Follow up Alright, All You Dashing, Swaggering Bush Pilots

at least your hero BWB
posts under his own name and is a known quantity to the members of the
group.
----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-

You don't think pacplyer is BWB's sock puppet? Hummmmm
--
Jim in NC

"Eric Miller" wrote in message .net...
"Corrie" wrote
"Eric Miller" wrote
The difference is, I started the investigation with the premise, "It
may have happened." You start with, "It did not happen." As you so
ably pointed out, your beginning assumptions have a great deal of
influence on your conclusions. In this case, your initial assumption
prevents you from reaching any conclusion other that your initial
premise. I'm still stunned that you don't see this.

There's no difference between our starting positions, I'm not unconvincible,
just unconvinced.

There is a huge difference. Subtle, but huge. I assume that the
resurrection MAY have happened - let's see whether there is any
plausible non-supernatural explanation. You assume that it DID NOT
happen unless "proven" oherwise.

Our only difference is our standards for evidence and proof. Mine are
reasonable and yours are ludicrous

Funny, I see it as QUITE the other way around. ;p


If you said you accept it on faith, that'd be fine and I'd let it go, but to
say there's proof is just silly.

I never said there was proof. There isn't and can't be proof,
oherwise there would be no need for faith. Faith is another word for
trust. God wants us to trust him. He didn't build robots that have
no choice. He gave us free will and wants us to exercise it to trust
him.

So there isn't proof, but there is evidence, a preponderance of
evidence IMO. The evidence is sufficient to convince this skeptical
inquirer that it is more likely than not that the resurrection did in
fact occur. It is the most plausible explanation that fits the facts.
Facts which include solid historical/documentary evidence that a LOT
of people claimed to have seen and interacted with the risen Jesus.

If a teacher is trying convey geometry to teach a student who doesn't
get
it, and asks the question "what will make you understand this?", a
response
of "I don't know" doesn't mean the student is unteachable or
uncooperative
(or that you're right ;p).
At some point the student will get it and only then will they be able to
identify what made them understand.

Your example doesn't examp. This isn't a geometry lesson.

How can you possibly say this isn't an accurate parallel?

Well, maybe it is, at that. I remember my high-school geometry,
staring dumbfunded at the blackboard while the teacher assured us that
this set of symbols proved thus-and-such theorem. The proof was
correct, even though I didn't comprehend it. So I suppose the example
DOES examp after all!

There's nothing wrong with an answer of "I don't know".
It takes a wise man to say "I don't know".
Only a fool says he knows when he doesn't... or doesn't know what he doesn't
know in the first place.


Oohh, are we going to get into epistimology?
How-do-you-know-what-you-know, what is knowledge, all that good stuff?
Careful with that can opener, Eugene! That aside, you *aren't*
saying that you don't know. You're saying that you *do* know: "The
resurrection did not happen unless you prove that it did."

I'm the fellow saying that I don't know: "Maybe the resurrection
really happened, maybe it didn't. Let's investigate the evidence and
the hypotheses."


Sufficient proof is what will convince me. By definition, if something
doesn't, it's insufficient.
I may or may not know what "sufficient" is in advance. In this case, I can't
even imagine it.


Still sounds like a cop-out to me. :-P


If you can't define "extraordinary evidence," that sentence has no
meaning.

Extraordinary evidence means demonstrably and repeatable.
Not really that extraordinary, unless you're claiming something that isn't
true, and then it's not just extraordinary, it's impossible!
If something isn't demonstrable and repeatable, it's useless.
If the Wright Brothers' powered flight couldn't be demonstrated and
repeated, it would've been of interest to no one and long since been
forgotten.

You're mixing apples and oranges. We're not talking about a
technology demonstration, we're talking about a singular historical
event.

If a magician produced a rabbit out of hat, would you believe he conjured it
out of thin air?
What if he only did it once and refused to do it again so you could watch
and examine his movements more closely?
What if the only time he did it was 2000 years ago?
What if the only witnesses were illiterate peasant-folk?
What if they told the story about the magician, back and forth, over the
next 50 years, and it grew with each retelling, until finally it was heard
by someone that knew how to write who then put pen to paper?
What if?

You seem to be making the "legendary accretion" argument. Doesn't
work. The time interval between the reported date of the resurrection
and the earliest collection is too short for "golly we sure miss
Jesus" to become "I saw Jesus alive again - and so did Jerry over
there!" Not all the witnesses were illiterate peasants. Jesus'
followers were from all walks of life. He had very few friends among
the Pharisees, but even on the Sanhedrin he had some supporters.


I can accept mundane specific events that don't violate the laws of physics.

If an observation conflicts with our understanding of how the world
works, then either the observation or our understanding may be in
error. You're assuming that your undertanding of the way things work
is accurate. Two hundred years ago, it was believed that a human
being would die if he traveled at more than 25 miles per hour. A
hundred and ten years ago, it was believed that heavier-than-air
flight violated the laws of physics. Seventy years ago, it was widely
believed that supersonic flight was impossible. Fifty years ago, the
thought of living in space was the stuff of fantasy.

Today, laboratory observations of quantum synchronicity phenomena
appear to violate the laws of physics. Does that mean that the
observations are erroneous, or that the "laws of physics" need to be
revised?

Now, I already know that you're going to counter with the "but those
are repeatable experiments." But they are repeatable only if you're
willing to use the tools. If I refuse to believe the evidence of an
airspeed indicator, then you can never convince me that Yeager broke
Mach 1. It's like the "Apollo was faked" crowd. They reject or
reinterpret every piece of evidence there is. What will it take to
convince them of the truth? They don't know and they can't say. :-D

Concepts of reality change. My view of what is possible is simply
larger than yours. Prayer works. But you have to actually PRAY to
find that out.

BTW, have you ever read "Flatland"? It's a very good metaphor for
what we're talking about. There's a whole race of beings that exist
in two dimensions. The all live on a flat plane called "Flatland."
One day a sphere passes through. The Flatlanders see it as a dot that
grows into a circle, expands, and finally shrinks back to a dot and
vanishes. Some Flatlanders perceive this phenomenon as evidence of
the 3rd dimension. Skeptics argue that the third dimension simply
does not exist. They've never personally experienced it, don't trust
eyewitnesses who saw the circle, and have no use for such silly
superstitions.


Try these mundane events, also drawn from historical documents: An
itenerant preacher draws large crowds - no problem believing that, I
presume? Happens even today. He repeatedly accuses the local leaders
of hypocrisy. He's arrested as a troublemaker and tried with false
witnesses in a kangaroo court - still all very believable, right?
He's sentenced to be tortured and executed by a particular method
known to scholars to have been used in that time and place. He dies,
and the death is verified by the executioner. His body is placed in a
hole carved in the side of a hill, and his followers are sad and
afraid.

So far, there's absolutely nothing that you would take issue with,
right? Very believable. Simulatable, even.

I have no problem with a historical Messiah. In fact, there have been
several dozen purported messiahs since the first century BCE.
Notably, Muhammad clearly stated he was NOT a messiah, perhaps because
messiahs tended to meet untimely ends.


None of them ever claimed to have risen from the dead.


And then the narrative ends with a remarkable thing - the followers
return to the tomb a day later and find it empty. How to explain
that? Oh, there're plenty of possibilities. But now other
contemporary ancient texts pick up the thread, with the utterly
startling assertion that the dead guy came back to life and was seen
my lots of people.

Now we have a real problem, because the same texts that contain this
fantastic tale also contain these utterly mundane observations. And
the literary styles of the day don't include fiction that reads like
this. There's fiction, but it's very different. This stuff really
reads like authentic eyewitness accounts. You can't just dismiss it -
you have to account for it somehow.

I don't HAVE to do anything.


There you go again, copping out and avoiding the issue.


Fortunately, there's no need to, because I suspect human nature has changed
very little over 2000 years.
People are just as poor observers, just as gullible, just as superstitious
and just as willing to believe what they want to believe today.

That's not an argument based on the evidence. That's merely a slur
directed at people of a different culture. A thousand years from now,
people will look back at us as hopelessly backwards, gullible, etc.
(Remember Star Trek's Dr. MCoy's reaction to the idea of surgery?
"Cutting people open and sewing them back up - how BARBARIC!")

I challenge you to get off your modernist high-horse and actually
investigate the scholarly evidence. I'm not suggesting that you take
the Bible on faith. Just look at it through the lens of a scholar.
Set your assumptions and prejudices aside and just look at the
evidence.

That leaves the claim of a divine power that just doesn't feel like
convincing me right now.
As the SNL Church Lady would say, "How convenient!"


He's the potter, we're the clay. For all I know you're a just a skeet
target. I'm not going to argue with him. I just keep hacking at the
weeds.


Do you ever wonder why several billion people, including many highly
educated, intelligent, non-superstitious all belive this crazy idea?
We're not talking about a dozen or so social outcasts who believe that
a UFO is flying right echalon on a comet.

No, I don't wonder at all.
People believe in life after death because they don't like the idea of a one
time existence and then vanishing forever into nothingness.

Oddly enough, Jewish theology does NOT contain the idea of life after
death. "Sheol" is simply the "land of the dead," not a reward or
punishment.

What I find truly disturbing is that these people find more comfort in the
possibility of eternal torment than in just being snuffed out.

Interesting point. There's a fairly large school of thought within
even conservative Christianity that suggests that Hell is eternal
destruction, not eternal torment. Dead and gone, not dead and
burning. Either way, it's a ****-poor alternative to eternal life in
paradise. Imagine - no need for annuals or pre-flights! :-D

Probably because they all belief the eternal torment part will happen to
someone else.

Actually, Luther's whole motivation was that he had no assurance that
he was going to heaven.


You know, when Fido dies, we tell Little Sally that we sent him off to a
farm, somewhere upstate, where he can run around in fields chasing rabbits
all day.

Not me. My kids know what death is. I've been close on several
occasions. Our elderly neighbor died a year or so ago. The kids know
she's not on vacation.

Believing in life after death is no different, except it's a lie you tell
yourself and let yourself believe. Grow up Little Sally!

I see it as just the opposite. Believing that this-is-all-there-is
lets you avoid the unpleasant thought that maybe there really is a
Judge, and that you don't measure up - no matter how "good enough" you
think you are. Grow up indeed.



People all over the world, regardless of religion, are generally good.
We band together and help each other in times of need.
We don't have to be told this, we just do it, and we do it well.

You can say the same for murder and pillage. "We just do it, and we
do it well." Didja ever stop to consider that the civilization we
take for granted here in the US is wildly atypical? Most of the world
settles disagreements with guns and knives, not words. People band
together, sure - to help their own tribe. But we better kill the
other guys before they take our stuff - THAT is the history of the
human race. Sad but true.

Murder and pillage are also universally punished.

Not when it's government policy, or if there's no government. Just
ask anyone from Cambodia, Bosnia, or Rwanda. And just try to set up a
sign in a US courtroom that says "Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not
steal" and see what happens. *Where* are we going and *why* are we in
this handbasket?

And if the amount of violence in the world exceeded the amount of
benevolence we wouldn't be 6-7 billion strong now.

Don't confuse birthrate with benevolence. Human populations grow to
the limit of their food supply, just like any other critter. We're
just clever enough to alter the environment. If agriculture hadn't
replaced foraging, we'd still be living in small tribal clusters.

Anyone else find the idea of a religious cynic and an atheistic optimist to
be ironic? :-)


The optimist believes we are living in the best of all possible
worlds. The cynic knows this to be true. :-D


Corrie

On 04 Sep 2003 08:55 AM, Morgans posted the following:
at least your hero BWB
posts under his own name and is a known quantity to the members of
the group. ---------------------------------------------------- Del
Rawlins-

You don't think pacplyer is BWB's sock puppet? Hummmmm

I may be giving BWB too much credit but using a sock puppet doesn't seem
like his style (excluding Ms. Geeter of course). Certainly there are
other arrogant high-timers out there who look down on less experienced
pilots, and another one may have easily found the newsgroup. Of course,
that all assumes that "pacplyer" aka "mturner" or whoever the hell he is
happens to be telling the truth, and there is no way of knowing that at
this point.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

"Corrie" wrote
"Eric Miller" wrote

God wants us to trust him.

Remember that trust isn't a right, it has to be earned. I can't trust that
which:
a) doesn't exist in the first place, or
b) if it did exist has been shown to be arbitrary, inconsistent and at least
as foul tempered and prone to tantrums as any over-tired 2 year old.
He can have my trust after a spanking, a time out, has thought about all
he's done wrong, and has sincerely apologized for his bad behavior. Maybe.

You're mixing apples and oranges. We're not talking about a
technology demonstration, we're talking about a singular historical
event.

The historical is irrelevant, it's the singular that's the conundrum.
If it only apparently happened once 2000 years ago, we can safely call it
observer/experimental error and ignore it.

I can accept mundane specific events that don't violate the laws of
physics.

If an observation conflicts with our understanding of how the world
works, then either the observation or our understanding may be in
error. You're assuming that your undertanding of the way things work
is accurate. Two hundred years ago, it was believed that a human
being would die if he traveled at more than 25 miles per hour. A
hundred and ten years ago, it was believed that heavier-than-air
flight violated the laws of physics. Seventy years ago, it was widely
believed that supersonic flight was impossible. Fifty years ago, the
thought of living in space was the stuff of fantasy.

But continued observation and experimentation has led to greater
understanding of how things work.
No observation or experimentation has resulted in resurrection. Until it
does, there's no need to change our understanding.

Today, laboratory observations of quantum synchronicity phenomena
appear to violate the laws of physics. Does that mean that the
observations are erroneous, or that the "laws of physics" need to be
revised?

No, because they're predicted and expected by quantum mechanics.
What's more, quantum mechanics predicts other things which we can test and
verify.
That's what makes QM useful and valuable.
Theories which don't predict and can't be tested or verified are useless and
worthless.

Now you can say that the Resurrection predicts an after-life... but unless
someone comes back and confirms then it's untestable.
If someone DOES come back, it satisfies my required for repeatability.
But then it would also supply proof, which defies faith, so it can't be
ALLOWED to happen.
A nice little bit of circular logic.

Now, I already know that you're going to counter with the "but those
are repeatable experiments." But they are repeatable only if you're
willing to use the tools. If I refuse to believe the evidence of an
airspeed indicator, then you can never convince me that Yeager broke
Mach 1. It's like the "Apollo was faked" crowd. They reject or
reinterpret every piece of evidence there is. What will it take to
convince them of the truth? They don't know and they can't say. :-D

Concepts of reality change. My view of what is possible is simply
larger than yours. Prayer works. But you have to actually PRAY to
find that out.

Prayer works. So do sugar pills, with the same efficacy. Consult your
physician for possible side effects of either.

BTW, have you ever read "Flatland"? It's a very good metaphor for
what we're talking about. There's a whole race of beings that exist
in two dimensions. The all live on a flat plane called "Flatland."
One day a sphere passes through. The Flatlanders see it as a dot that
grows into a circle, expands, and finally shrinks back to a dot and
vanishes. Some Flatlanders perceive this phenomenon as evidence of
the 3rd dimension. Skeptics argue that the third dimension simply
does not exist. They've never personally experienced it, don't trust
eyewitnesses who saw the circle, and have no use for such silly
superstitions.

Of course I know "Flatland".
And if the sphere should pass through flatland but once, what need is there
to explain it?

And just because they're in a 2D world, doesn't prohibit them from
formulating a 3D model.
That, however, doesn't make the 3D world real (see superstring theory... not
to be confused with Silly String).


Further, while there's a elegant 3D explanation in this case, it's not
REQUIRED.
You could just as easily explain it as a growing and shrinking circle, and
it's just as valid.

Fortunately, there's no need to, because I suspect human nature has
changed
very little over 2000 years.
People are just as poor observers, just as gullible, just as
superstitious
and just as willing to believe what they want to believe today.

That's not an argument based on the evidence. That's merely a slur
directed at people of a different culture. A thousand years from now,
people will look back at us as hopelessly backwards, gullible, etc.
(Remember Star Trek's Dr. MCoy's reaction to the idea of surgery?
"Cutting people open and sewing them back up - how BARBARIC!")

I challenge you to get off your modernist high-horse and actually
investigate the scholarly evidence. I'm not suggesting that you take
the Bible on faith. Just look at it through the lens of a scholar.
Set your assumptions and prejudices aside and just look at the
evidence.

You misread me. No modernistic high-horse here!
I'm not judging the people of 2000 years ago and saying they're gullible....
I'm saying people TODAY are gullible, and the people of 2000 years ago were
likely no better.

No, I don't wonder at all.
People believe in life after death because they don't like the idea of a
one
time existence and then vanishing forever into nothingness.

What I find truly disturbing is that these people find more comfort in
the
possibility of eternal torment than in just being snuffed out.

Interesting point. There's a fairly large school of thought within
even conservative Christianity that suggests that Hell is eternal
destruction, not eternal torment. Dead and gone, not dead and
burning. Either way, it's a ****-poor alternative to eternal life in
paradise. Imagine - no need for annuals or pre-flights! :-D

Or maybe an endless string of BFRs! :P

But is paradise an actual, available alternative or are you just fooling
yourself?
"If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" clearly applies.

I see it as just the opposite. Believing that this-is-all-there-is
lets you avoid the unpleasant thought that maybe there really is a
Judge, and that you don't measure up - no matter how "good enough" you
think you are. Grow up indeed.

It's just a reality, pleasantness or unpleasantness doesn't enter into it;
it simply is.
And I have no doubt about measuring up as "good enough", in this or any
other category... except humility.
(But really, what's the point if you can't claim bragging rights for being
the Most Humble Ever! )

People all over the world, regardless of religion, are generally
good.
We band together and help each other in times of need.
We don't have to be told this, we just do it, and we do it well.

You can say the same for murder and pillage. "We just do it, and we
do it well." Didja ever stop to consider that the civilization we
take for granted here in the US is wildly atypical? Most of the world
settles disagreements with guns and knives, not words. People band
together, sure - to help their own tribe. But we better kill the
other guys before they take our stuff - THAT is the history of the
human race. Sad but true.

Murder and pillage are also universally punished.

Not when it's government policy, or if there's no government. Just
ask anyone from Cambodia, Bosnia, or Rwanda.

Exceptions which prove the rule.

Eric

On 4 Sep 2003 01:04:43 -0700, (pac plyer) wrote:

snowbird101 master cross breeder of barnyard animals and hound dogs
wrote:

You are welcome to post one example, with Google archive references,
of a place where I have pretended to either aviation experience or
to aviation knowledge which I do not, in fact, possess. Or for that
matter to life experience which I do not, in fact, possess.

Sydney,

Private pilots like you and Del for example do not have adequate
background or experience to be posting opinions about things as
complex as ATC services.

*Any* pilot regardless of ratings or experience has the right to post
opinions. Even a non pilot has that right. Everyone has an opinion
of what every they have to deal. The keyword is opinions.

A new student certainly will not have the background...then again they
might. That student might just be a controller who decided to get
his, or her, license.

Are all controllers and people working in the system high time
commercial pilots? Maybe even a few might be week end pilots?

The ratings and time just don't necessarily translate into knowledge.

Ref: your ongoing harassment for months of
Chip and the other fine controllers that post great stuff over at RAP.

One thing I've noted on RAP. Most of the old timers are no longer
there and there has been a distinct degradation of the tolerance shown
by the current posters.

Anyone following those fantastic threads by Chip knows what I am

I'm always suspicious when some one says "fantastic threads".

talking about. The implied sarcasm and skepticism in your posts is
dishonest. You post your name in some of you posts, but you never are
forthright about your rating (singular?) and meager experience. Hell

Ratings don't mean a whole lot as presented here.
I've never posted mine and see no reason to. They serve me well and
have for many years.

I'm sure you probably don't even have an instrument rating. If you
do, I bet you haven't seen the inside of a cloud in years (not
counting your last swine wrestling match.) Your tone makes it clear
that you enjoy purporting yourself as some kind of expert in areas you

You certainly are talking about someone different than what I've seen
posted under that name.

know nothing about. You simply don't use the ATC system five hours a
working day hence you can't possibly know all the things that are
deficient in the present system. The damage you do to aviation when

Finding something deficient in the system is not the same as knowing
all the deficiencies in the system.

I've had controllers forget me, tell me to circle in the wrong
quadrant for a runway (they told me to circle in front of departing
traffic -- SE when it should have been SW) I've had approach tell me
to follow the guy ahead while on vectors for an approach and I
couldn't even see my wing tips. I've had them give me wrong headings
and the list goes on...Yet the pilot and controller relationship is a
two way street. We are all human...at least for the most part.

I knew they gave me the wrong circle instructions with the winds and
runways in use...I questioned it. When they forgot me, I called,
rather than blindly continue heading off in to the distance. When
they told me to follow the plane ahead I responded I would, but
unfortunately I could not see my own wing tips...(It was thick) They
responded and had me hold the heading to where I could safely descend
for the visual. I was filed into Battle Creek, they were setting me
up to expect the ILS for a runway Battle Creek doesn't have. I
questioned it as I was passing directly over Battle Creek. They
quickly came back and asked if I could make the visual for which ever
runway from my location or did I need vectors. BC and Kalamazoo share
the same approach control. And OTOH I've heard that ..."ahhh...watch
the altitude there" when I was in the process of starting to overshoot
my assigned altitude while getting the snot beat out of me. I didn't
get chewed out, or written up. It was just a friendly reminder from a
contentious controller.

you heckle these fine professionals is considerable and others have
pointed this out to you. Now Del thinks I'm checking the FAA data
base to determine how long he's had his license and what ratings he
has.

Why would any one care how long some one has had their license and
ratings? They have them and they are qualified, or at least were once
upon a time.

I mentioned to several of the "used to be" regulars I had not seen a
post from them in some time and wondered where they had been. The
universal answer was they had gotten tired of the attitudes over there
from a bunch of bitter pilots.

If you go back for a couple of years you will see a distinct change
between then and current conversational attitudes.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

Del Rawlins wrote in message ...

I may be giving BWB too much credit but using a sock puppet doesn't seem
like his style (excluding Ms. Geeter of course).

I don't know nor care if mturner is a sock puppet for BWB, but
Bill has posted under other names and email addresses in this and
other groups before (excluding Ms. Geeter of course).

Not trying to debate credit or take away credit, that's just a fact.

Cheers,
Sydney

"Eric Miller" wrote:

"Corrie" wrote
"Eric Miller" wrote

God wants us to trust him.

Remember that trust isn't a right, it has to be earned. I can't trust that
which:
a) doesn't exist in the first place, or
b) if it did exist has been shown to be arbitrary, inconsistent and at least
as foul tempered and prone to tantrums as any over-tired 2 year old.
He can have my trust after a spanking, a time out, has thought about all
he's done wrong, and has sincerely apologized for his bad behavior. Maybe.

Imagine suddenly finding yourself before the very being who created
life, the universe and everything. Someone who could populate a void
with a few trillion stars just 'cuz he felt like it. Someone who
didn't discover DNA, but assembled it.

I try to imagine how ANYONE in that situation would want to tell him
what he did wrong, and why they should be admitted into his presence
because "they earned it".

Somehow, I don't think that's likely... but that's just my take on it.

Mark Hickey

On 4 Sep 2003 01:04:43 -0700, (pac plyer) wrote:

snowbird101 master cross breeder of barnyard animals and hound dogs
wrote:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hmmmmm.

IMO...
The above is totally out of character for any BWB persona.
More like a Jaun puppet, if a non SWAG must be made.


*BARNYARD* BOb --

Roger Halstead wrote:

snips thoughout

*Any* pilot regardless of ratings or experience has the right to post
opinions. Even a non pilot has that right. Everyone has an opinion
of what every they have to deal. The keyword is opinions.

Sure, I agree with you. But not to continuously berate and child a
first rate controller like Chip Jones who balances his airspace
competently between rookies and pro's and: lays out the staffing
problems that we line dogs have to deal with on a daily basis. Look
at one of his threads over there. Click on his name on the Google
header. If you are an IFR driver you will be impressed.

Are all controllers and people working in the system high time
commercial pilots? Maybe even a few might be week end pilots?

The ratings and time just don't necessarily translate into knowledge.

Sorry Roger in most cases it does. We have to deal with lost errant
week-end warriors all the time. On the wrong freq, stuck mike thats
wrecking the freq, unable to follow simple ATC directions, on the
wrong runway or taxiway. But that's where I came from so I'm
completely understanding about it. I frequently have to point out to
my military crewmembers who get frustrated with GA pilots, and feel
they should all be banned as hazards to navigation, that there are
more GA pilots than ATP's. Their fuel taxes built most of the
airports we air-commerce types use. But some new copilots are just as
bad. It takes a while to break all their bad habits. Odds are
though: that if you do it for a living, visit a Tracon and talk with
these haggard controllers, go have beers with these guys, you will
know like I do that IFR atc in class B has been skating on thin ice
for years. They do a good job, but they are overworked, underpaid,
and totally unappreciated by the FAA. Nothing gets fixed until
something like Avionca on Long Island happens. I had just landed at
JFK before that crash, we routinely had trouble with the controllers
screwing up: they forgot to turn on the ILS we were cleared for. It
was bad wx, and we needed everything working to shoot a CAT III
autoland. Since they forgot, it was assholes and elbows just for us
to get the 747 stabilized enough to shoot the approach. We had just
come from Heathrow, were tired and did not need this poor service from
these guys. But the morale at that tracon was reported in the press
as the "worst in the country" by a indep review of the facilities.
Things have not improved much I've heard. JFK, and BOS are always in
open time because no body wants to be subjected to that kind of stress
all the time.


Ref: your ongoing harassment for months of
Chip and the other fine controllers that post great stuff over at RAP.

One thing I've noted on RAP. Most of the old timers are no longer
there and there has been a distinct degradation of the tolerance shown
by the current posters.

Yeah, I noticed that. Seems to be full of doctors and lawyers busy
arguing with themselves about nothing.

Anyone following those fantastic threads by Chip knows what I am

I'm always suspicious when some one says "fantastic threads".

Well, when a controller starts admitting all the screw ups that happen
with equipment and controllers and management and the FAA in great
detail, it makes for fascinating reading. Yeah, you're right. Let's
change it to "very-interesting threads."


I've never posted mine and see no reason to. They serve me well and
have for many years.

You may not have that many. That's O.K. Your not berating people
who have gone to the trouble and expense and great dedication to
become professional aviators or controllers.

..

I've had controllers forget me, tell me to circle in the wrong
quadrant for a runway (they told me to circle in front of departing
traffic -- SE when it should have been SW) I've had approach tell me
to follow the guy ahead while on vectors for an approach and I
couldn't even see my wing tips. I've had them give me wrong headings
and the list goes on...Yet the pilot and controller relationship is a
two way street. We are all human...at least for the most part.

I knew they gave me the wrong circle instructions with the winds and
runways in use...I questioned it. When they forgot me, I called,
rather than blindly continue heading off in to the distance. When
they told me to follow the plane ahead I responded I would, but
unfortunately I could not see my own wing tips...(It was thick) They
responded and had me hold the heading to where I could safely descend
for the visual. I was filed into Battle Creek, they were setting me
up to expect the ILS for a runway Battle Creek doesn't have. I
questioned it as I was passing directly over Battle Creek. They
quickly came back and asked if I could make the visual for which ever
runway from my location or did I need vectors. BC and Kalamazoo share
the same approach control. And OTOH I've heard that ..."ahhh...watch
the altitude there" when I was in the process of starting to overshoot
my assigned altitude while getting the snot beat out of me. I didn't
get chewed out, or written up. It was just a friendly reminder from a
contentious controller.

You sound like a good PIC. But this is pretty pedestrian stuff
compared to complex arrivals and sequencing during peak hours into
DFW, ATL, SFO, LAX, and many airports up and down the northeastern
seaboard. Route revisions are complex, and happen fast in a jet. The
inadequacies of today's ATC are clear to drivers who have TCAS. Not a
month goes by that "the system" doesn't make a major fubar and sets
off my resolution advisory. But Sydney says the controllers are just
whining, and no different than any other government worker and that
she is tired of hearing about it. Either she doesn't fly in very
congested airspace or she's never even been off the farm I'm not sure
which. There's just no excuse for this kind of charade. The airspace
Chip Jones is discussing is ATL ATC. I'm sure Sydney has never been
into Hartsfield during peak hours skirting around bad weather. It's
nuts.

pacplyer

Roger Halstead wrote in message . ..

Ref: your ongoing harassment for months of
Chip and the other fine controllers that post great stuff over at RAP.
...
Anyone following those fantastic threads by Chip knows what I am

I'm always suspicious when some one says "fantastic threads".

Chip's threads genuinely are fantastic sometimes. IMO.

The big joke here, Roger, since I don't think you're "in"
on it, is that Chip and I have been e-friends crossing into
RL for half a decade. So it's a total *hoot* for both of
us to see me accused of "harassing" him.

Anyone is welcome to go ask Chip if he thinks he's being
"harassed" by me and see what he says. Try a big *LOL*
and "don't change a thing" (direct quote).

There's a huge "reality disconnect" between how this dude
sees my posts, how most rational people see them, and in this
instance it's particularly telling because it's so clear both
parties directly involved think he's totally out to lunch.

IMO no one but a person toting a huge personal grudge could
miss the boat so totally as "mturner" has here. I could be
mistaken, of course: he could just be seriously lacking in
reading comprehension/interpretation skills. Quite sad if true.

You certainly are talking about someone different than what I've seen
posted under that name.

Thank you Roger, I appreciate that.

But I believe you are either talking to a stooge with a capitol
A "Agenda" or a sock puppet for Badwater Bill who is well known
to have a persistant grudge against me which he's been toting
around for 5 years.

Don't know which, don't care, but suggest you leave him alone.

JMO of course.

Best,
Sydney