![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"John Gaquin" wrote:
"Ron Lee" wrote in message James is correct. FAA diagram he I think not. The google aerial photos are the older reference, taken some 3-4 years ago. My interpretation is this: Since that time, the threshold of Rwy 22 has been displaced some 600 ft SW, leaving what appears to be designated as an overrun for Rwy 04. It appears the taxiway leading to it from the end of Rwy 22 has been closed. The fed taxi chart appears to only sow those areas of pavement open for use. I can't vouch for the administrative points, but the photos and diagrams bear out my theory. Which is what I said. You perhaps have mixed up who said what in this thread. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "James Robinson" wrote in message Which is what I said. You perhaps have mixed up who said what in this thread. Neither of my posts was a response to anything you said. Check the thread sequence. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"John Gaquin" wrote:
"James Robinson" wrote in message Which is what I said. You perhaps have mixed up who said what in this thread. Neither of my posts was a response to anything you said. Check the thread sequence. Here is a quote from your previous response: James is correct. FAA diagram he I think not. ... Sure looks like you were responding to something I said. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "James Robinson" wrote in message Here is a quote from your previous response: James is correct. FAA diagram he I think not. ... Sure looks like you were responding to something I said. sigh try to follow, now.... What you said was accurate in itself -- the diagram doesn't show the other taxiway. To which john smith added... "The diagram has not been updated to show the newly added 600 foot ....." To which I replied "...Quite the opposite, I think...." [because there was no newly added, etc etc] At which point Ron Bell said "...James is correct. FAA diagram he" which clearly means, for those for whom interpretation is needed, "James is correct for the reasons shown in the FAA diagram here", which, of course, was inaccurate on Ron's part. And I said "I think not..." You were correct because what you said was accurate, but the diagram and photo don't demonstrate any new area at all. Its the diagram and the photos and the notion of a newly added piece of pavement that were being discussed. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
VQ-1's P4M-1Q crash off China - 1956 | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | May 6th 06 11:13 PM |
Pilot claims no blame in July crash | Mortimer Schnerd, RN | Piloting | 48 | March 15th 06 09:00 PM |
Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How? | Rick Umali | Piloting | 29 | February 15th 06 04:40 AM |
Doubts raised in jet crash | Dave Butler | Piloting | 8 | July 26th 05 01:25 AM |
Yet another A36 crash | H.P. | Piloting | 10 | April 23rd 05 05:58 PM |