Originally Posted by
4V14T0R
Did basically everyone here NOT read what this guy/gal said. He/She specifically stated legal and in parens not safety. If he/she has the awareness to state this, can’t we just answer the question as asked without giving a lecture stating reasons that this person probably is already aware.
End lecture.
Take your counsel and read the replies, which you clearly haven't.
Or you simply read and didn't understand. It doesn't matter.
We've replied that yes, he's legal to do it, but that he needs the checkout anyway.
Now you've just stated that the original poster told us he's legal, and we should have read and understood this. The original poster didn't say that, at all. In fact, he asked if he's legal. The question has been addressed.
You don't get to put words in our mouths or limit the scope of what we have to say, and it's unfortunate for you, perhaps, that we haven't parroted the words you think we should have said. Gotta love the thought police.
To recap, as you've missed it:
I said the original poster is legal.
Rickair7777 said the original poster is legal.
67Creek said the original poster is legal.
You chimed in to say he's legal.
The original poster has received pointed counsel that didn't ask or care if the original poster is aware, reminding him that while he may. be legal to jump in the light twin and go, it may not be a good idea. Most of us are keenly aware of mishaps and fatalities resulting from pilots doing exactly what the original poster proposes, and felt, in our own wisdom, inclined to reply that while the original poster is legal, he should get the checkout anyway.
Very good counsel indeed, despite your need to come urinate on it.