Don't click on RLBs post unless you wanna clog your newsreader searching for a million links

"Saying so without proof is misleading and unfair."

I'm glad you chose this as part of your sig line, Robert. You've gotta be one of the stupidest people I've ever met so this makes for an excellent introduction.

Well, you've got to give the man credit. It isn't often that someone not only admits to being a selfish, inconsiderate asshole, and then brags about it.

- badenov

Certainly not as often as someone like you -- too cowardly to post under his real name -- spews trash here.

A moron hiding behind a salesman "Robert L Bass" wrote

Those of us around here who are not cravenly hawking our wares to unsuspecting passerbys have no need to post are real names and be opened up to spam and other nasty things from the web [i.e.. you]. Obviously you know very little about either discretion or valor because; Discretion is the better part of valor.

OK, so you don't admit it very often, but you do admit to being a selfish inconsiderate asshole. Thanks for clearing that up

Doug L

I guess you must have been flying around without a valid medical, if you were never questioned by an FAA doctor.

No, I haven't stopped beating my wife, but thanks for asking.

I don't recall molesting my neighbor's cat.

You said I was "busted" by the FAA but it never happened. Why was your license revoked?

I'm not surprised.

Do you black out after all the liquor you drink or only during sessions with the cat?

And you said you were never questioned by the FAA

License, what license, I don't need no steenkin license

Neither is she

It depends on how much I drink, not who I'm with.

Least you forget that YOU are the reason that people post here anonymously, let me present you with a little something from your nefarious past.

Shouldn't you be siging your posts with the title of "Scumbag"?

. . . relating to a fellow flamer . . .

I have his home address and telephone number on file.

Eventually I'll get around to locating his employer. At that point I will begin forwarding copies of every single post he makes to their personnel department. This is a very effective means of dealing with intractible flamers. It is not necessary to make any claims at all about their actions. Just let the employer know what they do and then spread the facts all over Usenet if it continues. A few dozen forwarded posts will usually suffice. It's really the best kind of justice as the abuser's own posts bring about his (sometimes her) demise.

It is amazing how fast an abuser can be flipped clean through a wall by this simple, straightforward technique. It has the added benefit of sending the blood pressures of several other rather nasty folks through the roof, possibly bring on a cardio-vascular accident. Nifty.

Blue Skies, Robert L Bass

Ain't Google .....errrr .....ummm "nifty" ? Heh heh heh heh!

That is correct. You don't get "questioned by the FAA" to receive your medical. You also don't get "questioned by the FAA" to receive your solo endorsement. In fact, many pilots aren't even "questioned by the FAA" to receive their license. Of course, you wouldn't know about that, would you?

Figures.

From your demeanor here, I'd hazard a guess you're no stranger to drunken blackouts.

BagelAss loves me. He'd never Plonk his #1 pal.

alarman wrote:

Sorry, I don't remember

LOL js

Including pilots licensed in Canada who want an American License.

Robert had a student license/permit?? I doubt that. His aeronautical knowledge is certainly far short of anything even a student pilot would possess.

The "FAA" usually doesn't ask those kind of questions and they're usually not physically involved in "check rides". If anyone would be more familiar with the kind of questions they do ask, it would be Bass (that is, of course, assuming he even possessed a license or permit issued under their authority and that his story of the Class "C" incursion was remotely truthful).

On a side note, I do know that Bass is intimately familiar with the criminal justice system in the US (particularly Florida).

That sentence needs a bit of work. Or is it that you "just can't type"?? :-)

Well, I'm not all that familiar with the intricacies of learning to fly in the US, but if it's anything at all like it was in Canada "way back" when I got my licenses, I'm pretty darn sure the guy sitting next to you during the check-ride wasn't the "FAA". The guy that gave me my check-rides was certainly not in the direct employ of the Canadian MOT. He ran the local flying school.

In fact, many pilots aren't

Never been on a check-ride eh? Oh well, since you NEVER held a license (other than student) , you wouldn't know.

On my check ride, (and all other pilots) there were many questions, like "Okay, the engine failed, what are you going to do?" and "How are you going to fly via VOR around that restricted airspace?"...

So sad that you must try to act like you have experience things that only those of us who have the talent have.

Yea, that last sentence was a bit off. But I was asked those questions on my check-ride for my license.

You are wrong, sir. Not all check rides are performed by FAA employees.

There's no such thing as a student pilot's license -- only an endorsement and a medical certificate.

Again, not all check rides are performed by FAA employees.

You *claim* to have talent. Whether there is any truth to that statement remains to be seen.

Olson also claims he snap-rolled a Boeing 737 which he says Boeing loaned to him and his pals so they could test their private theory about a Canadian air crash. He has never held a pilot's license in Canada, the USA or anywhere else.

Tell me you believe that. :^)

BTW, several of my clients are Boeing engineers. One is a retired Boeing test pilot. When they heard Olson's stupid lie about doing a *very* sudden inversion in a 737 at 5000 AGL every one said the same thing. He's lying -- it can't be done. If he had done so he'd have stained the terrain.

In addition to that, my friends at Boeing also said that the very idea that Boeing would lend a brand new airliner to an insurance claims adjuster so he could try to duplicate a crash scenario is ludicrous.

Here's the best part. Olson originally claimed that they were planning to deploy reverse thrusters *in the air* to see if doing so would cause the airplane to suddenly invert -- all of this at

When I pointed this out he changed his story, claiming they "knew that all along" but decided that a substitute maneuver -- suddenly applying full rudder in the air -- would be just as good. He didn't know (also until I told him) that the 737 had a small design problem with the rudder control system.

Since you claim to know a thing or two about flying, let's see if you have the integrity to agree that his story is preposterous. I'm betting you'll dodge the question.