at his snide reference to my web site, where I put up a brief paragraph CV that he thinks is conceited. I chuckle because he then has a post on this thread that takes 1,500 words and 189 lines to tell us of all the mechanic schools he attended and all the aircraft he has worked on. (Had I listed the more than 100 rotorcraft types I have flown, and the more than 30 courses I had attended, I'll bet I could have wasted even more electrons).
On this thread I noted (and he was made angry by) the fact that he is not an engineer by training nor by job, and he does not grasp the fundamentals of our craft by either engineering training, design experience or piloting knowledge.
He is probably a first class instructor, clearly one who has set up and run training classes for many aircraft. As such, and also as a mechanic of great experience, he has much we all can learn from. Unfortunately, he has the most dreaded condition - He Doesn't Know What He Doesn't Know. This is an intellectually fatal flaw, and that is why I have criticized him in the past.
Regarding his assertion that I am somehow elevated in status by my piloting profession, let me add that some vast mistake was made and I became a Fellow of the American Helicopter Society for engineering contributions. Similar errors occurred when I became a member of Tau Beta Pi, the National Engineering Honor Society. The crimes date all the way back to when I was mistakenly placed on the Dean's list as an Aerospace Engineering student at Georgia Tech (Go Jackets!) where, in spite of such mistakes, every now and then a pretty good engineer is made.
To sum it all - Lu, Can't we all just get along?
Don't even try to convince him of anything! He signs himself "the Cat" for good reason. Have you ever been able to train a cat to do anything?
I am a bit miffed at his snide reference to my web site, where I put up a brief paragraph CV that he thinks is conceited. I chuckle because he then has a post on this thread that takes 1,500 words and 189 lines to tell us of all the mechanic schools he attended and all the aircraft he has worked on. (Had I listed the more than 100 rotorcraft types I have flown, and the more than 30 courses I had attended, I'll bet I could have wasted even more electrons).
On this thread I noted (and he was made angry by) the fact that he is not an engineer by training nor by job, and he does not grasp the fundamentals of our craft by either engineering training, design experience or piloting knowledge.
He is probably a first class instructor, clearly one who has set up and run training classes for many aircraft. As such, and also as a mechanic of great experience, he has much we all can learn from. Unfortunately, he has the most dreaded condition - He Doesn't Know What He Doesn't Know. This is an intellectually fatal flaw, and that is why I have criticized him in the past.
Regarding his assertion that I am somehow elevated in status by my piloting profession, let me add that some vast mistake was made and I became a Fellow of the American Helicopter Society for engineering contributions. Similar errors occurred when I became a member of Tau Beta Pi, the National Engineering Honor Society. The crimes date all the way back to when I was mistakenly placed on the Dean's list as an Aerospace Engineering student at Georgia Tech (Go Jackets!) where, in spite of such mistakes, every now and then a pretty good engineer is made.
To sum it all - Lu, Can't we all just get along?
Joined: Jan 1997
Posts: 7,736
Likes: 1
From: UK
I closed the thread mentioned at the beginning. I did so after a warning regarding the arguements becoming too personal.
The warning wasn't heeded and the thread was closed. The same warning goes for this and any other threads that descend to similarly abusive levels.
Many of you are aware of the tragic degeneration of other helo lists and forums. We're not prepared to see it here. 4 Dogs summed it all up most succinctly - please reread his thoughts on the subject.
This has always been a moderated site and will remain so. There are an estimated 50,000 other discussion boards out there so you can't say you don't have a choice.
Rob Lloyd
The warning wasn't heeded and the thread was closed. The same warning goes for this and any other threads that descend to similarly abusive levels.
Many of you are aware of the tragic degeneration of other helo lists and forums. We're not prepared to see it here. 4 Dogs summed it all up most succinctly - please reread his thoughts on the subject.
This has always been a moderated site and will remain so. There are an estimated 50,000 other discussion boards out there so you can't say you don't have a choice.
Rob Lloyd
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
From: Sunrise, Fl. U.S.A.
True Nick, very true. I thought is was a bit long myself.
Well LZ,
I don't seem to have the time to debate this with you any longer.
The heli's including our instrument trainer have arrived in Miami (supposedly, have to confirm. Been waiting 3 months, darn, got the test passed last JANUARY yet ...) and that means I will begin my last few hours towards getting my time in, polishing up my 180 auto and confined area techniques, flying without the governor on (done before when the robbie didn't have it at all, I don't find it to be a big deal in itself, though the CFI's seem to be wary of it) and my commercial checkride.
That means I'll be in the books, and getting myself prepped for the oral to be given. The oral for me will be an ordeal, though I am ready I seem to still get a case of the jitters come test time, but once through and on to the fun part, the flying, I'm ok.
Getting that accomplished will be much more satisfying for me than to continue to spin round and round with you on excuse after excuse.
Someone here pointed out to me by email that you have dug your own hole, it will be up to you to either fall in further, which is my guess, or climb out of it.
Either way I finally realized in discussing it with this individual that I need not hear you say anything, the facts are plain for everyone to see here. If other threads are continued, the trend will remain whether or not I participate, so I Choose not to, or you could say my flying career does.
So, that said, I need not say more on the subject.
Have a good weekend.
Well LZ,
I don't seem to have the time to debate this with you any longer.
The heli's including our instrument trainer have arrived in Miami (supposedly, have to confirm. Been waiting 3 months, darn, got the test passed last JANUARY yet ...) and that means I will begin my last few hours towards getting my time in, polishing up my 180 auto and confined area techniques, flying without the governor on (done before when the robbie didn't have it at all, I don't find it to be a big deal in itself, though the CFI's seem to be wary of it) and my commercial checkride.
That means I'll be in the books, and getting myself prepped for the oral to be given. The oral for me will be an ordeal, though I am ready I seem to still get a case of the jitters come test time, but once through and on to the fun part, the flying, I'm ok.
Getting that accomplished will be much more satisfying for me than to continue to spin round and round with you on excuse after excuse.
Someone here pointed out to me by email that you have dug your own hole, it will be up to you to either fall in further, which is my guess, or climb out of it.
Either way I finally realized in discussing it with this individual that I need not hear you say anything, the facts are plain for everyone to see here. If other threads are continued, the trend will remain whether or not I participate, so I Choose not to, or you could say my flying career does.
So, that said, I need not say more on the subject.
Have a good weekend.
Joined: Oct 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATCO
Posts: 1,245
Likes: 141
From: the dark side
Re Nick's you can't train a cat, you can, we did, we had a Burmese we taught to open doors and do other tricks too. The one thing we couldn't stop it doing however, was its occaisional habit of sauntering in yelling it's head off and taking a **** up the curtains! Not that I'm implying anyone here might do the same!
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 94
Likes: 1
From: Ottawa, Canada
Well, I'm disappointed that it has sunk to the level where we must get a warning from a moderator. As Nick Sez, "Can't we all just get along?"
I too, carry around the title of Senior Test Pilot on my business card (there Nick, I did it), but I don't have the background or education of some of you folks and find that I'm always picking up something of interest here. I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed, and learned much from reading the brilliant posts from Heedm, Dave Jackson, Nick, tgrendl, Shy T and others too numerous to mention. We have some great minds here, and the ability to get them all together to share ideas is a priviledge that this wonderful technology affords us. Let's keep it that way.
As for Lu, his background and experience speak for themselves and show a lifetime of dedication to our industry. That is not to be discounted. Yes, there are times I'd like to jump through the screen and scream at him when he 'doesn't get it', but there are others where I'm amazed at what he can pull out of the past to share with us. I agree that he's a little pedantic, and doesn't listen well, but he sure gets the crowd jumpin' n'est-ce-pas? I would submit that some very thoughtful and informative postings were generated in response to Lu's arguments.
All I know is that it would be nice to get this group together on a nice sunny deck somewhere with a few coolers of beer and some single malts.
Fly safe, Lads.
I too, carry around the title of Senior Test Pilot on my business card (there Nick, I did it), but I don't have the background or education of some of you folks and find that I'm always picking up something of interest here. I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed, and learned much from reading the brilliant posts from Heedm, Dave Jackson, Nick, tgrendl, Shy T and others too numerous to mention. We have some great minds here, and the ability to get them all together to share ideas is a priviledge that this wonderful technology affords us. Let's keep it that way.
As for Lu, his background and experience speak for themselves and show a lifetime of dedication to our industry. That is not to be discounted. Yes, there are times I'd like to jump through the screen and scream at him when he 'doesn't get it', but there are others where I'm amazed at what he can pull out of the past to share with us. I agree that he's a little pedantic, and doesn't listen well, but he sure gets the crowd jumpin' n'est-ce-pas? I would submit that some very thoughtful and informative postings were generated in response to Lu's arguments.
All I know is that it would be nice to get this group together on a nice sunny deck somewhere with a few coolers of beer and some single malts.
Fly safe, Lads.
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
From: California
I'd like to say thanks to CTD for the excellent post, I couldn't agree more.
I've done production, maintenance and developmental test flight work (no experimental) and thought that I knew a fair amount. The group at large on this forum has happily opened my eyes.
We are normally fairly isolated (and insulated) in our work and this interaction, on this board helps to alleviate that.
So likewise thanks to Nick, CTD, Lu, Heedm, helimutt, NR fairy, et al for the excellent and thought provoking interaction.
Joined: Oct 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 7,373
Likes: 931
From: Den Haag
I can understand people making a spur of the moment remark or two, particularly after a few beers, and have done so myself, though regretted it and edited the post later.
What I find worrying in a kind of 'does this chap fly passengers around' (or will be soon, you know who you are)type of way, is the sustained and vitriolic abuse that takes place, often in the form of very long, and obviously not impulsive, posts.
In fairness, the same seems true of some of the FW forums, but in general I do feel it is rather degrading and does little to further our cause as supposed professionals (now there's a topic for debate).
If you were a lay man that stumbled accross some of the ramblings on this forum, you'd not be terribly impressed.
What I find worrying in a kind of 'does this chap fly passengers around' (or will be soon, you know who you are)type of way, is the sustained and vitriolic abuse that takes place, often in the form of very long, and obviously not impulsive, posts.
In fairness, the same seems true of some of the FW forums, but in general I do feel it is rather degrading and does little to further our cause as supposed professionals (now there's a topic for debate).
If you were a lay man that stumbled accross some of the ramblings on this forum, you'd not be terribly impressed.
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 1
From: UK
Well, this thread has now run long enough (arguably too long!) and everyone who wished to contribute has had an opportunity to do so.
Lu:
Nick Lappos wasn't boasting, nor did he post his own CV on Rotorheads - I did so after a little internet surfing because I thought Rotorheads would be interested in knowing who he was when reading his contributions. It's not surprising that he is held in such high esteem on this forum.
Although some contributors take things too far in their personal attacks, you may wish to reflect quietly upon why your posts occasionally generate such hostility. Nothing would be gained by my trying to explain it to you; I've no reason to believe I'd succeed where others have failed. It's something you can easily work out for yourself if you are minded to do so. Some people say one can never be too old to learn. Worth a thought?
All:
Some of the childish personal attacks have, sadly, done nothing to enhance the image of the profession. and, in future, I hope we can exchange views with resorting to personal abuse. There is an enormous wealth of talent on Rotorheads: Nick Lappos is just one obvious example, but there are others with years of experience flying many different types in varied fields.
I am concerned we should not lose such valuable contributors because they become tired of personal squabbles distracting from what are otherwise good and informative discussions.
This thread is now closed.
Heliport
[ 29 August 2001: Message edited by: Heliport ]
Lu:
Nick Lappos wasn't boasting, nor did he post his own CV on Rotorheads - I did so after a little internet surfing because I thought Rotorheads would be interested in knowing who he was when reading his contributions. It's not surprising that he is held in such high esteem on this forum.
Although some contributors take things too far in their personal attacks, you may wish to reflect quietly upon why your posts occasionally generate such hostility. Nothing would be gained by my trying to explain it to you; I've no reason to believe I'd succeed where others have failed. It's something you can easily work out for yourself if you are minded to do so. Some people say one can never be too old to learn. Worth a thought?
All:
Some of the childish personal attacks have, sadly, done nothing to enhance the image of the profession. and, in future, I hope we can exchange views with resorting to personal abuse. There is an enormous wealth of talent on Rotorheads: Nick Lappos is just one obvious example, but there are others with years of experience flying many different types in varied fields.
I am concerned we should not lose such valuable contributors because they become tired of personal squabbles distracting from what are otherwise good and informative discussions.
This thread is now closed.
Heliport
[ 29 August 2001: Message edited by: Heliport ]
