If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Crash near Miami, FL
"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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Crash near Miami, FL
wrote in message news:ffVpf.1989$LB5.1838@fed1read04... Jim Macklin wrote: Engine failure was pure speculation on my part. An in-flight explosion brings to mind all kinds of ugly possibililites. While it appears there may be fire/explosion prior to impact this time. The truth is that in almost every instance of a witnessed aircraft crash there will be eyewitnesses reporting a pre-impact fire or explosion, even when that didn't happen. For example an Avianca 707 crashed in NY due to fuel exhaustion. There was no evidence of even a post crash fire. The earliest eyemitness accounts reported the aircraft variously as on fire or exploding and then falling. As often as not witness reports of fire are an artifact of emotion of witnessing a traumatic event. People could witness a glider crash into a lake and someone would report it exploded and burned before impact. -- Scott |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Crash near Miami, FL
Sight is based on expectation as is hearing. That is why
witnesses are just a place to start and investigation. At least this time they have video, photographs and all the wreckage. Read this list YIELD NO LEFT TURN ON RED SOTP NO PARKING -- James H. Macklin ATP,CFI,A&P -- Merry Christmas Have a Safe and Happy New Year Live Long and Prosper Jim Macklin "tscottme" blahblah@blah,net wrote in message . .. | | wrote in message news:ffVpf.1989$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 | | |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Crash near Miami, FL
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Crash near Miami, FL
"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) |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Crash near Miami, FL
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Crash near Miami, FL
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Crash near Miami, FL
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? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Crash near Miami, FL
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nearly had my life terminated today | Michelle P | Piloting | 11 | September 3rd 05 02:37 AM |
Doubts raised in jet crash | Dave Butler | Piloting | 8 | July 26th 05 01:25 AM |
Yet another A36 crash | H.P. | Piloting | 10 | April 23rd 05 05:58 PM |
Four Winds 192 Crash into the Miami Federal Reserve Building, a year ago today | Billgran | Home Built | 3 | December 6th 03 03:22 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |