For example, I always wear a tinfoil hat when I listen to Obama speak. It helps deflect his lies.
Posted on 09/15/2009 9:35:52 AM PDT by PilotDave
When the witness asked the pilot if he was all right, the pilot answered that he was, but he seemed to be unaware that his airplane had impacted poles during the landing.
The pilot subsequently asked the witness if the wildfires had reached his ranch. The witness stated that he didn't know where the pilot's ranch was. The pilot then asked the witness if he could put some beer that his brother left in the airplane, in the witness' truck. Another witness asked what happened, and the pilot said, "I don't know, I land here almost every other day." They all reported that the pilot seemed impaired, and unaware as to his whereabouts. Two of the witnesses indicated that they smelled alcohol in the airplane, but not on the pilot.
According to the witnesses, the pilot appeared to be looking for something in the airplane. The pilot stated that he was looking for a bottle of wine, which the witness found beneath one of the aft seats. Both the pilot and the witness then exited the airplane with the bottle of wine, which was 1/3 full. Another witness put the wine bottle in his toolbox. The pilot then asked the witnesses to make up a story about what they had seen. They agreed to tell people that they were away at lunch when the accident occurred, The pilot asked the remaining witness if he was in New Mexico, and was told that he wasn't. About 1500, the pilot was contacted by police via cell phone. According to the police statement, the pilot told authorities that he "experienced a pressurization problem."
(Excerpt) Read more at ntsb.gov ...
“that you then not degenerate into a tinfoil tail spin of little people always getting screwed.”
Umm facts are facts. The only people who were charged with anything, were the construction workers who PS convinced to help him hide the beer and wine and make false statements to the police. The big rich hollywood star asked them to criminally cover for him while he evaded the authorities until it was to late to test him for substances.
“the NTSB report does not tie alcohol to the crash.”
The NTSB report mentions the words: beer, wine, alchohol, and impaired over 10 times. The police report if much more damning. I didn’t write either.
My comparison of the Kennedys was in NTSB reports. As I said before, in the JFK Jr. accident, the NTSB did not list Pilot Error as a contributing factor. How do you think the reports would read if you or I were piloting either aircraft?
BTW- You and lurker are winning the namecalling contest also. You’ve combined to call me 5 names (asshole, smug, idiot, and tinfoil twice), to my zero.
“So, some problem apparently developed 43 minutes into the flight. It’s not relevant other than to question your dubious proclamation, but how are you absolutely sure that the pilot wasn’t above 12,500 MSL before 13 minutes into the flight? Van Nuys is at 802 MSL, and the 414 climbs at 1580 fpm at sea level.”
It was a pressurized aircraft. He reported a rapid decompression during the flight. The NTSB found a broken clamp that collaborated that. So the cabin pressure was somewhere around sea level until the 43 minute mark. The 30 minute timing would start until the cabin altitude rose above 12,500, not the aircraft. As a matter of fact, you don’t need any suppl ox in a pressurized aircraft as long as you stay below FL250.
No charge for the lesson.
Dave, you originally wrote:
I responded to that, and pointed out it was wrong. Rather than admitting it, you backpedaled rapidly and added more qualifications to move the goal posts.
Your "lesson" is more of the same -- and just like your rants -- isn't worth my time to respond.
You should hope that readers don't look at your posting history from your home page, because they'll wonder (just like me) how much of it is really true.
“The NTSB found evidence of exhaust products in the cabin pressurization system, and concluded that carbon monoxide was a contributing factor. That doesn’t wear off quickly. At room temperature, the half-life of CO in the blood is 3-4 hours.”
I’m quite sure that the NTSB would find exhaust products in virtually every airplane in the world. The heat systems are prone to spilling exhaust fumes into the cabin. The press system is bleed air from the turbos, which run off exhaust. CO symptoms are usually just increasing fatigue until you pass out. That’s why it’s a popular form of suicide. Once you hit fresh air it’s a severe icepick headache. I learned this the hard way in a plane. It does not make you act intoxicated.
“BTW- You and lurker are winning the namecalling contest also. You’ve combined to call me 5 names (asshole, smug, idiot, and tinfoil twice), to my zero.”
Find a place where I called you a name and I will apologize.
The closest I came was when I said the thread was degenerating into tinfoil hat.
You win an award for Reading what Ain’t There. Or is that name calling?
No need, because I'll acknowledge the first 3. Actually, the first two, because "smug" is an adjective, not a noun.
And, I stand behind every one of them.
PS
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2340212/posts?page=39#39
I called you a name here and also welcomed you.
Want me to take that back?
And in post 36
“I too am am done with your tinfoil theories”
My skin is thick. I’ve been called worse. But to anybody who is politically aware, as you and I are, tinfoil isn’t a compliment. While I agree he might not be convicted in court of flying drunk (then again, he might), there is ample circumstancial evidence to support that conclusion. To argue on that side doesn’t fit my definition of “tinfoil theory”.
For example, I always wear a tinfoil hat when I listen to Obama speak. It helps deflect his lies.
“I stand behind every one of them.”
Which reflects on you, not me. I will continue to politley, with just a bit of sarcasm, discuss facts. You see, you and I are Freepers. We might disagree occasionally on some small insignificant issue, like this one. But in the bigger picture I know you and I are friends. We all have to stick together to bring about a brighter future for America. So, as the late great Patrick Swayze said in Road House, I’ll “BE NICE”.
“because “smug” is an adjective, not a noun.”
Where in the name calling rulebook does it limit name calling to only nouns? I can give you lots of examples of non noun name calling... Such as
Adjective: justlurking is messing up the f-—ing thread.
Verb: Sparko is a f-—er.
Transitive verb: SPARKO f-—ed justlurking.
Intransitive verb: justlurking f-—s.
Part of an adverb: sparko posts too f-—ing much.
Adverb enhancing an adjective: justlurking is f-—ing stupid.
Semantically, you can only call someone a "name" with a noun, because a name is a noun.
If it's an adjective, it's descriptive, or at least the modifier of another noun. It might not be flattering, but it's still not a name.
Verb: Sparko is a f-—er.
Uh, no. Is is the verb in this sentence: it's a copular (or linking) verb.
And in this sentence, f-—er is an agent noun.
Born to argue....
I recenty had a discussion with my teenage daughter,
Me: “All you want to do is argue.”
Her “No I don’t!”
Me “Now you’re arguing about arguing.”
Mr. justlurking and sparko, I hope you enjoyed the debate as much as I did. I hope to meet each of you at some future freeper gathering, and down a pint or two. Perhaps the 2013 inauguration?
I'm surprised that you haven't figured out by now that making that kind of assertion is nearly guaranteed to start an argument.
But unlike your teenage daughter, you can't just pull rank and tell me to shut up. If you don't make your points convincingly, you are very likely to be challenged in a public forum.
And also remember: unless you want the hole you are standing in to get bigger, stop digging.
Same back at you.
BTW- the climb rate you listed for the 414 is Vy (best rate) at max power. Nobody climbs all the way to cruise altitude like that. We reduce power and lower the nose to a cruise climb to keep engine temps under control. Your average climb rate therefore would be 600 to 1000’ per minute,depending on weight and temps. Furthermore, climbing IFR out of the LA basin it’s highly unlikely to be cleared directly to 13,000. There no way he was at altitude for even 30 minutes. So even if his pressure system wasn’t working at all (which nobody claimed), he still wasn’t required to use supl ox. :o)
At least have the courtesy to ping this “ f-—er.”
LOL.
Subject Complement or agent noun.
Either way, it’s name calling AND using a noun.
Thank you.
;)
Dave, it's considered good form to quote the section that you are discussing, especially when it was several replies ago. If you had, you might have noticed this:
However, I know departure clearances rarely go directly to the cruise altitude, at least out of places like LA. And, I know the methodology for cruise climbs. But, I would only be speculating, because the NTSB doesn't provide that information.
And therein lies the problem: you can't seem to separate your speculation from the published facts. My very first posting to this thread was to caution the original poster about deriving an unwarranted conclusion from an NTSB report that didn't support it. And I've asked you to do the same.
The rest is just noise.
Here’s another clarification for you, I am the original poster.
I appreciate the clarification.
However, I'm not so sure you wanted to claim responsibility for:
The moral of this story is don't drink and fly.
That goes way beyond name-calling.
” I would only be speculating, because the NTSB doesn’t provide that information. And therein lies the problem: you can’t seem to separate your speculation from the published facts.”
Educated speculation is admissable in court. Since we don’t have Pat’s flight track, let’s look at a recent 414 departure from Van Nuys. Follow the link below to read the raw data. He also climbed to about 13,000’. He got no intermediate level offs. It took him 19 minutes until level off (brake release about 3:52, first radar hit at 1700’ at 3:54, level off at 4:11). Clearly Pat would have been very close to this profile, as I predicted, a 700’ average climb rate.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N616ST/history/20090909/1954Z/KVNY/KLAS/tracklog
That's nice information, but it's not the flight in question. And, it's not justification for a blanket statement that a different flight wasn't above 12,500 feet for 30 minutes.
However, you did add "in an unpressurized aircraft". You've since pointed out that the aircraft wasn't unpressurized until shortly before the descent. And, I agree: that was reported by the pilot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.