man has trouble maintaining altitude, airspeed, localizer, glideslope...

gotWXdagain

Highly Visible Member
Don't think so. I submitted a FOIA request for the radar track and radio communication data from Norcal approach concerning his latest awful ILS video though, so hopefully I could persuade someone from the FSDO to give him a 709 ride with some hard data. Someone could maybe call each of the large insurers but they'd have to be pretty charismatic to get someone on the phone to listen to them or divulge whether or not they insured him.
Does OAK require owners based on field to have any kind of insurance policy on their aircraft? If so, could a FOIA request be made to the OAK airport authority?
 

killbilly

Vocals, Lyrics, Triangle, Washboard, Kittens
Because it's fun? Flying GA, anything over 2000 is a waste.
I agree in principle.

That said, if I'm doing some longer XC flights over some less-than-hospitable terrain, I do like the extra glide time that extra altitude gives me in terms of decisionmaking.

Maybe that's me being naive - I'm <500TT, but it seems like a not-bad-idea in some of the areas I fly.
 

z987k

Well-Known Member
I agree in principle.

That said, if I'm doing some longer XC flights over some less-than-hospitable terrain, I do like the extra glide time that extra altitude gives me in terms of decisionmaking.

Maybe that's me being naive - I'm <500TT, but it seems like a not-bad-idea in some of the areas I fly.
Acceptance of risk. I fly up rivers at 20ft all the time. Cause it's fun.
In a twin that will fly on 1 engine, 1000ft might as well be 20,000 if it's flat.
 

killbilly

Vocals, Lyrics, Triangle, Washboard, Kittens
Acceptance of risk. I fly up rivers at 20ft all the time. Cause it's fun.
In a twin that will fly on 1 engine, 1000ft might as well be 20,000 if it's flat.
Yeah! I did my TW endorsement in a SuperCub with big tires, and we did exactly that with river flying....there were also sandbars and places we could safely touch down if we lost the airscrew. ;) I never worried about that much because we had an out. And every instructor I ever worked with (some in this very community) tried to hammer that into my head.

Which is why, whenever I'm flying over large parts of PA, for example, it's nothing but near-mountains and forest. I'd LOVE the scenery, but I do prefer a few thousand feet because it's the difference between me gliding to a clearing, road or airfield vs. trying to land in treetops.

I would LOVE to take an Alaskan Bush Flying course. Are such things offered?
 

ATN_Pilot

Socialist Pig Member
I agree in principle.

That said, if I'm doing some longer XC flights over some less-than-hospitable terrain, I do like the extra glide time that extra altitude gives me in terms of decisionmaking.

Maybe that's me being naive - I'm <500TT, but it seems like a not-bad-idea in some of the areas I fly.
You're not wrong. Gliding distance is king. Don't let people talk you out of it.
 

z987k

Well-Known Member
Yeah! I did my TW endorsement in a SuperCub with big tires, and we did exactly that with river flying....there were also sandbars and places we could safely touch down if we lost the airscrew. ;) I never worried about that much because we had an out. And every instructor I ever worked with (some in this very community) tried to hammer that into my head.

Which is why, whenever I'm flying over large parts of PA, for example, it's nothing but near-mountains and forest. I'd LOVE the scenery, but I do prefer a few thousand feet because it's the difference between me gliding to a clearing, road or airfield vs. trying to land in treetops.

I would LOVE to take an Alaskan Bush Flying course. Are such things offered?
I mean the good new is even if you do land in the treetops, you'll be doing it at slower than bicycle speeds, encaged with more 4130 than any dragster.
And yes there are courses offered.
 

killbilly

Vocals, Lyrics, Triangle, Washboard, Kittens
I mean the good new is even if you do land in the treetops, you'll be doing it at slower than bicycle speeds.
And yes there are courses offered.
@Fencer 's photos of low-level touring have me hanging on to this fantasy of taking a taildragger all over the country for an extended tour/vacation for a while. The most fun I have ever had flying (outside of aerobatics) was flying low-tech Citabrias and Cubs....
 

gotWXdagain

Highly Visible Member
I agree in principle.

That said, if I'm doing some longer XC flights over some less-than-hospitable terrain, I do like the extra glide time that extra altitude gives me in terms of decisionmaking.

Maybe that's me being naive - I'm QUOTE]
Acceptance of risk. I fly up rivers at 20ft all the time. Cause it's fun.
In a twin that will fly on 1 engine, 1000ft might as well be 20,000 if it's flat.
And with Jerry at the controls 20,000 might as well be 20 feet.
 
Because it's fun? Flying GA, anything over 2000 is a waste.
Too much airspace, terrain, and tall ass(you can TOATS say ass here) obstructions to cruise around at 2000 feet here. It was fun finishing my flight training in the Louisville/Southern Indiana area though since you could pretty much do that anywhere. Just look out for the one big radio tower and you can chase a guy on an ATV around his farm. Or so I've heard.

Meanwhile in SF, I get a call from the FSDO for being on an assigned 2000 foot altitude over downtown because it scared people. Lol.
 
Let's break down the title:

Air Wagner Sunset flight with surprises

OK, so I missed the part where Jerr is "Air Wagner" now. Wow. "Surprises". Yeah, they happen when you fly VFR in IMC.

Also just noticed his checklist has a picture of him standing in front of the plane triumphantly printed on it. Classic Jerr. But I like how now he cuts out the part where he breaks out of the clouds.
 
Last edited:
Top