![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message ... French Valley (F70), we were using 18 that day for winds. The "standard" crosswind takes you away from the sizable (and expensive, and influential) housing developments some wonderful person decided needed to be direct off the end of a GA airport. The A/FD says: "All departures.noise sensitive areas to N and S, best rate of climb to TPA before departing the pattern. Calm wind.use Rwy 18." Nothing there about crosswind being the "standard" departure. Besides of which, everyone else was departing crosswind, and maintaining a civil and orderly line of traffic is almost always preferable to flying off the handle and doing your own thing, especially if you aren't going to tell anyone first. So he leaves the area in a different direction than everyone else. Why is that a problem? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Nothing there about crosswind being the "standard" departure. Note the use of quotation marks to denote the fact that it is not an established, official procedure, but an agreed-upon and accepted modus of operation while at the airport. So he leaves the area in a different direction than everyone else. Why is that a problem? It's a problem when he tries to leave by going through me. It's a problem when he doesn't announce his departure vector. It's a problem when he doesn't respond or acknowledge position reports. It's a problem when he disrupts the nominally formed traffic pattern. It's a problem when he flies directly opposite the approach and likely descent vectors (following the Paradise VOR) of other aircraft. It's a REAL problem when he does it at 140 knots. Did you not actually read my responses? It seems likely, after the way you treated Jay. TheSmokingGnu |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
So he leaves the area in a different direction than everyone else. Why is
that a problem? It's a problem when he tries to leave by going through me. It's a problem when he doesn't announce his departure vector. It's a problem when he doesn't respond or acknowledge position reports. It's a problem when he disrupts the nominally formed traffic pattern. It's a problem when he flies directly opposite the approach and likely descent vectors (following the Paradise VOR) of other aircraft. It's a REAL problem when he does it at 140 knots. These are probably the same guys who come blasting into a full pattern on a long straight-in approach, expecting everyone else to move aside because they're "charter captains". I know most of the charter pilots in our area, and they are invariably good about announcing their intentions (some even apologize for barging in) -- but there are always those select few SOBs who have just been handed off from approach and simply can't be bothered with such mundane duties as making position reports on Unicom. They are truly menaces of the air, in my humble opinion. Did you not actually read my responses? It seems likely, after the way you treated Jay. You *do* realize that you're wasting your time arguing with Steven, right? Understanding and properly reacting to subtle or nuanced prose is simply not in his nature. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 24 Mar 2007 15:00:43 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in .com: Understanding and properly reacting to subtle or nuanced prose is simply not in his nature. The issue of reacting to implied, as opposed to stated, prose is that the reader has no positive way of knowing if his own subjective inference is that intended by the author. While it such may be marginally useful in affairs of the heart, they have little place in aviation, IMO. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The issue of reacting to implied, as opposed to stated, prose is that
the reader has no positive way of knowing if his own subjective inference is that intended by the author. While it such may be marginally useful in affairs of the heart, they have little place in aviation, IMO. I have dealt with folks like Steven my whole life; the world is full of them. You are very much like Steven, but -- on occasion -- seem to have breakthroughs into understanding. I guess that makes you a savant? :-) As but one example of the phenomenon that plagues guys like Steven, he did not understand that my phrase about "having flown into Oshkosh, I knew we had plenty of room" meant that we had damned little spacing between us, in the normal world of controlled airspace. Any Oshkosh- experienced pilot would have immediately understood that subtle remark, and pilots with any knowledge of Oshkosh arrival procedures might have picked up on it as well. Without understanding this nuanced prose, Steven launched into a diatribe about how "You said you had plenty of room." It's simply not in him to understand this sort of thing, because he's neither experienced enough as a pilot, nor is he capable of anything but linear thought. Colored prose and creative writing are anathema to guys like Steven, because it "clouds the issue" for them. If it's not in black and white, it's wrong. That's why guys like him are so good at quoting chapter and verse of the rules. The codification becomes an end in itself, lending structure and meaning to their lives, without which nothing makes sense. This trait probably makes him a good controller, by the way. In the end, though, I believe this is why Steven continually butts heads with many of us here. Pilots tend to be non-linear thinkers. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jay Honeck wrote:
The issue of reacting to implied, as opposed to stated, prose is that the reader has no positive way of knowing if his own subjective inference is that intended by the author. While it such may be marginally useful in affairs of the heart, they have little place in aviation, IMO. I have dealt with folks like Steven my whole life; the world is full of them. You are very much like Steven, but -- on occasion -- seem to have breakthroughs into understanding. I guess that makes you a savant? :-) As but one example of the phenomenon that plagues guys like Steven, he did not understand that my phrase about "having flown into Oshkosh, I knew we had plenty of room" meant that we had damned little spacing between us, in the normal world of controlled airspace. Any Oshkosh- experienced pilot would have immediately understood that subtle remark, and pilots with any knowledge of Oshkosh arrival procedures might have picked up on it as well. Without understanding this nuanced prose, Steven launched into a diatribe about how "You said you had plenty of room." It's simply not in him to understand this sort of thing, because he's neither experienced enough as a pilot, nor is he capable of anything but linear thought. Colored prose and creative writing are anathema to guys like Steven, because it "clouds the issue" for them. If it's not in black and white, it's wrong. That's why guys like him are so good at quoting chapter and verse of the rules. The codification becomes an end in itself, lending structure and meaning to their lives, without which nothing makes sense. This trait probably makes him a good controller, by the way. In the end, though, I believe this is why Steven continually butts heads with many of us here. Pilots tend to be non-linear thinkers. The guy reminds me of a cartoon I saw once. Picture two guys in a sailboat about 6 feet long and an aircraft carrier is bearing down on them full steam. One guy says to the other, "Don't worry, we have the right of way." For the boating impaired, change the sailboat to sailplane and the aircraft carrier to 747. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jay Honeck" wrote in message oups.com... As but one example of the phenomenon that plagues guys like Steven, he did not understand that my phrase about "having flown into Oshkosh, I knew we had plenty of room" meant that we had damned little spacing between us, in the normal world of controlled airspace. Any Oshkosh- experienced pilot would have immediately understood that subtle remark, and pilots with any knowledge of Oshkosh arrival procedures might have picked up on it as well. Without understanding this nuanced prose, Steven launched into a diatribe about how "You said you had plenty of room." It's simply not in him to understand this sort of thing, because he's neither experienced enough as a pilot, nor is he capable of anything but linear thought. Colored prose and creative writing are anathema to guys like Steven, because it "clouds the issue" for them. If it's not in black and white, it's wrong. That's why guys like him are so good at quoting chapter and verse of the rules. The codification becomes an end in itself, lending structure and meaning to their lives, without which nothing makes sense. This trait probably makes him a good controller, by the way. In the end, though, I believe this is why Steven continually butts heads with many of us here. Pilots tend to be non-linear thinkers. Ahh, so it's all a misunderstanding, caused by my inability to understand nuanced prose, a result of my linear thinking. What a load of crap. Jay, you said you had plenty of room when you said you were 1/2 mile out when the 172 touched down 1500 feet from the threshold. Minimum separation in the "normal world of controlled airspace" is 3000 feet, Oshkosh has nothing to do with it. If you're uncomfortable with minimum separation just tell the controller you'd like more room. I'm sure he'll happily accommodate you, but you'll probably have to wait for the more experienced pilots to land first. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
If you're uncomfortable with minimum separation just
tell the controller you'd like more room. I'm sure he'll happily accommodate you, but you'll probably have to wait for the more experienced pilots to land first. You know, for a linear thinker, you can't seem to keep on the track with your train of thought. The controller told ME to go around, remember? I would have landed behind the student pilot ahead of me -- or over him, if need be -- if the controller hadn't given the order to go around. Obviously by sending me around the controller was admitting his failure to maintain what he judged to be proper spacing between us. This situation had nothing to do with my comfort, and everything to do with a Class D'oh! controller who was looking through the wrong end of his binoculars. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jay Honeck wrote [about operations at uncontrolled fields]
These are probably the same guys who come blasting into a full pattern on a long straight-in approach, expecting everyone else to move aside because they're "charter captains". Does this happen often at Class-D airports? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
These are probably the same guys who come blasting into a full pattern
on a long straight-in approach, expecting everyone else to move aside because they're "charter captains". Does this happen often at Class-D airports? Worse. At Class D they report that they're on a 3-mile final, when they're still 10 miles out... :-) -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Round Engines | john smith | Piloting | 20 | February 15th 07 03:31 AM |
induced airflow | buttman | Piloting | 3 | February 19th 06 04:36 AM |
Round Engines | Voxpopuli | Naval Aviation | 16 | May 31st 05 06:48 PM |
Source of Induced Drag | Ken Kochanski | Soaring | 2 | January 10th 04 12:18 AM |
Predicting ground effects on induced power | Marc Shorten | Soaring | 0 | October 28th 03 11:18 AM |