Chicken Cannon Lovers

[Ogden Johnson III]

Given the number of times the infamous "chicken cannon" has come
up in these fora, your attention is directed to this [Sunday]
evening's episode of "Mythbusters" on the Discovery cable channel
[8:00 PM ET, repeated at 11:00 PM ET for the left coast] in which
the intrepid Mythbusters team takes on the chicken cannon.
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]

[Jim Carriere]

"Ogden Johnson III" > wrote in message
...
> Given the number of times the infamous "chicken cannon" has come
> up in these fora, your attention is directed to this [Sunday]
> evening's episode of "Mythbusters" on the Discovery cable channel
> [8:00 PM ET, repeated at 11:00 PM ET for the left coast] in which
> the intrepid Mythbusters team takes on the chicken cannon.

Speaking of chickens, aircraft, and engines, this reminds me of a story a
guy I used to work with told me. Not sure if it is true (it probably
isn't), but damn funny nonetheless-

During bird ingestion tests on some jet engine, the was an insufficient
number of "thawed" baby chickens needed to simulate a flock of small birds.
So somebody took out another case from the freezer, left it out to thaw, and
meanwhile everybody went to lunch. Later on, once the chicks had thawed,
the test was ran- birds shot in the running engine, the engine suffered
severe damage and miserably failed the test. After the high speed film of
the intake view was developed, some light was shed on the matter... a stray
cat somehow found it's way into the breech of the chicken cannon. This
probably happened while it was left unattended and everyone was at lunch.
The cat must have been either celebrating its good fortune to find a free
lunch, or sleeping it off the feast when the test was started up... followed
by noise, confusion, a sharp acceleration, blast of air, and then nothing.

I have a mental picture of a spread eagled cat inches in front of a
compressor face.


PS- I am a dog person.

[John Lansford]

Ogden Johnson III > wrote:

>Given the number of times the infamous "chicken cannon" has come
>up in these fora, your attention is directed to this [Sunday]
>evening's episode of "Mythbusters" on the Discovery cable channel
>[8:00 PM ET, repeated at 11:00 PM ET for the left coast] in which
>the intrepid Mythbusters team takes on the chicken cannon.

I worked for a time at Arnold Air Force Station, Tennessee, where the
USAF tests airframes, rockets and missiles in both scale and full size
test cells. One of the tests involved firing chickens into windshields
of aircraft at simulated flight speeds.

The chicken gun exists. I've seen it in operation in fact.

John Lansford
--
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/

[Thomas Schoene]

John Lansford wrote:
>
> The chicken gun exists. I've seen it in operation in fact.

I'm guessing the myth in qustion is about the frozen vs non-frozen
chickens.* It will be interesting to see what the Mythbusters guys do with
it.

* I notice someone else just posted a variation on the now-widespread "they
used a frozen bird by mistake" story, now with miniature birds and jet
engines instead of turkey and windscreens. I suspect it's just as
apocryphal as the others, but you never know.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Fred J. McCall]

John Lansford > wrote:

:The chicken gun exists. I've seen it in operation in fact.

They also have at least one at Lockheed Fort Worth (for testing
aircraft canopies).

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

[John Lansford]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote:

>John Lansford wrote:
>>
>> The chicken gun exists. I've seen it in operation in fact.
>
>I'm guessing the myth in qustion is about the frozen vs non-frozen
>chickens.* It will be interesting to see what the Mythbusters guys do with
>it.
>
>* I notice someone else just posted a variation on the now-widespread "they
>used a frozen bird by mistake" story, now with miniature birds and jet
>engines instead of turkey and windscreens. I suspect it's just as
>apocryphal as the others, but you never know.

Actually, according to my dad, who also worked at Arnold, the
frozen/unfrozen issue did take place. The need for a bird to be fired
by the gun was determined, and someone was sent out to get one. He
came back with the required payload, but it was a frozen, not fresh,
chicken. For some reason the decision was made to use it immediately,
with the expected results.

John Lansford
--
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/

[John Lansford]

Fred J. McCall > wrote:

>John Lansford > wrote:
>
>:The chicken gun exists. I've seen it in operation in fact.
>
>They also have at least one at Lockheed Fort Worth (for testing
>aircraft canopies).

The one I saw was portable and was installed in the transonic wind
tunnels when they were testing full scale windshields and how they
reacted to bird impacts at high speeds.

John Lansford
--
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 1/18/04 9:10 PM, in article ,
"John Lansford" > wrote:

> Fred J. McCall > wrote:
>
>> John Lansford > wrote:
>>
>> :The chicken gun exists. I've seen it in operation in fact.
>>
>> They also have at least one at Lockheed Fort Worth (for testing
>> aircraft canopies).
>
> The one I saw was portable and was installed in the transonic wind
> tunnels when they were testing full scale windshields and how they
> reacted to bird impacts at high speeds.
>

Took a field trip to Tullahoma once (Arnold?) and saw the gun too.
According to the folks there at the time (1995), they get live chickens and
euthanize under the supervision of the local ASPCA immediately before they
get shot out of the gun and into the unsuspecting canopy/engine. The whole
process is precisely controlled and monitored.

Kinda made me wonder if Tyson and Pilgrim's Pride were held to the same
standard.

--Woody

[Jim E]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
link.net...
> John Lansford wrote:
> >
> > The chicken gun exists. I've seen it in operation in fact.
>
> I'm guessing the myth in qustion is about the frozen vs non-frozen
> chickens.* It will be interesting to see what the Mythbusters guys do
with
> it.

Watched the program.
Their conclusion, frozen or thawed makes no difference to impact.
Strictly a function of mass, velocity, and time of deceleration.


Jim E

[Jim Herring]

They're results were that a frozen chicken did no more damage than a
room temperature chicken. They assumed a lot about impact damage with
faulty data and testing.


--
Jim

carry on




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Keith Willshaw]

"Jim E" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> > John Lansford wrote:
> > >
> > > The chicken gun exists. I've seen it in operation in fact.
> >
> > I'm guessing the myth in qustion is about the frozen vs non-frozen
> > chickens.* It will be interesting to see what the Mythbusters guys do
> with
> > it.
>
> Watched the program.
> Their conclusion, frozen or thawed makes no difference to impact.
> Strictly a function of mass, velocity, and time of deceleration.
>

Hmmm, I suspect when dealing with a kg of water it makes a
big difference to the fan blades if that water is frozen
in a single lump.

Keith

[Moggycat]

"Jim Carriere" > wrote in message >...
> "Ogden Johnson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Given the number of times the infamous "chicken cannon" has come
> > up in these fora, your attention is directed to this [Sunday]
> > evening's episode of "Mythbusters" on the Discovery cable channel
> > [8:00 PM ET, repeated at 11:00 PM ET for the left coast] in which
> > the intrepid Mythbusters team takes on the chicken cannon.
>
> Speaking of chickens, aircraft, and engines, this reminds me of a story a
> guy I used to work with told me. Not sure if it is true (it probably
> isn't), but damn funny nonetheless-
>
> During bird ingestion tests on some jet engine, the was an insufficient
> number of "thawed" baby chickens needed to simulate a flock of small birds.
> So somebody took out another case from the freezer, left it out to thaw, and
> meanwhile everybody went to lunch. Later on, once the chicks had thawed,
> the test was ran- birds shot in the running engine, the engine suffered
> severe damage and miserably failed the test. After the high speed film of
> the intake view was developed, some light was shed on the matter... a stray
> cat somehow found it's way into the breech of the chicken cannon. This
> probably happened while it was left unattended and everyone was at lunch.
> The cat must have been either celebrating its good fortune to find a free
> lunch, or sleeping it off the feast when the test was started up... followed
> by noise, confusion, a sharp acceleration, blast of air, and then nothing.
>
> I have a mental picture of a spread eagled cat inches in front of a
> compressor face.
>
debunked at http://www.messybeast.com/urbancat.htm#cannon
also a brief mention of cat version of myth at
http://www.snopes.com/science/cannon.htm

> PS- I am a dog person.

It's a scenario more likely to happen to a dog than a cat - e.g. to a
terrier-type dog which is bred to go down holes after prey. Cats
investigate spaces but tend not to crawl into tunnels (which is why
it's so damn hard to get them into front opening pet carriers).
Terriers not only willingly go into tunnels, they go into narrow
tunnels they can't get out of and have to be dug out of.

[Alan Lothian]

In article >, Keith Willshaw
> wrote:

> "Jim E" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> > > John Lansford wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The chicken gun exists. I've seen it in operation in fact.
> > >
> > > I'm guessing the myth in qustion is about the frozen vs non-frozen
> > > chickens.* It will be interesting to see what the Mythbusters guys do
> > with
> > > it.
> >
> > Watched the program.
> > Their conclusion, frozen or thawed makes no difference to impact.
> > Strictly a function of mass, velocity, and time of deceleration.
> >
>
> Hmmm, I suspect when dealing with a kg of water it makes a
> big difference to the fan blades if that water is frozen
> in a single lump.

Indeed. Strange to relate, more windscreens are smashed by hailstones
than by raindrops. I'd be interested to know what experiments, if any,
the programme did in order to reach its conclusions. Obviously they are
quite correct about kinetic energy and momentum, but transfer of
momentum operates in many different ways depending very much on the
nature of the materials in which the transfer occurs.

--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" Ibn Khaldun

My .mac.com address is a spam sink.
If you wish to email me, try alan dot lothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk

[Fred J. McCall]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

:"Jim E" > wrote in message
...
:>
:> Watched the program.
:> Their conclusion, frozen or thawed makes no difference to impact.
:> Strictly a function of mass, velocity, and time of deceleration.
:
:Hmmm, I suspect when dealing with a kg of water it makes a
:big difference to the fan blades if that water is frozen
:in a single lump.

Sounds to me like they left out a calculation of the energy of
deformation (which doesn't go into the windscreen, but rather into the
chicken). Frozen chicken deforms much less, so I would expect it to
actually have greater energy of impact when compared to the non-frozen
variety given the same initial impetus.

Sort of like the 'crush space' on a car with a long hood.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Eugene Griessel]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Jim E" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> > > John Lansford wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The chicken gun exists. I've seen it in operation in fact.
> > >
> > > I'm guessing the myth in qustion is about the frozen vs non-frozen
> > > chickens.* It will be interesting to see what the Mythbusters guys do
> with
> > > it.
> >
> > Watched the program.
> > Their conclusion, frozen or thawed makes no difference to impact.
> > Strictly a function of mass, velocity, and time of deceleration.
> >
>
> Hmmm, I suspect when dealing with a kg of water it makes a
> big difference to the fan blades if that water is frozen
> in a single lump.

Maybe in the case of water. But I once talked to an engineer involved
in developing the canopy for the Shorts Tucano and he basically said
the same thing - frozen chicken, thawed chicken, made no difference to
the damage caused.

IIRC he said it was a 4lb chicken that was used as standard.

[John Lansford]

Jim Herring > wrote:

>They're results were that a frozen chicken did no more damage than a
>room temperature chicken. They assumed a lot about impact damage with
>faulty data and testing.

They should let me hit them with a frozen chicken and a thawed one and
tell me which one hurt more. As someone else pointed out, the frozen
one is going to act like a solid mass, while the thawed one is going
to "explode" and deform when hitting the windshield.

Besides, the birds aren't frozen when they hit the real planes...

John Lansford
--
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/

[Bill Kambic]

"John Lansford" wrote in message

> >They're results were that a frozen chicken did no more damage than a
> >room temperature chicken. They assumed a lot about impact damage with
> >faulty data and testing.
>
> They should let me hit them with a frozen chicken and a thawed one and
> tell me which one hurt more. As someone else pointed out, the frozen
> one is going to act like a solid mass, while the thawed one is going
> to "explode" and deform when hitting the windshield.

I watched the show. The target was a old Piper Cherokee class airframe.
The frozen chicken behaved rather like a rifle bullet, making a smallish
hole in the windscreen. The thawed chicken was more like a shotgun blast
making a significantly larger hole. The hosts speculated the defomation of
the thawed chicken made the difference against this very light weight
material (never certified to survive an impact with anything <g>).

I suspect that military grade windscreens (or those on commercial jet
liners) would be made of "sterner stuff" and would behave quit differently.

> Besides, the birds aren't frozen when they hit the real planes...

Indeed!!!!!!!!!!!! <GGG>

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

[Mike Kanze]

>Kinda made me wonder if Tyson and Pilgrim's Pride were held to the same
standard.

If they are, you needn't worry about Plexiglas fragments in your McNuggets.
<g>

--
Mike Kanze

436 Greenbrier Road
Half Moon Bay, California 94019-2259
USA

650-726-7890

"Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society."

-Mark Twain


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> [rest snipped]

[John Mianowski]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 15:53:56 -0500, Ogden Johnson III
> wrote:

>Given the number of times the infamous "chicken cannon" has come
>up in these fora, your attention is directed to this [Sunday]
>evening's episode of "Mythbusters" on the Discovery cable channel
>[8:00 PM ET, repeated at 11:00 PM ET for the left coast] in which
>the intrepid Mythbusters team takes on the chicken cannon.

For a link between this topic & matters naval, consider the use of
down-sized versions of "chicken cannon" technology on model warships:

http://www.rcwarships.com

JM

[Jim E]

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>
> :"Jim E" > wrote in message
> ...
> :>
> :> Watched the program.
> :> Their conclusion, frozen or thawed makes no difference to impact.
> :> Strictly a function of mass, velocity, and time of deceleration.
> :
> :Hmmm, I suspect when dealing with a kg of water it makes a
> :big difference to the fan blades if that water is frozen
> :in a single lump.
>
> Sounds to me like they left out a calculation of the energy of
> deformation (which doesn't go into the windscreen, but rather into the
> chicken). Frozen chicken deforms much less, so I would expect it to
> actually have greater energy of impact when compared to the non-frozen
> variety given the same initial impetus.
>
> Sort of like the 'crush space' on a car with a long hood.
>
> --



Their calculation based upon observed deflection of steel plate target upon
impact (high speed camera for time of deceleration)
Time of deflection of target was identicle in both cases.
Amount of deflection however was not measured.
This could be inducing error?

Side note: This proved an excelent method of deboning a chicken.

Jim E
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn

[Peter Kemp]

On or about Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:28:37 +0000, Alan Lothian
> allegedly uttered:

>In article >, Keith Willshaw
> wrote:

>> Hmmm, I suspect when dealing with a kg of water it makes a
>> big difference to the fan blades if that water is frozen
>> in a single lump.
>
>Indeed. Strange to relate, more windscreens are smashed by hailstones
>than by raindrops.

Hailstones can get rather larger than raindrops. In the various
updrafts within stormclouds the raindrops grow until they reach a size
at which they're too unstable in the airflows and fission into smaller
drops, hail just keeps growing until the updrafts can't keep them up.

I've never been hurt by rainfall, but one short shower of 1" hail left
me very battered, slightly dazed, and in need of a large drink and a
quiet lie down.

>I'd be interested to know what experiments, if any,
>the programme did in order to reach its conclusions. Obviously they are
>quite correct about kinetic energy and momentum, but transfer of
>momentum operates in many different ways depending very much on the
>nature of the materials in which the transfer occurs.

I have to admit I missed the show and will keep an eye out for the
inevitable rerun as it would be one I'd like to see.
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

[Zamboni]

"John Lansford" > wrote in message
...
> Ogden Johnson III > wrote:
>
> >Given the number of times the infamous "chicken cannon" has come
> >up in these fora, your attention is directed to this [Sunday]
> >evening's episode of "Mythbusters" on the Discovery cable channel
> >[8:00 PM ET, repeated at 11:00 PM ET for the left coast] in which
> >the intrepid Mythbusters team takes on the chicken cannon.
>
> I worked for a time at Arnold Air Force Station, Tennessee, where the
> USAF tests airframes, rockets and missiles in both scale and full size
> test cells. One of the tests involved firing chickens into windshields
> of aircraft at simulated flight speeds.
>
> The chicken gun exists. I've seen it in operation in fact.
>
I live a few blocks from Boeing's chicken gun. No idea if they're using
fresh or frozen.
--
Zamboni

[Jim E]

"Zamboni" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Lansford" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Ogden Johnson III > wrote:
> >
> > >Given the number of times the infamous "chicken cannon" has come
> > >up in these fora, your attention is directed to this [Sunday]
> > >evening's episode of "Mythbusters" on the Discovery cable channel
> > >[8:00 PM ET, repeated at 11:00 PM ET for the left coast] in which
> > >the intrepid Mythbusters team takes on the chicken cannon.
> >
> > I worked for a time at Arnold Air Force Station, Tennessee, where the
> > USAF tests airframes, rockets and missiles in both scale and full size
> > test cells. One of the tests involved firing chickens into windshields
> > of aircraft at simulated flight speeds.
> >
> > The chicken gun exists. I've seen it in operation in fact.
> >
> I live a few blocks from Boeing's chicken gun. No idea if they're using
> fresh or frozen.

I live in Everett Wa near a fair size Boeing plant.
Wonder if we have a gun locally?


Jim E

[John Mianowski]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:52:01 -0500, Peter Kemp
<peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote:

>On or about Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:28:37 +0000, Alan Lothian
> allegedly uttered:
>
>>In article >, Keith Willshaw
> wrote:
>
>>> Hmmm, I suspect when dealing with a kg of water it makes a
>>> big difference to the fan blades if that water is frozen
>>> in a single lump.
>>
>>Indeed. Strange to relate, more windscreens are smashed by hailstones
>>than by raindrops.
>
>Hailstones can get rather larger than raindrops. In the various
>updrafts within stormclouds the raindrops grow until they reach a size
>at which they're too unstable in the airflows and fission into smaller
>drops, hail just keeps growing until the updrafts can't keep them up.
>
>I've never been hurt by rainfall, but one short shower of 1" hail left
>me very battered, slightly dazed, and in need of a large drink and a
>quiet lie down.
>
Indeed. We had a hailstorm here (near Dallas, TX) last summer that
was so loud I couldn't hear the baseball game on TV. When it stopped,
I went outside & picked up some 2-1/2" dia. hailstones off my lawn! I
can't imagine getting hit by one!

JM

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 1/19/04 4:52 PM, in article ,
"Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote:

>
>> I'd be interested to know what experiments, if any,
>> the programme did in order to reach its conclusions. Obviously they are
>> quite correct about kinetic energy and momentum, but transfer of
>> momentum operates in many different ways depending very much on the
>> nature of the materials in which the transfer occurs.
>
> I have to admit I missed the show and will keep an eye out for the
> inevitable rerun as it would be one I'd like to see.
> ---
> Peter Kemp
>
> Life is short - Drink Faster

I watched a portion of Myth Busters where the two knuckleheads tried to
debunk the "explosive decompression" phenomenon in the movies. You get the
picture. Gun goes off in plane. Fuselage rips open and 6-8 passengers, in
flight meals, luggage, and an unsuspecting flight attendant fly into the
atmosphere.

They pressurized a bone-yarded fuselage with a huffer and used a remote
control .45 to shoot out windows and fuselage to see if a large hole would
expand out the small starter hole.

Results: Small holes stayed small and made hissing noises.

Conclusion: Myth. Busted.

They failed, however, to introduce a 300/.78 slipstream into the equation,
but I doubt it would have changed the result.

Point being that these guys seem to make some critical assumptions that
*might* affect the results. I didn't see the whole show, but I don't
remember them ever addressing the lack of slip stream.

--Woody

[Dale Farmer]

Peter Kemp wrote:

> On or about Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:28:37 +0000, Alan Lothian
> > allegedly uttered:
>
> >In article >, Keith Willshaw
> > wrote:
>
> >> Hmmm, I suspect when dealing with a kg of water it makes a
> >> big difference to the fan blades if that water is frozen
> >> in a single lump.
> >
> >Indeed. Strange to relate, more windscreens are smashed by hailstones
> >than by raindrops.
>
> Hailstones can get rather larger than raindrops. In the various
> updrafts within stormclouds the raindrops grow until they reach a size
> at which they're too unstable in the airflows and fission into smaller
> drops, hail just keeps growing until the updrafts can't keep them up.
>
> I've never been hurt by rainfall, but one short shower of 1" hail left
> me very battered, slightly dazed, and in need of a large drink and a
> quiet lie down.
>
> >I'd be interested to know what experiments, if any,
> >the programme did in order to reach its conclusions. Obviously they are
> >quite correct about kinetic energy and momentum, but transfer of
> >momentum operates in many different ways depending very much on the
> >nature of the materials in which the transfer occurs.
>
> I have to admit I missed the show and will keep an eye out for the
> inevitable rerun as it would be one I'd like to see.
> ---
> Peter Kemp
>
> Life is short - Drink Faster

There was a hailstorm in Texas several years ago during a large outdoor
festival of some sort. Couple of folks maimed, lots hospitalized, millions
of
dollars in property damage. ( Broken glass, totaled cars, roof damage. )

--Dale

[gizmo-goddard]

"Dale Farmer" > wrote in message
...
>
>
<SNIPPED>

> There was a hailstorm in Texas several years ago during a large
outdoor
> festival of some sort. Couple of folks maimed, lots hospitalized,
millions
> of
> dollars in property damage. ( Broken glass, totaled cars, roof damage. )

IIRC, that was in Fort Worth during an outdoor Mayfest thing.

__!_!__
Gizmo

[Eugene Griessel]

John Lansford > wrote in message >...
> Jim Herring > wrote:
>
> >They're results were that a frozen chicken did no more damage than a
> >room temperature chicken. They assumed a lot about impact damage with
> >faulty data and testing.
>
> They should let me hit them with a frozen chicken and a thawed one and
> tell me which one hurt more.

If you hit them at about 100 m/s I doubt they will be around to tell
you which
one hurt more. Dive into your swimming pool from the edge and then try
hitting it at 400 mph and see if you feel a difference. Tis the
velocity not the softness of the substance that hurts!

>As someone else pointed out, the frozen
> one is going to act like a solid mass, while the thawed one is going
> to "explode" and deform when hitting the windshield.

At the speed of a modern fighter I doubt either case is going to leave
one unscarred. I read somewhere that even if the plexiglass holds out
the "wave" travelling through the canopy caused by the strike could
seriously injure/incapacitate a pilot.

[WaltBJ]

Here's some bird and ice impacts for you.
One of my cadet classmates flying a Piper PA18 in primary at Hondo
Texas hit a hawk - it came right through the windshield, alive and
clawing. He wrung its neck and threw it into the rear. He still has a
scar on his cheek.
When I was at Homestead AFB 76-80 we had three buzzard strikes at Avon
Park Range. Two hit the airframe and one hit the left quarter panel of
the windshield. All strikes were when the F4s were doing 500K on low
level weapons deliveries. The airframe strikes penetrated the fuselage
skin around the intakes but no serious damage (other than a hole) was
done. The windshield strike filled the cockpit with buzzard pieces and
guts and disabled the front seater as most of the buzzard hit his
shoulder. The rear seater was a pilot and landed the F4 at Avon park
making an arrested engagement so the front seater could get immediate
medical attention. He was dazed and his shoulder was severely bruised
and he was half-nauseated from the buzzard guts but he recoverd
quickly. A maintenance crew came up and repaired the F4 and another
crew flew it back home.
I was with Air Florida when one of our DC9s lunched an engine. 'Blue
ice' from a leaking forward lavatory drain finally broke loose and the
airflow carried it up over the wing and right into the engine intake.
JT8Ds don't like large lumps of ice, regardless of color. BTW had
anyone else noted the tabloids don;t carry stories about 'blue ice'
from alien space any more?
Walt BJ

[WaltBJ]

Here's some bird and ice impacts for you.
One of my cadet classmates flying a Piper PA18 in primary at Hondo
Texas hit a hawk - it came right through the windshield, alive and
clawing. He wrung its neck and threw it into the rear. He still has a
scar on his cheek.
When I was at Homestead AFB 76-80 we had three buzzard strikes at Avon
Park Range. Two hit the airframe and one hit the left quarter panel of
the windshield. All strikes were when the F4s were doing 500K on low
level weapons deliveries. The airframe strikes penetrated the fuselage
skin around the intakes but no serious damage (other than a hole) was
done. The windshield strike filled the cockpit with buzzard pieces and
guts and disabled the front seater as most of the buzzard hit his
shoulder. The rear seater was a pilot and landed the F4 at Avon park
making an arrested engagement so the front seater could get immediate
medical attention. He was dazed and his shoulder was severely bruised
and he was half-nauseated from the buzzard guts but he recoverd
quickly. A maintenance crew came up and repaired the F4 and another
crew flew it back home.
I was with Air Florida when one of our DC9s lunched an engine. 'Blue
ice' from a leaking forward lavatory drain finally broke loose and the
airflow carried it up over the wing and right into the engine intake.
JT8Ds don't like large lumps of ice, regardless of color. BTW had
anyone else noted the tabloids don;t carry stories about 'blue ice'
from alien space any more?
Walt BJ

[Andrew Chaplin]

WaltBJ wrote:

> Here's some bird and ice impacts for you.
> One of my cadet classmates flying a Piper PA18 in primary at Hondo
> Texas hit a hawk - it came right through the windshield, alive and
> clawing. He wrung its neck and threw it into the rear. He still has a
> scar on his cheek.
> When I was at Homestead AFB 76-80 we had three buzzard strikes at Avon
> Park Range. Two hit the airframe and one hit the left quarter panel of
> the windshield. All strikes were when the F4s were doing 500K on low
> level weapons deliveries. The airframe strikes penetrated the fuselage
> skin around the intakes but no serious damage (other than a hole) was
> done. The windshield strike filled the cockpit with buzzard pieces and
> guts and disabled the front seater as most of the buzzard hit his
> shoulder. The rear seater was a pilot and landed the F4 at Avon park
> making an arrested engagement so the front seater could get immediate
> medical attention. He was dazed and his shoulder was severely bruised
> and he was half-nauseated from the buzzard guts but he recoverd
> quickly. A maintenance crew came up and repaired the F4 and another
> crew flew it back home.
> I was with Air Florida when one of our DC9s lunched an engine. 'Blue
> ice' from a leaking forward lavatory drain finally broke loose and the
> airflow carried it up over the wing and right into the engine intake.
> JT8Ds don't like large lumps of ice, regardless of color. BTW had
> anyone else noted the tabloids don;t carry stories about 'blue ice'
> from alien space any more?

Hawks are great flyers but not too bright (where have we heard that
description before?). We had a Swainson's hawk fly in front of our
troop position just as we opened in Fire for Effect. The unit medical
WO, our local hunter and wildlife nut, had it stuffed and mounted, and
it was on the wall of the Medical Inspection Room until he retired.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Kevin Brooks]

"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
...

<snip>

>
> Hawks are great flyers but not too bright (where have we heard that
> description before?). We had a Swainson's hawk fly in front of our
> troop position just as we opened in Fire for Effect. The unit medical
> WO, our local hunter and wildlife nut, had it stuffed and mounted, and
> it was on the wall of the Medical Inspection Room until he retired.

Probably lucky he does not reside south of our mutual border. A lot of the
birds of prey are protected here. And, as is apt to happen when lawyers and
bureaucrats get together, the intent of the protective laws has been twisted
beyond reason. Find an owl from the list that has been killed by a car and
want to preserve it? You may find yourself facing federal charges. Maybe you
are a fly fisherman who likes to tie his own flies and you collect a few
feathers from the carcass of a hawk or owl? Ditto. You actually need a
*permit* to hold feathers lost by the bird you may have picked up in the
woods (there was a court case involving just that here in Virginia--in the
end the defendent was able to show he was "descended from the Iroquois" (and
thus his possession was covered by a claim of religious freedom) and won at
the federal appelate level. Ridiculous that he had to go to that level, much
less that he had to resort to his ethnic ancestry...

Brooks

> --
> Andrew Chaplin
> SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
> (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Duke of URL]

In t,
Kevin Brooks > radiated into the WorldWideWait:
> "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> <snip>
>
>> Hawks are great flyers but not too bright (where have we heard that
>> description before?). We had a Swainson's hawk fly in front of our
>> troop position just as we opened in Fire for Effect. The unit
>> medical WO, our local hunter and wildlife nut, had it stuffed and
>> mounted, and it was on the wall of the Medical Inspection Room
>> until he retired.
>
> Probably lucky he does not reside south of our mutual border. A lot
> of the birds of prey are protected here. And, as is apt to happen
> when lawyers and bureaucrats get together, the intent of the
> protective laws has been twisted beyond reason. Find an owl from
> the list that has been killed by a car and want to preserve it? You
> may find yourself facing federal charges. Maybe you are a fly
> fisherman who likes to tie his own flies and you collect a few
> feathers from the carcass of a hawk or owl? Ditto. You actually
> need a *permit* to hold feathers lost by the bird you may have
> picked up in the woods (there was a court case involving just that
> here in Virginia--in the end the defendent was able to show he was
> "descended from the Iroquois" (and thus his possession was covered
> by a claim of religious freedom) and won at the federal appelate
> level. Ridiculous that he had to go to that level, much less that
> he had to resort to his ethnic ancestry...

Don't forget the imbecility that only "certified" Indigenous American
Aborigines may legally have eagle feathers in their possession.

[Peter Skelton]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:06:16 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
...
>
><snip>
>
>>
>> Hawks are great flyers but not too bright (where have we heard that
>> description before?). We had a Swainson's hawk fly in front of our
>> troop position just as we opened in Fire for Effect. The unit medical
>> WO, our local hunter and wildlife nut, had it stuffed and mounted, and
>> it was on the wall of the Medical Inspection Room until he retired.
>
>Probably lucky he does not reside south of our mutual border. A lot of the
>birds of prey are protected here. And, as is apt to happen when lawyers and
>bureaucrats get together, the intent of the protective laws has been twisted
>beyond reason. Find an owl from the list that has been killed by a car and
>want to preserve it? You may find yourself facing federal charges. Maybe you
>are a fly fisherman who likes to tie his own flies and you collect a few
>feathers from the carcass of a hawk or owl? Ditto. You actually need a
>*permit* to hold feathers lost by the bird you may have picked up in the
>woods (there was a court case involving just that here in Virginia--in the
>end the defendent was able to show he was "descended from the Iroquois" (and
>thus his possession was covered by a claim of religious freedom) and won at
>the federal appelate level. Ridiculous that he had to go to that level, much
>less that he had to resort to his ethnic ancestry...
>
We have conditional and absolute discharge, ie. the court saying
don't do it again, and don't bug us with this trivia respectively
to deal with this sort of sillyness. Isn't there something
similar in the states? Life can get a bit unpleasant for a judge
who lets things get tied up with too much effort for too little
crime.

It's not perfect but it helps

Peter Skelton

[Bill Kambic]

"Peter Skelton" wrote in message

> We have conditional and absolute discharge, ie. the court saying
> don't do it again, and don't bug us with this trivia respectively
> to deal with this sort of sillyness. Isn't there something
> similar in the states?

No, Sir.

Life can get a bit unpleasant for a judge
> who lets things get tied up with too much effort for too little
> crime.

Our Federal judges serve for life or good behavior (U.S. Constitution, Art.
III, Sec. 1).

Not much can happen to such an official who does get "tied down" in trivia.

> It's not perfect but it helps

Perhaps. On the other hand it does keep the heavy hand of any given
administration from bringing direct pressure on judges for some specific
outcome.

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Bill Kambic" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Skelton" wrote in message
>
> > We have conditional and absolute discharge, ie. the court saying
> > don't do it again, and don't bug us with this trivia respectively
> > to deal with this sort of sillyness. Isn't there something
> > similar in the states?
>
> No, Sir.
>
> Life can get a bit unpleasant for a judge
> > who lets things get tied up with too much effort for too little
> > crime.
>
> Our Federal judges serve for life or good behavior (U.S. Constitution,
Art.
> III, Sec. 1).
>

So are Canadian judges

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/trib/page4.html

> Not much can happen to such an official who does get "tied down" in
trivia.
>

Except that he becomes unable to spend time on important matters.


> > It's not perfect but it helps
>
> Perhaps. On the other hand it does keep the heavy hand of any given
> administration from bringing direct pressure on judges for some specific
> outcome.
>
> Bill Kambic
>
>

How does spending time on trivial cases do that exactly ?

The point Peter makes is valid. There have been similar cases
in the UK where a trial judge found for the prosecution on
the point of law but gave the defendant an absolute discharge
and made the prosecution pay his costs after lecturing the
prosecuting counsel about bringing such trivial matters before
the court. This ****ed off the Crown Prosecution Service to be sure
but was hardly evidence of the subservience of judges, quite
the reverse in fact.

Keith

[Peter Skelton]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:27:56 -0500, "Bill Kambic"
> wrote:

>"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
>
>> We have conditional and absolute discharge, ie. the court saying
>> don't do it again, and don't bug us with this trivia respectively
>> to deal with this sort of sillyness. Isn't there something
>> similar in the states?
>
>No, Sir.
>
> Life can get a bit unpleasant for a judge
>> who lets things get tied up with too much effort for too little
>> crime.
>
>Our Federal judges serve for life or good behavior (U.S. Constitution, Art.
>III, Sec. 1).
>
>Not much can happen to such an official who does get "tied down" in trivia.
>
>> It's not perfect but it helps
>
>Perhaps. On the other hand it does keep the heavy hand of any given
>administration from bringing direct pressure on judges for some specific
>outcome.

Judges here are not subject to job pressure from politicians, but
there is a certain amount of peer review, and their decisions
are, of course, public knowledge. How do you react to a coworker
who's anal slowness keeps you from your family or who's nasty
behaviour makes customers yell at you?

Peter Skelton

[Kevin Brooks]

"Duke of URL" <macbenahATkdsiDOTnet> wrote in message
...
> In t,
> Kevin Brooks > radiated into the WorldWideWait:
> > "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Hawks are great flyers but not too bright (where have we heard that
> >> description before?). We had a Swainson's hawk fly in front of our
> >> troop position just as we opened in Fire for Effect. The unit
> >> medical WO, our local hunter and wildlife nut, had it stuffed and
> >> mounted, and it was on the wall of the Medical Inspection Room
> >> until he retired.
> >
> > Probably lucky he does not reside south of our mutual border. A lot
> > of the birds of prey are protected here. And, as is apt to happen
> > when lawyers and bureaucrats get together, the intent of the
> > protective laws has been twisted beyond reason. Find an owl from
> > the list that has been killed by a car and want to preserve it? You
> > may find yourself facing federal charges. Maybe you are a fly
> > fisherman who likes to tie his own flies and you collect a few
> > feathers from the carcass of a hawk or owl? Ditto. You actually
> > need a *permit* to hold feathers lost by the bird you may have
> > picked up in the woods (there was a court case involving just that
> > here in Virginia--in the end the defendent was able to show he was
> > "descended from the Iroquois" (and thus his possession was covered
> > by a claim of religious freedom) and won at the federal appelate
> > level. Ridiculous that he had to go to that level, much less that
> > he had to resort to his ethnic ancestry...
>
> Don't forget the imbecility that only "certified" Indigenous American
> Aborigines may legally have eagle feathers in their possession.

Nor the USF&WS prohibition against said "indigenous" peoples even giving
gifts that include such feathers to non-Indians (to use the polically
incorrect term), which IMHO is just further stupidity heeped upon that
imbecility you note. ISTR Readers Digest did a story quite a few years back
that pointed out the idiocy behind many of these "illegal feather"
cases--one that stuck in my mind was some woman who had made one of those
"dream catcher" thingies and sent or gave it to then First Lady Hillary
Clinton (and no, this is not an anti-Clinton diatribe, as I have no idea she
had any direct involvment whatsover with this case), and subsequently found
herself being confronted by a Fish and Wildlife Service investigator and
charged with illegal possession and istribution of prhibited feathers. IIRC
another poor fellow found a dead owl and stuck it in his freezer (can't
recall for what purpose...), and after being reported to same said service
also faced charges. I would not have recalled these incidents were it not
for the fact that my late brother was then into the fly-tying bit, and was
in the habit of stopping and collecting hair and feathers from dead critters
he saw on the side of the road, and I remember relaying the article's info
to him.

Brooks

>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:06:16 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >>
> >> Hawks are great flyers but not too bright (where have we heard that
> >> description before?). We had a Swainson's hawk fly in front of our
> >> troop position just as we opened in Fire for Effect. The unit medical
> >> WO, our local hunter and wildlife nut, had it stuffed and mounted, and
> >> it was on the wall of the Medical Inspection Room until he retired.
> >
> >Probably lucky he does not reside south of our mutual border. A lot of
the
> >birds of prey are protected here. And, as is apt to happen when lawyers
and
> >bureaucrats get together, the intent of the protective laws has been
twisted
> >beyond reason. Find an owl from the list that has been killed by a car
and
> >want to preserve it? You may find yourself facing federal charges. Maybe
you
> >are a fly fisherman who likes to tie his own flies and you collect a few
> >feathers from the carcass of a hawk or owl? Ditto. You actually need a
> >*permit* to hold feathers lost by the bird you may have picked up in the
> >woods (there was a court case involving just that here in Virginia--in
the
> >end the defendent was able to show he was "descended from the Iroquois"
(and
> >thus his possession was covered by a claim of religious freedom) and won
at
> >the federal appelate level. Ridiculous that he had to go to that level,
much
> >less that he had to resort to his ethnic ancestry...
> >
> We have conditional and absolute discharge, ie. the court saying
> don't do it again, and don't bug us with this trivia respectively
> to deal with this sort of sillyness. Isn't there something
> similar in the states? Life can get a bit unpleasant for a judge
> who lets things get tied up with too much effort for too little
> crime.

No, because that would deny the legal beagles another source of perpetual
income--if we ruled out frivolous criminal charges and (worse yet) frivolous
lawsuits, half of the esteemed bar would perish due to lack of business. No
to mention the enforcement branch bureaucrats out scratching for violations
of these stupid laws--not a lot of need for the skills of your average
"possum cop" in the private sector. Of course, we could carry out
significant legal reforms...if the lawyers were not so entrenched in our
political process. So the vicious cycle continues.

Brooks

>
> It's not perfect but it helps
>
> Peter Skelton

[Peter Skelton]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:13:52 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:06:16 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Hawks are great flyers but not too bright (where have we heard that
>> >> description before?). We had a Swainson's hawk fly in front of our
>> >> troop position just as we opened in Fire for Effect. The unit medical
>> >> WO, our local hunter and wildlife nut, had it stuffed and mounted, and
>> >> it was on the wall of the Medical Inspection Room until he retired.
>> >
>> >Probably lucky he does not reside south of our mutual border. A lot of
>the
>> >birds of prey are protected here. And, as is apt to happen when lawyers
>and
>> >bureaucrats get together, the intent of the protective laws has been
>twisted
>> >beyond reason. Find an owl from the list that has been killed by a car
>and
>> >want to preserve it? You may find yourself facing federal charges. Maybe
>you
>> >are a fly fisherman who likes to tie his own flies and you collect a few
>> >feathers from the carcass of a hawk or owl? Ditto. You actually need a
>> >*permit* to hold feathers lost by the bird you may have picked up in the
>> >woods (there was a court case involving just that here in Virginia--in
>the
>> >end the defendent was able to show he was "descended from the Iroquois"
>(and
>> >thus his possession was covered by a claim of religious freedom) and won
>at
>> >the federal appelate level. Ridiculous that he had to go to that level,
>much
>> >less that he had to resort to his ethnic ancestry...
>> >
>> We have conditional and absolute discharge, ie. the court saying
>> don't do it again, and don't bug us with this trivia respectively
>> to deal with this sort of sillyness. Isn't there something
>> similar in the states? Life can get a bit unpleasant for a judge
>> who lets things get tied up with too much effort for too little
>> crime.
>
>No, because that would deny the legal beagles another source of perpetual
>income--if we ruled out frivolous criminal charges and (worse yet) frivolous
>lawsuits, half of the esteemed bar would perish due to lack of business.

And the downside is?

(should be a smiley up ther, I suppose)

Peter Skelton

[Bill Kambic]

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message

> > Our Federal judges serve for life or good behavior (U.S. Constitution,
> Art.
> > III, Sec. 1).
> >
>
> So are Canadian judges
>
> http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/trib/page4.html

No, not exactly.

Their "security of tenture" seems to be based on statute, not Constitution
(although I may be mistaken; the source of the tenure is not clearly
stated).

They may be removed for ethical violations by a council of other judges (who
may or may not be subject to political pressure).

A U.S. Federal judge holds a lifetime commission and can only be removed by
impeachment. Very few have suffered this fate.

Note that financial security also flows from the Constitution.
Administrative independance has a clear basis in common law.

> > Not much can happen to such an official who does get "tied down" in
> trivia.
> >
>
> Except that he becomes unable to spend time on important matters.

Indeed. But it is the judge, him/herself that determines what is or is not
important.

> > > It's not perfect but it helps
> >
> > Perhaps. On the other hand it does keep the heavy hand of any given
> > administration from bringing direct pressure on judges for some specific
> > outcome.
> >
> > Bill Kambic
> >
> >
>
> How does spending time on trivial cases do that exactly ?

It doesn't.

> The point Peter makes is valid. There have been similar cases
> in the UK where a trial judge found for the prosecution on
> the point of law but gave the defendant an absolute discharge
> and made the prosecution pay his costs after lecturing the
> prosecuting counsel about bringing such trivial matters before
> the court. This ****ed off the Crown Prosecution Service to be sure
> but was hardly evidence of the subservience of judges, quite
> the reverse in fact.

Never suggested that British or Commonwealth judges don't have a measure of
independance. Just that their power, and their degree of independance, flow
from Parliament (if that's how the legislature is styled).

I have also seen Federal and state court judges dismiss cases where the
defendant was clearly guilty with costs to the state and give the prosecutor
a first class "red ass" for wasting the court's time. I have also seen
judges at both levels reject plea agreements because it was too lienient and
force the case to trial.

An independant judiciary is a Very Good Thing, but no guarantee against
judicial silliness.

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

[Bill Kambic]

"Peter Skelton" wrote in message

> Judges here are not subject to job pressure from politicians,

With all due respect, if you believe this then you have not spent much time
down at the local court house!<G>

but
> there is a certain amount of peer review, and their decisions
> are, of course, public knowledge.

Ayup.

How do you react to a coworker
> who's anal slowness keeps you from your family or who's nasty
> behaviour makes customers yell at you?

Depends on the coworker!<g>

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

[Bill Kambic]

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message

> No, because that would deny the legal beagles another source of perpetual
> income

Balderdash.

It's because if you want to protect something an easy way is to make private
possesion of that something, or anything associated with it, a crime. This
means all the prosecution has to do is show that you possessed it. You
don't even have to have actual knowledge of the possession.

(I.E., if you lend your car to a friend and that friend smokes a joint in
the car and leaves the roach in the ash tray you can be found guilty of
simple possesion of MJ even if you could show that you did NOT have actual
knowledge of the roach. The law presumes you are in possesion of all items
in your vehicle. So if you possessed the vehicle you possessed the MJ.
Next case.)

--if we ruled out frivolous criminal charges and (worse yet) frivolous
> lawsuits, half of the esteemed bar would perish due to lack of business.

Rubbish. They would just dream up new methods of employement.

No
> to mention the enforcement branch bureaucrats out scratching for
violations
> of these stupid laws--not a lot of need for the skills of your average
> "possum cop" in the private sector. Of course, we could carry out
> significant legal reforms...if the lawyers were not so entrenched in our
> political process. So the vicious cycle continues.

Yeah, nobody likes lawyers 'till they hear the words, "You have the right to
remain silent."

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Bill Kambic" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
>
> > No, because that would deny the legal beagles another source of
perpetual
> > income
>
> Balderdash.

See what I mean? A simple tongue-in-cheek remark and the ambulance chasing
lobby is out in arms...

Brooks

<snip long winded response from a gent who forgot to turn his humor switch
on this morning>

[Zamboni]

"Jim E" > wrote in message
...
>
> > >
> > > The chicken gun exists. I've seen it in operation in fact.
> > >
> > I live a few blocks from Boeing's chicken gun. No idea if they're using
> > fresh or frozen.
>
> I live in Everett Wa near a fair size Boeing plant.
> Wonder if we have a gun locally?
>
It's up in Marysville, behind the new Tulalip casino (unless the casino
pushed it out). There's a Boeing test complex hidden behind the trees there.
--
Zamboni

[Bill Kambic]

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message

> > > No, because that would deny the legal beagles another source of
> perpetual
> > > income
> >
> > Balderdash.
>
> See what I mean? A simple tongue-in-cheek remark and the ambulance chasing
> lobby is out in arms...

Ah, you must have an almighty small tongue 'cause I couldn't see it in your
cheek. Or maybe you were turning the other cheek?

Or maybe we are speaking of the wrong set of cheeks!!!<g>

But, since you claim it was there, I won't send you a bill for the legal
advice!<g>

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

[Duke of URL]

In t,
Kevin Brooks > radiated into the WorldWideWait:

> Nor the USF&WS prohibition against said "indigenous" peoples even
> giving gifts that include such feathers to non-Indians (to use the
> polically incorrect term), which IMHO is just further stupidity
> heeped upon that imbecility you note.

It's a Murphy's Law, but I can't recall which: No Subject, Topic or
Idea is Too Trivial, Stupid or Inconsequential to Have a Law Passed
Concerning It.

[Duke of URL]

In t,
Kevin Brooks > radiated into the WorldWideWait:
> "Bill Kambic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
>>
>>> No, because that would deny the legal beagles another source of
>>> perpetual income
>>
>> Balderdash.
>
> See what I mean? A simple tongue-in-cheek remark and the ambulance
> chasing lobby is out in arms...

LOL!

[Ogden Johnson III]

"Bill Kambic" > wrote:


>A U.S. Federal judge holds a lifetime commission and can only be removed by
>impeachment. Very few have suffered this fate.

Impeachment [i.e., House of Representatives charging a "crime"]
*and* conviction by the Senate removing the judge. Impeachment
doesn't result in removal. Only conviction of the offenses for
which the official was impeached.

One of the few judges impeached by the House and convicted by the
Senate got his revenge. Election to the House of Representatives
that impeached him. He's still serving, having been reelected
regularly.
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]

[Bill Kambic]

"Ogden Johnson III" wrote in message

> >A U.S. Federal judge holds a lifetime commission and can only be removed
by[i]
> >impeachment. Very few have suffered this fate.
>
> Impeachment
> *and* conviction by the Senate removing the judge. Impeachment
> doesn't result in removal. Only conviction of the offenses for
> which the official was impeached.

The verb "to impeach" means to accuse, charge a liability on, or to sue. In
the context in which it was in the Consititution of the U.S. (and in that of
most states) it means a proceeding charging a public official with mis, mal,
or non-feasance before a quasi-political court.

You are "impeached" when a bill of charges is brought before the
approprirate body. If you are convicted by the finders of fact there seems
to be no other specific term of art (at least I can't find one<g>). So
"impeachment" may have a double, if sloppy, meaning.

> One of the few judges impeached by the House and convicted by the
> Senate got his revenge. Election to the House of Representatives
> that impeached him. He's still serving, having been reelected
> regularly.

Ah, yes. Proving that impeachment is a political process, not a judicial
conviction.<g>

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

[BlackBeard]

"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message news:
>
> I watched a portion of Myth Busters where the two knuckleheads tried to
> debunk the "explosive decompression" phenomenon in the movies. You get the
> picture. Gun goes off in plane. Fuselage rips open and 6-8 passengers, in
> flight meals, luggage, and an unsuspecting flight attendant fly into the
> atmosphere.
>
> They pressurized a bone-yarded fuselage with a huffer and used a remote
> control .45 to shoot out windows and fuselage to see if a large hole would
> expand out the small starter hole.
>
> Results: Small holes stayed small and made hissing noises.
>
> Conclusion: Myth. Busted.
>
> They failed, however, to introduce a 300/.78 slipstream into the equation,
> but I doubt it would have changed the result.
>
> Point being that these guys seem to make some critical assumptions that
> *might* affect the results. I didn't see the whole show, but I don't
> remember them ever addressing the lack of slip stream.
>
> --Woody


Next time you're out here (yea right) I'll show you some video of our
recent tests. We did our own series of tests and recreated the vital
conditions. The conclusions are the same as you stated. Explosive
decompressions are great for the movies, not realistic though.

BlackBeard

[ZZBunker]

Peter Skelton > wrote in message >...
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:27:56 -0500, "Bill Kambic"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
> >
> >> We have conditional and absolute discharge, ie. the court saying
> >> don't do it again, and don't bug us with this trivia respectively
> >> to deal with this sort of sillyness. Isn't there something
> >> similar in the states?
> >
> >No, Sir.
> >
> > Life can get a bit unpleasant for a judge
> >> who lets things get tied up with too much effort for too little
> >> crime.
> >
> >Our Federal judges serve for life or good behavior (U.S. Constitution, Art.
> >III, Sec. 1).
> >
> >Not much can happen to such an official who does get "tied down" in trivia.
> >
> >> It's not perfect but it helps
> >
> >Perhaps. On the other hand it does keep the heavy hand of any given
> >administration from bringing direct pressure on judges for some specific
> >outcome.
>
> Judges here are not subject to job pressure from politicians, but
> there is a certain amount of peer review, and their decisions
> are, of course, public knowledge. How do you react to a coworker
> who's anal slowness keeps you from your family or who's nasty
> behaviour makes customers yell at you?

We don't know. In the US we usually tell Judges
that if you're interested in customers and
Lawyers, you should be a *New York* Judge.
Since the rest of the universe doesn't
work like New York.

[Andrew Chaplin]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> Probably lucky he does not reside south of our mutual border. A lot of the
> birds of prey are protected here.

All raptors/accipters are protected here too. If I remember correctly
he did get a permit to have the hawk stuffed (otherwise the
taxidermist would not have touched it). That wasn't a problem because
CF Range Control Officers are ex officio game wardens, and the
incident was duly reported to the local RCO.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[John S. Shinal]

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

>Hmmm, I suspect when dealing with a kg of water it makes a
>big difference to the fan blades if that water is frozen
>in a single lump.

It was interesting the extraordinary damage a 100MPH chicken
caused to that little Beechcraft. It looked like a 20mm hit.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[David Windhorst]

Dale Farmer wrote:

>Peter Kemp wrote:
>
>
>
>>On or about Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:28:37 +0000, Alan Lothian
> allegedly uttered:
>>
>>
>>
>>>In article >, Keith Willshaw
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hmmm, I suspect when dealing with a kg of water it makes a
>>>>big difference to the fan blades if that water is frozen
>>>>in a single lump.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Indeed. Strange to relate, more windscreens are smashed by hailstones
>>>than by raindrops.
>>>
>>>
>>Hailstones can get rather larger than raindrops. In the various
>>updrafts within stormclouds the raindrops grow until they reach a size
>>at which they're too unstable in the airflows and fission into smaller
>>drops, hail just keeps growing until the updrafts can't keep them up.
>>
>>I've never been hurt by rainfall, but one short shower of 1" hail left
>>me very battered, slightly dazed, and in need of a large drink and a
>>quiet lie down.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I'd be interested to know what experiments, if any,
>>>the programme did in order to reach its conclusions. Obviously they are
>>>quite correct about kinetic energy and momentum, but transfer of
>>>momentum operates in many different ways depending very much on the
>>>nature of the materials in which the transfer occurs.
>>>
>>>
>>I have to admit I missed the show and will keep an eye out for the
>>inevitable rerun as it would be one I'd like to see.
>>---
>>Peter Kemp
>>
>>Life is short - Drink Faster
>>
>>
>
> There was a hailstorm in Texas several years ago during a large outdoor
>festival of some sort. Couple of folks maimed, lots hospitalized, millions
>of
>dollars in property damage. ( Broken glass, totaled cars, roof damage. )
>
> --Dale
>
>
>
>
Storytellers like to toss around the phrase "_____ball-sized hail," the
diameter of the ball growing with the teller's brazenness. But back in
the late 70s, when I was working as an insurance adjuster in eastern end
of Tornado Alley (southern Illinois, Western Kentucky and Tennessee,
southwestern Missouri), I got a claim once where some folks on a farm
said they'd had some structures and vehicles damaged by "baseball-sized
hail." We'd heard such things around the office plenty of times, but
these folks had gone to the trouble to bag some of the stones and stick
them in a freezer. And they weren't exaggerating; somewhere I've still
got the Polaroids. Given that the projectiles in question had had a
chance to melt some -- it was summer, after all -- before the insureds
figured it was safe enough to go outside and assess, it's possible they
had been the size of softballs when they came down. The tin roof on
their tractor shed looked life it'd been hit with cluster bomblets.

That area sees some pretty extreme weather phenomena. My dad still
lives there; he says that a twister that came through last summer and
killed a couple people just a mile from his house was so powerful it
pulled utility poles straight out of the ground without breaking them.
He'd been in the claims business for 30 years, and maintains it was the
most awe-inspiring damage he'd ever personally witnessed.

[Ogden Johnson III]

David Windhorst > wrote:

[Snip previous hailstones stuff]

>got the Polaroids. Given that the projectiles in question had had a
>chance to melt some -- it was summer, after all -- before the insureds
>figured it was safe enough to go outside and assess, it's possible they
>had been the size of softballs when they came down. The tin roof on
>their tractor shed looked life it'd been hit with cluster bomblets.

12" or 16" softballs?
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]

[Ogden Johnson III]

(John S. Shinal) wrote:

>"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

>>Hmmm, I suspect when dealing with a kg of water it makes a
>>big difference to the fan blades if that water is frozen
>>in a single lump.

> It was interesting the extraordinary damage a 100MPH chicken
>caused to that little Beechcraft. It looked like a 20mm hit.

The pumpkin shot they took at it at the end of the show was
impressive too. Finished off the destruction of the safety
enclosure begun during all the chicken shooting.

[They'd had a veteran of the world famous World Pumpkin Chucking
Championships [http://www.whatsonwhen.com/events/~46624.jml]
who'd used air cannons in his winning efforts {a > 1 mile shot}
as their technical/safety expert/advisor, so naturally ...]
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]

[Duke of URL]

In ,
Ogden Johnson III > radiated into the WorldWideWait:

> One of the few judges impeached by the House and convicted by the
> Senate got his revenge. Election to the House of Representatives
> that impeached him. He's still serving, having been reelected
> regularly.

??? Who the HELL is that?

[Bill Kambic]

"Duke of URL" wrote in message

> > One of the few judges impeached by the House and convicted by the
> > Senate got his revenge. Election to the House of Representatives
> > that impeached him. He's still serving, having been reelected
> > regularly.
>
> ??? Who the HELL is that?

The ex-Federal judge from Miami who got nailed for tax evasion, if memory
serves?

I just can't quite recall his name.

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

[Bill Kambic]

Bad form to reply to your own post, but the name is Rep. Alcee Hastings(D),
23rd Dist., FL.

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

[Brian Allardice]

In article >, macbenahATkdsiDOTnet says...
>
>In t,
>Kevin Brooks > radiated into the WorldWideWait:
>
>> Nor the USF&WS prohibition against said "indigenous" peoples even
>> giving gifts that include such feathers to non-Indians (to use the
>> polically incorrect term), which IMHO is just further stupidity
>> heeped upon that imbecility you note.
>
>It's a Murphy's Law, but I can't recall which: No Subject, Topic or
>Idea is Too Trivial, Stupid or Inconsequential to Have a Law Passed
>Concerning It.

Well, right, but, but.......

Every guy who shot an owl, eagle, whatever would be there saying "But Ossifer,
'twas but road kill.... found these feathers floating in the garden, &c
&c..... never laid a hand on the poor creature

Cheers,
dba

[Duke of URL]

In ,
Clark <stillnospam@me> radiated into the WorldWideWait:
> Peter Skelton > wrote in
> :
>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:46:44 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
>> > wrote:
>>> "Bill Kambic" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> No, because that would deny the legal beagles another source of
>>>>> perpetual income
>>>>
>>>> Balderdash.
>>>
>>> See what I mean? A simple tongue-in-cheek remark and the
>>> ambulance chasing lobby is out in arms...
>>>
>> With all respect sir, his snipped crack that they'd simply find
>> something else to do was reasonably witty and got a DOH out of
>> me.
>
> It sounds good, but in practice, the average lawyer isn't
> intelligent enough to "find something else." YMMV

There are ekshully many job openings available for them. Used car
salesman, Cable Service telemarketer, Roofing/Siding/Window saleman...

[Duke of URL]

In news:1UpPb.199229$JQ1.132738@pd7tw1no,
Brian Allardice > radiated into the
WorldWideWait:
> In article >,
> macbenahATkdsiDOTnet says...
>> In t,
>> Kevin Brooks > radiated into the
>> WorldWideWait:
>>
>>> Nor the USF&WS prohibition against said "indigenous" peoples even
>>> giving gifts that include such feathers to non-Indians (to use the
>>> polically incorrect term), which IMHO is just further stupidity
>>> heeped upon that imbecility you note.
>>
>> It's a Murphy's Law, but I can't recall which: No Subject, Topic or
>> Idea is Too Trivial, Stupid or Inconsequential to Have a Law Passed
>> Concerning It.
>
> Well, right, but, but.......
> Every guy who shot an owl, eagle, whatever would be there saying
> "But Ossifer, 'twas but road kill.... found these feathers
> floating in the garden, &c &c..... never laid a hand on the poor
> creature

Ah, then you favor convicting people on the basis that they "might
possibly" have shot a bird?
Personally, I want the F&G Naz^H^H^H Wardens to have to PROVE the
individual deliberately caused the bird's demise.
There happens to be a medium-sized flock of iggles nesting within a
couple miles of my house. Not that I would EVER gather any cast-off
feathers, no. Nope. Huh-uh. Not me.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Duke of URL" <macbenahATkdsiDOTnet> wrote in message
...
> In ,
> Clark <stillnospam@me> radiated into the WorldWideWait:
> > Peter Skelton > wrote in
> > :
> >> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:46:44 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
> >> > wrote:
> >>> "Bill Kambic" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>> No, because that would deny the legal beagles another source of
> >>>>> perpetual income
> >>>>
> >>>> Balderdash.
> >>>
> >>> See what I mean? A simple tongue-in-cheek remark and the
> >>> ambulance chasing lobby is out in arms...
> >>>
> >> With all respect sir, his snipped crack that they'd simply find
> >> something else to do was reasonably witty and got a DOH out of
> >> me.
> >
> > It sounds good, but in practice, the average lawyer isn't
> > intelligent enough to "find something else." YMMV
>
> There are ekshully many job openings available for them. Used car
> salesman, Cable Service telemarketer, Roofing/Siding/Window saleman...

Hey, don't forget "blacktop sealing gypsy"! You know, the scam artists who
travel around the country taking advantage of little old ladies (and some
younger folks who ought to know better) by overcharging them to apply a thin
coat of sealer to their driveways? Sounds like a job well suited to the
ethically-challenged...

Brooks
>
>

[Duke of URL]

In t,
Kevin Brooks > radiated into the WorldWideWait:
> "Duke of URL" <macbenahATkdsiDOTnet> wrote in message
> ...
>> In ,
>> Clark <stillnospam@me> radiated into the WorldWideWait:
>>> Peter Skelton > wrote in
>>> :
>>>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:46:44 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> "Bill Kambic" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, because that would deny the legal beagles another source
>>>>>>> of perpetual income
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Balderdash.
>>>>>
>>>>> See what I mean? A simple tongue-in-cheek remark and the
>>>>> ambulance chasing lobby is out in arms...
>>>>>
>>>> With all respect sir, his snipped crack that they'd simply find
>>>> something else to do was reasonably witty and got a DOH out of
>>>> me.
>>>
>>> It sounds good, but in practice, the average lawyer isn't
>>> intelligent enough to "find something else." YMMV
>>
>> There are ekshully many job openings available for them. Used car
>> salesman, Cable Service telemarketer, Roofing/Siding/Window
>> saleman...
>
> Hey, don't forget "blacktop sealing gypsy"! You know, the scam
> artists who travel around the country taking advantage of little
> old ladies (and some younger folks who ought to know better) by
> overcharging them to apply a thin coat of sealer to their
> driveways?

No openings - the field is already over-filled with former
politicians.

[Kristan Roberge]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote:

> John Lansford > wrote:
>
> :The chicken gun exists. I've seen it in operation in fact.
>
> They also have at least one at Lockheed Fort Worth (for testing
> aircraft canopies).

Hell, I've built them. Its not that hard to make a pneumatic cannon.
There's
even a sport for them (google search "pumpkin chucking")

[Kristan Roberge]

Jim E wrote:

> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> > John Lansford wrote:
> > >
> > > The chicken gun exists. I've seen it in operation in fact.
> >
> > I'm guessing the myth in qustion is about the frozen vs non-frozen
> > chickens.* It will be interesting to see what the Mythbusters guys do
> with
> > it.
>
> Watched the program.
> Their conclusion, frozen or thawed makes no difference to impact.
> Strictly a function of mass, velocity, and time of deceleration.

Heh... maybe they need to design for pigeon strikes and not chickens.
Really... when
was the last time you saw a chicken in flight higher than 20 feet off the
ground, or
hanging around an airport? Pigeons and gulls on the other hand, or ducks...
they get up there
a bit more. But are much smaller birds. Unless the goal is to design for
collisions with canada
geese (our secret weapons).

[Kristan Roberge]

Alan Lothian wrote:

> In article >, Keith Willshaw
> > wrote:
>
> > "Jim E" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> > > link.net...
> > > > John Lansford wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The chicken gun exists. I've seen it in operation in fact.
> > > >
> > > > I'm guessing the myth in qustion is about the frozen vs non-frozen
> > > > chickens.* It will be interesting to see what the Mythbusters guys do
> > > with
> > > > it.
> > >
> > > Watched the program.
> > > Their conclusion, frozen or thawed makes no difference to impact.
> > > Strictly a function of mass, velocity, and time of deceleration.
> > >
> >
> > Hmmm, I suspect when dealing with a kg of water it makes a
> > big difference to the fan blades if that water is frozen
> > in a single lump.
>
> Indeed. Strange to relate, more windscreens are smashed by hailstones
> than by raindrops.

You've never weighed a raindrop vs a hailstone have you?

[Kristan Roberge]

Eugene Griessel wrote:

> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> > "Jim E" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> > > link.net...
> > > > John Lansford wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The chicken gun exists. I've seen it in operation in fact.
> > > >
> > > > I'm guessing the myth in qustion is about the frozen vs non-frozen
> > > > chickens.* It will be interesting to see what the Mythbusters guys do
> > with
> > > > it.
> > >
> > > Watched the program.
> > > Their conclusion, frozen or thawed makes no difference to impact.
> > > Strictly a function of mass, velocity, and time of deceleration.
> > >
> >
> > Hmmm, I suspect when dealing with a kg of water it makes a
> > big difference to the fan blades if that water is frozen
> > in a single lump.
>
> Maybe in the case of water. But I once talked to an engineer involved
> in developing the canopy for the Shorts Tucano and he basically said
> the same thing - frozen chicken, thawed chicken, made no difference to
> the damage caused.
>
> IIRC he said it was a 4lb chicken that was used as standard.

How often do you strike 4 pounds of bird? Other than ducks and geese, I can't
think of many 4 pound birds you might run a plane into.

[Mike Kanze]

Kristan,

>How often do you strike 4 pounds of bird? Other than ducks and geese, I
can't think of many 4 pound birds you might run a plane into.

Suggest you see:

http://www.birdstrike.org/
http://www.pesthunters.com/BirdStrikeInfo.htm
https://www.avemco.com/briefingroom/birdstrikes.asp
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/nwrc/field/sandusky/strike.html

and many other good sources that I found with a Google search (terms: "bird
strikes" +"aviation").

In years past, there were certain seasons when one flew certain military
low-level training routes with extra caution due to bird strike potential.
Low-level hops in areas where 20 lb.-plus carrion birds are common
(Southeastern US, for instance) can be particularly hazardous.

BTW, low frequency is irrelevant if it happens to YOU.

--
Mike Kanze

"Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society."

-Mark Twain


"Kristan Roberge" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Eugene Griessel wrote:
>
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > > "Jim E" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> > > > link.net...
> > > > > John Lansford wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The chicken gun exists. I've seen it in operation in fact.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm guessing the myth in qustion is about the frozen vs non-frozen
> > > > > chickens.* It will be interesting to see what the Mythbusters
guys do
> > > with
> > > > > it.
> > > >
> > > > Watched the program.
> > > > Their conclusion, frozen or thawed makes no difference to impact.
> > > > Strictly a function of mass, velocity, and time of deceleration.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hmmm, I suspect when dealing with a kg of water it makes a
> > > big difference to the fan blades if that water is frozen
> > > in a single lump.
> >
> > Maybe in the case of water. But I once talked to an engineer involved
> > in developing the canopy for the Shorts Tucano and he basically said
> > the same thing - frozen chicken, thawed chicken, made no difference to
> > the damage caused.
> >
> > IIRC he said it was a 4lb chicken that was used as standard.
>
> How often do you strike 4 pounds of bird? Other than ducks and geese, I
can't
> think of many 4 pound birds you might run a plane into.
>
>

[Derek Lyons]

Kristan Roberge > wrote:

>Heh... maybe they need to design for pigeon strikes and not chickens.
>Really... when was the last time you saw a chicken in flight higher than
>20 feet off the ground, or hanging around an airport?

Bird strikes happen near the ground as well as at altitude.

>Pigeons and gulls on the other hand, or ducks... they get up there
>a bit more. But are much smaller birds.

A structure that will take the impact of a larger bird will take a
smaller bird in stride.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Kristan Roberge" > wrote in message
...
>
>

>
> How often do you strike 4 pounds of bird? Other than ducks and geese, I
can't
> think of many 4 pound birds you might run a plane into.
>
>

Herring Gulls reach 1.5 kg

Cormorants have been known to be as heavy as 3 kg

Gannets are in the 2-3 kg range

Swans of various types can reach 10 kg

Keith

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Derek Lyons > wrote:
>Kristan Roberge > wrote:
>
>>Heh... maybe they need to design for pigeon strikes and not chickens.
>>Really... when was the last time you saw a chicken in flight higher than
>>20 feet off the ground, or hanging around an airport?
>
>Bird strikes happen near the ground as well as at altitude.

*On* the ground too, as illustrated by a pheasant and the right front
wheel of my car on sunday..

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

[Jim Carriere]

"Kristan Roberge" > wrote in message
...
> How often do you strike 4 pounds of bird? Other than ducks and geese, I
can't
> think of many 4 pound birds you might run a plane into.

Um, there's lots... I've dodged plenty of hawks and buzzards- big ones over
5 foot wingspan too. It depends what area you fly in I guess.

Buzzards aren't God's smartest creatures either, they don't seem to yield to
anything no matter how big it is. (Even seagulls will give you right of way
if they see you in time.)

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, "Jim Carriere"
<jcarriere(at)isp01.net> wrote:

> "Kristan Roberge" > wrote in message
> ...
> > How often do you strike 4 pounds of bird? Other than ducks and geese, I
> can't
> > think of many 4 pound birds you might run a plane into.
>
> Um, there's lots... I've dodged plenty of hawks and buzzards- big ones
> over
> 5 foot wingspan too. It depends what area you fly in I guess.
>
> Buzzards aren't God's smartest creatures either, they don't seem to yield
> to
> anything no matter how big it is. (Even seagulls will give you right of
> way
> if they see you in time.)
>
>

They may have the same logic of superior deterrent that seems inherent
to the limited brain of even a tame skunk.

[Susan VanCamp]

Birds and Lieutenants scare me more than anything in the air... ;)

I second Jim's words -- seems the MOAs and Restricted Areas have an
abundance of turkey buzzards and re-tailed hawks -- lethal-sized creatures
when they get in your way at high Q.

I've run into four birds in the course of my career, 3 daytime, 1 at night
(at 1500'AGL). Fortunately, they were the smaller varieties -- 2 starlings,
2 undetermined. One of the starlings punched a neat hole the size of my
fist in the leading edge of the intake, went through a couple vertical frame
members and lodged next to a fuel cell. Never knew anything happened 'til a
PC found it post flight in the fuel pits...Class C damage at the time.



"Jim Carriere" > wrote in message
...
> "Kristan Roberge" > wrote in message
> ...
> > How often do you strike 4 pounds of bird? Other than ducks and geese, I
> can't
> > think of many 4 pound birds you might run a plane into.
>
> Um, there's lots... I've dodged plenty of hawks and buzzards- big ones
over
> 5 foot wingspan too. It depends what area you fly in I guess.
>
> Buzzards aren't God's smartest creatures either, they don't seem to yield
to
> anything no matter how big it is. (Even seagulls will give you right of
way
> if they see you in time.)
>
>

[Ned Pike]

In ,
Glenfiddich > spewed:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:00:37 -0500, "Jim Carriere"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Kristan Roberge" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> How often do you strike 4 pounds of bird? Other than ducks and
>>> geese, I can't think of many 4 pound birds you might run a plane
>>> into.
>>
>> Um, there's lots... I've dodged plenty of hawks and buzzards- big
>> ones over 5 foot wingspan too. It depends what area you fly in I
>> guess.
>>
>> Buzzards aren't God's smartest creatures either, they don't seem to
>> yield to anything no matter how big it is.
>> Even seag(ulls will give you right of wayif they see you in time.)
>>
>
> AND if they are not so gorged on roadkill that they can take off.
> I lost a radiator grille and a headlamp to a severely overloaded
> seagull on the road near Lossie - its rate of climb was inches/hour.
> As to lack of smarts - it was eating another seagull that had been
> smooshed on the road earlier, it never entered its greedy little brain
> to wonder how that meal had gotten there.
>
> Seagulls and aircraft are an even worse mix.

Given such gross stupidity, can anyone explain why all gulls are protected
under current US law?

[Fred J. McCall]

Kristan Roberge > wrote:

:Unless the goal is to design for
:collisions with canada
:geese (our secret weapons).

Pretty much. In fact, the size bird for the F-16 canopy tests was
upped from 'chicken' to 'turkey' after a collision with a California
condor.

--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

[Brian Allardice]

In article >,
says...
>
>In article >, "Jim Carriere"
><jcarriere(at)isp01.net> wrote:
>
>> "Kristan Roberge" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > How often do you strike 4 pounds of bird? Other than ducks and geese, I
>> can't
>> > think of many 4 pound birds you might run a plane into.
>>
>> Um, there's lots... I've dodged plenty of hawks and buzzards- big ones
>> over
>> 5 foot wingspan too. It depends what area you fly in I guess.
>>
>> Buzzards aren't God's smartest creatures either, they don't seem to yield
>> to
>> anything no matter how big it is. (Even seagulls will give you right of
>> way
>> if they see you in time.)
>>
>>
>
>They may have the same logic of superior deterrent that seems inherent
>to the limited brain of even a tame skunk.

You have to plan for the worst... Delhi is swarming with huge vultures.
Trust me, when one such is lurking on the branch of a nearby tree, one never
feels confident of completing tea on the terrace without incident. Not a 4 lb
bird.....

Cheers,
dba

[Fred J. McCall]

"Jim Carriere" > wrote:

:"Kristan Roberge" > wrote in message
...
:> How often do you strike 4 pounds of bird? Other than ducks and geese, I can't
:> think of many 4 pound birds you might run a plane into.
:
:Um, there's lots... I've dodged plenty of hawks and buzzards- big ones over
:5 foot wingspan too. It depends what area you fly in I guess.
:
:Buzzards aren't God's smartest creatures either, they don't seem to yield to
:anything no matter how big it is. (Even seagulls will give you right of way
:if they see you in time.)

Yeah. I still recall the flight out of Dallas where we took a bird
strike to one of the engines by a turkey buzzard. Big and not very
smart.

--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

[Eugene Griessel]

"Susan VanCamp" > wrote in message . net>...
> Birds and Lieutenants scare me more than anything in the air... ;)
>
> I second Jim's words -- seems the MOAs and Restricted Areas have an
> abundance of turkey buzzards and re-tailed hawks -- lethal-sized creatures
> when they get in your way at high Q.
>
> I've run into four birds in the course of my career, 3 daytime, 1 at night
> (at 1500'AGL). Fortunately, they were the smaller varieties -- 2 starlings,
> 2 undetermined. One of the starlings punched a neat hole the size of my
> fist in the leading edge of the intake, went through a couple vertical frame
> members and lodged next to a fuel cell. Never knew anything happened 'til a
> PC found it post flight in the fuel pits...Class C damage at the time.

Luckiest bird strike story I've ever heard occurred in the sixties at
the AFB I was living on at the time. Pupil pilot on solo night flight
in MB326 was on the approach, a couple of miles out, when he called
the tower saying he was climbing and abandoning the approach as he
thought he'd suffered a birdstrike. Aircraft
seemed fine so he made a second approach and landed safely without
further ado.

On inspection feathers, blood, damage to the wing leading edge and
sand were found. Sand? Next morning they took a chopper and flew
along this character's
flight path to see if they could find the victim. And indeed, about 4
miles before the runway they found a dead ostrich on a sand dune. The
pupil pilot had been misreading his altimeter by a 1000 feet
(apparently fairly easy to do with those old altimeters) and was
virtually on the deck when he thought he was up in the wild blue (or
black, for pedants) still. When he climbed to gain altitude and
assess the damage it is thought he must have barely scraped past a set
of high-tension electrical cables right in front of the dune. Very
lucky little boy, that!

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, "Ned Pike"
> wrote:

> In ,
> Glenfiddich > spewed:
> > On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:00:37 -0500, "Jim Carriere"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> "Kristan Roberge" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> How often do you strike 4 pounds of bird? Other than ducks and
> >>> geese, I can't think of many 4 pound birds you might run a plane
> >>> into.
> >>
> >> Um, there's lots... I've dodged plenty of hawks and buzzards- big
> >> ones over 5 foot wingspan too. It depends what area you fly in I
> >> guess.
> >>
> >> Buzzards aren't God's smartest creatures either, they don't seem to
> >> yield to anything no matter how big it is.
> >> Even seag(ulls will give you right of wayif they see you in time.)
> >>
> >
> > AND if they are not so gorged on roadkill that they can take off.
> > I lost a radiator grille and a headlamp to a severely overloaded
> > seagull on the road near Lossie - its rate of climb was inches/hour.
> > As to lack of smarts - it was eating another seagull that had been
> > smooshed on the road earlier, it never entered its greedy little brain
> > to wonder how that meal had gotten there.
> >
> > Seagulls and aircraft are an even worse mix.
>
> Given such gross stupidity, can anyone explain why all gulls are protected
> under current US law?
>
>

Equality of protection with buoys>

[Mike Kanze]

>As to lack of smarts - it was eating another seagull that had been smooshed
on the road earlier, it never entered its greedy little brain to wonder how
that meal had gotten there.
>
>Seagulls and aircraft are an even worse mix.

Their lack of smarts are at least equaled by some humans. Case in point:
The Civil Engineer Corps geniuses who placed the base dump at NAS Whidbey
Island close-by the approach end of runway 31 when Ault Field was originally
built. (The dump was decommissioned sometime in the 60s or early 70s,
IIRC.)

Seagulls and sailors have never mixed very well, less so seagulls and naval
aircraft.

--
Mike Kanze

"Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society."

-Mark Twain


"Glenfiddich" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:00:37 -0500, "Jim Carriere"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Kristan Roberge" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> How often do you strike 4 pounds of bird? Other than ducks and geese, I
> >can't
> >> think of many 4 pound birds you might run a plane into.
> >
> >Um, there's lots... I've dodged plenty of hawks and buzzards- big ones
over
> >5 foot wingspan too. It depends what area you fly in I guess.
> >
> >Buzzards aren't God's smartest creatures either, they don't seem to yield
to
> >anything no matter how big it is.
> >Even seag(ulls will give you right of wayif they see you in time.)
> >
>
> AND if they are not so gorged on roadkill that they can take off.
> I lost a radiator grille and a headlamp to a severely overloaded
> seagull on the road near Lossie - its rate of climb was inches/hour.
> As to lack of smarts - it was eating another seagull that had been
> smooshed on the road earlier, it never entered its greedy little brain
> to wonder how that meal had gotten there.
>
> Seagulls and aircraft are an even worse mix.

[Jim Carriere]

"Mike Kanze" > wrote in message
...
> >As to lack of smarts - it was eating another seagull that had been
smooshed
> on the road earlier, it never entered its greedy little brain to wonder
how
> that meal had gotten there.

Yeah... I'll have to take back my comment about buzzards being dumber than
seagulls, but after one almost hit my car this morning three seconds after
he took off (I was doing 25mph, he would have hit me, not I hit him). I
feel I must reconsider my ordering of the intellectual higherarchy of animal
kingdom avians... maybe seagulls are just responsive to airplane noise, but
otherwise dumb.

[Duke of URL]

In ,
Ned Pike > radiated into the
WorldWideWait:
> In ,
> Glenfiddich > spewed:
>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:00:37 -0500, "Jim Carriere"
>> > wrote:
>>> "Kristan Roberge" > wrote in message
>>> ...

>>>> How often do you strike 4 pounds of bird? Other than ducks and
>>>> geese, I can't think of many 4 pound birds you might run a plane
>>>> into.
>>>
>>> Um, there's lots... I've dodged plenty of hawks and buzzards- big
>>> ones over 5 foot wingspan too. It depends what area you fly in I
>>> guess.
>>> Buzzards aren't God's smartest creatures either, they don't seem
>>> to yield to anything no matter how big it is.
>>> Even seag(ulls will give you right of wayif they see you in time.)
>>
>> AND if they are not so gorged on roadkill that they can take off.
>> I lost a radiator grille and a headlamp to a severely overloaded
>> seagull on the road near Lossie - its rate of climb was
>> inches/hour. As to lack of smarts - it was eating another seagull
>> that had been smooshed on the road earlier, it never entered its
>> greedy little brain to wonder how that meal had gotten there.
>> Seagulls and aircraft are an even worse mix.
>
> Given such gross stupidity, can anyone explain why all gulls are
> protected under current US law?

??? They aren't. Who told you that? I can go out in a field and shoot
any of them I want to. I wouldn't, of course, because there's nothing
you can do with them.

[Yofuri]

The hairiest I saw at Whidbey was a VA-52 A6E that took a bird hit in the
pilot's windscreen in the Okanogan area at about 12,000. It was a glancing
blow (no bird remains in the cockpit, species unknown). It took a chunk out
of the center of the panel about 5" high and 1-1/2" wide. Both 'nauts had
their visors down and gloves on like good boys. The hairy part was
whistling across Seattle and into Whidbey NORDO, because the glass fragments
jammed the UHF thumbwheels between frequencies.

The windscreen panels were five layers of laminated glass 1-1/4" thick, a
leatherpounder's dream.

Rick

--
My real e-mail address is:




"Mike Kanze" > wrote in message
...
> >As to lack of smarts - it was eating another seagull that had been
smooshed
> on the road earlier, it never entered its greedy little brain to wonder
how
> that meal had gotten there.
> >
> >Seagulls and aircraft are an even worse mix.
>
> Their lack of smarts are at least equaled by some humans. Case in point:
> The Civil Engineer Corps geniuses who placed the base dump at NAS Whidbey
> Island close-by the approach end of runway 31 when Ault Field was
originally
> built. (The dump was decommissioned sometime in the 60s or early 70s,
> IIRC.)
>
> Seagulls and sailors have never mixed very well, less so seagulls and
naval
> aircraft.
>
> --
> Mike Kanze
>
> "Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on
society."
>
> -Mark Twain
>
>
> "Glenfiddich" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:00:37 -0500, "Jim Carriere"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >"Kristan Roberge" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> How often do you strike 4 pounds of bird? Other than ducks and geese,
I
> > >can't
> > >> think of many 4 pound birds you might run a plane into.
> > >
> > >Um, there's lots... I've dodged plenty of hawks and buzzards- big ones
> over
> > >5 foot wingspan too. It depends what area you fly in I guess.
> > >
> > >Buzzards aren't God's smartest creatures either, they don't seem to
yield
> to
> > >anything no matter how big it is.
> > >Even seag(ulls will give you right of wayif they see you in time.)
> > >
> >
> > AND if they are not so gorged on roadkill that they can take off.
> > I lost a radiator grille and a headlamp to a severely overloaded
> > seagull on the road near Lossie - its rate of climb was inches/hour.
> > As to lack of smarts - it was eating another seagull that had been
> > smooshed on the road earlier, it never entered its greedy little brain
> > to wonder how that meal had gotten there.
> >
> > Seagulls and aircraft are an even worse mix.
>
>




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Zamboni]

"Jim Carriere" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike Kanze" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >As to lack of smarts - it was eating another seagull that had been
> smooshed
> > on the road earlier, it never entered its greedy little brain to wonder
> how
> > that meal had gotten there.
>
> Yeah... I'll have to take back my comment about buzzards being dumber than
> seagulls, but after one almost hit my car this morning three seconds after
> he took off (I was doing 25mph, he would have hit me, not I hit him). I
> feel I must reconsider my ordering of the intellectual higherarchy of
animal
> kingdom avians... maybe seagulls are just responsive to airplane noise,
but
> otherwise dumb.
>
I almost hit an Bald Eagle with my truck once. The eagle was cruising down
the river until it got to the bridge, then just lifted up just enough to
clear the railing - and the hood of my truck - then over the other railing
and back down to the river. Two feet to the left and he would have come
through the windshield. I swear there were scuff marks on the dirt on my
hood from him dragging his feet across it. I wonder if he even noticed the
cars on the bridge at all.

Years ago, I saw one of the last California Condors cruising down a 2-lane
freeway (checking out roadkill?), and only 15 feet off the ground as we went
underneath him. I can only image what he would have done to a motorhome.
--
Zamboni

[Mike Kanze]

>I can only image what he would have done to a motorhome.

Straight bombing run or Kamikaze attack? <g>

Either way, the Law of Gross Tonnage favors the motorhome less with a
carrion bird than with a sparrow.
--
Mike Kanze

436 Greenbrier Road
Half Moon Bay, California 94019-2259
USA

650-726-7890

"Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society."

-Mark Twain


"Zamboni" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Carriere" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Mike Kanze" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >As to lack of smarts - it was eating another seagull that had been
> > smooshed
> > > on the road earlier, it never entered its greedy little brain to
wonder
> > how
> > > that meal had gotten there.
> >
> > Yeah... I'll have to take back my comment about buzzards being dumber
than
> > seagulls, but after one almost hit my car this morning three seconds
after
> > he took off (I was doing 25mph, he would have hit me, not I hit him). I
> > feel I must reconsider my ordering of the intellectual higherarchy of
> animal
> > kingdom avians... maybe seagulls are just responsive to airplane noise,
> but
> > otherwise dumb.
> >
> I almost hit an Bald Eagle with my truck once. The eagle was cruising down
> the river until it got to the bridge, then just lifted up just enough to
> clear the railing - and the hood of my truck - then over the other railing
> and back down to the river. Two feet to the left and he would have come
> through the windshield. I swear there were scuff marks on the dirt on my
> hood from him dragging his feet across it. I wonder if he even noticed the
> cars on the bridge at all.
>
> Years ago, I saw one of the last California Condors cruising down a 2-lane
> freeway (checking out roadkill?), and only 15 feet off the ground as we
went
> underneath him. I can only image what he would have done to a motorhome.
> --
> Zamboni
>
>

[Mike Kanze]

Rick,

>The hairy part was whistling across Seattle and into Whidbey NORDO

Almost as hairy as the 0-dark-30 drive to the base up highway 525 for the
brief and the pre-flight. Especially if one had been celebrating heavily in
Seattle the night before. Even during the early 1970s when the Rock had
only a third of its current population, 525 could be a killer.

One of my hairiest - and most satisfying - experiences was a near mid-air
with some civilian who crossed our flight path in the Boardman Restricted
Area just as we started a 30 degree dive onto the target. We pulled off the
run immediately (weren't certain but that maybe he'd brought some friends
along), climbed, turned back, and got the *******'s number. Called Seattle
Center immediately with it.

Learned later that he'd done this crap before, and that the Administrator
subsequently lunched on the guy's gonads after jerking his license
permanently.

We always referred to the airspace below 10,000 ft. MSL as "Injun Country,"
due to all them Navajos, Comanches, Cherokees, Arapahos, etc. drilling about
the area.

--
Mike Kanze

"Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society."

-Mark Twain


"Yofuri" > wrote in message
...
> The hairiest I saw at Whidbey was a VA-52 A6E that took a bird hit in the
> pilot's windscreen in the Okanogan area at about 12,000. It was a
glancing
> blow (no bird remains in the cockpit, species unknown). It took a chunk
out
> of the center of the panel about 5" high and 1-1/2" wide. Both 'nauts had
> their visors down and gloves on like good boys. The hairy part was
> whistling across Seattle and into Whidbey NORDO, because the glass
fragments
> jammed the UHF thumbwheels between frequencies.
>
> The windscreen panels were five layers of laminated glass 1-1/4" thick, a
> leatherpounder's dream.
>
> Rick
>
> --
> My real e-mail address is:
>
>
>
>
> "Mike Kanze" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >As to lack of smarts - it was eating another seagull that had been
> smooshed
> > on the road earlier, it never entered its greedy little brain to wonder
> how
> > that meal had gotten there.
> > >
> > >Seagulls and aircraft are an even worse mix.
> >
> > Their lack of smarts are at least equaled by some humans. Case in
point:
> > The Civil Engineer Corps geniuses who placed the base dump at NAS
Whidbey
> > Island close-by the approach end of runway 31 when Ault Field was
> originally
> > built. (The dump was decommissioned sometime in the 60s or early 70s,
> > IIRC.)
> >
> > Seagulls and sailors have never mixed very well, less so seagulls and
> naval
> > aircraft.
> >
> > --
> > Mike Kanze
> >
> > "Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on
> society."
> >
> > -Mark Twain
> >
> >
> > "Glenfiddich" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:00:37 -0500, "Jim Carriere"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >"Kristan Roberge" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >> How often do you strike 4 pounds of bird? Other than ducks and
geese,
> I
> > > >can't
> > > >> think of many 4 pound birds you might run a plane into.
> > > >
> > > >Um, there's lots... I've dodged plenty of hawks and buzzards- big
ones
> > over
> > > >5 foot wingspan too. It depends what area you fly in I guess.
> > > >
> > > >Buzzards aren't God's smartest creatures either, they don't seem to
> yield
> > to
> > > >anything no matter how big it is.
> > > >Even seag(ulls will give you right of wayif they see you in time.)
> > > >
> > >
> > > AND if they are not so gorged on roadkill that they can take off.
> > > I lost a radiator grille and a headlamp to a severely overloaded
> > > seagull on the road near Lossie - its rate of climb was inches/hour.
> > > As to lack of smarts - it was eating another seagull that had been
> > > smooshed on the road earlier, it never entered its greedy little brain
> > > to wonder how that meal had gotten there.
> > >
> > > Seagulls and aircraft are an even worse mix.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Duke of URL]

In ,
Mike Kanze > radiated into the WorldWideWait:

>> The hairy part was whistling across Seattle and into Whidbey NORDO
>
> Almost as hairy as the 0-dark-30 drive to the base up highway 525
> for the brief and the pre-flight. Especially if one had been
> celebrating heavily in Seattle the night before.

??? You didn't observe the 24-hour-no-alcohol rule?

[Yofuri]

And then, there was the day in '81 when the Whidbey Tower crew looked out
the window and saw a Cessna 180 landing on Smith Island (Federal Refuge; no
entry authorized except those assigned to service the navaids located
there). When the SAR helo landed to check it out, the pilot was taxiing to
knock down enough weeds with his prop to make a takeoff. The commercial
pilot/instructor/CFII and a passenger were "just sightseeing". The last I
heard, he was running a health club for a living.

Rick

--
My real e-mail address is:




"Mike Kanze" > wrote in message
...
> Rick,
>
> >The hairy part was whistling across Seattle and into Whidbey NORDO
>
> Almost as hairy as the 0-dark-30 drive to the base up highway 525 for the
> brief and the pre-flight. Especially if one had been celebrating heavily
in
> Seattle the night before. Even during the early 1970s when the Rock had
> only a third of its current population, 525 could be a killer.
>
> One of my hairiest - and most satisfying - experiences was a near mid-air
> with some civilian who crossed our flight path in the Boardman Restricted
> Area just as we started a 30 degree dive onto the target. We pulled off
the
> run immediately (weren't certain but that maybe he'd brought some friends
> along), climbed, turned back, and got the *******'s number. Called
Seattle
> Center immediately with it.
>
> Learned later that he'd done this crap before, and that the Administrator
> subsequently lunched on the guy's gonads after jerking his license
> permanently.
>
> We always referred to the airspace below 10,000 ft. MSL as "Injun
Country,"
> due to all them Navajos, Comanches, Cherokees, Arapahos, etc. drilling
about
> the area.
>
> --
> Mike Kanze
>
> "Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on
society."
>
> -Mark Twain
>
>
> "Yofuri" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The hairiest I saw at Whidbey was a VA-52 A6E that took a bird hit in
the
> > pilot's windscreen in the Okanogan area at about 12,000. It was a
> glancing
> > blow (no bird remains in the cockpit, species unknown). It took a chunk
> out
> > of the center of the panel about 5" high and 1-1/2" wide. Both 'nauts
had
> > their visors down and gloves on like good boys. The hairy part was
> > whistling across Seattle and into Whidbey NORDO, because the glass
> fragments
> > jammed the UHF thumbwheels between frequencies.
> >
> > The windscreen panels were five layers of laminated glass 1-1/4" thick,
a
> > leatherpounder's dream.
> >
> > Rick
> >
> > --
> > My real e-mail address is:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Mike Kanze" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >As to lack of smarts - it was eating another seagull that had been
> > smooshed
> > > on the road earlier, it never entered its greedy little brain to
wonder
> > how
> > > that meal had gotten there.
> > > >
> > > >Seagulls and aircraft are an even worse mix.
> > >
> > > Their lack of smarts are at least equaled by some humans. Case in
> point:
> > > The Civil Engineer Corps geniuses who placed the base dump at NAS
> Whidbey
> > > Island close-by the approach end of runway 31 when Ault Field was
> > originally
> > > built. (The dump was decommissioned sometime in the 60s or early 70s,
> > > IIRC.)
> > >
> > > Seagulls and sailors have never mixed very well, less so seagulls and
> > naval
> > > aircraft.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mike Kanze
> > >
> > > "Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on
> > society."
> > >
> > > -Mark Twain
> > >
> > >
> > > "Glenfiddich" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:00:37 -0500, "Jim Carriere"
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >"Kristan Roberge" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >> How often do you strike 4 pounds of bird? Other than ducks and
> geese,
> > I
> > > > >can't
> > > > >> think of many 4 pound birds you might run a plane into.
> > > > >
> > > > >Um, there's lots... I've dodged plenty of hawks and buzzards- big
> ones
> > > over
> > > > >5 foot wingspan too. It depends what area you fly in I guess.
> > > > >
> > > > >Buzzards aren't God's smartest creatures either, they don't seem to
> > yield
> > > to
> > > > >anything no matter how big it is.
> > > > >Even seag(ulls will give you right of wayif they see you in time.)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > AND if they are not so gorged on roadkill that they can take off.
> > > > I lost a radiator grille and a headlamp to a severely overloaded
> > > > seagull on the road near Lossie - its rate of climb was inches/hour.
> > > > As to lack of smarts - it was eating another seagull that had been
> > > > smooshed on the road earlier, it never entered its greedy little
brain
> > > > to wonder how that meal had gotten there.
> > > >
> > > > Seagulls and aircraft are an even worse mix.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>
>




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Mike Kanze]

Gee, I always thought the rule was:

* No smoking 24 hours before the hop.
* No drinking within 50 feet of the aircraft.

Guess I got it backwards.

--
Mike Kanze

"Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society."

-Mark Twain


"Duke of URL" <macbenahATkdsiDOTnet> wrote in message
...
> In ,
> Mike Kanze > radiated into the WorldWideWait:
>
> >> The hairy part was whistling across Seattle and into Whidbey NORDO
> >
> > Almost as hairy as the 0-dark-30 drive to the base up highway 525
> > for the brief and the pre-flight. Especially if one had been
> > celebrating heavily in Seattle the night before.
>
> ??? You didn't observe the 24-hour-no-alcohol rule?
>
>

[Dale Farmer]

Duke of URL wrote:

> In ,
> Ned Pike > radiated into the
> WorldWideWait:
> > In ,
> > Glenfiddich > spewed:
> >> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:00:37 -0500, "Jim Carriere"
> >> > wrote:
> >>> "Kristan Roberge" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
>
> >>>> How often do you strike 4 pounds of bird? Other than ducks and
> >>>> geese, I can't think of many 4 pound birds you might run a plane
> >>>> into.
> >>>
> >>> Um, there's lots... I've dodged plenty of hawks and buzzards- big
> >>> ones over 5 foot wingspan too. It depends what area you fly in I
> >>> guess.
> >>> Buzzards aren't God's smartest creatures either, they don't seem
> >>> to yield to anything no matter how big it is.
> >>> Even seag(ulls will give you right of wayif they see you in time.)
> >>
> >> AND if they are not so gorged on roadkill that they can take off.
> >> I lost a radiator grille and a headlamp to a severely overloaded
> >> seagull on the road near Lossie - its rate of climb was
> >> inches/hour. As to lack of smarts - it was eating another seagull
> >> that had been smooshed on the road earlier, it never entered its
> >> greedy little brain to wonder how that meal had gotten there.
> >> Seagulls and aircraft are an even worse mix.
> >
> > Given such gross stupidity, can anyone explain why all gulls are
> > protected under current US law?
>
> ??? They aren't. Who told you that? I can go out in a field and shoot
> any of them I want to. I wouldn't, of course, because there's nothing
> you can do with them.

I don't know about you, but the last time I went skeet shooting, the
range master warned me repeatedly that shooting them was illegal and
I would be fined heavily if I did. G(*$*$#am flying rats.

--Dale

[Duke of URL]

In ,
Mike Kanze > radiated into the WorldWideWait:
> "Duke of URL" <macbenahATkdsiDOTnet> wrote in message
> ...
>> In ,
>> Mike Kanze > radiated into the WorldWideWait:
>>
>>>> The hairy part was whistling across Seattle and into Whidbey
>>>> NORDO
>>>
>>> Almost as hairy as the 0-dark-30 drive to the base up highway 525
>>> for the brief and the pre-flight. Especially if one had been
>>> celebrating heavily in Seattle the night before.
>>
>> ??? You didn't observe the 24-hour-no-alcohol rule?

> Gee, I always thought the rule was:
> * No smoking 24 hours before the hop.
> * No drinking within 50 feet of the aircraft.
> Guess I got it backwards.

Hmm...

[Duke of URL]

In ,
Dale Farmer > radiated into the WorldWideWait:

> Duke of URL wrote:
>
>> In ,
>> Ned Pike > radiated into the
>> WorldWideWait:
>>> In ,
>>> Glenfiddich > spewed:
>>>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:00:37 -0500, "Jim Carriere"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> "Kristan Roberge" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>
>>>>>> How often do you strike 4 pounds of bird? Other than ducks and
>>>>>> geese, I can't think of many 4 pound birds you might run a
>>>>>> plane into.
>>>>>
>>>>> Um, there's lots... I've dodged plenty of hawks and buzzards-
>>>>> big ones over 5 foot wingspan too. It depends what area you
>>>>> fly in I guess.
>>>>> Buzzards aren't God's smartest creatures either, they don't seem
>>>>> to yield to anything no matter how big it is.
>>>>> Even seag(ulls will give you right of wayif they see you in
>>>>> time.)
>>>>
>>>> AND if they are not so gorged on roadkill that they can take off.
>>>> I lost a radiator grille and a headlamp to a severely overloaded
>>>> seagull on the road near Lossie - its rate of climb was
>>>> inches/hour. As to lack of smarts - it was eating another seagull
>>>> that had been smooshed on the road earlier, it never entered its
>>>> greedy little brain to wonder how that meal had gotten there.
>>>> Seagulls and aircraft are an even worse mix.
>>>
>>> Given such gross stupidity, can anyone explain why all gulls are
>>> protected under current US law?
>>
>> ??? They aren't. Who told you that? I can go out in a field and
>> shoot any of them I want to. I wouldn't, of course, because
>> there's nothing you can do with them.
>
> I don't know about you, but the last time I went skeet
> shooting, the range master warned me repeatedly that shooting them
> was illegal and I would be fined heavily if I did. G(*$*$#am
> flying rats.

Gotta be a state regulation. I can see Utah getting really upset
about shooting gulls!

[Olivers]

Kristan Roberge muttered....


>
> How often do you strike 4 pounds of bird? Other than ducks and geese,
> I can't think of many 4 pound birds you might run a plane into.
>
>
For years - back when a/c ranges were more limited than today's birds, the
USN operated a/c (landbased and "seaplanes")out of scenic Midway I., where
the local frigate birds/albatross ran a few bits over 4 pounds. In the US,
with so many airports having been built adjacent to water...JFK, LGW, DCA,
to name a prominent few, migratory ducks and geese are regular airport
visitors. Several old SAC bases could have pheasant "On Final" and
crossing departure runways.

"TUSIABP"*

*The US is a "birdy" place....

TMO

[Kevin Brooks]

"Olivers" > wrote in message
...
> Kristan Roberge muttered....
>
>
> >
> > How often do you strike 4 pounds of bird? Other than ducks and geese,
> > I can't think of many 4 pound birds you might run a plane into.
> >
> >
> For years - back when a/c ranges were more limited than today's birds, the
> USN operated a/c (landbased and "seaplanes")out of scenic Midway I., where
> the local frigate birds/albatross ran a few bits over 4 pounds. In the
US,
> with so many airports having been built adjacent to water...JFK, LGW, DCA,
> to name a prominent few, migratory ducks and geese are regular airport
> visitors. Several old SAC bases could have pheasant "On Final" and
> crossing departure runways.
>
> "TUSIABP"*
>
> *The US is a "birdy" place....

Yep. He obviously is not too familiar with ornithology, as he missed out
also on the ubiquitous turkey buzzards and pelicans we have here in the
states, not to mention the rapidly growing eagle populations. On a trip back
home from visiting my parents recently, the wife and I watched a bald eagle
majestically circling right over the runway of the region's most active
skydiving airfield; a couple of years back my boss took me out for a
lunchtime visit to a local pond he had heard about where we counted about
eight eagles roosting in trees around its banks, and the local game warden
told us that they had actually counted over twenty at that spot a few days
earlier.

Brooks

>
> TMO