Crash near Miami, FL

So then, what should we call a racing power boat with a step in its hull,
designed for high-speed skimming across the water surface?

Use the same word. Words have multple meanings. That's the way
language is.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
None of us that worked
on or around them, including the Chalks employees I knew ever once called
any of the aircraft a hydroplane.

The word is in my Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th
edition, copyright date 2002. It is also found frequently in the
historical literature.

vince norris

That's the point I was making. The people that put the news on TV have as
much knowldege and depth on the subjects they cover as someone reading a
dictionary. They spend more time and energy combing their hair then they do
in understanding or selecting what they should breathlessly report to an
even less informed public.



--
Scott

wrote in message news:ffVpf.1989$LB5.1838@fed1read04...
Jim Macklin wrote:


Engine failure was pure speculation on my part. An in-flight explosion
brings to mind all kinds of ugly possibililites.

While it appears there may be fire/explosion prior to impact this time. The
truth is that in almost every instance of a witnessed aircraft crash there
will be eyewitnesses reporting a pre-impact fire or explosion, even when
that didn't happen.

For example an Avianca 707 crashed in NY due to fuel exhaustion. There was
no evidence of even a post crash fire. The earliest eyemitness accounts
reported the aircraft variously as on fire or exploding and then falling.
As often as not witness reports of fire are an artifact of emotion of
witnessing a traumatic event.

People could witness a glider crash into a lake and someone would report it
exploded and burned before impact.

--
Scott

Sight is based on expectation as is hearing. That is why
witnesses are just a place to start and investigation. At
least this time they have video, photographs and all the
wreckage.

Read this list
YIELD NO LEFT TURN ON RED SOTP NO PARKING



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
Merry Christmas
Have a Safe and Happy New Year
Live Long and Prosper
Jim Macklin
"tscottme" blahblah@blah,net wrote in message
. ..
|
| wrote in message
news:ffVpf.1989$LB5.1838@fed1read04...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
|
| Engine failure was pure speculation on my part. An
in-flight explosion
| brings to mind all kinds of ugly possibililites.
|
| While it appears there may be fire/explosion prior to
impact this time. The
| truth is that in almost every instance of a witnessed
aircraft crash there
| will be eyewitnesses reporting a pre-impact fire or
explosion, even when
| that didn't happen.
|
| For example an Avianca 707 crashed in NY due to fuel
exhaustion. There was
| no evidence of even a post crash fire. The earliest
eyemitness accounts
| reported the aircraft variously as on fire or exploding
and then falling.
| As often as not witness reports of fire are an artifact of
emotion of
| witnessing a traumatic event.
|
| People could witness a glider crash into a lake and
someone would report it
| exploded and burned before impact.
|
| --
| Scott
|
|

The people that put the news on TV have as much knowldege and depth on the subjects they cover.....

Well, they have to discuss a large variety of subects, day after day.
How many subjects can you claim to have expert knowledge of?

You didn't even know that "hydroplane" means, among other things, an
aircraft designed to land on and take off from water.

They spend more time and energy combing their hair then they do
in understanding or selecting what they should breathlessly report to an
even less informed public.

You just make yourself look foolish when you make statements like
that. You don't have the slightest idea how much time they spend
combing their hair or, for that matter, selecting the news to be
covered.

I'm outa here. Merry Christmas.

vince norris

"tscottme" blahblah@blah,net wrote in
:


"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
None of us that worked
on or around them, including the Chalks employees I knew ever once
called any of the aircraft a hydroplane.

The word is in my Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th
edition, copyright date 2002. It is also found frequently in the
historical literature.

vince norris

That's the point I was making. The people that put the news on TV
have as much knowldege and depth on the subjects they cover as someone
reading a dictionary. They spend more time and energy combing their
hair then they do in understanding or selecting what they should
breathlessly report to an even less informed public.




That's not always true. There are some news anchors who possess
considerable knowledge of aviation and still present an erroneous news
item.

Many years ago, one of the local news anchor presented an item about a
local GA plane crash. The anchor was a local pilot and had even appeared
on one of the local stations hosting a sightseeing flight around the area
in his twin. His ex-wife hosted a student pilot series on one of the local
community college channels. He was very knowledgable about GA.

The news story had many major errors in it. The airplane in the
picture had one engine, low wing. The item said it was a twin engine and
then gave the name of a single engine high wing aircraft. There were more
errors. Every pilot who saw it couldn't believe that this anchor had read
such an incorrect story.

A short time later, there was an FAA sponsored all-day super safety
seminar. This news anchor was one of the speakers. Of course, the first
question asked of him was about this erroneous news story.

Care to guess what his response was?

Basically, he said that most of the time he doesn't see the news item
until it is handed to him minutes before he reads it. He often didn't even
know the graphic that would be presented in advance. Then came the real
shocker. He said that he was paid to present the news as given to him, not
to write the news article. If he didn't, he could lose his job. He new
the facts were wrong as he read it, but his job depended on him reading it
as written and not commenting on its accuracy. Had there been sufficent
time, he would have pointed the error out to the news editor, but would
have read whatever they gave him, even if the error had not been corrected.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

I certainly knew hydroplane was an archaic term once used to described
aircraft of a certain type. Google the term and you'll see that this is
confirmed. You have to go a few pages deep to see the first use of the term
describing anything other than a certain type of power boat. The term
wasn't used by the people that operate the airplanes or in the company
involved.

A good analogy would be a reporter discussing the transit strike in NYC with
refernces to "omnibus" and people resorting to use of "quadracycles." You
see the same TV reporters trying to impress other reporters when they
constantly refer to the prepared area where aircraft park or taxi as the
"tarmac." They hear a term from someone with an English accent and they
adopt the word because it impressed them. Nevermind that the term used by
people in the industry, at least before a few blow-dry idiots on TV used the
word every 8 seconds, is "ramp."



--
Scott

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
The people that put the news on TV have as much knowldege and depth on
the subjects they cover.....

Well, they have to discuss a large variety of subects, day after day.
How many subjects can you claim to have expert knowledge of?

You didn't even know that "hydroplane" means, among other things, an
aircraft designed to land on and take off from water.

They spend more time and energy combing their hair then they do
in understanding or selecting what they should breathlessly report to an
even less informed public.

You just make yourself look foolish when you make statements like
that. You don't have the slightest idea how much time they spend
combing their hair or, for that matter, selecting the news to be
covered.

I'm outa here. Merry Christmas.

vince norris

I submit it far more likely you will hear faulty info from a TV reporter
than see a TV reporter with faulty hair or makeup.

--
Scott

Marty Shapiro writes:
"tscottme" blahblah@blah,net wrote in

That's the point I was making. The people that put the news on TV
have as much knowldege and depth on the subjects they cover as someone
reading a dictionary. They spend more time and energy combing their
hair then they do in understanding or selecting what they should
breathlessly report to an even less informed public.

That's not always true. There are some news anchors who possess
considerable knowledge of aviation and still present an erroneous news
item.

Many years ago, one of the local news anchor presented an item about a
local GA plane crash. The anchor was a local pilot and had even appeared
on one of the local stations hosting a sightseeing flight around the area
in his twin. His ex-wife hosted a student pilot series on one of the local
community college channels. He was very knowledgable about GA.

The news story had many major errors in it. The airplane in the
picture had one engine, low wing. The item said it was a twin engine and
then gave the name of a single engine high wing aircraft. There were more
errors. Every pilot who saw it couldn't believe that this anchor had read
such an incorrect story.

A short time later, there was an FAA sponsored all-day super safety
seminar. This news anchor was one of the speakers. Of course, the first
question asked of him was about this erroneous news story.

Care to guess what his response was?

Basically, he said that most of the time he doesn't see the news item
until it is handed to him minutes before he reads it. He often didn't even
know the graphic that would be presented in advance. Then came the real
shocker. He said that he was paid to present the news as given to him, not
to write the news article. If he didn't, he could lose his job. He new
the facts were wrong as he read it, but his job depended on him reading it
as written and not commenting on its accuracy. Had there been sufficent
time, he would have pointed the error out to the news editor, but would
have read whatever they gave him, even if the error had not been corrected.

The news "anchor" was exhibiting the intelligence level
of a boat anchor with his rationalization. It sounds
as if the TV station where he's employed has no intention
of providing a news service as opposed to filling air time
with random words. And the "anchor" is nothing more than
a robot for parroting whatever words he's handed. This in
no way be construed as being a "news service" providing
anything of value to the public. Is this the ultimate
example of "news" as something to interpose between
commercials?

(Everett M. Greene) wrote in
:

Marty Shapiro writes:
"tscottme" blahblah@blah,net wrote in

That's the point I was making. The people that put the news on TV
have as much knowldege and depth on the subjects they cover as
someone reading a dictionary. They spend more time and energy
combing their hair then they do in understanding or selecting what
they should breathlessly report to an even less informed public.

That's not always true. There are some news anchors who
possess
considerable knowledge of aviation and still present an erroneous
news item.

Many years ago, one of the local news anchor presented an
item about a
local GA plane crash. The anchor was a local pilot and had even
appeared on one of the local stations hosting a sightseeing flight
around the area in his twin. His ex-wife hosted a student pilot
series on one of the local community college channels. He was very
knowledgable about GA.

The news story had many major errors in it. The airplane in
the
picture had one engine, low wing. The item said it was a twin engine
and then gave the name of a single engine high wing aircraft. There
were more errors. Every pilot who saw it couldn't believe that this
anchor had read such an incorrect story.

A short time later, there was an FAA sponsored all-day super
safety
seminar. This news anchor was one of the speakers. Of course, the
first question asked of him was about this erroneous news story.

Care to guess what his response was?

Basically, he said that most of the time he doesn't see the
news item
until it is handed to him minutes before he reads it. He often
didn't even know the graphic that would be presented in advance.
Then came the real shocker. He said that he was paid to present the
news as given to him, not to write the news article. If he didn't,
he could lose his job. He new the facts were wrong as he read it,
but his job depended on him reading it as written and not commenting
on its accuracy. Had there been sufficent time, he would have
pointed the error out to the news editor, but would have read
whatever they gave him, even if the error had not been corrected.

The news "anchor" was exhibiting the intelligence level
of a boat anchor with his rationalization. It sounds
as if the TV station where he's employed has no intention
of providing a news service as opposed to filling air time
with random words. And the "anchor" is nothing more than
a robot for parroting whatever words he's handed. This in
no way be construed as being a "news service" providing
anything of value to the public. Is this the ultimate
example of "news" as something to interpose between
commercials?


I think that today's news anchors are hired for their pretty faces and
genial personalities. They also must have the ability to read aloud the
copy in front of them without appearing to be reading. There is no
prerequisite that they be a reporter. The old anchors (Cronkite, Huntly,
Brinkly, Brokaw, Jennings, Koppel, etc.) were reporters who became news
anchors. Maybe the networks still have this prerequisite for their
anchors, but local stations don't.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)