Request: Technical Proofreading EAA Sport Aviation

[Jim Weir]

In the July 2004 issue of Sport Aviation, there was an article published on the
installation of ELTs. I have taken issue with the article with Tom Poberezny
and Scott Spangler, and before I go off half-cocked (how unusual for me) I'd
like some confirmation from this group. Understand that I may quote you
directly if you respond, so if you don't want your name mentioned, just say so.

Here's the deal: My contention is that EAA should have an editorial board that
reviews technical articles like this for theoretical as well as practical errors
of fact or judgement. Every ethical magazine in the world has a competent
review team that looks at an author's work and at LEAST asks the questions as to
where the data came from.

Now I'm not looking to pick the nits. They say that the CORPASS-SARSAT
satellites are flying at 528 miles. If the actual altitude happens to be 527.4,
that's a nit.

On the other hand, in the next paragraph (page 108, column 2, first paragraph)
they say that the analog ELTs operate on 121.5 MHz. and the digital ELTs operate
on 406 MHz.. There are two errors of fact here: The VHF ELTs operate on 12.15
MHz. AND 243.0 Mhz. The UHF 406 MHz. ELT is NOT totally digital technology.

Now here's the challenge...

Find errors of technical fact AND practical installation (so far I've found ten
of them) and post them here (please do not send to me by private email). I'll
collate them and send them off to TomP. Perhaps we can get the folks back in
Oshkosh to listen and publish something that resembles the truth.

And yes, in case of an unfortunate incident, it CAN make the difference between
YOUR life and death.

Jim


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[John]

Jim Weir wrote:

> In the July 2004 issue of Sport Aviation, there was an article published
> on the
> installation of ELTs. I have taken issue with the article with Tom
> Poberezny and Scott Spangler, and before I go off half-cocked (how unusual
> for me) I'd
> like some confirmation from this group. Understand that I may quote you
> directly if you respond, so if you don't want your name mentioned, just
> say so.
>
> Here's the deal: My contention is that EAA should have an editorial board
> that reviews technical articles like this for theoretical as well as
> practical errors
> of fact or judgement. Every ethical magazine in the world has a competent
> review team that looks at an author's work and at LEAST asks the questions
> as to where the data came from.
>
> Now I'm not looking to pick the nits. They say that the CORPASS-SARSAT
> satellites are flying at 528 miles. If the actual altitude happens to be
> 527.4, that's a nit.
>
> On the other hand, in the next paragraph (page 108, column 2, first
> paragraph) they say that the analog ELTs operate on 121.5 MHz. and the
> digital ELTs operate
> on 406 MHz.. There are two errors of fact here: The VHF ELTs operate on
> 12.15
> MHz. AND 243.0 Mhz. The UHF 406 MHz. ELT is NOT totally digital
> technology.
>
> Now here's the challenge...
>
> Find errors of technical fact AND practical installation (so far I've
> found ten
> of them) and post them here (please do not send to me by private email).
> I'll
> collate them and send them off to TomP. Perhaps we can get the folks back
> in Oshkosh to listen and publish something that resembles the truth.
>
> And yes, in case of an unfortunate incident, it CAN make the difference
> between YOUR life and death.
>
> Jim
>
>
> Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
> VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
> http://www.rst-engr.com


Do Typo's count ?
You just stated VHF 12.15 Mhz it should be 121.5 mhz and 243 mhz.
If your getting ready to slam them you might well get someone to proof read
your own posts ;-)
John

[Jerry Springer]

John wrote:
> Jim Weir wrote:
>
>
>>In the July 2004 issue of Sport Aviation, there was an article published
>>on the
>>installation of ELTs. I have taken issue with the article with Tom
>>Poberezny and Scott Spangler, and before I go off half-cocked (how unusual
>>for me) I'd
>>like some confirmation from this group. Understand that I may quote you
>>directly if you respond, so if you don't want your name mentioned, just
>>say so.
>>
>>Here's the deal: My contention is that EAA should have an editorial board
>>that reviews technical articles like this for theoretical as well as
>>practical errors
>>of fact or judgement. Every ethical magazine in the world has a competent
>>review team that looks at an author's work and at LEAST asks the questions
>>as to where the data came from.
>>
>>Now I'm not looking to pick the nits. They say that the CORPASS-SARSAT
>>satellites are flying at 528 miles. If the actual altitude happens to be
>>527.4, that's a nit.
>>
>>On the other hand, in the next paragraph (page 108, column 2, first
>>paragraph) they say that the analog ELTs operate on 121.5 MHz. and the
>>digital ELTs operate
>>on 406 MHz.. There are two errors of fact here: The VHF ELTs operate on
>>12.15
>>MHz. AND 243.0 Mhz. The UHF 406 MHz. ELT is NOT totally digital
>>technology.
>>
>>Now here's the challenge...
>>
>>Find errors of technical fact AND practical installation (so far I've
>>found ten
>>of them) and post them here (please do not send to me by private email).
>>I'll
>>collate them and send them off to TomP. Perhaps we can get the folks back
>>in Oshkosh to listen and publish something that resembles the truth.
>>
>>And yes, in case of an unfortunate incident, it CAN make the difference
>>between YOUR life and death.
>>
>>Jim
>>
>>
>>Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
>>VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
>>http://www.rst-engr.com
>
>
>
> Do Typo's count ?
> You just stated VHF 12.15 Mhz it should be 121.5 mhz and 243 mhz.
> If your getting ready to slam them you might well get someone to proof read
> your own posts ;-)
> John
>
I think you missed the point of his article John. He was pointing out their
mistakes.

Jerry

[jls]

"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
> In the July 2004 issue of Sport Aviation, there was an article published
on the
> installation of ELTs. I have taken issue with the article with Tom
Poberezny
> and Scott Spangler, and before I go off half-cocked (how unusual for me)
I'd
> like some confirmation from this group. Understand that I may quote you
> directly if you respond, so if you don't want your name mentioned, just
say so.
>
Yeah, when reading in the mag I try to overlook the errors in diction,
grammar, and spelling. Some of them are glaring. You would think that
after so many years of publication, _Sport Aviation_ would become serious
and get a handle on it. What's a "Kerney" swager? I thought it was a
"Kearney." At more than five grand the damn thing costs so much you would
think it knew how to spell itself, even in an amateur publication like
_Sport Aviation._

As for technical data, well, you had better verify that for yourself by
relying on a more scholarly publication.

[Veeduber]

Dear Jim,

The coffee-table format of 'Sport Aviation' and the infomercial nature of its
articles makes it pretty clear the EAA is more interested in putting out a
pretty magazine rather than a good one. Indeed, the question of peer review is
not new, dating back to Pope Paul, Jack Cox, et al. Such reveiws do no lend
themselves to the air show mentality that appears to be in charge of the EAA
then and now.

I'm sure many of the faithful will find that a bit harsh when in fact it merely
reflects the one-sided nature of an organization that does not allow the airing
of opinions other than its own.

-R.S.Hoover
(EAA 58400 - Life Member)

[Richard Lamb]

Veeduber wrote:
>
> Dear Jim,
>
> The coffee-table format of 'Sport Aviation' and the infomercial nature of its
> articles makes it pretty clear the EAA is more interested in putting out a
> pretty magazine rather than a good one. Indeed, the question of peer review is
> not new, dating back to Pope Paul, Jack Cox, et al. Such reveiws do no lend
> themselves to the air show mentality that appears to be in charge of the EAA
> then and now.
>
> I'm sure many of the faithful will find that a bit harsh when in fact it merely
> reflects the one-sided nature of an organization that does not allow the airing
> of opinions other than its own.
>
> -R.S.Hoover
> (EAA 58400 - Life Member)


I wasn't going to make a public fuss about it, but since the issue
came up, I didn't renew...

Richard

[Fastglasair]

>Here's the deal: My contention is that EAA should have an editorial board
>that
>reviews technical articles like this for theoretical as well as practical
>errors

Jim,

I have to agree with you. A friend of mine and I wrote an article for SA about
6 months ago. We proofread it ourselves for technical accuracy grammar etc. and
had others do the same. We wanted it to be "perfect". We even had Bob K. at
AeroElectric Connection read it first. His only comment was the need to make it
less technical for the average SA reader which we did. I should have asked them
to let us proofread it after the SA editors got done. Hindsight is 20/20. The
editors made a mess of it technically speaking. They took an article which was
technically correct and said things which were just plain wrong and disagreed
with the original. I did not have a problem with their intent, just the fact
that neither we nor they corrected the introduced inaccuracies prior to
printing. If the editor had a technical background these errors would not have
been made. I was embarrassed by the errors and we got ALL the credit for
content. Fortunately, most people probably did not even notice the errors.

[Casey Wilson]

"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
> In the July 2004 issue of Sport Aviation, there was an article published
on the
> installation of ELTs. I have taken issue with the article with Tom
Poberezny
> and Scott Spangler, and before I go off half-cocked (how unusual for me)
I'd
> like some confirmation from this group. Understand that I may quote you
> directly if you respond, so if you don't want your name mentioned, just
say so.
>
> Here's the deal: My contention is that EAA should have an editorial board
that
> reviews technical articles like this for theoretical as well as practical
errors
> of fact or judgement. Every ethical magazine in the world has a competent
> review team that looks at an author's work and at LEAST asks the questions
as to
> where the data came from.
>
> Now I'm not looking to pick the nits. They say that the CORPASS-SARSAT
> satellites are flying at 528 miles. If the actual altitude happens to be
527.4,
> that's a nit.
>
> On the other hand, in the next paragraph (page 108, column 2, first
paragraph)
> they say that the analog ELTs operate on 121.5 MHz. and the digital ELTs
operate
> on 406 MHz.. There are two errors of fact here: The VHF ELTs operate on
12.15
> MHz. AND 243.0 Mhz. The UHF 406 MHz. ELT is NOT totally digital
technology.
>

Hi Jim,

As a writer, I agree that the final responsibility is on the magazine's
editor's shoulders for accuracy. Bu the fault lies with the writer. In this
case the writer(s) appear to be insiders.
Huge mags, like National Geographic and others, have dozens of people
who do nothing but 'fact checking,' name spelling, placement of decimal
points (like the one you blooped in your message above. Smaller magazines,
like Sport Aviation and Flying don't do as good a job because of the staff
costs. As an entrepreneur, you know the largest costs in any business are
labor+overhead and overhead (G&A) exceeds labor by multiple factors.
That doesn't excuse allowing errors to reach print, but it does explain
why editors rely more and more on us writers to get it right. Go for it,
Jim, but I don't think you will make much headway. I'll bet the magazine
just won't increase the staffing to include a technical review board. I'd
also bet that a person with the CVs for doing the review job won't work for
the pitiful wages the mag would pay. It is a universal problem in the
industry.
Now for a fine point in your discussion of frequencies. The guard
frequency 243.0 Mhz is within the military band 225.0 to 399.9. For as long
as I can remember, and that goes back at least to the fifties as an
electronics tech in the USMC, the military band has been considered UHF
despite the delineation of 30 to 300 attached to the definition of VHF. I
won't give you points for that one.
As to the rest.... I don't subscribe to the magazine.

Regards,

Casey

[Jim Weir]

->
->Hi Jim,
->
-> As a writer, I agree that the final responsibility is on the magazine's
->editor's shoulders for accuracy. Bu the fault lies with the writer. In this
->case the writer(s) appear to be insiders.

Yes, as a writer I agree. But to make as many errors of fact as were made in
this article, the writer must shoulder some responsibility. Just as an example,
look at the picture on page 108, and remember that this is an article about the
proper INSTALLATION of an ELT. See the pretty antenna coax draped across the
sharp edge of the aluminum former? With no cable ties anywhere? Ain't THAT a
proper way to show installation.

And the admonition to use an Adel clamp on the tip of the antenna to keep it
from whipping about? Can you say "DETUNE" from the metal in the clamp?



-> Huge mags, like National Geographic and others, have dozens of people
->who do nothing but 'fact checking,' name spelling, placement of decimal
->points (like the one you blooped in your message above.

And the failure to close (parentheses)? {;-)



Smaller magazines,
->like Sport Aviation and Flying don't do as good a job because of the staff
->costs. As an entrepreneur, you know the largest costs in any business are
->labor+overhead and overhead (G&A) exceeds labor by multiple factors.
-> That doesn't excuse allowing errors to reach print, but it does explain
->why editors rely more and more on us writers to get it right. Go for it,
->Jim, but I don't think you will make much headway. I'll bet the magazine
->just won't increase the staffing to include a technical review board.

Most of us would gladly volunteer to keep crap like this from making its way
into print.



I'd
->also bet that a person with the CVs for doing the review job won't work for
->the pitiful wages the mag would pay. It is a universal problem in the
->industry.
-> Now for a fine point in your discussion of frequencies. The guard
->frequency 243.0 Mhz is within the military band 225.0 to 399.9. For as long
->as I can remember, and that goes back at least to the fifties as an
->electronics tech in the USMC, the military band has been considered UHF
->despite the delineation of 30 to 300 attached to the definition of VHF. I
->won't give you points for that one.

And I agree with you. I've called it the Mil UHF band for years. However, this
is just another point that you've found without even having the magazine in your
hands. The POINT was that they didn't mention 243.0, just 121.5. Anybody with
a lick of avionics sense understands what a crystal bitch it is to design
antennas that will radiate efficiently on both the fundamental and second
harmonic.

And the final kicker? The admonition to "replace the battery if there are any
signs of corrosion". Me? I was taught to clean up the corrosion and THEN
replace the battery.

Sigh.


Jim


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Casey Wilson]

"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
>

> Yes, as a writer I agree. But to make as many errors of fact as were made
in
> this article, the writer must shoulder some responsibility. Just as an
example,
> look at the picture on page 108, and remember that this is an article
about the
> proper INSTALLATION of an ELT. See the pretty antenna coax draped across
the
> sharp edge of the aluminum former? With no cable ties anywhere? Ain't
THAT a
> proper way to show installation.

>->but 'fact checking,' name spelling, placement of decimal
> ->points (like the one you blooped in your message above.
>
> And the failure to close (parentheses)? {;-)
>
Got me!

> ->Jim, but I don't think you will make much headway. I'll bet the magazine
> ->just won't increase the staffing to include a technical review board.
>
> Most of us would gladly volunteer to keep crap like this from making its
way
> into print.

Give it try, all you've got to lose is your time. I'm presuming you're
going to make that suggestion in the letter you write.

When I was digging for information about the Sport license, I emailed a
query to an EAA 'expert.' Shortly after, one of the editors sent me a box of
magazines, samples from all the different publications. It came with a nice
note saying they'd like the first look at whatever I wrote. What surprised
me was the number of different titles they put out. At the time I think
there were seven or so.

I'm not a homebuilder nor a member of EAA and can't find much in any of
their pubs to relate to -- so I've never subscribed.

If I ever get nearby your neck of the woods, I'll call first and see if
we can get together for lunch.

Good luck,

Casey

[Matt Whiting]

John wrote:

> Jim Weir wrote:
>
>
>>In the July 2004 issue of Sport Aviation, there was an article published
>>on the
>>installation of ELTs. I have taken issue with the article with Tom
>>Poberezny and Scott Spangler, and before I go off half-cocked (how unusual
>>for me) I'd
>>like some confirmation from this group. Understand that I may quote you
>>directly if you respond, so if you don't want your name mentioned, just
>>say so.
>>
>>Here's the deal: My contention is that EAA should have an editorial board
>>that reviews technical articles like this for theoretical as well as
>>practical errors
>>of fact or judgement. Every ethical magazine in the world has a competent
>>review team that looks at an author's work and at LEAST asks the questions
>>as to where the data came from.
>>
>>Now I'm not looking to pick the nits. They say that the CORPASS-SARSAT
>>satellites are flying at 528 miles. If the actual altitude happens to be
>>527.4, that's a nit.
>>
>>On the other hand, in the next paragraph (page 108, column 2, first
>>paragraph) they say that the analog ELTs operate on 121.5 MHz. and the
>>digital ELTs operate
>>on 406 MHz.. There are two errors of fact here: The VHF ELTs operate on
>>12.15
>>MHz. AND 243.0 Mhz. The UHF 406 MHz. ELT is NOT totally digital
>>technology.
>>
>>Now here's the challenge...
>>
>>Find errors of technical fact AND practical installation (so far I've
>>found ten
>>of them) and post them here (please do not send to me by private email).
>>I'll
>>collate them and send them off to TomP. Perhaps we can get the folks back
>>in Oshkosh to listen and publish something that resembles the truth.
>>
>>And yes, in case of an unfortunate incident, it CAN make the difference
>>between YOUR life and death.
>>
>>Jim
>>
>>
>>Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
>>VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
>>http://www.rst-engr.com
>
>
>
> Do Typo's count ?
> You just stated VHF 12.15 Mhz it should be 121.5 mhz and 243 mhz.
> If your getting ready to slam them you might well get someone to proof read
> your own posts ;-)
> John
>

True, John, and MegaHertz is MHz, not mhz. M is for mega and m is for
milli. Hz is short for Hertz which is a proper name and thus should be
capitalized even when abbreviated.


Matt

[Fastglasair]

>We even had Bob K. at
>AeroElectric Connection read it first. His only comment was the need to make
>it
>less technical for the average SA reader which we did.

Sorry, thats Bob N., for some stupid reason I thought his name started with a
silent K.

[Jim Carriere]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> John wrote:
>> Do Typo's count ?
>> You just stated VHF 12.15 Mhz it should be 121.5 mhz and 243 mhz.
>> If your getting ready to slam them you might well get someone to proof
>> read
>> your own posts ;-)
>> John
>>
>
> True, John, and MegaHertz is MHz, not mhz. M is for mega and m is for
> milli. Hz is short for Hertz which is a proper name and thus should be
> capitalized even when abbreviated.

Oooh, you need a thick skin around here...

I'll take a preemptive shot, at no one in particular, with my pet
peeve: "kph" is wrong, it's km/h!

(I had to look up preemptive to make sure it is not hyphenated.)
Obligatory smiley face to keep it light :)

[Mark Hickey]

Jim Carriere > wrote:

>Obligatory smiley face to keep it light :)

Smiley faces should have noses. ;-)

Mark Hickey

[James M. Knox]

Jim Weir > wrote in
:

>
> Yes, as a writer I agree. But to make as many errors of fact as were
> made in this article, the writer must shoulder some responsibility.
>
> Smaller magazines,
> ->like Sport Aviation and Flying don't do as good a job because of the
> staff ->costs.

All I can suggest is you read a couple of issues of the Piper Cherokee
Owners Magazine (sorry, exact name escapes me at the moment). By the time
you are finished, anything EAA can put out will look like the New Yorker!
<G>

jmk

[Jim Weir]

Are you kidding? The people around here lay awake at night worrying about
whether anal-retentive should be hyphenated.

{;-) (And smileys should have curly hair)

Jim


Jim Carriere >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:


->Oooh, you need a thick skin around here...




Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Corrie]

The problem crops up in other hobby magazines as well. From what I'm
told, many of the woodworking mags (such as you can find at Lowe's
Aviation Supply) use reader-written articles that often contain
factual errors or safety problems.

[[email protected]]

Jim -

I agree SA needs a more careful technical review. As an ME I look at
the equations as they are printed and have to wince. With the
equation editor in MSWord being what it is now days, they should be
able to get those things dead-on right. Metal alloy descriptions
should be made more complete. The common mixup of stress, strain,
force, moment, torque and other technical terms etc all go ouch to me.

I enjoy readings from burrheads......!

Niel Petersen

[BillC85]

For all intensive porpoises this thread will manifest itself for the
doggy-dog world we live in and make all points mute.

BillC


"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
> Are you kidding? The people around here lay awake at night worrying about
> whether anal-retentive should be hyphenated.
>
> {;-) (And smileys should have curly hair)
>
> Jim
>
>
> Jim Carriere >
> shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
>
>
> ->Oooh, you need a thick skin around here...
>
>
>
>
> Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
> VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
> http://www.rst-engr.com

[Matt Whiting]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> Jim Carriere > wrote:
>
>
>>Obligatory smiley face to keep it light :)
>
>
> Smiley faces should have noses. ;-)
>
> Mark Hickey

But then we'd all be inclined to cut off our noses to spite our smiley
faces! :-)


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> Jim -
>
> I agree SA needs a more careful technical review. As an ME I look at
> the equations as they are printed and have to wince. With the
> equation editor in MSWord being what it is now days, they should be
> able to get those things dead-on right. Metal alloy descriptions
> should be made more complete. The common mixup of stress, strain,
> force, moment, torque and other technical terms etc all go ouch to me.
>
> I enjoy readings from burrheads......!
>
> Niel Petersen

Yes, I always love the folks that can't tell power from torque and use
the terms as if they were the same. The stress of it all is really
starting to strain me....


Matt

[UltraJohn]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> Jim Carriere > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Obligatory smiley face to keep it light :)
>>
>>
>> Smiley faces should have noses. ;-)
>>
>> Mark Hickey
>
> But then we'd all be inclined to cut off our noses to spite our smiley
> faces! :-)
>
>
> Matt
>
>
Don't forget to wink when you say that! ;-)
John

[Rich S.]

"UltraJohn" > wrote in message
.net...
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> > Mark Hickey wrote:
> >
> >> Jim Carriere > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Obligatory smiley face to keep it light :)
> >>
> >>
> >> Smiley faces should have noses. ;-)
> >>
> >> Mark Hickey
> >
> > But then we'd all be inclined to cut off our noses to spite our smiley
> > faces! :-)
> >
> >
> > Matt
> >
> >
> Don't forget to wink when you say that! ;-)
> John

You'll need a band-aid on that wound. (::::[]::::)

Rich S.

[Ernest Christley]

Jim Weir wrote:

> And yes, in case of an unfortunate incident, it CAN make the difference between
> YOUR life and death.
>
> Jim
>

I'd just be happy if they required the authors to explain WHY
such-n-such must be done in a particular way. It just grinds my last
nerve to read what I think will be an educational article, just to find
it full of commands like "You must use black grease on the schmizzle
donker." The EAA claims to be an educational organization, but that
ain't education. It's training. Education hasn't occured until the
student know why black grease must be used on the schmizzle donker and
why the schmizzle donker is needed in the first place.

Just requiring explanations will eliminate 90% of what you're
describing. If someone can't explain why black grease is necessary in
simple terms, then most likely they are just a trained monkey repeating
what they've heard. With no understanding of the underlying principles,
they haven't a clue if they are applying their training correctly...if
they are missing an important point, or if they are doing a lot of
useless work.

I was the best history, physics and chemistry student in my senior year
of high school and I never lost one night of sleep 'studying'. I don't
believe it was because I had more intelligence than everyone else, but I
learned a simple secret. Don't memorize facts and equations...work to
understand the underlying causes and forces a play. The facts and
equations almost always become self evident, simple and HARD to forget.
Any variation of the problem space is also a non-issue. A list of
facts (like how to install an ELT) will get screwed up in your head
before the teacher finishes handing out the tests.

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber

[UltraJohn]

Likewise when I was going through Navy ET school I nearly aced every exam.
It made me laugh that every night before the test the whole class would be
in someones room cramming for it while I would go out to the club and have
1 or 2 brews ... just enough to relax. They never did get the idea, the
problem was during class they were working so hard to take down minuet
notes that they really didn't pay attention to the instructor. While I
would listen to him/her ask questions when confused (often) and take down
the basics in notes.
I have since lost all my notes but still remember the basics which are
still applicable today even the the technology has totally changed.
John
US Navy, Naval Security Group CTM2 1973-1979





Ernest Christley wrote:

> Jim Weir wrote:
>
>> And yes, in case of an unfortunate incident, it CAN make the difference
>> between YOUR life and death.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>
> I'd just be happy if they required the authors to explain WHY
> such-n-such must be done in a particular way. It just grinds my last
> nerve to read what I think will be an educational article, just to find
> it full of commands like "You must use black grease on the schmizzle
> donker." The EAA claims to be an educational organization, but that
> ain't education. It's training. Education hasn't occured until the
> student know why black grease must be used on the schmizzle donker and
> why the schmizzle donker is needed in the first place.
>
> Just requiring explanations will eliminate 90% of what you're
> describing. If someone can't explain why black grease is necessary in
> simple terms, then most likely they are just a trained monkey repeating
> what they've heard. With no understanding of the underlying principles,
> they haven't a clue if they are applying their training correctly...if
> they are missing an important point, or if they are doing a lot of
> useless work.
>
> I was the best history, physics and chemistry student in my senior year
> of high school and I never lost one night of sleep 'studying'. I don't
> believe it was because I had more intelligence than everyone else, but I
> learned a simple secret. Don't memorize facts and equations...work to
> understand the underlying causes and forces a play. The facts and
> equations almost always become self evident, simple and HARD to forget.
> Any variation of the problem space is also a non-issue. A list of
> facts (like how to install an ELT) will get screwed up in your head
> before the teacher finishes handing out the tests.
>

[Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX]

Is the second harmonic of the 121.5 ELT signal used by satellites
or a significant number of homing receivers?

--
Chuck Forsberg www.omen.com 503-614-0430
Developer of Industrial ZMODEM(Tm) for Embedded Applications
Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
10255 NW Old Cornelius Pass Portland OR 97231 FAX 629-0665

[Jim Weir]

It was the only way they could get a signal in both the civilian and military
air bands. If you want to be able to use the military homing gear that is
restricted to military frequencies, you had to have part of your signal in the
military band.

It is a crystal BITCH making an antenna that is as good a radiator at the
fundamental as the second harmonic.

Jim



Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->Is the second harmonic of the 121.5 ELT signal used by satellites
->or a significant number of homing receivers?

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >,
Jim Weir > wrote:
>Are you kidding? The people around here lay awake at night worrying about
>whether anal-retentive should be hyphenated.

Bah! *Everybody* knows that the mark-up is a full colon. Or, as our
Brit friends would say, "Full colon, full stop."

[jls]

"Robert Bonomi" > wrote in message
rvers.com...
> In article >,
> Jim Weir > wrote:
> >Are you kidding? The people around here lay awake at night worrying
about
> >whether anal-retentive should be hyphenated.
>
> Bah! *Everybody* knows that the mark-up is a full colon. Or, as our
> Brit friends would say, "Full colon, full stop."
>

Not a full colon, but a semi-colon with a polyp. Otherwise you would have
observed and noted the improper use of a transitive verb where an
intransitive one should be. One does not "lay" awake. One *lies* awake
at night. Lie, lay, lain ---weak verb. Lay, laid, laid -- strong verb
taking an object.

[Tim Ward]

" jls" > wrote in message
...
<sniip>
> Lay, laid, laid -- strong verb taking an object.

Nahh... sometimes they cooperate.

Tim Ward

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >,
jls >, with his colon so full, it nearly rectum, wrote:
>
>"Robert Bonomi" > wrote in message
rvers.com...
>> In article >,
>> Jim Weir > wrote:
>> >Are you kidding? The people around here lay awake at night worrying
>about
>> >whether anal-retentive should be hyphenated.
>>
>> Bah! *Everybody* knows that the mark-up is a full colon. Or, as our
>> Brit friends would say, "Full colon, full stop."
>>
>
>Not a full colon, but a semi-colon with a polyp.

Damn! I have having to explain the anatomy of a joke:
1) The semi-colon is -not- an anatomical feature.
2) Enough retention upstream of the *ssh*le causes the
referenced ('non-"semi"-named') anatomical feature
to be incapable of holding any additional material.

> Otherwise you would have
>observed and noted the improper use of a transitive verb where an
>intransitive one should be.

Appendix: What I observe, and what I deem 'worthy' of comment are not
congruent sets.

> One does not "lay" awake.

One _better_ be awake when/while laying. She'll get *really* upset if you
fall asleep 'during'.

Admittedly, contemplating grammar/spelling/punctuation at such a time may
also entail risks.

> One *lies* awake
>at night. Lie, lay, lain ---weak verb. Lay, laid, laid -- strong verb
>taking an object.
>
>
>

[Rich S.]

"Robert Bonomi" > wrote in message
ervers.com...
>
> One _better_ be awake when/while laying. She'll get *really* upset if you
> fall asleep 'during'.
>
> Admittedly, contemplating grammar/spelling/punctuation at such a time may
> also entail risks.

*Not* contemplating such has definite risks. Saying "Judy" may get "Julie"
really p***ed off!

Rich "Why am I sewed up in this sheet - and why are you holding that broom?"
S.