Ban request

Excellent idea - ban people for asking questions to which they don't know the answer.
 
EdFred said:
You do realize...no you don't realize...because you haven't been here long enough. Let me explain. No there is too much,let me sum up.

I was the first person to ever really tackle and publicly show people when PIC can and cannot be logged. I made a flowchart TWELVE years ago .
Click to expand...

I didn't realize you were such a newbie to the topic.
 
Palmpilot said:
It depends on whether the plane succeeds in moving or not. The plane has to move under its own power for the purpose of flight in order to log it. If the treadmill succeeds in preventing the plane from moving, then you can't log any time.
Click to expand...

You missed intent to fly
 
I like the original 'can I log it' chart better. you know, the other guy's chart.....
 
Screw PIC. We need a flowchart for detecting sarcasm. Though I think Tim might be a better choice to develop it than Ed.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Screw PIC. We need a flowchart for detecting sarcasm. Though I think Tim might be a better choice to develop it than Ed.
Click to expand...
Here you go!

30a4b24302eacf378fd76d152b1505c2.gif
 
midlifeflyer said:
I didn't realize you were such a newbie to the topic.
Click to expand...

I never saw anyone break it down to a flow chart prior to me. If you can point out one prior to 2007, I'll rescind my title as PIC Flowchart Pioneer. :D
 
EdFred said:
I never saw anyone break it down to a flow chart prior to me. If you can point out one prior to 2007, I'll rescind my title as PIC Flowchart Pioneer. :D
Click to expand...
Not talking about the flowchart in particular. You can have that title.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Not talking about the flowchart in particular. You can have that title.
Click to expand...

I know it had been discussed previously. There is after all a CC letter from way back. Just not laid out as simply (which I guess is still difficult for some)
 
EdFred said:
I know it had been discussed previously. There is after all a CC letter from way back. Just not laid out as simply (which I guess is still difficult for some)
Click to expand...
I think the "difficult for some" is a function of the flow chart itself. In the early days of the discussion there were many heated arguments because the basic concept underlying the logging rules - their separation from the rules allowing one to act as PIC or required crew - was a difficult concept to grasp and many refused to accept it. The heated arguments are pretty much done, but the mental acceptance of the basic concept is still not completely there. The proof is all the questions which still get asked about whether one may log PIC with no medical, no flight review, no endorsements, etc, etc, etc.

So you have a flow chart which, if followed, will provide a correct answer. But without understanding and accepting its basic premise, the answer is weird and difficult to accept. So the chart itself becomes difficult. Might as well be Sanskrit. The irony, of course, is that those who understand the concepts, don't need the flow chart.
 
EdFred said:
You do realize...no you don't realize...because you haven't been here long enough. Let me explain. No there is too much,let me sum up.

I was the first person to ever really tackle and publicly show people when PIC can and cannot be logged. I made a flowchart TWELVE years ago. It shows up on a Google search or at least did all the time. I even wrote a huge post here that finally got sticky that explains all the differences between acting as PIC and logging PIC. I then went even further because people still had trouble following the flow chart and made an Interactive web page that walks you through when you can and cannot log PIC. How anyone can make the claim that my posts on pic and when you can and cannot and who can and cannot log it are not helpful must have their heads so far up their ass they can see what they ate for breakfast.

When there is a PIC thread that pops up on here it has been a running joke for at least 10 years that I'm going to launch into a faux tirade.

Maybe this will be helpful for you @JonH
www.sidnaw.org/canilogit/

But I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for making the chart. A couple weeks ago I made the mistake of asking about PIC time and you joined the thread to 'faux tirade'. That post was not helpful, that is the post I was referring to. I never said that you weren't helpful otherwise.

If you feel as though people have their head up their butts, maybe you should try looking at it from an outside perspective. I've been at my job much longer than 10 years, I'm often asked the same questions over and over. If I am writing the reply, I certainly would NOT expect them to understand sarcasm in the form you're presenting it. Nor would I expect them to understand how long I've been answering the same questions.

Maybe your head is so far up your butt that you don't understand. ;)

See that emoticon? I obviously know your head isn't up your butt. Had I left that off I'm sure you'd think otherwise. See how it works? What you call a 'faux tirade' is not easily perceived as anything but some grumpy dude taking it upon himself to spread grumpiness across the interwebs.

I would also like to add, I have never seen of or heard of the document that says CFI's and DPE's are not passenger. To compound that, people go around and say, "When you do your check ride you're taking your first PASSENGER."
 
Want to fix all this?

Require every one to post in the open. no cute little handles.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I think the "difficult for some" is a function of the flow chart itself. In the early days of the discussion there were many heated arguments because the basic concept underlying the logging rules - their separation from the rules allowing one to act as PIC or required crew - was a difficult concept to grasp and many refused to accept it. The heated arguments are pretty much done, but the mental acceptance of the basic concept is still not completely there. The proof is all the questions which still get asked about whether one may log PIC with no medical, no flight review, no endorsements, etc, etc, etc.

So you have a flow chart which, if followed, will provide a correct answer. But without understanding and accepting its basic premise, the answer is weird and difficult to accept. So the chart itself becomes difficult. Might as well be Sanskrit. The irony, of course, is that those who understand the concepts, don't need the flow chart.
Click to expand...

Which is why I wrote the definitive PIC post that is now stickied.
 
Tom-D said:
Want to fix all this?

Require every one to post in the open. no cute little handles.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t stop you
Lol

And as a non sarcastic side note. I participate on a forum that is real first.last name for all members. They are all co workers. They are all pilots. It’s not that much different than here. About the only thing that goes away are the open references to sex and think that’s only because the board is associated with work. Pilots are pricks.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I don’t wear skirts.

And no. I really don’t care. Although it would make all the times you holler about using your real name and criticize those that don’t even more funny.
Click to expand...
Yeah it would.
Almost as funny as the puzzling contest going on now, about most nothing.
 
JonH said:
I would also like to add, I have never seen of or heard of the document that says CFI's and DPE's are not passenger. To compound that, people go around and say, "When you do your check ride you're taking your first PASSENGER."
Click to expand...
What "people say" is hardly the test or regulatory authority :D

DPEs are passengers. 61.47 allows applicants to carry them. Neither CFIs nor their trainees, otoh, are considered to be passengers on training flights, at least when it comes to passenger currency requirements. That's discussed in the Kotokrax and Olshock Chief Counsel letters,
 
midlifeflyer said:
What "people say" is hardly the test or regulatory authority :D

DPEs are passengers. 61.47 allows applicants to carry them. Neither CFIs nor their trainees, otoh, are considered to be passengers on training flights, at least when it comes to passenger currency requirements. That's discussed in the Kotokrax and Olshock Chief Counsel letters,
Click to expand...

Might be a bit difficult to not be passenger current on a check ride. I'd say Impossible, but stranger things...
 
What we really need is a political debate forum, where those inclined could release their pent up frustrations and hostilities.
 
So what I am hearing you say, as long as my thread is about or contains questions about AOA, I’m good to go?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top