Did I miss the Era of GA?

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Larry Dighera writes:

If you require the reflection of another person to validate your
aviation experience, you aren't doing it right.

The law requires it, unfortunately.

The joy of dwelling in the third dimension and beholding the sights
from a lofty vantage point, not to mention the utility of aviation as
a mode of transport, are the true reasons for becoming a pilot.

Best not to mention the utility of aviation as a mode of transport, at
least with respect to small GA aircraft.

Again, clueless beyond belief..


Bertie

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:55:12 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:



Thirst is a reliable indicator of dehydration.

Yes.

An absence
of thirst is a reliable indicator of proper hydration.

No.


While it appears to be true that by the time you experience thirst you are
dehydrated, there appears to be some physiologic lag time after other
dehydration symptoms have occurred but before thirst kicks in.

Only in extraordinarily acute dehydration, which is not a type of dehydration
that occurs when flying an aircraft.

Check out the three articles below. The third one is more technical
and explains the delay between dehydration and thirst.

From personal experience: I used to live in humid areas (Europe and
East Coast of the US) and never felt any simptomps of dehydration
there besides thirst. Now I spend most of my time in the West and
Southwest US and sometimes have a particular headache that goes away
immediately after drinking some fluids. This is more likely to happen
when the air is dry and especially if I'm at higher elevation, e.g.
while flying. I do not experience thirst, the headache is my first
indicator of dehydration.

More knowledgeable people wrote this:
http://sportsmedicine.about.com/cs/h...n/a/022504.htm
http://www.detrick.army.mil/tenants/ih/ehhot.cfm
http://www.water.org.uk/home/water-f...ts/dehydration

- Tom

Tom L. writes:

Check out the three articles below. The third one is more technical
and explains the delay between dehydration and thirst.

Sports and the military have nothing to do with aviation. I've already
explained the distinction of acute dehydration; but that does not occur in
pilots, as a general rule.

Additionally, of the three references, only one is even moderately trustworthy
(the Army link), and even that must be taken with a grain of salt. Anyone can
write for About.com or a random association. And one cannot be sure who is
writing for the Army, unfortunately.

Finally, these references don't even support your assertions to begin with.

From personal experience: I used to live in humid areas (Europe and
East Coast of the US) and never felt any simptomps of dehydration
there besides thirst.

That's because you were not significantly dehydrated. Thirst is one of the
earliest and most reliable indicators.

Now I spend most of my time in the West and
Southwest US and sometimes have a particular headache that goes away
immediately after drinking some fluids. This is more likely to happen
when the air is dry and especially if I'm at higher elevation, e.g.
while flying. I do not experience thirst, the headache is my first
indicator of dehydration.

You may be better hydrated than you are when thirsty.

Dehydration is extremely difficult to quantify. Whenever anyone says that you
are 1.5 litres low or anything as specific as that, you can usually assume
that he doesn't know what he's talking about. It's pretty much impossible to
prove that someone is properly hydrated or mildly dehydrated; only severe
dehydration produces unambiguous clinical signs.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:35:26 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote in
:


Bwawhahhwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhhahwhah!

I have a six month old puppy downstairs that knows more than you about
aviation!



bertie


While I may sympathize with your sentiment, I find the "CB" ambiance
of your attack posts repugnant, and unbecoming an airman. Show a
little dignity, man. Please.

Or better yet, take it to e-mail, so that it doesn't reflect poorly on
the face the participants of this newsgroup show the world.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:35:26 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote in
:


Bwawhahhwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhhahwhah!

I have a six month old puppy downstairs that knows more than you about
aviation!



bertie



While I may sympathize with your sentiment, I find the "CB" ambiance
of your attack posts repugnant, and unbecoming an airman. Show a
little dignity, man. Please.

Or better yet, take it to e-mail, so that it doesn't reflect poorly on
the face the participants of this newsgroup show the world.

There are a gazillion newsgroups, the world doesn't see any of it. Fire
for effect.

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:35:26 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote in
:


Bwawhahhwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhhahwhah!

I have a six month old puppy downstairs that knows more than you about
aviation!



bertie


While I may sympathize with your sentiment, I find the "CB" ambiance
of your attack posts repugnant, and unbecoming an airman. Show a
little dignity, man. Please.

Or better yet, take it to e-mail, so that it doesn't reflect poorly on
the face the participants of this newsgroup show the world.


Not gonna happen Larry..

Bertie

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:34:06 -0600, Newps wrote
in :

There are a gazillion newsgroups,

Well, a few tens of thousands any way.

the world doesn't see any of it.

Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but upon what do you base that
opinion?

Larry Dighera wrote:

the world doesn't see any of it.


Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but upon what do you base that
opinion?



There's maybe 50 people here. Even if there are several times that that
never post, highly unlikely, this group, as any group, is irrelavant.

Newps wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote:

the world doesn't see any of it.


Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but upon what do you base that
opinion?

There's maybe 50 people here. Even if there are several times that that
never post, highly unlikely, this group, as any group, is irrelavant.

Your estimate is _way_ low. According to this site:

http://netscan.research.microsoft.com/ReportCard.aspx

there were 850 distinct posters to this group so far this year. And there
were 2264 distinct posters to this group in 2006. It would take an awful
lot of duplicate handles to reduce the count of distinct people to the 50
range.

And Google Groups alone counts 1088 people subscribed to the group via its
interface to Usenet:

http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?...23723&expand=1

And the count of lurkers who only read is unknown - though I've heard
ratios of anywhere from about 5-to-1 to 50-to-1 for other groups where
someone tried to make estimates (presumably by running stats on NNTP
traffic or in the old days, maybe via root scans of people's .newsrc?)

In fact it should be possible to get a ballpark estimate of the lurker-to-
active ratio by counting the number of distinct posters who posted from
google.com and dividing the 1088 number by that count.

Therefore it seems reasonable to claim that there are several thousand
people who read this newsgroup. It might even reach into the ten thousand
range.

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:53:03 -0600, Newps wrote
in :



Larry Dighera wrote:

the world doesn't see any of it.


Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but upon what do you base that
opinion?



There's maybe 50 people here. Even if there are several times that that
never post, highly unlikely, this group, as any group, is irrelavant.

Irrelevant to whom?

The newsgroup is as relevant as the information, and to some extent
opinion, contributed. Or do you mean to imply that you consider the
newsgroup irrelevant due to minimal public exposure to its content,
perhaps more properly termed insignificant?

I would expect it reasonable to guess that 90% or the readership of
rec.aviation.piloting are solely readers, and don't post articles. 500
still isn't a large number of participants in this forum. But when
you consider that it's gatewayed via http to many more web sites on
the WWW, and further consider the fact that all the content of the
newsgroup is archived on-line for decades, what gets posted to
rec.aviation.piloting sees considerably more exposure over the years
than you might expect.

You're a regular contributor to rec.aviation.piloting. Google your
posting alias, and see how many hits you get (Results 1 - 100 of about
31,500 for newps. (0.26 seconds) . Then report back.