Is every touchdown a stall?

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
. ..
If the stall warning horn is not sounding (a precondition from earlier
posts), it can be presumed that the aircraft is "well above stall" speed.

Not without a clear definition of "well above" (so far, none has been
offered). And even if your own personal definition of "well above" is any
airspeed at which the stall warning isn't sounding, any airplane can be
landed safely without the stall warning going off, and many airplanes
*should* be landed without the stall warning going off.

The absence of a stall warning does not in and of itself suggest an unsafe
landing.

"Descending" is uninformative about the actual attitude or speed of the
aircraft,

It's about as uninformative as phrases like "well above" and "good flying
speed". So what?

You guys are engaged in a blatant double-standard in which your own
ambiguous terminology is apparently acceptable, while someone else's is
grounds for abuse.

and whether one is landing or crashing depends at least to some
degree on those other factors. It's valuable to read the entire thread if
you wish to object to some response to it.

I have read through the entire thread, and the assumptions you and others
have made about statements made by Mxsmanic are just that: assumptions. You
have no reason for making the inference that you have, other than to find a
point of leverage for criticism. If you weren't so predisposed to attacking
the guy, you never would have made such assumptions.

Ironically, in making those assumptions, you are also posting your own vague
and potentially incorrect statements. Those statements are the ones to
which I'm responding. If it's fair game for you to infer arbitrary meaning
in someone else's ambiguous terminology, why is it not fair for me to do so?

Or on a related note: if you feel my inference of your meaning is incorrect,
then correct it. So far, neither you nor anyone else has, in spite of my
clear description of the inference that I've made. I've made clear the
context in which my statements are made, including stating the inferences of
the meaning of others' ambiguous statements. There's nothing wrong with my
statements as is, so if you want to disagree, you need to clarify the
meaning of your own ambiguous statements.

Pete

Recently, Peter Duniho posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
If the stall warning horn is not sounding (a precondition from
earlier posts), it can be presumed that the aircraft is "well above
stall" speed.

Not without a clear definition of "well above" (so far, none has been
offered). And even if your own personal definition of "well above"
is any airspeed at which the stall warning isn't sounding, any
airplane can be landed safely without the stall warning going off,
and many airplanes should be landed without the stall warning going
off.

I agree; I usually land before the stall warning goes off. However, that
is not the point, nor does it address the issues raised in this thread in
the context that they were raised.

To keep things simple, the response to the question of the thread -- "Is
every touchdown a stall" is "no". However, I didn't enter the thread at
that stage, and the point where I did enter it was discussion of landing
in a different context. Specifically, I responded to:

Mxsmanic:
" No doubt, but my concern is that a stall is a rapid and significant
loss of lift, and it seems that this would be dangerous with so little
space for maneuvering beneath the aircraft. As long as the aircraft
hasn't stalled, the descent rate is constant in a given configuration;
if it stalls, it suddenly descends much more quickly, which seems
risky so close to the runway."

You excerpted that context and created a truncated statement from my reply
that changed the meaning, and you are still arguing the merits of that
comment out of context.

The absence of a stall warning does not in and of itself suggest an
unsafe landing.

No one claimed that it does, as yet.

You guys are engaged in a blatant double-standard in which your own
ambiguous terminology is apparently acceptable, while someone else's
is grounds for abuse.

What "double standard" might that be?

and whether one is landing or crashing depends at least to some
degree on those other factors. It's valuable to read the entire
thread if you wish to object to some response to it.

I have read through the entire thread, and the assumptions you and
others have made about statements made by Mxsmanic are just that:
assumptions.

Example of such an assumption that I have made, please?

If you
weren't so predisposed to attacking the guy, you never would have
made such assumptions.

I am not "predisposed to attacking the guy", yet another presumption that
you are making that is completely unsubstantiated. If you followed other
threads in this newsgroup, you would know that I've "known" Mxsmanic for
years. In other newsgroups, and in other contexts I have agreed with him
on many occassions. If he has any integrity, he'll confirm this for you if
he reads this. My complaints are specific to some posts that he has made
here, and I have not generalized those complaints into an "attack", as you
are implying.

Or on a related note: if you feel my inference of your meaning is
incorrect, then correct it.

See above. It's not only "incorrect", it's completely fabricated by you.

So far, neither you nor anyone else has,
in spite of my clear description of the inference that I've made.

Clarity is in the eye of the beholder. I don't find your "descriptions" to
be much more than obfuscation and generalization, and appear to be both
off the mark in some cases and off-topic in other cases. And, of course, I
think I've been pretty clear about both those points and the reasons why I
think so.

I've made clear the context in which my statements are made,
including stating the inferences of the meaning of others' ambiguous
statements. There's nothing wrong with my statements as is, so if
you want to disagree, you need to clarify the meaning of your own
ambiguous statements.

And, of course, you don't find such comments as the above "ambiguous",
even though there is not one specific reference in the entire paragraph.
So, I don't have a clue as to what you are referring to, just a general
notion that you are objecting to something or other and think you're right
about it.

Neil

Recently, Peter Duniho posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
If the stall warning horn is not sounding (a precondition from
earlier posts), it can be presumed that the aircraft is "well above
stall" speed.

Not without a clear definition of "well above" (so far, none has been
offered). And even if your own personal definition of "well above"
is any airspeed at which the stall warning isn't sounding, any
airplane can be landed safely without the stall warning going off,
and many airplanes *should* be landed without the stall warning going
off.

I agree; I *usually* land before the stall warning goes off. However, that
is not the point, nor does it address the issues raised in this thread in
the context that they were raised.

To keep things simple, the response to the question of the thread -- "Is
every touchdown a stall" is "no". However, I didn't enter the thread at
that stage, and the point where I did enter it was discussion of landing
in a different context. Specifically, I responded to:

Mxsmanic:
" No doubt, but my concern is that a stall is a rapid and significant
loss of lift, and it seems that this would be dangerous with so little
space for maneuvering beneath the aircraft. As long as the aircraft
hasn't stalled, the descent rate is constant in a given configuration;
if it stalls, it suddenly descends much more quickly, which seems
risky so close to the runway."

You excerpted that context and created a truncated statement from my reply
that changed the meaning, and you are still arguing the merits of that
comment *out of context*.

The absence of a stall warning does not in and of itself suggest an
unsafe landing.

No one claimed that it does, as yet.

You guys are engaged in a blatant double-standard in which your own
ambiguous terminology is apparently acceptable, while someone else's
is grounds for abuse.

What "double standard" might that be?

and whether one is landing or crashing depends at least to some
degree on those other factors. It's valuable to read the entire
thread if you wish to object to some response to it.

I have read through the entire thread, and the assumptions you and
others have made about statements made by Mxsmanic are just that:
assumptions.

Example of such an assumption that I have made, please?

If you
weren't so predisposed to attacking the guy, you never would have
made such assumptions.

I am not "predisposed to attacking the guy", yet another presumption that
you are making that is completely unsubstantiated. If you followed other
threads in this newsgroup, you would know that I've "known" Mxsmanic for
years. In other newsgroups, and in other contexts I have agreed with him
on many occassions. If he has any integrity, he'll confirm this for you if
he reads this. My complaints are specific to some posts that he has made
here, and I have not generalized those complaints into an "attack", as you
are implying.

Or on a related note: if you feel my inference of your meaning is
incorrect, then correct it.

See above. It's not only "incorrect", it's completely fabricated by you.

So far, neither you nor anyone else has,
in spite of my clear description of the inference that I've made.

Clarity is in the eye of the beholder. I don't find your "descriptions" to
be much more than obfuscation and generalization, and appear to be both
off the mark in some cases and off-topic in other cases. And, of course, I
think I've been pretty clear about both those points and the reasons why I
think so.

I've made clear the context in which my statements are made,
including stating the inferences of the meaning of others' ambiguous
statements. There's nothing wrong with my statements as is, so if
you want to disagree, you need to clarify the meaning of your own
ambiguous statements.

And, of course, you don't find such comments as the above "ambiguous",
even though there is not one specific reference in the entire paragraph.
So, I don't have a clue as to what you are referring to, just a general
notion that you are objecting to something or other and think you're right
about it.

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
news
[...]
You excerpted that context and created a truncated statement from my reply
that changed the meaning, and you are still arguing the merits of that
comment *out of context*.

Actually, just as your reply truncated the thread to the point at which you
felt a need to interject, so did mine. My reply was not intended to address
the earlier post you quote, nor did it.

It *did* however address statements such as "if the aircraft is flying, it
is not landing" (yours, and incorrect) and "If the aircraft is flying and
descending, it is landing" (Mxsmanic's, and basically correct, even if he
does misunderstand other aspects of landing).

The absence of a stall warning does not in and of itself suggest an
unsafe landing.

No one claimed that it does, as yet.

True. It's hard to know WHAT you and Dave Doe are claiming, since you
refuse to pin down your ambiguous statements.

You guys are engaged in a blatant double-standard in which your own
ambiguous terminology is apparently acceptable, while someone else's
is grounds for abuse.

What "double standard" might that be?

Go back and read the post that you quoted. You'll find the answer there.

Example of such an assumption that I have made, please?

For one, whatever assumption it is that makes you think that "Wrong" is a
correct and valid reply to "If the aircraft is flying and descending, it is
landing".

[...]
I am not "predisposed to attacking the guy", yet another presumption that
you are making that is completely unsubstantiated.

Your own actions justify the presumption. If you weren't predisposed to
attacking him, you would have given him the benefit of the doubt when
interpreting his ambiguous statement.

Or on a related note: if you feel my inference of your meaning is
incorrect, then correct it.

See above. It's not only "incorrect", it's completely fabricated by you.

Fabricated? It's an inference. How can an inference NOT be "fabricated"?
It is, by definition, an assumption made by the inferrer to compensate for
insufficient clarity of an original statement.

So again...if you feel my inference is incorrect, feel free to provide a
correction. That would involve clarifying your previous, ambiguous
statement.

Clarity is in the eye of the beholder. I don't find your "descriptions" to
be much more than obfuscation and generalization,

If you're having so much trouble understanding my posts, I'm amazed you even
know the word "obfuscation".

and appear to be both
off the mark in some cases and off-topic in other cases.

For example?

And, of course, I
think I've been pretty clear about both those points and the reasons why I
think so.

In which posts? I've yet to see any that were clear on either point. Feel
free to post a message ID, or Google Groups link, or even just quote the
text you feel substantiates the above claim.

I've made clear the context in which my statements are made,
including stating the inferences of the meaning of others' ambiguous
statements. There's nothing wrong with my statements as is, so if
you want to disagree, you need to clarify the meaning of your own
ambiguous statements.

And, of course, you don't find such comments as the above "ambiguous",
even though there is not one specific reference in the entire paragraph.

You should look up the word "ambiguous". It doesn't mean "without
references".

Pete

Recently, Peter Duniho posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
[...]
You excerpted that context and created a truncated statement from my
reply that changed the meaning, and you are still arguing the merits
of that comment *out of context*.

Actually, just as your reply truncated the thread to the point at
which you felt a need to interject, so did mine. My reply was not
intended to address the earlier post you quote, nor did it.

It *did* however address statements such as "if the aircraft is
flying, it is not landing" (yours, and incorrect)

So, you think context is unimportant, and that the changing of context to
create a different meaning is valid. We disagree about that, so there is
nothing more to discuss, here.

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
m...
So, you think context is unimportant, and that the changing of context to
create a different meaning is valid.

You are assigning to me a statement of belief I never made. If anything, my
point was the opposite of what you claim it to be.

We disagree about that, so there is nothing more to discuss, here.

I can certainly agree that if you are going to continue making false
attributions to me, there's not any point in continuing the discussion.