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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |