Why so many abbreviations in NOTAMs, etc.?

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jon writes:

Does a G1000 deal with processing NOTAMs or NOTAM contractions?

A G1000 is an operational system, one that doesn't seem to have been
as rigorously tested as other operational systems (such as some ATC
systems). I was asking why the standards seem to vary. Perhaps the
G1000 is sexy and changes to NOTAM wording are not.


Do you have one cite to support this thing you have against the G-1000
system other than the single problem that was brought up here about the one
on the ferry flight?

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

However people in the real world also understand that general phrases
have contextual meaning, i.e. the the precise meaning for "operational
system" is going to depend on the context within which it was used.

I understood it the same way in context.

Then why post what you did other than to be contentious?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
Jon writes:

Does a G1000 deal with processing NOTAMs or NOTAM contractions?

A G1000 is an operational system, one that doesn't seem to have been as
rigorously tested as other operational systems (such as some ATC systems). I
was asking why the standards seem to vary. Perhaps the G1000 is sexy and
changes to NOTAM wording are not.

So is my neighor's new washing machine which he had to have repaired
eight times now, but neither it nor G1000's have crap to do with the
subject or context of the discussion.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

So is my neighor's new washing machine which he had to have repaired
eight times now, but neither it nor G1000's have crap to do with the
subject or context of the discussion.

A washing machine isn't likely to kill you if it fails.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
writes:

So is my neighor's new washing machine which he had to have repaired
eight times now, but neither it nor G1000's have crap to do with the
subject or context of the discussion.

A washing machine isn't likely to kill you if it fails.


And that's off topic as well. You just don't get it, do you dufis?

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

So is my neighor's new washing machine which he had to have repaired
eight times now, but neither it nor G1000's have crap to do with the
subject or context of the discussion.

A washing machine isn't likely to kill you if it fails.

Once again a true, but utterly irrelevant statement.

If a G1000 fails, it isn't "likely to kill you" either.

Now, if you want to push your nonsense to the extreme, people have
in fact been electrocuted by washing machines where the frame
ground has failed.

And, once again, neither it nor G1000's have crap to do with the subject
or context of the discussion.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

So is my neighor's new washing machine which he had to have repaired
eight times now, but neither it nor G1000's have crap to do with the
subject or context of the discussion.

A washing machine isn't likely to kill you if it fails.


That what you use for motion these days? Vroom vroom!


Bertie

I can't think of any situation today in which bandwidth
would be so severely limited that saving a letter or two would make a
difference,

METARs by cell phone text message service would be quite unwieldy if
they were not abbreviated, and imagine if some yahoo decides that HTML
format is the "modern" way to go.

Or menu generated Java. Proprietary, of course... :-(