It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
"Capt." Aimer is retired by now, as I understand. From AMERICAN AIRLINES.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by weedwhacker
Going back to that video, and focusing on the bogus "demonstration".
Click it weedwhacker. What type of uniform is that?
Where is your picture in uniform?
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by foxyakareheat
Yes, you're right. It's hard to keep the characters straight, there are some from United (and the checkered history, as Aimer has, and as is noted in his "bio"). WoW!!! Pretty unstable, for a "career" airline pilot!!!
Click it weedwhacker. What type of uniform is that?
So, Aimer ( I WAS correct, he's retired ), but from UAL, not AAL.....which one of the crockery spinners is from American, again? NVM, can look it up.....
SO...Aimer, ex RETIRED United. Yeah, that the UAL uniform....in the picture in THAT LINK!! But, in the Jesse Ventura video??
Nice try, to discredit me, but .... shoot yourself in the foot much?
Where is your picture in uniform?
Oh, you can't be serious?? Proves nothing.
For comparison, for laypersons (since really only other [pilots pay very close attention to the uniforms), here's a proper United Airlines Captain shirt, tie and epaulets example (sans uniform coat and hat):
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e6d14088f147.jpg[/atsimg]
STILL looks nothing like that get-up Aimer is wearing....stuff you can buy from just about any online Pilot Supply Store.
And, I know the stores where you can buy uniforms for any airline, too. THAT is where those of us who don't have generous uniform pieces replacement allowances built into our Union contracts purchase them.......
(PS....Aimer's history? Fascinating, I may be back with some commentary on that, glad to have seen how unstable he was.....)
Wow, weedwhacker claiming Rusty Aimer is a fake.
You have sunk to an all new low weedwhacker.
Weedwhacker, anytime you wish to confront Capt Rusty Aimer, his number is above at aviationexperts.com.
Maybe ATS mods might actually take a notice when a real United Airlines Capt exposes you as the fraud you are and the reason you never put your name behind your claims.
Originally posted by foxyakareheatput your name behind your claims.
Originally posted by C46driver
You won't find ONE single (sane) pilot willing to to identify him/herself in here,
Originally posted by C46driver
the loonie factor is just to high.
Originally posted by C46driver
People have been stalked in the past.
Originally posted by C46driver
Btw, weed is the real deal, you're not, get some help.
edit on 1-1-2011 by C46driver because: (no reason given)
actually thats a lie. since Rob seems to be the only real pilot with the guts to do so.
You got that right...as evidenced in this very thread by the many pseudo-pilots, loons and trolls (hint hint) pretending to have any real aviation knowledge whatsoever that refuse to address the facts and evidence and instead have chosen character assassination and discussing identities because they can't (hint hint)
another classic diversionary disinfo tactic
So then you must a weedwacker sock?
Originally posted by lachstockn2
I apologise in advance for drifting off topic, but I'd like to voice some preliminary thoughts in terms of ATS politics and its membership policy:
(i) I don't know if Balsamo is creating new accounts here everytime he gets banned. But even if he is, then that does not count as sock puppeteering.
Sock puppets are a cheap tactic reserved for trolls who wish to garner false support for and from themselves using several different accounts concurrently. There is a distinction (although I suppose one could make the choice to ignore that distinction).
(ii) On the other hand, it seems to me that there are certain individuals who post here with effective immunity. This is a rather comfortable chair to be sitting in when leveling cheap accusations against people who happen to be repeating the same questions asked by Rob Balsamo. As far as I'm concerned, his questions are valid, and banning him or anyone who asked those same questions will not render them invalid. If my account is deleted for echoing Balsamo's concerns, then that is more of a reflection on ATS and its policy than it is on me.
Let's be honest - anyone can be dismissed from this forum on any number of technicalities, if the moderator is looking for an excuse. Conversely, infringements can be conveniently overlooked or justified if the offender is on favourable terms with the moderator.
In any case, the substance behind the argument is more important than the person behind the argument.
I appreciate Weedwhacker taking the time to respond to my post on page 91. In spite of his comments regarding engine thrust, airframe lifespan, fuel-efficiency and long range cruise scenarios, I remain unconvinced that the speeds achieved by UAL 175 were (i) at all usual or precedented under the documented conditions and (ii) do not warrant closer scrutiny.
The official safety parameters set by Boeing are clear. We can expect a standard issue 767-200 to survive speeds in excess of 360 knots at 700 feet only when all the necessary stars are in perfect alignment. Otherwise, we should consider 510 knots at 700 feet an anomaly which needs to be tested empirically, investigated carefully, and explained scientifically before we can dismiss it as a non-issue.
In my opinion, the standard of proof demanded by hooper in terms of an official supporting statement to this effect from Boeing is unrealistic. Boeing's silence on this issue is their chosen course of action (or inaction), and if MrHerbert had the clout or jurisdiction to forcefully extract a statement from Boeing, then he would have done it.
However, if hooper feels that Boeing's official position is at all different from what is indicated in their own safety guidelines, it seems to me that the onus is on HIM to prove THAT, and not for MrHerbert or anyone else to prove the opposite.
Still, Boeing's lack of transparency is itself cause for concern, although perhaps not altogether unexpected.
Originally posted by lord9
Originally posted by C46driveractually thats a lie. since Rob seems to be the only real pilot with the guts to do so.
Hi mr Balsamo, how bout we set up a sim session in a Level D full motion B757/767?
I'm rated on both.
If you're interested, send me an PM
Originally posted by Ivar_Karlsen
reply to post by C46driver
Lord9 is the (un)famous capt. Balsamo.
OT: Do you fly the 46? Fly Joe's airplanes?
edit on 9-1-2011 by Ivar_Karlsen because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by hooper
actually thats a lie. since Rob seems to be the only real pilot with the guts to do so.
Is there anyway to objectively test the sanity of this "Rob"?
Originally posted by hooper
in lieu of any real facts or evidence or any coherent argument or theory then the only thing left to really examine is the so-called author.
Originally posted by hooper
In this case we have a poster desparate to make some kind of case but not capable of doing anything more than cutting and pasting the same message over and over and over again.
the substance behind the argument is more important than the person behind the argument.
Originally posted by hooper
What is it called when you do the same thing over and over and over and expect different results?
So then you must a weedwacker sock?
Kettle and pot.
I'm flattered i've been able to convince you i'm someone in a class of such excellence in aviation whose evidence and data has so elequently schooled all the pseudo-pilots in this thread ...
Originally posted by Six Sigma
reply to post by lord9
lord9 signed up on 12/21/10 has made 40+ posts all in this thread and one other no planer threads at the Pentagon.
Starphire signed up today and instantly jumps on the Balsamo Bangwagon. (a very small wagon!)
Rob is now talking to himself in here? Rob, I understand unemployment is tough on you, but dude you need help.