Point well taken. Unfortunately, my dork 16 year-old nephew changed my
settings. Sorry. (BTW, I use to detract spammers.)

Back to the topic... As a naval aviator, what's your take on the crash?

(MarkyGA) wrote

> Point well taken. Unfortunately, my dork 16 year-old nephew changed my
> settings. Sorry. (BTW, I use to detract spammers.)
>
> Back to the topic... As a naval aviator, what's your take on the crash?

ATC is not involved in low level over water searches. They MAY not have
known that the helicopters were in the area and their visual focus was on
the water surface looking for the missing boater.

No former Naval Aviator worries the least bit about SPAM.

Bob Moore

Robert Moore > wrote:

> (MarkyGA) wrote
>
>> Point well taken. Unfortunately, my dork 16 year-old nephew changed my
>> settings. Sorry. (BTW, I use to detract spammers.)
>>
>> Back to the topic... As a naval aviator, what's your take on the crash?
>
> ATC is not involved in low level over water searches. They MAY not have
> known that the helicopters were in the area and their visual focus was on
> the water surface looking for the missing boater.
>
> No former Naval Aviator worries the least bit about SPAM.

If I read the news reports correctly, the Coast Guard Herc had been flying
at 800 to 1,000 ft, and had been in regular contact with ATC. It was just
entering a "military warning area" near San Clemente Island, frequently
used for Naval exercises. The flight had just been instructed by ATC to
contact the Navy controller for the area.

The FAA said that they had not been in contact with the helicopter.

The Navy spokesman said that operations in the area were normally under
"see and avoid", but didn't say if the CG plane had in fact been in
contract with the Navy controller.

Sounds like the handoff was the weakest link. Sure hope there's a plan in
place to keep this from happening down the road.

> If I read the news reports correctly, the Coast Guard Herc had been flying
> at 800 to 1,000 ft, and had been in regular contact with ATC. It was
> just
> entering a "military warning area" near San Clemente Island, frequently
> used for Naval exercises. The flight had just been instructed by ATC to
> contact the Navy controller for the area.
>
> The FAA said that they had not been in contact with the helicopter.
>
> The Navy spokesman said that operations in the area were normally under
> "see and avoid", but didn't say if the CG plane had in fact been in
> contract with the Navy controller.

MarkyGA schrieb:
> Point well taken. Unfortunately, my dork 16 year-old nephew changed my
> settings. Sorry. (BTW, I use to detract spammers.)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yeah, the legit owner of this domain will happily process all the spam
that is sent due to your not authorized use of said domain. Or are you
authorized to use the domain "none.com"?

---snip
domain: none.com
reg_created: 1995-05-31 00:00:00
expires: 2010-05-30 04:00:00
created: 2001-06-17 23:55:44
changed: 2009-04-20 09:39:35
transfer-prohibited: yes
ns0: ns.none.net
ns1: ns.vitalsoft.com
owner-c:
nic-hdl: FM8-GANDI
owner-name: 'none programs, Inc.'
---snap

#m

Martin Hotze > wrote:
> MarkyGA schrieb:
>> Point well taken. Unfortunately, my dork 16 year-old nephew changed my
>> settings. Sorry. (BTW, I use to detract spammers.)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Yeah, the legit owner of this domain will happily process all the spam
> that is sent due to your not authorized use of said domain. Or are you
> authorized to use the domain "none.com"?

Good point - there are domains that are set aside for such usages in RFC
2606:

http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2606.txt

Use of " would be a better selection.

I just read on an aviation blog that one or more of the pilots were wearing
night goggles, which makes it hard to see other traffic in the area. So
lemme ask this question... shouldn't at least ONE of the other crew members
NOT be wearing night goggles??

How many of you pilots out there have been asked to act as a safety pilot
for another pilot flying under the hood? When I was asked to do it, I knew
that it was up to me to make DARN SURE that there was no other traffic in
the vicinity. Our very lives depended on it. The thought of wearing anything
that would impede my vision was unthinkable.


"Robert Moore" > wrote in message
5.247...
> (MarkyGA) wrote
>
>> Point well taken. Unfortunately, my dork 16 year-old nephew changed my
>> settings. Sorry. (BTW, I use to detract spammers.)
>>
>> Back to the topic... As a naval aviator, what's your take on the crash?
>
> ATC is not involved in low level over water searches. They MAY not have
> known that the helicopters were in the area and their visual focus was on
> the water surface looking for the missing boater.
>
> No former Naval Aviator worries the least bit about SPAM.
>
> Bob Moore

"MarkyGA" > wrote in message
...
>I just read on an aviation blog that one or more of the pilots were wearing
>night goggles, which makes it hard to see other traffic in the area. So
>lemme ask this question... shouldn't at least ONE of the other crew members
>NOT be wearing night goggles??
>
> How many of you pilots out there have been asked to act as a safety pilot
> for another pilot flying under the hood? When I was asked to do it, I knew
> that it was up to me to make DARN SURE that there was no other traffic in
> the vicinity. Our very lives depended on it. The thought of wearing
> anything that would impede my vision was unthinkable.
>
It is continually amazing to me how many Internet "experts" are willing to
jump to conclusions about an aviation accident after wildly extrapolating
from fragmentary and questionable media articles published immediately after
an accident.. It take a while for the real information to come out! Only
then can we have an intelligent discussion about the accident from which we
can hopefully learn something.

I don't know about you, but I am willing to wait.

Vaughn

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Martin Hotze > wrote:
>> MarkyGA schrieb:
>>> Point well taken. Unfortunately, my dork 16 year-old nephew changed my
>>> settings. Sorry. (BTW, I use to detract spammers.)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Yeah, the legit owner of this domain will happily process all the spam
>> that is sent due to your not authorized use of said domain. Or are you
>> authorized to use the domain "none.com"?
>
> Good point - there are domains that are set aside for such usages in RFC
> 2606:
>
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2606.txt
>
> Use of " would be a better selection.

Very true. There is actually a registered domain of none.com and, if my
recollection is correct, it may be one of the email domains of mail.com. In
any event, here is the "whois" information:

Domain Name: none.com

Registrar: GANDI SAS
Whois Server: whois.gandi.net
Referral URL: http://www.gandi.net
Status: clientTransferProhibited

Expiration Date: 2010-05-30
Creation Date: 1995-05-31
Last Update Date: 2009-04-20

John schrieb:
> x-no-archive: yes
> Martin Hotze wrote:
>> MarkyGA schrieb:
>>> Point well taken. Unfortunately, my dork 16 year-old nephew changed my
>>> settings. Sorry. (BTW, I use to detract spammers.)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Yeah, the legit owner of this domain will happily process all the spam
>> that is sent due to your not authorized use of said domain. Or are you
>> authorized to use the domain "none.com"?
>
> Since you are interested, perhaps you could check and let us all know?

For sure you are a ignorant §$&§ who does not care about other peoples
property still using what does not belong to you.

#m