If all midair collisions were eliminated...

[Jim Logajan]

If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, ~99% of GA aircraft fatalities
would still happen.

From Nall Report analysis of U.S. NTSB records:

Total fixed wing GA fatalities:
2002: 518
2003: 555
2004: 510
2005: 491
2006: 488
Total: 2562

Fatalities due to midair collision:
2002: 5
2003: 7
2004: 6
2005: 5
2006: 4
Total: 27

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/03nall.pdf
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/04nall.pdf
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/05nall.pdf
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/06nall.pdf
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/07nall.pdf

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, ~99% of GA aircraft fatalities
> would still happen.

If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, 27 people would still be alive,
based on your own cited statistics. Is saving lives not a sufficient
justification for eliminating midair collisions? Is there are threshold of
deaths below which efforts to eliminate midair collisions are not justified?
What cost is there in attempting to eliminate midair collisions that offsets
the loss of life that they entail?

[cavelamb[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, ~99% of GA aircraft fatalities
>> would still happen.
>
> If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, 27 people would still be alive,
> based on your own cited statistics. Is saving lives not a sufficient
> justification for eliminating midair collisions? Is there are threshold of
> deaths below which efforts to eliminate midair collisions are not justified?
> What cost is there in attempting to eliminate midair collisions that offsets
> the loss of life that they entail?


Oh man...
Excuse me for biting a troll, guys.

mx?

Exactly HOW do you think you can prevent ANY midair?

The ONLY way I can see is to ground everybody.
That'd work!


--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/


"The clock of life is wound but once, and no man has the power
to tell just when the hands will stop, at late or early hour...
Now is the only time you own. Live, love, toil with a will.
Place no faith in time. For the clock may soon be still."

[Westbender]

On Feb 9, 6:59*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
> > If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, ~99% of GA aircraft fatalities
> > would still happen.
>
> If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, 27 people would still be alive,
> based on your own cited statistics. Is saving lives not a sufficient
> justification for eliminating midair collisions? Is there are threshold of
> deaths below which efforts to eliminate midair collisions are not justified?
> What cost is there in attempting to eliminate midair collisions that offsets
> the loss of life that they entail?

Where exactly in his post did he suggest we should be satisfied with
low numbers of fatalities due to mid-air collisions?

I find that information extremely interesting and I'm glad he posted
it. Thanks Jim!

[Matt Herron Jr.]

I also find this interesting. I wonder if the ratio of 100/1 would be
the same if one only considered glider-involved accidents. My guess
is we have a disproportionate number of mid-airs. Any way to check?

Matt

[Darryl Ramm]

On Feb 9, 11:11*pm, "Matt Herron Jr." > wrote:
> I also find this interesting. *I wonder if the ratio of 100/1 would be
> the same if one only considered glider-involved accidents. *My guess
> is we have a disproportionate number of mid-airs. *Any way to check?
>
> Matt

Matt

You can do the research...

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/index.aspx

You can select on Injury Severity and Category (Glider, etc.). Play
with trying "collision" etc. in the event details box (but obviously
you need to check the results/misses).

Darryl

[Andy[_10_]]

On Feb 9, 11:55*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> You can do the research...
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/index.aspx
>
> You can select on Injury Severity and Category (Glider, etc.). Play
> with trying "collision" etc. in the event details box (but obviously
> you need to check the results/misses).
>
> Darryl

According to my hand count of accidents in the database, over the past
10 years there have been 60 fatal glider accidents in the US with 68
total fatalities. Three of the accidents and 9 of the fatalities were
due to mid-air collisions, so the numbers are higher for gliders - 5%
of the accidents and 15% of the fatalities. Still, you are 20 times
more likely to die in a single glider crash than a midair - if that is
any consolation.

It is worthwhile looking at the reports as a reminder for extra care
in certain areas. Lots of accidents were on approach (maybe half),
either coming up short or a stall/spin turning base or final. The
next biggest cause was collision with terrain during flight (not
always possible to determine controlled versus uncontrolled). Next
came loss of control/structural failure in flight. There were also a
number of cases of assembly errors, control problems on takeoff and
several where pilot incapacitation was suspected. The rank ordering of
causes is my rough impression.

Unfortunately, too many on the list were friends or people I'd met
along the way. Too many.

Fly safe.

9B

[Brian Whatcott]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, ~99% of GA aircraft fatalities
>> would still happen.
>
> If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, 27 people would still be alive,
> based on your own cited statistics. Is saving lives not a sufficient
> justification for eliminating midair collisions? Is there are threshold of
> deaths below which efforts to eliminate midair collisions are not justified?
> What cost is there in attempting to eliminate midair collisions that offsets
> the loss of life that they entail?

If the US road speed limit were reduced from 70 to 65 mph, perhaps
30,000 lives would be saved annually. Isn't that worthwhile?

We have apparently decided NOT.

Brian W

[Tom De Moor]

In article >, betwys1
@sbcglobal.net says...
>
> If the US road speed limit were reduced from 70 to 65 mph, perhaps
> 30,000 lives would be saved annually. Isn't that worthwhile?
>
> We have apparently decided NOT.
>
>
>

Keywords in your sentences are 'perhaps' and 'apparently'.
You might even claim all roadkills would be saved if US road speed were
to reduced to zero.

In Germany the speed on the autobahn is unlimited, in neighbouring
Belgium the max speed is 120 kph. However in Germany there are less than
half as many killed per 1000 km of highway than in Belgium.

Speed does not kill, failing or absent infrastructure does.



Tom De Moor

[Matt Barrow[_8_]]

"brian whatcott" > wrote in message
...
>
> If the US road speed limit were reduced from 70 to 65 mph, perhaps 30,000
> lives would be saved annually. Isn't that worthwhile?

Your "perhaps" is bogus.

Since the speed limit was raised to from 65 to 70/75, fatalities went DOWN.

Same thing when it went from 55 to 65.

>
> We have apparently decided NOT.

Considering that about 2/3rds of the annual fatalities (43K annually) are at
intersections, not on highways/freeways, you'll have to come up with a
better scenario.

Matt

[Matt Barrow[_8_]]

"Tom De Moor" > wrote in message
.be...
> In article >, betwys1
> @sbcglobal.net says...
>>
>> If the US road speed limit were reduced from 70 to 65 mph, perhaps
>> 30,000 lives would be saved annually. Isn't that worthwhile?
>>
>> We have apparently decided NOT.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Keywords in your sentences are 'perhaps' and 'apparently'.
> You might even claim all roadkills would be saved if US road speed were
> to reduced to zero.
>
> In Germany the speed on the autobahn is unlimited, in neighbouring
> Belgium the max speed is 120 kph. However in Germany there are less than
> half as many killed per 1000 km of highway than in Belgium.
>
> Speed does not kill, failing or absent infrastructure does.

Infrastructure? Maybe 5% tops.

Try Inattention and intoxication first.

Matt

[Cats]

On Feb 10, 1:35*pm, Tom De Moor >
wrote:
<snip>
> In Germany the speed on the autobahn is unlimited,
<snip>

Quite a lot of the autobahn does have speed limits, and some of them
are not particularly fast either.

[Peter Dohm]

"Matt Herron Jr." > wrote in message
...
>I also find this interesting. I wonder if the ratio of 100/1 would be
> the same if one only considered glider-involved accidents. My guess
> is we have a disproportionate number of mid-airs. Any way to check?
>
> Matt

Whereas I don't see any position in this thread that is inherently better or
worse to place this comment, I have chosen this one on the basis that no
trimming is necessary or usefull.

I really see 2 points that need to be made:

1) Any time that a major factor is eliminated from a statistic, the
proportions will increase for the previously minor factors. Simply by
talking about glider operations, we have eliminated either all or most cases
of fuel eshaustion/mismanagement, crashes during instrument approaches,
collisions with approach light supports, and a lot of other causes when
aircraft are used for training and/or transportation.

2) Any life lost is NOT 1 too many!

In the United States alone, about 4 million people have to die--simply due
to the statistics of human lifespans.

The remark that 27 people would still be alive is simply an assertion that
it is somehow better to die by wasting away in a hospital or hospice than in
the course of doing something productive, entertaining, or even (horrors)
courageous.

We should and do try to perform as safely as is prcatical in our work, our
play, and even in our wars. But we most certainly do not need to justify
our actions to anyone who chooses to experience only simulaton and then
chooses to criticize those who take real action.

There are only 2 reasonable courses of action in dealing with such trolls:
ignore them or push back HARD!

Peter

[Tom De Moor]

In article >,
says...
>
> > Speed does not kill, failing or absent infrastructure does.
>
> Infrastructure? Maybe 5% tops.
>
> Try Inattention and intoxication first.
>
>
>

Even to inattention and intoxication infrastructure is the answer.

http://www.katchuptv.com/?video=4781

The video shows what happens if a driver gets knocked inconscious at 250
kph.

Tom De Moor

[Tony[_5_]]

Speed differential is what kills. hit a wall that is stationary when
you are doing the speed limit and its going to hurt. hit granny who
is doing 40 mph in a 60 while you're doing the speed limit and it will
hurt, but not as bad as the wall.

[Jim Logajan]

Correction!

I wrote:
> If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, ~99% of GA aircraft
> fatalities would still happen.

That should be ~97%, not ~99%. Corrected number below.

> From Nall Report analysis of U.S. NTSB records:
>
> Total fixed wing GA fatalities:
> 2002: 518
> 2003: 555
> 2004: 510
> 2005: 491
> 2006: 488
> Total: 2562
>
> Fatalities due to midair collision:
> 2002: 5

There were 9 fatalities, not 5. There were 5 accidents yielding
fatalities, not 5 fatalities. My misread.

> 2003: 7

Should be 23.

> 2004: 6

Should be 10.

> 2005: 5

Should be 14.

> 2006: 4

Should be 9.

> Total: 27

Should be 65.

>
> http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/03nall.pdf
> http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/04nall.pdf
> http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/05nall.pdf
> http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/06nall.pdf
> http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/07nall.pdf

[Mxsmanic]

cavelamb writes:

> Exactly HOW do you think you can prevent ANY midair?

Training, standardization, caution, discipline, and other techniques can
greatly reduce the incidence of midair collisions.

[Mxsmanic]

brian whatcott writes:

> If the US road speed limit were reduced from 70 to 65 mph, perhaps
> 30,000 lives would be saved annually. Isn't that worthwhile?

If speed killed, nobody would ever survive an auto race.

What kills is speed that is excessive for a given set of circumstances, and
that cannot easily be addressed by posted speed limits alone. Some
jurisdictions with "reasonable and prudent" speed laws recognize this.

[Mxsmanic]

Tom De Moor writes:

> Even to inattention and intoxication infrastructure is the answer.

Infrastructure cannot compensate for driver incompetence or impairment.

[bildan]

On Feb 10, 4:04*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> brian whatcott writes:
> > If the US road speed limit were reduced from 70 to 65 mph, perhaps
> > 30,000 lives would be saved annually. Isn't that worthwhile?
>
> If speed killed, nobody would ever survive an auto race.
>
> What kills is speed that is excessive for a given set of circumstances, and
> that cannot easily be addressed by posted speed limits alone. *Some
> jurisdictions with "reasonable and prudent" speed laws recognize this.

Yep, it doesn't matter how fast you miss things. It's hitting things
that hurt. Don't hit things.

[cavelamb[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> cavelamb writes:
>
>> Exactly HOW do you think you can prevent ANY midair?
>
> Training, standardization, caution, discipline, and other techniques can
> greatly reduce the incidence of midair collisions.


Well, if you have been following the other posts in this thread
you'd understand that they already ARE doing just that.


--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/


"The clock of life is wound but once, and no man has the power
to tell just when the hands will stop, at late or early hour...
Now is the only time you own. Live, love, toil with a will.
Place no faith in time. For the clock may soon be still."

[Mike Beede[_2_]]

In article >,
brian whatcott > wrote:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Jim Logajan writes:
> >
> >> If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, ~99% of GA aircraft fatalities
> >> would still happen.
> >
> > If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, 27 people would still be alive,
> > based on your own cited statistics. Is saving lives not a sufficient
> > justification for eliminating midair collisions? Is there are threshold of
> > deaths below which efforts to eliminate midair collisions are not justified?
> > What cost is there in attempting to eliminate midair collisions that offsets
> > the loss of life that they entail?
>
> If the US road speed limit were reduced from 70 to 65 mph, perhaps
> 30,000 lives would be saved annually. Isn't that worthwhile?
>
> We have apparently decided NOT.

I think you meant "6.5 mph" instead of "65 mph," didn't you?
The total accident deaths per year in the US is only around 38,000.

Mike Beede

[Steve Hix[_2_]]

In article >,
Mike Beede > wrote:

> In article >,
> brian whatcott > wrote:
>
> > Mxsmanic wrote:
> > > Jim Logajan writes:
> > >
> > >> If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, ~99% of GA aircraft
> > >> fatalities
> > >> would still happen.
> > >
> > > If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, 27 people would still be
> > > alive,
> > > based on your own cited statistics. Is saving lives not a sufficient
> > > justification for eliminating midair collisions? Is there are threshold
> > > of
> > > deaths below which efforts to eliminate midair collisions are not
> > > justified?
> > > What cost is there in attempting to eliminate midair collisions that
> > > offsets
> > > the loss of life that they entail?
> >
> > If the US road speed limit were reduced from 70 to 65 mph, perhaps
> > 30,000 lives would be saved annually. Isn't that worthwhile?
> >
> > We have apparently decided NOT.
>
> I think you meant "6.5 mph" instead of "65 mph," didn't you?
> The total accident deaths per year in the US is only around 38,000.

Not to mention that dropping the Federal speed limit to 55 a couple of
decades ago didn't reduce the death toll by anything near "perhaps
30,000 lives annually".

Those who blow off history, etc etc etc.

[Brian Whatcott]

brian whatcott wrote:

>> What cost is there in attempting to eliminate midair collisions that
>> offsets
>> the loss of life that they entail?
>
> If the US road speed limit were reduced from 70 to 65 mph, perhaps
> 30,000 lives would be saved annually. Isn't that worthwhile?
>
> We have apparently decided NOT.
>
> Brian W

My numbers for road deaths were way high. The allowable speed would need
to drop much more to provide these life saves - to perhaps as low as 15
mph??
The time series data is much more encouraging: fatalities per million
cap are dropping. One supposes that belts and bags play a role.
Depending on the source, the international data is not flattering
for US drivers - but then - they have long distances available.

Brian W

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote

> We should and do try to perform as safely as is prcatical in our work, our
> play, and even in our wars. But we most certainly do not need to justify
> our actions to anyone who chooses to experience only simulaton and then
> chooses to criticize those who take real action.
>
> There are only 2 reasonable courses of action in dealing with such trolls:
> ignore them or push back HARD!

Peter;
While I agree, most whole-heartably with your well thought out and written
post, I disagree with your last 4 words.

Past experience with this particular troll is that he is a somewhat rare
species. Not human, if you get my drift. Pushing hard is not effective, up
until you push hard enough to make him physically unable to operate a
computer.

That leaves ONLY ignoring.

Everyone read that again. Here, I'll make it easy for you: That leaves
only ignoring.

It is the only logical and effective solution to this problem.
--
Jim in NC

[John Smith]

> The total accident deaths per year in the US is only around 38,000.

Only?

[Mxsmanic]

cavelamb writes:

> Well, if you have been following the other posts in this thread
> you'd understand that they already ARE doing just that.

Yes. Who said otherwise?

[Tom De Moor]

In article >,
says...
>
> > Even to inattention and intoxication infrastructure is the answer.
>
> Infrastructure cannot compensate for driver incompetence or impairment.
>
>

Then you live not in a technical world.

http://boingboing.net/2010/01/14/crash-test-1959-chev.html

Tom De Moor

[Mxsmanic]

Tom De Moor writes:

> Then you live not in a technical world.

True. I live in the real world.

[Tom De Moor]

In article >,
says...
>
> Tom De Moor writes:
>
> > Then you live not in a technical world.
>
> True. I live in the real world.


So you claim.

Two video-links were given: Massa's knock-out-crash at 250 kph and
another showing evolution in infrastructure over a 50 years period.

The last one is a middle-finger-up-statement to those stating speed is
dangerous: on impact both cars were at the exact same 30 MPH.

Your 'real world'-idea seems so strong that there is room for doubt nor
improvement. One parameter to rule them all.

Never imagined the real world so... simple , so dull. I could never
survive in your real, one-dimensional world, even less make a living
there. You are quite lucky.

Tom De Moor

[[email protected]]

On Feb 11, 9:58*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tom De Moor writes:
> > Then you live not in a technical world.
>
> True. I live in the real world.

No you don't. Do you turn your head to look out the SIDE window on
MSFS.

Answer NO.

In the split second you turn your head to look out the the side window
to look at the airport environment (I.E wind sock), some NORDO plane
COULD fill up your windscreen.

Pray tell, how do you prevent a mid air in that situation?

[[email protected]]

On Feb 10, 3:59*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Correction!
>
> I wrote:
> > If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, ~99% of GA aircraft
> > fatalities would still happen.
>
> That should be ~97%, not ~99%. Corrected number below.
>
> > From Nall Report analysis of U.S. NTSB records:
>
> > Total fixed wing GA fatalities:
> > 2002: * 518
> > 2003: * 555
> > 2004: * 510
> > 2005: * 491
> > 2006: * 488
> > Total: 2562
>
> > Fatalities due to midair collision:
> > 2002: * * 5
>
> There were 9 fatalities, not 5. There were 5 accidents yielding
> fatalities, not 5 fatalities. My misread.
>
> > 2003: * * 7
>
> Should be 23.
>
> > 2004: * * 6
>
> Should be 10.
>
> > 2005: * * 5
>
> Should be 14.
>
> > 2006: * * 4
>
> Should be 9.
>
> > Total: * 27
>
> Should be 65.
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/03nall.pdf
> >http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/04nall.pdf
> >http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/05nall.pdf
> >http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/06nall.pdf
> >http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/07nall.pdf- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Jim,

Does this factor in that there may have been more then one fatality in
an occurance?

For example using simple numbers, if you had 100 planes and 3
accidents that lead to 9 fatalities that would be 3 percent fatality
rate based on takeoffs. (97 percent safety rating)

Second example, if you had 100 planes and 1 accident that had 9 people
in the plane, you would have a 1 percent fatality rate based on
takeoffs. (99 percent safety rating)

I am not sure what the survival rate in a mid air is but to assume
everybody died in a mid air would be statistically incorrect if you
had survivors in any of your cites.

[Harry K]

On Feb 10, 4:15*pm, cavelamb > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > cavelamb writes:
>
> >> Exactly HOW do you think you can prevent ANY midair?
>
> > Training, standardization, caution, discipline, and other techniques can
> > greatly reduce the incidence of midair collisions.
>
> Well, if you have been following the other posts in this thread
> you'd understand that they already ARE doing just that.
>
> --
>
> Richard Lambhttp://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/
>
> "The clock of life is wound but once, and no man has the power
> to tell just when the hands will stop, at late or early hour...
> Now is the only time you own. Live, love, toil with a will.
> Place no faith in time. *For the clock may soon be still."

Not only doing it but have done it down to the point of not only
_diminishing_ returns but almost zero additional benefit.

Harry K

[Harry K]

On Feb 10, 4:57*am, brian whatcott > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Jim Logajan writes:
>
> >> If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, ~99% of GA aircraft fatalities
> >> would still happen.
>
> > If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, 27 people would still be alive,
> > based on your own cited statistics. Is saving lives not a sufficient
> > justification for eliminating midair collisions? Is there are threshold of
> > deaths below which efforts to eliminate midair collisions are not justified?
> > What cost is there in attempting to eliminate midair collisions that offsets
> > the loss of life that they entail?
>
> If the US road speed limit were reduced from 70 to 65 mph, perhaps
> 30,000 lives would be saved annually. Isn't that worthwhile?
>
> * We have apparently decided NOT.
>
> Brian W

Unsupported assertion even noting the weasel words.

Basic fact. Speed does not kill, speed differential kills and highway
design has, and continues, to eliminate as much differential as
possible. Unfortunately, noone has been able to design a way to insure
all drivers operate a vehicle reasonably.

Harry K

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
...

Jim,

Does this factor in that there may have been more then one fatality in
an occurance?

For example using simple numbers, if you had 100 planes and 3
accidents that lead to 9 fatalities that would be 3 percent fatality
rate based on takeoffs. (97 percent safety rating)

Second example, if you had 100 planes and 1 accident that had 9 people
in the plane, you would have a 1 percent fatality rate based on
takeoffs. (99 percent safety rating)

I am not sure what the survival rate in a mid air is but to assume
everybody died in a mid air would be statistically incorrect if you
had survivors in any of your cites.

-------------begin new post---------------

I don't recall the cite, but have read that a very high percentage of mid
air collisions are actually fender benders. It is not at all unusual for
both of the accident aircraft to land safely.

Peter

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Do you turn your head to look out the SIDE window on
> MSFS.

Yes, if I need to watch for traffic.

> In the split second you turn your head to look out the the side window
> to look at the airport environment (I.E wind sock), some NORDO plane
> COULD fill up your windscreen.

Highly unlikely if your situational awareness is good.

> Pray tell, how do you prevent a mid air in that situation?

See above.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 11, 11:15*am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> Jim,
>
> Does this factor in that there may have been more then one fatality in
> an occurance?
>
> For example using simple numbers, if you had 100 planes and 3
> accidents that lead to 9 fatalities that would be 3 percent fatality
> rate based on takeoffs. (97 percent safety rating)
>
> Second example, if you had 100 planes and 1 accident that had 9 people
> in the plane, you would have a 1 percent fatality rate based on
> takeoffs. *(99 percent safety rating)
>
> I am not sure what the survival rate in a mid air is but to assume
> everybody died in a mid air would be statistically incorrect if you
> had survivors in any of your cites.
>
> -------------begin new post---------------
>
> I don't recall the cite, but have read that a very high percentage of mid
> air collisions are actually fender benders. *It is not at all unusual for
> both of the accident aircraft to land safely.
>
> Peter

Peter,

You bring out a good point that I didn't even consider. I just
figured the worst case scenario

So, if this is the case, then pretty good chance his 99 percent of GA
fatal accidents sans mid air would be right?

[[email protected]]

On Feb 11, 11:21*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Yes, if I need to watch for traffic.

You have a monitor at your 9 and 3 oclock to turn your head to look
out the window?? Post a picture of your MSFS setup or you just
spewing your typical bull again. Using arrow keys to turn the view of
MSFS is NOT turning your head.

Digital cameras are cheap and plenty of free picture hosting sites.
You have a website, put it on your website.

> > In the split second you turn your head to look out the the side window
> > to look at the airport environment (I.E wind sock), some NORDO plane
> > COULD fill up your windscreen.
>
> Highly unlikely if your situational awareness is good.

WRONG. Did you read the NORDO part. I don't hear him talking on the
radio, how can I be situationally aware? Oh, I forgot, you don't have
NORDO traffic on MSFS.

> > Pray tell, how do you prevent a mid air in that situation?
>
> See above.

See above.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You have a monitor at your 9 and 3 oclock to turn your head to look
> out the window??

No, I have a control that lets me swing the view in either direction. I
usually only look for traffic when it is pointed out to me or when I see
something on TCAS, since sim traffic is very light. And I fly a lot IFR, in
which case I can't see traffic, anyway.

I do look around more when flying a pattern, just for orientation rather than
for traffic.

> WRONG. Did you read the NORDO part. I don't hear him talking on the
> radio, how can I be situationally aware?

Do the best you can. Look for other traffic, and listen to the radio.

NORDO traffic nearby makes me very nervous.

> Oh, I forgot, you don't have NORDO traffic on MSFS.

You can, but it's rare. Traffic in general tends to be light except at
important gatherings. It can get fairly busy at some airports. NORDO is not
allowed on the network I prefer, which is an easy way to get around the NORDO
issue (I disagree with it, but it's not my network).

[[email protected]]

On Feb 11, 1:36*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> No, I have a control that lets me swing the view in either direction. I
> usually only look for traffic when it is pointed out to me or when I see
> something on TCAS, since sim traffic is very light.

Translation YOU DON"T FLY IN THE REAL WORLD. Try flying at KMBO with
4 school planes in the pattern as well as NORDO CAF planes working the
pattern.

>And I fly a lot IFR, in
> which case I can't see traffic, anyway.

You DON"T FLY IFR. YOU SIMULATE FLYING IFR in MSFS.

> Do the best you can. *Look for other traffic, and listen to the radio.

What part do you not understand. YOU DON"T HEAR NORDO traffic. Again
I ask, please answer the question I ASKED ON MY FIRST RESPONSE TO YOU.

>>In the split second you turn your head to look out the the side window
>>to look at the airport environment (I.E wind sock), some NORDO plane
>>COULD fill up your windscreen.

>>Pray tell, how do you prevent a mid air in that situation?

ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOVE. HOW DO YOU PREVENT A MID AIR in that
situation. YOUR RADIO IS USELESS. and YOU CAN"T be situationally
aware on something you didn't see or hear!!!

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Translation YOU DON"T FLY IN THE REAL WORLD. Try flying at KMBO with
> 4 school planes in the pattern as well as NORDO CAF planes working the
> pattern.

I've flown at other airports that were quite busy, but not with NORDO aircraft
about. Because it is so difficult to remain aware of traffic with NORDO
aircraft in the vicinity, I tend to avoid places where I might have a good
chance of encountering such aircraft. Staying withing Class A, B, C, or D
airspace helps.

> You DON"T FLY IFR. YOU SIMULATE FLYING IFR in MSFS.

In both simulation and real life, if you are flying in IMC, you generally
cannot see other traffic.

> What part do you not understand. YOU DON"T HEAR NORDO traffic.

You listen to the radio to keep track of aircraft that are using the radio.
The fact that NORDO traffic may be nearby does not mean that you stop using
the radio.

> ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOVE. HOW DO YOU PREVENT A MID AIR in that
> situation. YOUR RADIO IS USELESS. and YOU CAN"T be situationally
> aware on something you didn't see or hear!!!

You do the best you can. Keep your eyes open, your head on a swivel, and
listen carefully to the radio. Fly in a way that others will be able to
predict, and try to anticipate what other people may do. This will not prevent
a midair collision, but it will reduce the risk.

What method(s) do you suggest?

[[email protected]]

On Feb 11, 2:09*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> Fly in a way that others will be able to
> predict,

I DO. My videos support what I say.

>and try to anticipate what other people may do.

YOU CANT ANTICIPATE SOMETHING YOU DON"T SEE OR HEAR.

>This will not prevent
> a midair collision, but it will reduce the risk.

CANT REDUCE THE RISK OF SOMETHING YOU DON"T SEE OR HEAR.

> What method(s) do you suggest?

NONE, you can't prevent mid air accidents when you don't see or hear
the other airplane to avoid them in the first place.

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
...
On Feb 11, 11:15 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> Jim,
>
> Does this factor in that there may have been more then one fatality in
> an occurance?
>
> For example using simple numbers, if you had 100 planes and 3
> accidents that lead to 9 fatalities that would be 3 percent fatality
> rate based on takeoffs. (97 percent safety rating)
>
> Second example, if you had 100 planes and 1 accident that had 9 people
> in the plane, you would have a 1 percent fatality rate based on
> takeoffs. (99 percent safety rating)
>
> I am not sure what the survival rate in a mid air is but to assume
> everybody died in a mid air would be statistically incorrect if you
> had survivors in any of your cites.
>
> -------------begin new post---------------
>
> I don't recall the cite, but have read that a very high percentage of mid
> air collisions are actually fender benders. It is not at all unusual for
> both of the accident aircraft to land safely.
>
> Peter

Peter,

You bring out a good point that I didn't even consider. I just
figured the worst case scenario

So, if this is the case, then pretty good chance his 99 percent of GA
fatal accidents sans mid air would be right?

--------------begin new post----------------

He could very well be right. Actually, a high percentage of all GA
accidents don't involve deaths or injuries.

Peter

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> NONE, you can't prevent mid air accidents when you don't see or hear
> the other airplane to avoid them in the first place.

The fact that you cannot definitely prevent such accidents doesn't mean that
you should not continue to keep your eyes and ears open.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 11, 3:09*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> The fact that you cannot definitely prevent such accidents doesn't mean that
> you should not continue to keep your eyes and ears open.

I never said you shouldn't keep your eyes and ears open.

But SOME accidents ARE NOT preventable as I just demonstrated to you
in a see and avoid environment like the pattern of an uncontrolled
airport.

Pushing arrows on a keyboard to look left and right is not the same as
having your head on a swivel dodging metal AND flying an airplane.

Until you exit the world of MSFS and enter the real world of flying,
you will never understand this.

I have been (and still) in both worlds (MSF SIMULATION and real world
flying) so I talk from experience.

Enuf said.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> I never said you shouldn't keep your eyes and ears open.
>
> But SOME accidents ARE NOT preventable as I just demonstrated to you
> in a see and avoid environment like the pattern of an uncontrolled
> airport.

Okay. So what is your point? The best practices are the same whether the
accidents are absolutely avoidable or not.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 11, 3:52*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > I never said you shouldn't keep your eyes and ears open.
>
> > But SOME accidents ARE NOT preventable as I just demonstrated to you
> > in a see and avoid environment like the pattern of an uncontrolled
> > airport.
>
> Okay. So what is your point?

My point is you cannot eliminate mid air collisions no matter what
training is given that you insist will eliminate mid airs. .My point
is we don't live in a sheltered world of MSFS, human factor will
contribute to UNAVOIDABLE collisions or errors in flying an
airplane.

> The best practices are the same whether the
> accidents are absolutely avoidable or not.

Yes, which we have currently in place and works remarkably well
considering all the variety of equipped airplanes we have around
airports like KMBO.

But you don't know this since you sit behind a desktop simulator USING
TCAS that most of us don't have.

Could there be a better process to improve safety, possibly and
probably, but I don't have that answer.

I DO KNOW THAT WHAT WE HAVE works very well in the REAL WORLD for 10
years for me and I am closing in on 1000 flight hours. Could
something happen tomorrow? Absolutely, but odds are in my favor of
something NOT happening.

[Jim Logajan]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>> I don't recall the cite, but have read that a very high percentage of
>> mid air collisions are actually fender benders. It is not at all
>> unusual for both of the accident aircraft to land safely.

Per my other recent post, very roughly half of all midairs could be
considered non-fatal fender-benders. I presume ~100% of all midairs are
harrowing to survivors of the initial impact, with about half the accident
participants living to tell the tale.

> He could very well be right. Actually, a high percentage of all GA
> accidents don't involve deaths or injuries.

Out of 1431 reported fixed wing GA accidents, 296 yielded fatalities, for a
~21% fatal rate and of course ~79% nonfatal. On the other hand, the number
of permanent injuries is unknown and those definitely have an impact on
remaining quality of life and lost earnings potential. So more than 21% of
the accidents would be considered by the victims and their relatives to be
classified as life-changing in a negative way.

[Dana[_2_]]

On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:59:13 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, 27 people would still be alive,
>based on your own cited statistics. Is saving lives not a sufficient
>justification for eliminating midair collisions?

If it were possible, sure, but many _more_ lives could be saved by
putting the effort elsewhere. It's a matter of allocation of
resources.

The restrictions on flying that an effort to completely eliminate
midairs would mean that pretty much everybody stays on the ground.


--
Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic.

[Jim Logajan]

Dana > wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:59:13 +0100, Mxsmanic >
> wrote:
>
>>If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, 27 people would still be
>>alive, based on your own cited statistics. Is saving lives not a
>>sufficient justification for eliminating midair collisions?
>
> If it were possible, sure, but many _more_ lives could be saved by
> putting the effort elsewhere. It's a matter of allocation of
> resources.

Thank you.

I had originally included that very assessment in my original post but
decided to remove it to allow the statistics to "speak for themselves."

More opinion:
In fact, a review of the Nall Report statistics indicates that a large
majority of fatal fixed wing GA accidents could be categorized as due to
fundamental "improper use of flight controls." I.e. inadequate or rusty
flight skill (or one-time fatal mistakes of otherwise experienced pilots.)
Furthermore, since those causes appear to have dropped to a plateau below
which they appear not to be improving, and considering the high cost of
maintaining and improving those skills, the way I see it the following are
probably true:

1) Improvement in skill level of GA pilots is unlikely to improve in the
future in any cost-effective way. It seems reasonable to assume that the
pilot population already practices its skills as much as it can now afford.
Further improvements in piloting can probably only be made if GA becomes
more "elite" by raising the skill level required. (Though this winnowing of
the pilot population would run contrary to efforts to "Grow GA".)

2) If the GA pilot population is to improve its safety record or to grow in
number without compromising its existing safety record, then given what is
known of the current pilot population capabilities, the current design of
fixed wing aircraft controls must be changed in some fundamental ways.

For example, addition of some machine intelligence in the flight control
systems that takes into account not just pilot demands, but limits to those
demands imposed by the current flight regime, and is active through all
phases of flight so that it aids and/or limits controls to controllable
regimes. The statistics currently indicate a greater probability of human
failure than machine failure, so this seems likely to yield a net reduction
in the accident rate. On the other hand the cost aspect is unknown.

[Mike Beede[_2_]]

In article >,
John Smith > wrote:

> > The total accident deaths per year in the US is only around 38,000.
>
> Only?

Well, that's on the order of one in 10,000 people per year.
That actually sounds pretty good, considering around 140
people out of 10,000 will die of *some* cause during that
year.

Of course, the context of my comment was that 38,000 isn't much
more than 30,000.

Mike Beede

[Matt Barrow[_8_]]

"Tom De Moor" > wrote in message
.be...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> > Speed does not kill, failing or absent infrastructure does.
>>
>> Infrastructure? Maybe 5% tops.
>>
>> Try Inattention and intoxication first.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Even to inattention and intoxication infrastructure is the answer.
>
> http://www.katchuptv.com/?video=4781
>
> The video shows what happens if a driver gets knocked inconscious at 250
> kph.
>
What if he gets knocked outconscious?

[Matt Barrow[_8_]]

"Tom De Moor" > wrote in message
.be...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> > Even to inattention and intoxication infrastructure is the answer.
>>
>> Infrastructure cannot compensate for driver incompetence or impairment.
>>
>>
>
> Then you live not in a technical world.

Been in the highway/road building technical world when you were peeing in
diapers.

>
> http://boingboing.net/2010/01/14/crash-test-1959-chev.html
>
And you live in a grammar and spelling challenged world, not to mention a
tangential world where you can't keep to the topic.

[Matt Barrow[_8_]]

"John Smith" > wrote in message
...
>> The total accident deaths per year in the US is only around 38,000.
>
> Only?

Okay,. so let's reduce it to zero and ban driving.

Of course, you'd have to ban ALL transportation.

Of course, sitting on your ass watching ESPN and MTV can kill you in the
long run, too.

<Lemme guess: college student?>

[Matt Barrow[_8_]]

"brian whatcott" > wrote in message
...
> brian whatcott wrote:
>
>>> What cost is there in attempting to eliminate midair collisions that
>>> offsets
>>> the loss of life that they entail?
>>
>> If the US road speed limit were reduced from 70 to 65 mph, perhaps 30,000
>> lives would be saved annually. Isn't that worthwhile?
>>
>> We have apparently decided NOT.
>>
>> Brian W
>
> My numbers for road deaths were way high. The allowable speed would need
> to drop much more to provide these life saves - to perhaps as low as 15
> mph??
> The time series data is much more encouraging: fatalities per million cap
> are dropping. One supposes that belts and bags play a role.
> Depending on the source, the international data is not flattering
> for US drivers - but then - they have long distances available.
>
I wonder if international road systems are built primarily for
transportation, or for generating revenue from fines and/or deliberately
choked to force people into mass transit like ours.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/reports/rlcreport.asp

http://www.ite.org/

http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv6n1.pdf

[Tom De Moor]

In article >,
says...
>
> >
> And you live in a grammar and spelling challenged world, not to mention a
> tangential world where you can't keep to the topic.
>
>
>

Sorry: I speak and write but 5 languages. And correct: there are some
spelling errors, most of them due to typing too rapidely or thinking in
several languages at the same time.

I'll work on it.

Tom De Moor

[India November]

On Feb 12, 12:37*pm, Tom De Moor >
wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>
>
> > And you live in a grammar and spelling challenged world, not to mention a
> > tangential world where you can't keep to the topic.
>
> Sorry: I speak and write but 5 languages. And correct: there are some
> spelling errors, most of them due to typing too rapidely or thinking in
> several languages at the same time.
>
> I'll work on it.
>
> Tom De Moor

Lots of grumpy people on this thread...

Surely the point of the original post was to show that flying entails
risk to life. It's difficult to eliminate all risks, but working to
reduce the biggest risks will likely lead to the biggest benefit in
terms of precious lives saved. Midairs don't contribute much, compared
with all other causes, of your chances of dying in a glider.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> My point is you cannot eliminate mid air collisions no matter what
> training is given that you insist will eliminate mid airs.

I don't recall insisting that any training would eliminate midair accidents.
Training is likely to reduce them, however.

> ... human factor will
> contribute to UNAVOIDABLE collisions or errors in flying an
> airplane.

Human beings who become careless or reckless and rationalize it by saying that
it's impossible to eliminate accidents, anyway, will surely be involved in new
accidents.

"Unavoidable" is a strong word. There haven't been many incidents that were
truly unavoidable. Just because a human being messes up doesn't mean that the
messing up was impossible to avoid.

> But you don't know this since you sit behind a desktop simulator USING
> TCAS that most of us don't have.

One advantage of simulation is that you can afford better avionics. However,
only one of my small aircraft (the Baron) is equipped with TCAS, and the very
same instrument (a Sandel ST3400) is available to anyone with a small aircraft
who is prepared to pay for it (about $35,000 for the real-world version, and
1000 times cheaper for the sim version).

> Could there be a better process to improve safety, possibly and
> probably, but I don't have that answer.

Safety improvements tend to be incremental, not revolutionary.

[Mxsmanic]

Dana writes:

> If it were possible, sure, but many _more_ lives could be saved by
> putting the effort elsewhere. It's a matter of allocation of
> resources.

I don't have the numbers, but you're probably right.

> The restrictions on flying that an effort to completely eliminate
> midairs would mean that pretty much everybody stays on the ground.

True of many safety measures if they are carried to extremes.

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> For example, addition of some machine intelligence in the flight control
> systems that takes into account not just pilot demands, but limits to those
> demands imposed by the current flight regime, and is active through all
> phases of flight so that it aids and/or limits controls to controllable
> regimes.

Automation has its own universe of failure modes that is just as difficult to
eliminate as human error (because it is derived largely from human error), and
digital systems in particular have catastrophic failure modes that human-based
systems do not share. So be careful what you wish for.

In any case, Airbus is trying to embrace the philosophy you espouse, not
always successfully.

And to a significant extent, the greater the automation, the less interesting
the activity. It might be pragmatic to automate commercial flight, but flying
for pleasure would probably suffer from excessive automation.

> The statistics currently indicate a greater probability of human
> failure than machine failure, so this seems likely to yield a net reduction
> in the accident rate.

There are no heavily automated systems to compare to, and existing automation
systems have not been analyzed in detail, as far as I know.

[Wayne Paul]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message ...
> writes:
>
>
> ... Snip ...
>.
>
> One advantage of simulation is that you can afford better avionics. However,
> only one of my small aircraft (the Baron) is equipped with TCAS, and the very
> same instrument (a Sandel ST3400) is available to anyone with a small aircraft
> who is prepared to pay for it (about $35,000 for the real-world version, and
> 1000 times cheaper for the sim version).
>
> ... Snip ...
>

"... available to anyone with a small aircraft ..."?????

I don't have the budget to put one in my aircraft; however, if I did ...... How big would the battery have to be to power a TCAS on a 6+ hour cross country flight in an aircraft without an electrical system? The follow on question is ... What use is simulation if the simulator avionics aren't in the aircraft you fly?

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F

[Dan[_12_]]

Wayne Paul wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message ...
>> writes:
>>
>>
>> ... Snip ...
>> .
>>
>> One advantage of simulation is that you can afford better avionics. However,
>> only one of my small aircraft (the Baron) is equipped with TCAS, and the very
>> same instrument (a Sandel ST3400) is available to anyone with a small aircraft
>> who is prepared to pay for it (about $35,000 for the real-world version, and
>> 1000 times cheaper for the sim version).
>>
>> ... Snip ...
>>
>
> "... available to anyone with a small aircraft ..."?????
>
> I don't have the budget to put one in my aircraft; however, if I did ..... How big would the battery have to be to power a TCAS on a 6+ hour cross country flight in an aircraft without an electrical system? The follow on question is ... What use is simulation if the simulator avionics aren't in the aircraft you fly?
>
> Wayne
> HP-14 "6F"
> http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F
>

Trying to hold a logical conversation with mxmanic is futile. If you
want a giggle ask him to fly one of his simulations then try the real
thing. I assume no one would risk a real airplane on him so a real
simulator would suffice. Throw a few emergencies or weather problems at
him and watch what happens.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Grand Mal]

"Tom De Moor" > wrote in message
.be...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> >
>> And you live in a grammar and spelling challenged world, not to mention a
>> tangential world where you can't keep to the topic.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Sorry: I speak and write but 5 languages. And correct: there are some
> spelling errors, most of them due to typing too rapidely or thinking in
> several languages at the same time.
>
> I'll work on it.
>
> Tom De Moor

Mark? Is that you?

[Mxsmanic]

Wayne Paul writes:

> I don't have the budget to put one in my aircraft; however, if I
> did ..... How big would the battery have to be to power a TCAS
> on a 6+ hour cross country flight in an aircraft without an
> electrical system?

I don't think battery operation is an option. Besides, the instrument has to
be connected to other devices that also require electricity, such as GPS
units, VOR receivers, etc., not to mention TCAS hardware itself.

> The follow on question is ... What use is simulation if the
> simulator avionics aren't in the aircraft you fly?

It depends on the purpose of the simulation. Some pilots do indeed simulate
the exact aircraft that they fly in the real world. But simmers who do not fly
are free to choose the aircraft of their choice, and in my case, I have
several dozen aircraft to choose from. The Baron has TCAS, and it could also
accommodate TCAS in real life, so it's not unrealistic. The Cessna 152 doesn't
have much of anything. So I may be generous with the avionics on a few of the
aircraft, but it's not unrealistic. An instrument costing $35,000 isn't much
on an aircraft that costs well over $1 million new.

[Wayne Paul]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message ...
> Wayne Paul writes:
>
>> I don't have the budget to put one in my aircraft; however, if I
>> did ..... How big would the battery have to be to power a TCAS
>> on a 6+ hour cross country flight in an aircraft without an
>> electrical system?
>
> I don't think battery operation is an option. Besides, the instrument has to
> be connected to other devices that also require electricity, such as GPS
> units, VOR receivers, etc., not to mention TCAS hardware itself.
>
>> The follow on question is ... What use is simulation if the
>> simulator avionics aren't in the aircraft you fly?
>
> It depends on the purpose of the simulation. Some pilots do indeed simulate
> the exact aircraft that they fly in the real world. But simmers who do not fly
> are free to choose the aircraft of their choice, and in my case, I have
> several dozen aircraft to choose from. The Baron has TCAS, and it could also
> accommodate TCAS in real life, so it's not unrealistic. The Cessna 152 doesn't
> have much of anything. So I may be generous with the avionics on a few of the
> aircraft, but it's not unrealistic. An instrument costing $35,000 isn't much
> on an aircraft that costs well over $1 million new.

In my real life experiences the simulators were exact replicas of the aircraft cockpit. Its' purpose was to provide a platform for developing emergency procedures, crew coordination, thus enhancing flight safety. If "simmers' don't fly then a simulator is nothing more then an aviation related toy with which they can play with while pretending to be pilots.

Respectfully,

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F

P.S. You use the term "aircraft" which in the U.S.A has a broader definition then the term "airplane."

[Mxsmanic]

Wayne Paul writes:

> In my real life experiences the simulators were exact replicas of
> the aircraft cockpit.

An exact replica would include pressure changes from altitude changes or
pressurization, and I rather doubt that the simulators you used had that
feature.

The point being, of course, that different simulators serve different
purposes. Each simulator is adapted to simulate whatever is relevant to its
purpose.

Some full-motion simulators have visuals that are worse than Microsoft Flight
Simulator, simply because visuals are not relevant to their purpose (which
often emphasizes instrument flight or procedures, not pilotage).

> Its' purpose was to provide a platform for developing emergency procedures,
> crew coordination, thus enhancing flight safety.

Then presumably it simulated aspects of the real aircraft relevant to these
purposes. How well did it simulate magnetic compass anomalies?

> If "simmers' don't fly then a simulator is nothing more then an aviation
> related toy with which they can play with while pretending to be pilots.

You're entitled to your opinion.

> P.S. You use the term "aircraft" which in the U.S.A has a broader
> definition then the term "airplane."

Yes, I know, thank you.

[Frank Whiteley]

On Feb 12, 9:34*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Wayne Paul writes:
> > In my real life experiences the simulators were exact replicas of
> > the aircraft cockpit.
>
> An exact replica would include pressure changes from altitude changes or
> pressurization, and I rather doubt that the simulators you used had that
> feature.
>
> The point being, of course, that different simulators serve different
> purposes. Each simulator is adapted to simulate whatever is relevant to its
> purpose.
>
> Some full-motion simulators have visuals that are worse than Microsoft Flight
> Simulator, simply because visuals are not relevant to their purpose (which
> often emphasizes instrument flight or procedures, not pilotage).
>
> > Its' purpose was to provide a platform for developing emergency procedures,
> > crew coordination, thus enhancing flight safety.
>
> Then presumably it simulated aspects of the real aircraft relevant to these
> purposes. How well did it simulate magnetic compass anomalies?
>
> > If "simmers' don't fly then a simulator is nothing more then an aviation
> > related toy with which they can play with while pretending to be pilots.. *
>
> You're entitled to your opinion.
>
> > P.S. *You use the term "aircraft" which in the U.S.A has a broader
> > definition then the term "airplane."
>
> Yes, I know, thank you.

I've flown the United 777 and DC-10 simulators in varietal weather and
emergencies. For the PC, I prefer Condor Soaring.

[Wayne Paul]

This is my last post on the subject.

I believe you grossly underestimate the capabilities of good cockpit simulators. Even the air combat, carrier landing, etc simulators of the 1970s far surpass the capabilities of a PC based system.

If you had flight experience the view from the cockpit flying one-on-one or two-on-one with pilots in adjoining simulators could even convince you that you were experiencing high Gs. Without flight experience the G suite inflations merely caused discomfort.

The same was true with a night carrier landing simulator. As the simulated weather deteriorated and the fuel state became critical your heart beat would increase, palms would sweat, etc. A non-pilot didn't relate the flight conditions with death; therefore, did not experience the same physiological symptoms; therefore, gaining little form the training other then a bit of hand/eye coordination. In fact in many cases it actually caused complacency instead of developing skill under stress.

This is why I consider a non-pilot in a simulator simply playing a game with only minor aviation training relevance.

Respectfully,

Wayne, USN Retired.


"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message ...
> Wayne Paul writes:
>
>> In my real life experiences the simulators were exact replicas of
>> the aircraft cockpit.
>
> An exact replica would include pressure changes from altitude changes or
> pressurization, and I rather doubt that the simulators you used had that
> feature.
>
> The point being, of course, that different simulators serve different
> purposes. Each simulator is adapted to simulate whatever is relevant to its
> purpose.
>
> Some full-motion simulators have visuals that are worse than Microsoft Flight
> Simulator, simply because visuals are not relevant to their purpose (which
> often emphasizes instrument flight or procedures, not pilotage).
>
>> Its' purpose was to provide a platform for developing emergency procedures,
>> crew coordination, thus enhancing flight safety.
>
> Then presumably it simulated aspects of the real aircraft relevant to these
> purposes. How well did it simulate magnetic compass anomalies?
>
>> If "simmers' don't fly then a simulator is nothing more then an aviation
>> related toy with which they can play with while pretending to be pilots.
>
> You're entitled to your opinion.
>
>> P.S. You use the term "aircraft" which in the U.S.A has a broader
>> definition then the term "airplane."
>
> Yes, I know, thank you.

[Peter Dohm]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> Wayne Paul wrote:
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>> ... Snip ...
>>> .
>>>
>>> One advantage of simulation is that you can afford better avionics.
>>> However,
>>> only one of my small aircraft (the Baron) is equipped with TCAS, and the
>>> very
>>> same instrument (a Sandel ST3400) is available to anyone with a small
>>> aircraft
>>> who is prepared to pay for it (about $35,000 for the real-world version,
>>> and
>>> 1000 times cheaper for the sim version).
>>>
>>> ... Snip ...
>>>
>>
>> "... available to anyone with a small aircraft ..."????? I don't have the
>> budget to put one in my aircraft; however, if I did ..... How big would
>> the battery have to be to power a TCAS on a 6+ hour cross country flight
>> in an aircraft without an electrical system? The follow on question is
>> ... What use is simulation if the simulator avionics aren't in the
>> aircraft you fly?
>>
>> Wayne
>> HP-14 "6F"
>> http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F
>>
>
> Trying to hold a logical conversation with mxmanic is futile. If you
> want a giggle ask him to fly one of his simulations then try the real
> thing. I assume no one would risk a real airplane on him so a real
> simulator would suffice. Throw a few emergencies or weather problems at
> him and watch what happens.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Just the thought made my day!
:-)))))

Peter

[Wayne Paul]

"Frank Whiteley" > wrote in message ...

> I've flown the United 777 and DC-10 simulators in varietal weather and
> emergencies. For the PC, I prefer Condor Soaring.

Frank,

We are in agreement on this one for sure!!!

Wayne

[Mxsmanic]

Wayne Paul writes:

> I believe you grossly underestimate the capabilities of good cockpit
> simulators. Even the air combat, carrier landing, etc simulators of
> the 1970s far surpass the capabilities of a PC based system.

That depends on what you're simulating, as I've said. And desktop simulators
offer unmatched value for the price. A $35 million simulator would probably
offer a better experience than a desktop simulator in most ways, but it costs
$34,999,960 more than the desktop simulator--so it had _better_ provide a
vastly superior experience.

> If you had flight experience the view from the cockpit flying one-on-one
> or two-on-one with pilots in adjoining simulators could even convince
> you that you were experiencing high Gs.

Certainly some simulators can simulate this (thanks especially to various
defects in human perception). I wouldn't want to simulate that, however; I
like placid, ordinary flight. I've never had any interest in aerobatics or
extreme maneuvers.

> The same was true with a night carrier landing simulator. As the simulated
> weather deteriorated and the fuel state became critical your heart beat
> would increase, palms would sweat, etc. A non-pilot didn't relate the
> flight conditions with death; therefore, did not experience the same
> physiological symptoms; therefore, gaining little form the training other
> then a bit of hand/eye coordination. In fact in many cases it actually
> caused complacency instead of developing skill under stress.

That would depend on the "pilot." Profiting from simulation requires that one
take it seriously, whether it be on a desktop or in a multimillion-dollar
full-motion simulator. People who constantly dismiss simulation as unrealistic
tend not to profit from simulation.

Chess is just a very abstract simulation of combat, and yet some chess players
react strongly and physiologically to the evolution of a game.

> This is why I consider a non-pilot in a simulator simply playing
> a game with only minor aviation training relevance.

You're entitled to your opinion.

[Surfer!]

In message >, Mxsmanic
> writes
<snip>
>That depends on what you're simulating, as I've said. And desktop simulators
>offer unmatched value for the price. A $35 million simulator would probably
>offer a better experience than a desktop simulator in most ways, but it costs
>$34,999,960 more than the desktop simulator--so it had _better_ provide a
>vastly superior experience.
<Snip>

Have you flown anything other than a PC? (being a passenger in a
commercial flight doesn't count)

--
Surfer!

[Mxsmanic]

Surfer! writes:

> Have you flown anything other than a PC?

I have only piloted simulators.

> ... being a passenger in a commercial flight doesn't count ...

Doesn't count for what?

[Frank Whiteley]

On Feb 12, 11:32*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Surfer! writes:
> > Have you flown anything other than a PC?
>
> I have only piloted simulators.
>
> > ... being a passenger in a commercial flight doesn't count ...
>
> Doesn't count for what?

One day, a young prat arrived at the gliderport for a real flight.
He'd logged 1500 hours on a flight simulator. The pilot couldn't tell
him anything, as he already knew it all about the instruments, stick
and rudder, and flight dynamics. Puked his guts out within ten
minutes.

[Mxsmanic]

Frank Whiteley writes:

> One day, a young prat arrived at the gliderport for a real flight.
> He'd logged 1500 hours on a flight simulator. The pilot couldn't tell
> him anything, as he already knew it all about the instruments, stick
> and rudder, and flight dynamics. Puked his guts out within ten
> minutes.

How was his flying?

[Dave[_19_]]

OK....

Last summer....

I took up a 17 yr old that had a LOT of time on MS Sim....

He took about 5 min to get the "feel " of the plane...

Then proceeded to NAIL turns to a heading, NO PROBLEM with turns up to
30 degrees bank, had researched the departures we use here, had
studied the chart, knew where the training areas were (we have 12) ,
KNEW where the CYR was, did a couple of stalls (HEY, the yoke shudders
JUST LIKE my "force feedback stick!")

Kept his head up, looking out, only checking the instruments (did NOT
expect that,- frankly, I was prepared for him to have his eyes inside
most of the time)

Did pretty good on steep turns too , best was 100 ft loss, 4th 360.

This was this kids FIRST time in a "real" aircraft. And I was
thoroughly impressed.....

Our flight school here as an extensive sim dept., (a whole building)
It is a vital part of the training.

You guys can beat up on MX all you want for what reasons you wish,
but many of his comments are reasonable and accurate.

Did you know you can get an instructors cert for ground school
instructing without ever crawling into an aircraft?

And that is where you are dudes, ON THE GROUND TYPING ON YOUR
COMPUTERS LIKE I AM NOW.

So you guys know "more" about flying than he does? OK... I have never
recall him ever contesting that. - But until he and you actually step
into a couple of like aircraft and have at it your superior prowness
as a pilot will never be demonstrated....

In this venue, (on the ground , on this forum etc.) his comments are
measured, ON TOPIC, and accurate a lot of the time. In comparison,
_some_ of the posts of others are looking , umm, well, maybe somewhat
silly..... ?

This has been great entertainment tho! :)

Some of these posts are a hoot!

Now before you turn the darts toward me, read this again..

0 insults.

0 personal attacks.

1 "slight" rant only..

Maybe an opinion?

Cheers!

Dave








On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:55:50 -0800 (PST), Frank Whiteley
> wrote:

>On Feb 12, 11:32*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Surfer! writes:
>> > Have you flown anything other than a PC?
>>
>> I have only piloted simulators.
>>
>> > ... being a passenger in a commercial flight doesn't count ...
>>
>> Doesn't count for what?
>
>One day, a young prat arrived at the gliderport for a real flight.
>He'd logged 1500 hours on a flight simulator. The pilot couldn't tell
>him anything, as he already knew it all about the instruments, stick
>and rudder, and flight dynamics. Puked his guts out within ten
>minutes.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dave" > wrote

> You guys can beat up on MX all you want for what reasons you wish,
> but many of his comments are reasonable and accurate.

You have to look at the whole package he brings to the table. He has major
psychological problems, and overall is insulting to the very people he seeks
to converse with. He will not accept an answer given to him when it does
not fit with his view of the world. Asberger's. Look it up. It fits.

Again, you can not only look at part of the package he brings, but take it
all. You can not take all of what he brings. Too much bad blood. He is
not worth it. I don't care how on topic he is, at times. Eventualy, he
will turn every conversation upside down, to his view.

> And that is where you are dudes, ON THE GROUND TYPING ON YOUR
> COMPUTERS LIKE I AM NOW.

But he has no desire to EVER go flying. Repeated many times. Too
dangerous, but yet he wants to emulate flying.

Ever seen his list of aircraft he "owns" in his make-believe world? Way
out of touch with reality. How about his logs of his flights, with his
make-believe passengers that he sometimes has to wait for. I don't have the
links for those documents, but perhaps someone here can provide them. The
dude needs serious help. You would agree if you read some of these pages.
>
> So you guys know "more" about flying than he does? OK... I have never
> recall him ever contesting that. - But until he and you actually step
> into a couple of like aircraft and have at it your superior prowness
> as a pilot will never be demonstrated....

Never happen. He has no desire to ever step in an airplane. He has had
offers to go flying. Refused.

> In this venue, (on the ground , on this forum etc.) his comments are
> measured, ON TOPIC, and accurate a lot of the time.

Even a broken clock is right twice per day. He is still only a broken
clock, that does not deserve the attention he has stolen here. It is time
for ignoring. He will go bother someone else, if we do. I guarantee it.

Never happen, though. You represent the few who find him entertaining. I
seriously doubt your ability to make rational judgments, dude. Either that,
or you have not been around long enough to get the full measure of his pile
of crap. It has to be one or the other.
--
Jim in NC

[terry]

On Feb 13, 12:59*pm, Dave > wrote:
> OK....
>
> Last summer....
>
> I took up a 17 yr old that had a LOT of time on MS Sim....
>
> He took about 5 min to get the "feel " of the plane...
>
> Then proceeded to NAIL turns to a heading, NO PROBLEM with turns up to
> 30 degrees bank, had researched the *departures we use here, had
> studied the chart, knew where the training areas were (we have 12) ,
> KNEW where the CYR was, did a couple of stalls (HEY, the yoke shudders
> JUST LIKE my "force feedback stick!")
>
> Kept his head up, looking out, only checking the instruments (did NOT
> expect that,- *frankly, I was prepared for him to have his eyes inside
> most of the time)
>
> Did pretty good on steep turns too , best was 100 ft loss, 4th 360.
>
> This was this kids FIRST time in a "real" aircraft. And I was
> thoroughly impressed.....
>
> Our flight school here *as an extensive sim *dept., (a whole building)
> It is a vital part of the training.
>
> You guys can beat up on *MX all you want for what *reasons you wish,
> but many of his comments are reasonable and accurate.
>
> *Did you know you can get an instructors cert for ground school
> instructing without ever crawling into an aircraft?
>
> And that is where you are dudes, ON THE *GROUND TYPING ON YOUR
> COMPUTERS LIKE I AM NOW.
>
> So you guys know "more" about flying than he does? OK... *I have never
> recall him ever contesting that. - But until he and you actually step
> into a couple of like *aircraft and have at it your superior prowness
> as a pilot will never be demonstrated....
>
> In this venue, (on the ground , on this forum etc.) his comments are
> measured, ON TOPIC, and *accurate a lot of the time. In comparison,
> _some_ *of the posts of others are looking , umm, well, maybe somewhat
> silly..... ?
>
> This has been great entertainment tho! *:)
>
> Some of these posts are a hoot!
>
> Now before you turn the darts toward me, read this again.. *
>
> 0 insults.
>
> 0 personal attacks.
>
> 1 "slight" rant *only..
>
> Maybe an opinion?
>
> Cheers!
>
> Dave
>
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:55:50 -0800 (PST), Frank Whiteley
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Feb 12, 11:32*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> Surfer! writes:
> >> > Have you flown anything other than a PC?
>
> >> I have only piloted simulators.
>
> >> > ... being a passenger in a commercial flight doesn't count ...
>
> >> Doesn't count for what?
>
> >One day, a young prat arrived at the gliderport for a real flight.
> >He'd logged 1500 hours on a flight simulator. *The pilot couldn't tell
> >him anything, as he already knew it all about the instruments, stick
> >and rudder, and flight dynamics. *Puked his guts out within ten
> >minutes.- Hide quoted text -
>
Dave
I expressed a similar view of Mxs some years ago, much to my later
embarrassment when I found out what a jerk he really was. Of course
much of what he says is accurate, because he will read stuff straight
out of a book and post it here to try and get an argument going, or to
sound like he actually knows what he is talking about. To get an
idea of his modus operandi, have a read of his first 2 posts in the
impossible turn thread, namely the first sentence in each, and tell me
what you think his motivation for posting is.
Terry
..

[Dan[_12_]]

terry wrote:
> On Feb 13, 12:59 pm, Dave > wrote:
>> OK....
>>
>> Last summer....
>>
>> I took up a 17 yr old that had a LOT of time on MS Sim....
>>
>> He took about 5 min to get the "feel " of the plane...
>>
>> Then proceeded to NAIL turns to a heading, NO PROBLEM with turns up to
>> 30 degrees bank, had researched the departures we use here, had
>> studied the chart, knew where the training areas were (we have 12) ,
>> KNEW where the CYR was, did a couple of stalls (HEY, the yoke shudders
>> JUST LIKE my "force feedback stick!")
>>
>> Kept his head up, looking out, only checking the instruments (did NOT
>> expect that,- frankly, I was prepared for him to have his eyes inside
>> most of the time)
>>
>> Did pretty good on steep turns too , best was 100 ft loss, 4th 360.
>>
>> This was this kids FIRST time in a "real" aircraft. And I was
>> thoroughly impressed.....
>>
>> Our flight school here as an extensive sim dept., (a whole building)
>> It is a vital part of the training.
>>
>> You guys can beat up on MX all you want for what reasons you wish,
>> but many of his comments are reasonable and accurate.
>>
>> Did you know you can get an instructors cert for ground school
>> instructing without ever crawling into an aircraft?
>>
>> And that is where you are dudes, ON THE GROUND TYPING ON YOUR
>> COMPUTERS LIKE I AM NOW.
>>
>> So you guys know "more" about flying than he does? OK... I have never
>> recall him ever contesting that. - But until he and you actually step
>> into a couple of like aircraft and have at it your superior prowness
>> as a pilot will never be demonstrated....
>>
>> In this venue, (on the ground , on this forum etc.) his comments are
>> measured, ON TOPIC, and accurate a lot of the time. In comparison,
>> _some_ of the posts of others are looking , umm, well, maybe somewhat
>> silly..... ?
>>
>> This has been great entertainment tho! :)
>>
>> Some of these posts are a hoot!
>>
>> Now before you turn the darts toward me, read this again..
>>
>> 0 insults.
>>
>> 0 personal attacks.
>>
>> 1 "slight" rant only..
>>
>> Maybe an opinion?
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:55:50 -0800 (PST), Frank Whiteley
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> On Feb 12, 11:32 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>> Surfer! writes:
>>>>> Have you flown anything other than a PC?
>>>> I have only piloted simulators.
>>>>> ... being a passenger in a commercial flight doesn't count ...
>>>> Doesn't count for what?
>>> One day, a young prat arrived at the gliderport for a real flight.
>>> He'd logged 1500 hours on a flight simulator. The pilot couldn't tell
>>> him anything, as he already knew it all about the instruments, stick
>>> and rudder, and flight dynamics. Puked his guts out within ten
>>> minutes.- Hide quoted text -
> Dave
> I expressed a similar view of Mxs some years ago, much to my later
> embarrassment when I found out what a jerk he really was. Of course
> much of what he says is accurate, because he will read stuff straight
> out of a book and post it here to try and get an argument going, or to
> sound like he actually knows what he is talking about. To get an
> idea of his modus operandi, have a read of his first 2 posts in the
> impossible turn thread, namely the first sentence in each, and tell me
> what you think his motivation for posting is.
> Terry
> .
>
>
Mx has done that in several groups. He gets his jollies being an
irritant.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Brian Whatcott]

Dave wrote:
> OK....
>
> Last summer....
>
> I took up a 17 yr old that had a LOT of time on MS Sim....
>
> He took about 5 min to get the "feel " of the plane...
>
> Then proceeded to NAIL turns to a heading, NO PROBLEM with turns up to
> 30 degrees bank, had researched the departures we use here, had
> studied the chart, knew where the training areas were (we have 12) ,
> KNEW where the CYR was, did a couple of stalls (HEY, the yoke shudders
> JUST LIKE my "force feedback stick!")
>
> Kept his head up, looking out, only checking the instruments (did NOT
> expect that,- frankly, I was prepared for him to have his eyes inside
> most of the time)
>
> Did pretty good on steep turns too , best was 100 ft loss, 4th 360.
>
> This was this kids FIRST time in a "real" aircraft. And I was
> thoroughly impressed.....
>
> Our flight school here as an extensive sim dept., (a whole building)
> It is a vital part of the training.
>
> You guys can beat up on MX all you want for what reasons you wish,
> but many of his comments are reasonable and accurate.
>
> /snip/

I'm with you on this one.
Brian W

[Dave[_19_]]

>
>You have to look at the whole package he brings to the table.


Not really Jim..

I have personally met some people I have met "on line" , and have
found them to be (fortunately AND unfortunately) to be very different
from their "online" personna. In all cases so far, there was MUCH
more to the person when I have met them in person.


>
>
>But he has no desire to EVER go flying.

And thats OK, _ I have a very good friend who will NEVER get in an
airplane, unless it is an air ambulance and he has nothing to say
about it! :)

The
>dude needs serious help.

Maybe, but he stil posts some pretty rational thoughts, and has
started some interesting discussions .


>
>Even a broken clock is right twice per day. He is still only a broken
>clock, that does not deserve the attention he has stolen here.

Agreed.... but when (he) IS CORRECT..... that should be
aknowledged, as it should be with anyone of us...... not blazed away
at just because he happened to hit the "send" buttton...


>You represent the few who find him entertaining.

Ahhh, my bad. I should have been clearer. I don't find MX all that
entertaining, but some of the RESPONSES to his post certianly are!

I
>seriously doubt your ability to make rational judgments, dude. Either that,
>or you have not been around long enough to get the full measure of his pile
>of crap. It has to be one or the other.

It must be my ability...I have only been here since about , oh,
1993.....

I guess that depends on if 17 years is "only a newbe" or "that's
long enough" :)

(Dave hangs head and shufles feet)

Dave

[Dave[_19_]]

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:21:23 -0800 (PST), terry
> wrote:

Hmmmm...

OK.. first sentence of his first post referrs to the 27 potential
lives saved based on the OP's post....

Second post referrs to the potential of increased training etc.
reducing the deaths..

I am OK with that.

His motivation? Who really knows? And it does not really matter to
me.

What is _my_ motivation for even being here? To offer insight, to
learn from others? To "stirr the pot"? To offer news? To ask a
question?

Does anyone out there really care what MY motivaton is?

Actually, my motivation varies, - right now, its Sunday AM, cold
outside, I worked late last night installing a door, and have some
time on my hands, now and for the next 45 minutes.

(Sorry, best I can do for this session) :)

Does MY motivaton really matter to anybody?

......and I have quoted from books in my posts here as well... to get
feedback on the content, or to question the content....

No doubt , some here will question my motivation to defend MX, but I
have none other to comment on the entertainment value of the RESPONSES
his posts get, and I am not defending him at all.

My only comment is that I think that to blast away with multible
cannons and machine guns at a gopher just because it popped it's head
out of the hole seems a little silly.. (IMHO)

Who was that cartoon character anyway... "Yosemitie Sam" ? The one
with the big hat, mouth and shotgun that blasted away at anything that
moved?

Long time ago, I guess my age and immaturity is showing... Buggs Bunny
Show ?

:)

Cheers!

D






>>
>Dave
>I expressed a similar view of Mxs some years ago, much to my later
>embarrassment when I found out what a jerk he really was. Of course
>much of what he says is accurate, because he will read stuff straight
>out of a book and post it here to try and get an argument going, or to
>sound like he actually knows what he is talking about. To get an
>idea of his modus operandi, have a read of his first 2 posts in the
>impossible turn thread, namely the first sentence in each, and tell me
>what you think his motivation for posting is.
>Terry
>.

[Dave[_19_]]

Hi Dan!

If thats the case, he sure has learned whose buttons to push and how
huh?

:)

How long have you been retired Dan?

Dave






On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 02:58:53 -0600, Dan > wrote:

Of course
>> much of what he says is accurate, because he will read stuff straight
>> out of a book and post it here to try and get an argument going, or to
>> sound like he actually knows what he is talking about.
>> Terry
>> .
>>
>>
> Mx has done that in several groups. He gets his jollies being an
>irritant.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dave[_19_]]

Interesting comments Jim.

And probably quite accurate.

With todays (cheap) technology, some "artifical intelligence" in the
flight controlls is probably possible at an acceptable cost..

This might run contrary to some design philosophies though..

Cirrus perhaps? (flame suit on!)

:)

Dave


On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:32:40 -0600, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>Dana > wrote:

>More opinion:
>In fact, a review of the Nall Report statistics indicates that a large
>majority of fatal fixed wing GA accidents could be categorized as due to
>fundamental "improper use of flight controls." I.e. inadequate or rusty
>flight skill (or one-time fatal mistakes of otherwise experienced pilots.)
>Furthermore, since those causes appear to have dropped to a plateau below
>which they appear not to be improving, and considering the high cost of
>maintaining and improving those skills, the way I see it the following are
>probably true:
>
>1) Improvement in skill level of GA pilots is unlikely to improve in the
>future in any cost-effective way. It seems reasonable to assume that the
>pilot population already practices its skills as much as it can now afford.
>Further improvements in piloting can probably only be made if GA becomes
>more "elite" by raising the skill level required. (Though this winnowing of
>the pilot population would run contrary to efforts to "Grow GA".)
>
>2) If the GA pilot population is to improve its safety record or to grow in
>number without compromising its existing safety record, then given what is
>known of the current pilot population capabilities, the current design of
>fixed wing aircraft controls must be changed in some fundamental ways.
>
>For example, addition of some machine intelligence in the flight control
>systems that takes into account not just pilot demands, but limits to those
>demands imposed by the current flight regime, and is active through all
>phases of flight so that it aids and/or limits controls to controllable
>regimes. The statistics currently indicate a greater probability of human
>failure than machine failure, so this seems likely to yield a net reduction
>in the accident rate. On the other hand the cost aspect is unknown.

[Dave[_19_]]

Just to throw in .02 re your TCAS comment..................

We have the ZAON XRX on board our Cherokee in a VERY busy environment
(>100,000 operations /yr)

I cannot begin to tell you how useful this tool is in tracking
trafffic around us

For $1500 !

Dave




On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:39:48 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

writes:
>
>> My point is you cannot eliminate mid air collisions no matter what
>> training is given that you insist will eliminate mid airs.
>
>I don't recall insisting that any training would eliminate midair accidents.
>Training is likely to reduce them, however.
>
>> ... human factor will
>> contribute to UNAVOIDABLE collisions or errors in flying an
>> airplane.
>
>Human beings who become careless or reckless and rationalize it by saying that
>it's impossible to eliminate accidents, anyway, will surely be involved in new
>accidents.
>
>"Unavoidable" is a strong word. There haven't been many incidents that were
>truly unavoidable. Just because a human being messes up doesn't mean that the
>messing up was impossible to avoid.
>
>> But you don't know this since you sit behind a desktop simulator USING
>> TCAS that most of us don't have.
>
>One advantage of simulation is that you can afford better avionics. However,
>only one of my small aircraft (the Baron) is equipped with TCAS, and the very
>same instrument (a Sandel ST3400) is available to anyone with a small aircraft
>who is prepared to pay for it (about $35,000 for the real-world version, and
>1000 times cheaper for the sim version).
>
>> Could there be a better process to improve safety, possibly and
>> probably, but I don't have that answer.
>
>Safety improvements tend to be incremental, not revolutionary.

[Dan[_12_]]

Dave wrote:
> Hi Dan!
>
> If thats the case, he sure has learned whose buttons to push and how
> huh?
>
> :)
>
> How long have you been retired Dan?
>
> Dave
>

Since 1994.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[jan olieslagers[_2_]]

Dave schreef:
> We have the ZAON XRX on board our Cherokee in a VERY busy environment
> (>100,000 operations /yr)
> I cannot begin to tell you how useful this tool is in tracking
> trafffic around us
> For $1500 !

But it will only show planes with certain non-mandatory equipment, if I
got it right? Is it not like radio at a non-controlled aerodrome, a nice
extra source of info but nothing to really count on?

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting jan olieslagers > wrote:
> Dave schreef:
>> We have the ZAON XRX on board our Cherokee in a VERY busy environment
>> (>100,000 operations /yr)
>> I cannot begin to tell you how useful this tool is in tracking
>> trafffic around us
>> For $1500 !
>
> But it will only show planes with certain non-mandatory equipment, if I
> got it right? Is it not like radio at a non-controlled aerodrome, a nice
> extra source of info but nothing to really count on?


If by "certain non-mandatory equipment" you mean a mode C transponder, yes.

However, there is hardly any place in the US with significant traffic that
most people don't have a mode C transponder.

The places were there are few transponders tend to be well removed from
major urban areas and full of things like gliders, sky divers, ultra lights
and such.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave writes:

> Just to throw in .02 re your TCAS comment..................
>
> We have the ZAON XRX on board our Cherokee in a VERY busy environment
> (>100,000 operations /yr)
>
> I cannot begin to tell you how useful this tool is in tracking
> trafffic around us
>
> For $1500 !

The Sandel ST3400 is a TAWS/RMI display that also includes TCAS capability,
with a fancy back-projected LCD display. That's probably why it is so
expensive. I suppose TCAS alone is a lot cheaper.

I looked at the ZAON XRX on their Web site and it looks like a pretty
practical gadget.

[jan olieslagers[_2_]]

schreef:
> In rec.aviation.piloting jan olieslagers > wrote:
>> Dave schreef:
>>> We have the ZAON XRX on board our Cherokee in a VERY busy environment
>>> (>100,000 operations /yr)
>>> I cannot begin to tell you how useful this tool is in tracking
>>> trafffic around us
>>> For $1500 !

>> But it will only show planes with certain non-mandatory equipment, if I
>> got it right? Is it not like radio at a non-controlled aerodrome, a nice
>> extra source of info but nothing to really count on?
>
>
> If by "certain non-mandatory equipment" you mean a mode C transponder, yes.

That's what I meant indeed.

> However, there is hardly any place in the US with significant traffic that
> most people don't have a mode C transponder.

Ah, yes, in them US of A, yes, of course...
Then again, how do you define "significant" traffic?
Which plane is more significant, the 5 you had heard on the radio or the
one you hadn't? Or the one you collide with?

> The places were there are few transponders tend to be well removed from
> major urban areas and full of things like gliders, sky divers, ultra lights
> and such.

Which seems to me exactly where we want "eyes on our bum" as the saying
goes down here... far more than in controlled airspace where controllers
are paid to keep us posted on what's happening.

---

FYI here in Northern Belgium, and I guess in most of Western Europe,
uncontrolled airspace is scarce*, yet is the only place allowed for
ultralights (including our equivalent of the US'an LSA), gliders,
trikes, and what not. So we're either in controlled airspace, with a
transponder mandatory almost everywhere anyway, and a controller taking
care anyway, or we're in class G chaos where only our eyes will serve,
with a little help from the radio and perhaps perhaps AFIS - but they
are not aware of nordo-craft either. So to my humble opinion (I am a
low-time newbie pilot of a Rans Coyote, that would classify as an LSA at
yours) TCAS is much expense for little use down here. Then again, no
price is too dear for safety, of course, our own or others'.

* just for one example: transition is at 4500' AMSL, and everything
above is controlled. Another: there's sometimes zero, and only rarely
more than 40 NM between CTR's, which are mostly class C, sometimes D.
Enough said?

[Darryl Ramm]

On Feb 14, 11:27*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dave writes:
> > Just to throw in *.02 re your TCAS comment..................
>
> > We have the ZAON XRX on board our Cherokee in a VERY busy environment
> > (>100,000 operations /yr)
>
> > I cannot begin to tell you how useful this tool is in tracking
> > trafffic around us
>
> > For $1500 !
>
> The Sandel ST3400 is a TAWS/RMI display that also includes TCAS capability,
> with a fancy back-projected LCD display. That's probably why it is so
> expensive. I suppose TCAS alone is a lot cheaper.
>
> I looked at the ZAON XRX on their Web site and it looks like a pretty
> practical gadget.

The Sandel ST3400 is a display for TCAS. The Sandel does not "include
TCAS" as seems to be implied here.

TCAS I systems start at ~$20k for GA aircraft, not including displays
and other critical components, and for TCAS II in a transport category
aircraft can go to prices you can buy a nice house.

The Zaon MRX and XRX are quire different than TCAS so I'm not sure why
this thread was renamed TCAS. They are examples of PCAS (Portable/
Passive Collision Avoidance Systems) systems not TCAS, i.e. to start
with they don't actively interrogate transponders, instead relying on
listening to replies to interrogations from ground SSR, and airborne
TCAD and TCAS systems. TCAD systems (e.g. the L3 Skywatch) do active
interrogations but are less sophisticated and capable than TCAS
systems, although some of the newer high-end versions of what have
traditionally been TCAD systems are meeting TCAS I requirements. Of
all these systems only TCAS II issues a resolution advisory (RA) (i.e.
instruction to climb/descend to avoid traffic, which override ATC
clearances/instructions). PCAS, TCAD and TCAS I and II acronyms are
pretty much widely accepted (TCAS I and II have very specific
meanings), quite different in technology/capabilities are usually
worth carefully differentiating between.

To the previous post, I agree that PCAS systems are very useful low
cost ways of improving traffic awareness, and I fly with a Zaon MRX
(and transponder) in my motorglider. However as with all systems it
helps to know of their limitations. For PCAS this starts with (1.)
they can only detect Mode C or Mode S transponder equipped aircraft,
(2.) that are actively being interrogated by another source (luckily
there are usually lots of those interrogators out there).

Darryl

[[email protected]]

jan olieslagers > wrote:
> schreef:
>> In rec.aviation.piloting jan olieslagers > wrote:
>>> Dave schreef:
>>>> We have the ZAON XRX on board our Cherokee in a VERY busy environment
>>>> (>100,000 operations /yr)
>>>> I cannot begin to tell you how useful this tool is in tracking
>>>> trafffic around us
>>>> For $1500 !
>
>>> But it will only show planes with certain non-mandatory equipment, if I
>>> got it right? Is it not like radio at a non-controlled aerodrome, a nice
>>> extra source of info but nothing to really count on?
>>
>>
>> If by "certain non-mandatory equipment" you mean a mode C transponder, yes.
>
> That's what I meant indeed.
>
>> However, there is hardly any place in the US with significant traffic that
>> most people don't have a mode C transponder.
>
> Ah, yes, in them US of A, yes, of course...
> Then again, how do you define "significant" traffic?

Enough to motivate you to spend $1500 instead of asking for flight following.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Wayne Paul]

"Dan" > wrote in message ...
> Dave wrote:
>> Hi Dan!
>>
>> If thats the case, he sure has learned whose buttons to push and how
>> huh?
>>
>> :)
>>
>> How long have you been retired Dan?
>>
>> Dave
>>
>
> Since 1994.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

You have been retired one year longer then I.

Wayne, U.S. Navy, retired

[Dan[_12_]]

Wayne Paul wrote:
> "Dan" > wrote in message ...
>> Dave wrote:
>>> Hi Dan!
>>>
>>> If thats the case, he sure has learned whose buttons to push and how
>>> huh?
>>>
>>> :)
>>>
>>> How long have you been retired Dan?
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>> Since 1994.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> You have been retired one year longer then I.
>
> Wayne, U.S. Navy, retired

I was in special operations and played on Navy boats. The ones I
played on, Iwo Jima class helicopter assault ships, are all gone. The
odd part is the C-130 we had in addition to helicopters were built
around the same time as the boats, but are still operational.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[[email protected]]

> If by "certain non-mandatory equipment" you mean a mode C transponder, yes.
>
> However, there is hardly any place in the US with significant traffic that
> most people don't have a mode C transponder.
>
> The places were there are few transponders tend to be well removed from
> major urban areas and full of things like gliders, sky divers, ultra lights
> and such.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino



What??!!!!

I respectfully must disagree with your two assumptions stated above!

Cookie

[Wayne Paul]

"Dan" > wrote in message ...
> Wayne Paul wrote:
>> "Dan" > wrote in message ...
>>> Dave wrote:
>>>> Hi Dan!
>>>>
>>>> If thats the case, he sure has learned whose buttons to push and how
>>>> huh?
>>>>
>>>> :)
>>>>
>>>> How long have you been retired Dan?
>>>>
>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>> Since 1994.
>>>
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>> You have been retired one year longer then I.
>>
>> Wayne, U.S. Navy, retired
>
> I was in special operations and played on Navy boats. The ones I
> played on, Iwo Jima class helicopter assault ships, are all gone. The
> odd part is the C-130 we had in addition to helicopters were built
> around the same time as the boats, but are still operational.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan,

I served on five aircraft carriers. All have been decommissioned except the USS Enterprise.

If you want to see the aircraft I flew (A-3B Skywarrior and A-6A Intruder) you must visit a museum.

Wayne
A-3B (http://www.soaridaho.com/Family_Pictures/Wayne/Navy_Photos/VAH-10_A3_On_Cat.jpg)
A-6A (http://www.soaridaho.com/Family_Pictures/Wayne/Navy_Photos/VA-196_Officers_1969.jpg)

[[email protected]]

> wrote:
>
>
>
>> If by "certain non-mandatory equipment" you mean a mode C transponder, yes.
>>
>> However, there is hardly any place in the US with significant traffic that
>> most people don't have a mode C transponder.
>>
>> The places were there are few transponders tend to be well removed from
>> major urban areas and full of things like gliders, sky divers, ultra lights
>> and such.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
>
>
> What??!!!!
>
> I respectfully must disagree with your two assumptions stated above!
>
> Cookie

I'm talking about in the USA.

Happy now?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dave[_19_]]

Hi Darryl!

You have described the differences very well..

A full TCAS is simply not in the budget, and the ZAON is serving us
well in a very "target rich" environment.

We have added pulsing wingtip landing lights, Comet strobes and the
ZAON to our Warrior in the our best attempt to avoid conflicts.

Our little airport has over 100,000 "operations" /year.. Not unusual
to have two circuits in operation on the same rny, with 3 - 4
airplanes in each, with a regional jet and some military flights
tossed in for good measure. One nice afternoon 2 wks ago they were
launching or receiving an aircraft every 20 seconds or so. They gave
us the option of the cross rny , from the intersection, with an alt
restriction of 700 ft until clear of the circuit, so we took it and
got out of Dodge.. :)

The controller was especially sharp, and was coreographing the whole
thing very well, and the pilots, mostly students, were right up with
him.

The ZAON is a great tool to show us where to lok. It has its
limitations as a passive device, but for the $$$$$ spent, it is very
helpful in our intense traffic situation here...

Dave





On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:12:20 -0800 (PST), Darryl Ramm
> wrote:

>On Feb 14, 11:27*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Dave writes:
>> > Just to throw in *.02 re your TCAS comment..................
>>
>> > We have the ZAON XRX on board our Cherokee in a VERY busy environment
>> > (>100,000 operations /yr)
>>
>> > I cannot begin to tell you how useful this tool is in tracking
>> > trafffic around us
>>
>> > For $1500 !
>>
>> The Sandel ST3400 is a TAWS/RMI display that also includes TCAS capability,
>> with a fancy back-projected LCD display. That's probably why it is so
>> expensive. I suppose TCAS alone is a lot cheaper.
>>
>> I looked at the ZAON XRX on their Web site and it looks like a pretty
>> practical gadget.
>
>The Sandel ST3400 is a display for TCAS. The Sandel does not "include
>TCAS" as seems to be implied here.
>
>TCAS I systems start at ~$20k for GA aircraft, not including displays
>and other critical components, and for TCAS II in a transport category
>aircraft can go to prices you can buy a nice house.
>
>The Zaon MRX and XRX are quire different than TCAS so I'm not sure why
>this thread was renamed TCAS. They are examples of PCAS (Portable/
>Passive Collision Avoidance Systems) systems not TCAS, i.e. to start
>with they don't actively interrogate transponders, instead relying on
>listening to replies to interrogations from ground SSR, and airborne
>TCAD and TCAS systems. TCAD systems (e.g. the L3 Skywatch) do active
>interrogations but are less sophisticated and capable than TCAS
>systems, although some of the newer high-end versions of what have
>traditionally been TCAD systems are meeting TCAS I requirements. Of
>all these systems only TCAS II issues a resolution advisory (RA) (i.e.
>instruction to climb/descend to avoid traffic, which override ATC
>clearances/instructions). PCAS, TCAD and TCAS I and II acronyms are
>pretty much widely accepted (TCAS I and II have very specific
>meanings), quite different in technology/capabilities are usually
>worth carefully differentiating between.
>
>To the previous post, I agree that PCAS systems are very useful low
>cost ways of improving traffic awareness, and I fly with a Zaon MRX
>(and transponder) in my motorglider. However as with all systems it
>helps to know of their limitations. For PCAS this starts with (1.)
>they can only detect Mode C or Mode S transponder equipped aircraft,
>(2.) that are actively being interrogated by another source (luckily
>there are usually lots of those interrogators out there).
>
>Darryl

[Darryl Ramm]

On Feb 14, 12:12*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Feb 14, 11:27*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dave writes:
> > > Just to throw in *.02 re your TCAS comment..................
>
> > > We have the ZAON XRX on board our Cherokee in a VERY busy environment
> > > (>100,000 operations /yr)
>
> > > I cannot begin to tell you how useful this tool is in tracking
> > > trafffic around us
>
> > > For $1500 !
>
> > The Sandel ST3400 is a TAWS/RMI display that also includes TCAS capability,
> > with a fancy back-projected LCD display. That's probably why it is so
> > expensive. I suppose TCAS alone is a lot cheaper.
>
> > I looked at the ZAON XRX on their Web site and it looks like a pretty
> > practical gadget.
>
> The Sandel ST3400 is a display for TCAS. The Sandel does not "include
> TCAS" as seems to be implied here.
>
> TCAS I systems start at ~$20k for GA aircraft, not including displays
> and other critical components, and for TCAS II in a transport category
> aircraft can go to prices you can buy a nice house.
>
> The Zaon MRX and XRX are quire different than TCAS so I'm not sure why
> this thread was renamed TCAS. They are examples of PCAS (Portable/
> Passive Collision Avoidance Systems) systems not TCAS, i.e. to start
> with they don't actively interrogate transponders, instead relying on
> listening to replies to interrogations from ground SSR, and airborne
> TCAD and TCAS systems. *TCAD systems (e.g. the L3 Skywatch) do active
> interrogations but are less sophisticated and capable than TCAS
> systems, although some of the newer high-end versions of what have
> traditionally been TCAD systems are meeting TCAS I requirements. Of
> all these systems only TCAS II issues a resolution advisory (RA) (i.e.
> instruction to climb/descend to avoid traffic, which override ATC
> clearances/instructions). PCAS, TCAD and TCAS I and II acronyms are
> pretty much widely accepted (TCAS I and II have very specific
> meanings), quite different in technology/capabilities are usually
> worth carefully differentiating between.
>
> To the previous post, I agree that PCAS systems are very useful low
> cost ways of improving traffic awareness, and I fly with a Zaon MRX
> (and transponder) in my motorglider. However as with all systems it
> helps to know of their limitations. For PCAS this starts with (1.)
> they can only detect Mode C or Mode S transponder equipped aircraft,
> (2.) that are actively being interrogated by another source (luckily
> there are usually lots of those interrogators out there).
>
> Darryl

And I forgot to mention Mode S TIS (which is not the same as ADS-B TIS-
B). Which is SSR derived traffic position sent over Mode S to each TIS
capable aircraft. Only available where there is terminal radar with
TIS support. Area radar would update too slowly, so it's limited to
terminal radar coverage and then only if that terminal radar facility
has the extra smarts to do TIS. The TIS ground processor calculates
threats to each aircraft and uplinks that to that aircraft over Mode
S. Obviously the threat aircraft need to have Mode C or S transponders
and be within coverage of that terminal radar. TIS works well if you
have the coverage, and its relatively cheap, in many GA panels if you
already have an MFD and a Mode S transponder it is often almost
"free". Unfortunately the number of terminal facilities in the USA
with TIS has reduced since the FAA did not want to pay to keep TIS
when they upgraded some terminal radars. With ADS-B taking a very long
time to get deployed, I wish they had not done this (and some vendors
had proposed relatively low cost TIS ground stations that would have
reduced the costs of keeping TIS). Still if you have coverge today,
TIS can be a great service.

I deliberately did not mention Flarm that is great technology, but
mostly for gliders (and towplanes) - and unfortunately did not get to
the USA early on when it could have really grown like it has in
Europe.

And I deliberately did not mention ADS-B, since it is not really here
yet, but it is starting, but it is the long-term future in traffic
awareness systems, although it does not replace transponders/TCAS II
for the most demanding collision avoidance (a common misconception).

There are already some interesting low-end systems that combine things
like PCAS, Flarm and an ADS-B 1090ES receiver that are just shipping
or shipping soon, like the TRX-1090, TRX-2000, PowerFLARM and others.

Darryl

[Brian Whatcott]

Darryl Ramm wrote:
/snip/
>
> And I forgot to mention Mode S TIS (which is not the same as ADS-B TIS-
> B). Which is SSR derived traffic position sent over Mode S to each TIS
> capable aircraft. Only available where there is terminal radar with
> TIS support. Area radar would update too slowly, so it's limited to
> terminal radar coverage and then only if that terminal radar facility
> has the extra smarts to do TIS. The TIS ground processor calculates
> threats to each aircraft and uplinks that to that aircraft over Mode
> S. Obviously the threat aircraft need to have Mode C or S transponders
> and be within coverage of that terminal radar. /snip/
> Darryl

Which reminds me: I fly out of a civil field in a notch of the zone
round a military base - where a digital radar upgrade has recently
appeared. I notice that with my mode C active, I seem to be able to
hear an interrogation as a click as well as see a visual interrogation
flash.

These days, I don't get a repetitive once a revolution style
interrogation, but rather a string of clicks when I am inbound (i.e a
threat to military types which do have squitter) in my headset tuned to
the CTAF

Brian W

[Darryl Ramm]

On Feb 14, 10:12*pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
> Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
> /snip/
>
>
>
> > And I forgot to mention Mode S TIS (which is not the same as ADS-B TIS-
> > B). Which is SSR derived traffic position sent over Mode S to each TIS
> > capable aircraft. Only available where there is terminal radar with
> > TIS support. Area radar would update too slowly, so it's limited to
> > terminal radar coverage and then only if that terminal radar facility
> > has the extra smarts to do TIS. The TIS ground processor calculates
> > threats to each aircraft and uplinks that to that aircraft over Mode
> > S. Obviously the threat aircraft need to have Mode C or S transponders
> > and be within coverage of that terminal radar. /snip/
> > Darryl
>
> Which reminds me: I fly out of a civil field in a notch of the zone
> round a military base - where a digital radar upgrade has recently
> appeared. * * I notice that with my mode C active, I seem to be able to
> hear an interrogation as a click as well as see a visual interrogation
> flash.
>
> These days, I don't get a repetitive once a revolution style
> interrogation, but rather a string of clicks when I am inbound (i.e a
> threat to military types which do have squitter) in my headset tuned to
> the CTAF
>
> Brian W

The click is most likely your transponder replying to an interrogation
and likely just coupling though the avionics power supplies, but it
might also be RF coupling.

Also just FYI on interrogations, each click you hear is likely not a
single interrogation. For an radar/ATCRBS (I just wanted to throw in
another acronym) interrogator the beam will hit your transponder with
an alternating pattern of Mode A and Mode C interrogations at ~few
hundred Hz as the beam sweeps over your aircraft. The exact number and
pattern depends on the type of radar/ATCRBS system.

There is also a remote possibility that what you hear if it is
synchronous with a radar antenna rotation (not this case it seems) is
RF interference picked up from the high-power primary radar beam.
Which is much more powerful than the ATCRBS/transponder interrogator
and usually on a quite different frequency than the 1030MHz
interrogator - usually a few GHz and up. The 1030Mhz interrogator beam
is such low power it's not going to cause interference directly, only
by triggering your transponder to fire.

If you are hearing clicking of order once per second or so then it is
possibly TCAS (and/or TCAD) related. These do a clever Mode C
interrogation sequence (the "Whisper-Shout" sequence) at about 1 Hz.
Each TCAS equipped aircraft close enough will hit you independently
with interrogations each at about 1Hz (and technically each
interrogation may fire rapidly several times but you would only hear
one click).

Another possibility if this is only correlated to changes in military
ground infrastructure is that the higher frequency interrogations not
correlated with a radar rotation could be from ground based Mode C
interrogators that are part of a multilateration (MLAT) systems for
surface or airborne tracking. Maybe that got deployed with the new
radar (or maybe the new "digital radar" is an MLAT system).

And all of these interrogations help paint the position of transponder
equipped aircraft for those passive PCAS systems.


Darryl

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Jim Logajan writes:
>
> > If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, ~99% of GA aircraft fatalities
> > would still happen.
>
> If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, 27 people would still be alive,
> based on your own cited statistics. Is saving lives not a sufficient
> justification for eliminating midair collisions? Is there are threshold of
> deaths below which efforts to eliminate midair collisions are not justified?
> What cost is there in attempting to eliminate midair collisions that offsets
> the loss of life that they entail?

There is the very obvious cost of expending a n dollars to save one life
when spending it elsewhere would save more than one life.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
brian whatcott > wrote:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Jim Logajan writes:
> >
> >> If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, ~99% of GA aircraft
> >> fatalities
> >> would still happen.
> >
> > If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, 27 people would still be
> > alive,
> > based on your own cited statistics. Is saving lives not a sufficient
> > justification for eliminating midair collisions? Is there are threshold of
> > deaths below which efforts to eliminate midair collisions are not
> > justified?
> > What cost is there in attempting to eliminate midair collisions that
> > offsets
> > the loss of life that they entail?
>
> If the US road speed limit were reduced from 70 to 65 mph, perhaps
> 30,000 lives would be saved annually. Isn't that worthwhile?
>
> We have apparently decided NOT.

Because it's utter bull****.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
John Smith > wrote:

> > The total accident deaths per year in the US is only around 38,000.
>
> Only?

One does have to consider how man person-hours are spent driving...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

[John Smith]

Am 16.02.10 00:25, schrieb Alan Baker:
>>> The total accident deaths per year in the US is only around 38,000.
>>
>> Only?
>
> One does have to consider how man person-hours are spent driving...

No, one does not have to. 38,000 deaths are an awful lot, period.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting John Smith > wrote:
> Am 16.02.10 00:25, schrieb Alan Baker:
>>>> The total accident deaths per year in the US is only around 38,000.
>>>
>>> Only?
>>
>> One does have to consider how man person-hours are spent driving...
>
> No, one does not have to. 38,000 deaths are an awful lot, period.

Yes, one does have to if you want to talk about possible prevention.

If you just want to mourn the dead, then 1 death is too many.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[John Smith]

>>>>> The total accident deaths per year in the US is only around 38,000.
>>>>
>>>> Only?
>>>
>>> One does have to consider how man person-hours are spent driving...
>>
>> No, one does not have to. 38,000 deaths are an awful lot, period.
>
> Yes, one does have to if you want to talk about possible prevention.
>
> If you just want to mourn the dead, then 1 death is too many.

Somebody who uses the word "only" when he talks about 38,000 deaths is
an idiot, period. There's nothing to relativise here.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
>
> >>>>> The total accident deaths per year in the US is only around 38,000.
> >>>>
> >>>> Only?
> >>>
> >>> One does have to consider how man person-hours are spent driving...
> >>
> >> No, one does not have to. 38,000 deaths are an awful lot, period.
> >
> > Yes, one does have to if you want to talk about possible prevention.
> >
> > If you just want to mourn the dead, then 1 death is too many.
>
> Somebody who uses the word "only" when he talks about 38,000 deaths is
> an idiot, period. There's nothing to relativise here.

Of course there is!

Put it in terms of a percentage.

Or... *if* America had a population of 1,000 - then how does 1 sound?
Is that a better number for you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-
related_death_rate

America looks pretty good indeed.

--
Duncan.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
>
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > >>>>> The total accident deaths per year in the US is only around 38,000.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Only?
> > >>>
> > >>> One does have to consider how man person-hours are spent driving...
> > >>
> > >> No, one does not have to. 38,000 deaths are an awful lot, period.
> > >
> > > Yes, one does have to if you want to talk about possible prevention.
> > >
> > > If you just want to mourn the dead, then 1 death is too many.
> >
> > Somebody who uses the word "only" when he talks about 38,000 deaths is
> > an idiot, period. There's nothing to relativise here.
>
> Of course there is!
>
> Put it in terms of a percentage.
>
> Or... *if* America had a population of 1,000 - then how does 1 sound?
> Is that a better number for you?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-
> related_death_rate
>
> America looks pretty good indeed.

Sorry correction on my typo - 10,000.

--
Duncan.

[[email protected]]

John Smith > wrote:
>>>>>> The total accident deaths per year in the US is only around 38,000.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only?
>>>>
>>>> One does have to consider how man person-hours are spent driving...
>>>
>>> No, one does not have to. 38,000 deaths are an awful lot, period.
>>
>> Yes, one does have to if you want to talk about possible prevention.
>>
>> If you just want to mourn the dead, then 1 death is too many.
>
> Somebody who uses the word "only" when he talks about 38,000 deaths is
> an idiot, period. There's nothing to relativise here.

Of course there is, that is a death rate of about 0.01%, which is a
trivial rate.

And if you want to talk about possible prevention, you have to talk about
rates.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
...
> John Smith > wrote:
>>>>>>> The total accident deaths per year in the US is only around 38,000.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only?
>>>>>
>>>>> One does have to consider how man person-hours are spent driving...
>>>>
>>>> No, one does not have to. 38,000 deaths are an awful lot, period.
>>>
>>> Yes, one does have to if you want to talk about possible prevention.
>>>
>>> If you just want to mourn the dead, then 1 death is too many.
>>
>> Somebody who uses the word "only" when he talks about 38,000 deaths is
>> an idiot, period. There's nothing to relativise here.
>
> Of course there is, that is a death rate of about 0.01%, which is a
> trivial rate.
>
> And if you want to talk about possible prevention, you have to talk about
> rates.
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Exactly. But then some people might be forced to admit that wasting
lifetimes does not save lives--it wastes lives.

Peter

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
John Smith > wrote:

> Am 16.02.10 00:25, schrieb Alan Baker:
> >>> The total accident deaths per year in the US is only around 38,000.
> >>
> >> Only?
> >
> > One does have to consider how man person-hours are spent driving...
>
> No, one does not have to. 38,000 deaths are an awful lot, period.

Over 150,000 people die every day. Is that tragic? No.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

[terry]

On Feb 15, 3:19*am, Dave > wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:21:23 -0800 (PST), terry
>
> > wrote:
>
> Hmmmm...
>
> OK.. *first sentence of his first post referrs to the 27 potential
> lives saved based on the OP's post....
>
> Second post *referrs to the potential of increased training etc.
> reducing the deaths..
>
> I am OK with that.
>
> His motivation? *Who really knows? And it does not really matter to
> me.
>
> What is _my_ motivation for even being here? *To offer insight, to
> learn from others? To "stirr the pot"? To offer news? To ask a
> question?
>
> Does anyone out there really care what MY motivaton is?
>
> Actually, my motivation varies, - right now, its Sunday AM, cold
> outside, I worked late last night installing a door, and have some
> time on my hands, now and for the next 45 minutes.
>
> (Sorry, best I can do for this session) * :)
>
> Does MY motivaton really matter to anybody?
>
> .....and I have quoted from books in my posts here as well... *to get
> feedback on the content, or to question the *content....
>
> No doubt , some here will question *my motivation to defend MX, but I
> have none other to comment on the entertainment value of the RESPONSES
> his posts get, and I am not defending him at all.
>
> My only comment is that I think that to blast *away with multible
> cannons and machine guns at a gopher just because it popped it's head
> out of the hole seems a little silly.. * (IMHO)
>
> Who was that cartoon character anyway... "Yosemitie Sam" ? *The one
> with the big hat, mouth and shotgun that blasted away at anything that
> moved?
>
> Long time ago, I guess my age and immaturity is showing... Buggs Bunny
> Show ?
>
> :)
>
> Cheers!
>
> D
>
>
>
>
>
> >Dave
> >I *expressed a similar view of Mxs some years ago, much to my later
> >embarrassment when I found out what a jerk he really was. *Of course
> >much of what he says is accurate, because he will read stuff straight
> >out of a book and post it here to try and get an argument going, or to
> >sound like he actually knows what he is talking about. * To get an
> >idea of his modus operandi, *have a read of his first 2 posts in the
> >impossible turn thread, namely the first sentence in each, and tell me
> >what you think his motivation for posting is.
> >Terry
> >.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I think you missed my point Dave. The first sentence of his first
post is " I dont understand the point of this story" and I dont have
a problem with that, but its asked in a way that makes him sound like
an innocent schoolboy wanting to learn something from the experts ( or
at least those with some practical knowledge) But then as soon as
he gets a response from real pilots, he suddenly becomes the expert
and goes into the I know better than you mode. Note first sentence in
next post " The point of this presentation is to attract
viewers" so how did he suddenly understand? I dont question your
motivation to defend Mxs at all , as I have admitted previously I have
done the same. He will bite your hand eventually.
Terry

[Mxsmanic]

Alan Baker writes:

> Over 150,000 people die every day. Is that tragic? No.

That depends on how close you are to the people dying.

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Alan Baker writes:
>
> > Over 150,000 people die every day. Is that tragic? No.
>
> That depends on how close you are to the people dying.

The overall fact isn't tragic. It's just the way the world is.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
>
> John Smith > wrote:
> >>>>>> The total accident deaths per year in the US is only around 38,000.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Only?
> >>>>
> >>>> One does have to consider how man person-hours are spent driving...
> >>>
> >>> No, one does not have to. 38,000 deaths are an awful lot, period.
> >>
> >> Yes, one does have to if you want to talk about possible prevention.
> >>
> >> If you just want to mourn the dead, then 1 death is too many.
> >
> > Somebody who uses the word "only" when he talks about 38,000 deaths is
> > an idiot, period. There's nothing to relativise here.
>
> Of course there is, that is a death rate of about 0.01%, which is a
> trivial rate.
>
> And if you want to talk about possible prevention, you have to talk about
> rates.

Indeed - it's a political / money - thing - at the end of the day (but
not to us citizens! :)

--
Duncan.

[Mxsmanic]

Alan Baker writes:

> The overall fact isn't tragic. It's just the way the world is.

True. Most people are unable to retain that objectivity when people close to
them die, however ... or when people die in situations in which they could
imagine themselves.

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Alan Baker writes:
>
> > The overall fact isn't tragic. It's just the way the world is.
>
> True. Most people are unable to retain that objectivity when people close to
> them die, however ... or when people die in situations in which they could
> imagine themselves.

True.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

[[email protected]]

Dave Doe > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> John Smith > wrote:
>> >>>>>> The total accident deaths per year in the US is only around 38,000.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Only?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> One does have to consider how man person-hours are spent driving...
>> >>>
>> >>> No, one does not have to. 38,000 deaths are an awful lot, period.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, one does have to if you want to talk about possible prevention.
>> >>
>> >> If you just want to mourn the dead, then 1 death is too many.
>> >
>> > Somebody who uses the word "only" when he talks about 38,000 deaths is
>> > an idiot, period. There's nothing to relativise here.
>>
>> Of course there is, that is a death rate of about 0.01%, which is a
>> trivial rate.
>>
>> And if you want to talk about possible prevention, you have to talk about
>> rates.
>
> Indeed - it's a political / money - thing - at the end of the day (but
> not to us citizens! :)

It is cost/benefit analysis and we all do it all the time, especially as
pilots.

Trivial example: Do you wear a helmet at all times of just when engaged
in an activity with an increased chance of a head injury?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Tom De Moor]

In article >,
says...
>
> >
> > One does have to consider how man person-hours are spent driving...
>
> No, one does not have to. 38,000 deaths are an awful lot, period.
>
>

About the same number of people in the US commit suicide.

Strangely enough 38000 is also roughly identical to the number of peole
who die per day in the US...

But last I looked this newsgroup was about airplanes, homebuilts etc.
Not about carcrashes nor its toll. That's statistics and with that tool
it is perfectly proveable that Earth is flat.

Tom De Moor

[Dan[_12_]]

Tom De Moor wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>>> One does have to consider how man person-hours are spent driving...
>> No, one does not have to. 38,000 deaths are an awful lot, period.
>>
>>
>
> About the same number of people in the US commit suicide.
>
> Strangely enough 38000 is also roughly identical to the number of peole
> who die per day in the US...
>
> But last I looked this newsgroup was about airplanes, homebuilts etc.
> Not about carcrashes nor its toll. That's statistics and with that tool
> it is perfectly proveable that Earth is flat.
>
> Tom De Moor

I have always suspected the Earth is flat. Now what I want to know is
what's on the other side.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Peter Dohm]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> Tom De Moor wrote:
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>>> One does have to consider how man person-hours are spent driving...
>>> No, one does not have to. 38,000 deaths are an awful lot, period.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> About the same number of people in the US commit suicide. Strangely
>> enough 38000 is also roughly identical to the number of peole who die per
>> day in the US...
>>
>> But last I looked this newsgroup was about airplanes, homebuilts etc. Not
>> about carcrashes nor its toll. That's statistics and with that tool it is
>> perfectly proveable that Earth is flat.
>>
>> Tom De Moor
>
> I have always suspected the Earth is flat. Now what I want to know is
> what's on the other side.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

The abyss, of course.

Peter :-))))

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 00:11:59 -0600, Dan wrote:

> Tom De Moor wrote:
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>>> One does have to consider how man person-hours are spent driving...
>>> No, one does not have to. 38,000 deaths are an awful lot, period.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> About the same number of people in the US commit suicide.
>>
>> Strangely enough 38000 is also roughly identical to the number of peole
>> who die per day in the US...
>>
>> But last I looked this newsgroup was about airplanes, homebuilts etc.
>> Not about carcrashes nor its toll. That's statistics and with that tool
>> it is perfectly proveable that Earth is flat.
>>
>> Tom De Moor
>
> I have always suspected the Earth is flat. Now what I want to know is
> what's on the other side.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
Easy - four elephants standing on a turtle.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[sisu1a]

> > * *I have always suspected the Earth is flat. Now what I want to
know is
> > what's on the other side.
>

> Easy - four elephants standing on a turtle.

visual aid... http://controversy.wearscience.com/img450/turtle.gif *
*

[Tom De Moor]

In article >, says...
>
> Tom De Moor wrote:
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >>> One does have to consider how man person-hours are spent driving...
> >> No, one does not have to. 38,000 deaths are an awful lot, period.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > About the same number of people in the US commit suicide.
> >
> > Strangely enough 38000 is also roughly identical to the number of peole
> > who die per day in the US...
> >
> > But last I looked this newsgroup was about airplanes, homebuilts etc.
> > Not about carcrashes nor its toll. That's statistics and with that tool
> > it is perfectly proveable that Earth is flat.
> >
> > Tom De Moor
>
> I have always suspected the Earth is flat. Now what I want to know is
> what's on the other side.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



There are talks about a giant turtle and elephants.

http://botainblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/paul_kidby_discworld.jpg

My pal Rincewind flew around. If he can, we can too!

:-)

Tom De Moor

Attention: reading T. Pratchett's books can hurt your health and your
face can be stuck in constant laughter. But then again: there are worse
things !

[Dan[_12_]]

sisu1a wrote:
> > > I have always suspected the Earth is flat. Now what I want to
> know is
>>> what's on the other side.
>
>> Easy - four elephants standing on a turtle.
>
> visual aid... http://controversy.wearscience.com/img450/turtle.gif
>
>


So the turtle is a giant record player?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Steve Hix[_2_]]

In article
>,
sisu1a > wrote:

> > > * *I have always suspected the Earth is flat. Now what I want to
> know is
> > > what's on the other side.
> >
>
> > Easy - four elephants standing on a turtle.
>
> visual aid... http://controversy.wearscience.com/img450/turtle.gif *

Obvious heretical teaching there; it shows a tortoise, not the correct
turtle swimming though the depths of space.

Time to get out the tar and feathers, boys...

[Dan[_12_]]

Steve Hix wrote:
> In article
> >,
> sisu1a > wrote:
>
>> > > I have always suspected the Earth is flat. Now what I want to
>> know is
>>>> what's on the other side.
>>> Easy - four elephants standing on a turtle.
>> visual aid... http://controversy.wearscience.com/img450/turtle.gif
>
> Obvious heretical teaching there; it shows a tortoise, not the correct
> turtle swimming though the depths of space.
>
> Time to get out the tar and feathers, boys...

OK, how deep is the water and what's at the bottom?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[george]

On Feb 18, 6:39*am, Dan > wrote:
> Steve Hix wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > *sisu1a > wrote:
>
> >> *> > * *I have always suspected the Earth is flat. Now what I want to
> >> know is
> >>>> what's on the other side.
> >>> Easy - four elephants standing on a turtle.
> >> visual aid... *http://controversy.wearscience.com/img450/turtle.gif*
>
> > Obvious heretical teaching there; it shows a tortoise, not the correct
> > turtle swimming though the depths of space.
>
> > Time to get out the tar and feathers, boys...
>
> * *OK, how deep is the water and what's at the bottom?
>
No bottom its turtles - all the way down

[Dan[_12_]]

george wrote:
> On Feb 18, 6:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>> Steve Hix wrote:
>>> In article
>>> >,
>>> sisu1a > wrote:
>>>> > > I have always suspected the Earth is flat. Now what I want to
>>>> know is
>>>>>> what's on the other side.
>>>>> Easy - four elephants standing on a turtle.
>>>> visual aid... http://controversy.wearscience.com/img450/turtle.gif
>>> Obvious heretical teaching there; it shows a tortoise, not the correct
>>> turtle swimming though the depths of space.
>>> Time to get out the tar and feathers, boys...
>> OK, how deep is the water and what's at the bottom?
>>
> No bottom its turtles - all the way down

Egad, an infinity of turtles.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Steve Hix[_2_]]

In article >, Dan > wrote:

> Steve Hix wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > sisu1a > wrote:
> >
> >> > > I have always suspected the Earth is flat. Now what I want to
> >> know is
> >>>> what's on the other side.
> >>> Easy - four elephants standing on a turtle.
> >> visual aid... http://controversy.wearscience.com/img450/turtle.gif
> >
> > Obvious heretical teaching there; it shows a tortoise, not the correct
> > turtle swimming though the depths of space.
> >
> > Time to get out the tar and feathers, boys...
>
> OK, how deep is the water and what's at the bottom?

Space has no bottom, obviously, you heretic.

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >, Dan > wrote:
>Tom De Moor wrote:
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>>> One does have to consider how man person-hours are spent driving...
>>> No, one does not have to. 38,000 deaths are an awful lot, period.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> About the same number of people in the US commit suicide.
>>
>> Strangely enough 38000 is also roughly identical to the number of peole
>> who die per day in the US...
>>
>> But last I looked this newsgroup was about airplanes, homebuilts etc.
>> Not about carcrashes nor its toll. That's statistics and with that tool
>> it is perfectly proveable that Earth is flat.
>>
>> Tom De Moor
>
> I have always suspected the Earth is flat. Now what I want to know is
>what's on the other side.

Would you believe: "talf si htraE eht" ?


Actually, according to one well-known story there is a turtle there.

*snicker*

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >, Dan > wrote:
>george wrote:
>> On Feb 18, 6:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>> Steve Hix wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> >,
>>>> sisu1a > wrote:
>>>>> > > I have always suspected the Earth is flat. Now what I want to
>>>>> know is
>>>>>>> what's on the other side.
>>>>>> Easy - four elephants standing on a turtle.
>>>>> visual aid... http://controversy.wearscience.com/img450/turtle.gif
>>>> Obvious heretical teaching there; it shows a tortoise, not the correct
>>>> turtle swimming though the depths of space.
>>>> Time to get out the tar and feathers, boys...
>>> OK, how deep is the water and what's at the bottom?
>>>
>> No bottom its turtles - all the way down
>
> Egad, an infinity of turtles.

Shell, yes.



*GRIN*

[Dan[_12_]]

Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article >, Dan > wrote:
>> george wrote:
>>> On Feb 18, 6:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>>> Steve Hix wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >,
>>>>> sisu1a > wrote:
>>>>>> > > I have always suspected the Earth is flat. Now what I want to
>>>>>> know is
>>>>>>>> what's on the other side.
>>>>>>> Easy - four elephants standing on a turtle.
>>>>>> visual aid... http://controversy.wearscience.com/img450/turtle.gif
>>>>> Obvious heretical teaching there; it shows a tortoise, not the correct
>>>>> turtle swimming though the depths of space.
>>>>> Time to get out the tar and feathers, boys...
>>>> OK, how deep is the water and what's at the bottom?
>>>>
>>> No bottom its turtles - all the way down
>> Egad, an infinity of turtles.
>
> Shell, yes.
>
>
>
> *GRIN*

I have to admit it makes one shell of a story.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan[_12_]]

Steve Hix wrote:
> In article >, Dan > wrote:
>
>> Steve Hix wrote:
>>> In article
>>> >,
>>> sisu1a > wrote:
>>>
>>>> > > I have always suspected the Earth is flat. Now what I want to
>>>> know is
>>>>>> what's on the other side.
>>>>> Easy - four elephants standing on a turtle.
>>>> visual aid... http://controversy.wearscience.com/img450/turtle.gif
>>> Obvious heretical teaching there; it shows a tortoise, not the correct
>>> turtle swimming though the depths of space.
>>>
>>> Time to get out the tar and feathers, boys...
>> OK, how deep is the water and what's at the bottom?
>
> Space has no bottom, obviously, you heretic.

OK, now I'm having a problem. The Earth is flat, and I have heard
space is curved, those must be some flexible turtles.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Tom De Moor]

In article >,
says...
>
> In article
> >,
> sisu1a > wrote:
>
> > > > * *I have always suspected the Earth is flat. Now what I want to
> > know is
> > > > what's on the other side.
> > >
> >
> > > Easy - four elephants standing on a turtle.
> >
> > visual aid... http://controversy.wearscience.com/img450/turtle.gif *
>
> Obvious heretical teaching there; it shows a tortoise, not the correct
> turtle swimming though the depths of space.
>
> Time to get out the tar and feathers, boys...


It's all rock and roll to me but ... let's get tar and feathers anyway:
we'll build some wings with it.

Has been done before and the Icarus-family claimed it worked. Might work
again!

Tom

[Steve Hix[_2_]]

In article >, Dan > wrote:

> Steve Hix wrote:
> > In article >, Dan > wrote:
> >
> >> Steve Hix wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> >,
> >>> sisu1a > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> > > I have always suspected the Earth is flat. Now what I want to
> >>>> know is
> >>>>>> what's on the other side.
> >>>>> Easy - four elephants standing on a turtle.
> >>>> visual aid... http://controversy.wearscience.com/img450/turtle.gif
> >>> Obvious heretical teaching there; it shows a tortoise, not the correct
> >>> turtle swimming though the depths of space.
> >>>
> >>> Time to get out the tar and feathers, boys...
> >> OK, how deep is the water and what's at the bottom?
> >
> > Space has no bottom, obviously, you heretic.
>
> OK, now I'm having a problem. The Earth is flat, and I have heard
> space is curved, those must be some flexible turtles.

They surf when they can, obviously.

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >, Dan > wrote:
>Steve Hix wrote:
>> In article >, Dan > wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Hix wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> >,
>>>> sisu1a > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> > > I have always suspected the Earth is flat. Now what I want to
>>>>> know is
>>>>>>> what's on the other side.
>>>>>> Easy - four elephants standing on a turtle.
>>>>> visual aid... http://controversy.wearscience.com/img450/turtle.gif
>>>> Obvious heretical teaching there; it shows a tortoise, not the correct
>>>> turtle swimming though the depths of space.
>>>>
>>>> Time to get out the tar and feathers, boys...
>>> OK, how deep is the water and what's at the bottom?
>>
>> Space has no bottom, obviously, you heretic.
>
> OK, now I'm having a problem. The Earth is flat, and I have heard
>space is curved, those must be some flexible turtles.

Nah. Remember The earth is at the bottom of a gravity well. Now, while it
may be a "bottom-less" pit, turtles are admirably suited to brace themselves
against the sides of it. As long as it's big enough to reach the side with
all four limbs, that is.

<guffaw>

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >,
Tom De Moor > wrote:
>
>It's all rock and roll to me but ... let's get tar and feathers anyway:
>we'll build some wings with it.
>
>Has been done before and the Icarus-family claimed it worked. Might work
>again!

I don't like the risk/reward ratio.

If anything is not *exactly* right, you'll be DEAD-alus!