Stupidest Argument in Aviation

What is the stupidest argument in aviation?

  • High wing v. Low wing.

    Votes: 12 13.6%

  • Can an airplane take off from a treadmill?

    Votes: 59 67.0%

  • Pitch controls... and power controls...

    Votes: 4 4.5%

  • Any argument about logging PIC that was covered by the Chief Counsel 20 years ago.

    Votes: 3 3.4%

  • Other (please post your answer)

    Votes: 10 11.4%
  • Total voters
    88
midlifeflyer

midlifeflyer

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
17,342
Location
KTTA, North Carolina
Display Name
Display name:
Fly
The recent devolution of a legitimate new pilot question into the realm of whether birds could flap low wings got me thinking....
 
Re: Stupedest Argument in Aviation

The high wing/low wing debate was settled long ago. Sissies and ketchup eaters fly high wings, steely eyed manly men fly low wings. ;)

So to me the dumbest argument is if planes can take off of treadmills.

But I do have a question about the treadmill. Can the treadmill operator log any pic time while the plane is still on the treadmill?
 
Last edited:
Re: Stupedest Argument in Aviation

wait a second, where was this devolution?
 
Re: Stupedest Argument in Aviation

Wait, so you mean the speed of the wheels isn't what causes the airplane to fly?!
 
Re: Stupedest Argument in Aviation

Quite obviously the stooopidest argument in aviation is arguing about the topic of the stoooopidest argument.:rofl:
 
Re: Stupedest Argument in Aviation

Had to go with the treadmill, because it's a simple fact. The rest are at least open to some measure of interpretation, and thus argument.
 
Re: Stupedest Argument in Aviation

smigaldi said:
But I do have a question about the treadmill. Can the treadmill operator log any pic time while the plane is still on the treadmill?
Click to expand...

Only if his/her medical is current or if she/he is operating a light sport treadmill.
 
Re: Stupedest Argument in Aviation

JeffDG said:
Had to go with the treadmill, because it's a simple fact. The rest are at least open to some measure of interpretation, and thus argument.
Click to expand...

61.51 is pretty cut and dried.
 
Re: Stupedest Argument in Aviation

EdFred said:
61.51 is pretty cut and dried.
Click to expand...

True, but the laws of man are not as immutable as the laws of physics! 61.51 could be changed if a strong enough argument were made, so I submit it is an issue open to argument!
 
Re: Stupedest Argument in Aviation

JeffDG said:
Or if the treadmill is lighter-than-air...
Click to expand...
Better add it to the flowchart. :)

But the helo version of the treadmill was much better.
helionturntable.jpg
 
Last edited:
Re: Stupedest Argument in Aviation

smigaldi said:
The high wing/low wing debate was settled long ago. Sissies and ketchup eaters fly high wings, steeling manly men fly low wings. ;)
Click to expand...

Actually it was settled many, many years ago, but not in the way you think. How many low wing birds have you seen?
 
It has to be the treadmill question because that's all about stupidity. The ATITPPA thing isn't a question, it's an attitude. The rest are more about different preferences.
 
I chose high wing vs. low wing - because it is the MOST IRRELEVANT thing. It doesn't matter if the plane is high wing or low wing - so long as you're comfortable flying it.
 
t0r0nad0 said:
I chose high wing vs. low wing - because it is the MOST IRRELEVANT thing. It doesn't matter if the plane is high wing or low wing - so long as you're comfortable flying it.
Click to expand...
Same here.
 
t0r0nad0 said:
I chose high wing vs. low wing - because it is the MOST IRRELEVANT thing. It doesn't matter if the plane is high wing or low wing - so long as you're comfortable flying it.
Click to expand...
But if allow low wings then what's next? Wings & prop on the aft section? :D:D
 
I went with the treadmill query, but is that with or without a flight plan?
 
I vote for whatever Ron Levy and his foes are arguing about this week.
 
Re: Stupedest Argument in Aviation

smigaldi; steely eyed manly men fly low wings. [/quote said:
No, they fly taildraggers. How many birds walk around with their beaks dragging in the dust?

Dan:D
Click to expand...
 
Re: Stupedest Argument in Aviation

Dan Thomas said:
No, they fly taildraggers. How many birds walk around with their beaks dragging in the dust?

Dan:D
Click to expand...

Most flying birds don't seem to drag their tails on the ground either. I think to land an airplane like a bird we'd need something like a Segway for the landing gear.
 
Do planes miss the runway or does that refer to a standard instrument procedure?

Eg., trying to explain to fellow passengers on flights (2x this month :eek:) that

"No, the plane didn't miss the runway. (and, silently, hoping that they turn off channel 9)."
 
What costs more to send into space:
1 pound of feathers or 1 pound of lead?
 
Personally, I think the arguments against Evolution are really stupid. But that's just me, and it really is unrelated to aviation anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top