A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Is every touchdown a stall?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #25  
Old October 2nd 06, 07:58 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 774
Default 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


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.