Nasa Icing courses

Man, you have problems or something.

Scott Draper wrote:
Please don't crosspost to *every* aviation newsgroup.

Not everyone receives or subscribes to *every* newsgroup.

That's because we want to choose what we download. Icing is mostly
relevant to IFR flight.

If everyone did what you did, there'd be no point to having multiple
groups.

You mean, Like you just did?

My reply went to every group, because his did (my newsreader did
that.). Another problem with cross-posting. It's stupid to have
every thread replicated across all the aviation groups.

I didn't post to rec.aviation or rec.aviation.homebuilts, or
alt.binaries.pictures.aviation, or probably a half dozen others.
If you don't think my post was relevant to each group that I posted to,
you're wrong. Not everyone receives or subscribes to *every* newsgroup.

Jim

"Scott Draper" wrote in message
...
Please don't crosspost to *every* aviation newsgroup.

Scott Draper wrote:
Not everyone receives or subscribes to *every* newsgroup.

That's because we want to choose what we download.

Well you chose to download it.

Icing is mostly
relevant to IFR flight.


Not true. Unless you want to bend thoughts one way only. And I see your
need to do so. I would not advocate vfr pilots follow your lead of
practicing non-enlightenment. Around the great lakes here we get
moisture, higher up icing, farther away icing, and higher and farther it
is snow. VFR pilots here contend with this, lots. The IFR planes are
known icing approved. So would you advocate the ifr pilots not learn
about icing as they can just push a button to shed it?

And if you would bother to look and read before you bash, you would see
that there is also a course on ground icing also.

Both are very applicable to vfr flying.

Somehow I just know you are 'really good' at Microsoft flightsimulator.

I have not looked at the courses yet but I see no harm in them. Take
your electrons to the recycle bin.

It was a good post and I am glad to have run accross it.

"Scott Draper" wrote in message
...
That's because we want to choose what we download. Icing is mostly
relevant to IFR flight.

If everyone did what you did, there'd be no point to having multiple
groups.

While I agree with you that the original post was over-cross-posted, it
seems to me that the only newsgroup that was blatantly off-topic for the
post was r.a.owning.

It seems to me that airframe icing is primarily an IFR issue, possibly of
interest to people reading r.a.piloting, and hardly applicable to people
involved in their primary training (the main audience in r.a.student). But
a person who lacks a conservative bent, a person who doesn't understand why
it's a good thing to be VERY minimal about cross-posting, they aren't going
to see it that way.

They are going to think "well, this *might* be of interest to someone who
*might* be reading that newsgroup", and they (or similar-minded folks) are
going to get all bent out of shape if you try to suggest otherwise.

Which is, in fact, what happened so far.

Of course, your original reply was somewhat exaggerated as well (there
*were* plenty of rec.aviation.* newsgroups that didn't get the post). I'm
sure that didn't help the mood.

Pete

"Scott Draper" wrote in message ...
You mean, Like you just did?

My reply went to every group, because his did (my newsreader did
that.).


Is it true that Forte Agent won't let you adjust the groups you reply to?
I knew it wasn't perfect, but I didn't know it was *that* defective.

adjust the groups you reply to?

You can turn the feature off that replies to every newsgroup that the
original poster, but I haven't done so. It normally isn't necessary.

The problem is that when a person cross posts, if you want to reply,
which group do you reply to? He's only going to read one, probably.



On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 22:55:41 GMT, "John R. Copeland"
wrote:

"Scott Draper" wrote in message ...
You mean, Like you just did?

My reply went to every group, because his did (my newsreader did
that.).


Is it true that Forte Agent won't let you adjust the groups you reply to?
I knew it wasn't perfect, but I didn't know it was *that* defective.

Thank you Jim for this wonderfull posting.

Paul

"Jim Burns" a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
As many of you probably know, recent midwest weather has been a steady
stream of low overcast, misty, and foggy days prohibiting most VFR flight
and making IFR flights a spin of the icing roulette wheel. I thought it
may
be a good opportunity for us to review NASA's icing online courses.

http://aircrafticing.grc.nasa.gov/courses.html

Jim

Jay Honeck wrote:

Other than that, we haven't flown diddly squat in weeks. Our last fly-in
guest was sometime around Thanksgiving. Worst flying weather I've ever
seen.

So between the weather and my work backing up, at least my engine picked
a good time to make metal. It is off the airplane waiting for the crate
to arrive from Penn Yan. I last flew on a return trip over Thanksgiving
weekend. Pulled the filter right after that trip (11 hours after
finding metal in the filter during the october annual) and found as much
metal as the previous 30+ hour filter had in it, so I grounded it.

The engine is 26 months and 178 hours out of a new limits Penn Yan
overhaul with new ECI titan stud assemblies, new cam, new accessory
gears, new oil pump, all new accessories, etc. About all that wasn't new
was the crank and case, and those were reworked during the overhaul.

The intake cam lobe for the #3 and #4 cylinders failed and is worn down
considerably, hence the engine coming off and waiting for the crate.