TRSA and /X

"Jose" wrote in message
m...

I ask because your question:

Do you know of a TRSA which does not have
Class D airspace in the middle?

in response to Ron's parenthetical comment

...although there's almost always a class D
tower in the middle of a TRSA

implies that
1: there isn't any TRSA without a D, and more to the point
2: Ron should know this, Stephen does, nyah nyah nyah.


I didn't realize my question implied that. I thought Ron's statement,
"although there's almost always a class D tower in the middle of a TRSA",
suggested he knew of at least one TRSA that did not have Class D airspace
at it's center. How would I phrase an interrogative to clarify that without
implying there isn't any TRSA without Class D airspace, and more to the
point, that Ron should know this, Steven does, nyah nyah nyah?



You phrase it as a snipe, which comes off as if you are being smug and
superior. Even if you were asking a neutral question because you were
curious, your posting history makes it easy to interpret as a snipe, and
snipes get tiresome, especially when the fine point they are based on is
incorrect or misleading.


Gee, I thought it was pretty neutral. It's a pretty simple yes or no
question.



Ron's remark ("almost always") remains true even if there are =no= cases
of Dless TRSAs. It implies that there =might= be, but not that there
=are=. So as a snipe at Ron, it misses.

But now I am curious as to your implication that they are impossible.
(Were they actually impossible, Ron's "almost" would be unnecessary,
though not incorrect). Your snipe implies that you know so and want to
belittle him who doesn't, by not telling and instead asking rhetorically.
(If you didn't know, a more pleasant neutral question would definately be
in order.)

Given the earlier discussion about the independence between towers and
class D airspace, I'm curious as to whether these things are in fact
independent, or (as you appeared to imply) not.

And yes, I phrased it as a snipe myself. Sauce for the goose and all.


You're obviously reading things into messages that are not there. I don't
know why some people insist on doing that. My question to Ron was meant to
ascertain whether he knew of any TRSAs that did not include Class D
airspace, nothing beyond that. I asked because it seems odd that such a
thing would exist. But just because it's odd doesn't mean it's impossible.
For example, I know of two examples of Class D airspace without towered
airports.

I didn't realize my question implied that. [...]
You're obviously reading things into messages that are not there.
I don't know why some people insist on doing that.

That explains a lot. You are too helpful on the group to be consistant
with a rude personality, but your posts sometimes come off that way. I
suspect it may be because you tend to post the minimum information
possible that responds to a point, and that point is often taken out of
context, so what you post may be true, but frustratingly just miss the
mark as far as the discussion goes. (The sky is blue. No, it's cloudy.
No, it's blue.) (one talking about light scattering, the other talking
about the weather conditions)

I thought Ron's statement,
"although there's almost always a class D tower in the middle of a TRSA",
suggested he knew of at least one TRSA that did not have Class D airspace
at it's center.

I take "almost always" as implying that he =doesn't= know that there is
none (although it is consistant with his knowing that there is at least
one).

How would I phrase an interrogative to clarify that without
implying there isn't any TRSA without Class D airspace, and more to the
point, that Ron should know this, Steven does, nyah nyah nyah?

You could prepend "Just curious..." for example. That implies that you
don't know and would like to.

Gee, I thought it was pretty neutral. It's a pretty simple yes or no
question. [...]
You're obviously reading things into messages that are not there.
I don't know why some people insist on doing that.

Yes, you are right. It is neutral at face value. However, questions in
a thread are in a context, and when a thread becomes nitpicky, it tends
to take on a slightly combative feel. (I'm right - no you're wrong -
yes I'm right...) and that influences whether a question is then
interpreted at face value.

I've learned a lot from your posts, often when you are slicing hairs.
But supplying a bit more background information (as you sometimes do) or
context (as it sometimes changes in a discussion) will make it clearer
which hair you are slicing, and confusion over which hair is under the
chopper can lead to more acrimony than clarity.

Thanks for asking, I hope this is helpful.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain."
(chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..

That explains a lot. You are too helpful on the group to be consistant
with a rude personality, but your posts sometimes come off that way.

Because you're reading things into my messages that are not there.



You could prepend "Just curious..." for example. That implies that you
don't know and would like to.


I think asking if he knows of any implies that I don't know and would like
to.



Yes, you are right. It is neutral at face value.


Yes, you should take it at face value.

I think asking if he knows of any implies that I don't know and would like
to.

It can also come off as a challenge, which is offputting.

I do try to take all you say solely at face value. But much of verbal
communication occurs outside the words. This is how misunderstandings
happen, and is the driving force of statesmanship and politics, sales
and advertising, puns and humor, love and poetry, frustrates good
language translation, and is also the font of endless riches for lawyers.

You would probably appreciate Doug Hofstadter's book "Metamagical
Themas: questing for the essecnce of mind and pattern", which has quite
a few chapters that deal with the duality of pattern and ground in
language. I highly reccomend it (and all of Hofstadter's books
actually), and think you especially will enjoy his musings.

Some people just have a harder time with this than others. If you don't
see it, I can't show it to you, but I assure you it's there.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain."
(chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..

It can also come off as a challenge, which is offputting.


Only if you read things into it.



I do try to take all you say solely at face value.

You obviously didn't do that here.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote

Only if you read things into it.

You obviously didn't do that here.

I'll put this bluntly, so you don't have to worry about reading anything
into it.

Why do you have to be such an ass all of the time?
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

I'll put this bluntly, so you don't have to worry about reading anything
into it.

Why do you have to be such an ass all of the time?


In what way do you feel I'm being an ass?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Jose" wrote in message
m...

I ask because your question:


Do you know of a TRSA which does not have
Class D airspace in the middle?

in response to Ron's parenthetical comment


...although there's almost always a class D
tower in the middle of a TRSA

implies that
1: there isn't any TRSA without a D, and more to the point
2: Ron should know this, Stephen does, nyah nyah nyah.



I didn't realize my question implied that. I thought Ron's statement,
"although there's almost always a class D tower in the middle of a TRSA",
suggested he knew of at least one TRSA that did not have Class D airspace
at it's center. How would I phrase an interrogative to clarify that without
implying there isn't any TRSA without Class D airspace, and more to the
point, that Ron should know this, Steven does, nyah nyah nyah?



You phrase it as a snipe, which comes off as if you are being smug and
superior. Even if you were asking a neutral question because you were
curious, your posting history makes it easy to interpret as a snipe, and
snipes get tiresome, especially when the fine point they are based on is
incorrect or misleading.



Gee, I thought it was pretty neutral. It's a pretty simple yes or no
question.



Ron's remark ("almost always") remains true even if there are =no= cases
of Dless TRSAs. It implies that there =might= be, but not that there
=are=. So as a snipe at Ron, it misses.

But now I am curious as to your implication that they are impossible.
(Were they actually impossible, Ron's "almost" would be unnecessary,
though not incorrect). Your snipe implies that you know so and want to
belittle him who doesn't, by not telling and instead asking rhetorically.
(If you didn't know, a more pleasant neutral question would definately be
in order.)

Given the earlier discussion about the independence between towers and
class D airspace, I'm curious as to whether these things are in fact
independent, or (as you appeared to imply) not.

And yes, I phrased it as a snipe myself. Sauce for the goose and all.



You're obviously reading things into messages that are not there. I don't
know why some people insist on doing that. My question to Ron was meant to
ascertain whether he knew of any TRSAs that did not include Class D
airspace, nothing beyond that. I asked because it seems odd that such a
thing would exist. But just because it's odd doesn't mean it's impossible.
For example, I know of two examples of Class D airspace without towered
airports.

Are those airportless Class D examples heliports (e.g. Sikorski, near
Bridgeport CT)?

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...

Are those airportless Class D examples heliports (e.g. Sikorski, near
Bridgeport CT)?


No, they are Class D airspace without any towered airport, heliport, or
seaplane base. At least they were, it seems some of them no longer have
Class D airspace.

One of them was Pearson Field in Vancouver, WA, about seven miles northeast
of Portland International. Pearson had Class D airspace from the surface
to the overlying Portland Class C airspace. Vancouver had no control tower
and was the only airport in the Class D surface area. Vancouver now has a
Class E surface area.


Another one is adjacent to the Seattle Class B surface area on the west
side. This one still exists, you can view it at the following link:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?F27B2314B



A third one was south of the El Toro MCAS which is now closed, the Class D
airspace apparently was dropped when the base closed. Part of this one
didn't even touch the surface. I have old charts which depict this area, I
can post some images if you're interested.