OT: Way OT: REALLY WayOT: CSMA survey

[Thomas E.]

Alan Baker, aka IT, claims to have flown an airplane for an hour, then brought it down to a touchdown at which point the CFI (in this case, the Certified Fool Instructor) took over.

IT also claims that with a little review of regs and procedures he could fly solo (in an airplane of course) to a different airport in good VFR weather.

The question: Would you be willing to ride with Alan, or put a loved one on board with him for his first solo flight?


I would, but only if I had a lethal weapon to take him out if he got into trouble and would not let me take over and land.

[-hh]

Goodness! The butthurt is stron in Tommy tonight.

[Thomas E.]

On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 10:48:28 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> Goodness! The butthurt is stron in Tommy tonight.

Just answer the question at hand.

And get a spellchecker that works.

[Steve Carroll]

Maybe he has a sticky g key... or maybe you're just grouchy cuz you tried to modernize and went along with the 'sticky g-stomp'. LOL!

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sticky+g-stomp

[Alan Baker]

On 2015-06-12 00:19:25 +0000, Thomas E. said:

> Alan Baker, aka IT, claims to have flown an airplane for an hour, then
> brought it down to a touchdown at which point the CFI (in this case,
> the Certified Fool Instructor) took over.

Chief instructor of the York Flying Club (sorry, it's been a very long
time, so I don't recall the name) actually.

And we and the aircraft all came back in good order, so I don't exactly
see how foolish it was.

Funny how you've gone from "that was all the easy part" to "he was a
fool to let you do it"...

...isn't it?

:-)

>
> IT also claims that with a little review of regs and procedures he
> could fly solo (in an airplane of course) to a different airport in
> good VFR weather.

Actually, I never said to a different airport, Tommy, but I still
probably could. Modern controlled airspace would be more challenging,
but from small airport to small airport; yeah.

>
> The question: Would you be willing to ride with Alan, or put a loved
> one on board with him for his first solo flight?

I don't think that doing it solo would be prudent, Tommy. Remember,
what I did, I did with at CFI on board. :-)

>
>
> I would, but only if I had a lethal weapon to take him out if he got
> into trouble and would not let me take over and land.

Careful, I might take you up on that.

:-)

[-hh]

Tom writes:
, -hh wrote:

>> Goodness! The butthurt is stron[g] in Tommy tonight.

>
> Just answer the question at hand.

Well, that's simple: I'd not ride with anyone based on the
absurd scenario you posed, as well as any "pilot" stupid
enough to pose such a petty premise, even if he's been
supposedly an experienced flier of 48+ years.

> And get a spellchecker that works.

Auto-correct spellcheckers are a trade-off - not unlike
how an Autopilot will faithfully fly you into a mountain - and
the smaller screen of a mobile device doesn't help.

-hh

[Thomas E.]

:)

That's why you need a pilot that knows how read a map. Actually, the autopilots in the most modern transport aircraft will not fly you into a mountain. You would have to do that manually, as was the case with GermanWings.

[Thomas E.]

My my, for someone who thinks it's so easy you certainly have your limits. Can't really do much can you? Daytime, short distances, no radio skills, no controlled airspace around airports, never actually landed to a full stop, is afraid of crosswinds, can't land a tailwheel aircraft, no knowledge of how to read a sectional chart, fair weather only, etc. Yet you claim it's all so simple. That's because there is a lot more to it, and you have explored a tiny corner of the world of flying. Alan, you would have a LOT to learn.

Try some real world flying some time. Like less than perfect weather that is not turning out like the forecast, busy controlled airports, avoiding restricted areas, watching out for other aircraft, talking to ATC, doing it all without an instructor or copilot, and making it look easy to a passenger.

OK, I admitted it sometime back, race car driving is fully engaging. Going to sleep would entail a serous accident. Flying does not have to be, but can be if you choose make it so. I choose to make it so.

Got to go commit a 4 hour act of aviation today. We will be at 1000 agl most of the day, and making some steep turns. Keeps me on my toes.

Tom

[Walter Myer]

On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 10:48:28 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:

> Goodness! The butthurt is stron in Tommy tonight.

Goodness! The little brown monkey butt buddy jumps to the defense!! What a pal!!

Proposal for you Habeeb, I'll rent a plane for IT if you agree to fly with IT at the controls.

But don't bring the fat lady, you might not be able to take off.

BTW: do you know the meaning of "hypocrite"?

[Thomas E.]

In a racing context here is what you did.that day

Green flag drops
You drop back to last place
Make a few easy laps
Traffic shows up in the rear view mirror
You pull into the pits
Your racing day is over

Yawn

That was easy

Driving a race car is simple but boring, you think

You made it so

[Nashton]

Jeebus, what a little man that "hh" is. No class, no life and no respect.

[Nashton]

On 2015-06-11 9:19 PM, Thomas E. wrote:


Are you joking me? Do anything with Baker? FLY with Baker?

The man has zero skills, he's a Uni drop-out, can't commit to a
relationship and is a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect?

Might as well just just off a cliff and get it over with ;)

[Walter Myer]

On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 10:08:28 AM UTC-4, Nashton wrote:
> On 2015-06-11 9:19 PM, Thomas E. wrote:
>
>
> Are you joking me? Do anything with Baker? FLY with Baker?
>
> The man has zero skills, he's a Uni drop-out, can't commit to a
> relationship and is a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect?

BINGO!!!

The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate.

This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude.

> Might as well just just off a cliff and get it over with ;)

When IT wakes up, IT just might do that.

Whats sad is, IT'S handed IT'S ass on a platter, almost every time IT posts!!

[Alan Baker]

On 2015-06-12 10:43:18 +0000, Thomas E. said:

> On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 6:16:52 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
>> Tom writes:
>> , -hh wrote:
>>>> Goodness! The butthurt is stron[g] in Tommy tonight.
>>>
>>> Just answer the question at hand.
>>
>> Well, that's simple: I'd not ride with anyone based on the
>> absurd scenario you posed, as well as any "pilot" stupid
>> enough to pose such a petty premise, even if he's been
>> supposedly an experienced flier of 48+ years.
>>
>>> And get a spellchecker that works.
>>
>> Auto-correct spellcheckers are a trade-off - not unlike
>> how an Autopilot will faithfully fly you into a mountain - and
>> the smaller screen of a mobile device doesn't help.
>>
>> -hh
>
> :)
>
> That's why you need a pilot that knows how read a map.

I know how to read a map, Tommy. You think that map reading is hard?

[Alan Baker]

Of course I do, Tommy-boy!

> Can't really do much can you? Daytime, short distances, no radio
> skills, no controlled airspace around airports, never actually landed
> to a full stop, is afraid of crosswinds, can't land a tailwheel
> aircraft, no knowledge of how to read a sectional chart, fair weather
> only, etc. Yet you claim it's all so simple. That's because there is a
> lot more to it, and you have explored a tiny corner of the world of
> flying. Alan, you would have a LOT to learn.

I didn't say I was afraid of crosswinds, Tommy-boy. You've got to learn
to stop putting words in peoples mouths.

>
> Try some real world flying some time. Like less than perfect weather
> that is not turning out like the forecast, busy controlled airports,
> avoiding restricted areas, watching out for other aircraft, talking to
> ATC, doing it all without an instructor or copilot, and making it look
> easy to a passenger.
>
> OK, I admitted it sometime back, race car driving is fully engaging.
> Going to sleep would entail a serous accident. Flying does not have to
> be, but can be if you choose make it so. I choose to make it so.

No. You don't. You admit you fly at least part of the time to enjoy the view.

>
> Got to go commit a 4 hour act of aviation today. We will be at 1000 agl
> most of the day, and making some steep turns. Keeps me on my toes.

That's what you consider "fully engaging"?

LOL

[Alan Baker]

LOL

[Walter Myer]

FYI: IT'S an "accomplished" cross wind flyer...

......after only 3 hours sitting in the passenger seat.

.......................impressive.


.....love

...those dots....

[Alan Baker]

Nope. Never claimed to be.

>
> ......after only 3 hours sitting in the passenger seat.

Sorry, Michael.

I sat in the left seat.

[Thomas E.]

But do you know how to look at an aviation chart and figure out where you are in relation to the stuff on the map? No road signs up there! Or even know if you can ever get close to where you are, what all the symbols are?

[Thomas E.]

You said on several occasions that smart pilots avoid crosswinds. That's the same as avoiding getting into race traffic. You train for it.

[Thomas E.]

LOL is what you always come back when somebody nails it on a point you cannot deny.

Take a hard look at my NEXT post in this topic.

[Thomas E.]

On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 11:56:56 AM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:

OK, back to how much time it takes to do a T&G circuit. I tried it today the same way I practiced in 1967 in the Cherokee and a C150. My co-pilot used my phone to record it. Quality is not 1080p, but good enough. Sorry about the strobing effect of the prop. Distracting, but no way to stop it except kill the engine.

The first circuit from touchdown to touchdown went from 1:22 to 3:39 on the video, 2 minutes and 17 seconds. That 137 seconds. An hour has 3600 seconds. 3600/137=26.2 possible at that rate. This was a max performance effort, just making to about 700 feet before chopping the throttle and turning base. I used full flaps at 75 knots to minimize descent time, and used no power on the descent.

For the second circuit I went up to 400 agl, turned crosswind and downwind in one continuous climbing turn, got to 800 feet agl right at the numbers, and chopped the throttle. This one took a little longer, from 3:39 to 6:23, 2:44, or 164 seconds. That's 21.95 per hour, and more like what I practiced.

The aircraft is a 1984 Skyhawk. Climb rate is 600 fpm, 80-85 knots in the climb and on the very short downwind. Max flaps turning base and all the way to touchdown if required, and it was on both circuits. Except for a brief time on downwind and final I was always turning.

12 circuits in an hour is not really trying very hard. It allows plenty of time for taxi, checklist, and an even more leisurely pattern.

If this does not convince you then there is simply no reasoning. You are just arguing for arguing sake. Which is what you do a LOT.

Here's the link to the video:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxuJGTDTmSZ1eWEwYllfMHdDRW8/view?usp=sharing



:)

[-hh]

Tom writes:
- hide quoted text -

> -hh wrote:
>> Tom writes:
>>> , -hh wrote:
>> >> Goodness! The butthurt is stron[g] in Tommy tonight.
>> >
>> > Just answer the question at hand.
>>
>> Well, that's simple: I'd not ride with anyone based on the
>> absurd scenario you posed, as well as any "pilot" stupid
>> enough to pose such a petty premise, even if he's been
>> supposedly an experienced flier of 48+ years.

Avoidance so noted.

>> > And get a spellchecker that works.
>>
>> Auto-correct spellcheckers are a trade-off - not unlike
>> how an Autopilot will faithfully fly you into a mountain - and
>> the smaller screen of a mobile device doesn't help.
>

> That's why you need a pilot that knows how read a map.
> Actually, the autopilots in the most modern transport aircraft
> will not fly you into a mountain.

Except that that's not which has existed for the past 48 years,
particularly in small civil aviation equipment, nor is it mandatory.

> You would have to do that manually, as was the case with GermanWings.

That "system" still knowingly permitted a single point of failure.

-hh

[Alan Baker]

Again, that's just some very simple learning, Tommy. I can't believe
you think it's a big deal.

> No road signs up there! Or even know if you can ever get close to
> where you are, what all the symbols are?

You imagine I don't know how to use a compass? I already know how to
tune and use a VOR, BTW. I'd want to brush up, but you keep imagining
that you can't have any of this knowledge if you haven't been through
flight school and hours and hours of flight lessons, Tommy.

[Alan Baker]

No, Tommy. It's not the same at all.

If you had the option of landing on a crosswind runway or an into the
wind runway, which one would you choose?

[Alan Baker]

LOL

[Alan Baker]

It convinces me that as a very experienced pilot in a more powerful
aircraft making a maximum effort for two circuits with no traffic for a
short period you could do it.

On the very first flight after your first landing EVER, Tommy you claim
you could make maximum effort circuits in an less capable aircraft for
12 circuits in 50 minutes; 50 minutes without traffic to allow it?
Please.

It's like how your flight times were supposedly including 10 minutes
taxi time... ...until that became inconvenient to your argument.

It's like how you suddenly can't explain how a flight that only lasted
an hour total had you under the hood from wheels up to touchdown.
Suddenly, "I didn't write the logbook!" came out.

And the 1984 Skyhawk's climb rate is 700 fpm, Tommy. I thought a pilot
was supposed to know little details like that.

[Thomas E.]

VOR? Who uses those? Anyway, a VOR gives you a direction, but not distance. I have not used one for anything but a non-precision practice approach for about 10 years.

Anyone who knows anything would know that you need two VORs for a cross reference, DME for distance and direction, or and really old fashioned RNAV radio.

We have GPS now. Imagine that! The only problem is that most of them do not have terrain warning and none available for general aviation overlay GPS position on legally required VFR/IFR charts are legal for IFR navigation.

The more you write, the dumber you look.

[Thomas E.]

You may not have a choice, or you may just want the practice, or the crosswind runway might offer a shorter taxi to the hanger. I don't really care all that much as long as it's within the airplane's limit and traffic is not an issue.

[Thomas E.]

This was not a busy airport, traffic was not an issue. That 700 rate is max rate for a new airplane with a fresh engine and wheel pants. 600 is the best this bird will do. It has no wheel pants, a 1500 hour engine, and I was climbing at 80-85 knots, not a best rate 75. Even so, it makes no significant difference. I still got to pattern altitude just in time to chop the throttle at the numbers. Even if you add 10 or 20 seconds, you can still do 12 in an hour.

Finally, 1967 was 48 years ago.

You know, why is it that you always claim to be telling the truth, but nobody else is?

[Thomas E.]

By that way, if you knew anything you would know that sacrificing a little climb rate for forward speed actually cuts time for a circuit. I knew that in 1967. It's simple math.

[Alan Baker]

One VOR gives you a direction. Two give you a fix.

>
> Anyone who knows anything would know that you need two VORs for a cross
> reference, DME for distance and direction, or and really old fashioned
> RNAV radio.

I did know that, Tommy-boy.

>
> We have GPS now. Imagine that! The only problem is that most of them do
> not have terrain warning and none available for general aviation
> overlay GPS position on legally required VFR/IFR charts are legal for
> IFR navigation.

And you think I didn't know that? You were the one going on and on
about how aviation map reading was an absolutely essential skill,
remember?

And we weren't discussing IFR navigation either, were we?

I took a flight by floatplane back from Victoria to Vancouver a while
back and while the Garmin (I think it was Garmin) GPS the pilot had
added to his cockpit said prominently "not for navigation", he was
pretty clearly navigating by it?

>
> The more you write, the dumber you look.

LOL

[Alan Baker]

Avoiding the question once...

> or you may just want the practice,

...avoiding it twice...

> or the crosswind runway might offer a shorter taxi to the hanger.

...three times!

[Alan Baker]

Riiiiight. Flight in, flight out for the NINE flights where you claim
to have done circuits in 200 seconds a piece, the airport never had any
traffic that interfered at all!

> That 700 rate is max rate for a new airplane with a fresh engine and
> wheel pants.

Excuses, excuses...

> 600 is the best this bird will do.

Riiiiiight. Conveniently we don't see the instruments nor can we even
tell if you're not simply lying about the aircraft.

> It has no wheel pants, a 1500 hour engine, and I was climbing at 80-85
> knots, not a best rate 75. Even so, it makes no significant difference.

And a new thing is thrown in!

> I still got to pattern altitude just in time to chop the throttle at
> the numbers. Even if you add 10 or 20 seconds, you can still do 12 in
> an hour.

If you've been piloting for nearly 50 years... ...if you only need to do two...

>
> Finally, 1967 was 48 years ago.
>
> You know, why is it that you always claim to be telling the truth, but
> nobody else is?

I doubt your claims, Tommy. There are lots of reasons to doubt them.

For instance, I just noted that one of your logbook entries records
"short field T.O. & Lnd."...

...so why did you do more circuits per hour than you had in the three
flights that preceded it?

After all those T&Gs leading up to it--42 in 2:50 of flying (you see, I
can add simple figures unlike you), you couldn't do more circuits when
practising short field?

BTW, even after all your time as a pilot, your "maximum effort"
landings took you a long way off the runway centreline alignment. But
you were just fine as a student right of the gate, right?

[Alan Baker]

And yet, you couldn't manage the simple arithmetic on page 3 of your
logbook... ...go figure.

[Thomas E.]

> LOL - again? Can't you come up with something original.


It is essential. You have to know where are relative to places you can't go without permission.

Yes, but did that Garmin have legal charts in it? Was the trip IFR? My tablet has Garmin Pilot on it. That software displays your position on sectionals, IFR enroute, approach plates and airport taxi charts. It also has the AFD (Airport Facility Directory,) legal weather briefing data, flight plan filing, complete flight planning capability, and even the latest fuel prices. Quite the package.

But it is not legal for IFR navigation. I cannot do a GPS approach in the 172 I was in today. I am restricted to ILS and VOR approaches, even though the GPS in my tablet is MUCH more accurate than a VOR radial. So when I do any approach I bring up on Garmin Pilot and use it for "reference" <tongue in cheek>.

The rules are a bit ambiguous, to say the least. The digital charts are legal substitute for paper versions, and I have the software on my phone as a backup. As part of my annual flight review I have to demonstrate use of the EFB, Electronic Flight Bag, in my case the Garmin software.

But you cannot legally use the Garmin program or an onboard VFR-Only GPS for IFR navigation. HOWEVER, you can file an IFR flight plan direct to destination as long as you can navigate it. As soon as you are in radar contact ATC starts tracking you, and if you wander off from that direct track on your own you will hear about it. There is a an understanding that if you file direct you are expected to be able to do it, and if you get into trouble you are on your own.

As an aside 4 of the 9 US pilots at upcoming the World Aerobatic Championships were using that airport in the video for practice last week. I was up there and got to watch them. If you look carefully on the final approach in the video you can see one of the white field markers that defined their practice box. Those guys, and the gal pilot too, are GOOD! http://wac2015.fr/pilots-teams/

Also, by the way, my flight home today was fully engaging. The "traffic" was thunderstorms. With a little help from my ATC buddies we at Indy Approach we had smooth air all the way home.

[Thomas E.]

The little shit tries to get under your skin by nitpicking every detail to death while never admitting that he has any issues with telling the truth. Does anybody know if he has any family - wife, kids, mother, father, etc.?

His company web site is pretty sad. I get the feeling that the business is not all that successful. For someone claiming to be an expert in computers his site is actually rather sad.

[Alan Baker]

Again, but this time in English...

> Yes, but did that Garmin have legal charts in it?

Nope. As far as I could see (and I was in the seat immediately behind
the co-pilots seat) it was a car GPS.

> Was the trip IFR?

I don't know. The conditions were VFR.

> My tablet has Garmin Pilot on it. That software displays your position
> on sectionals, IFR enroute, approach plates and airport taxi charts. It
> also has the AFD (Airport Facility Directory,) legal weather briefing
> data, flight plan filing, complete flight planning capability, and even
> the latest fuel prices. Quite the package.

Bravo.

>
> But it is not legal for IFR navigation. I cannot do a GPS approach in
> the 172 I was in today. I am restricted to ILS and VOR approaches, even
> though the GPS in my tablet is MUCH more accurate than a VOR radial. So
> when I do any approach I bring up on Garmin Pilot and use it for
> "reference" <tongue in cheek>.

Sounds a lot like what the Harbour Air pilot was doing.

> The rules are a bit ambiguous, to say the least. The digital charts are
> legal substitute for paper versions, and I have the software on my
> phone as a backup. As part of my annual flight review I have to
> demonstrate use of the EFB, Electronic Flight Bag, in my case the
> Garmin software.
>
> But you cannot legally use the Garmin program or an onboard VFR-Only
> GPS for IFR navigation. HOWEVER, you can file an IFR flight plan direct
> to destination as long as you can navigate it. As soon as you are in
> radar contact ATC starts tracking you, and if you wander off from that
> direct track on your own you will hear about it. There is a an
> understanding that if you file direct you are expected to be able to do
> it, and if you get into trouble you are on your own.

OK... ...so?

>
> As an aside 4 of the 9 US pilots at upcoming the World Aerobatic
> Championships were using that airport in the video for practice last
> week. I was up there and got to watch them. If you look carefully on
> the final approach in the video you can see one of the white field
> markers that defined their practice box. Those guys, and the gal pilot
> too, are GOOD! http://wac2015.fr/pilots-teams/

I'm sure. I've never said anything to suggest otherwise, however.

>
> Also, by the way, my flight home today was fully engaging. The
> "traffic" was thunderstorms. With a little help from my ATC buddies we
> at Indy Approach we had smooth air all the way home.

I never claimed that at some points flying can't be like that, Tommy.
But as you just demonstrated, you avoided the situations that would be
most engaging, didn't you?

[Alan Baker]

On 2015-06-13 02:01:58 +0000, Thomas E. said:

> On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 11:23:15 AM UTC-4, Walter Myer wrote:
>> On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 10:08:28 AM UTC-4, Nashton wrote:
>>> On 2015-06-11 9:19 PM, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you joking me? Do anything with Baker? FLY with Baker?
>>>
>>> The man has zero skills, he's a Uni drop-out, can't commit to a
>>> relationship and is a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
>>
>> BINGO!!!
>>
>> The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein unskilled
>> individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing
>> their ability to be much higher than is accurate.
>>
>> This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled
>> to recognize their ineptitude.
>>
>>
>>> Might as well just just off a cliff and get it over with ;)
>>
>> When IT wakes up, IT just might do that.
>>
>> Whats sad is, IT'S handed IT'S ass on a platter, almost every time IT posts!!
>
> The little shit tries to get under your skin by nitpicking every detail
> to death while never admitting that he has any issues with telling the
> truth. Does anybody know if he has any family - wife, kids, mother,
> father, etc.?

Lots of family, Tommy.

Mother, step-father, two brothers, girlfriend of nearly 12 years now
(with whom I will never have children because it would be a huge risk
to her health).

And I have no issues with telling the truth, Tommy. No of you are
important enough for me to ever be dishonest.

>
> His company web site is pretty sad. I get the feeling that the business
> is not all that successful. For someone claiming to be an expert in

> computers his site is rather actually sad.

What website would that be, Tommy?

Are you jumping to conclusions or just out and out lying?

:-)

[Alan Baker]

On 2015-06-13 02:03:38 +0000, Thomas E. said:

It seems you're not really very good with technology, Tommy.

This is yet another time you've double-posted recently.

[Thomas E.]

That is exactly correct. It was not a busy airport.

>
> > That 700 rate is max rate for a new airplane with a fresh engine and
> > wheel pants.
>
> Excuses, excuses...
>
> > 600 is the best this bird will do.
>
> Riiiiiight. Conveniently we don't see the instruments nor can we even
> tell if you're not simply lying about the aircraft.

It took over a minute to get to 800 feet, a more capable airplane could do that in 45 seconds.

>
> > It has no wheel pants, a 1500 hour engine, and I was climbing at 80-85
> > knots, not a best rate 75. Even so, it makes no significant difference.
>
> And a new thing is thrown in!

That's not new, it's additional details.

>
> > I still got to pattern altitude just in time to chop the throttle at
> > the numbers. Even if you add 10 or 20 seconds, you can still do 12 in
> > an hour.
>
> If you've been piloting for nearly 50 years... ...if you only need to do two...

I can do those all day, this was a demo.

>
> >
> > Finally, 1967 was 48 years ago.
> >
> > You know, why is it that you always claim to be telling the truth, but
> > nobody else is?
>
> I doubt your claims, Tommy. There are lots of reasons to doubt them.
>
> For instance, I just noted that one of your logbook entries records
> "short field T.O. & Lnd."...


>
> ...so why did you do more circuits per hour than you had in the three
> flights that preceded it?
>
> After all those T&Gs leading up to it--42 in 2:50 of flying (you see, I
> can add simple figures unlike you), you couldn't do more circuits when
> practising short field?

Because short field practice demands a full stop landing.

>
> BTW, even after all your time as a pilot, your "maximum effort"
> landings took you a long way off the runway centreline alignment. But
> you were just fine as a student right of the gate, right?

I was on the centerline at touchdown, the camera angle is the issue. On final I was adjusting for crosswind from the right. Did you even notice that the aircraft was not level at touchdown. That was intentional. It's called a forward slip to landing.

[Alan Baker]

Never once... ...in 8 hour 10 minutes of flying?

You DO realize that you maintained almost precisely the same pace for
circuits for the all the flights in your logbook where you made
multiple landings, right?

Despite changing experience (and presumably changing conditions) the
pace was alway almost PRECISELY the same.

>
>>
>>> That 700 rate is max rate for a new airplane with a fresh engine and
>>> wheel pants.
>>
>> Excuses, excuses...
>>
>>> 600 is the best this bird will do.
>>
>> Riiiiiight. Conveniently we don't see the instruments nor can we even
>> tell if you're not simply lying about the aircraft.
>
> It took over a minute to get to 800 feet, a more capable airplane could
> do that in 45 seconds.

But you just told us you didn't get to 800 feet, Tommy. Having trouble
keeping your story straight again?

>
>>
>>> It has no wheel pants, a 1500 hour engine, and I was climbing at 80-85
>>> knots, not a best rate 75. Even so, it makes no significant difference.
>>
>> And a new thing is thrown in!
>
>
> That's not new, it's additional details.

Right.

>>
>>> I still got to pattern altitude just in time to chop the throttle at
>>> the numbers. Even if you add 10 or 20 seconds, you can still do 12 in
>>> an hour.
>>
>> If you've been piloting for nearly 50 years... ...if you only need to do two...
>
> I can do those all day, this was a demo.

Right.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Finally, 1967 was 48 years ago.
>>>
>>> You know, why is it that you always claim to be telling the truth, but
>>> nobody else is?
>>
>> I doubt your claims, Tommy. There are lots of reasons to doubt them.
>>
>> For instance, I just noted that one of your logbook entries records
>> "short field T.O. & Lnd."...
>
>
>>
>> ...so why did you do more circuits per hour than you had in the three
>> flights that preceded it?
>>
>> After all those T&Gs leading up to it--42 in 2:50 of flying (you see, I
>> can add simple figures unlike you), you couldn't do more circuits when
>> practising short field?
>
> Because short field practice demands a full stop landing.

Then how did you manage to do them and yet not be at a SLOWER pace than
the others?

>
>>
>> BTW, even after all your time as a pilot, your "maximum effort"
>> landings took you a long way off the runway centreline alignment. But
>> you were just fine as a student right of the gate, right?
>
> I was on the centerline at touchdown, the camera angle is the issue.

Nope. The aircraft yawed... ...a lot.

> On final I was adjusting for crosswind from the right. Did you even
> notice that the aircraft was not level at touchdown. That was
> intentional. It's called a forward slip to landing.

Of course I noticed it. I was referring to how much it yawed after touchdown.

[-hh]

Tom writes:
> little shit tries to get under your skin by nitpicking
every detail to death while never admitting that he
has any issues with telling the truth. Does anybody
know if he has any family - wife, kids, mother, father, etc.?

Translation: a personal attackto try to draw readership
attention away from the potentially cooked logbooks.

-hh

[Alan Baker]

Isn't it amazing.

Tommy suggested the "10 minutes for taxi out and taxi back", and once
you take that into account, the numbers are amazingly consistent:


Book time
Taxi Time
Landings
Minutes per landing
50
10
12
3.33
60
10
15
3.33
60
10
15
3.33
60
10
15
3.33
25
10
6
2.50
65
10
16
3.44
45
10
8
4.38
35
10
7
3.57
30
10
6
3.33
30
10
6
3.33
30
10
6
3.33

(That's a table and I'm not sure how Unison will post it...)

Weird, huh? I'm not sure an experienced pilot could pull that off, but
a student with a grand total of 11 hours 10 minutes at the end of it?

[Alan Baker]

Now I know. Try this:

Book time Taxi Time Landings Minutes per landing

50 10 12 3.33
60 10 15 3.33
60 10 15 3.33
60 10 15 3.33
25 10 6 2.50
65 10 16 3.44
45 10 8 4.38
35 10 7 3.57
30 10 6 3.33
30 10 6 3.33
30 10 6 3.33

>

[Thomas E.]

Are you implying that I should have flown INTO a thunderstorm? Would you crash head-on into a retaining wall at 150 mph? I'm sure that last millisecond's adrenalin rush before you hit the wall would be the best high EVER, and you mind would be FULLY engaged!

LOL

[Thomas E.]

That's not at all improbable. It was not a busy airport, the times could have been a few minutes off, no stopwatch was used, and I am a very consistent pilot.

[Thomas E.]

Nothing is perfect. The books are not "cooked".

OTOH Baker has NO proof, no books, nothing, to prove any of his assertions. I have a license, ratings, and hundreds of people who have flown with me over the years. Baker has no license, no witnesses, and no meaningful experience. That lack of experience is evident of his comments on the video.

[Thomas E.]

The PA28 was just as capable as the C172. It was lighter, carried less fuel, and I was solo.

Not on the first trip, it was the first time I ever tried it in this aircraft. Nailed it the second time.

That was because of the wind, it happens in a crosswind.


You comments on this video are amusing. You apparently do not realize that the optimum pattern for a quick circuit trades climb rate for more forward speed. The goal is to just get to the desired pattern altitude at the numbers for the start of the descent as a quickly as possible. That is, you are still climbing on downwind. Then you pull the carb heat, chop the throttle, full flaps for max decent rate, and aim for just beyond the numbers. Flaps are retracted if required to cut drag and extend the final. The goal is not to fly school patterns, it's to get as much exposure to the sight picture of approach to the runaway as possible. You can vary it with less flaps, including no flaps landings, different final pattern altitudes, and of course the wind has some effect.

Anyway, I have over 3,000 landings that include handling the airplane after touchdown. By your prior account how many do you have?

AND PLEASE don't come back with "it's a cooked number". That's just sheer desperation.

[Thomas E.]

Something strange going on with Google.

Anyway, there is no way to stop your constant badgering and de-Nile. Bye

Go back to your races, I'll go back to my flying. Off to an airport for an aviation appreciation day tomorrow. Taking a 14 year old cadet there, letting him fly the airplane. We will be surrounded by pilots and very cool aircraft for a whole day.

[Alan Baker]

No, Tommy.

What I'm STATING is that good piloting is about AVOIDING situations
that demand the highest level of focus.

Metaphorically, racing is about DRIVING INTO THE THUNDERSTORM.

[Alan Baker]

Of course!

The times could have been a few minutes off!

And you were a consistent pilot who didnn't improve over the course of
11 hours 10 minutes!

LOL

[Alan Baker]

You're absolutely right, Tommy.

I have no proof.

I also have no reason to lie.

Your story has changed every time you've told it and had an
inconsistency pointed out.

[Alan Baker]

Tommy: we were discussing your demo...

...or had you forgotten already.

Riiiiight....

You nearly lost control of the aircraft, Tommy.

>
>
> You comments on this video are amusing. You apparently do not realize
> that the optimum pattern for a quick circuit trades climb rate for more
> forward speed. The goal is to just get to the desired pattern altitude
> at the numbers for the start of the descent as a quickly as possible.
> That is, you

To get to the start of an altitude as quickly as possible...

...why would you trade climb rate for anything.

Once again, your story doesn't add up.

> are still climbing on downwind. Then you pull the carb heat, chop the
> throttle, full flaps for max decent rate, and aim for just beyond the
> numbers. Flaps are retracted if required to cut drag and extend the
> final. The goal is not to fly school patterns, it's to get as much
> exposure to the sight picture of approach to the runaway as possible.
> You can vary it with less flaps, including no flaps landings, different
> final pattern altitudes, and of course the wind has some effect.
> Anyway, I have over 3,000 landings that include handling the airplane
> after touchdown. By your prior account how many do you have?

I have exactly as many as I've already stated, Tommy.

[Alan Baker]

You are good with excuses; I'll give you that.

>
> Anyway, there is no way to stop your constant badgering and de-Nile. Bye
>
> Go back to your races, I'll go back to my flying. Off to an airport for
> an aviation appreciation day tomorrow. Taking a 14 year old cadet
> there, letting him fly the airplane. We will be surrounded by pilots
> and very cool aircraft for a whole day.

Bravo.

The difference between you and I, Tommy, is that I never denigrated
flying as a pastime. I merely stated (correctly!) that it doesn't
require one thing that motor racing requires: continuous focus.

[Alan Baker]

A couple of things I missed in my first reply:

The PA28's best rate of climb was 660fpm, Tommy. And that's the perfect
rate of climb you didn't want to acknowledge for the Skyhawk.

>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's like how your flight times were supposedly including 10 minutes>
>>>>>> taxi time... ...until that became inconvenient to your argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's like how you suddenly can't explain how a flight that only lasted>
>>>>>> an hour total had you under the hood from wheels up to touchdown.>
>>>>>> Suddenly, "I didn't write the logbook!" came out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the 1984 Skyhawk's climb rate is 700 fpm, Tommy. I thought a pilot>
>>>>>> was supposed to know little details like that.
>>>>>
>>>>> This was not a busy airport, traffic was not an issue.
>>>>
>>>> Riiiiight. Flight in, flight out for the NINE flights where you claim
>>>> to have done circuits in 200 seconds a piece, the airport never had any
>>>> traffic that interfered at all!
>>>
>>> That is exactly correct. It was not a busy airport.
>>
>> Never once... ...in 8 hour 10 minutes of flying?
>>
>> You DO realize that you maintained almost precisely the same pace for>
>> circuits for the all the flights in your logbook where you made>
>> multiple landings, right?
>>
>> Despite changing experience (and presumably changing conditions) the>
>> pace was alway almost PRECISELY the same.

Well, Tommy?

Well, Tommy?

How is it that you completed full stop landings at the same pace as
touch and goes?

[Alan Baker]

On 2015-06-13 02:07:42 +0000, Alan Baker said:

>> The little shit tries to get under your skin by nitpicking every detail
>> to death while never admitting that he has any issues with telling the
>> truth. Does anybody know if he has any family - wife, kids, mother,
>> father, etc.?
>
> Lots of family, Tommy.
>
> Mother, step-father, two brothers, girlfriend of nearly 12 years now
> (with whom I will never have children because it would be a huge risk
> to her health).
>
> And I have no issues with telling the truth, Tommy. No of you are
> important enough for me to ever be dishonest.
>
>>
>> His company web site is pretty sad. I get the feeling that the business
>> is not all that successful. For someone claiming to be an expert in
>> computers his site is rather actually sad.
>
> What website would that be, Tommy?
>
> Are you jumping to conclusions or just out and out lying?
>
> :-)

Weird how Tommy replied to the other posts I made yesterday evening...

...but not this one.

[Walter Myer]

On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 8:19:26 PM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
> Alan Baker, aka IT, claims to have flown an airplane for an hour, then brought it down to a touchdown at which point the CFI (in this case, the Certified Fool Instructor) took over.
>
> IT also claims that with a little review of regs and procedures he could fly solo (in an airplane of course) to a different airport in good VFR weather.
>
> The question: Would you be willing to ride with Alan, or put a loved one on board with him for his first solo flight?
>
>
> I would, but only if I had a lethal weapon to take him out if he got into trouble and would not let me take over and land.

WOW!!! You got the little shit in a frenzy trying to prove what a great aiwpwaine pilot IT is.

26 screaming posts.

Quite amusing!

[Walter Myer]

On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 8:19:26 PM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
> Alan Baker, aka IT, claims to have flown an airplane for an hour, then brought it down to a touchdown at which point the CFI (in this case, the Certified Fool Instructor) took over.
>
> IT also claims that with a little review of regs and procedures he could fly solo (in an airplane of course) to a different airport in good VFR weather.
>
> The question: Would you be willing to ride with Alan, or put a loved one on board with him for his first solo flight?
>
>
> I would, but only if I had a lethal weapon to take him out if he got into trouble and would not let me take over and land.

You do know that you have to lower yourself to discuss anything with the little jerk.

IT couldn't even carry your log book or shine your shoes.

I never respond to the little shit, no matter how hard IT tries.

IT'S worthless.

[-hh]

Tom wrote:
>, -hh wrote:
>> Tom writes:
> > > little shit tries to get under your skin by nitpicking

> every detail to death ...

>>
>> Translation: a personal attackto try to draw readership
>> attention away from the potentially cooked logbooks.
>
>

> Nothing is perfect. The books are not "cooked".

The books that Alan is quoting from are too perfect to be real.

> OTOH Baker has NO proof, no books, nothing, to prove
> any of his assertions.

You provided the data, did you not?

Alan has implied ... and I'll cut you a break for a bit, but based on
what I've seen, it is statistically improbable. Now by today's standards
we might say that it smells like fraud, but back in the 1960's, record-keeping
was far less pedantically anal about being precise down to the minute, etc,
so even by today's standards it isn't acceptable.

> I have a license, ratings, and hundreds of people who have flown with
> me over the years.

Irrelevant.

> Baker has no license, no witnesses, and no meaningful experience.
> That lack of experience is evident of his comments on the video.

Quite obviously, you have no credible experience in statistics, either.
But I'll make a deal with you: email me offline these records you provided
to Alan, un-recused, along with your current pilot licence info and I'll ask
a friend who's an FAA regulator to take a look into it and offer his opinion.

-hh

[Alan Baker]

You go ahead and find a single sentence you can quote that says that...

:-)

[Thomas E.]

On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 8:59:51 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2015-06-13 00:35:26 +0000, Thomas E. said:
>
> > On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 8:01:56 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> >> On 2015-06-12 21:48:54 +0000, Thomas E. said:
> >>
> >>> On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 11:54:37 AM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>> On 2015-06-12 10:43:18 +0000, Thomas E. said:

> >>>>
> >>>>> On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 6:16:52 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> >>>>>> Tom writes:

> >>>>>> , -hh wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Goodness! The butthurt is stron[g] in Tommy tonight.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Just answer the question at hand.

Which you came with AFTER you took time to look it up.

>
> >
> > Anyone who knows anything would know that you need two VORs for a cross
> > reference, DME for distance and direction, or and really old fashioned
> > RNAV radio.
>
> I did know that, Tommy-boy.

Which you came with AFTER you took time to look it up.

>
> >
> > We have GPS now. Imagine that! The only problem is that most of them do
> > not have terrain warning and none available for general aviation
> > overlay GPS position on legally required VFR/IFR charts are legal for
> > IFR navigation.
>
> And you think I didn't know that? You were the one going on and on
> about how aviation map reading was an absolutely essential skill,
> remember?
>
> And we weren't discussing IFR navigation either, were we?

Important for all aviation

>
> I took a flight by floatplane back from Victoria to Vancouver a while
> back and while the Garmin (I think it was Garmin) GPS the pilot had
> added to his cockpit said prominently "not for navigation", he was
> pretty clearly navigating by it?

And that was legal under what conditions?

[Thomas E.]

I have a life outside CSMA. Apparenty you don't.

[Thomas E.]

The improvement was in quality and handling different conditions on different days. Not number per hour. Experience = safety.

[Thomas E.]

Right. You can't even spell license.

[Thomas E.]

On Saturday, June 13, 2015 at 3:37:52 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:

I will do this...just for fun. I keep a paper book, and an Excel version that I created to track some stats. I'll email the Excel version. Just give me the email address of the FAA person - his FAA address, not his personal address.

[Thomas E.]

I added details remembered from over 45 years ago.

[Thomas E.]

Almost is the operative word here.

[Thomas E.]

When it's more important to be able to see what's in front of you than rather the front edge of the cowling.

[Thomas E.]

It was mostly touch and go.

[Thomas E.]

Uh, Alan Baby, flights through thunderstorms in light aircraft are generally not survivable. Are you saying that race car driving is suicidal? The Air Force, in their incredibly strong aircraft put is this way "There is no reason to fly through a thunderstorm in peacetime."

Again, you show your ignorance of all things aviation.

[Thomas E.]

With both wheels on the ground, wings level, you lose that lift vector that is compensating for the drift in the forward slip. A wind from the right pressures the vertical stab and rudder, pushes it to the left, and the nose to the right. You have to expect that and compensate with rudder input and deflecting the ailerons into the wind. That is, for a right crosswind you turn the control wheel as if you are making a right turn in the air.

After you go out and make a few crosswind landings come back and comment.

Your comments really shows how little you know. That landing was totally in control. What you saw was me adjusting to changing winds.

I have over 3000 completed landings. All safely done. Many in significant crosswinds. You have how many?

None, you failed on your first and only attempt.

[Thomas E.]

Gee Alan, why did you delete the post about your family and supposed girlfriend? It was made up, was it not?

[Alan Baker]

Coward.

[Alan Baker]

You'll email the Excel version...

...once you've had a chance to edit it?

:-)

[Alan Baker]

What are you talking about?

How is it POSSIBLE for me to delete a post on Usenet, Tommy?

[Alan Baker]

Nope. I've also been a sailor for a long time, and while most of it was
small boat sailing, I understand the basics of navigation from those
days...

>
>>
>>>
>>> Anyone who knows anything would know that you need two VORs for a cross
>>> reference, DME for distance and direction, or and really old fashioned
>>> RNAV radio.
>>
>> I did know that, Tommy-boy.
>
> Which you came with AFTER you took time to look it up.

Riiiiiiiiiight.

Because only a pilot could possibly know that!

LOL

>
>
>>
>>>
>>> We have GPS now. Imagine that! The only problem is that most of them do
>>> not have terrain warning and none available for general aviation
>>> overlay GPS position on legally required VFR/IFR charts are legal for
>>> IFR navigation.
>>
>> And you think I didn't know that? You were the one going on and on
>> about how aviation map reading was an absolutely essential skill,
>> remember?
>>
>> And we weren't discussing IFR navigation either, were we?
>
> Important for all aviation

Were we discussing IFR flight?

>
>>
>> I took a flight by floatplane back from Victoria to Vancouver a while
>> back and while the Garmin (I think it was Garmin) GPS the pilot had
>> added to his cockpit said prominently "not for navigation", he was
>> pretty clearly navigating by it?
>
> And that was legal under what conditions?

I don't think it WAS legal, Tommy.

[Alan Baker]

On 2015-06-14 11:58:39 +0000, Thomas E. said:

Well?

>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That 700 rate is max rate for a new airplane with a fresh engine and
>>>>>>> wheel pants.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Excuses, excuses...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 600 is the best this bird will do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Riiiiiight. Conveniently we don't see the instruments nor can we even
>>>>>> tell if you're not simply lying about the aircraft.
>>>>>
>>>>> It took over a minute to get to 800 feet, a more capable airplane> >>>
>>>>> could> > do that in 45 seconds.
>>>>
>>>> But you just told us you didn't get to 800 feet, Tommy. Having
>>>> trouble>> >> keeping your story straight again?
>>>
>>> Not on the first trip, it was the first time I ever tried it in this> >
>>> aircraft. Nailed it the second time.
>>
>> Tommy: we were discussing your demo...
>>
>> ...or had you forgotten already.

Well?

>>>>>>> Finally, 1967 was 48 years ago.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You know, why is it that you always claim to be telling the truth, but
>>>>>>> nobody else is?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I doubt your claims, Tommy. There are lots of reasons to doubt them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For instance, I just noted that one of your logbook entries records
>>>>>> "short field T.O. & Lnd."...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...so why did you do more circuits per hour than you had in the three
>>>>>> flights that preceded it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After all those T&Gs leading up to it--42 in 2:50 of flying (you see, I
>>>>>> can add simple figures unlike you), you couldn't do more circuits when
>>>>>> practising short field?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because short field practice demands a full stop landing.
>>>>
>>>> Then how did you manage to do them and yet not be at a SLOWER pace> >>
>>>> than> the others?

Well?

>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, even after all your time as a pilot, your "maximum effort"
>>>>>> landings took you a long way off the runway centreline alignment. But
>>>>>> you were just fine as a student right of the gate, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> I was on the centerline at touchdown, the camera angle is the issue.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. The aircraft yawed... ...a lot.
>

> It yawed a little

>
>>>>
>>>>> On final I was adjusting for crosswind from the right. Did you even> >>
>>>>> >>> notice that the aircraft was not level at touchdown. That was> >>
>>>>> >>> intentional. It's called a forward slip to landing.
>>>>
>>>> Of course I noticed it. I was referring to how much it yawed after touchdown.
>>>
>>> That was because of the wind, it happens in a crosswind.
>>
>> Riiiiight....
>

> With both wheels on the ground, wings level, you lose that lift vector

> that is compensating for the drift in the side slip. A wind from the

> right pressures the vertical stab and rudder, pushes it to the left,
> and the nose to the right. You have to expect that and compensate with
> rudder input and deflecting the ailerons into the wind. That is, for a
> right crosswind you turn the control wheel as if you are making a right
> turn in the air.
>
> After you go out and make a few crosswind landings come back and comment.

Except those nose yawed to the left.

Care to try again?

>
>>
>> You nearly lost control of the aircraft, Tommy.
>

> That really shows how little you know. That landing was totally in

> control. What you saw was me adjusting to changing winds.

> I have over 3000 landings. All safely done.

And you'll show an Excel spreadsheet to prove it!

>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You comments on this video are amusing. You apparently do not realize>
>>> > that the optimum pattern for a quick circuit trades climb rate for
>>> more> > forward speed. The goal is to just get to the desired pattern
>>> altitude> > at the numbers for the start of the descent as a quickly as
>>> possible.> > That is, you
>>
>> To get to the start of an altitude as quickly as possible...
>>
>> ...why would you trade climb rate for anything.
>>
>> Once again, your story doesn't add up.
>

> Details? Why not?

It's your claim.

>
>>
>>> are still climbing on downwind. Then you pull the carb heat, chop the>
>>> > throttle, full flaps for max decent rate, and aim for just beyond
>>> the> > numbers. Flaps are retracted if required to cut drag and extend
>>> the> > final. The goal is not to fly school patterns, it's to get as
>>> much> > exposure to the sight picture of approach to the runaway as
>>> possible.> > You can vary it with less flaps, including no flaps
>>> landings, different> > final pattern altitudes, and of course the wind
>>> has some effect.
>>> Anyway, I have over 3,000 landings that include handling the airplane>
>>> > after touchdown. By your prior account how many do you have?
>>
>> I have exactly as many as I've already stated, Tommy.
>

> Zero. You know nothing about he subject. Evasion noted.

If you choose to see it that way.

I just told you the facts.

[Alan Baker]

LOL!

Where's your answer, Tommy?

What web site do you claim my company has?

[Alan Baker]

LOL

[Alan Baker]

On 2015-06-14 12:36:32 +0000, Thomas E. said:

>>> You comments on this video are amusing. You apparently do not realize
>>> that the optimum pattern for a quick circuit trades climb rate for more
>>> forward speed. The goal is to just get to the desired pattern altitude
>>> at the numbers for the start of the descent as a quickly as possible.
>>> That is, you
>>
>> To get to the start of an altitude as quickly as possible...
>>
>> ...why would you trade climb rate for anything.
>
> When it's more important to be able to see what's in front of you than
> rather the front edge of the cowling.

Can you never remember what you say from one post to the next.

How does seeing what's in front of you give you a QUICKER circuit,

Tommy? Safer perhaps, but you said:

"You apparently do not realize that the optimum pattern for a quick
circuit trades climb rate for more forward speed."

So how does giving up climb rate give you a quicker circuit, Tommy?

[Alan Baker]

Of course!

First it was "short field demands full stop", now it's "it was mostly
touch and go"!

LOL

[Alan Baker]

No, Tommy. Once again, you put words in my mouth. It says right there:
"METAPHORICALLY".

My point is that most pilots avoid the situations that require the kind
of focus that race driving demands. Are there times when they can't
avoid them, sure.

But you avoiding a thunderstorm is not an example of how much focus
flying takes, Tommy.

[Alan Baker]

So why did the nose yaw left, Tommy?

And why is it you'll answer some questions multiple times, but avoid
answering others entirely?

Is it because you have a life outside CSMA?

:-)

>
> After you go out and make a few crosswind landings come back and comment.
>
> Your comments really shows how little you know. That landing was
> totally in control. What you saw was me adjusting to changing winds.
>
> I have over 3000 completed landings. All safely done. Many in
> significant crosswinds. You have how many?
> None, you failed on your first and only attempt.

LOL

Since I didn't even know I'd be making an attempt at all that day, I
think I did alright.

:-)

[Thomas E.]

On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 9:08:31 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2015-06-13 00:54:28 +0000, Thomas E. said:
>
> > On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 8:16:49 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> >> On 2015-06-12 22:42:19 +0000, Thomas E. said:
> >>
> >>> On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 11:56:56 AM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:

> >> It's like how your flight times were supposedly including 10 minutes
> >> taxi time... ...until that became inconvenient to your argument.
> >>
> >> It's like how you suddenly can't explain how a flight that only lasted
> >> an hour total had you under the hood from wheels up to touchdown.
> >> Suddenly, "I didn't write the logbook!" came out.
> >>
> >> And the 1984 Skyhawk's climb rate is 700 fpm, Tommy. I thought a pilot
> >> was supposed to know little details like that.
> >

> > By that way, if you knew anything you would know that sacrificing a
> > little climb rate for forward speed actually cuts time for a circuit. I
> > knew that in 1967. It's simple math.
>
> And yet, you couldn't manage the simple arithmetic on page 3 of your
> logbook... ...go figure.

The tradeoff actually involves a little simple geometry and differential calculus, done in your head.

[John]

On 6/11/15 5:19 PM, Thomas E. wrote:
> Alan Baker, aka IT, claims to have flown an airplane for an hour, then brought it down to a touchdown at which point the CFI (in this case, the Certified Fool Instructor) took over.
>
> IT also claims that with a little review of regs and procedures he could fly solo (in an airplane of course) to a different airport in good VFR weather.
>
> The question: Would you be willing to ride with Alan, or put a loved one on board with him for his first solo flight?
>
>
> I would, but only if I had a lethal weapon to take him out if he got into trouble and would not let me take over and land.
>

It is true flying is really easy. Of course though NO real CFI would
ever allow a person to land after only an hour of training. So of
course Alan is lying.

[Thomas E.]

You tell me, where is it?

Here is mine www.farmecon.com

[Thomas E.]

On Saturday, June 13, 2015 at 3:19:15 AM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2015-06-13 03:49:33 +0000, Thomas E. said:
>
> > On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 10:08:24 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> >> On 2015-06-13 02:03:38 +0000, Thomas E. said:
> >>
> >>> On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 11:23:15 AM UTC-4, Walter Myer wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 10:08:28 AM UTC-4, Nashton wrote:
> >>>>> On 2015-06-11 9:19 PM, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Are you joking me? Do anything with Baker? FLY with Baker?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The man has zero skills, he's a Uni drop-out, can't commit to a
> >>>>> relationship and is a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
> >>>>
> >>>> BINGO!!!
> >>>>
> >>>> The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein unskilled
> >>>> individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing
> >>>> their ability to be much higher than is accurate.
> >>>>
> >>>> This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled
> >>>> to recognize their ineptitude.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Might as well just just off a cliff and get it over with ;)
> >>>>
> >>>> When IT wakes up, IT just might do that.
> >>>>
> >>>> Whats sad is, IT'S handed IT'S ass on a platter, almost every time IT posts!!

> >>>
> >>> The little shit tries to get under your skin by nitpicking every detail
> >>> to death while never admitting that he has any issues with telling the
> >>> truth. Does anybody know if he has any family - wife, kids, mother,
> >>> father, etc.?
> >>>

> >>> His company web site is pretty sad. I get the feeling that the business
> >>> is not all that successful. For someone claiming to be an expert in

> >>> computers his site is actually rather sad.
> >>
> >> It seems you're not really very good with technology, Tommy.
> >>
> >> This is yet another time you've double-posted recently.
> >
> > Something strange going on with Google.
>
> You are good with excuses; I'll give you that.
>
> >
> > Anyway, there is no way to stop your constant badgering and de-Nile. Bye
> >
> > Go back to your races, I'll go back to my flying. Off to an airport for
> > an aviation appreciation day tomorrow. Taking a 14 year old cadet
> > there, letting him fly the airplane. We will be surrounded by pilots
> > and very cool aircraft for a whole day.
>
> Bravo.
>
> The difference between you and I, Tommy, is that I never denigrated
> flying as a pastime. I merely stated (correctly!) that it doesn't
> require one thing that motor racing requires: continuous focus.

Loving being "denigrated", if that's what it's called!

[Thomas E.]

I'll email something that does not take hours and hours to scan. Four books, all too wide for the scanner when opened up.

[Thomas E.]

He did not complete the landing, and I'll guarantee you the CFI had his hands VERY close to the controls. It's actually possible in ideal conditions as claimed, especially for an experienced car driver being coached all the way by a good instructor. But that's just the tip of a very large iceberg.

[Thomas E.]

What, you don't know that possible? I do it every now and then. Pull up the post in Google and click on the down arrow to the right of the reply icon. If you posted it Delete is an option.

[Thomas E.]

On Saturday, June 13, 2015 at 7:34:07 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2015-06-13 12:44:04 +0000, Walter Myer said:
>
> > On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 8:19:26 PM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
> >> Alan Baker, aka IT, claims to have flown an airplane for an hour, then
> >> brought it down to a touchdown at which point the CFI (in this case,
> >> the Certified Fool Instructor) took over.
> >>
> >> IT also claims that with a little review of regs and procedures he
> >> could fly solo (in an airplane of course) to a different airport in
> >> good VFR weather.
> >>
> >> The question: Would you be willing to ride with Alan, or put a loved
> >> one on board with him for his first solo flight?
> >>
> >>
> >> I would, but only if I had a lethal weapon to take him out if he got
> >> into trouble and would not let me take over and land.
> >
> > WOW!!! You got the little shit in a frenzy trying to prove what a
> > great aiwpwaine pilot IT is.
>
> You go ahead and find a single sentence you can quote that says that...
>
> :-)
>
> >
> > 26 screaming posts.
> >
> > Quite amusing!

Try "I flew an airplane to touchdown after only 1 (or was it 2) flights."

[Thomas E.]

PS, here is betting hh will never get me that FAA email address. Probably because he is lying about knowing anyone there.

hh, you can send it to thomaselam at farmecon dot com

[Thomas E.]

On Saturday, June 13, 2015 at 3:17:39 AM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2015-06-13 03:44:32 +0000, Thomas E. said:
>
> > On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 10:19:02 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> >> On 2015-06-13 02:13:15 +0000, Thomas E. said:
> >>
> >>> On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 9:07:25 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:

> > The PA28 was just as capable as the C172. It was lighter, carried less
> > fuel, and I was solo.
> >
> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> It's like how your flight times were supposedly including 10 minutes>
> >>>>>> taxi time... ...until that became inconvenient to your argument.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's like how you suddenly can't explain how a flight that only lasted>
> >>>>>> an hour total had you under the hood from wheels up to touchdown.>
> >>>>>> Suddenly, "I didn't write the logbook!" came out.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And the 1984 Skyhawk's climb rate is 700 fpm, Tommy. I thought a pilot>
> >>>>>> was supposed to know little details like that.
> >>>>>

> >>>>> This was not a busy airport, traffic was not an issue.
> >>>>
> >>>> Riiiiight. Flight in, flight out for the NINE flights where you claim
> >>>> to have done circuits in 200 seconds a piece, the airport never had any
> >>>> traffic that interfered at all!
> >>>
> >>> That is exactly correct. It was not a busy airport.
> >>
> >> Never once... ...in 8 hour 10 minutes of flying?
> >>
> >> You DO realize that you maintained almost precisely the same pace for>
> >> circuits for the all the flights in your logbook where you made>
> >> multiple landings, right?
> >>
> >> Despite changing experience (and presumably changing conditions) the>
> >> pace was alway almost PRECISELY the same.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>

> >>>>> That 700 rate is max rate for a new airplane with a fresh engine and
> >>>>> wheel pants.
> >>>>
> >>>> Excuses, excuses...
> >>>>
> >>>>> 600 is the best this bird will do.
> >>>>
> >>>> Riiiiiight. Conveniently we don't see the instruments nor can we even
> >>>> tell if you're not simply lying about the aircraft.
> >>>
> >>> It took over a minute to get to 800 feet, a more capable airplane
> >>> could> > do that in 45 seconds.
> >>
> >> But you just told us you didn't get to 800 feet, Tommy. Having trouble>
> >> keeping your story straight again?
> >
> > Not on the first trip, it was the first time I ever tried it in this
> > aircraft. Nailed it the second time.
>
> Tommy: we were discussing your demo...
>
> ...or had you forgotten already.
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>

This is what a bad landing looks like

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=cessna%20landing%20loss%20of%20control%20cockpit%20video&qs=n&form=QBVR&pq=cessna%20landing%20loss%20of%20control%20cockpit%20video&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk=#view=detail&mid=0C4004F0A3EF16ED5AC60C4004F0A3EF16ED5AC6

Good thing he had a wide runway.

[Walter Myer]

Another thing, in a long list of things the "computer consultant" didn't know.

[-hh]

> > > I will do this...just for fun. I keep a paper book, and an Excel
> > > version that I created to track some stats. I'll email the Excel
> > > version. Just give me the email address of the FAA person - his FAA
> > > address, not his personal address.
> >
> > You'll email the Excel version...
> >
> > ...once you've had a chance to edit it?
> >
> > :-)
>
> PS, here is betting hh will never get me that FAA email address.

You're correct there, for several reasons and the first of which is because
you can't be trusted with it.

> Probably because he is lying about knowing anyone there.

I'll make you a deal: put in Escrow sufficient funds for the two
of us to go visit him at his home and I'll verify that he hasn't yet
retired and if so, book the tickets using those funds and make
the arrangements for the two of us to meet in person with your papers.

> hh, you can send it to thomaselam at farmecon dot com

I'll be waiting for an email from that address with the contact
info of the Lawyer with the Escrow account information.


-hh

[Thomas E.]

Bullshit. Give me the guy's FAA snail mail address and I'll mail him a photocopy of all my logbooks. Failing that, no go. You ARE NOT going to get your filthy lying hands on them.

[Thomas E.]

Actually, I have a better idea. Please call or write the local FAA office here in Indy and voice your concerns.

Here is the site: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/ind/

Ask them to have me come down for a review of my entire record, including logbooks, medicals, and flight reviews.

That way it's not your friend, or mine. An impartial review by a third party, in a position to jerk my license if anything is out of order.

That's my final offer.