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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
While possibly a fair assumption, "GA" isn't mentioned in either my post or
the original post. "Dale" wrote in message ... In article , "Bill Denton" wrote: Everybody talking about "looking at the wings" needs to rethink their advice. You can see an entire airplane much farther away than you can distinguish the wings. If he's so far away that you can't determine what he's doing it's likely the other traffic isn't a factor...at least not at the speeds of most GA aircraft. Rely on relative motion. If the dot isn't moving relative to your viewpoint, you're on a collision course. -- Dale L. Falk There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing as simply messing around with airplanes. http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Denton wrote: Reread my post; I wasn't discussing turn-signals. The post to which you were replying asked why we don't have turn signals on planes. That's the entire point of the discussion. So, yes, you WERE discussing turn signals. George Patterson Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would not yield to the tongue. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
No, I was replying to your first post and the one from Paul Tomblin, both of
which were discussing the position of the wings, and neither of which discussed turn signals other than in reference to the original post. "G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ... Bill Denton wrote: Reread my post; I wasn't discussing turn-signals. The post to which you were replying asked why we don't have turn signals on planes. That's the entire point of the discussion. So, yes, you WERE discussing turn signals. George Patterson Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would not yield to the tongue. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Denton wrote: No, I was replying to your first post and the one from Paul Tomblin, both of which were discussing the position of the wings, and neither of which discussed turn signals other than in reference to the original post. Then you can't read. From my post Why do light aircraft do not have turning indicators? 'Cause they don't need them. I went on to say that that's because you can see the wings tilt, indicating a turn. Just remember - left wing goes down, probably turning left. Right wing goes down, probably turning right. George Patterson Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would not yield to the tongue. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
As I stated: "neither of which discussed turn signals other than in
reference to the original post". As I stated in my original post: "Everybody talking about "looking at the wings" needs to rethink their advice". I think that makes it pretty clear what I am responding to. If you want to play these silly-ass games for the rest of the day, knock yourself out. I've seen you do it before. I long ago determined that you are one of those people who will "argue with a fence post", as we say in the South. So, do whatever you wish; my posts are there and I think everyone here is quite able to understand them, though some may choose not to do so. "G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ... Bill Denton wrote: No, I was replying to your first post and the one from Paul Tomblin, both of which were discussing the position of the wings, and neither of which discussed turn signals other than in reference to the original post. Then you can't read. From my post Why do light aircraft do not have turning indicators? 'Cause they don't need them. I went on to say that that's because you can see the wings tilt, indicating a turn. Just remember - left wing goes down, probably turning left. Right wing goes down, probably turning right. George Patterson Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would not yield to the tongue. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
... Rely on relative motion. If the dot isn't moving relative to your viewpoint, you're on a collision course. Not necessarily. The dot could be moving directly away from you. That's still a collision course. It will just take a lot longer (and a lot more fuel) for you to eventually collide). You'll either catch up, or the other aircraft will eventually fly all the way around the world and catch up with you. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Dale" wrote in message ... In article , "Bill Denton" wrote: Everybody talking about "looking at the wings" needs to rethink their advice. You can see an entire airplane much farther away than you can distinguish the wings. If he's so far away that you can't determine what he's doing it's likely the other traffic isn't a factor...at least not at the speeds of most GA aircraft. Rely on relative motion. If the dot isn't moving relative to your viewpoint, you're on a collision course. Only if the dot gets bigger. -- Dale L. Falk There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing as simply messing around with airplanes. http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Denton" wrote in message ... While possibly a fair assumption, "GA" isn't mentioned in either my post or the original post. The original post said _light_ aircraft and see and avoid type flight. Doubt he was talking about 747s on parade into or out of ORD. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Denton wrote:
You can see an entire airplane much farther away than you can distinguish the wings. So? The OP asked about turn signals. Wings may not be visible from infinite distance, but they work better than the turn signals proposed by the OP. If you've a better suggestion, let's hear it. If not, then the advice given about wings serving the same purpose at a greater distance remains the best answer to the OP's "why no turn signals" question. The headings of both yours and the other aircraft affect your ability to distinguish the wings. True, but that's known and useful. For example, I saw an airplane today with the wings "missing". But that told me where they were (directly before and after the plane in my line of sight), and that told me the plane's attitude. This would also be true about turn signals too, BTW, but without the same utility of the lack of visibility. For example, if I cannot see the signal on the far side, I cannot deduce whether or not it is on. - Andrew |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|