Unnecessary verbiage or sensible redundancy?

On 01 Sep 2004 11:31:57 GMT, (Jay Masino)
wrote:

One thing would be the often used practice of resetting your DG when you
pull onto the runway. Presently, the runway heading is the magnetic
heading rounded to the NEAREST 10th.

Jay, my airport is a rather lumpy, 250-foot wide, 2,500=foot long
refined pasture. I doubt anyone has ever reset his gyro on it

(But the other runway I mentioned is indeed asphalt, 50 feet wide, and
your point is well taken. I didn't think of that. No gyro in the Cub!)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

I work at a flight school and asked the question there.

The unanimous answer was "no zero", with the addendum that if your concern is
confusion at Runways 2/20, adding a zero to Runway 2 may *increase* the risk of
confusion since hearing a zero at all could mislead a person to think it's
Runway 2-0 (there's no zero in Runway 2). Without the zero preceding Runway
Two, there's no mistaking it and no chance of transposing numbers because one
is a single-digit and the other isn't.

No substitute for button/speak technique, timely and concise
self-announcements, listening carefully and ASKING if there's uncertainty. Goes
w/o saying, yes?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

I'm sure that everyone could see that if you would explain why that's so.
But you have not done that.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, let me try it another way with
a question for you. To avoid the confusing baggage that might have
blurred the discussion, take this as the situation. You are approaching
a single-runway uncontrolled airport, aligned 2-20. You hear a
radio call from another pilot. There's no reason to suppose him to be
dyslexic, disingenuous, or transmitting on the frequency of a nearby
airport accidentally. In short, just an ordinary situation that happens
to us all the time. Two situations.

1) You hear "Arrakeen traffic, Cessna xx, downwind, two"

2) You hear "Arrakeen traffic, Cessna xx, downwind, zero"

You suppress your immediate instinct to harangue him for
using improper radio terminology. Based on these calls
alone, what do you suppose the other pilot is up to? What
would you think he was up to if the winds were out of the
north?

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
ink.net...

At the risk of beating a dead horse, let me try it another way with
a question for you. To avoid the confusing baggage that might have
blurred the discussion, take this as the situation. You are approaching
a single-runway uncontrolled airport, aligned 2-20. You hear a
radio call from another pilot. There's no reason to suppose him to be
dyslexic, disingenuous, or transmitting on the frequency of a nearby
airport accidentally. In short, just an ordinary situation that happens
to us all the time. Two situations.

1) You hear "Arrakeen traffic, Cessna xx, downwind, two"

2) You hear "Arrakeen traffic, Cessna xx, downwind, zero"

You suppress your immediate instinct to harangue him for
using improper radio terminology. Based on these calls
alone, what do you suppose the other pilot is up to? What
would you think he was up to if the winds were out of the
north?


Whether or not I harangue him for using improper phraseology it's still
improper phraseology. Please restate your question using examples with
proper phraseology.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Tony Cox" wrote in message
.net...

You really don't need to take my word for it. Go see what NIST
has to say. http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/cyclic...ancyCheck.html

I saw what NIST has to say. So?

Then you'll have noticed the statement "Many transmission errors
may be detected, and some corrected" in their description of the
algorithm, right?

Just because someone wrote it, that doesn't make it true.

Indeed, but this is the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
not some random collection of net kooks. Say, why don't you write
them and tell them they are wrong, eh?


Well, here's a tutorial which claims (I've not followed their proof) to
show how to use CRC's to correct burst transmission errors.

Did you read the tutorial? I was unable to read it completely, because
all
of the embedded items are of a type that doesn't display on my computer.

I couldn't get it to display either, but I put that down to my ancient
web browser. Look, it's not my job to tutor people in coding
theory. Go search the web yourself if you're interested.

For a CRC to be useful in *correcting* erroneous data, it needs to contain
as much information as was lost in the first place. In the example you're
talking about, where the error is limited to a certain area of the data,
you'll find that the CRC itself contains essentially the same information
that was lost.

No ****, Einstein. Say, you don't suppose that might be how
that corrupted data can get reconstructed do you?

But wait. You started by vehemently denying that CRC's
provided error correction; now you're saying they can. Guess
you must get a buzz from pointlessly arguing with people. Sorry
Pete, but it doesn't do a thing for me so I'll stop..

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
ink.net...

At the risk of beating a dead horse, let me try it another way with
a question for you. To avoid the confusing baggage that might have
blurred the discussion, take this as the situation. You are approaching
a single-runway uncontrolled airport, aligned 2-20. You hear a
radio call from another pilot. There's no reason to suppose him to be
dyslexic, disingenuous, or transmitting on the frequency of a nearby
airport accidentally. In short, just an ordinary situation that happens
to us all the time. Two situations.

1) You hear "Arrakeen traffic, Cessna xx, downwind, two"

2) You hear "Arrakeen traffic, Cessna xx, downwind, zero"

You suppress your immediate instinct to harangue him for
using improper radio terminology. Based on these calls
alone, what do you suppose the other pilot is up to? What
would you think he was up to if the winds were out of the
north?


Whether or not I harangue him for using improper phraseology it's still
improper phraseology. Please restate your question using examples with
proper phraseology.

Well, that would be a different question, now wouldn't it?
Try answering the question I've posed & you'll see what I'm
talking about.

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
ink.net...

Whether or not I harangue him for using improper phraseology it's still
improper phraseology. Please restate your question using examples with
proper phraseology.


Well, that would be a different question, now wouldn't it?
Try answering the question I've posed & you'll see what I'm
talking about.


Try it my way and perhaps you'll see the folly of your position.

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
ink.net...
Whether or not I harangue him for using improper phraseology it's still
improper phraseology. Please restate your question using examples with
proper phraseology.

Well, that would be a different question, now wouldn't it?

How can you argue to change standard phraseology, and yet and the same time
postulate a person not using standard phraseology for the purpose of
defending your position?

"XMnushaL8y" wrote in message
...
[...]
No substitute for button/speak technique, timely and concise
self-announcements, listening carefully and ASKING if there's uncertainty.
Goes w/o saying, yes?

I would've thought so, but apparently there are those who disagree.

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
ink.net...
Indeed, but this is the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
not some random collection of net kooks.

The quote itself is not from NIST. They simply provide the web site on
which it's contained.

In any case, not even the NIST is infalliable.

Say, why don't you write them and tell them they are wrong, eh?

Because I couldn't care less what they publish on their web site.

I couldn't get it to display either, but I put that down to my ancient
web browser. Look, it's not my job to tutor people in coding
theory. Go search the web yourself if you're interested.

You can either try to prove what you said is true, or not. That's your
choice. But don't expect people to just sit around while you make false
statements and just keep quiet.

No ****, Einstein. Say, you don't suppose that might be how
that corrupted data can get reconstructed do you?

Getting a little touchy, are you?

But wait. You started by vehemently denying that CRC's
provided error correction; now you're saying they can.

What I said is that CRCs are no different than parity checks. And they are
not, not fundamentally.

Of course, you can always add redundancy so that errors can be corrected
rather than requiring data to be resent/reread/whatever. But just because a
CRC can ALSO be made into a redundant data set, that does not make the CRC
inherently about error correction.

Your statement is like saying that, because Microsoft Word has an
HTML-output feature, all word processors are HTML editors. You are
confusing an added feature with the fundamental nature of something.

Guess you must get a buzz from pointlessly arguing with people.

Buzz? Uh, right. What I get is the urge to contest false information,
whenever and wherever I see it. When you stop posting false information,
I'll stop arguing with you.

Sorry Pete, but it doesn't do a thing for me so I'll stop..

You might as well.

Pete