DC-3 Time
04-03-2015, 08:14 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2007
Position: Sr. VP of button pushing
Posts: 2,733
6500 hours is probably enough for me. You youngsters keep plodding along at 150 knots. I remember a UPS pilot told me over breakfast at the OKC airport Sheraton 30+ years ago I needed to get out of Threes before my brain locked at two and a half miles a minute.
04-03-2015, 09:21 PM
#22
Banned
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 249
Wow.
The only meeting I ever had with the "feds" when flying round motors (still flying them, incidentally) in single or multi equipment was a group of inspectors passing through, who wanted a tour. I gave them one, and they were quite happy. I don't know what it is that you did that caused so much scrutiny by the FAA, but it certainly isn't the fault of an older airplane or a round motor.
Radial engines do not create a black mark on your record. A DUI does.
Perhaps the difference is that while I've spend a fair amount of time in 60 and 70 year old airplanes, none of them were "turds." Sounds like you made some bad choices.
The only meeting I ever had with the "feds" when flying round motors (still flying them, incidentally) in single or multi equipment was a group of inspectors passing through, who wanted a tour. I gave them one, and they were quite happy. I don't know what it is that you did that caused so much scrutiny by the FAA, but it certainly isn't the fault of an older airplane or a round motor.
Radial engines do not create a black mark on your record. A DUI does.
Perhaps the difference is that while I've spend a fair amount of time in 60 and 70 year old airplanes, none of them were "turds." Sounds like you made some bad choices.
Hey John,
Unfortunately, my post has lead you to become confused or start assuming things. First, I never brought or caused any scrutiny by the FAA (read the ****ing post again), the company did. Secondly, what the fukk do you know about any choices I've made this far? Are you making another assumption??
04-03-2015, 09:23 PM
#23
Banned
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 249
04-03-2015, 09:50 PM
#25
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,302
Hey John,
Unfortunately, my post has lead you to become confused or start assuming things. First, I never brought or caused any scrutiny by the FAA (read the ****ing post again), the company did. Secondly, what the fukk do you know about any choices I've made this far? Are you making another assumption??
Unfortunately, my post has lead you to become confused or start assuming things. First, I never brought or caused any scrutiny by the FAA (read the ****ing post again), the company did. Secondly, what the fukk do you know about any choices I've made this far? Are you making another assumption??
You indicated that the old airplanes you flew were "jurassic antiquated turds." That doesn't speak well for your decision making. Old airplanes aren't "turds," but if you elected to fly "turds," that's on you.
I read your post, and read it again. You stated: "If you enjoy weekly meetings with the FEDS and are hell bent on dealing with a magnitude of daily and mechanical problems, then by all means, go fly around in some 60+ year airplane." You say that you didn't do anything to cause scrutiny by the "feds," but your company did. Who put the barrel of the gun to your head and forced you to fly for a company tht not only had a "magnitude of daily and mechanical problems," but also caused you to have "weekly meetings with the feds?"
Those were your words, weren't they? Why, yes they were. Go figure.
I try to exercise a little better judgement than to fly for someone that causes me to meet with the FAA every week, or that has a "magnitude of daily and mechanical problems." So what the fukk do we know about you? You've shown that you have poor judgement when it comes to aircraft, safety, and employers. You've shown that you've had a number of run-ins with the FAA. What else would you like us to know about you?
No assumptions were made in the framing of this post. If you'd rather not be quoted, then don't post.
04-04-2015, 12:26 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: C47 PIC/747-400 SIC
Posts: 2,100
The lessons I learned in the DC-3 carried over to the 727, and the 747, it had to do with a thinking process not my ground speed , I loved my working time in the Douglas masterpiece and the CV340,it was gold, and my round engine squadron alumni are liberally sprinkled among the major, national, and corporate ranks, I don't think their sojourn in the radial engines effected them in the least( except for their best stories !!!) Cheers out.
04-04-2015, 08:25 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: C47 PIC/747-400 SIC
Posts: 2,100
CSY no lie about the fancy footwork carrying over , and if you could hand fly the 3 to a successful 100 foot overcast and 1800 RVR arrival , you could do it in anything, well said friend !!!
04-04-2015, 11:01 AM
#29
Banned
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 249
I know what you posted, because you elected to post it.
You indicated that the old airplanes you flew were "jurassic antiquated turds." That doesn't speak well for your decision making. Old airplanes aren't "turds," but if you elected to fly "turds," that's on you.
I read your post, and read it again. You stated: "If you enjoy weekly meetings with the FEDS and are hell bent on dealing with a magnitude of daily and mechanical problems, then by all means, go fly around in some 60+ year airplane." You say that you didn't do anything to cause scrutiny by the "feds," but your company did. Who put the barrel of the gun to your head and forced you to fly for a company tht not only had a "magnitude of daily and mechanical problems," but also caused you to have "weekly meetings with the feds?"
Those were your words, weren't they? Why, yes they were. Go figure.
I try to exercise a little better judgement than to fly for someone that causes me to meet with the FAA every week, or that has a "magnitude of daily and mechanical problems." So what the fukk do we know about you? You've shown that you have poor judgement when it comes to aircraft, safety, and employers. You've shown that you've had a number of run-ins with the FAA. What else would you like us to know about you?
No assumptions were made in the framing of this post. If you'd rather not be quoted, then don't post.
You indicated that the old airplanes you flew were "jurassic antiquated turds." That doesn't speak well for your decision making. Old airplanes aren't "turds," but if you elected to fly "turds," that's on you.
I read your post, and read it again. You stated: "If you enjoy weekly meetings with the FEDS and are hell bent on dealing with a magnitude of daily and mechanical problems, then by all means, go fly around in some 60+ year airplane." You say that you didn't do anything to cause scrutiny by the "feds," but your company did. Who put the barrel of the gun to your head and forced you to fly for a company tht not only had a "magnitude of daily and mechanical problems," but also caused you to have "weekly meetings with the feds?"
Those were your words, weren't they? Why, yes they were. Go figure.
I try to exercise a little better judgement than to fly for someone that causes me to meet with the FAA every week, or that has a "magnitude of daily and mechanical problems." So what the fukk do we know about you? You've shown that you have poor judgement when it comes to aircraft, safety, and employers. You've shown that you've had a number of run-ins with the FAA. What else would you like us to know about you?
No assumptions were made in the framing of this post. If you'd rather not be quoted, then don't post.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
