Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
in [Airline Travel]
|
From: Hatunen on 3 Jul 2010 11:36 On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 17:56:03 -0500, Jim Logajan <JamesL(a)Lugoj.com> wrote: >The Starmaker <starmaker(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> If I run out of gasoline, or my car..stalls, I'm not going to crash >> into the ground! > >Ha - I've flown aircraft that had no gasoline or other fuel and never >crashed into the ground! > >(I was piloting a glider....) Standard ploy by the examiner when you are taking the flight test is to cut the throttle to idling (to simulate loss of engine) and to say "Emergency". The testee has to make a simulated emergency landing by quickly picking out a suitable place to set the plane down, perhaps a farm field or dirt road, and then land the plane. However, the landing is done in the air 500 feet above the potential landing site. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Wingnut on 4 Jul 2010 04:24 On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 10:32:31 -0700, Hatunen wrote: > On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 02:44:10 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut > <wingnut45544(a)hotmail.invalid> wrote: > >>On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:30:32 -0700, Hatunen, who had formerly been on my >>side, suddenly launched an attack and called me incompetent at best and >>a liar at worst. >> >>What gives? You were the most vocal of Mxsmanic's detractors, yet now >>suddenly you're taking his side against me. Is he paying you, or >>providing some other consideration? Because I doubt you had a genuine, >>spontaneous change of heart. Not TO rather than FROM the dark side. That >>kind of thing is generally rare and generally only goes in the other >>direction. > > Being wrong is being wrong. Yes, but previously you were saying Mxsmanic was the one that was wrong. Now you're attacking me. What changed your mind regarding which of us was right? >>All I can say is this is disappointing and unfortunate. Nonetheless it >>still leaves Mxsmanic with what, two allies and at least a dozen >>detractors? Things are still not looking good for Mxsmanic, no matter >>what dishonest tricks he might be using to try to bolster his side and >>undermine mine. > > Now you're gtting nasty, calling me an ally of Mixie. I just call 'em as I see 'em. It seems you're a fair-weather ally. For a while you and I were both taking the same side against Mxsmanic's nonsense, but then suddenly a few days ago you turned on me and fired off with both barrels, and the devil of it is I did nothing I could identify to provoke you. Nothing I said should logically have offended you. All I can guess is Mxsmanic did something to pull you over to his side, rather than I did something to push you away from mine. Regardless of your undiplomatic and vague assertions that I'm "wrong", I continue to stand by what I said: "Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience would have become quite relevant indeed." (Followup setting ignored; I don't want someone seeing your attack post in one of the other three groups and not also seeing my rebuttal, now, do I?)
From: Hatunen on 4 Jul 2010 12:30 On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:24:44 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut <wingnut45544(a)hotmail.invalid> wrote: >On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 10:32:31 -0700, Hatunen wrote: > >> On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 02:44:10 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut >> <wingnut45544(a)hotmail.invalid> wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:30:32 -0700, Hatunen, who had formerly been on my >>>side, suddenly launched an attack and called me incompetent at best and >>>a liar at worst. >>> >>>What gives? You were the most vocal of Mxsmanic's detractors, yet now >>>suddenly you're taking his side against me. Is he paying you, or >>>providing some other consideration? Because I doubt you had a genuine, >>>spontaneous change of heart. Not TO rather than FROM the dark side. That >>>kind of thing is generally rare and generally only goes in the other >>>direction. >> >> Being wrong is being wrong. > >Yes, but previously you were saying Mxsmanic was the one that was wrong. >Now you're attacking me. What changed your mind regarding which of us was >right? I hate to be trite, but two wrongs don't make a right. But in this case I never said Mixie was right. Mixie wasn't the poster in question. In fact, the exchange in qustion was: Dudley Henriques: >> Secondly, there are literally thousands of pilots certificated as >> commercial pilots in the United States who have never flown anything >> more complicated than a light complex. You: >This claim *might* have been more credible had it come from someone who >could spell "certified" correctly. You accused Dudley of spelling a word incorrectly although he was using a perfectly good word. And you were wrong. I sometimes think, though, that Dudley Henriques is actually a sock puppet of Mixie's. >>>All I can say is this is disappointing and unfortunate. Nonetheless it >>>still leaves Mxsmanic with what, two allies and at least a dozen >>>detractors? Things are still not looking good for Mxsmanic, no matter >>>what dishonest tricks he might be using to try to bolster his side and >>>undermine mine. >> >> Now you're gtting nasty, calling me an ally of Mixie. > >I just call 'em as I see 'em. As do I. >It seems you're a fair-weather ally. Ally? You seem to think it's a war. I'm all for you telling Mixie or Dudley Henriques he's wrong. But don't do it by being wrong yourself. >For a >while you and I were both taking the same side against Mxsmanic's >nonsense, but then suddenly a few days ago you turned on me and fired off >with both barrels, and the devil of it is I did nothing I could identify >to provoke you. That would be impressive if it were Mixie I were defending, but it wasn't. So that makes you wrong again. It also tells me qutie a bit about you. >Nothing I said should logically have offended you. All I >can guess is Mxsmanic did something to pull you over to his side, rather >than I did something to push you away from mine. > >Regardless of your undiplomatic and vague assertions that I'm "wrong", I >continue to stand by what I said: > >"Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused >the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience >would have become quite relevant indeed." As I note above, that wasn't the quote in question. >(Followup setting ignored; I don't want someone seeing your attack post >in one of the other three groups and not also seeing my rebuttal, now, do >I?) Attack post? That comment tells me even more about you. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Hatunen on 4 Jul 2010 12:32 On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:42:34 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut <wingnut45544(a)hotmail.invalid> wrote: >On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 08:50:32 +0100, JohnT wrote: > >> "Wingnut" <wingnut45544(a)hotmail.invalid> wrote in message >> news:i0gvdq$42i$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:30:32 -0700, Hatunen, who had formerly been on >>> my side, suddenly launched an attack and called me incompetent at best >>> and a liar at worst. >>> >>> What gives? You were the most vocal of Mxsmanic's detractors, yet now >>> suddenly you're taking his side against me. Is he paying you, or >>> providing some other consideration? Because I doubt you had a genuine, >>> spontaneous change of heart. Not TO rather than FROM the dark side. >>> That kind of thing is generally rare and generally only goes in the >>> other direction. >>> >>> Then again, maybe you've recently suffered a head injury or something. >>> >>> All I can say is this is disappointing and unfortunate. Nonetheless it >>> still leaves Mxsmanic with what, two allies and at least a dozen >>> detractors? Things are still not looking good for Mxsmanic, no matter >>> what dishonest tricks he might be using to try to bolster his side and >>> undermine mine. >>> >> What you seem to be saying is that anyone who disagrees with you must be >> incompetent or a liar or must have recently suffered a head injury or >> something. > >No, I'm saying that someone who just suddenly CHANGES sides like that is >PROBABLY either suffering something or has been suborned. > >From the looks of things, Hatunen and Mxsmanic have been against one >another for years. Then I come along and, innocently, say: > >"Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused >the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience >would have become quite relevant indeed." Again, as I note in another post rsponding to this assertion, that wasn't the quote in question. [Lines and lines of diatribe deleted. My, you do carry on.] -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Dudley Henriques on 4 Jul 2010 15:26
On Jul 4, 12:30 pm, Hatunen <hatu...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:24:44 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut > I sometimes think, though, that Dudley Henriques is actually a > sock puppet of Mixie's. Surely you jest? :-))))))))))))))))))))))) Best way to eliminate this laughable mystery would be to have someone who knows me personally on the forum through private email write to me then ask them what was said in our private email. Jim Logajan could do that if you wish. Personally I would hope you are a much better judge of character than having to do this as I see it as a waste of bandwidth, but what the hell...........have a go if you wish; otherwise, you have my word that what you are postulating as a possibility is a waste of your "thinking time" :-)) Dudley Henriques > ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatu...(a)cox.net) ************* > * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * > * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |