Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane

On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 17:56:03 -0500, Jim Logajan
wrote:

The Starmaker 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 ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 10:32:31 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 02:44:10 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
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?)

On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 08:50:32 +0100, JohnT wrote:

"Wingnut" wrote in message
...
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."

This shouldn't even have been controversial but apparently Mxsmanic saw
it and has a bee in his bonnet about such things, so he posts attacking
me. And Hatunen follows him and starts posting attacking Mxsmanic.

For whatever reason Mxsmanic is really, really incensed by what I wrote,
so much so that he's very persistent, nigh-relentless, in trying to frame
me as some kind of moron or incompetent. All the while just making
himself look like a know-nothing self-styled know-it-all in front of a
brand new audience of rec.arts.tv regulars, and being flamed by Hatunen
and several other people he's apparently made enemies of over the years.

Until last week, when all of a sudden Hatunen starts flaming me instead,
apparently having gone over to Mxsmanic's side.

You aren't enemies with someone for years and then suddenly take their
side one day without some kind of precipitating incident. Head injury,
payoff, something. Considering also that Mxsmanic is simply wrong, it's
not like Hatunen just had an epiphany and saw the light or something.
That kind of thing only goes in the opposite direction.

If you say you're sure he hasn't been suborned, then I'd like to know
what you think DID convince Hatunen to abruptly switch sides in this
little dispute.

Usenet exists for the exchange of views and this thread has
been boringly tame so far. Not even (to use an English expression)
"handbags at 4 paces". And I can never ever recollect Hatunen being a
detractor of anyone.

Until now. He's just called me several nasty names in a couple of recent
posts.

He disagrees with Mxsmanic frequently, as do many of us,

or rather, he used to,

but that is just a simple exchange of views and I have never ever
noticed a trace of personal animosity to anyone in any of his many
postings over the years.

Again, until now. Personal animosity against me is dripping from his
posts of June 29 and July 1 -- condescension, lecturing at me like I'm
some wayward little child, the whole works. Standard-issue Usenet flaming
of the first kind: portray your opponent as an imbecile in need of
special hand-holding in order to discredit whatever he's been saying.
(The second kind would be to suggest, somewhat slyly, sexual peccadilloes
or outright perversion on your opponent's part; the third is simply to
come right out and blast him or her with torrents of vulgar profanity,
namecalling, accusations, and other unsubtle invective. All three amount
to logically-invalid ad hominem arguments of course.)

The key thing is that in flaming me in any of those ways he shows that he
now considers me to BE his opponent, rather than an ally against
Mxsmanic. His having switched sides is thus apparent; by the logic of
"the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and the evident fact that he now
regards me as an enemy, plus the older fact that Mxsmanic is my enemy,
one concludes that Mxsmanic and Hatunen have become allied; the only
remaining question is why.

The danger represented here is obvious: if one person could suddenly
switch to Mxsmanic's side, presumably others could. If Mxsmanic has
discovered some strong means of influencing others all of a sudden, it's
conceivable that he might suborn all of us into supporting his craziness.
Knowing the mechanism would allow this hazard to be better quantified.
For instance, if it's simple blackmail I'm immune, lacking any dirt in my
past for him to dig up, but he could turn the rest of the people here to
his side and then have them all gang up and hound me mercilessly about
Usenet with vicious flaming, effectively neutralizing me by discrediting
me under this name. (I'd just start using a new one, but presumably if I
touched this topic again history would repeat itself, with my words and a
Google search by Mxsmanic bringing the whole lot of 'em down on my head
like a bag of hammers.) On the other hand, if he has some kind of zombie
slave potion he's feeding people, I'd have to meet him in person under
circumstances that enabled him to slip me a mickey to be vulnerable, and
it's likely only a handful of people here are actually at risk of being
suborned. If he has some sort of bogus "proof" of his nonsense sufficient
to fool imbeciles, it won't work on me. If it's a mind control ray, I'm
in trouble -- I left my tinfoil hat behind the last time I moved
house. :-)

Wingnut writes:

From the looks of things, Hatunen and Mxsmanic have been against one
another for years.

As hard as it may be to believe, some people are neither for nor against each
other.

For whatever reason Mxsmanic is really, really incensed by what I wrote,
so much so that he's very persistent, nigh-relentless, in trying to frame
me as some kind of moron or incompetent.

I don't even remember what you wrote, so it can hardly leave me incensed.

All the while just making
himself look like a know-nothing self-styled know-it-all in front of a
brand new audience of rec.arts.tv regulars ...

Even if that were true, I'm not sure why I should care what anyone on
rec.arts.tv thinks about aviation. But it does make me smile (which is rare
these days, as I have little to smile about).

... plus the older fact that Mxsmanic is my enemy ...

OMG! Why can't we all just get along?(R)

... one concludes that Mxsmanic and Hatunen have become allied; the only
remaining question is why.

The Trilateral Illuminati Freemasons Commission insisted--it was an essential
step in their quest for world domination and mind-control. We are but pawns in
the Grand Plan. I know the location of the keystone, and I have tickets for
the Rose Line.

The danger represented here is obvious: if one person could suddenly
switch to Mxsmanic's side, presumably others could.

And civilization--as we know it--would crumble into dust.

Are you interested in discussing aviation, by chance?

On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:24:44 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 10:32:31 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 02:44:10 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
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 ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:42:34 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 08:50:32 +0100, JohnT wrote:

"Wingnut" wrote in message
...
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 ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Jul 4, 12:30*pm, Hatunen 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 ) *************
* ** * * * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * * * *
* ** My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Jul 5, 7:26*am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
On Jul 4, 12:30*pm, Hatunen 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

Okay folks it's about time those cockpit management skills were
brought into action and the old saw of front seat cooperation came to
mean something..
Time to take a breath, say bugger or whatever and keep posting
aviation stuff...

On Jul 4, 3:26*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
On Jul 4, 12:30*pm, Hatunen 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 ) *************
* ** * * * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * * * *
* ** My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

I can't speak for you, Dudley, but I would be concerned about the
opinions others might have of me only if I valued their opinion.

"Wingnut" wrote in message
...


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?)

http://www.rofl.name/lolcity/