Some flying vids I made...
sam....@gmail.com
and back in a C172 (yeah, I'm a masochist):
Fluffy little clouds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZJsasteE9k
Jon Kraus
Jon
John T
news:45bcaa32$0$8941$4c36...@roadrunner.com
>
> Hopefully you were on an IFR flight plan...
I assumed he was. What would prompt you to make this comment?
--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________
sam....@gmail.com
Yes, I was on an IFR flight plan. Jerk.
On Jan 28, 6:50 am, Jon Kraus <jkr...@indy.rr.com> wrote:
> Hopefully you were on an IFR flight plan...
>
> Jon
>
Larry Dighera
His last wish an airplane ride
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fOqaU96iLI&NR
Candy Bomber Sulphur Creek landing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR0qs-F4Woc&NR
Larry Dighera
wrote in <1170004114.5...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:
>On Jan 28, 9:48 am, Larry Dighera <LDigh...@att.net> wrote:
>> Here are a couple more:
>>
>> His last wish an airplane ridehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fOqaU96iLI&NR
>>
>> Candy Bomber Sulphur Creek landinghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR0qs-F4Woc&NR
>
>NICELY done Larry!
Thank you, but I'm afraid I cannot claim authorship of those videos.
>I can never get enough of watching these good will videos.
>
>Flying is not only about us, but about sharing with others that wanna
>be.....
>
>Allen
Responsible, entertaining video of GA flight operations is our
ambassador to the lay public. Unfortunately, it seems many would
prefer to focus on sensational crash footage to attract viewers.
Here's my contribution: http://dighera.com/otto_meet_5-23-71.avi
The video takes several minutes to load at broadband bitrates. It was
taken May 23,1971 at the Corona del Mar, CA, 123rd Otto Lilienthal
birthday celebration organized by the Lambie brothers Mark and Jack.
This event marked the rebirth of hang gliding in the USA, and my first
and last involvement with weight-shift aircraft control.
I (with mustache) had just completed my Private certificate on October
31, 1970, and thought it would be fun to experience flight as those
predecessors of Wilbur and Orville had. The blond fellow was my
flight instructor, Keith Lindsay. We built the "aircraft" from clear
Fir, bamboo, and 3-mill Mylar sheeting donated by the 3M Corporation.
Our entire cost was about $50.00 and 20 man-hours. Our longest flight
duration was 12 seconds. The late Richard Miller can be seen piloting
his Conduit Condor mono-wing. The black Rogollo "Batso" was piloted
by Taras Kiceniuk, Jr. There's some information here:
http://www.privitt.com/hang_loose.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hang_gliding
"THE HANG GLIDING MAYHEM BEGAN"
In 1970 Jack Lambie was principal of Collins School summer session
near Long Beach, California, and also taught a class in science and
crafts. Always a nut about anything that flew, toward the end of the
session Lambie inspired his students to help him build an original
twenty-eight-foot biplane. They did-with glue, staples, clear
plastic, and baling wire from the local newspaper distributor. Lambie
christened their plane the Hang Loose, a name as suggestive of Lambie
himself as his biplane. When they took their machine out to a nearby
hill, the lighter students actually left the ground with it!
Richard Miller was there, and so was photographer Bob Whiting.
Suddenly Lambie found himself the subject of articles in Soaring
magazine and the Los Angeles Times. Men wanted plans for his Hang
Loose, and Jack and his brother Mark, half in jest, created some. More
articles were written, and the demand for Hang Loose plans grew. After
an article in Sport Planes called, "The $24.86 airplane you can build
in two weeks," Jack Lambie came home from a few months out of town to
find three shopping bags full of mail waiting for him.
Jack said, "Many had six-to eight-page letters, often from highly
experienced pilots telling of their love of flight and how this seemed
to be their long-sought dream. Some were from what were obviously
twelve-year-olds.
The letters and orders poured in by the thousands."
Among them was a letter from Richard Miller, suggesting they hold
the world's first hang gliding meet on Otto Lilienthal's birthday, May
23. Jack thought it a good idea, and set about organizing it.
May 23, 1971. That is the date, perhaps, that hang gliding
officially became a sport.
Before the Lilienthal meet, hang gliding was Bill Bennett towing
for fascinated crowds. Richard Miller and a few friends galloping
down to the beach.
Satellite flyers with curious wings hopping and skipping down
mini-hills in crazy abandon-and sometimes even flying. Hang gliding
was the oddballs, the nuts, the screw-loosers, doing their thing. But
doing it solo.
Hang gliding was funny. Just watching the earnestness on the faces
as they ran and came to naught was funny.
The movies are as good as films of the early days of aviation.
The man who runs pell-mell down the hill under a fat, cumbersome wing
... and runs ... and runs ... and runs ... and runs ... and then at
the bottom when his feet are still disappointingly on the ground,
makes one tiny, hopeful jump-as if that might finally do it. And the
girl who runs under her gossamer-wing glider, her legs churning like a
bicyclist without a bicycle, getting a miniature distance off the
earth, only to have one end of her wing suddenly collapse downward,
like the dropped ear of a dog, taking her plane down with it.
The soloists were all there were.
Now Jack Lambie was bringing them all together as a meet! He
thought there might be six flyers present.
Later, the names read like a roster of hang gliding's founding
family. Richard Miller. Jack and Mark Lambie. Karen Lambie. Taras
Kiceniuk. Bruce Carmichael and son Doug. Lloyd Licher. Joe Faust.
Volmer Jensen and Paul MacCready, observing.
For Jack, finding the flyers was easy; finding the site, next to
impossible. He says, "At the time it seemed we should pick a site that
was not too dangerous and favored low sink and flat glide.
But most of Orange County was owned by the Irvine Company, and
getting them to cooperate was like trying to build a house out of
marshmallows. You could set it all up, but it kept folding inward. The
Irvine people were courteous, fine listeners, interested, but they had
this little condition: a million dollars' worth of liability
insurance, which Lambie found out from his agent would cost about
twelve hundred dollars per day. "Why so much?" he asked. "They're just
little featherweight devices that only go about fifteen miles per
hour."
"Perhaps," the agent said, "but with no experience to go on we'll
just have to put it at the same rate as a motorcycle race."
How were the six possible competitors going to pay that, Jack
wondered.
Finally, after days of wandering the hills, and dozens of dead-end
phone calls to find owners, Jack and his brother, Mark, found an ideal
hill with no Irvine markings and no obstructions. With a single look
they both got the same idea. Why not just come here and fly? The hell
with trying to find the owner.
Jack says, "Having taught history for some years, I have been
impressed with how whole civilizations have been conquered by just a
few people. The Aztecs and Incas are good examples. Only four hundred
Spanish soldiers did the job, the strategy of which was to capture the
leader through some trickery and get him to surrender the country.
Lesson: The more centralized the organization the easier it is to gain
control of the whole. Another analogy: Highly developed life
forms-that is, mammals-are dispatched with one well-aimed shot to the
central nervous system, whereas some more primitive creatures such as
the starfish can't even be killed when chopped into pieces."
The group, Jack decided, would have no "heart." When confronted by
the authorities, each man would have to be dealt with separately;
there would be no leaders. Just a sort of multiheaded starfish.
On May 23 fifteen flyers-double what Lambie had expected-brought
eleven Hang Loose-type craft and three Rogallo shapes. Taras Kiceniuk,
a Cal Tech student, flew a version of Richard Miller's Bamboo
Butterfly, called The Batso. Richard Miller had moved on to a Conduit
Condor and Bruce Carmichael had a jib-sail Rogallo. The rest were Hang
Looses.
Lambie says, "We had a brief meeting. No one was to say who any of
the other competitors were, and there was no one in charge. A bevy of
cute girls from the University of California, Riverside, were to time
an measure distance ... on their own, of course.
Lambie's portrayal of the day is a classic.
"The mayhem began. Many had never flown their gliders before this
day. Launchers would grasp each wing tip. Another would hold the tail
boom and the group would stumble down the hill. The tip men let go,
the tail man kept shoving, and the machine climbed. The higher it got,
the steeper the angle of attack, with the tail man still gamely
shoving until he could shove no more; the glider was now in a full
stall. The pilot was running and kicking as the machine flopped to the
grass. In another variation one wing man would hold on and continue
shoving after the other stopped, resulting in a spectacular ground
loop. After a couple of stalls, ground loops, and backslides, the
wiring became so tweaked that the out-of-rig biplane was insured of a
curving flight no matter how deft the launch crew had become."
Taras Kiceniuk later wrote, "The Bamboo Butterflies demonstrated
[that day] that this design was capable of excellent control in the
hands of a skilled pilot-and very limited in aerodynamic performance.
The gliders ... showed the opposite face of the coin-acceptable
aerodynamic performance and practically no control!"
The hill, clearly visible from the road, attracted spectators, and
soon hundreds-then thousands-of people strolled over to see the
strange goings-on. Among the spectators was Paul MacCready, with a
doctorate from Cal Tech and a lifetime enthusiasm for aviation. But
what MacCready saw hardly qualified as aviation, for he remarked
pleasantly, "What good is it? It's like rolling down-hill on a bicycle
with the steering locked and seeing who can go the farthest before
crashing."
Volmer Jensen also felt it was all a little mad, funny but mad,
especially the Rogallos. With the flyer dependent on his body and his
buddies for everything-starting, steering, stability, and
stopping-Jensen figured flight had gone one giant step-backward! He
saw no future in weight-shift control-nor has his opinion ever
changed: "Nobody who understands aeronautics would fly one of those
things." Volmer Jensen's response was to go home and build his own
VI-12 hang glider, conventionally controlled from aileron to elevator.
But he still grins when he thinks of the Otto Lilienthal meet.
In due time both the owner of the land and the police showed up,
in that order. The landowner, cajoled by a friendly Russell Hawkes
(writer, TV producer, and fellow Hang Loose builder), finally decided
it was OK to proceed with the "good clean fun" about the same time a
police helicopter appeared overhead and began bawling from the skies,
"Will the organizers of the meet please report to the squad car at the
bottom of the hill." Over and over the command blared from heaven.
Nobody went.
Finally Joe Faust ambled down, but his peculiar brand of
funny-speak only confused the police.
At last the landowner more or less convinced the authorities that
every-thing was OK-and anyway, the police had been unable to pick even
one genuine culprit from the mobs of people.
Defeated, the police gave up.
Jack wrote, "Mark and I took turns flying, and after one smooth
launch Mark floated the length of the hill for 13 seconds, the meet's
duration record. Taras made 23 seconds on a towed flight, including
the towed portion, but this was not considered 'self' launched flight,
so it wasn't counted for the self-launched prize. We had a batch of
certificates of participation printed up-collector's items now-for
each pilot and crew, with notation of the achievements.
"We picnicked under the wings of our planes and laughed and
laughed at the flights and crashes. At one moment, forever frozen in
my memory, one ship climbed straight up, stalled and collapsed in slow
motion; another cartwheeled in the background to the left, while
another spun to the right.
"Although the Hang Looses did not turn in the flights I had
expected, everyone was having such a good time it didn't matter. The
simple joy of leaping into the air was enough."
Jack Lambie's little meet became front-page news, television news,
the subject of fourteen breathless phone calls the following week from
writers and photographers asking when the next meet would be held for
their benefit. The story was told by National Geographic, Popular
Science, Soaring, and Science once Mechanics. In Germany, England, and
France this crashingest meet stirred great excitement.
Interest in the event remained as strong with the participants as
everyone else. "Two weeks later," lack says, "When all our film was
developed, a gathering was held in Mark's recreation room for movies
and plans for the future."
That first meeting was followed by others. From that day on,
whenever flyers gathered to fly, they assembled later to talk about
it. After a while the group gave itself a name: Coast Hang Gliding
Club. In time the name changed, first to Southern California Hang
Gliding Association, finally to United States Hang Gliding
Association, but a little of the original purpose always remained -to
refly in one's chair the best of what had already been flown off the
hill.
Only three months later Lambie helped promote the Montgomery meet
at the site of the John J. Montgomery Memorial in San Diego. But a
second meet, so soon after the first one, brought an inquisitive shark
from deeper waters. "The FAA called Mark and wanted a complete list of
participants so they could charge them with flying unlicensed
aircraft, flying close to people, flying after major structural damage
and repairs without inspection, no type ratings for Some of the
flyers, et cetera. Mark said he had no idea who the People were and
our own ship was tethered at all times, bringing it under kite
regulations. We heard no more from them."
For months afterward, shrewd hang glider pilots kept useless
strings dangling from their craft to prove, if necessary, that they
were nothing more than kites.
When Jack Lambie thinks about the great excitement generated by
his first meet, he becomes philosophical. A licensed pilot himself, he
says, "After World War II many thousands of people learned flying and
the advanced era of personal flying came of age.... But now that
everyone who wanted to was flying, there was a sense of
disappointment. The kind of flying we were doing wasn't exactly what
many of us had in mind. Grinding around in a light plane talking to
center or the tower every few minutes-or sitting in an airliner
watching a movie-wasn't it.
"The idea of launching oneself, running into the air like a bird,
feeling wing lift body physically with the wind in one's face was more
like it. The flyers were ready for that kind of flying. The days of
purposeful flight had been achieved. Now it was time to get back to
pure flying. The immense media coverage of the little meet attracted
the attention of millions who had dreamed of self-flight.
OUT OF THE COCOON CAME... A ROGALLO HANG GLIDER!
The dust raised by the first two hang gliding meets soon settled
out in one of two camps-with the fixed-wing enthusiasts or the
Rogalloists. Almost everyone aligned himself with one mode of flying
or the other, and there were arguments for both.
Volmer Jensen looked on the Rogallo flyers-as something akin to
upstarts-"They even took our name," he said ruefully-and he still
feels that way today. Though he admits, "We couldn't have done what we
did with the rigid wings if the kites [Rogallos] hadn't come up with
all the publicity and promotion," he still shakes his head in wonder
at the number of people flying such obviously unmanageable craft.
Without movable surfaces he is sure the Rogallo kites are little more
than predestined accidents. "Not that we can't get hurt or killed in a
rigid wing ... but we stand a better chance. I'm real conservative.
Irv Culver, John Underwood-all the fellows that have flown my
ships-they wouldn't buy the kites. My friend Irv Culver-he's one of
the top aerodynamicists in the United States-he just shudders when he
sees those kites fly."
To Jensen, control by weight shift alone is as archaic as it is
unreliable. "I mean, when you can sit there and take the control stick
and move it this much for all the maneuvers you want to make ... why
fly by weight shift?" But Jensen is also fair-minded. "The Rogallos
... it's another type of flying, I'll admit."
To Volmer Jensen the hero of rigid-wing construction is young
Taras Kiceniuk. Although Taras appeared at the Lilienthal meet with
his Batso and flapped down the hill on a diamond-shaped bamboo frame
covered with plastic, by the Montgomery meet three months later Taras
had constructed a graceful, tailless biwing. He named it Icarus. In
October 1971 Taras and his Icarus cruised back and forth above the
cliff at Torrance Beach, California, an event seen on television. By
January 1972 Icarus had made the cover of Soaring magazine.
The advantages of his biwing, and later the single-wing Icarus V,
were obvious: In light or no breezes the Icarus could stay up and soar
above the ridge, and the eight-to-one glide angle it boasted meant
flights of long duration. The Icarus, and eventually Bob Lovejoy's
Quicksilver, were simple, graceful planes that stood midway between
conventional gliding and Rogallo hang gliding. Uncomplicated, easy to
build at home, they could be launched by running down a hill. They
left behind forever the necessity of finding a plane to launch a
plane.
Yet there were disadvantages.
When Jack Lambie noted, "The very slow speed Hang Loose was not to
be the hang glider of the future," he could have been speaking for
other fixed-wing craft as well-at least for the next six years. For
while the Icarus and Jensen's VJ-12 series offered long, graceful
flight, and Kiceniuk even caught a thermal in late'72, they hadn't
solved the problems of portability, easy assembly, crash resistance,
and restricted landings. They had left some of the problems of
conventional gliders behind, but not all.
In the beginning the Rogallos had another advantage. They were
different. What had failed to ignite enthusiasm when it looked like a
familiar glider seemed to turn everyone breathless when it looked like
a child's kite.
On this ... this aberration, men were running down the hill-and
flying! It was all so unexpected it somehow set people alight. It was
like arriving on a flying saucer. While everyone accepted calmly the
flight of a wing that looked like a wing, this funny, diamond-shaped
contraption had all the crazy fascination of a flying umbrella!
So the early Rogallos got press that the fixed wings didn't get.
Volmer Jensen could have told reporters thirty-five years earlier
that it was possible to run down a hill hanging by your armpits and
fly. Only he didn't.
Now a different kind of man with a different kind of flying toy
finally turned people on. The Rogallo shape ... the promoters ... and
hang gliding ... had arrived!
THE AVALANCHE ROLLED DOWN SEVERAL FACES
The Rogallo hang glider caught on incredibly. While the excitement
it generated was not entirely reasonable, its practical success could
be explained, which Jack Lambie did in part when he said, "Their
secret was the hang-bar control and great crashability. The tyro could
learn to fly before his glider was demolished."
There were other things: The tyro didn't need to buy a trailer to
haul his machine; he didn't need a tool kit for final assembly, nor a
baseball field for landing. A Rogallo was truly a personal flying
machine.
Potential flyers were quick to see these advantages, and by the
end of 1972 and early 1973 the Rogallo rush was on. When something
begins everywhere at once it is often impossible to know who was first
of the firsts. In Australia, in northern California, in Canada, in ...
From Manbirds, by Maralys Wills.
Jon Kraus
little on the transparent side... I'll bet he isn't even rated for IFR
flight... :-)
Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
'79 Mooney 201
4443H
atl...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ease up on Jon Sam.
>
> Post's like his protect you (and myself) on an IFR flight plan
> warning VFR folks not to be mucking 'round the cotton stuff :-)
>
> Good vids.....
>
> Got some vids to music on the net as well.
>
> Check out
>
> http://www.archive.org/details/ALiebermanMBOLandingwithMusic or right
> click this link and download for better performance http://
> www.archive.org/download/ALiebermanMBOLandingwithMusic/
> LandingsMergedTogetherWithSongs.avi
>
> and
>
> http://www.archive.org/details/ALiebermanMBOTakeofftoCloudswithMusic
> or right click this link and download for better performance at http://
> www.archive.org/download/ALiebermanMBOTakeofftoCloudswithMusic/
> Takeofftosailing.avi
>
> To see all my vids, whether it be night landings, IFR approaches, even
> a short XC from KJAN to KMBO from startup to touch and go, go to
> http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=%22a%20lieberman%22
>
> Allen
Jon Kraus
medical is expired thus he broke a few FAR's... It all makes sense
now... Hey Sam.. Those who live in glass houses (you know the rest)...
Have a wonderful day..
SAMUEL THOMAS TRASK
Street 204 N FORD ST
City GOLDEN
State CO
County JEFFERSON Zip Code 80403-1362
Country USA
Medical
Medical Class: Third Medical Date: 4/2004
MUST WEAR CORRECTIVE LENSES.
Certificates
DOI: 10/26/2004
Certificate: PRIVATE PILOT
Rating(s):
PRIVATE PILOT
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
>
> On Jan 28, 8:50 am, sam.tr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
Scott Skylane
> Now I see why Sam is so sensitive... He really isn't IFR rated and his
> medical is expired thus he broke a few FAR's... It all makes sense
> now... Hey Sam.. Those who live in glass houses (you know the rest)...
> Have a wonderful day..
/snip/
Not so fast, Jon,
A) Third class medicals are good for three years if the holder is under
40 years old, remember?
B) The videos are obviously taken from the right seat, Sam never said
he was PIC.
C) FAA pilot records are notoriously slow to update. He might have his
IR, and it just hasn't shown up, yet.
D) Etc., etc.
Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane
sam....@gmail.com
Thanks for posting all of my personal information on the internet. I
took and passed my IA checkride on December 2, 2006. That's why my
info isn't updated on the FAA database. I was totally legal on that
flight. Here's my IFR flight plan the day I took all of that footage:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N362ES/history/20061224/1510Z/KDHN/
F45
I am 29 years old, so a 3rd class medical is good for 3 years for me.
Too bad you didn't poke around my other videos and see the memorial
video I made for my Dad, who unexpectedly died 3 days after that
flight - just hours after my brother and I had lunch for him.
Email me and let's talk. I recommend you do so, as I am certainly
going to track you through your blog and have a chat with you.
Seriously, you owe me an apology to say the least. Unbelieveable.
Unknown
Hello Jon,
You must have a lot of time on your hands eh?
MORON
Daveb
sam....@gmail.com
On Jan 28, 9:55 am, "atl...@gmail.com" <atl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ease up on Jon Sam.
>
> Post's like his protect you (and myself) on an IFR flight plan
> warning VFR folks not to be mucking 'round the cotton stuff :-)
>
> Good vids.....
>
> Got some vids to music on the net as well.
>
Thanks, I will check out your vids.
The reason I was short with Jon is that I take great pride in my
flying. The thought of flying around in IMC (in busy FL of all
places) is so revolting to me that it seriously pisses me off that
somebody would ever imply I would do that. Not only did he imply
that, he went off the deep end and pulled my personal information off
the FAA database and posted it on this newsgroup. He then used FAA
data that WE ALL KNOW is very, very slow to update as "proof" that I'm
flying around popping through clouds illegally. He then shows his
complete ignorance my stating that I have an out of date medical.
Apparently he needs to buy and FAR/AIM or at least learn how to look
it up on the internet instead of using the internet to slander me.
I wonder if Jon ever thought about what the FAA would think of him
taking info from their database and using it in this fashion? I also
wonder if have had any idea of what sort of data trail he as left
behind? For somebody that supposedly has ties to the IT industry, he
really should've thought about that. I thought about posting his
address and phone number out there in the circle city, but after about
10 secs I realized how idiotic and juvenile that would be.
I've been posting on and off this newsgroup since I was 20 yrs old
(almost 10 years). I've never seen anyone do what he did to another
pilot. It's just sad.
Sam
Morgans
<sam....@gmail.com> wrote \\
> Thanks for posting all of my personal information on the internet. I
> took and passed my IA checkride on December 2, 2006. That's why my
> info isn't updated on the FAA database. I was totally legal on that
> flight. Here's my IFR flight plan the day I took all of that footage:
>
> http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N362ES/history/20061224/1510Z/KDHN/F45
You have to understand one thing, about the vien in which Jon was acting.
We have seen A LOT of stupid pilot tricks, posted here. People rolling
C150's, flying a landings to IMC minimums without any IFR ticket, people
flying without a medical in many years, and posting it all, and proud of it.
Much more of these antics, and worse.
We don't know a thing about you. You could very well have been one of them,
endangering life and limb, then posting about it.
> Email me and let's talk. I recommend you do so, as I am certainly
> going to track you through your blog and have a chat with you.
> Seriously, you owe me an apology to say the least. Unbelieveable.
Making that kind of threat is as unacceptable of a behavior, as was him
posting all of your info.
Telling him that you will track him down? Childish, at best, bully at
worse, and possibly uttering, a crime.
Telling him you are owed an apology; well within your rights, and
acceptable. Any more than that, is a step too far.
By the way, beautiful pictures.
--
Jim in NC
Duncan
says...
What a load of bloody tripe. He hasn't threatened anyone with anything
- he wants to talk about it - so would I.
Jon's actions are totally unwarranted and regardless of the "vien in
which Jon was acting" he should've done a bit more homework before
diving in the deep in.
--
Duncan
sam....@gmail.com
On Jan 28, 10:07 pm, "Morgans" <jessmor...@charter.net> wrote:
> <sam.tr...@gmail.com> wrote \\
>
> We have seen A LOT of stupid pilot tricks, posted here. People rolling
> C150's, flying a landings to IMC minimums without any IFR ticket, people
> flying without a medical in many years, and posting it all, and proud of it.
> Much more of these antics, and worse.
>
> We don't know a thing about you. You could very well have been one of them,
> endangering life and limb, then posting about it.
Jim,
I've been posting on this newsgroup off and on for longer than most
people here. Not always the same email, but I've been on here since
around 1996. Even with my current email, this was not my first post
on here. This goes back to 2005 with plenty of posts to indicate I am
a real pilot. Go ahead and check, it takes all of 10 secs through
google groups. I've even met other members on here in person.
Threatening him? Why are you saying that? I wanted to talk to him
and ask him why he out of the blue slandered me and posted my contact
info (my physical address). If I wanted to threated him I'd threaten
to post his address and phone number. I have them, but I'm absolutely
NOT going to post them. It is ethically wrong to do so.
All I did was post some video I made of my flight last month. My
brother took the video while I was on an IFR flight plan, in an IFR
certified airplane, talking to ATC, within 5 ft of my assigned
altitude, and exactly on course.
BTW, after I emailed Jon with a polite email requesting an apology, he
replied with a bunch of similar excuses about how he thought "we had
another MXMANIC" on our hands and that he'd only looked up my name in
a publicly available database. I guess he forgot about the part where
he slandered me and posted my contact info on here as well.
Just because it's public does not make it ok to post. I could obtain
somebodys yearly income, what they owe on their house, their social
(if I tried hard enough), etc. Does that make it ok to post them out
here?
I haven't done a damn thing wrong and I don't see how you can defend
him.
B A R R Y
> Now I see why Sam is so sensitive...
Wow...
That was sooo wrong.
B A R R Y
>
> You must have a lot of time on your hands eh?
> MORON
> Daveb
Why did you repost all of it?
At least Jon could decide it wasn't right and cancel the post, you've
added a second copy.
Jim Logajan
> We don't know a thing about you. You could very well have been one of
> them, endangering life and limb, then posting about it.
In other words, guilty of imagined crimes until proven innocent.
I respectfully suggest the underlying philosophy is dangerously flawed
because it leads to absurd and unjust consequences.
Montblack
Agreed.
Montblack
Larry Dighera
<1170041148.3...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>you owe me an apology to say the least
Without defending Mr. Kraus, it is interesting to note that it was you
who were the first to resort to vituperation by referring to Mr. Kraus
as "Cop Boy" and "Jerk" in response to his mere mention IFR operation.
Why did you find it necessary to publicly resort to unprovoked
invective language toward a fellow airman in a worldwide forum?
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.
<sam....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169959390....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
sam....@gmail.com
some bozo (fellow "airman" as you say) a wanna be cop and I can expect
my fellow "airman" to post my physical contact information along with
baseless and slanderous comments that I am doing a HIGHLY ILLEGAL and
VERY DANGEROUS activity?
As far as my initial comments, he had no business suggesting that I
may or may not have been on an IFR flight plan. He's not the FAA and
he's not a moderator of this newsgroup. Was there anything in my
videos that would invite such speculation? If yes, then please point
that out - I'd sure be curious to know what it is. I should hope it's
something beyond my flying straight and level through clouds at an
even IFR altitude (as seen in the vids). If not, then I stand by my
initial comments that he's a "jerk" and wanna be cop (hardly strong
enough words to meet the definition of vituperation). I believe at
this point in time he has proven to be both of those terms in spades,
while all of his initial comments regarding me have proven to be
garbage.
I don't know what your take is on people that fly IFR illegally, but I
think it is just about one of the worst things you could possibly do
in an airplane. It is reckless, irresponsible, selfish, and beyond
dangerous. For me to be accused of such goes far beyond the use of
invective, vulgar language.
Sam
On Jan 29, 3:13 pm, Larry Dighera <LDigh...@att.net> wrote:
> On 28 Jan 2007 19:25:48 -0800, sam.tr...@gmail.com wrote in
> <1170041148.342952.268...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >you owe me an apology to say the leastWithout defending Mr. Kraus, it is interesting to note that it was you
Blueskies
<sam....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1170076549.4...@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
:
::
: Threatening him? Why are you saying that? I wanted to talk to him
: and ask him why he out of the blue slandered me and posted my contact
: info (my physical address). If I wanted to threated him I'd threaten
: to post his address and phone number. I have them, but I'm absolutely
: NOT going to post them. It is ethically wrong to do so.
You use your 'real' name in your e-mail address AND you opted to allow the FAA to put your full address online.
Public information all. Someone just consolidated it here online for the newsgroup junkies to see. Not any information
that couldn't have been found anyway...
Still a lame thing to do...
Jim Logajan
opinion you are using excellent tactics by attacking Trask and getting his
temper up. As I read it, Kraus unequivocally stated Trask committed several
crimes ("he broke a few FAR's"). It is my understanding that while personal
insults are generally deemed opinion and therefore not libelous, making
false factual claims with the intent to damage a person's reputation is
libel.
Perhaps if Kraus makes a public retraction and/or apology then this can be
settled and the lawyers will have to find some other way to make their
mortgage payments.
sam....@gmail.com
On Jan 29, 6:18 pm, Jim Logajan <Jam...@Lugoj.com> wrote:
>
> Perhaps if Kraus makes a public retraction and/or apology then this can be
> settled and the lawyers will have to find some other way to make their
> mortgage payments.
As much as I would appreciate a retraction and public apology by Mr.
Kraus, it ain't gonna happen - as he has so aggressively notified me
during our email correspondence. But let me just make it clear right
now, I'm not going after Kraus legally or otherwise. Kraus has done
plenty of damage to himself already, and I've done everything by the
book with my videos - that's why they're still up and will stay up.
But anybody that's been around aviation and the internet probably
knows (or needs to know) about Avweb and Arthur Wolk. I have my own
opinions about that situation, but the point is if you think you can
just write unsubstantiated personal attacks against somebody on a
forum and get away with it, you could be in for quite a surprise.
I don't feel like I've been personally attacked by this group. I
think most of the people here are good people and I enjoy the
conversations. I'll be sticking around for awhile, and hopefully I'll
have some more videos to share soon. Thanks,
Sam
Dylan Smith
> C) FAA pilot records are notoriously slow to update. He might have his
> IR, and it just hasn't shown up, yet.
Or occasionally, the paperwork really does go missing. When I got my
multiengine ticket, my glider rating vanished when the FAA sent the new
certificate. I only did the checkride for the glider rating about 6
weeks before my multi so I still had the temporary white slip from the
DE for the glider, so I hadn't known they'd lost the paperwork. A quick
email and they fixed it.
--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Montblack
> Perhaps if Kraus makes a public retraction and/or apology then this can be
> settled and the lawyers will have to find some other way to make their
> mortgage payments.
His lawyer is drafting the thing right now...
Montblack
Dylan Smith
> I've been posting on and off this newsgroup since I was 20 yrs old
> (almost 10 years). I've never seen anyone do what he did to another
> pilot. It's just sad.
You don't remember the flames that Stephen Ames got when he posted some
formation flying pics?
(Hmm. Would it be trolling if I posted the video we made of me doing
some inverted formation flying :-))
Morgans
<sam....@gmail.com> wrote
> I've been posting on this newsgroup off and on for longer than most
> people here. Not always the same email, but I've been on here since
> around 1996. Even with my current email, this was not my first post
> on here. This goes back to 2005 with plenty of posts to indicate I am
> a real pilot. Go ahead and check, it takes all of 10 secs through
> google groups. I've even met other members on here in person.
I didn't recognize you, by e-mail address, or by sig line. (since you don't
have one)
Perhaps you should add a easily reconizeable sig line, that you will be
recognized by, no mater the sending addy...
> Threatening him? Why are you saying that?
You wrote:
> Email me and let's talk. I recommend you do so, as I am certainly
> going to track you through your blog and have a chat with you.
Sure sounds threatening, to me. "recommend you do so?" Recommend, or what,
get an *ss beating? "Track," as in find out where he lives, so you can go
give him an *ss beating? "Chat," as in what, give him an *ss beating?
Sorry, but it is all bully talk, to me.
> I haven't done a damn thing wrong and I don't see how you can defend
> him.
Hold the phone. I gave an explanation, as to why he could make a mistake,
like that. It was a mistake, and a serious breech of etiquette. As to what
you did wrong, I guess it is a matter of perspective. I'm sure you believe
you did nothing wrong, but that is not my view.
Did you read this following line that _I_ posted?
Me: Making that kind of threat is as unacceptable of a behavior, as was him
posting all of your info.
See? I compared your threats (serious, in my eyes) with him posting your
info. BOTH bad things, IMHO. I did NOT support him.
I have to admit, the first thing I thought as I watched the video, and
before the nasty exchanges was, "I wonder if this guy was filed IFR, or not.
I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't.
I sure did not remember you, and if I had, I wouldn't remember if you were
rated. "I" would not have posted anything, in rebuttal, and would not have
posted your info.
Can I make a suggestion, to you, and any other people showing flying of an
IFR or unusual or risky type?
Diffuse the possible criticisms by the pessimistic, by including in the
title something like, "pretty puffy clouds on enjoyable IFR flight," or "Fun
flight of rolls and loops, done by the book." You get the idea. If not all
in the title, a disclaimer in the text would certainly not be overkill, when
you think of all the other misinformation that has been going on around
here, lately.
A little up-front honesty and full information would be a breath of fresh
air.
I'm done with this subject, for now. Go on with it if you must, but I have
spoken my peace.
My intent was to not defend, but in a way, point out how that trolls damage
the atmosphere of a group. Almost like the terrorist destroys our freedom,
by increasing paranoia.
The damage done by MX and by other trolls is pervasive, and real. Witness
all of this, as an example of the damage done.
Blue skies to you, (and IFR too, when you want to!) <g>
--
Jim in NC
Larry Dighera
wrote in <Xns98C7B0229CDD...@216.168.3.30>:
>As I read it, Kraus unequivocally stated Trask committed several
>crimes ("he broke a few FAR's").
Wouldn't those be better characterized as 'violations?'
Matt Barrow
"Morgans" <jessm...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:D_yvh.80$TM7...@newsfe04.lga...
>
>
> You wrote:
>
>> Email me and let's talk. I recommend you do so, as I am certainly
>> going to track you through your blog and have a chat with you.
>
> Sure sounds threatening, to me.
Keee'rist, you're dumber than a bag of rocks yourself!!
sam....@gmail.com
>
> See? I compared your threats (serious, in my eyes) with him posting your
> info. BOTH bad things, IMHO. I did NOT support him.
>
> I have to admit, the first thing I thought as I watched the video, and
> before the nasty exchanges was, "I wonder if this guy was filed IFR, or not.
> I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't.
>
Jim,
I never made any physical threats against him. Just because you are
reading into something and making your own intrepretations about it
doesn't make it so. Serious in your eyes? Well that's your own
problem. I never made a threat, I said I will be talking (or
chatting) to him - which I did. We exchanged several emails and I
never made any threats there either. Ask your buddy Kraus. He called
me names during our email exchange, but I was polite yet firm
regarding my feelings on what he did. If he says otherwise I will
gladly send you or anybody else an email dump to see for yourself.
I've seen a lot of IMC videos, and I can't say the same thought
crosses my mind regarding illegal IFR flying. In fact, out of
probably hundreds of videos I've seen on youtube and flightlevel350, I
can't recall seeing anybody flying around in IMC illegaly. Perhaps
you have 1-2 examples, but I bet you don't have that many. I have
seen other stupid antics on some vids, but they speak for themselves
and are few in number. Really I think it's silly to have to make a
disclaimer on some posted videos. What next? Do we have to tell you
we have parachutes on during so acro vids? Or maybe tell you we got a
wx briefing from FSS? It all reeks of ineffective political
correctness.
Though I've been on this newsgroup by far the longest, I am also on
several other different forums, including AOPA, studentpilot.com,
flightinfo.com, and jetcareers.com. I find myself MUCH more active on
those groups due to what I perceive as an "old boys club" mentality
here. I've always had the feeling here that certain people feel like
this is their personal newsgroup. It's not, it is a public,
unmoderated newsgroup. If you don't like that, go make up your own.
Otherwise just deal with the fact that people may post some videos
without disclaimers, mxmanic will ask questions about 747 hydraulics
on his simulator, and skylune will rant about Boyer. And I do not
have a sig because I use google groups.
That said, I have always enjoyed this newsgroup and most of the people
that post. Every place has its problems, but the good outweighs the
bad here (most of the time anyway).
Sam
Larry Dighera
<1170169763.9...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:
>Just because you are reading into something and making your
>own intrepretations about it doesn't make it so.
That is an astute observation. It could equally be said of your
inference of Mr. Kraus's initial comment, and many others I have
observed over the years.
It's surprising how personal viewpoint, sensitivities and
defensiveness shape our perspectives, and comprehension of the
authors' intended meaning. Personally, I strive to overcome such
personal bias by overlooking any perceived malice that lacks a
concrete and undeniably apparent intent to offend. But, alas, I am
human too....
Responding cordially to questionable comments permits the author of
them to elaborate on their viewpoint, and remove some of the doubt in
subsequent follow up articles.
Mr McNicoll was notorious for pursuing this 'give 'em enough rope'
rhetorical device to the point of absurdity. But it was effective in
providing a forum for the offending author to dig his hole deeper and
deeper without resorting to blatant confrontation.
Matt Whiting
>
> <sam....@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> Email me and let's talk. I recommend you do so, as I am certainly
>> going to track you through your blog and have a chat with you.
>
>
> Sure sounds threatening, to me. "recommend you do so?" Recommend, or
> what, get an *ss beating? "Track," as in find out where he lives, so
> you can go give him an *ss beating? "Chat," as in what, give him an *ss
> beating?
Having a chat is threatening? And equating chat with physical violence
is a huge stretch. I guess you are getting paranoid in your old age... :-)
Matt
Jay Honeck
> and back in a C172 (yeah, I'm a masochist):
>
> Fluffy little clouds:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZJsasteE9k
>
> Blues:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxULCYqvGpY
Lost in all the pointless bluster of this thread seems to be the fact
that these are really great videos. Thanks for posting 'em, Sam!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
sam....@gmail.com
> Lost in all the pointless bluster of this thread seems to be the fact
> that these are really great videos. Thanks for posting 'em, Sam!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
Thanks Jay! I really enjoyed making them.
B A R R Y
> Lost in all the pointless bluster of this thread seems to be the fact
> that these are really great videos. Thanks for posting 'em, Sam!
> --
You've got that right!
Bill Watson
Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Lost in all the pointless bluster of this thread seems to be the fact
> that these are really great videos.
Amen
Morgans
"Jay Honeck" <jjho...@mchsi.com> wrote
> Lost in all the pointless bluster of this thread seems to be the fact
> that these are really great videos. Thanks for posting 'em, Sam!
No, it wasn't lost EVEN on ME !!!
I really did complement him on the videos. They somehow had a great feeling
of "you are really here with the flight" than many other videos I have seen.
--
Jim in NC