What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

"Say Type Experimental..."

As someone pointed out earlier, it doesn't matter what one's Ops Lims say, since the requirement is codified in CFR 91.319(d)(3).

You're also not supposed to shorten your callsign unless and until ATC does it first...and yet, it's done all the time, especially at one's home field, isn't it?
 
- that would be redundant, and there’s no need, since it is already required.

:rolleyes:

But on topic, near Philly yesterday a plane popped up on frequency: "Experimental 58RV" which complied with regulations and also identified type right away. So, no more initials at the end of your number reservations, just use RV (currently 135 of those available)!
 
I have been owned my -10 now for over a year. I have flown it transcontinental twice, logged over 140 hours, at least 1/2 IFR and never uttered the phrase experimental. I have never been questioned by the FAA or ATC.

If IFR, the flight plan identifies the type, if VFR, ATC knows what an RV-10 is. I am not experimenting with anything and don?t feel a need to identify my plane as such despite the controller/pilot golassarie.

i would love to chat regarding your transcontinental flights. very interested in transcontinental in the future.

kenny
 
FYI

The whole Army thing had me puzzled . . how could ATC think that? I looked up the cruise speeds and found the CH-47 - 160kt and BlackHawk - 152Kt. OK, now it make sense.

Back to the topic.

I say "experimental" and full number once on take-off, then shorten. It doesn't much matter as typical just talking to myself. I think that meets the regs.

My local controllers know its an RV and my tail number (when entering the Charlie). They call me RV even if I don't. Great bunch of people!!
 
Some additional information and call sign guidance:

The AIM provides "basic flight information and ATC procedures for use in the National Airspace System." The AIM, Chapter 4, Section 2 provides Radio Communications Phraseology and Techniques information.

Para 4-2-4 is titled "Aircraft Call Signs". Some of the information in this paragraph, relevant to this post, includes:

a. Precautions in the Use of Call Signs.
1. Improper use of call signs can result in pilots
executing a clearance intended for another aircraft.
Call signs should never be abbreviated on an initial
contact or at any time when other aircraft call signs
have similar numbers/sounds or identical letters/
number; e.g., Cessna 6132F, Cessna 1622F,
Baron 123F, Cherokee 7732F, etc.

3. Civil aircraft pilots should state the aircraft
type, model or manufacturer?s name, followed by the
digits/letters of the registration number. When the
aircraft manufacturer?s name or model is stated, the
prefix ?N? is dropped; e.g., Aztec Two Four Six Four
Alpha.
EXAMPLE−
1. Bonanza Six Five Five Golf.
2. Breezy Six One Three Romeo Experimental (omit
?Experimental? after initial contact
).
 
... the requirement is codified in CFR 91.319(d)(3).

I suspect quite a few miss the specific control tower wording.

The word "experimental" is only required somewhere in an initial exchange with a tower.

That said, I use "RV 5551" with C and B controllers, and then skip the E-word when I get handed off to the tower. Perhaps not perfectly legal, but the tower already knows the aircraft type.
 
Expediency

I wonder if "MENTAL" is an FAA approved abbreviation.
 
Last edited:
I suspect quite a few miss the specific control tower wording.

The word "experimental" is only required somewhere in an initial exchange with a tower.

That said, I use "RV 5551" with C and B controllers, and then skip the E-word when I get handed off to the tower. Perhaps not perfectly legal, but the tower already knows the aircraft type.

It says to notify the tower of the experimental nature of the aircraft - describing one's plane as "RV xxxx" does this, doesn't it? However, I guess since there are now LSA certified RV12's, perhaps saying "RV" doesn't quite cut it anymore.
 
It says to notify the tower of the experimental nature of the aircraft - describing one's plane as "RV xxxx" does this, doesn't it?

Only if everyone knows what an RV is. Part of the disagreement here is whether or not everyone knows what an RV is.

My Class D airport ATC did not. Had absolutely zero clue.
 
I find these types of threads amusing......

The FAR's and (some) operating limitations require the pilot to identify his aircraft as experimental on first contact with a control tower. It is not required for any other ATC communication (approach control, en-route center, etc.).

In this thread we have had a lot of "what I do".... and that "no one has ever said anything"..... much of it contrary to the rules.
It doesn't matter if the rule makes sense or not (a lot of them don't). It is still a rule that applies to everyone and I think it is in appropriate to promote the idea that because someone has personally decided that it doesn't apply to them, that everyone else should operate that way as well.

As with anything else in life, each person has to make their own decision, but be clear in doing so that the requirement applies to every experimental class aircraft, whether you think it should or not.
 
Probably doesn?t matter unless you?re in busy controlled airspace.
Clearly?...!!!?- no pun intended, there?s a little confusion regarding proper behavior on all sides. I think if I am sandwiched between ?Heavies? landing in busy airspace where it?s hard to get a word in edgewise on the radio I would definitely prefer ATC to know exactly what type of aircraft I am flying.

But yeah amusing topic
 
Yep

"...I find these types of threads amusing......

The FAR's and (some) operating limitations require the pilot to identify his aircraft as experimental on first contact with a control tower. It is not required for any other ATC communication (approach control, en-route center, etc.).

In this thread we have had a lot of "what I do".... and that "no one has ever said anything"..... much of it contrary to the rules.
It doesn't matter if the rule makes sense or not (a lot of them don't). It is still a rule that applies to everyone and I think it is in appropriate to promote the idea that because someone has personally decided that it doesn't apply to them, that everyone else should operate that way as well.

As with anything else in life, each person has to make their own decision, but be clear in doing so that the requirement applies to every experimental class aircraft, whether you think it should or not..."

Well said.
 
I find these types of threads amusing......

The FAR's and (some) operating limitations require the pilot to identify his aircraft as experimental on first contact with a control tower. It is not required for any other ATC communication (approach control, en-route center, etc.).

In this thread we have had a lot of "what I do".... and that "no one has ever said anything"..... much of it contrary to the rules.
It doesn't matter if the rule makes sense or not (a lot of them don't). It is still a rule that applies to everyone and I think it is in appropriate to promote the idea that because someone has personally decided that it doesn't apply to them, that everyone else should operate that way as well.

As with anything else in life, each person has to make their own decision, but be clear in doing so that the requirement applies to every experimental class aircraft, whether you think it should or not.
I agree +10,000%

I shouldn't care what the rest of you do, but just a few "bad apples" can give the rest of us that follow the requirements a bad reputation.

:(
 
ADSB info?

Im just curious about what ADSB will bring to the table in this discussion.

After January 1,2020 will ATC have enough information to know exactly what type / model & N reg. they are dealing with ?
 
As a controller in Canada, I couldn't care less what you call yourself with your registration. Experimental, Vans, RV, romeo victor7, RV7, all good in Calgary VTA. If I need more, I'll ask. But if you tell me you are an RV-14, expect some questions and a quick chat about where I'm at with my build. :)

Kerry
 
Scott, Bob, Galin...you use "experimental" in your initial call to ground, before taxi? Or do you wait until your "Ready on XX" call?
 
Scott, Bob, Galin...you use "experimental" in your initial call to ground, before taxi? Or do you wait until your "Ready on XX" call?

I do.
Home base airport tower has said they prefer to have you identified as such when calling ground because the ground controller hands off the info to the local controller (when they are busy enough that they have both positioned man'ed).
BTW... they are totally by the book here (casual about nothing) and do identify an experimental as such, to any other traffic they are communicating to about said aircraft.
 
FWIW I use "Experimental" for all my transmissions. Since I am not that smart I gotta keep it simple.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
I chose my N number back when we were supposed to identify as Experimental without the RV. I wish I had chosen differently now.

?Indianapolis approach, Experimental RV6 6 tree niner romeo victor...?

It?s a mouthful even when I go slow. I cringe every time I hear the readback ? most times horribly wrong.... so I now say...


?Indianapolis approach, RV6 Experimental, November 6 tree niner Romeo victor...?

Maybe not entirely by the book, but they do get my N number right on most days.

Don
 
I chose my N number back when we were supposed to identify as Experimental without the RV. I wish I had chosen differently now.

“Indianapolis approach, Experimental RV6 6 tree niner romeo victor...”

It’s a mouthful even when I go slow. I cringe every time I hear the readback — most times horribly wrong.... so I now say...


“Indianapolis approach, RV6 Experimental, November 6 tree niner Romeo victor...”

Maybe not entirely by the book, but they do get my N number right on most days.

Don
Why don't you just use: "Indianapolis approach, Experimental six tree niner romeo victor" and not say RV6 unless asked? It sounds a lot easier to me.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
Why don't you just use: "Indianapolis approach, Experimental six tree niner romeo victor" and not say RV6 unless asked? It sounds a lot easier to me.

:cool:

I use "experimental RV 123RV" for first call and then RV 123RV there after.

All of the RV's have pretty close to the same performance so it provides teh controller with useful information (as already mentioned in this thread, there is a very broad range of performance in experimentals)

The one exception to this is the RV-12. In that case I use "Light Sport RV 123RV" unless it is an experimental RV-12, then it become a bit of a mouthful.... Experimental Light Sport RV 123RV for the initial call only, then Light Sport RV 123RV for all calls there after.
 
I use "experimental RV 123RV" for first call and then RV 123RV there after.

All of the RV's have pretty close to the same performance so it provides teh controller with useful information (as already mentioned in this thread, there is a very broad range of performance in experimentals)

The one exception to this is the RV-12. In that case I use "Light Sport RV 123RV" unless it is an experimental RV-12, then it become a bit of a mouthful.... Experimental Light Sport RV 123RV for the initial call only, then Light Sport RV 123RV for all calls there after.

:eek: Too complicated for my simple mind.

IMHO checking in with "Experimental 123RV" then "Experimental 3RV" for every subsequent transmission is just easier. ;)
 
Last edited:
:eek: Too complicated for my simple mind.

IMHO checking in with "Experimental 123RV" then "Experimental 3RV" for every subsequent transmission is just easier. ;)

Everyone's brain works a bit different... as long as it meets the requirements it should be no problem.

I would have to double check my memory but I think there is a requirement that if the tower hasn't shortened your call sign, you aren't allowed to arbitrarily shorten it on your own.
I do know that with numerous aircraft with very similar tail #'s in our fleet, two or more are flying simultaneously, the tower specifies that full call signs be used at all times to avoid miscommunication.
 
I would have to double check my memory but I think there is a requirement that if the tower hasn't shortened your call sign, you aren't allowed to arbitrarily shorten it on your own.
I do know that with numerous aircraft with very similar tail #'s in our fleet, two or more are flying simultaneously, the tower specifies that full call signs be used at all times to avoid miscommunication.

I noted this earlier and somebody took offense at it for some reason. But yes, this is true...my point was that many, many, many pilots and controllers don't follow the rules on this sort of stuff *all the time*, and it's not really a problem; the end goal is communication and understanding, not to blindly follow rules. If everybody on God's Green Earth (at least her ein the U.S.) knows what an RV is, it's not really adding any information to the channel to call it an "Experimental". If nobody knows what a Swizzle 500 is, calling it an Experimental Swizzle 500 isn't any help, either, but at least it avoids everyone on frequency asking themselves "what the heck is a Swizzle 500?"...they'll know it's experimental and probably weird.

Goal is communication...if it warms your heart to feel like calling yourself Experimental RV helps out, have at it.
 
Apologies if someone's already mentioned this. On the issue of 'experimental' having little meaning in itself:

Back in the early '90s when I started flying experimentals (1st a Thorp T-18, then an RV), the FAA expected 'Experimental-type <insert alpha character>', based on the speed of the a/c. RVs were 'type B'. I vaguely remember seeing it in the regs somewhere, but I'd never be able to point it out now. At some point, I remember being told that RVs had become common enough that they were in the FAA's make/model list, and 'experimental RV', rather than 'experimental type B' became acceptable.

None of that helped the typical cert a/c driver, but it did tell the controllers what speed to expect.

Charlie

edit, just found the speed reference.
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/7110.65TBasic.pdf
appendix C-1, pg 457 of the pdf
 
Last edited:
I tried the RV type instead of RV6, but controllers kept asking if I was an 8 or a 7 or which one...I assume they they are limited in how they can enter that info into the computer... but I have no clue.
 

An interesting document.

9-2-4. EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT
OPERATIONS

a. When notified that an experimental aircraft
requires special handling:

NOTE14 CFR Section 91.319(d)(3) requires that each person
operating an aircraft with an experimental certificate shall
notify the control tower of the experimental nature of the
aircraft when operating into or out of airports with
operating control towers.

1. Clear the aircraft according to pilot requests
as traffic permits and if not contrary to ATC
procedures.

2. Once approved, do not ask the pilot to deviate
from a planned action except to preclude an
emergency situation.

b. At locations where volume or complexity of
experimental aircraft operations warrant, a letter of
agreement may be consummated between the facility
and operator.


Given the rules, perhaps I'll notify ATC that I require special handling, with no deviations. ;)
 
An interesting document.

b. At locations where volume or complexity of
experimental aircraft operations warrant, a letter of
agreement may be consummated between the facility
and operator.[/I]

And this is actually a thing too. We (Falcon Flight) have long had a LOA with our local facility for some operational clarity.
 
Essence of communication ...

I noted this earlier and somebody took offense at it for some reason. But yes, this is true...my point was that many, many, many pilots and controllers don't follow the rules on this sort of stuff *all the time*, and it's not really a problem; the end goal is communication and understanding, not to blindly follow rules. ...
Goal is communication...if it warms your heart to feel like calling yourself Experimental RV helps out, have at it.

Clarity and brevity are key components of good communications. My home field (Class D, FFZ Mesa AZ) is home to a large flight school, many RV's, two 'warbirds' groups, and CAF museum with flying B-17, C-47, B-25. A Class C only 10 miles away, with another large flight school. All inside the Class B 'veil'. Often the radio is a continuous stream of controller/aircraft traffic.

(Note - New USAF tanker, KC-46 (aka 767), started life labelled "EXPERIMENTAL" too. Would that make him "EXPERIMENTAL HEAVY"?))
 
I noted this earlier and somebody took offense at it for some reason. But yes, this is true...my point was that many, many, many pilots and controllers don't follow the rules on this sort of stuff *all the time*, and it's not really a problem; the end goal is communication and understanding, not to blindly follow rules. If everybody on God's Green Earth (at least her ein the U.S.) knows what an RV is, it's not really adding any information to the channel to call it an "Experimental". If nobody knows what a Swizzle 500 is, calling it an Experimental Swizzle 500 isn't any help, either, but at least it avoids everyone on frequency asking themselves "what the heck is a Swizzle 500?"...they'll know it's experimental and probably weird.

Goal is communication...if it warms your heart to feel like calling yourself Experimental RV helps out, have at it.

However......

If there's an accident and you didn't follow the rules, you can expect to have that used against you.
 
However......

If there's an accident and you didn't follow the rules, you can expect to have that used against you.

Amen, plus if we all follow the same rules then it?s faster and better communication. I understand how maybe some airports will accept to do things different but then when you fly into another area that?s when it gets all garbled up because they are doing it slightly different too.
 
Life is full of risks. I'll take my chances.

That is a risk you needn't take. It's not like your getting massive benefit from not following the rules. The cost/benefit isn't there.

This rule - like a lot of others - isn't strongly enforced...but it's there in case they want to use it.

And to say "life is full of risks" as a justification for taking any particular risk is senseless and a specious argument:

There are risks you won't take....yet life is full of risks.
 
Last edited:
Life is full of risks. I'll take my chances.

I’d be fine with that except you don’t fly alone, there are more of us up there flying too and maybe we wouldn’t want to take that risk that you could enhance by not following some rules.
 
Last edited:
That is a risk you needn't take. It's not like your getting massive benefit from not following the rules. The cost/benefit isn't there.

But this rule - like a lot of others - isn't strongly enforced...but it's there in case they want to use it.

I'll worry about if/when someone finds me a case of someone who was cited following an accident for not using the phrase "Experimental", or an NTSB report that calls out as even a contributing factor the same lack of phrasing.

Seriously...this is a tempest in a teapot. Has anyone in an RV in the last 5-10 years ever even been handed a violation for just calling themselves "RV XXXXX"?

The whole things is silly...

ETA: If you think someone saying "experimental" makes the skies safer, then they're only safer for a few minutes after that ONE required use of the word, and only at fields with operating towers.
 
Last edited:
I’d be fine with that except you don’t fly alone, there are more of us up there flying too and maybe we wouldn’t want to take that risk that you could enhance by not following some rules.

I don't drive on the freeways alone, either, but I don't worry too much about people whose registration tags have expired. Call me a risk-taker, I guess...I'd rather know that you're an RV or a Breezy or a P-51 than know that you're "Experimental".

ETA: Hey, lookie what I found. The exact same debate for 15 years ago: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=11378
 
Last edited:
Of the 5 Hazardous Attitudes All Pilots Should Avoid I think I see 4 of them. Just my opinion of course:

The following seems to be an example of Anti-authority: “Don’t tell me!”
Pilots with an anti-authority attitude tend to believe that rules, regulations, and safety procedures don’t apply to them.

I'll worry about if/when someone finds me a case of someone who was cited following an accident ......Seriously...this is a tempest in a teapot. Has anyone in an RV in the last 5-10 years ever even been handed a violation for just calling themselves "RV XXXXX"? ....


The next examples might demonstrate 3 more of these hazardous attitudes:

Invulnerability: “The risk taker. It won’t happen to me!”
Many people—not just pilots—fall into a pattern of thinking that accidents happen to others, but never to them. This attitude of invulnerability can become a safety concern when pilots fail to consider the risks of their actions.

Macho: “I can do it!”
Pilots with a macho attitude are always trying to impress others and prove themselves by taking unnecessary risks.

Resignation: “What’s the use?”
Pilots with an attitude of resignation lack the confidence and conviction to believe they can make a difference in what happens to them. These pilots tend to give up easily when faced with challenges and don’t take criticism well.

Life is full of risks. I'll take my chances.

I don't drive on the freeways alone, either, but I don't worry too much about people whose registration tags have expired. Call me a risk-taker, I guess...

The truth is, anyone can be guilty of one or more of the hazardous attitudes, which are a normal part of human nature. Understanding these attitudes and recognizing when they occur will help pilots make better decisions and avoid unnecessary danger. http://hartzellprop.com/5-hazardous-attitudes-all-pilots-should-avoid/
 
Last edited:
Finally, a thread on using "experimental" has some legs. Seems there are three divisons: The Legalist, The Prideful, and the Abstainers.

I remain firmly an Abstainer (post 5).

To the Prideful: How do we know you're not a poser who didn't build it? An upside might be you'll make a few more spamcanners desirous of our freedoms.

To the Legalist: Uh, huh. Tell me you never exceed the speed limit either (he who is without sin...etc.) Anyone ever hear of any enforcement initiated simply over not announcing per regs/OpLims? Hardly likely since ATC doesn't bother themselves with "experimental" particulars most of the time. The real turkeys are the ones who say "experimental..." with any and all transmissions to anyone anywhere and never say the type.

Anyone know the history behind codifying what's pretty useless, especially in today's ATC environment? I consider "experimental" moribund. The less it's used, the sooner it will disappear. Perhaps some enlightened future day (not within any of our lifetimes) announcing "experimental" will sound just as silly as today saying "Standard Cessna 172 blah, blah".

John Siebold
 
Finally, a thread on using "experimental" has some legs. Seems there are three divisons: The Legalist, The Prideful, and the Abstainers.

I remain firmly an Abstainer (post 5).

To the Prideful: How do we know you're not a poser who didn't build it? An upside might be you'll make a few more spamcanners desirous of our freedoms.

To the Legalist: Uh, huh. Tell me you never exceed the speed limit either (he who is without sin...etc.) Anyone ever hear of any enforcement initiated simply over not announcing per regs/OpLims? Hardly likely since ATC doesn't bother themselves with "experimental" particulars most of the time. The real turkeys are the ones who say "experimental..." with any and all transmissions to anyone anywhere and never say the type.

Anyone know the history behind codifying what's pretty useless, especially in today's ATC environment? I consider "experimental" moribund. The less it's used, the sooner it will disappear. Perhaps some enlightened future day (not within any of our lifetimes) announcing "experimental" will sound just as silly as today saying "Standard Cessna 172 blah, blah".

John Siebold

I already addressed the Anti Authority hazard so I won't mention it again but I do find interesting the last part where you say "Standard Cessna 172" like if that was a way of identifying yourself at some time. I've been doing this for 4 decades and I've never heard that on the radios so maybe that was way before my time or maybe, follow me here, it was someone who didn't follow rules and decided to identify himself that way thinking it won't hurt anyone and I think it's dumb the way the Regulations tell us to say it. Hmmm, go figure...
 
Of the 5 Hazardous Attitudes All Pilots Should Avoid I think I see 4 of them. Just my opinion of course:

The following seems to be an example of Anti-authority: ?Don?t tell me!?
Pilots with an anti-authority attitude tend to believe that rules, regulations, and safety procedures don?t apply to them.




The next examples might demonstrate 3 more of these hazardous attitudes:

Invulnerability: ?The risk taker. It won?t happen to me!?
Many people?not just pilots?fall into a pattern of thinking that accidents happen to others, but never to them. This attitude of invulnerability can become a safety concern when pilots fail to consider the risks of their actions.

Macho: ?I can do it!?
Pilots with a macho attitude are always trying to impress others and prove themselves by taking unnecessary risks.

Resignation: ?What?s the use??
Pilots with an attitude of resignation lack the confidence and conviction to believe they can make a difference in what happens to them. These pilots tend to give up easily when faced with challenges and don?t take criticism well.





The truth is, anyone can be guilty of one or more of the hazardous attitudes, which are a normal part of human nature. Understanding these attitudes and recognizing when they occur will help pilots make better decisions and avoid unnecessary danger. http://hartzellprop.com/5-hazardous-attitudes-all-pilots-should-avoid/

Oh, please. That's quite a bit of over-analysis about someone you don't even know. Let's see - anti-authority? Hardly...I tend to be a stickler for rules (it's the systems engineer/mathematician in me), but every body of law has some that are plain silly... https://www.policeone.com/police-humor/articles/231265006-50-dumb-laws-in-America/ not counting things like routine minor traffic violations. Doesn't make one anti-authority. Risk taker? Given that I deal in risk management *all the time*, I'm at least capable of understanding the C part of the LxC matrix, and here's a C= epsilon (not even C=1). I.e., virtually zero consequences for *anyone*. And since there's really zero risk, one wouldn't be very macho by taking it, would they? :) Or be exercising futility by accepting it.
 
Finally, a thread on using "experimental" has some legs. Seems there are three divisons: The Legalist, The Prideful, and the Abstainers.

I remain firmly an Abstainer (post 5).

To the Prideful: How do we know you're not a poser who didn't build it? An upside might be you'll make a few more spamcanners desirous of our freedoms.

To the Legalist: Uh, huh. Tell me you never exceed the speed limit either (he who is without sin...etc.) Anyone ever hear of any enforcement initiated simply over not announcing per regs/OpLims? Hardly likely since ATC doesn't bother themselves with "experimental" particulars most of the time. The real turkeys are the ones who say "experimental..." with any and all transmissions to anyone anywhere and never say the type.

Anyone know the history behind codifying what's pretty useless, especially in today's ATC environment? I consider "experimental" moribund. The less it's used, the sooner it will disappear. Perhaps some enlightened future day (not within any of our lifetimes) announcing "experimental" will sound just as silly as today saying "Standard Cessna 172 blah, blah".

John Siebold

Thank you...
 
...the last part where you say "Standard Cessna 172" like if that was a way of identifying yourself at some time. I've been doing this for 4 decades and I've never heard that on the radios so maybe that was way before my time or maybe, follow me here, it was someone who didn't follow rules and decided to identify himself that way thinking it won't hurt anyone and I think it's dumb the way the Regulations tell us to say it. Hmmm, go figure...

Or, since all the Cessna spamcans fly at about the same speed range, and look pretty much alike, it was fine to just call them all "Cessna". I notice how the guys flying Citation jets don't do that, now, do they? Why do they call themselves "Citation" or "Citationjet"? Hmmmm...
 
Or, since all the Cessna spamcans fly at about the same speed range, and look pretty much alike, it was fine to just call them all "Cessna". I notice how the guys flying Citation jets don't do that, now, do they? Why do they call themselves "Citation" or "Citationjet"? Hmmmm...

Did you notice in your quote that he said "Standard Cessna 172"? I don't ever remember hearing "Standard" in any identification. I also don't think when anyone said "Cessna 172" and the controller saw the speed on their scope they'd confuse it with a Cessna Citation. Regarding why a pilot flying a Citation would omit Cessna, maybe one of those hazardous attitudes again since the Regs say what, make and model? They could say Cessna Citation and nobody would be harmed, or maybe just their ego slightly.
 
Last edited:
Let's see - anti-authority? Hardly...I tend to be a stickler for rules (it's the systems engineer/mathematician in me), but every body of law has some that are plain silly...

So since you think they're silly they don't apply to you = Anti Authority.

Risk taker? Given that I deal in risk management *all the time*, I'm at least capable of understanding the C part of the LxC matrix, and here's a C= epsilon (not even C=1). I.e., virtually zero consequences for *anyone*. And since there's really zero risk, one wouldn't be very macho by taking it, would they? :) Or be exercising futility by accepting it.

You said you were a risk taker in your own reply. Again I don't mind if you take risks when it's just you up there but there are others who your risk taking could affect = Invulnerability

I'm not a psychologist, I'm just filling in the blanks with your own statements.
 
Back
Top