W&B before " EVERY " flighht?

[Colonel]

belitting people

No, just stating inconvenient facts for you
as far as your credibility goes.

You're a low-time PPL that isn't even from
Canada that flies a flew hours a year on a
rented 150, and here you are attacking pilots
with 100, 200 and 300 times your experience,
that have been flying for decades before you
came to Canada.

W+B is all pretty basic physics

You seemed to have changed your tune now.
Previously your attitude was one of sanctimonious
worship for paperwork, and attacking working
pilots, of which you have never been one.

[CpnCrunch]

No, just stating inconvenient facts for you
as far as your credibility goes.

Again, they're not facts. You just pulled them out of your ass.

You seemed to have changed your tune now.
Previously your attitude was one of sanctimonious
worship for paperwork

Nope, I've never done that. Have a look back at my comment on this thread, and it was about pilots crashing because they illegally overloaded the plane and didn't understand the consequences. Again it seems you haven't bothered reading my comments properly, and you've resorted to personal attacks because you *think* I might have said something you disagree with (but I actually didn't). Shouldn't pilots be logical rather than emotional?


Anyway, this is your last chance before we direct the spotlight onto you, which you didn't seem to like the last time we did it (as you managed to get yourself banned from avcanada).

[Colonel]

this is your last chance

Thanks for the threat.  I think everyone
knows pretty well everything about me -
want me to post some more pictures? -
unlike you, who hide in the shadows
because you have no qualifications to
attack working pilots.

[CpnCrunch]

I think everyone knows pretty well everything about me -

Do they know about this?:

The Minister fielded a total of 10 witnesses, seven of whom were eyewitnesses to the event. Four of these witnesses were American contestants in the aerobatic display. There was also Mr. Chris Pulley, the contest director. All of these pilots were testifying against a fellow pilot. They all said that they did so only very reluctantly and because they felt strongly about the actions of Mr. Boyd, which could have brought the aerobatic community into substantial disrepute. They felt that Mr. Boyd's flight was ill-advised, irresponsible, dangerous, and had the potential for a serious accident which could have killed Mr. Boyd and others on the ground. I found all of these witnesses to be highly credible and their evidence was consistent. None of them flew that day because of the weather, and their reports of the prevailing weather conditions were all consistent. They all reported losing sight of Mr. Boyd from time to time as his aircraft flew either into or behind the low cloud that existed on August 26, 2001 at 12:45 to 12:55 Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). They all confirmed seeing Mr. Boyd digress from the flight line, descending vertically over the assembled contestants outside the terminal building on one of his manoeuvres. He had been blown off course by the wind, and because of the low cloud and poor visibility, he had not been able to correct this.


I can say that -- unlike you -- I've never had my plane end up somewhere other than where I've expected it to be, and I've never brought the aerobatic community into "substantial disrepute".

PS, Neil: there's a bug in the forum. If you paste text from the web it initially has a tiny font size.

[Colonel]

Ah, the Transport nonsense that you take as gospel.

The self-serving revisionist crap that you love to
repeat skips the following:

- the contest safety director thought it was a marvellous
flight;

- no evidence was ever presented of any contravention
of CARs;

- TC, desperate to make anything stick, tried to
outlaw all aerobatics below 18,000 feet;

- their professional DOJ lawyer lost to an amateur
representing himself in Federal Court, which enraged
them;

- the only way they won in Federal Court of Appeals
was a "Hail Mary" Double Jeopardy argument which
is really bad law.  I'm not as good a lawyer as the
entire staff of the DOJ, but they smoked through a
precedent which allows unlimited repeated punishment
for the same event.  Imagine a cop stops a guy for
speeding, and says that because you're black, I'm
going to give you 100 tickets for the same event.

That was TC's argument, and incredibly, it carried
the day.  I couldn't even take that crap seriously.

I don't have anything to be ashamed of.  In over
40 years of very challenging flying - which you
have no experience of - I have a perfect safety
record.

Unlike TC, whom is fond of bouncing a King Air
gear up on the runway at Gatineau and then
recklessly flying back to Ottawa, raining parts
over the populated residential area.

And unlike Wayne Foy, TC's star witness at
the Tribunal - he wasn't even there - who shortly
afterwards illegally hand-propped a cub, it
got away from him, and it was destroyed.  He
could have killed someone.  Thinking about it,
even though that TC inspector knew nothing
about the event, he was certainly an expert
at reckless flying.


And you keep making a big deal about AvCan
not liking me.  What's the big deal about that?
Half the people posting here have been kicked
off AvCan.  Getting banned from AvCan - which
you seem to consider a grevious sin - is like
getting kicked out of a trailerpark.  Boo hoo.

[Liquid Charlie]

like a bonanza

Well I have witnessed many a bonanza taxing by with a load of dudes on board and barely able to steer because the nose wheel oleo was fully extended. Seems SOP for the fisherman group. It usually was a WTF moment for us but was never aware of a smokin hole afterwards - gravity is a strange thing and fools us continuously

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Colonel....

... Please pretty please don't make your self look stupid by arguing with stupid.

This troll is trying to replace B.P.F. for being irritating.

[CpnCrunch]

- no evidence was ever presented of any contravention
of CARs;

Apparently there was enough for the tribunal to conclude in their determination:


"At the conclusion of this hearing, I have determined that Andrew Boyd did contravene the conditions of his SFOC which was revoked under section 7.1 of the Aeronautics Act by the Minister. The Minister's decision to do so shall stand.
I have also determined that Andrew Chambers Boyd did contravene both section 602.01 and paragraph 602.27(c) of the CARs under section 6.9 of the Aeronautics Act. However, in the light of the double jeopardy rule, he has been twice penalized for the same action, I quash the suspension of his ATPL."

- TC, desperate to make anything stick, tried to
outlaw all aerobatics below 18,000 feet;

I see no mention of 18,000ft anywhere in the tribunal. It's about performing an airshow in IMC. Another strawman...

- the only way they won in Federal Court of Appeals
was a "Hail Mary" Double Jeopardy argument which
is really bad law.

As you can see in the determination I posted above, the double jeopardy error was quashed, but the CARs violations still stand.

Unlike TC, whom is fond of bouncing a King Air
gear up on the runway at Gatineau and then
recklessly flying back to Ottawa, raining parts
over the populated residential area.

That's a different subject. I don't have any sympathy for incompetence like that either.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Crunch if you are so determined to make the Colonel look bad by posting his problems with T.C. and making it look like he got what he deserved why don't you post documented proof that I also deserved what T.C. did to me, my family and my employees.

It sort of makes me feel unclean even discussing this with someone like you, but I just can not stand by and watch you demean people like Andy and me because we won't get on our knees and blow any T.C. goon who shows up.

[mcrit]

Guys, you can load an airplane over it's certified max take off weight and it will get airborne; BUT...

What happens when one engine cacks-out?  Buffalo Airways gave us the answer to that.  (sounds something like------SPLAT!)

What sort of excess strain are you putting on the airframe?  There is an excellent story about an RAF Herc crew in desert storm one.  They had planned to cruise at around FL290.  On climb out they couldn't get past 17000.  The AC tells his flight engineer to start crunching numbers for a new fuel burn/range etc...  A few minutes later the FE comes forward and says, "Sir,  I seem to have misplaced a decimal point on our all up weight......"  Turns out they were 20000 lbs over gross.  They diverted to the nearest suitable field and that aircraft was scrapped because the spars had been over stressed.

What happens when your overloaded aircraft hits severe turbulence?

Just because it gets airborne doesn't mean you're safe.

As for doing a W&B for every flight, no.  I know my regular aircraft and I know that I'm below max weight and I'm in the envelope because I'm calculated it dozens of times before.  I'm sure other guys on here like Cat and Headley are in the same boat.  They know their aircraft.  Sadly, however, one must regulate to the lowest common denominator.  The lowest common denominator is our case is someone who took 53 attempts to pass their CPL ride and got hired by Dick Dastardly's Discount Airline, (where you pay $8000 for a checkout on a C310 and work for free as an FO "just to see how you fit in").