Oops... Airliner lands at the wrong airport...

[Richard Kaplan]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Central/06/20/wrong.airport.ap/index.html


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[BTIZ]

NWA now in search of new pilots...

Lets see...
RAP is south of the Interstate.. and SE of the City...
RCA is North of the Interstate.. and NE of the City..

RAP is 14-32, 8700x150
RCA is 13-31, 13,500x300

RAP has a cross wind runway.. near the north end
RCA does not..

RAP, all terminals are west of the airport and centrally located
RCA, the MAIN RAMP is east of the airport.. with what looks like a small
town that is the air base

BT

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Central/06/20/wrong.airport.ap/index.html
>
>
> --------------------
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com
>
>

[Jerry Windrel]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message >...
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Central/06/20/wrong.airport.ap/index.html

I seem to remember an incident of a commercial flight landing at
Amman, Jordan instead of Tel Aviv, Israel, which is a pretty serious
snafu. Am I remembering right? I remember thinking that the crew had
to have been thouroughly unfamiliar with the area, since the Tel Aviv
airport is just a few miles from the Mediterranean coast and Amman is
in a desert landscape 60 or so miles inland. I once heard of a GA
pilot almost mistaking Beirut for Haifa (which would be an even worse
mistake), but at least they're both near the sea.

[OtisWinslow]

NWA has an excuse though because they'll just print a big write up in
their magazine saying that there were GA planes in the way and that
made them have to land at the AFB and that all those pesky GA planes
should be banned.


"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Central/06/20/wrong.airport.ap/index.html
>
>
> --------------------
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com
>
>

[EDR]

In article >, OtisWinslow
> wrote:

> NWA has an excuse though because they'll just print a big write up in
> their magazine saying that there were GA planes in the way and that
> made them have to land at the AFB and that all those pesky GA planes
> should be banned.

I would like to know what the controller at Ellison Approach was doing
instead of monitoring his/her scope and what the tower controller at
Rapid City was doing when he/she didn't see the aircraft as it called
inbound.

[Nathan Young]

Nice!!!

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:51:18 GMT, "OtisWinslow"
> wrote:

>NWA has an excuse though because they'll just print a big write up in
>their magazine saying that there were GA planes in the way and that
>made them have to land at the AFB and that all those pesky GA planes
>should be banned.
>
>
>"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>> http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Central/06/20/wrong.airport.ap/index.html
>>
>>
>> --------------------
>> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>>
>> www.flyimc.com
>>
>>
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
...
> Nice!!!
>
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:51:18 GMT, "OtisWinslow"
> > wrote:
>
> >NWA has an excuse though because they'll just print a big write up in
> >their magazine saying that there were GA planes in the way and that
> >made them have to land at the AFB and that all those pesky GA planes
> >should be banned.

It seems to be the major "thought curve" of the MBA schools, right after
"bean counting", is "excuse making".

[G.R. Patterson III]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> It seems to be the major "thought curve" of the MBA schools, right after
> "bean counting", is "excuse making".

Judging from the experience of my wife and sister, both of whom have MBA or MTS
degrees, this is not taught. As far as I can tell from my own experience, it's either
a natural talent some people have, or it comes as on-the-job training.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Peter Duniho]

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
> I would like to know what the controller at Ellison Approach was doing
> instead of monitoring his/her scope and what the tower controller at
> Rapid City was doing when he/she didn't see the aircraft as it called
> inbound.

It's possible that ATC had the wrong destination listed for the aircraft. I
was vectored onto the wrong final approach course on an arrival into the
Dayton, OH area one time. ATC thought I was going to a different airport
than where I actually was.

Of course, in my situation, when the vector took me away from the localizer
I was supposed to be intercepting, I pointed that out to ATC and we
straightened everything out. ATC made a mistake, but it surely would have
been my fault if I'd landed at the wrong airport.

The pilot is the one responsible for making sure the airplane goes where
it's supposed to, not ATC.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> > It seems to be the major "thought curve" of the MBA schools, right after
> > "bean counting", is "excuse making".
>
> [...] As far as I can tell from my own experience, it's either
> a natural talent some people have, or it comes as on-the-job training.

It's a cultural fact, at least in the US (and probably lots of other
places). It's never your fault...there's always an excuse in which someone
else is to blame.

In other words, it's a "natural" (culturally taught) talent most people
have.

Pete

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> >
> > It seems to be the major "thought curve" of the MBA schools, right after
> > "bean counting", is "excuse making".
>
> Judging from the experience of my wife and sister, both of whom have MBA
or MTS
> degrees, this is not taught.

Not as a class by that name, but under the heading of "Public Relations", or
"Investor Relations" :~)

> As far as I can tell from my own experience, it's either
> a natural talent some people have, or it comes as on-the-job training.

Mostly the latter enhanced by the former! :~(

When was the last time you every heard some CEO just say "Hey...we screwed
up!". Pretty rare. No, it's "There's too much regulation" or "We can't get
good people". Tom Peters madea career of making fun of those types.

(Maybe I had a odd upbringing, but we used to call that "immaturity".)

[gatt]

At the public terminal where I fly out of (Troutdale) there's a photo of a
United 707 that mistook Troutdale for Portland International. Imagine
landing a jet and realizing that the 11,000 feet of runway you expected is
only 5,000 feet long. They had to strip the plane of all excess weight and
bring it a special pilot to get the plane out. The pilot who landed it rode
the plane out with the stand-in crew. Was probably his last flight with the
airline.

-c

[gatt]

> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> >
> > It seems to be the major "thought curve" of the MBA schools, right after
> > "bean counting", is "excuse making".

Geez. So EVERYBODY'S inept but Tom, huh?

-c

[Michael 182]

Spoken by someone who, I suspect, has never completed an MBA program.

Michael
(MBA, Kenan-Flagler Business School, Univ. of N.C. at Chapel Hill, 1982)


"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>

> It seems to be the major "thought curve" of the MBA schools, right after
> "bean counting", is "excuse making".
>
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:fzGBc.154929$Ly.27857@attbi_s01...
> Spoken by someone who, I suspect, has never completed an MBA program.
>

You'd be wrong.

> Michael
> (MBA, Kenan-Flagler Business School, Univ. of N.C. at Chapel Hill, 1982)
>
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> > It seems to be the major "thought curve" of the MBA schools, right after
> > "bean counting", is "excuse making".
> >
> >
>
>

[Richard Russell]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 22:52:41 GMT, "Richard Kaplan"
> wrote:

>http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Central/06/20/wrong.airport.ap/index.html
>
>
>--------------------
>Richard Kaplan, CFII

>www.flyimc.com
>
I'm amazed that in today's paranoid environment that the airliner
wan't intercepted prior to landing. Surely, the base radar could see
where they were going. I'm surprised that they were allowed to land,
especially seeing that they were told to pull the shades and don't
peek. I don't know what it is they weren't supposed to see, but they
clearly didn't want an uninvited civilian airplane on their property.
If we can't perform an intercept where the planes actually are, how
are we going to scramble and go get them somewhere else?

Rich Russell

[Andrew Gideon]

Richard Russell wrote:

> If we can't perform an intercept where the planes actually are, how
> are we going to scramble and go get them somewhere else?

The interceptors were likely sent to Rapid City.

- Andrew

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Richard Russell" > wrote in message
...

> >
> I'm amazed that in today's paranoid environment that the airliner
> wan't intercepted prior to landing. Surely, the base radar could see
> where they were going.

Especially since Ellsworth provides Approach Control for Rapid City's
airport.

> I'm surprised that they were allowed to land,
> especially seeing that they were told to pull the shades and don't
> peek. I don't know what it is they weren't supposed to see,

B-2 bombers.

>but they
> clearly didn't want an uninvited civilian airplane on their property.
> If we can't perform an intercept where the planes actually are, how
> are we going to scramble and go get them somewhere else?

Even when we provide them AppCtrl.

[Mike Beede]

In article >, gatt > wrote:

> At the public terminal where I fly out of (Troutdale) there's a photo of a
> United 707 that mistook Troutdale for Portland International. Imagine
> landing a jet and realizing that the 11,000 feet of runway you expected is
> only 5,000 feet long. They had to strip the plane of all excess weight and
> bring it a special pilot to get the plane out.

Anyone know what the balanced field length for a minimum-fuel 707 would
have been? Considering how much of an airliner's weight is fuel and cargo,
it seems like it would have been fairly short.

I didn't find anything much on the web about it -- not suprising considering
how long it's been since they were first-line aircraft. I *did* find a 737 training
manual that was pretty interesting.

Mike Beede

[Bob Fry]

The backseat drivers will come out and blast the pilot, crew,
controllers, flight attendants and lineboy for this screwup, but you
know, stuff happens.

In the 1970s (I think) an airliner landed at then Moffett Naval Air
Station instead of San Jose Muni.

Just a few months ago a tri-engine Falcon Jet--I don't know which
model--landed by mistake at University Airport (3185 x 50 ft.) instead
of nearby Yolo Airport (6000 x 100 ft.) The pilot hit the reverse
thrust before the nosewheel touched down...better pilot skill than
judgement.

Stuff happens. Be glad it doesn't happen to you.

[Bob Moore]

Mike Beede > wrote

> Anyone know what the balanced field length for a minimum-fuel 707
> would have been? Considering how much of an airliner's weight is
> fuel and cargo, it seems like it would have been fairly short.

Mike, the answer is not that easy, too many variables, some of
which require a longer field lenght than just balanced-field.
A late model 707 empty weighed about 150,000# and with a couple
of hours of fuel would weigh about 175,000# which would only
require somewhere around 4,000' of runway. I say around because
the charts do not go down that far because of the real limiting
factor which is VMC (ground) which is 122kts regardless of weight
and this factor sets the minimum value of V1 to 122kts.... the
equivalent of a 250,000# airplane and requiring a field length
longer than the 4,000'/100kt V1 numbers would indicate. Obviously,
the 175,000# airplane gets to 122kts faster than a 250,000# airplane
will, but at PanAm, our manual required a minimum field length
that would accomodate the 250,000#/122kt airplane, or about 6,000'.
That being said....I did operate 707s out of Arthur Jones' private
runway on his estate near Ocala, FL when it was only 5,000' long. It
has since been lengthened. Arthur made his fortune in the Nautilus
exercise equipment business and owned three B-707s. John Travolta
lives there now and flies his B-707 from the lengthened 6,000' run-
way.

Bob Moore

[EDR]

In article >, gatt
> wrote:

> At the public terminal where I fly out of (Troutdale) there's a photo of a
> United 707 that mistook Troutdale for Portland International. Imagine
> landing a jet and realizing that the 11,000 feet of runway you expected is
> only 5,000 feet long. They had to strip the plane of all excess weight and
> bring it a special pilot to get the plane out. The pilot who landed it rode
> the plane out with the stand-in crew. Was probably his last flight with the
> airline.

Same thing happend in 1964 with a TWA 707.
The airline landed at night KOSU (7 miles NE of Columbus, OH) instead
of KCMH (five miles east of Columbus, OH). KCMH is 10 nm ESE of KOSU.
Runway layout were similar, but runway lengths are different.
Everything was stripped and minimum fuel was kept on board for the
short hop off of the 5,000 foot runway to the 10,000 foot runway.

[BTIZ]

TomSixkiller... RCA has B-1s.. not B-2s..
BT

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> > I'm surprised that they were allowed to land,
> > especially seeing that they were told to pull the shades and don't
> > peek. I don't know what it is they weren't supposed to see,
>
> B-2 bombers.

[Richard Russell]

On 21 Jun 2004 18:22:59 -0700, Bob Fry
> wrote:

>The backseat drivers will come out and blast the pilot, crew,
>controllers, flight attendants and lineboy for this screwup, but you
>know, stuff happens.
>
>In the 1970s (I think) an airliner landed at then Moffett Naval Air
>Station instead of San Jose Muni.
>
>Just a few months ago a tri-engine Falcon Jet--I don't know which
>model--landed by mistake at University Airport (3185 x 50 ft.) instead
>of nearby Yolo Airport (6000 x 100 ft.) The pilot hit the reverse
>thrust before the nosewheel touched down...better pilot skill than
>judgement.
>
>Stuff happens. Be glad it doesn't happen to you.

Stuff does happen and I am grateful that I haven't made that egregious
and error, yet. What amazes me, however, is that the military
"allowed" this plane to land at the base. If the plane happened to be
in the hands of someone with ill intent and he took out a row of
bombers there would be one hell of a lot of explaining to do.
Rich Russell

[Tom Sixkiller]

On 21 Jun 2004 18:22:59 -0700, Bob Fry
> > wrote:
>
>Just a few months ago a tri-engine Falcon Jet--I don't know which
>model--landed by mistake at University Airport (3185 x 50 ft.) instead
>of nearby Yolo Airport (6000 x 100 ft.) The pilot hit the reverse
>thrust before the nosewheel touched down...better pilot skill than
>judgement.

I'd sell tickets to the guy's takeoff when he tries to leave.Even a straight
wing Citation couldn't get out of that mess.

[Troy Towner]

It happens more than some would like to admit...



"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Central/06/20/wrong.airport.ap/index.html
>
>
> --------------------
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com
>
>

[Newps]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:ZWoBc.4646$5t2.948@fed1read01...
> NWA now in search of new pilots...
>
> Lets see...
> RAP is south of the Interstate.. and SE of the City...
> RCA is North of the Interstate.. and NE of the City..
>
> RAP is 14-32, 8700x150
> RCA is 13-31, 13,500x300
>
> RAP has a cross wind runway.. near the north end
> RCA does not..
>
> RAP, all terminals are west of the airport and centrally located
> RCA, the MAIN RAMP is east of the airport.. with what looks like a small
> town that is the air base
>

None of which they would know as they wouldn't have any information at all
for RCA on board the aircraft.

[Newps]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "EDR" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I would like to know what the controller at Ellison Approach was doing
> > instead of monitoring his/her scope and what the tower controller at
> > Rapid City was doing when he/she didn't see the aircraft as it called
> > inbound.
>
> It's possible that ATC had the wrong destination listed for the aircraft.

No, it's not. No airliners go into Ellsworth.

[Newps]

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, OtisWinslow
> > wrote:
>
> > NWA has an excuse though because they'll just print a big write up in
> > their magazine saying that there were GA planes in the way and that
> > made them have to land at the AFB and that all those pesky GA planes
> > should be banned.
>
> I would like to know what the controller at Ellison Approach was doing
> instead of monitoring his/her scope

You should come watch sometime at a facility with the traffic level that
Ellsworth Approach has. He could have worked that airplane from the
****ter. They have no traffic over there.



and what the tower controller at
> Rapid City was doing when he/she didn't see the aircraft as it called
> inbound.

It's not unusual to not see an aircraft on initial contact. Normal time is
approx 10 miles out, may have been farther.

[G. Burkhart]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> None of which they would know as they wouldn't have any information at all
> for RCA on board the aircraft.

Why wouldn't they have information about RCA on board? The NC A/FD lists
both RCA and RAP, don't airlines use something similar to the A/FD?

I would think the pilot might also notice a difference between runway
numbers 13/31 and 14/32. "Hey, who moved the runway!" ;-)

[Peter Duniho]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> > It's possible that ATC had the wrong destination listed for the
aircraft.
>
> No, it's not. No airliners go into Ellsworth.

So it's impossible? You have a funny definition of "impossible".

If the fact that no airliners go into Ellsworth really meant it was
impossible to have that airport accidently listed as the destination for the
airplane, then it would follow that ATC (being the infalliable group of
people they are, since they could never possibly list the wrong destination
for an airliner) would have also noticed the airliner landing at an airport
at which no airliner ever lands.

Oh, no...but, wait. It seems they didn't notice that an airliner was
getting ready to land at an airport at which no airliner ever lands. I
guess ATC isn't quite as infalliable as you'd like to believe, which means
it IS possible (though perhaps unlikely) that ATC had the wrong destination
listed for the airliner.

Pete

[Robert M. Gary]

EDR > wrote in message >...

> I would like to know what the controller at Ellison Approach was doing
> instead of monitoring his/her scope and what the tower controller at
> Rapid City was doing when he/she didn't see the aircraft as it called
> inbound.

I think the articles said the two airports were only 5 miles apart. It
only takes seconds to travel that distance. Besides, at that distance
the plane was probably already handed off to tower. Most towers don't
even have scopes but even the ones that do don't seem to use them.
They seem to think its more important to look out the window with the
funny things over their eyes. :)

-Robert

[gatt]

Thanks for posting, Bob! Fascinating stuff!

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 7...
> Mike Beede > wrote
>
> > Anyone know what the balanced field length for a minimum-fuel 707
> > would have been? Considering how much of an airliner's weight is
> > fuel and cargo, it seems like it would have been fairly short.
>
> Mike, the answer is not that easy, too many variables, some of
> which require a longer field lenght than just balanced-field.
> A late model 707 empty weighed about 150,000# and with a couple
> of hours of fuel would weigh about 175,000# which would only
> require somewhere around 4,000' of runway. I say around because
> the charts do not go down that far because of the real limiting
> factor which is VMC (ground) which is 122kts regardless of weight
> and this factor sets the minimum value of V1 to 122kts.... the
> equivalent of a 250,000# airplane and requiring a field length
> longer than the 4,000'/100kt V1 numbers would indicate. Obviously,
> the 175,000# airplane gets to 122kts faster than a 250,000# airplane
> will, but at PanAm, our manual required a minimum field length
> that would accomodate the 250,000#/122kt airplane, or about 6,000'.
> That being said....I did operate 707s out of Arthur Jones' private
> runway on his estate near Ocala, FL when it was only 5,000' long. It
> has since been lengthened. Arthur made his fortune in the Nautilus
> exercise equipment business and owned three B-707s. John Travolta
> lives there now and flies his B-707 from the lengthened 6,000' run-
> way.
>
> Bob Moore

[gatt]

"EDR" > wrote in message news:210620042218546636%\

> Same thing happend in 1964 with a TWA 707.
> The airline landed at night KOSU (7 miles NE of Columbus, OH) instead
> of KCMH (five miles east of Columbus, OH). KCMH is 10 nm ESE of KOSU.

South of Troutdale near the town of Estacada is the wreckage of a 707 that
descended into a mountain in the '60s because either he or a controller
confused the callsign. The pilot followed vectors intended for an aircraft
somewhere in Washington, but I don't know much else about it. A
firefighter up there told me they removed the bodies, avionics and the
engines but since its in a national forest area, the rest of the aircraft is
still scattered across the forest. Hiked out to find it one time and the
description of the terrain didn't match what we expected, and we didn't find
the crash, BUT while we were looking for it we came across the wreckage of a
National Guard UH-1 that crashed in the mid-70s.

What an odd coincidence...looking for one wreck and finding another.

-c

[Newps]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > It's possible that ATC had the wrong destination listed for the
> aircraft.
> >
> > No, it's not. No airliners go into Ellsworth.
>
> So it's impossible? You have a funny definition of "impossible".
>
> If the fact that no airliners go into Ellsworth

It is a fact. They have no terminal, nothing.


really meant it was
> impossible to have that airport accidently listed as the destination

How would that happen? The company files the flight plan everyday. RCA
isn't one of their destinations, just like STP isn't one of their
destinations. So how would it get on the flight plan? The captain gets the
paperwork from the gate agent before boarding the plane and sees the
clearance the dispatcher has filed for him. NWA crew calls for clearance
to "Rapid City", controller says "cleared to Rapid City as filed, blah,
blah, blah. MSP controllers see several clearances to RAP everyday,
probably never see a flightplan to RCA. All center controllers would see
the clearance to RCA and nobody would say "you going to the Air Force base?"
The approach control is the Air Force. They see the same flights to RAP the
same time everyday. They never see a NWA flight to RCA. So you think they
are going to miss the wrong airport ID on the arrival strip? It would stand
out like a flashing red light. Like if you walk up to your plane and a wing
is missing. Any chance at all you would be taxiing out before you notice a
little discrepancy?



>
> Oh, no...but, wait. It seems they didn't notice that an airliner was
> getting ready to land at an airport at which no airliner ever lands.

Why the approach controller didn't notice I don't know. I have only flown
to RAP a couple of times and don't remember the layout. I don't know what
route NWA would normally take in these situations when they are manuvering
for the airport. How much time the controller would have if he were
watching I can't say. I would think a few minutes at least. The tower
controller is more understandable as he has no radar. When I worked at GFK
we were 10 miles east of GFA, the Grand Forks Air Force base. We both had
runways 17/35 and they both started just across US Hwy 2 and we didn't have
radar either. The base only had one runway and we had three but I have seen
many aircraft line up for the base by mistake. Many time the tower
controller would call over on the shout line and ask us if we were missing
one.



which means
> it IS possible (though perhaps unlikely) that ATC had the wrong
destination
> listed for the airliner.

No it's not.

[Newps]

"G. Burkhart" > wrote in message
news:zi6Cc.78176$Hg2.44705@attbi_s04...
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
> > None of which they would know as they wouldn't have any information at
all
> > for RCA on board the aircraft.
>
> Why wouldn't they have information about RCA on board? The NC A/FD lists
> both RCA and RAP, don't airlines use something similar to the A/FD?

Many airlines only carry the charts for the airports they land at. It is
airplane specific also. For example we have United fly in here but we don't
get United DC-10's or 747's. In the winter we have about one United flight
per week land here because the headwinds are stronger than forecast and they
won't have the desired reserve, so they land and get gas. If it is a DC-10
or 747 they will not have any info for BIL, we will read it to them over the
air. Another example is American, they don't fly in here at all. Every
once in a while they drop in with a sick passenger or to get gas like
United. They also have no charts for BIL.

[Richard Hertz]

My first encounter with MBA-types was as an undergraduate at Columbia. I
witnessed an astonishing argument over the use of some lawn space. The
argument was between a class of business students and a bunch of volleyball
players. Apparently my friends and I took up too much room on "their" field
and the teaching assistant or professor or whomever was teaching the class
that day ranted and raved and behaved like a spoiled child. We sat down and
watched her finish her class then continued our usual daily routine of
playing volleyball on that field. (they were playing croquet. ) We later
learned the class lecture was about negotiation.

I thought that was hilarious.


"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:fzGBc.154929$Ly.27857@attbi_s01...
> Spoken by someone who, I suspect, has never completed an MBA program.
>
> Michael
> (MBA, Kenan-Flagler Business School, Univ. of N.C. at Chapel Hill, 1982)
>
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> > It seems to be the major "thought curve" of the MBA schools, right after
> > "bean counting", is "excuse making".
> >
> >
>
>

[Michael 182]

Actually, given the class on negotiation part, this is pretty funny.

I just get tired of mindless stereotyping of MBAs as non-thinking clones,
lawyers as dishonest money-grubbers, doctors as drug-pushers, accountants as
crooks, teachers as uncaring civil-servants, etc. A large percentage of the
brightest people in the country get these degrees. Perhaps some of them
actually accomplish something in life.

Michael


"Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
t...
> My first encounter with MBA-types was as an undergraduate at Columbia. I
> witnessed an astonishing argument over the use of some lawn space. The
> argument was between a class of business students and a bunch of
volleyball
> players. Apparently my friends and I took up too much room on "their"
field
> and the teaching assistant or professor or whomever was teaching the class
> that day ranted and raved and behaved like a spoiled child. We sat down
and
> watched her finish her class then continued our usual daily routine of
> playing volleyball on that field. (they were playing croquet. ) We later
> learned the class lecture was about negotiation.
>
> I thought that was hilarious.
>
>
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> news:fzGBc.154929$Ly.27857@attbi_s01...
> > Spoken by someone who, I suspect, has never completed an MBA program.
> >
> > Michael
> > (MBA, Kenan-Flagler Business School, Univ. of N.C. at Chapel Hill, 1982)
> >
> >
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> >
> > > It seems to be the major "thought curve" of the MBA schools, right
after
> > > "bean counting", is "excuse making".
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> No it's not.

Like I said, you have a funny definition of "impossible".

[Viperdoc]

I landed at RAP less than two hours after the event described. The weather
was severe clear, with no clouds and unlimited visibilities.

Interestingly, as we approached from the east, my wife pointed at Ellsworth
and said "Isn't that the airport over there?" I said- "no, we're landing at
the smaller one directly in front of us since I don't want to get out and
lay on the ramp with a lot of sky cops pointing loaded guns at us"

Even with the great visibility I can see how the error might be made, since
the main runways are roughly parallel.

The event was the talk of the town, although the controllers seemed pretty
normal over the radio when we came in to land (Ellsworth controls the
airspace except for the tower at RAP, and were letting pilots fly over Mount
Rushmore VFR sight seeing, so they couldn't have been too upset)

[Viperdoc]

The tower controller at RAP does have a D bright. Someone asked him that
question over the air today as we departed from RAP and he confirmed the
same.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:dQpCc.101057$0y.11492@attbi_s03...
> Actually, given the class on negotiation part, this is pretty funny.
>
> I just get tired of mindless stereotyping of MBAs as non-thinking clones,

Given their track records over the past 20 years or so....

> lawyers as dishonest money-grubbers, doctors as drug-pushers, accountants
as
> crooks, teachers as uncaring civil-servants, etc. A large percentage of
the
> brightest people in the country get these degrees.

And the majority of failed companies are run by MBA's.

>Perhaps some of them
> actually accomplish something in life.

Just not in the business world.

[Michael 182]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> news:dQpCc.101057$0y.11492@attbi_s03...
> > Actually, given the class on negotiation part, this is pretty funny.
> >
> > I just get tired of mindless stereotyping of MBAs as non-thinking
clones,
>
> Given their track records over the past 20 years or so....

This is the kind of nonsense I was talking about. Yes, you can point to high
profile failures, I can point to high profile successes. So what. The vast
majority are quiet, productive contributors to society. Are you suggetsing
that we'd be better off in a ess well-educated environment?


>
> > lawyers as dishonest money-grubbers, doctors as drug-pushers,
accountants
> as
> > crooks, teachers as uncaring civil-servants, etc. A large percentage of
> the
> > brightest people in the country get these degrees.
>
> And the majority of failed companies are run by MBA's.

As are the majority of successful companies. That's what MBA's do. They run
companies. Big surprise there.

>
> >Perhaps some of them
> > actually accomplish something in life.
>
> Just not in the business world.

Give me a break. Get a clue, Tom.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:zBrCc.166408$Ly.14565@attbi_s01...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> > news:dQpCc.101057$0y.11492@attbi_s03...
> > > Actually, given the class on negotiation part, this is pretty funny.
> > >
> > > I just get tired of mindless stereotyping of MBAs as non-thinking
> clones,
> >
> > Given their track records over the past 20 years or so....
>
> This is the kind of nonsense I was talking about. Yes, you can point to
high
> profile failures, I can point to high profile successes. So what.

So, the business failure rate has grown enormously over the past twenty
years since the MBA became popular. The MBA programs do not teach advances
business principles. They do not teach leadership; they teach politicing
(especaily politically correct politicing) and they teach stiffling
bureaucracy.

> The vast
> majority are quiet, productive contributors to society. Are you suggetsing
> that we'd be better off in a ess well-educated environment?

If what passes for "education" today is what you refer to, yes. It's an
extension of the same "education" that gave us 50% adult illiteracy.

I do know a few MBA's that are pretty sharp, but they come from
entrepreneurial environments. The rest couldn't run a lemonade stand.

[Michael 182]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> news:zBrCc.166408$Ly.14565@attbi_s01...
> > The vast
> > majority are quiet, productive contributors to society. Are you
suggetsing
> > that we'd be better off in a less well-educated environment?
>
> If what passes for "education" today is what you refer to, yes. It's an
> extension of the same "education" that gave us 50% adult illiteracy.

In a previous post you claimed to have completed an MBA program. Since you
did so, you realize that receiving an MBA (and, I suspect, any other
advanced degree) requires reading tens of thousands of pages in accounting,
management, statistics, operations, finance, marketing, etc. over a two year
period. I'm curious how that promotes "50% adult illiteracy."

[Jack]

On 6/24/04 12:20 AM, in article kwtCc.83953$Hg2.59562@attbi_s04, "Michael
182" > wrote:

> [Any advanced degree] requires reading...thousands of pages...over a two year
> period. I'm curious how that promotes "50% adult illiteracy."

You are proving the point for your opponent. You should have quit while you
were ahead.


--
Jack
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The only thing that is new is the history you don't know." -- H.L Mencken
================================================== ========================

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:kwtCc.83953$Hg2.59562@attbi_s04...
> >
> > If what passes for "education" today is what you refer to, yes. It's an
> > extension of the same "education" that gave us 50% adult illiteracy.
>
> In a previous post you claimed to have completed an MBA program. Since you
> did so, you realize that receiving an MBA (and, I suspect, any other
> advanced degree) requires reading tens of thousands of pages in
accounting,
> management, statistics, operations, finance, marketing, etc. over a two
year
> period. I'm curious how that promotes "50% adult illiteracy."
>


I had a very similar "discussion" with someone a few years back. It came
down to home schooling vs. public schooling. Why? Because in home
schooling there is no requirement to teach evolution; it is replaced with
creationism and other faith-based concepts. This person would never accept
the validity of public education, or even private (prep school and
university) education if it was not affiliated with the Church and it's
teachings.

Not saying this is the case here, but I think this discussion may be about
something different than what you think it is.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...
>
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> news:kwtCc.83953$Hg2.59562@attbi_s04...
> > >
> > > If what passes for "education" today is what you refer to, yes. It's
an
> > > extension of the same "education" that gave us 50% adult illiteracy.
> >
> > In a previous post you claimed to have completed an MBA program. Since
you
> > did so, you realize that receiving an MBA (and, I suspect, any other
> > advanced degree) requires reading tens of thousands of pages in
> accounting,
> > management, statistics, operations, finance, marketing, etc. over a two
> year
> > period. I'm curious how that promotes "50% adult illiteracy."

Oddly, those "highly educated" types make the most fundemental errors in
each of those areas. Just becuase they read it, doesn't mean what they read
is of any value. For example, the last couple MBA texts I'd seen where
entrenched in Keynesain and Marxist economics, their marketing was strictly
"getting customers in the door"...

>
> I had a very similar "discussion" with someone a few years back. It came
> down to home schooling vs. public schooling. Why? Because in home
> schooling there is no requirement to teach evolution; it is replaced with
> creationism and other faith-based concepts.

Was that HIS point or do you have some support that such is the basis of
home schooling?

> This person would never accept
> the validity of public education, or even private (prep school and
> university) education if it was not affiliated with the Church and it's
> teachings.
>
> Not saying this is the case here, but I think this discussion may be about
> something different than what you think it is.

Funny, I've been around home schoolers for over fifteen years and only a
handful were fundementalists. The rest homeschooled because the public
schools are a joke regarding reading, writing, math, history, literature,
civics...

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jack" > wrote in message ...
> On 6/24/04 12:20 AM, in article kwtCc.83953$Hg2.59562@attbi_s04, "Michael
> 182" > wrote:
>
> > [Any advanced degree] requires reading...thousands of pages...over a two
year
> > period. I'm curious how that promotes "50% adult illiteracy."
>
> You are proving the point for your opponent. You should have quit while
you
> were ahead.
>
>
> --
> Jack
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "The only thing that is new is the history you don't know." -- H.L Mencken
>
Imagine if Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, Schwab, Mellon, all
those great industrialists would have been with business educations, much
less MBAs.

--
"The aim of public education is not to spread
enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as
many individuals as possible to the same safe
level, to breed a standard citizenry, to put down
dissent and originality,.." -- H.L. Mencken

[Gerald Sylvester]

> I just get tired of mindless stereotyping of MBAs as non-thinking clones,
> lawyers as dishonest money-grubbers, doctors as drug-pushers, accountants as
> crooks, teachers as uncaring civil-servants, etc.

don't forget about B744 pilots as just "heavy machinery operators."

Gerald

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Gerald Sylvester" > wrote in message
. net...
> > I just get tired of mindless stereotyping of MBAs as non-thinking
clones,
> > lawyers as dishonest money-grubbers, doctors as drug-pushers,
accountants as
> > crooks, teachers as uncaring civil-servants, etc.
>
> don't forget about B744 pilots as just "heavy machinery operators."
>

Buncha winged bus drivers!!!

[pacplyer]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message >...
> "Gerald Sylvester" > wrote in message
> . net...
> > > I just get tired of mindless stereotyping of MBAs as non-thinking
> clones,
> > > lawyers as dishonest money-grubbers, doctors as drug-pushers,
> accountants as
> > > crooks, teachers as uncaring civil-servants, etc.
> >
> > don't forget about B744 pilots as just "heavy machinery operators."
> >
>
> Buncha winged bus drivers!!!

Yeah, yeah, yeah. All professional pilots have had this almost happen
to them. Fatique can contribute to the "set up" as well as
unfamiliarity with the area. Jets move in fast, with two-man crews
you don't have but a few seconds to look out the window and then its
back to checklists, radio freq changes, complex arrival clearances and
last second changes and speed adjustments...and instrument
malfunctions (is the ILS even turned on down there? Whoops now it
is...) and after a month of flying runway numbers start running
together. Ever get lost in your car? What, were you stupid or
something? No, odds were you were just trying to get to point B in a
hurry, you got bored and complacent with navigating and screwed up the
street names. At LAX this wrong runway syndrome happens every month.
Four parallel runways ensures this. Controllers are run ragged by the
penny-pinching FAA and do the best they can. They were very
accommodating when a UAL 747 tried to land at Hawthorne twenty years
ago. To prevent this you must not give in to ATC pressure to go
visual early. When ATC says "you don't have the runway yet?" Be
defiant and say No, even if it's embarrassing. You do see *a* runway
in front of you, but without some sort of Nav backup you're asking for
it. The visual is an FAA side letter to terminate IFR early, and you
are not required to take it. Now if you're poking along in a
bugsmasher, you have a great deal more time to analyze the airport and
veer off if you fixated on the first peice of pavement you saw.

pac "any piece of pavement in a storm" plyer

[gabriele]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> On 21 Jun 2004 18:22:59 -0700, Bob Fry
>
> wrote:
>>
>>Just a few months ago a tri-engine Falcon Jet--I don't know which
>>model--landed by mistake at University Airport (3185 x 50 ft.) instead
>>of nearby Yolo Airport (6000 x 100 ft.) The pilot hit the reverse
>>thrust before the nosewheel touched down...better pilot skill than
>>judgement.
>
>
> I'd sell tickets to the guy's takeoff when he tries to leave.Even a straight
> wing Citation couldn't get out of that mess.
>
>
>
Well you wouldn't make much money.
You could take out of it any 3 engine Falcon with about 6000 lbs/2+hours
of fuel.

Gabriele

[Tom Sixkiller]

"gabriele" > wrote in message
...
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> > On 21 Jun 2004 18:22:59 -0700, Bob Fry
> >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>Just a few months ago a tri-engine Falcon Jet--I don't know which
> >>model--landed by mistake at University Airport (3185 x 50 ft.) instead
> >>of nearby Yolo Airport (6000 x 100 ft.) The pilot hit the reverse
> >>thrust before the nosewheel touched down...better pilot skill than
> >>judgement.
> >
> >
> > I'd sell tickets to the guy's takeoff when he tries to leave.Even a
straight
> > wing Citation couldn't get out of that mess.
> >
> >
> >
> Well you wouldn't make much money.
> You could take out of it any 3 engine Falcon with about 6000 lbs/2+hours
> of fuel.
>
Out of a 3185 foot runway at 4000(?) feet? He might make it, but it would
sure be exciting to watch.

[Bob Fry]

"Tom Sixkiller" > writes:

> On 21 Jun 2004 18:22:59 -0700, Bob Fry
> > > wrote:
> >
> >Just a few months ago a tri-engine Falcon Jet--I don't know which
> >model--landed by mistake at University Airport (3185 x 50 ft.) instead
> >of nearby Yolo Airport (6000 x 100 ft.) The pilot hit the reverse
> >thrust before the nosewheel touched down...better pilot skill than
> >judgement.
>
> I'd sell tickets to the guy's takeoff when he tries to leave.Even a straight
> wing Citation couldn't get out of that mess.

He got out no problem. The first and probably last time we saw a jet
blasting over West Davis.

[Ditch]

>Even a straight
>> wing Citation couldn't get out of that mess.

Yeah....it could do so quite easily. So could the Falcon for that matter.


-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > writes:
>
> > On 21 Jun 2004 18:22:59 -0700, Bob Fry
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > >Just a few months ago a tri-engine Falcon Jet--I don't know which
> > >model--landed by mistake at University Airport (3185 x 50 ft.) instead
> > >of nearby Yolo Airport (6000 x 100 ft.) The pilot hit the reverse
> > >thrust before the nosewheel touched down...better pilot skill than
> > >judgement.
> >
> > I'd sell tickets to the guy's takeoff when he tries to leave.Even a
straight
> > wing Citation couldn't get out of that mess.
>
> He got out no problem. The first and probably last time we saw a jet
> blasting over West Davis.

Any idea of how much room he had to spare...or at what point he reached the
go/no-go point? :~)

If it was the same pilot, I'd have to think that his judgment, as you
mentioned, leaves something to be desired.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> I'd sell tickets to the guy's takeoff when he tries to leave.Even a straight
> wing Citation couldn't get out of that mess.

Most Citations would have no problem getting out of there. The III, VI, and VII
models might have to be trucked out; I don't have minimum fuel performance specs.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Greg]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

> On 21 Jun 2004 18:22:59 -0700, Bob Fry
> > > wrote:
> >
> >Just a few months ago a tri-engine Falcon Jet--I don't know which
> >model--landed by mistake at University Airport (3185 x 50 ft.) instead
> >of nearby Yolo Airport (6000 x 100 ft.) The pilot hit the reverse
> >thrust before the nosewheel touched down...better pilot skill than
> >judgement.
>
> I'd sell tickets to the guy's takeoff when he tries to leave.Even a straight
> wing Citation couldn't get out of that mess.

"Couldn't get out"?

Huh? Citations don't seem to have any problem with our local 3200' foot
runway...

[Greg]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

> "Bob Fry" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > writes:
> >
> > > On 21 Jun 2004 18:22:59 -0700, Bob Fry
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Just a few months ago a tri-engine Falcon Jet--I don't know which
> > > >model--landed by mistake at University Airport (3185 x 50 ft.) instead
> > > >of nearby Yolo Airport (6000 x 100 ft.) The pilot hit the reverse
> > > >thrust before the nosewheel touched down...better pilot skill than
> > > >judgement.
> > >
> > > I'd sell tickets to the guy's takeoff when he tries to leave.Even a
> straight
> > > wing Citation couldn't get out of that mess.
> >
> > He got out no problem. The first and probably last time we saw a jet
> > blasting over West Davis.
>
> Any idea of how much room he had to spare...or at what point he reached the
> go/no-go point? :~)
>
> If it was the same pilot, I'd have to think that his judgment, as you
> mentioned, leaves something to be desired.

How much Falcon time do you have and what do you base that on?

[Rich Ahrens]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> Imagine if Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, Schwab, Mellon, all
> those great industrialists would have been with business educations, much
> less MBAs.

Hopefully they could have put together a coherent sentence in English,
unlike the example above.

Presumably you refer to Charles M. Schwab, who died insolvent. He was a
notorious gambler, union buster and a businessman of dubious ethics.
Charles R. Schwab, who certainly has had a significant impact himself on
the modern economy, is a graduate of Stanford University, earning a BA
in Economics in 1959 and an MBA from Stanford Graduate School of
Business in 1961. I know which one I would choose as a role model.

[gabriele]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:


>>Well you wouldn't make much money.
>>You could take out of it any 3 engine Falcon with about 6000 lbs/2+hours
>>of fuel.
>>
>
> Out of a 3185 foot runway at 4000(?) feet? He might make it, but it would
> sure be exciting to watch.
>
>
At 4000 feet? Then make that 1 hour+ of fuel (BFL).

[Rich Ahrens]

Greg wrote:

>
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
>
>> "Bob Fry" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> "Tom Sixkiller" > writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 21 Jun 2004 18:22:59 -0700, Bob Fry
>>>>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Just a few months ago a tri-engine Falcon Jet--I don't know
>>>>> which model--landed by mistake at University Airport (3185 x
>>>>> 50 ft.) instead of nearby Yolo Airport (6000 x 100 ft.) The
>>>>> pilot hit the reverse thrust before the nosewheel touched
>>>>> down...better pilot skill than judgement.
>>>>
>>>> I'd sell tickets to the guy's takeoff when he tries to
>>>> leave.Even a
>>
>> straight
>>
>>>> wing Citation couldn't get out of that mess.
>>>
>>> He got out no problem. The first and probably last time we saw a
>>> jet blasting over West Davis.
>>
>> Any idea of how much room he had to spare...or at what point he
>> reached the go/no-go point? :~)
>>
>> If it was the same pilot, I'd have to think that his judgment, as
>> you mentioned, leaves something to be desired.
>
>
> How much Falcon time do you have and what do you base that on?

Haven't been following Tom's rants much, have you? He doesn't allow his
lack of experience or knowlege to keep him from pontificating on a wide
variety of subjects.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Greg" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> > "Bob Fry" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Tom Sixkiller" > writes:
> > >
> > > > On 21 Jun 2004 18:22:59 -0700, Bob Fry
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >Just a few months ago a tri-engine Falcon Jet--I don't know which
> > > > >model--landed by mistake at University Airport (3185 x 50 ft.)
instead
> > > > >of nearby Yolo Airport (6000 x 100 ft.) The pilot hit the reverse
> > > > >thrust before the nosewheel touched down...better pilot skill than
> > > > >judgement.
> > > >
> > > > I'd sell tickets to the guy's takeoff when he tries to leave.Even a
> > straight
> > > > wing Citation couldn't get out of that mess.
> > >
> > > He got out no problem. The first and probably last time we saw a jet
> > > blasting over West Davis.
> >
> > Any idea of how much room he had to spare...or at what point he reached
the
> > go/no-go point? :~)
> >
> > If it was the same pilot, I'd have to think that his judgment, as you
> > mentioned, leaves something to be desired.
>
> How much Falcon time do you have and what do you base that on?
>
Let's see -- the pilot (hopefully experienced) had to hit the reversers
before the nosewheel was down.

When I think of all the accidents in the NTSB database...

Yeah, I'm sure he could (and in fact DID) get out. And when something goes
POP, then rehash what an idiot the guy was.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"gabriele" > wrote in message
...
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
>
> >>Well you wouldn't make much money.
> >>You could take out of it any 3 engine Falcon with about 6000 lbs/2+hours
> >>of fuel.
> >>
> >
> > Out of a 3185 foot runway at 4000(?) feet? He might make it, but it
would
> > sure be exciting to watch.
> >
> >
> At 4000 feet? Then make that 1 hour+ of fuel (BFL).

Christ on a bike...I said he'd get out but IT WOULD BE EXCITING TO WATCH!!
Is that so goddamn hard to understand?

Legal...but stupid. Or maybe I'm too conservative. I'll have to archive this
thread until the next time someone posts a newspaper article about a pilot
pranging on takeoff and then compare the second guessers.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> >
> > I'd sell tickets to the guy's takeoff when he tries to leave.Even a
straight
> > wing Citation couldn't get out of that mess.
>
> Most Citations would have no problem getting out of there. The III, VI,
and VII
> models might have to be trucked out; I don't have minimum fuel performance
specs.
>

A CJ would be about 2700 feet using short field techniques. Like I said,
though, virtually no room for error.

[WIACapt]

>From: "Tom Sixkiller"
>Date: 6/28/2004 03:01 Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>> >
>> > I'd sell tickets to the guy's takeoff when he tries to leave.Even a
>straight
>> > wing Citation couldn't get out of that mess.
>>
>> Most Citations would have no problem getting out of there. The III, VI,
>and VII
>> models might have to be trucked out; I don't have minimum fuel performance
>specs.
>>
>
>A CJ would be about 2700 feet using short field techniques. Like I said,
>though, virtually no room for error.
>
And what kind of "short field" technique would that be?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"WIACapt" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Tom Sixkiller"
> >Date: 6/28/2004 03:01 Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>
> >> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I'd sell tickets to the guy's takeoff when he tries to leave.Even a
> >straight
> >> > wing Citation couldn't get out of that mess.
> >>
> >> Most Citations would have no problem getting out of there. The III, VI,
> >and VII
> >> models might have to be trucked out; I don't have minimum fuel
performance
> >specs.
> >>
> >
> >A CJ would be about 2700 feet using short field techniques. Like I said,
> >though, virtually no room for error.
> >
> And what kind of "short field" technique would that be?

Catapult.

Okay...I misunderstood the situation. Sorry....don't beat me no mo' massa.
Ya'all the big shot experts.

I guess I'll have to find another source for discussion.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"WIACapt" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Tom Sixkiller"
> >Date: 6/28/2004 03:01 Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>
> >> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I'd sell tickets to the guy's takeoff when he tries to leave.Even a
> >straight
> >> > wing Citation couldn't get out of that mess.
> >>
> >> Most Citations would have no problem getting out of there. The III, VI,
> >and VII
> >> models might have to be trucked out; I don't have minimum fuel
performance
> >specs.
> >>
> >
> >A CJ would be about 2700 feet using short field techniques. Like I said,
> >though, virtually no room for error.
> >
> And what kind of "short field" technique would that be?

Throttles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SET FOR TAKEOFF

Slowly and smoothly apply power while referencing the

engine instruments. A rolling takeoff may be used with sufficient

runway available, but it should be remembered that

Flight Manual takeoff N1 settings assume a static runup.