Had a Panasonic road bike in the ‘80s. Pretty sure it had index shifters on the downtube. Not unlike this one.
I had a Coast King…the house brand of the Coast to Coast hardware stores. Probably weighed 3x what yours did.
The only pilot stereotype that I know of that I'm sure is true is related to this: How do you spot the pilot in the room? Don't worry, they'll tell you.
I've never heard mooney pilots called idiots. Cheap, though, plenty. Maybe I'm too old for these next-gen stereotypes.
What's the difference between stereotyping & profiling? Well ... profiling is said to be based on observable behavior and that stereotyping is about internal perceptions of behavior. So one is permitted and the other is disdained. How about just take folks as they are ... as stay away from the ones you really can't stand. In simpler terms: In a world where you can be anything, be kind.
So thinking more about my own held stereotype (that RV pilots are fighter pilot wanna-be's), I think I hold this due to a local group of about 5-10 RV pilots that fly to breakfast every weekend near my home field. They all wear nomex flight suits...and they do bizarre things in the pattern, such as entering in formation (they don't fly there in formation, at least not tight formation, but they do enter the pattern/land in tight formation), and overhead breaks...I think this small group has formed my...knee-jerk-yet-most-likely-false...opinion of all RV pilots.
Unless you're based at KUAO, I've seen this phenomenon elsewhere too, so it may be a valid stereotype.
Yeah. The best way to not be my friend at work is start running your mouth about working for the airline on an overnight. It’s like a vanishing spell that makes me disappear. But it does seem like some pilots love telling everyone they meet. Weird.
Where are you guys meeting all these jerk pilots? Let me know so I can avoid that airport, haven’t run into them yet.
Here you go... https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/12-seconds-to-pattern-altitude.62578/ https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/departures-vx-vy-or-zoom.62798/
Omg it’s taken this long for this to be said: doesn’t matter what brand ya fly if ya can’t fly one with the little wheel on the arse end ya ain’t a real pilot
Funny, no one mentioned Bonanza pilots! Weren't they the original Cirrus? I've met nice, rude, sloppy, smart, and everything in between flying all sorts of different planes. The one thing Mooney people tend to have in common is the hyperbolic bragging about their wing and performance. Two of my best friends own or fly Mooney, but if I hear 'it'll go 170 knots all day sipping 6 gph' or some story about how four people and a great dane fit in the plane with golf clubs I'm going to self immolate Piper people tend to be the most unassuming and generally most easy. I only know one person who actually owns a high wing (turbo 206) and he was a perfectly nice chap. Guess what, he owned a Cirrus previously but sold it as the 206 offers more utility TRIGGERED! what 'research' did you? The data is heavily tailed to one side as you don't hear about the successful single engine landings. I had dinner with a guy a few weeks ago who lost an engine in their 421 recently.. guess what, they made an uneventful landing at an airport. My multi examiner flew several hours on one donk in an Aztec back in the 70s with 6 on board somewhere over Brazil. They have a place, but they demand pilot proficiency. The twin thing really comes down to pilot skill.. if twins actually were deadlier by their very design nature the DC-3 would have been a flop and we'd be flying on A320 and 737 planes with one single huge engine Now.. if you're heavy and you catastrophically lose one at 50' on departure from a short runway then (A) you have awful luck and (B) might be better off pulling both to idle and doing a controlled mush back down.. hopefully into trees and brush and not warehouses. But if you lose an engine that low on takeoff your options are limited in anything you fly Taken by yours truly..
I do know that the tailwheel pilots I know have better beer in their hangar fridges than the nosewheel pilots... if the latter have hangar fridges at all.
But you hit the nail on the head when it comes to twin engine safety...when talking about twin engine safety, it ALWAYS requires an asterisk, as in, " * when in the hands of a trained, proficient, and competent pilot". Single engines, btw, don't get the same asterisk, so to me, that assumes in singles that "trained/proficient/competent" is either: a) not as difficult to achieve so more likely a given or b) not as much of a concern....either way, whether I'm seeing the data I want to see while agreeing with those who bet cash, insurance companies, on that data, or just hold a stereotype I'm completely comfortable with, that's what I believe to be true.
Yep, unpaid recreational GA twin pilots also rarely do any kind of meaningful single engine work.. you might fly 500 twin hours a year but if you last practiced or rehearsed SE ops 15 years ago during your checkride then you're going to be in a world of hurt if it happens in real life. I'm sure during flight review few people do a genuine shut down and full procedure, it can be hard on an engine, sure, but it's worth it in my book But easy to pontificate from the sidelines until it happens to you. Should I lose an engine someday I hope I can add one more data point to the "safe" side of twin tech
What the...? Who said to do that? IF we are talking general aviation singles vs GA twins, where does 650 hp tailwheel come in?
A twin is just one example of an aircraft that requires a higher skill level to avoid a bad outcome when things go wrong. A high powered single, ditto, that's why an endorsement is now required for high performance aircraft.
