![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Parachute fails to save SR-22 | Capt.Doug | Piloting | 72 | February 10th 05 05:14 AM |
Tamed by the Tailwheel | [email protected] | Piloting | 84 | January 18th 05 04:08 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |
Wing Extensions | Jay | Home Built | 22 | July 27th 03 12:23 PM |