TRSA and /X

I didn't realize my question implied that. [...]
You're obviously reading things into messages that are not there.
I don't know why some people insist on doing that.

That explains a lot. You are too helpful on the group to be consistant
with a rude personality, but your posts sometimes come off that way. I
suspect it may be because you tend to post the minimum information
possible that responds to a point, and that point is often taken out of
context, so what you post may be true, but frustratingly just miss the
mark as far as the discussion goes. (The sky is blue. No, it's cloudy.
No, it's blue.) (one talking about light scattering, the other talking
about the weather conditions)

I thought Ron's statement,
"although there's almost always a class D tower in the middle of a TRSA",
suggested he knew of at least one TRSA that did not have Class D airspace
at it's center.

I take "almost always" as implying that he =doesn't= know that there is
none (although it is consistant with his knowing that there is at least
one).

How would I phrase an interrogative to clarify that without
implying there isn't any TRSA without Class D airspace, and more to the
point, that Ron should know this, Steven does, nyah nyah nyah?

You could prepend "Just curious..." for example. That implies that you
don't know and would like to.

Gee, I thought it was pretty neutral. It's a pretty simple yes or no
question. [...]
You're obviously reading things into messages that are not there.
I don't know why some people insist on doing that.

Yes, you are right. It is neutral at face value. However, questions in
a thread are in a context, and when a thread becomes nitpicky, it tends
to take on a slightly combative feel. (I'm right - no you're wrong -
yes I'm right...) and that influences whether a question is then
interpreted at face value.

I've learned a lot from your posts, often when you are slicing hairs.
But supplying a bit more background information (as you sometimes do) or
context (as it sometimes changes in a discussion) will make it clearer
which hair you are slicing, and confusion over which hair is under the
chopper can lead to more acrimony than clarity.

Thanks for asking, I hope this is helpful.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain."
(chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..

That explains a lot. You are too helpful on the group to be consistant
with a rude personality, but your posts sometimes come off that way.

Because you're reading things into my messages that are not there.



You could prepend "Just curious..." for example. That implies that you
don't know and would like to.


I think asking if he knows of any implies that I don't know and would like
to.



Yes, you are right. It is neutral at face value.


Yes, you should take it at face value.

I think asking if he knows of any implies that I don't know and would like
to.

It can also come off as a challenge, which is offputting.

I do try to take all you say solely at face value. But much of verbal
communication occurs outside the words. This is how misunderstandings
happen, and is the driving force of statesmanship and politics, sales
and advertising, puns and humor, love and poetry, frustrates good
language translation, and is also the font of endless riches for lawyers.

You would probably appreciate Doug Hofstadter's book "Metamagical
Themas: questing for the essecnce of mind and pattern", which has quite
a few chapters that deal with the duality of pattern and ground in
language. I highly reccomend it (and all of Hofstadter's books
actually), and think you especially will enjoy his musings.

Some people just have a harder time with this than others. If you don't
see it, I can't show it to you, but I assure you it's there.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain."
(chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..

It can also come off as a challenge, which is offputting.


Only if you read things into it.



I do try to take all you say solely at face value.

You obviously didn't do that here.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote

Only if you read things into it.

You obviously didn't do that here.

I'll put this bluntly, so you don't have to worry about reading anything
into it.

Why do you have to be such an ass all of the time?
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

I'll put this bluntly, so you don't have to worry about reading anything
into it.

Why do you have to be such an ass all of the time?


In what way do you feel I'm being an ass?

"Scott Migaldi" wrote in message
...

Plain language: Because they do not have the trafic load required to be
Class C but much more traffic than what is being loaded into the class D
airports.

Has nothing to do with traffic levels. We were a TRSA here at BIL and
went right into class C when that all happened across the country. A
very few just stayed TRSA's. Class D is never an option for a facility
with a radar approach control.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
news
TRSAs can and do exist in Class G airspace.



Which TRSAs exist in Class G airspace?

RME (Griffis NY) is an airport in Class G airspace (ceiling 700ft). An
overlying TRSA goes down to the surface at this airport. (Another
nearby airport is in Class D airspace, which also has the TRSA going
down to the surface).

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
news
TRSAs also exist in Class G airspace as well.



Which TRSAs exist in Class G airspace?

You asked this question in another post, but the TRSA at RME airport is
in Class G airspace below 700 feet agl.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Dave S" wrote in message
nk.net...

I have yet to see a TRSA encompass class G airspace (other than the
presumption that ground to 700 feet is included) but from a logical
standpoint it seems counterintuitive to provide "control" to traffic in
"uncontrolled" airspace.



The only place TRSAs reach the surface is within the core Class D surface
area. The outer boundary of a TRSA does not extend below the base altitude
of Class E airspace.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2B843C3B

Please take a look at KRME on a sectional chart and compare what you see
to your statement above. The TRSA is charted as descending to the
surface in the immediate vicinity of KRME, which is Class G airspace
below 700'. A nearby airport has Class D airspace, however RME is not
in (or under) the class D airspace.