VFR Flight Following -- What's going on here?

[Jay Honeck]

On the first leg of our flight to Washington, D.C., we only made it as
far as Rantoul, Illinois, due to thunderstorms. We were utilizing VFR
flight following, starting with Cedar Rapids Approach (CID)and being
progressively handed off until we were talking to Chicago Center.

As we approached Rantoul, we had to divert around a cell. At that
point I told Center I needed to leave the frequency to check with
Flight Watch, which was approved.

While talking with Flight Watch (and getting the bad news that the
weather was falling apart pretty much everywhere) we dropped down to
2500 feet, and then down to 2000 to get beneath a thickening layer of
clouds.

After completing our weather briefing, we switched back to Chicago's
frequency, but were no longer able to communicate with Chicago Center.
I heard them call me once, but they were unable to hear my response,
probably because we were too low.

We zigged and zagged a bit until we decided to throw in the towel and
land for the night in Rantoul. I tried Chicago Center one more time,
heard no response, and switched to Unicom and landed.

After landing (and finding no one at the airport) we started
fruitlessly calling cab companies (no answer) and hotels (no shuttle
service). About the time we were going to walk to the nearest hotel
(about a mile away) a car pulled around the corner with a flashing
yellow light on top.

It turned out to be the airport manager, who had been called at home by
Chicago Center. They asked him to contact me, so he drove out to the
airport and told me that "Center wants to talk to you."

He was under the impression that I had not closed a flight plan, and
was quite surprised when we told him that we didn't *have* a flight
plan filed. Nevertheless, I called the number, spoke with the Head
Cheese at Chicago Center, and told him what had happened. He fully
understood the situation, and thanked me for calling.

So what's going on here? Usually Chicago Center's version of "Flight
Following" (if you can get it) is so casual, and so begrudgingly
offered, that I hardly consider it to be of any service whatsoever --
yet on this particular flight they were tracking our progress all the
way to the ground?

In the end, it was a terrific turn of events, as the airport manager
opened the FBO and got us the keys to a courtesy car, and then led us
over to the hotel. (He even invited us to stop at a bar with him,
which we declined...) Still, it's had us wondering ever since why
Chicago Center was so concerned that they dispatched the airport
manager to go looking for us.

Were they just concerned with our well-being in the bad weather? Did
our zigging and zagging -- and then dropping off their scopes -- look
like a plane in distress? Did something get scrambled in their
computers, making them believe that we had filed a flight plan? Is
there an FAR requiring us to cancel flight following?

Now that I think about it, I suppose we could have asked Flight Watch
to notify Chicago Center when we could no longer hear them, but frankly
it never dawned on me that Chicago really cared that much about what
happened outside of their Class B airspace.

How would *you* have handled it?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Gardner]

The controller had every right to expect notification of some kind that you
were no longer on frequency. Can't blame him/her for wondering what happened
to you. Easiest solution is to call any FSS on 122.2, tell them that you
were on FF and lost comms with ATC. They will notify ATC by landline and all
will be well. IMHO the flight plan/no flight plan is a red herring. Center
obviously can't open a flight plan in your behalf (they can unilaterally
declare an emergency in your behalf, but let's hope that the occasion never
occurs). My first priority after getting on the ground would have been to
call ATC/FSS, not cab companies.

Don't pout, just be happy that they were concerned about your well-being.

Sorry to hear that you have had bad experiences with FF in your area...it is
a valuable tool that should be used by everyone.

Bob Gardner

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On the first leg of our flight to Washington, D.C., we only made it as
> far as Rantoul, Illinois, due to thunderstorms. We were utilizing VFR
> flight following, starting with Cedar Rapids Approach (CID)and being
> progressively handed off until we were talking to Chicago Center.
>
> As we approached Rantoul, we had to divert around a cell. At that
> point I told Center I needed to leave the frequency to check with
> Flight Watch, which was approved.
>
> While talking with Flight Watch (and getting the bad news that the
> weather was falling apart pretty much everywhere) we dropped down to
> 2500 feet, and then down to 2000 to get beneath a thickening layer of
> clouds.
>
> After completing our weather briefing, we switched back to Chicago's
> frequency, but were no longer able to communicate with Chicago Center.
> I heard them call me once, but they were unable to hear my response,
> probably because we were too low.
>
> We zigged and zagged a bit until we decided to throw in the towel and
> land for the night in Rantoul. I tried Chicago Center one more time,
> heard no response, and switched to Unicom and landed.
>
> After landing (and finding no one at the airport) we started
> fruitlessly calling cab companies (no answer) and hotels (no shuttle
> service). About the time we were going to walk to the nearest hotel
> (about a mile away) a car pulled around the corner with a flashing
> yellow light on top.
>
> It turned out to be the airport manager, who had been called at home by
> Chicago Center. They asked him to contact me, so he drove out to the
> airport and told me that "Center wants to talk to you."
>
> He was under the impression that I had not closed a flight plan, and
> was quite surprised when we told him that we didn't *have* a flight
> plan filed. Nevertheless, I called the number, spoke with the Head
> Cheese at Chicago Center, and told him what had happened. He fully
> understood the situation, and thanked me for calling.
>
> So what's going on here? Usually Chicago Center's version of "Flight
> Following" (if you can get it) is so casual, and so begrudgingly
> offered, that I hardly consider it to be of any service whatsoever --
> yet on this particular flight they were tracking our progress all the
> way to the ground?
>
> In the end, it was a terrific turn of events, as the airport manager
> opened the FBO and got us the keys to a courtesy car, and then led us
> over to the hotel. (He even invited us to stop at a bar with him,
> which we declined...) Still, it's had us wondering ever since why
> Chicago Center was so concerned that they dispatched the airport
> manager to go looking for us.
>
> Were they just concerned with our well-being in the bad weather? Did
> our zigging and zagging -- and then dropping off their scopes -- look
> like a plane in distress? Did something get scrambled in their
> computers, making them believe that we had filed a flight plan? Is
> there an FAR requiring us to cancel flight following?
>
> Now that I think about it, I suppose we could have asked Flight Watch
> to notify Chicago Center when we could no longer hear them, but frankly
> it never dawned on me that Chicago really cared that much about what
> happened outside of their Class B airspace.
>
> How would *you* have handled it?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Jay Honeck]

> Don't pout, just be happy that they were concerned about your well-being.

If that's all there is to it, I am, indeed, happy that they are
watching out for us! Quite frankly I'm surprised.

> Sorry to hear that you have had bad experiences with FF in your area...it is
> a valuable tool that should be used by everyone.

We use flight following on most flights in our area. The only time
it's ever a problem is around (the very busy airspace of) Chicago,
where (ironically) we could most use FF.

Usually Chicago won't accept a hand-off from adjacent controllers, and
if we try to request FF they will reply "unable." Not that it really
matters -- I have had airliners pop in front of me so close that I
could read their logo, without Chicago ATC ever saying "boo" about it.


Really, the only time we ever use FF around Chicago is on those rare
occasions where they *will* accept a hand-off from an adjacent
controller, as they did on this flight. Usually they just "cut us
loose" as we approach Chicago and we just fly through the area
(obviously outside the Class Bravo) using our "Mark One" eyeballs.

Thanks for your response, Bob.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[kontiki]

Many times I have been specifically asked to report altitude changes
when in the system for flight following. Even if they don't, I still
report my altitude changes.

My feeling is that if you are assigned a squwak code you should
check out with them at some point. The advice about passing the
info along to Flight Service will cover all the bases if you lose
communications.

[Ron Natalie]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Now that I think about it, I suppose we could have asked Flight Watch
> to notify Chicago Center when we could no longer hear them, but frankly
> it never dawned on me that Chicago really cared that much about what
> happened outside of their Class B airspace.
>
First, Chicago Center doesn't give a crap what happens in the Chicago
Class B.

I've had radar facilities chase me down after I've lost comms with them
during VFR FF. They want to make sure they didn't lose you and
something bad happened to you (like you crashed). Just consider it
an extra service.

[tom pettit]

Off topic, but related: Can a radar center offer flight following to a
plane not equipped with a transponder? I would guess no, but I'm curious.

tom pettit


"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> Sorry to hear that you have had bad experiences with FF in your area...it
> is a valuable tool that should be used by everyone.
>
> Bob Gardner

[Guy Elden Jr]

> We use flight following on most flights in our area. The only time
> it's ever a problem is around (the very busy airspace of) Chicago,
> where (ironically) we could most use FF.
>
> Usually Chicago won't accept a hand-off from adjacent controllers, and
> if we try to request FF they will reply "unable." Not that it really

They can't drop you if you're IFR. :-) (hint hint)

of course, there's no guarantee that you'll get a clearance either...

--
Guy

[Guy Elden Jr]

> Off topic, but related: Can a radar center offer flight following to a
> plane not equipped with a transponder? I would guess no, but I'm curious.

I think that you can have an IFR clearance and at points along the
route not be in radar coverage. In those cases you get a much larger
zone of protected airspace around you, and you have to radio in your
position at compulsory reporting points.

As for flight following, I would think the value would be pretty much
useless. The whole point is to gain a second pair of eyes for you on
the ground with the assumption that you are still responsible for
separation from other aircraft. If the folks on the ground can't see
you on their scopes, then there's really no point to flight following.

--
Guy

[Nathan Young]

On 20 Jun 2005 10:59:18 -0700, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>> Don't pout, just be happy that they were concerned about your well-being.
>
>If that's all there is to it, I am, indeed, happy that they are
>watching out for us! Quite frankly I'm surprised.

Did you keep the FF squawk code or go back to 1200?

>Usually Chicago won't accept a hand-off from adjacent controllers,

Chicago center will accept handoffs, but Chicago approach probably
will not. Having said that, even if Center cancels your FF because of
no handoff, once you get near Approach's airspace, you can call
Approach and they will almost always provide flight following through
the area.

[Dave Butler]

Jay Honeck wrote:

<snipola>

> We zigged and zagged a bit until we decided to throw in the towel and
> land for the night in Rantoul. I tried Chicago Center one more time,
> heard no response, and switched to Unicom and landed.

<sniparoni>

> Now that I think about it, I suppose we could have asked Flight Watch
> to notify Chicago Center when we could no longer hear them, but frankly
> it never dawned on me that Chicago really cared that much about what
> happened outside of their Class B airspace.

<snipitty>

>
> How would *you* have handled it?

I would have probably handled it IFR, but if VFR, exactly the way you did. But
based on your story, next time that happens to me I'll try a little harder to
get the message through that I'm leaving the freq. Thanks for the education.

DGB

[Jay Honeck]

> Did you keep the FF squawk code or go back to 1200?

Ah, good point. We kept squawking the code we were given till we
landed. I wonder if we had switched to 1200, if Chicago would have
seen that and figured out that we were landing (rather than crashing?)
in Rantoul?

> >Usually Chicago won't accept a hand-off from adjacent controllers,
>
> Chicago center will accept handoffs, but Chicago approach probably
> will not. Having said that, even if Center cancels your FF because of
> no handoff, once you get near Approach's airspace, you can call
> Approach and they will almost always provide flight following through
> the area.

It seems like lately no one is accepting hand-offs from anyone along
the Lake Michigan shoreline. We flew to Wisconsin yesterday, and
Rockford wasn't able to hand us off to Milwaukee on the flight inbound.

On the flight westbound, later in the day, Milwaukee handed us off to
Rockford without difficulty, but they, in turn, cut us loose before we
even hit the Mississipi, which was very unusual -- especially on a
sleepy Sunday evening. (I swear, we were the only plane he was
handling.)

Usually RFD will seamlessly hand us off to Quad Cities approach. We
called up QC once we hit the Big Muddy, and they were able to handle us
without difficulty.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > Now that I think about it, I suppose we could have asked Flight Watch
> > to notify Chicago Center when we could no longer hear them, but frankly
> > it never dawned on me that Chicago really cared that much about what
> > happened outside of their Class B airspace.
> >
> First, Chicago Center doesn't give a crap what happens in the Chicago
> Class B.

Ah, true enough. I have mistakenly been using the terms "Approach" and
"Center" interchangeably in this thread.

"Chicago Center" is always cooperative and helpful, and will
unfailingly provide flight following all the way to Iowa City (if
we're high enough, which we rarely are) if requested.

"Chicago Approach" is the ATC facility in question here. They are the
ones who called the Rantoul airport manager, and they are the ones who
usually will not provide VFR flight following.

Which is why I was (and am) so surprised that they actually took the
time to call Rantoul when we lost radio contact with them. They are
usually not so helpful.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City

[Chris G.]

The way the SAR system works is that once the FAA has radar contact with
you and are providing radar services, they will continue to do so unless
they are unable (due to lack of radar coverage) or you cancel them. If
you fall below their radar coverage while utilizing their services, then
they begin the SAR process. It goes something like this:

1) They attempt to establish radio contact.
2) They contact the FSS and the FAA issues an INREQ
3) After 15/30 mins (my memory fails me as to which # that is), an ALNOT
is issued. At this time, the FAA starts calling around to airports and
doing ramp checks. They also (if a flight plan was entered into the
system) will start making calls to the locations listed in your flight plan.
4) If you still cannot be located, SAR agencies, such as the Civil Air
Patrol, Sheriff's Office SAR teams, etc are activated. The process goes
on from there.

You got caught in Step 3, for which they're actually glad to catch you,
even if they don't always sound it. It's much better than the alternative.

Chris


Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>Now that I think about it, I suppose we could have asked Flight Watch
>>>to notify Chicago Center when we could no longer hear them, but frankly
>>>it never dawned on me that Chicago really cared that much about what
>>>happened outside of their Class B airspace.
>>>
>>
>>First, Chicago Center doesn't give a crap what happens in the Chicago
>>Class B.
>
>
> Ah, true enough. I have mistakenly been using the terms "Approach" and
> "Center" interchangeably in this thread.
>
> "Chicago Center" is always cooperative and helpful, and will
> unfailingly provide flight following all the way to Iowa City (if
> we're high enough, which we rarely are) if requested.
>
> "Chicago Approach" is the ATC facility in question here. They are the
> ones who called the Rantoul airport manager, and they are the ones who
> usually will not provide VFR flight following.
>
> Which is why I was (and am) so surprised that they actually took the
> time to call Rantoul when we lost radio contact with them. They are
> usually not so helpful.

[Ben Hallert]

Good story, and some valuable information there and in the responses.

Flight Following is a great service, and I'll do everything I can to
make Joe Controller's day easier when he's giving me this. I had a
thread a couple weeks ago asking about what to do if you go NORDO when
on FF, and the general consensus was to squawk 1200. Very compatible
with what people have suggested here, even thought I know it would eat
at me the whole time until I got down that the controller might think I
just 'dissed' him by dropping off frequency and FF. :) I figure that
the more pleasant experiences Joe Controller has with us VFR weenies,
the more likely he'll be to accept FF handoffs and keep an eye on us.
The traffic watch is really only a fraction of the value I get out of
it: knowing that I've got someone on-frequency who knows exactly where
I am already if I have to declare an emergency means that I can spend
just that much more time troubleshooting my problem instead of trying
to give an intelligible location for SAR to use when they're trying to
find my flaming wreckage.

Using fligh****ch to get a message to those guys sounds like another
good tip to add to the book, I'll have to remember that.

[[email protected]]

Jay,

You got good service from a controller who got worried about you.

Now, quit messing around; with that very capable airplane and all the
flying you do, get your instrument rating. It'll also help your VFR
travel and dealing with ATC. Besides, the workload IFR is much, much
less than VFR when you're dealing with weather such as you had and also
having to figure out airspace and so forth.

I've had a controller get hold of a small airport when I had a total
electrical failure on an IFR flight plan. In and out of the clouds,
saw an airport below me, spiraled down and landed. As I parked, the
airport manager came out to make sure I was okay and said CVG approach
had called and was concerned. I called the controller back, told him
what was going on and thanked him for making the call to have someone
looking out for me. It was a very nice feeling on an afternoon when
the airplane was in the midst of what turned out to be a reaction to a
stupid wiring job done by someone years before that was finally coming
due as insulation was scraping off of poorly routed wires. (In fact,
it was the only good thing that happened that afternoon-figuring out
the problem and repairing it wasn't cheap.)

Warmest regards,
Rick

[Ron Natalie]

Guy Elden Jr wrote:

>
> As for flight following, I would think the value would be pretty much
> useless. The whole point is to gain a second pair of eyes for you on
> the ground with the assumption that you are still responsible for
> separation from other aircraft. If the folks on the ground can't see
> you on their scopes, then there's really no point to flight following.
>
You will appear on the scopes (provided the primary radar is functional)
but it's probably more trouble than it is worth to the controller to
track you.

[Jay Honeck]

> The traffic watch is really only a fraction of the value I get out of
> it: knowing that I've got someone on-frequency who knows exactly where
> I am already if I have to declare an emergency means that I can spend
> just that much more time troubleshooting my problem instead of trying
> to give an intelligible location for SAR to use when they're trying to
> find my flaming wreckage.

This is precisely why we use FF on pretty much every flight outside the
pattern, especially in winter.

After reading that the AVERAGE length of time between search & rescue
notification and location was 18 hours (!), we realized that we
probably wouldn't survive an accident here in the Midwest between
November and March without the advantage of having ATC know PRECISELY
where we were when we went down.

Of course this is all presuming that we had enough time to broadcast a
"Mayday!" call before the wing came off, or whatever.

This whole thing has been an excellent learning experience, and is both
funny and kinda sad. After ten years of flying around their airspace,
I've grown so used to Chicago Approach sounding ****ed (or indifferent
-- or refusing altogether) about providing flight following -- and
then, if they DID provide flight following, having them do such an
incredibly ****-poor job of traffic notification -- that it simply
never occurred to either of us that they might give a damn if we
dropped off their radar screens.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Duniho]

"Chris G." <nospam@noemail> wrote in message
eenews.net...
> The way the SAR system works is that once the FAA has radar contact with
> you and are providing radar services, they will continue to do so unless
> they are unable (due to lack of radar coverage) or you cancel them. If
> you fall below their radar coverage while utilizing their services, then
> they begin the SAR process.

I have never seen any documentation of this claim, for VFR aircraft. My
understanding is that the scenario in this thread was motivated solely at
the discretion of the controller, that there is no automatic search and
rescue for abnormally terminated flight following, and that only a VFR
flight plan guarantees a search and rescue attempt for missing VFR flights.

Can you provide a reference to something that supports the idea that
airplanes getting VFR flight following are given automatic search and rescue
if they somehow are "lost" from the controller (either radio or radar
contact lost)?

Thanks,
Pete

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> > Now that I think about it, I suppose we could have asked Flight Watch
>> > to notify Chicago Center when we could no longer hear them, but frankly
>> > it never dawned on me that Chicago really cared that much about what
>> > happened outside of their Class B airspace.
>> >
>> First, Chicago Center doesn't give a crap what happens in the Chicago
>> Class B.
>
> Ah, true enough. I have mistakenly been using the terms "Approach" and
> "Center" interchangeably in this thread.
>
> "Chicago Center" is always cooperative and helpful, and will
> unfailingly provide flight following all the way to Iowa City (if
> we're high enough, which we rarely are) if requested.
>
> "Chicago Approach" is the ATC facility in question here. They are the
> ones who called the Rantoul airport manager, and they are the ones who
> usually will not provide VFR flight following.
>
> Which is why I was (and am) so surprised that they actually took the
> time to call Rantoul when we lost radio contact with them. They are
> usually not so helpful.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City



Jay, you've got the plane and you travel in it enough.

Break down and get your IFR ticket.


GigG

[Chris G.]

I have placed a call to the local FSDO for the exact regulations
governing this, but I speak from experience, having been a State SAR
Coordinator backup for the State of Oregon a few years ago.

Chris


Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Chris G." <nospam@noemail> wrote in message
> eenews.net...
>
>>The way the SAR system works is that once the FAA has radar contact with
>>you and are providing radar services, they will continue to do so unless
>>they are unable (due to lack of radar coverage) or you cancel them. If
>>you fall below their radar coverage while utilizing their services, then
>>they begin the SAR process.
>
>
> I have never seen any documentation of this claim, for VFR aircraft. My
> understanding is that the scenario in this thread was motivated solely at
> the discretion of the controller, that there is no automatic search and
> rescue for abnormally terminated flight following, and that only a VFR
> flight plan guarantees a search and rescue attempt for missing VFR flights.
>
> Can you provide a reference to something that supports the idea that
> airplanes getting VFR flight following are given automatic search and rescue
> if they somehow are "lost" from the controller (either radio or radar
> contact lost)?
>
> Thanks,
> Pete
>
>

[Chris G.]

Without wanting to generate a whole different thread, since it sounds
like my issue was probably discussed, but if I went NORDO while
utilizing ATC services, the first thing I would do (per AIM) is squawk
7600. If not under ATC surveillance and not in contact with them, then
I'd likely leave it at 1200, unless I needed to land at a controlled
field somewhere.

Aside from that, I totally agree with what you say!

Chris


Ben Hallert wrote:
> Good story, and some valuable information there and in the responses.
>
> Flight Following is a great service, and I'll do everything I can to
> make Joe Controller's day easier when he's giving me this. I had a
> thread a couple weeks ago asking about what to do if you go NORDO when
> on FF, and the general consensus was to squawk 1200. Very compatible
> with what people have suggested here, even thought I know it would eat
> at me the whole time until I got down that the controller might think I
> just 'dissed' him by dropping off frequency and FF. :) I figure that
> the more pleasant experiences Joe Controller has with us VFR weenies,
> the more likely he'll be to accept FF handoffs and keep an eye on us.
> The traffic watch is really only a fraction of the value I get out of
> it: knowing that I've got someone on-frequency who knows exactly where
> I am already if I have to declare an emergency means that I can spend
> just that much more time troubleshooting my problem instead of trying
> to give an intelligible location for SAR to use when they're trying to
> find my flaming wreckage.
>
> Using fligh****ch to get a message to those guys sounds like another
> good tip to add to the book, I'll have to remember that.
>

[Margy]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> On the first leg of our flight to Washington, D.C., we only made it as
> far as Rantoul, Illinois, due to thunderstorms. We were utilizing VFR
> flight following, starting with Cedar Rapids Approach (CID)and being
> progressively handed off until we were talking to Chicago Center.
>
> As we approached Rantoul, we had to divert around a cell. At that
> point I told Center I needed to leave the frequency to check with
> Flight Watch, which was approved.
>
> While talking with Flight Watch (and getting the bad news that the
> weather was falling apart pretty much everywhere) we dropped down to
> 2500 feet, and then down to 2000 to get beneath a thickening layer of
> clouds.
>
> After completing our weather briefing, we switched back to Chicago's
> frequency, but were no longer able to communicate with Chicago Center.
> I heard them call me once, but they were unable to hear my response,
> probably because we were too low.
>
> We zigged and zagged a bit until we decided to throw in the towel and
> land for the night in Rantoul. I tried Chicago Center one more time,
> heard no response, and switched to Unicom and landed.
>
> After landing (and finding no one at the airport) we started
> fruitlessly calling cab companies (no answer) and hotels (no shuttle
> service). About the time we were going to walk to the nearest hotel
> (about a mile away) a car pulled around the corner with a flashing
> yellow light on top.
>
> It turned out to be the airport manager, who had been called at home by
> Chicago Center. They asked him to contact me, so he drove out to the
> airport and told me that "Center wants to talk to you."
>
> He was under the impression that I had not closed a flight plan, and
> was quite surprised when we told him that we didn't *have* a flight
> plan filed. Nevertheless, I called the number, spoke with the Head
> Cheese at Chicago Center, and told him what had happened. He fully
> understood the situation, and thanked me for calling.
>
> So what's going on here? Usually Chicago Center's version of "Flight
> Following" (if you can get it) is so casual, and so begrudgingly
> offered, that I hardly consider it to be of any service whatsoever --
> yet on this particular flight they were tracking our progress all the
> way to the ground?
>
> In the end, it was a terrific turn of events, as the airport manager
> opened the FBO and got us the keys to a courtesy car, and then led us
> over to the hotel. (He even invited us to stop at a bar with him,
> which we declined...) Still, it's had us wondering ever since why
> Chicago Center was so concerned that they dispatched the airport
> manager to go looking for us.
>
> Were they just concerned with our well-being in the bad weather? Did
> our zigging and zagging -- and then dropping off their scopes -- look
> like a plane in distress? Did something get scrambled in their
> computers, making them believe that we had filed a flight plan? Is
> there an FAR requiring us to cancel flight following?
>
> Now that I think about it, I suppose we could have asked Flight Watch
> to notify Chicago Center when we could no longer hear them, but frankly
> it never dawned on me that Chicago really cared that much about what
> happened outside of their Class B airspace.
>
> How would *you* have handled it?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
I would send cookies to Chicago Center and a "Thanks for keeping an eye
on us". Most likely a really good controller got concerned because of
the weather and the zigzag and just wanted to make sure you were there.
We once flew out of range and Washington relayed to other aircraft to
look call for us. We managed a relay back.

Margy

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> On the first leg of our flight to Washington, D.C., we only made it as
> far as Rantoul, Illinois, due to thunderstorms. We were utilizing VFR
> flight following, starting with Cedar Rapids Approach (CID)and being
> progressively handed off until we were talking to Chicago Center.
>
> As we approached Rantoul, we had to divert around a cell. At that
> point I told Center I needed to leave the frequency to check with
> Flight Watch, which was approved.
>
> While talking with Flight Watch (and getting the bad news that the
> weather was falling apart pretty much everywhere) we dropped down to
> 2500 feet, and then down to 2000 to get beneath a thickening layer of
> clouds.
>
> After completing our weather briefing, we switched back to Chicago's
> frequency, but were no longer able to communicate with Chicago Center.
> I heard them call me once, but they were unable to hear my response,
> probably because we were too low.
>
> We zigged and zagged a bit until we decided to throw in the towel and
> land for the night in Rantoul. I tried Chicago Center one more time,
> heard no response, and switched to Unicom and landed.
>
> After landing (and finding no one at the airport) we started
> fruitlessly calling cab companies (no answer) and hotels (no shuttle
> service). About the time we were going to walk to the nearest hotel
> (about a mile away) a car pulled around the corner with a flashing
> yellow light on top.
>
> It turned out to be the airport manager, who had been called at home by
> Chicago Center. They asked him to contact me, so he drove out to the
> airport and told me that "Center wants to talk to you."
>
> He was under the impression that I had not closed a flight plan, and
> was quite surprised when we told him that we didn't *have* a flight
> plan filed. Nevertheless, I called the number, spoke with the Head
> Cheese at Chicago Center, and told him what had happened. He fully
> understood the situation, and thanked me for calling.
>
> So what's going on here? Usually Chicago Center's version of "Flight
> Following" (if you can get it) is so casual, and so begrudgingly
> offered, that I hardly consider it to be of any service whatsoever --
> yet on this particular flight they were tracking our progress all the
> way to the ground?
>

The closest ARSR is some 80 miles WNW near Peoria. It's possible they were
getting a feed on the CMI ASR which is about 16 miles WSW.


>
> In the end, it was a terrific turn of events, as the airport manager
> opened the FBO and got us the keys to a courtesy car, and then led us
> over to the hotel. (He even invited us to stop at a bar with him,
> which we declined...) Still, it's had us wondering ever since why
> Chicago Center was so concerned that they dispatched the airport
> manager to go looking for us.
>
> Were they just concerned with our well-being in the bad weather? Did
> our zigging and zagging -- and then dropping off their scopes -- look
> like a plane in distress?
>

You'd have to ask the people involved for specifics. ATC is required to
initiate a search when there is an unexpected loss of radar contact and
radio communications with any IFR or VFR aircraft.


>
> Did something get scrambled in their
> computers, making them believe that we had filed a flight plan?
>

ATC wouldn't know if you had filed a flight plan, that's strictly FSS turf.


>
> Is there an FAR requiring us to cancel flight following?
>

No.


>
> Now that I think about it, I suppose we could have asked Flight Watch
> to notify Chicago Center when we could no longer hear them, but frankly
> it never dawned on me that Chicago really cared that much about what
> happened outside of their Class B airspace.
>

Chicago Center doesn't have any Class B airspace.


>
> How would *you* have handled it?
>

When I couldn't raise them I'd squawk 1200 and forget about it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
>
> The controller had every right to expect notification of some kind that
> you were no longer on frequency.
>

If the reason he's no longer on the frequency is because he's descended too
low, just how is he supposed to get that notification to the controller?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> We use flight following on most flights in our area. The only time
> it's ever a problem is around (the very busy airspace of) Chicago,
> where (ironically) we could most use FF.
>
> Usually Chicago won't accept a hand-off from adjacent controllers, and
> if we try to request FF they will reply "unable." Not that it really
> matters -- I have had airliners pop in front of me so close that I
> could read their logo, without Chicago ATC ever saying "boo" about it.
>

What Chicago are you talking about? Your initial message dealt with Chicago
Center, now it sounds like you're talking about Chicago Approach.

[Peter Clark]

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 10:08:03 -0700, "Bob Gardner" >
wrote:

>The controller had every right to expect notification of some kind that you
>were no longer on frequency.

They already told the controller they were going off-freq: " As we
approached Rantoul, we had to divert around a cell. At that point I
told Center I needed to leave the frequency to check with Flight
Watch, which was approved."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
>
> I've had radar facilities chase me down after I've lost comms with them
> during VFR FF. They want to make sure they didn't lose you and something
> bad happened to you (like you crashed). Just consider it
> an extra service.
>

It's not necessarily an extra service. If radio and radar contact is lost
in an area where ATC would expect to have both, then ATC is supposed to
chase you down.

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html#10-2-5

[John Galban]

Chris G. wrote:
<snip>
> the first thing I would do (per AIM) is squawk
> 7600. If not under ATC surveillance and not in contact with them, then
> I'd likely leave it at 1200, unless I needed to land at a controlled
> field somewhere.
>

You'd better need to land at that controlled field pretty badly
because you'll be busting the regs if you do that. Squawking 7600
doesn't relieve you of the requirement to establish two-way
communictions prior to entering a class D. Of course, if you're low
on fuel or there are no non-towered fields you could divert to, then
you can probably get away with it. If there are alternate airports,
the best thing to do is to land at one, call the towered airport and
get a clearance from them to enter the class D, then expect light
signals. If you're already in the class D when the radio dies, you're
OK. Just proceed and look for the lights.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"tom pettit peak.org>" <tompet<at> wrote in message
...
>
> Off topic, but related: Can a radar center offer flight following to a
> plane not equipped with a transponder? I would guess no, but I'm curious.
>

Possible, but not practical. Some ARSR sites have only beacon
interrogators.

[John Galban]

Jay Honeck wrote:
<snippage>
> How would *you* have handled it?


What I do when this happens is to stay on the freq. an wait until
some airliner overhead talks to the controller (be it Center or
Approach). Then I ask him to relay a msg. to the controller that I'm
out of radio range and will squawk VFR. Wherever there's Center or
Approach coverage, I'm usually within line of sight of an airliner
overhead that is already talking to them.

If I get no luck on the relay, I'll squawk 1200 and call FSS on the
ground and ask them to pass the word that I dropped below radio range.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

>

>
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Ah, true enough. I have mistakenly been using the terms "Approach" and
> "Center" interchangeably in this thread.
>
> "Chicago Center" is always cooperative and helpful, and will
> unfailingly provide flight following all the way to Iowa City (if
> we're high enough, which we rarely are) if requested.
>
> "Chicago Approach" is the ATC facility in question here. They are the
> ones who called the Rantoul airport manager, and they are the ones who
> usually will not provide VFR flight following.
>
> Which is why I was (and am) so surprised that they actually took the
> time to call Rantoul when we lost radio contact with them. They are
> usually not so helpful.
>

Ehh? Rantoul is well outside Chicago Approach airspace. Rantoul is in
Champaign Approach airspace which is assumed by Chicago Center when
Champaign closes for the night.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chris G." <nospam@noemail> wrote in message
eenews.net...
>
> The way the SAR system works is that once the FAA has radar contact with
> you and are providing radar services, they will continue to do so unless
> they are unable (due to lack of radar coverage) or you cancel them. If
> you fall below their radar coverage while utilizing their services, then
> they begin the SAR process.
>

That's not quite correct. They initiate SAR when there is UNEXPECTED loss
of radar contact and radio communications.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> I have never seen any documentation of this claim, for VFR aircraft. My
> understanding is that the scenario in this thread was motivated solely at
> the discretion of the controller, that there is no automatic search and
> rescue for abnormally terminated flight following, and that only a VFR
> flight plan guarantees a search and rescue attempt for missing VFR
> flights.
>
> Can you provide a reference to something that supports the idea that
> airplanes getting VFR flight following are given automatic search and
> rescue if they somehow are "lost" from the controller (either radio or
> radar contact lost)?
>

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html#10-2-5

See subparagraph b.

He didn't get it quite right. ATC must initiate a search when there is an
UNEXPECTED loss of radar contact AND radio communications. If the losses
occur in an area where it's normal to lose them ATC isn't required to do
anything.

[RomeoMike]

I would have notified them that I was changing altitude before the fact.
I would not have requested FF if I didn't really care that they might be
concerned about me. I would have called them on the phone after landing
if I couldn't have figured out a way to communicate before the landing.

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> How would *you* have handled it?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[tom pettit]

That's what I figured. The lack of a squawk code on their screen would mean
they would have to keep on top of my blip, or they wouldn't know it was me.
I also suspect that in mountainous terrain, the return on primary would not
be as strong as from a transponder.

tom


"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> Guy Elden Jr wrote:
>
>>
>> As for flight following, I would think the value would be pretty much
>> useless. The whole point is to gain a second pair of eyes for you on
>> the ground with the assumption that you are still responsible for
>> separation from other aircraft. If the folks on the ground can't see
>> you on their scopes, then there's really no point to flight following.
>>
> You will appear on the scopes (provided the primary radar is functional)
> but it's probably more trouble than it is worth to the controller to
> track you.
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html#10-2-5
>
> See subparagraph b.
>
> He didn't get it quite right. ATC must initiate a search when there is an
> UNEXPECTED loss of radar contact AND radio communications. If the losses
> occur in an area where it's normal to lose them ATC isn't required to do
> anything.

Thanks. Interesting. I assume that somewhere buried in the chain of
"inform the/alert the..." there's someone who actually starts the search and
rescue proceedings?

Given that both radar contact and radio communications must be lost, and
given that losing both unexpectedly is sufficient to cause an emergency to
be assumed, what is the maximum amount of time between the two events that
can happen while still defining an emergency?

That is, suppose radio communications are ceased but radar contact is still
present. Suppose further that the pilot eventually lands somewhere, at some
point descending low enough to no longer be on radar. It seems obvious to
me that if the pilot flies out of the controller's sector, or some lengthy
period of time goes by (30 minutes? 60 minutes?), that the controller might
be able to assume there's no emergency, while near-simultaneous loss of
radio and radar would constitute an emergency.

Somewhere in between there must be a point where the assumed emergency is no
longer an assumed emergency. Is that point well-defined, or does the
controller make a judgment call?

Finally, what constitutes radar contact? Is a primary return sufficient?
What about a 1200 transponder return? If a 1200 transponder return is
sufficient, what happens if THAT radar contact is lost within the time limit
I asked about above? Can the controller assume that the pilot switching
from his assigned code to 1200 has terminated flight following? Does the
switch to 1200 make any loss of radio communications and radar contact
"expected", or could the controller be obligated to declare an emergency
even if the transponder has been set to 1200 unexpectedly and then radar
contact is lost altogether?

Pete

[tony roberts]

Hi Jay
Here in BC Canada in the mountains we use flight following as a safety
net, so if we disappear off the radar and don't contact them we expect
them to start looking. When diverting, I advise them, "India Charlie
Echo is diverting Merritt and request cancel flight following.

This, in addition to a flight plan, which doesn't acticate any action
until 60 minutes after projected termination of flight.

Tony

--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

In article om>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> On the first leg of our flight to Washington, D.C., we only made it as
> far as Rantoul, Illinois, due to thunderstorms. We were utilizing VFR
> flight following, starting with Cedar Rapids Approach (CID)and being
> progressively handed off until we were talking to Chicago Center.
>
> As we approached Rantoul, we had to divert around a cell. At that
> point I told Center I needed to leave the frequency to check with
> Flight Watch, which was approved.
>
> While talking with Flight Watch (and getting the bad news that the
> weather was falling apart pretty much everywhere) we dropped down to
> 2500 feet, and then down to 2000 to get beneath a thickening layer of
> clouds.
>
> After completing our weather briefing, we switched back to Chicago's
> frequency, but were no longer able to communicate with Chicago Center.
> I heard them call me once, but they were unable to hear my response,
> probably because we were too low.
>
> We zigged and zagged a bit until we decided to throw in the towel and
> land for the night in Rantoul. I tried Chicago Center one more time,
> heard no response, and switched to Unicom and landed.
>
> After landing (and finding no one at the airport) we started
> fruitlessly calling cab companies (no answer) and hotels (no shuttle
> service). About the time we were going to walk to the nearest hotel
> (about a mile away) a car pulled around the corner with a flashing
> yellow light on top.
>
> It turned out to be the airport manager, who had been called at home by
> Chicago Center. They asked him to contact me, so he drove out to the
> airport and told me that "Center wants to talk to you."
>
> He was under the impression that I had not closed a flight plan, and
> was quite surprised when we told him that we didn't *have* a flight
> plan filed. Nevertheless, I called the number, spoke with the Head
> Cheese at Chicago Center, and told him what had happened. He fully
> understood the situation, and thanked me for calling.
>
> So what's going on here? Usually Chicago Center's version of "Flight
> Following" (if you can get it) is so casual, and so begrudgingly
> offered, that I hardly consider it to be of any service whatsoever --
> yet on this particular flight they were tracking our progress all the
> way to the ground?
>
> In the end, it was a terrific turn of events, as the airport manager
> opened the FBO and got us the keys to a courtesy car, and then led us
> over to the hotel. (He even invited us to stop at a bar with him,
> which we declined...) Still, it's had us wondering ever since why
> Chicago Center was so concerned that they dispatched the airport
> manager to go looking for us.
>
> Were they just concerned with our well-being in the bad weather? Did
> our zigging and zagging -- and then dropping off their scopes -- look
> like a plane in distress? Did something get scrambled in their
> computers, making them believe that we had filed a flight plan? Is
> there an FAR requiring us to cancel flight following?
>
> Now that I think about it, I suppose we could have asked Flight Watch
> to notify Chicago Center when we could no longer hear them, but frankly
> it never dawned on me that Chicago really cared that much about what
> happened outside of their Class B airspace.
>
> How would *you* have handled it?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

Ron Natalie wrote:

>
> I've had radar facilities chase me down after I've lost comms with them
> during VFR FF. They want to make sure they didn't lose you and
> something bad happened to you (like you crashed). Just consider it
> an extra service.

It is a required service. If they lose you unexpectedly ATC is required
to start a search. In Jay's case he was cruising merrily along, asked
to switch to Flight Watch and then disappeared. Meanwhile Center is
watching Jay descend and can't get a hold of him. Pretty soon he drops
off radar. So call the most likely spot, the airport. If the manager
wouldn't have found him then SAR would have been started.

[Newps]

tom pettit <tompet wrote:

> Off topic, but related: Can a radar center offer flight following to a
> plane not equipped with a transponder? I would guess no, but I'm curious.

Sure they can.

[Newps]

Peter Duniho wrote:


>
> I have never seen any documentation of this claim, for VFR aircraft.

Nope, if you are unexpectedly lost then ATC will start a search immediatley.

[Newps]

Chris G. wrote:

> I have placed a call to the local FSDO for the exact regulations
> governing this, but I speak from experience, having been a State SAR
> Coordinator backup for the State of Oregon a few years ago.

FSDO is not the right place to call. Call your local TRACON or Center.

[Newps]

John Galban wrote:


>
>
> You'd better need to land at that controlled field pretty badly
> because you'll be busting the regs if you do that. Squawking 7600
> doesn't relieve you of the requirement to establish two-way
> communictions prior to entering a class D.

Oh please. That's crap. If you lose comm and squawk 7600 just fly
right at the tower and look for the green light. Then land.

[Newps]

John Galban wrote:

>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> <snippage>
>
>>How would *you* have handled it?
>
>
>
> What I do when this happens is to stay on the freq. an wait until
> some airliner overhead talks to the controller (be it Center or
> Approach). Then I ask him to relay a msg. to the controller that I'm
> out of radio range and will squawk VFR. Wherever there's Center or
> Approach coverage, I'm usually within line of sight of an airliner
> overhead that is already talking to them.

Nowadays make a call on 121.5. There's a million aircraft listening
there these days. Some aircraft will hear you and relay the message.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Newps,

Are you a Center controller? If so e-mail me off list I have a question

wrDOTgiaconaATcoxDOTnet

remove the big stuff

[Scott Migaldi]

Another suggestion was to call Champaign Approach and let them know what
was going on. If you were close to Rantoul you were in range of them.

Scott


Jay Honeck wrote:
> On the first leg of our flight to Washington, D.C., we only made it as
> far as Rantoul, Illinois, due to thunderstorms. We were utilizing VFR
> flight following, starting with Cedar Rapids Approach (CID)and being
> progressively handed off until we were talking to Chicago Center.
>
> As we approached Rantoul, we had to divert around a cell. At that
> point I told Center I needed to leave the frequency to check with
> Flight Watch, which was approved.
>
> While talking with Flight Watch (and getting the bad news that the
> weather was falling apart pretty much everywhere) we dropped down to
> 2500 feet, and then down to 2000 to get beneath a thickening layer of
> clouds.
>
> After completing our weather briefing, we switched back to Chicago's
> frequency, but were no longer able to communicate with Chicago Center.
> I heard them call me once, but they were unable to hear my response,
> probably because we were too low.
>
> We zigged and zagged a bit until we decided to throw in the towel and
> land for the night in Rantoul. I tried Chicago Center one more time,
> heard no response, and switched to Unicom and landed.
>
> After landing (and finding no one at the airport) we started
> fruitlessly calling cab companies (no answer) and hotels (no shuttle
> service). About the time we were going to walk to the nearest hotel
> (about a mile away) a car pulled around the corner with a flashing
> yellow light on top.
>
> It turned out to be the airport manager, who had been called at home by
> Chicago Center. They asked him to contact me, so he drove out to the
> airport and told me that "Center wants to talk to you."
>
> He was under the impression that I had not closed a flight plan, and
> was quite surprised when we told him that we didn't *have* a flight
> plan filed. Nevertheless, I called the number, spoke with the Head
> Cheese at Chicago Center, and told him what had happened. He fully
> understood the situation, and thanked me for calling.
>
> So what's going on here? Usually Chicago Center's version of "Flight
> Following" (if you can get it) is so casual, and so begrudgingly
> offered, that I hardly consider it to be of any service whatsoever --
> yet on this particular flight they were tracking our progress all the
> way to the ground?
>
> In the end, it was a terrific turn of events, as the airport manager
> opened the FBO and got us the keys to a courtesy car, and then led us
> over to the hotel. (He even invited us to stop at a bar with him,
> which we declined...) Still, it's had us wondering ever since why
> Chicago Center was so concerned that they dispatched the airport
> manager to go looking for us.
>
> Were they just concerned with our well-being in the bad weather? Did
> our zigging and zagging -- and then dropping off their scopes -- look
> like a plane in distress? Did something get scrambled in their
> computers, making them believe that we had filed a flight plan? Is
> there an FAR requiring us to cancel flight following?
>
> Now that I think about it, I suppose we could have asked Flight Watch
> to notify Chicago Center when we could no longer hear them, but frankly
> it never dawned on me that Chicago really cared that much about what
> happened outside of their Class B airspace.
>
> How would *you* have handled it?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>


--
--------------------
Scott F. Migaldi
CP-ASEL-IA
MI-150972

Join the PADI Instructor Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PADI-Instructors/

--------------------

[John Clonts]

> Are you a Center controller? If so e-mail me off list I have a question


Why not post it here?

[Ben Hallert]

How? If they have to rely on primary radar alone, then how could they
reasonably be sure they were watching the plane they thought they were?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Are you a Center controller? If so e-mail me off list I have a question
>
>
> Why not post it here?
>

Because it is not a question I choose to ask online and would probably be of
no interest to the group as a whole.

[Dave Butler]

Ben Hallert wrote:
> How? If they have to rely on primary radar alone, then how could they
> reasonably be sure they were watching the plane they thought they were?

If it's a slow day they'll give you vectors and watch to see whether their
target turns.

[Jay Honeck]

> > I've had radar facilities chase me down after I've lost comms with them
> > during VFR FF. They want to make sure they didn't lose you and
> > something bad happened to you (like you crashed). Just consider it
> > an extra service.
>
> It is a required service. If they lose you unexpectedly ATC is required
> to start a search. In Jay's case he was cruising merrily along, asked
> to switch to Flight Watch and then disappeared. Meanwhile Center is
> watching Jay descend and can't get a hold of him. Pretty soon he drops
> off radar. So call the most likely spot, the airport. If the manager
> wouldn't have found him then SAR would have been started.

Thanks for the clarification.

It's nice to know that the guys manning the Big Eye in the Sky are
watching out for us more carefully than I previously believed.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> >
> > I've had radar facilities chase me down after I've lost comms with them
> > during VFR FF. They want to make sure they didn't lose you and
> > something bad happened to you (like you crashed). Just consider it
> > an extra service.
>
> It is a required service. If they lose you unexpectedly ATC is required
> to start a search. In Jay's case he was cruising merrily along, asked
> to switch to Flight Watch and then disappeared.

Sounds like something from "The Twilight Zone".

[Matt Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:hxYte.32635$DC2.12128@okepread01...
>
> "John Clonts" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >> Are you a Center controller? If so e-mail me off list I have a question
> >
> >
> > Why not post it here?
> >
>
> Because it is not a question I choose to ask online and would probably be
of
> no interest to the group as a whole.
>

Sexual proclivities?

[Jay Honeck]

> >>How would *you* have handled it?
> >
> > What I do when this happens is to stay on the freq. an wait until
> > some airliner overhead talks to the controller (be it Center or
> > Approach). <Snip>
>
> Nowadays make a call on 121.5. There's a million aircraft listening
> there these days. Some aircraft will hear you and relay the message.

Thanks for the suggestion. Is that considered a legitimate use of
121.5? I have been under the impression that 121.5 was reserved for
emergencies only.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Thanks for the suggestion. Is that considered a legitimate use of
> 121.5? I have been under the impression that 121.5 was reserved for
> emergencies only.
>

ZAU apparently considered it an emergency.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>> >>How would *you* have handled it?
>> >
>> > What I do when this happens is to stay on the freq. an wait until
>> > some airliner overhead talks to the controller (be it Center or
>> > Approach). <Snip>
>>
>> Nowadays make a call on 121.5. There's a million aircraft listening
>> there these days. Some aircraft will hear you and relay the message.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion. Is that considered a legitimate use of
> 121.5? I have been under the impression that 121.5 was reserved for
> emergencies only.
> --


Well ATC thought it was enough of an emergency to send the airport manager
out to find you. I think a 10 sec message on GUARD would be better than the
wasted effort which could hav easily turned into a full out SAR call out.

[Chris G.]

Newps wrote:
> FSDO is not the right place to call. Call your local TRACON or Center.

Actually, the FSDO in Hillsboro, Oregon, was VERY helpful. There is no
need to bug the tracon or center with this question. They're busy
making sure planes get to where they need to be.

Chris

PS, your name is? :)

[Chris G.]

The local FSDO helped me quite a bit in finding the references I need.
Look in FAA Order 7110.65 Para. 10-2-5 (2b). I've quoted it for your
convenience and the link is provided. It references Jay's specific
situation.
http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html#10-2-5

Chris G.


10-2-5. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
Consider that an aircraft emergency exists and inform the RCC or ARTCC
and alert the appropriate DF facility when:
NOTE-
1. USAF facilities are only required to notify the ARTCC.
2. The requirement to alert DF facilities may be deleted if radar
contact will be maintained throughout the duration of the emergency.
a. An emergency is declared by either:
1. The pilot.
2. Facility personnel.
3. Officials responsible for the operation of the aircraft.
b. There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio
communications with any IFR or VFR aircraft.
c. Reports indicate it has made a forced landing, is about to do
so, or its operating efficiency is so impaired that a forced landing
will be necessary.
d. Reports indicate the crew has abandoned the aircraft or is about
to do so.
e. An emergency radar beacon response is received.
NOTE-
EN ROUTE. During Stage A operation, Code 7700 causes EMRG to blink
in field E of the data block.
f. Intercept or escort aircraft services are required.
g. The need for ground rescue appears likely.
h. An Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) signal is heard or reported.
REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Providing Assistance, Para 10-1-3.
FAAO 7110.65, Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) Signals, Para
10-2-10.


Chris G. wrote:
> I have placed a call to the local FSDO for the exact regulations
> governing this, but I speak from experience, having been a State SAR
> Coordinator backup for the State of Oregon a few years ago.
>
> Chris
>
>
> Peter Duniho wrote:
>
>> "Chris G." <nospam@noemail> wrote in message
>> eenews.net...
>>
>>> The way the SAR system works is that once the FAA has radar contact
>>> with you and are providing radar services, they will continue to do
>>> so unless they are unable (due to lack of radar coverage) or you
>>> cancel them. If you fall below their radar coverage while utilizing
>>> their services, then they begin the SAR process.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have never seen any documentation of this claim, for VFR aircraft.
>> My understanding is that the scenario in this thread was motivated
>> solely at the discretion of the controller, that there is no automatic
>> search and rescue for abnormally terminated flight following, and that
>> only a VFR flight plan guarantees a search and rescue attempt for
>> missing VFR flights.
>>
>> Can you provide a reference to something that supports the idea that
>> airplanes getting VFR flight following are given automatic search and
>> rescue if they somehow are "lost" from the controller (either radio or
>> radar contact lost)?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Pete
>>

[Ron Natalie]

Ben Hallert wrote:
> How? If they have to rely on primary radar alone, then how could they
> reasonably be sure they were watching the plane they thought they were?
>
By watching the blip. I've flown into Dulles with only a receiver
and primary radar return (turns for identification and to indicate
our intents). I've also departed Dulles with comms but with no
transponder while the primary radar is out. ATC can be resourceful
when they have to be.

[john smith]

> Ben Hallert wrote:
>> How? If they have to rely on primary radar alone, then how could they
>> reasonably be sure they were watching the plane they thought they were?

Ron Natalie wrote:
> By watching the blip. I've flown into Dulles with only a receiver
> and primary radar return (turns for identification and to indicate
> our intents). I've also departed Dulles with comms but with no
> transponder while the primary radar is out. ATC can be resourceful
> when they have to be.

Not in the last year, was it! :-))
I thought the Governor of KY was the last to receive that service.

[Matt Barrow]

"Chris G." <nospam@noemail> wrote in message
eenews.net...
> Newps wrote:
> > FSDO is not the right place to call. Call your local TRACON or Center.
>
> Actually, the FSDO in Hillsboro, Oregon, was VERY helpful. There is no
> need to bug the tracon or center with this question. They're busy
> making sure planes get to where they need to be.

And the FSDO is likely to give you four different answers from three
different FS specialists.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> Ben Hallert wrote:
> > How? If they have to rely on primary radar alone, then how could they
> > reasonably be sure they were watching the plane they thought they were?
> >
> By watching the blip.

???

> I've flown into Dulles with only a receiver
> and primary radar return (turns for identification and to indicate
> our intents). I've also departed Dulles with comms but with no
> transponder while the primary radar is out. ATC can be resourceful
> when they have to be.

Performing FF for a transponsderless aircraft on the Atlantic seaboard seems
to be towards the bottom of their priorities (capacities??).


Matt -- never has flown east of Nashville.
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Chip Jones]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...

>
>[snipped] how is he supposed to get that notification to the controller?
>


Key up on the frequency in question with an "Attention any aircraft this
frequency, this is Piper 56993, apparently I've lost comm with the Center,
could you relay a message to ATC for me?"


Chip, ZTL

[Matt Barrow]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
> >
> >[snipped] how is he supposed to get that notification to the controller?
> >
>
>
> Key up on the frequency in question with an "Attention any aircraft this
> frequency, this is Piper 56993, apparently I've lost comm with the Center,
> could you relay a message to ATC for me?"
>
>
And if that doesn't work? (My Risk Management training coming to the fore).


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Key up on the frequency in question with an "Attention any aircraft this
> frequency, this is Piper 56993, apparently I've lost comm with the Center,
> could you relay a message to ATC for me?"
>

And when nobody answers? This was in the wee hours.

[Newps]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> Newps,
>
> Are you a Center controller? If so e-mail me off list I have a question

No, approach control.

[Newps]

Ben Hallert wrote:

> How? If they have to rely on primary radar alone, then how could they
> reasonably be sure they were watching the plane they thought they were?

They'll tag up the primary.

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>>How would *you* have handled it?
>>>
>>> What I do when this happens is to stay on the freq. an wait until
>>>some airliner overhead talks to the controller (be it Center or
>>>Approach). <Snip>
>>
>>Nowadays make a call on 121.5. There's a million aircraft listening
>>there these days. Some aircraft will hear you and relay the message.
>
>
> Thanks for the suggestion. Is that considered a legitimate use of
> 121.5?

Absolutely.


I have been under the impression that 121.5 was reserved for
> emergencies only.

We hear at least a dozen calls a day from airliners calling airliners
because they missed a freq change. You use what works.

[Newps]

Chris G. wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>> FSDO is not the right place to call. Call your local TRACON or Center.
>
>
> Actually, the FSDO in Hillsboro, Oregon, was VERY helpful. There is no
> need to bug the tracon or center with this question. They're busy
> making sure planes get to where they need to be.

They're not that busy that they can't answer that.


>
> Chris
>
> PS, your name is? :)

An enigma.

[Newps]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>>
>>
>>>[snipped] how is he supposed to get that notification to the controller?
>>>
>>
>>
>>Key up on the frequency in question with an "Attention any aircraft this
>>frequency, this is Piper 56993, apparently I've lost comm with the Center,
>>could you relay a message to ATC for me?"
>>
>>
>
> And if that doesn't work? (My Risk Management training coming to the fore).

Then crash and set off the ELT. We will find you.

[Peter Duniho]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>> PS, your name is? :)
>
> An enigma.

It's no enigma. We all know you're The Tick using a secret identity. The
misspelled anagram of "Spoon!" is a dead giveaway.

I thought it was pretty funny "Chris G." giving you crap about your "screen
name", given that he's just as anonymous as you are.

[Chris G.]

Not really, I've posted my email address in this NG in recent history.
I just choose to not have it in my headers. I currently don't have a
lot of spam and want to keep it that way. If anyone asks, I'll be happy
to email them my contact info. It's no secret.

You can also look me up on QRZ...K7SLE.

Chris


Peter Duniho wrote:
> I thought it was pretty funny "Chris G." giving you crap about your "screen
> name", given that he's just as anonymous as you are.

[Peter Duniho]

"Chris G." <nospam@noemail> wrote in message
eenews.net...
> Not really, I've posted my email address in this NG in recent history. I
> just choose to not have it in my headers. I currently don't have a lot of
> spam and want to keep it that way. If anyone asks, I'll be happy to email
> them my contact info. It's no secret.

I expect similar is true for Newps, if there were a need. The point is that
"Chris G." has no more meaning here than "Newps". Of all the people who
might make a comment about the identity he chooses to use, the fact that it
turned out to be you is pretty ironic, IMHO.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chris G." <nospam@noemail> wrote in message
eenews.net...
>
> Actually, the FSDO in Hillsboro, Oregon, was VERY helpful.
>

How do you know that?


>
> There is no
> need to bug the tracon or center with this question. They're busy making
> sure planes get to where they need to be.
>

Planes seem to get to where they need to be without involving TRACON or
Center.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chris G." <nospam@noemail> wrote in message
eenews.net...
>
> The local FSDO helped me quite a bit in finding the references I need.
> Look in FAA Order 7110.65 Para. 10-2-5 (2b). I've quoted it for your
> convenience and the link is provided. It references Jay's specific
> situation.
> http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html#10-2-5
>

That reference was posted in this thread yesterday.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>> Newps,
>>
>> Are you a Center controller? If so e-mail me off list I have a question
>
> No, approach control.
>
>

Ok thanks, Newps.

[Chip Jones]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > Key up on the frequency in question with an "Attention any aircraft this
> > frequency, this is Piper 56993, apparently I've lost comm with the
Center,
> > could you relay a message to ATC for me?"
> >
>
> And when nobody answers? This was in the wee hours.
>

You should be phrasing your question: "if" nobody answers, not "when"
nobody answers. The wee hours around ATL and ZTL finds aircraft on
frequency all night. I imagine ZAU and C90 have about the same traffic
around the clock these days. Even Sunday night/ Monday wee early morning
has some traffic on the freq almost every minute.

If in the very unlikely event that the ATC freq is somehow devoid of air
traffic, then try it again on Guard.

Chip, ZTL

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:

> >>
> >>
> >>>[snipped] how is he supposed to get that notification to the
controller?
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>Key up on the frequency in question with an "Attention any aircraft this
> >>frequency, this is Piper 56993, apparently I've lost comm with the
Center,
> >>could you relay a message to ATC for me?"
> >>
> >>
> >
> > And if that doesn't work? (My Risk Management training coming to the
fore).
>
> Then crash and set off the ELT. We will find you.
>

Well t'anks fer nuttin'!!

[Jay Honeck]

> Then crash and set off the ELT. We will find you.

Dang! I never thought of that!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> The local FSDO helped me quite a bit in finding the references I need.
> Look in FAA Order 7110.65 Para. 10-2-5 (2b). I've quoted it for your
> convenience
> 10-2-5. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
<BIG SNIP>

I was having an emergency?

Perhaps that was my problem -- I didn't consider the lack of planning (i.e.:
Poor radio coverage in the Rantoul area) on Chicago's part to be an
emergency on my part.

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

>> Thanks for the suggestion. Is that considered a legitimate use of
>> 121.5?
> I have been under the impression that 121.5 was reserved for
>> emergencies only.
>
> We hear at least a dozen calls a day from airliners calling airliners
> because they missed a freq change. You use what works.

Thanks. I'll store that away in the old brain box for future use.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[john smith]

>>Then crash and set off the ELT. We will find you.

Using a 121.5 MHz or 406 MHz ELT?

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Perhaps that was my problem -- I didn't consider the lack of planning (i.e.:
> Poor radio coverage in the Rantoul area) on Chicago's part to be an
> emergency on my part.

Only you would consider the results of an unannounced descent into poor
reception a lack of planning on the part of ATC.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Ron Natalie]

Matt Barrow wrote:

>
> Performing FF for a transponsderless aircraft on the Atlantic seaboard seems
> to be towards the bottom of their priorities (capacities??).
>
>
Perhaps. We weren't getting FF but in and out of the class B.

[John Galban]

Newps wrote:
> Chris G. wrote:
>
> > PS, your name is? :)
>
> An enigma.

It truly is. A couple of years ago I was getting flight following
from Approach around Butte (or was it Billings?). I was tempted to
ask the controller if he was Newps, but I didn't even know how to
pronounce it (Noops?). :-))

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Newps]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>PS, your name is? :)
>>
>>An enigma.
>
>
> It's no enigma. We all know you're The Tick using a secret identity. The
> misspelled anagram of "Spoon!" is a dead giveaway.

You'll have to help me here.

[Newps]

john smith wrote:

>>> Then crash and set off the ELT. We will find you.
>
>
> Using a 121.5 MHz or 406 MHz ELT?

Whatever.

[Newps]

John Galban wrote:

>
> Newps wrote:
>
>>Chris G. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>PS, your name is? :)
>>
>>An enigma.
>
>
> It truly is. A couple of years ago I was getting flight following
> from Approach around Butte (or was it Billings?). I was tempted to
> ask the controller if he was Newps, but I didn't even know how to
> pronounce it (Noops?). :-))

We don't do Butte. I'm in Billings. Ask for the guy with the slow 182,
they'll know who I am.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 16:30:48 -0600, Newps > wrote
in >::

>Ask for the guy with the slow 182, they'll know who I am.


You would be Mr. Newpower, would you?

N-number : N2512Q
Aircraft Serial Number : 18257712
Aircraft Manufacturer : CESSNA
Model : 182K
Engine Manufacturer : CONT MOTOR
Model : O-470 SERIES
Aircraft Year : 1966
Owner Name : NEWPOWER SCOTT
Owner Address : XXXXXXXX
BILLINGS, MT, 59105-3660
Type of Owner : Co-ownership
Registration Date : 24-Jun-1998
Airworthiness Certificate Type : Standard
Approved Operations : Normal

[Peter Duniho]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>> It's no enigma. We all know you're The Tick using a secret identity.
>> The misspelled anagram of "Spoon!" is a dead giveaway.
>
> You'll have to help me here.

They say if you have to explain a joke, it's not funny anymore. Oh
well...all good things must come to an end, right?

http://www.thetick.ws/
http://d.webring.com/hub?ring=braktick

"Newps" is an anagram of "Spewn", which is one possible misspelling of
"Spoon", the battle cry of The Tick, a much-loved cartoon superhero
character.

Now that your secret is out, there's no enigma. Not even wrapped in a
paradox.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> You would be Mr. <Not The Tick>, would you?

"Wouldn't be"?

That's clearly just an odd coincidence. I've already pointed out his true
identity.

In any case, not that it matters, but IMHO it's poor form to "out" someone
(on the Internet or elsewhere) when they've made a choice to keep certain
information privileged. That goes double when you haven't actually verified
the information you're "revealing".

Pete

[Newps]

Peter Duniho wrote:


>
> "Newps" is an anagram of "Spewn", which is one possible misspelling of
> "Spoon", the battle cry of The Tick, a much-loved cartoon superhero
> character.

Must say I've never heard of that cartoon.

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> > It truly is. A couple of years ago I was getting flight following
> > from Approach around Butte (or was it Billings?). I was tempted to
> > ask the controller if he was Newps, but I didn't even know how to
> > pronounce it (Noops?). :-))
>
> We don't do Butte. I'm in Billings. Ask for the guy with the slow 182,
> they'll know who I am.

I have to fly to Roundup next Saturday (the 2nd), and that'll put me right
over Billings when I start my descent. Maybe I can "give you a shout".


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> > "Newps" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>>PS, your name is? :)
> >>
> >>An enigma.
> >
> >
> > It's no enigma. We all know you're The Tick using a secret identity.
The
> > misspelled anagram of "Spoon!" is a dead giveaway.
>
> You'll have to help me here.

I think Peter has been playing with a coke spoon.

[Newps]

Matt Barrow wrote:


>
>
> I have to fly to Roundup next Saturday (the 2nd), and that'll put me right
> over Billings when I start my descent. Maybe I can "give you a shout".

I'll be gone. We are flying back to the Twin Cities next Thursday the
30th. RPX has the second cheapest gas in the area, the cheapest is at
Laurel, 6S8, 12 SW of BIL. They're getting $2.79. You must know
somebody in Roundup, otherwise there's no reason to go there. Say hi to
Jake, he's the airport manager, he used to work for my mechanic in
Columbus(6S3)until recently.

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > I have to fly to Roundup next Saturday (the 2nd), and that'll put me
right
> > over Billings when I start my descent. Maybe I can "give you a shout".
>
> I'll be gone.

Bummer!

> We are flying back to the Twin Cities next Thursday the
> 30th. RPX has the second cheapest gas in the area, the cheapest is at
> Laurel, 6S8, 12 SW of BIL. They're getting $2.79.

That'll help!!

> You must know
> somebody in Roundup, otherwise there's no reason to go there.

Yup...my best bud, now retired up there to a log home on 100 acres near
Delphia.

He invited son and me to go bust some Prairie Dogs, and do some fishing for
the holiday weekend. Then, a massive BBQ and lots of beer.

> Say hi to
> Jake, he's the airport manager, he used to work for my mechanic in
> Columbus(6S3)until recently.

Will he know who you are?


Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 15:58:57 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>In any case, not that it matters, but IMHO it's poor form to "out" someone
>(on the Internet or elsewhere) when they've made a choice to keep certain
>information privileged. That goes double when you haven't actually verified
>the information you're "revealing".

We all have opinions. In my opinion, folks who choose to hide their
identity on Usenet are foolish cowards. They're foolish, because they
think their identity can't be discovered. Most anonymous Usenet
posters attempt to hide their true identity so they cannot be held
accountable for their words, or the time and/or place of their posts,
etc. Other than whistle-blowing, I can see no valid reason for
upstanding citizen to hide her identity on Usenet. Imagine all the
(additional) unfounded drivel that would be published if authors
identities were masked in newspapers.

There is a long history about the emergence of Usenet anonymity dating
from the early '80s. As I recall, it was generally frowned upon.

[Stubby]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 15:58:57 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>
>>In any case, not that it matters, but IMHO it's poor form to "out" someone
>>(on the Internet or elsewhere) when they've made a choice to keep certain
>>information privileged. That goes double when you haven't actually verified
>>the information you're "revealing".
>
>
> We all have opinions. In my opinion, folks who choose to hide their
> identity on Usenet are foolish cowards. They're foolish, because they
> think their identity can't be discovered. Most anonymous Usenet
> posters attempt to hide their true identity so they cannot be held
> accountable for their words, or the time and/or place of their posts,
> etc. Other than whistle-blowing, I can see no valid reason for
> upstanding citizen to hide her identity on Usenet. Imagine all the
> (additional) unfounded drivel that would be published if authors
> identities were masked in newspapers.
>
> There is a long history about the emergence of Usenet anonymity dating
> from the early '80s. As I recall, it was generally frowned upon.

I don't like receiving phone and fax calls because someone decided that
I might want to buy their product. Or maybe they just don't like my
position on a point and want to unload on me. Or, maybe it's a 13 year
old that thinks it's fun to send stuff to people.

More likely, someone is scanning post with a "bot" and automatically
adding it to a distribution list.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 08:33:43 -0400, Stubby
> wrote in
>::

>
>I don't like receiving phone and fax calls because someone decided that
>I might want to buy their product.

Agreed. Marketers are continually stooping to new lows. If you don't
recognize the callers' ID, don't answer the telephone. It's illegal
to send unsolicited fax transmissions in this country; report them to
the FCC.

Have you added your phone numbers to national Do Not Call Registry
yet? Here's a link: www.donotcall.gov . This is the result of
citizens taking action against unsolicited annoyance, not complacently
attempting to mask their contact information.

>Or maybe they just don't like my position on a point and want to unload
>on me.

Are you unprepared to support your positions?

>Or, maybe it's a 13 year old that thinks it's fun to send stuff to people.

Report her to the USPS for investigation.

>More likely, someone is scanning post with a "bot" and automatically
>adding it to a distribution list.

Enable your anti-spam filtering software, and never under any
circumstance reply to unsolicited e-mail advertisements.

In my opinion, none of your arguments support antonymous Usenet
posting.


--

The true Axis Of Evil in America is our genius at marketing
coupled with the stupidity of our people. -- Bill Maher

[Peter R.]

Larry wrote:

> We all have opinions. In my opinion, folks who choose to hide their
> identity on Usenet are foolish cowards.

Whatever you need to think, Larry, to give that self-image of yours a
boost. :o)

--
Peter

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> There is a long history about the emergence of Usenet anonymity dating
> from the early '80s. As I recall, it was generally frowned upon.

For better or worse, there is a lot of behavior on Usenet that was generally
frowned upon historically, but which is now accepted practice.

As far as this specific issue goes: how do I know that you are actually a
real person named "Larry Dighera"? How do you know that I am actually a
real person named "Peter Duniho"? Even if you learn that there is a real
person named "Peter Duniho", and that he happens to be a pilot, you have no
idea that the person writing this post and that person are one and the same,
without going to a WHOLE lot of extra effort (much more effort than I'm
guessing you'd be willing to do).

IMHO, the main person anonymity hurts is the person being anonymous.
Without a real name, there's less credibility.

But in reality, we are all about as anonymous as each other. That is, we
don't really know each other, and without some extra effort, we have no way
of knowing that even a displayed full name properly identifies the poster.
At the same time, even those who try to remain completely anonymous
generally aren't doing so, unless they go through a true anonymizing service
(none of the regular "anonymous" posters here appear to be doing that, nor
those of us using full names).

As far as the credibility goes, past performance in the newsgroup is a MUCH
stronger reference than using a real name or not. It's much more important
that a person use a consistent name, as opposed to a real name.

I agree that using assumed or partial names is foolish, and perhaps it is
even a sign of cowardice. But each person has their own reasons, and I
think it's poor policy for other individuals to ignore those reasons,
however foolish or cowardly they might be, without good cause (ie there's
some very important reason the identity of the person needs to be known).

Usenet is inherently anonymous. That is one of its problems and one of its
graces. I see no good reason to harass (and I use that word carelessly)
those who choose to extend that anonymity a little bit by choosing to not
use a full name to post.

Pete

[Jay Honeck]

>> Perhaps that was my problem -- I didn't consider the lack of planning
>> (i.e.: Poor radio coverage in the Rantoul area) on Chicago's part to be
>> an emergency on my part.
>
> Only you would consider the results of an unannounced descent into poor
> reception a lack of planning on the part of ATC.

I *knew* someone would misinterpret my feeble joke (note the smiley
face?) -- but I didn't expect it to be YOU, George!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:13:52 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> [...]
>> There is a long history about the emergence of Usenet anonymity dating
>> from the early '80s. As I recall, it was generally frowned upon.
>
>For better or worse, there is a lot of behavior on Usenet that was generally
>frowned upon historically, but which is now accepted practice.

It's only 'accepted practice' if we accept it. Granted, that ever
since the 'September that never ended' there has been an influx of
less than netiquette aware Usenet participants. But that's no reason
to accept their disregard for netiquette. I'm sure, that even you
wouldn't condone accepting the posting of spam articles on Usenet just
because it occurs.

>IMHO, the main person anonymity hurts is the person being anonymous.
>Without a real name, there's less credibility.

I would characterize the issue of anonymity as being more about
accountability than credibility, although they go hand in hand.

>I agree that using assumed or partial names is foolish, and perhaps it is
>even a sign of cowardice. But each person has their own reasons, and I
>think it's poor policy for other individuals to ignore those reasons,
>however foolish or cowardly they might be, without good cause (ie there's
>some very important reason the identity of the person needs to be known).

We disagree. I think it's poor policy to permit anonymous Usenet
posting. I would even assert that it tends to degrade the
signal-to-noise ratio of Usenet.

>Usenet is inherently anonymous.

Virtually all TCP/IP traffic is traceable.

>I see no good reason to harass (and I use that word carelessly)

There was no intent to harass anyone; I posted publicly available
information (adequately anonymized), and asked a question.

>those who choose to extend that anonymity a little bit by choosing to not
>use a full name to post.

We disagree about Usenet anonymity.


There's some information about the controversial issue of munging
e-mail addresses here:

http://members.aol.com/emailfaq/mungfaq.html

ct: 4. Actions

4a. Why should I mung my address?

- It is an effective way to avoid junk email.

Junk emailers "harvest" email addresses from Usenet posts.
Most address harvesting software used by junk emailers does not
discriminate; anything with an '@' sign is considered an
address.
By changing what appears in the From: and/or Reply-To: headers
of Usenet posts, the amount of unsolicited bulk/commercial
email (UBE/UCE) received drops considerably.

- It is easy to do compared to other methods of avoiding UBE/UCE.

- It lowers the percentage of good addresses harvested by the
address thieves.

4b. Why should I NOT mung my address?

- It breaks the automated 'reply by email' feature found in most
newsreaders, forcing people to manually de-mung the address in
order to email topical replies to your posts.

- If you use the same software for Usenet and email, you will
have to change the address regularly, to avoid sending regular
email with a munged address.

- It violates RFCs, the rules upon which Usenet is built.

(It should also be noted that munging does not automatically
cause messages to bounce back to junk emailers; if you are
considering munging for this reason, you would not accomplish
your goal. Also, depending on what and where you post, a
junkster *may* take the time to manually de-mung your address,
just for spite.)

[Peter R.]

Larry Dighera > wrote:

> It's only 'accepted practice' if we accept it.

Larry, if you are going to continue to post about Usenet anonymity, take it
to another newsgroup. This thread has no business in a piloting newsgroup
and you, of all people, know better, Mr FAQ-poster.



--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Blanche]

Peter Duniho > wrote:
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> [...]
>> There is a long history about the emergence of Usenet anonymity dating
>> from the early '80s. As I recall, it was generally frowned upon.
>
>For better or worse, there is a lot of behavior on Usenet that was generally
>frowned upon historically, but which is now accepted practice.

That's because computers are being sold in grocery stores to people
that are using it as incredibly expensive scratch pads and surfing
the web. In other words, it's another television.

[Jay Honeck]

>> It's only 'accepted practice' if we accept it.
>
> Larry, if you are going to continue to post about Usenet anonymity, take
> it
> to another newsgroup. This thread has no business in a piloting newsgroup
> and you, of all people, know better, Mr FAQ-poster.

Well, where, exactly, would you post a topic about Usenet anonymity on the
piloting newsgroups if NOT here?

As rare as it is, I agree 100% with Larry. Most of the spam, trolling and
general B.S. on this group originates from anonymous posters. If anonymity
was not allowed, the signal to noise ratio would vastly improve, as posters
would actually have to stand up and be counted as people.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter R.]

Jay Honeck > wrote:

> Well, where, exactly, would you post a topic about Usenet anonymity
> on the piloting newsgroups if NOT here?

Based on my interpretation of his incessant whining, Larry was
discussing Usenet anonymity and the decline of Usenet in general,
not its specific impact on this particular group.

And, coming from the very man who was on a crusade several months back to
stop the OT posting going on here, I find it humorous that Larry continues
to post this group's charter, yet rant off topic when it fits his agenda.

So, to answer your question, discuss the decline of Usenet here:

alt.fan.Janeane-Garofalo



--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Montblack]

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
> As rare as it is, I agree 100% with Larry. Most of the spam, trolling and
> general B.S. on this group originates from anonymous posters. If
> anonymity was not allowed, the signal to noise ratio would vastly improve,
> as posters would actually have to stand up and be counted as people.


I disagree 'almost' 100% with Larry (and you) on this issue. Cowards??
Goodness gracious!

I worked for years at the Brewery with guys named Red, Whitey, Tex, Butch,
Swanee, Bud, Slim, etc. That's how I knew them. In these newsgroups, as long
as you can match a moniker to a posting history, that's all that really
matters, IMHO.

I'm not even buying that signal to noise reasoning since (aside from the
occasional outside nonsensical spam) many of the "low" s2n threads around
here are propagated by folks using their real names.


Montblack

[Jay Honeck]

> I disagree 'almost' 100% with Larry (and you) on this issue. Cowards??
> Goodness gracious!
>
> I worked for years at the Brewery with guys named Red, Whitey, Tex, Butch,
> Swanee, Bud, Slim, etc. That's how I knew them. In these newsgroups, as
> long as you can match a moniker to a posting history, that's all that
> really matters, IMHO.

There are always exceptions, of course. You, Newps, and Maule Driver all
come to mind as good, solid Usenet citizens, even though you choose to
remain (somewhat) anonymous.

Unfortunately, for every example of good, I can name three anonymous
evil-doers (I *love* that word!) -- or, worse, guys who appear to be using
their real names, but are actually using a real-LOOKING pen name -- who are
really nasty, and contribute little to the conversation.

Luckily, these aviation groups are the least polluted. Go over to the Ford
Mustang group, or any political group, and you'll see how bad it can get.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

Matt Barrow wrote:


>
>
> Will he know who you are?

Yep, he did all the work at the shop. He recently quit and now is the
manager at RPX.

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:vGKue.83556$_o.48584@attbi_s71...
> >> It's only 'accepted practice' if we accept it.
> >
> > Larry, if you are going to continue to post about Usenet anonymity, take
> > it
> > to another newsgroup. This thread has no business in a piloting
newsgroup
> > and you, of all people, know better, Mr FAQ-poster.
>
> Well, where, exactly, would you post a topic about Usenet anonymity on the
> piloting newsgroups if NOT here?
>
> As rare as it is, I agree 100% with Larry. Most of the spam, trolling and
> general B.S. on this group originates from anonymous posters. If
anonymity
> was not allowed, the signal to noise ratio would vastly improve, as
posters
> would actually have to stand up and be counted as people.

In this day of stalkers, identity thieves, etc., anyone who posts all their
personal info has got to be nuts.

Besides, what damn difference does it make if someone posts under their
birth name or as "Joe Blow"? Does it give their arguments one more gram of
credibility or one less?

Damn it, learn to judge the argument by it's logic and factual basis, not
the wrapper it comes in.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:LATue.100867$nG6.96413@attbi_s22...
> > I disagree 'almost' 100% with Larry (and you) on this issue. Cowards??
> > Goodness gracious!
> >
> > I worked for years at the Brewery with guys named Red, Whitey, Tex,
Butch,
> > Swanee, Bud, Slim, etc. That's how I knew them. In these newsgroups, as
> > long as you can match a moniker to a posting history, that's all that
> > really matters, IMHO.
>
> There are always exceptions, of course. You, Newps, and Maule Driver all
> come to mind as good, solid Usenet citizens, even though you choose to
> remain (somewhat) anonymous.
>
> Unfortunately, for every example of good, I can name three anonymous
> evil-doers (I *love* that word!) -- or, worse, guys who appear to be using
> their real names, but are actually using a real-LOOKING pen name -- who
are
> really nasty, and contribute little to the conversation.
>

I can think of more than a few evil doers that use their real names.

For example, I remember one dude goes by the name of Honeck! :~)


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > Will he know who you are?
>
> Yep, he did all the work at the shop. He recently quit and now is the
> manager at RPX.
>
Will he know what I mean if I say "Newps sent me!", or do I have to say,
"The approach controller over yonder in Billings with the slow 182..."?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Jose]

> Will he know what I mean if I say "Newps sent me!", or do I have to say,
> "The approach controller over yonder in Billings with the slow 182..."?

Just do a low pass and intone into the microphone "I've been sent".

Jose
--
My other car is up my nose.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> For example, I remember one dude goes by the name of Honeck! :~)

Yeah, but no one could make up such a name. It's almost as goofy as
"General Grievous"...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:5F4ve.102678$nG6.66865@attbi_s22...
> > For example, I remember one dude goes by the name of Honeck! :~)
>
> Yeah, but no one could make up such a name. It's almost as goofy as
> "General Grievous"...
>
> ;-)

Not to mention "Biggus Dickus"!!

[Darrel Toepfer]

WAKE UP!! wrote:

> But there are very good reasons to be anon online.

70-34-15-110.lmdaca.adelphia.net = 70.34.15.110

Outside of Los Angeles, California. Somebody might recognize the LMDACA
abbreviation to help narrow it down...

[Montblack]

("Darrel Toepfer" wrote)
>> WAKE UP!! wrote:
>>
>> But there are very good reasons to be anon online.

> 70-34-15-110.lmdaca.adelphia.net = 70.34.15.110
>
> Outside of Los Angeles, California. Somebody might recognize the LMDACA
> abbreviation to help narrow it down...


WAKE UP!! is VERY GOOD at what he does. I wouldn't mess with him!!! <g>

Thanks again WAKE UP!! for your assistance in that other matter!!!!!!!


Mont

[Jay Honeck]

> WAKE UP!! is VERY GOOD at what he does. I wouldn't mess with him!!! <g>

I'll second that motion!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Rob]

I have gotten Flight Following without a transponder, but it was one of
those corner cases. Basically, the transponder was inoperative, but it
would have required a very long flight to go around the airspace that
required a transponder (a Class C up against a Mode C veil). So, we
contacted ATC, advised them of our transponder issue, and asked to
transition over the top of the Class C (transponder is required except
by prior arrangement... which was the purpose of asking). They RADAR
identified us, and followed our primary return. Indeed, they continued
the service until they lost RADAR contact quite a peice out from over
the Class C.

-Rob

Guy Elden Jr wrote:
> > Off topic, but related: Can a radar center offer flight following to a
> > plane not equipped with a transponder? I would guess no, but I'm curious.
>
> I think that you can have an IFR clearance and at points along the
> route not be in radar coverage. In those cases you get a much larger
> zone of protected airspace around you, and you have to radio in your
> position at compulsory reporting points.
>
> As for flight following, I would think the value would be pretty much
> useless. The whole point is to gain a second pair of eyes for you on
> the ground with the assumption that you are still responsible for
> separation from other aircraft. If the folks on the ground can't see
> you on their scopes, then there's really no point to flight following.
>
> --
> Guy

[Newps]

Matt Barrow wrote:

>>Yep, he did all the work at the shop. He recently quit and now is the
>>manager at RPX.
>>
>
> Will he know what I mean if I say "Newps sent me!", or do I have to say,
> "The approach controller over yonder in Billings with the slow 182..."?
>

Either one.

[RomeoMike]

Exactly. I mostly lurk here to learn something from time to time. I post
rarely but used to do it under my real name which brought me grief from
someone. I'm also the victim of identity theft, so I became a little
paranoid. I then posted under the name "lowflyer" and more recently as
"RomeoMike" (only as a lark when I got a new computer and switched to
Thunderbird). There are other usenet groups that have no problem with
trolls or incivility, even though pseudonyms are used. This group has a
problem with trolls at least partly because people, including respected
posters, choose to respond to them. And also because some here are easy
to goad into a feud. I can't prove it, but my impression is that,
compared to 5-6 years ago, there is less hard core aviation discussion
here and more chit chat amongst a group of friends, but I digress. Just
a point of view from an anonymous poster who has never trolled the group.



Matt Barrow wrote:

>
> In this day of stalkers, identity thieves, etc., anyone who posts all their
> personal info has got to be nuts.
>
> Besides, what damn difference does it make if someone posts under their
> birth name or as "Joe Blow"? Does it give their arguments one more gram of
> credibility or one less?
>
> Damn it, learn to judge the argument by it's logic and factual basis, not
> the wrapper it comes in.
>
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 16:48:07 -0600, RomeoMike
> wrote in >::

>I can't prove it, but my impression is that,
>compared to 5-6 years ago, there is less hard core aviation discussion
>here and more chit chat amongst a group of friends, ...

It can be proven, but it's pretty obviously true. It could be that
those serious about aviation who would like to participate in sober
and thoughtful discussion are driven away by the frivolity and
indecorous conduct unbecoming responsible airmen that occasionally
occurs in rec.aviation.piloting currently.

A while back, there was a suggestion for the creation of a new
newsgroup for those who on occasion preferred to participate in
'hangar flying' rather than exchange _information_ relative to
piloting. I have to agree, that the chit chat seems to dilute the
"hard core aviation discussion." I would support the creation of the
proposed new newsgroup, but someone else is going to have to carry the
ball to see that it gets chartered.

There also seems to be a good deal of discussion about EAA revenant
issues, that is an arcane subset of piloting discussion, and may be a
candidate for its own newsgroup as well.

How about these suggestions as seeds for proposed newsgroup charters:

rec.aviation.hangar-flying

Discussion among aviators, and those interested in aviation,
about aviation related topics, events, and tangential political
issues. A friendly place for chit chat, camaraderie, and jocular
inanity. Anonymous identities gleefully accepted.

and

rec.aviation.EAA

Discussion among Experimental Aircraft Association members, and
others who have an interest in the activities of the EAA,
concerning EAA issues, events, and philosophies.

[Jay Honeck]

> rec.aviation.EAA
>
> Discussion among Experimental Aircraft Association members, and
> others who have an interest in the activities of the EAA,
> concerning EAA issues, events, and philosophies.

Isn't that what rec.aviation.homebuilt is substantially about?

Although I have noticed a sub-strata of homebuilders who absolutely (and
inexplicably, IMHO) despise EAA.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Montblack]

("RomeoMike" wrote)
[snip]
> I can't prove it, but my impression is that, compared to 5-6 years ago,
> there is less hard core aviation discussion here and more chit chat
> amongst a group of friends, but I digress. Just a point of view from an
> anonymous poster who has never trolled the group.


You and Larry are using words like somber, serious and hard core do describe
a newsgroup you would favor. Hell, Larry even used a word I had to look up -
Indecorous ...I went with flying too close to the sun??

Here's your "proof" RM. I poked around and found little difference, but
that's me.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/about
(rec.aviation.piloting ...About this group - goes back to 1992)

Post more often RM, it would be good to hear from you, plus maybe all of us
could learn something from you.


Montblack

[George Patterson]

RomeoMike wrote:
>
> I can't prove it, but my impression is that,
> compared to 5-6 years ago, there is less hard core aviation discussion
> here and more chit chat amongst a group of friends, but I digress.

I remember the days before "Highflyer" had to use a pseudonym, when the fish we
do not name was a scourge, and .....

Let's just say it was a long time ago. ASAIR, the number of postings per day
seem to be about the same and the percentage of true aviation discussions to
off-topic seems to be the same. We don't have some of the acrimony and hostility
that existed back then (no regular has been kicked out for at least a decade),
and the trolls today are a bit tame compared to one Texan I remember about 1989.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 09:31:52 -0500, "Montblack"
> wrote in
>::

>Here's your "proof" RM. I poked around and found little difference, but
>that's me.
>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/about
>(rec.aviation.piloting ...About this group - goes back to 1992)

That data seems only to address the number of articles posted to the
newsgroup. It looks like it peaked in 2003 and is declining
currently. Unfortunately, the data are unable to provide insight into
the informational content of the articles.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 12:58:40 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in
<4KSve.109836$nG6.98760@attbi_s22>::

>> rec.aviation.EAA
>>
>> Discussion among Experimental Aircraft Association members, and
>> others who have an interest in the activities of the EAA,
>> concerning EAA issues, events, and philosophies.
>
>Isn't that what rec.aviation.homebuilt is substantially about?

One would expect so. But there seems to be quite a lot of EAA Air
Venture chit chat on rec.aviation.piloting lately. Granted the new
product debuts and piloting that occurs incidental to the show are on
topic here.

But EAA isn't entirely about homebuilding, it's also a fraternity of
aviation buffs who may or may not be pilots. Some EAA members are
creative and many are talented, however I don't think their ranks
represent the pilot community generally, but I could be wrong.

Some more serious minded pilots may find the ethos of some of the
current participants in rec.aviation.home built off putting, IMO. So,
to the extent that that ethos spills into rec.aviation.piloting, it
may drive away more serious minded piloting discussion.

Perhaps a simpler solution to the decline in serious piloting
discussion in rec.aviation.piloting would be to create
rec.aviation.piloting.serious or rec.aviation.professional newsgroups.
:-)

>Although I have noticed a sub-strata of homebuilders who absolutely (and
>inexplicably, IMHO) despise EAA.

I was unaware that that sort of sentiment existed toward the EAA.

[Jay Honeck]

>>Although I have noticed a sub-strata of homebuilders who absolutely (and
>>inexplicably, IMHO) despise EAA.
>
> I was unaware that that sort of sentiment existed toward the EAA.

Really?

Paul Poberezny (the founder of EAA, father of the current president, Tom)
has started a competing group (whose name I can't recall -- Homebuilders
Aircraft Association? Sport Aircraft Association?) because so many EAA
members have felt disenfranchised by the direction the group has taken in
recent years. It is apparently growing steadily.

Go to the AAA (Antique Aircraft Association) fly-in in Blakesburg -- of
which Paul Poberezney is a regular attendee and a member -- and they can
barely speak of EAA without spitting.

What does this say about Paul's attitude toward the direction his son is
taking EAA?

To me it's totally bizarre -- as if aviation isn't small and fragmented
enough? -- but apparently there are truly some hard feelings out there.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[RomeoMike]

Thanks for the encouragement. I usually find that there are people here
who knows more than I on a given topic, so I don't add to the chatter
unless I have a question or IMHO misinformation has been posted.
>
> Post more often RM, it would be good to hear from you, plus maybe all of us
> could learn something from you.
>
>
> Montblack
>

[Jay Honeck]

> Paul Poberezny (the founder of EAA, father of the current president, Tom)
> has started a competing group (whose name I can't recall -- Homebuilders
> Aircraft Association? Sport Aircraft Association?) because so many EAA
> members have felt disenfranchised by the direction the group has taken in
> recent years. It is apparently growing steadily.
>
> Go to the AAA (Antique Aircraft Association) fly-in in Blakesburg -- of
> which Paul Poberezney is a regular attendee and a member -- and they can
> barely speak of EAA without spitting.
>
>>What does this say about Paul's attitude toward the direction his son is
>>taking EAA?
>
> After being an EAA member for roughly 20 years, this year I got the
> renewal in the mail, looked at it unopened for a minute, and chucked
> it in the trash. The EAA I knew died when Paul P left the helm. It just
> took me several years to bury it. And by then, it was smelling
> awfully foul.

I've heard this, over and over, from (usually gray-headed) long-term EAA
members. Some of them quite vociferously.

Yet, for the life of me, I can't get ANY of them to tell me what, precisely,
they are so ****ed about. I'm not sure even they know -- it's almost a
gut-level frustration that can't be described.

I've been a member of EAA since 1983. I've seen Airventure grow
exponentially, year after year, until it's now the premier
fly-in/convention/air show in the world. I've read Sport Aviation every
month -- that's 264 consecutive issues -- and (although I must admit to
being bored with many of the topics) it has improved many orders of
magnitude since the Reagan Administration.

Annual dues are cheap. The museum in Oshkosh is incredibly beautiful, and
well done. Local EAA chapters are almost always fun, lively, and filled
with good people who are in love with aviation. Kids are welcome, and Young
Eagle flights are the best thing that has happened in GA since the 1940s.

So WHAT is there to hate about EAA? I just don't get it.

IMHO, General Aviation is so small that we simply can't afford to become
fragmented into little competing groups. Not if we want to survive.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: "Jay Honeck" >
>
>>Paul Poberezny (the founder of EAA, father of the current president, Tom)
>>has started a competing group (whose name I can't recall -- Homebuilders
>>Aircraft Association? Sport Aircraft Association?) because so many EAA
>>members have felt disenfranchised by the direction the group has taken in
>>recent years. It is apparently growing steadily.
>>
>>Go to the AAA (Antique Aircraft Association) fly-in in Blakesburg -- of
>>which Paul Poberezney is a regular attendee and a member -- and they can
>>barely speak of EAA without spitting.
>>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: N/A
>
> iQCVAwUBQsJNwpMoscYxZNI5AQENUwP9GXmRE8S+nveCUYvYaN Ya0bC2ydrtc9ib
> PduLhI1UnrG/V2Uxtzf3UHW9cF7oI1DWbjXGdnjYXtgcuB3YDsMNmvGhAMdkuN tu
> lmXRNZXqqkxof3Sk+BtVQuTzopxJiye1lm7yVOrBCVLvvatllL At04cAfncmGDjt
> YlwNtqt8KVU=
> =kSdn
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:JAowe.100477$_o.19783@attbi_s71...
>
> Paul Poberezny (the founder of EAA, father of the current president, Tom)
> has started a competing group (whose name I can't recall -- Homebuilders
> Aircraft Association? Sport Aircraft Association?) because so many EAA
> members have felt disenfranchised by the direction the group has taken in
> recent years. It is apparently growing steadily.
>

Paul Poberezny founded the Sport Aviation Association in 1970 while he was
still president of EAA. It was pretty much dormant until about ten years
ago.

http://www.sportaviation.org/

[Jay Honeck]

> Paul Poberezny founded the Sport Aviation Association in 1970 while he was
> still president of EAA. It was pretty much dormant until about ten years
> ago.
>
> http://www.sportaviation.org/

Wow -- 1970! That's really a surprise.

I wonder what he was thinking at the time? Creating a new Association
sounds like the kind of thing someone would do who is facing a power
struggle for control at the top of an organization.

Was someone bucking Paul for control of EAA back in '70?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Rsywe.101244$_o.82057@attbi_s71...
>
> Wow -- 1970! That's really a surprise.
>
> I wonder what he was thinking at the time? Creating a new Association
> sounds like the kind of thing someone would do who is facing a power
> struggle for control at the top of an organization.
>
> Was someone bucking Paul for control of EAA back in '70?
>

I don't know. I first learned of the EAA in 1970 when I was a mere lad of
13. That was the year the convention moved permanently to OSH and local
television began covering it. I became a member the following year. I
don't recall any effort to oust Paul but at that age I wouldn't have paid
any attention to that kind of stuff. I have since obtained all back issues
of "Sport Aviation", one of these days I'll dig into them and see what I can
find out.

[Dave Stadt]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:JAowe.100477$_o.19783@attbi_s71...
> >>Although I have noticed a sub-strata of homebuilders who absolutely (and
> >>inexplicably, IMHO) despise EAA.
> >
> > I was unaware that that sort of sentiment existed toward the EAA.
>
> Really?
>
> Paul Poberezny (the founder of EAA, father of the current president, Tom)
> has started a competing group (whose name I can't recall -- Homebuilders
> Aircraft Association? Sport Aircraft Association?) because so many EAA
> members have felt disenfranchised by the direction the group has taken in
> recent years. It is apparently growing steadily.
>
> Go to the AAA (Antique Aircraft Association) fly-in in Blakesburg -- of
> which Paul Poberezney is a regular attendee and a member -- and they can
> barely speak of EAA without spitting.
>
> What does this say about Paul's attitude toward the direction his son is
> taking EAA?

It says nothing. I have talked to Paul on a number of occasions and more
than once he stated that in his opinion Tom was the only person he knew,
except his daughter Bonnie, that he felt could do EAA justice. Paul started
the Sport Aviation group decades ago as an adjunct to EAA, not as a
competitor.

Funny how the naysayers get on their rivet boxes and spout drivel but when
it is suggested they start an aviation organization to meet their perceived
needs they vanish within seconds.

[Jay Honeck]

>> What does this say about Paul's attitude toward the direction his son is
>> taking EAA?
>
> It says nothing. I have talked to Paul on a number of occasions and more
> than once he stated that in his opinion Tom was the only person he knew,
> except his daughter Bonnie, that he felt could do EAA justice. Paul
> started
> the Sport Aviation group decades ago as an adjunct to EAA, not as a
> competitor.
>
> Funny how the naysayers get on their rivet boxes and spout drivel but when
> it is suggested they start an aviation organization to meet their
> perceived
> needs they vanish within seconds.

Thanks for the information, Dave. I hope you don't think that I'm an EAA
detractor, because I'm not. In fact, I can't figure out how or why some
people are so down on an organization that has done so much for GA, and I
happily shell out my dues year in and year out.

Which isn't to say I'm 100% satisfied with them. I think, in some ways,
they've grown too big and too commercial, and I wish they were more
responsive to the little guys. But that was probably inevitable as EAA
evolved into the multi-million dollar business it is today.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Moore]

"Jay Honeck" wrote
>
> Thanks for the information, Dave. I hope you don't think that I'm an
> EAA detractor, because I'm not. In fact, I can't figure out how or
> why some people are so down on an organization that has done so much
> for GA,

Because I don't see that as the function of the EAA. I first joined
back in 1964 because it was a "club" of, by, and for homebuilders.
Paul then took it off on a "warbird" kick and then along came Tom
who saw it as a money making operation.

WE have the AOPA to promote General Aviation.

Bob Moore

[Jay Honeck]

>> Thanks for the information, Dave. I hope you don't think that I'm an
>> EAA detractor, because I'm not. In fact, I can't figure out how or
>> why some people are so down on an organization that has done so much
>> for GA,
>
> Because I don't see that as the function of the EAA. I first joined
> back in 1964 because it was a "club" of, by, and for homebuilders.
> Paul then took it off on a "warbird" kick and then along came Tom
> who saw it as a money making operation.
>
> WE have the AOPA to promote General Aviation.

I understand your point, Bob, but I don't think EAA has lost sight of the
fact that home-building is their purpose.

All you have to do is look at the fabulous array of homebuilt aircraft --
none of which existed prior to EAA -- to see that they have been pretty
effective at what they do.

And, quite frankly, it is all the homebuilder articles in Sport Aviation
that have given me the yawns -- but I understand that the magazine exists
for that purpose, so I'm not about to bitch. I just skim past the endless
"Bucking Rivets" articles, and move on to Amy Laboda's column.

Personally, I think Scott Spangler (Sport Aviation's editor) has done a very
good job of finding a balance between making the magazine an endless parade
of "How to Build a Wing Rib" articles and too many "Flying the Citation"
articles. He's got a delicate act, trying to keep everyone happy.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Moore]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote
> And, quite frankly, it is all the homebuilder articles in Sport
> Aviation that have given me the yawns -- but I understand that the
> magazine exists for that purpose, so I'm not about to bitch. I just
> skim past the endless "Bucking Rivets" articles, and move on to Amy
> Laboda's column.

But...the EAA was founded and then grew for many years as
a "homebuilders only" organization until you outsiders came
in and hijacked the organization. :-)

Bob

[Dave Stadt]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:1WTwe.104055$x96.80133@attbi_s72...
>>
> Thanks for the information, Dave. I hope you don't think that I'm an EAA
> detractor, because I'm not.

Jay, I had no such thought.

[Dave Stadt]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 122...
> "Jay Honeck" wrote
> >
> > Thanks for the information, Dave. I hope you don't think that I'm an
> > EAA detractor, because I'm not. In fact, I can't figure out how or
> > why some people are so down on an organization that has done so much
> > for GA,
>
> Because I don't see that as the function of the EAA. I first joined
> back in 1964 because it was a "club" of, by, and for homebuilders.
> Paul then took it off on a "warbird" kick and then along came Tom
> who saw it as a money making operation.
>
> WE have the AOPA to promote General Aviation.

What is wrong with multiple organizations promoting GA? The more the
merrier in my book

It is true EAA started as a home builder organization. That was in the days
of owner designed or plans built aircraft. Those days are for all practical
purposes gone. 1964 was a long, long time ago. With the current quick
build kits, excellent manufacturer support and the internet the original
purpose of EAA is no longer needed. Have you noticed you need to look very
hard to find the name Experimental Aircraft Association. Had EAA stayed
their original course they would have expired long ago. In most chapters
homebuilders are a small minority.

As far as money making, you either do or you go away. Money is good. Very,
very, very good!

Largest current contingent within EAA is antique, vintage and classic.

> Bob Moore

[Jay Honeck]

> Have you noticed you need to look very
> hard to find the name Experimental Aircraft Association. Had EAA stayed
> their original course they would have expired long ago. In most chapters
> homebuilders are a small minority.

Boy, that's for sure. The two chapters I've belonged to *did* have their
fair share of home builders -- but they were a tiny minority of the total
group.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Hilton]

Jay,
> So WHAT is there to hate about EAA? I just don't get it.

Is it true that the EAA force people to become EAA members to attend
Oshkosh?

Hilton

[Dave Stadt]

"Hilton" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Jay,
> > So WHAT is there to hate about EAA? I just don't get it.
>
> Is it true that the EAA force people to become EAA members to attend
> Oshkosh?
>
> Hilton

Yep, they hold guns to people's heads and force them to pull out their
credit cards before they are allowed to enter. Not only that, they hijack
people that are headed to Green Bay and force them to become members.

I assume your question is a troll but if it isn't.......no you do not need
to be a member to attend. But if it was a requirement so what, it is an EAA
event and if the decision was to limit it to EAA members so be it.

[John Theune]

Hilton wrote:
> Jay,
>
>>So WHAT is there to hate about EAA? I just don't get it.
>
>
> Is it true that the EAA force people to become EAA members to attend
> Oshkosh?
>
> Hilton
>
>
Yes, if your not a regular member you have to buy a short term
membership if you want to attend the annual convention of the EAA also
known as Oshkosh. Why would that surprise you, that you have to belong
to a organization to attend their annual convention?

[Jose]

> Is it true that the EAA force people to become EAA members to attend
> Oshkosh?

Dunno, but somebody in our party had to join or be EAA for Sun'n'Fun.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Hilton" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Jay,
>> So WHAT is there to hate about EAA? I just don't get it.
>
> Is it true that the EAA force people to become EAA members to attend
> Oshkosh?
>
> Hilton
>
>

My troll meter is ticking here but the answer is no. Though you do get a
discount on admission if you are an EAA member.

YOu got a problem with that?

[Hilton]

Dave Stadt wrote:
>
> Hilton wrote:
> > Jay,
> > > So WHAT is there to hate about EAA? I just don't get it.
> >
> > Is it true that the EAA force people to become EAA members to attend
> > Oshkosh?
> >
> > Hilton
>
> Yep, they hold guns to people's heads and force them to pull out their
> credit cards before they are allowed to enter. Not only that, they hijack
> people that are headed to Green Bay and force them to become members.
>
> I assume your question is a troll but if it isn't.......no you do not need
> to be a member to attend. But if it was a requirement so what, it is an
EAA
> event and if the decision was to limit it to EAA members so be it.

Wow - that's the second time I've been called a troll in as many months. :)
Anyway, moving right along... I decided to peek around a little and I found
this line " You must be an EAA member to purchase a ticket" in:

http://www.avweb.com/news/osh2002/181590-1.html

So, either the article is wrong or the policy has changed since 2002. I
also remember a few other write-ups about this 'technique' to (at least
temporarily) boost the EAA membership. BTW: I'm not saying it is right or
wrong - I simply posted in response to Jay's comment "So WHAT is there to
hate about EAA?" - I'm sure there are people out there that don't like to be
forced to join an organization just to attend an airshow.

Hilton

[RST Engineering]

I can't speak to the policy that was in effect in 2002. I haven't found
many errors in Rick's articles, but nobody is infallible. However, for THIS
year's policies (which have member as well as non-member rates) I'd suggest
that you peruse:

http://www.airventure.org/2005/planning/admission.html

I don't hate EAA. I'm not all that thrilled with some things they've done
over the years, but on balance they are one of the best things that has ever
happened to aviation. Elsewise I sure as the devil wouldn't be running for
their board of directors.

Are there some things that could be done differently, subjectively better,
or with a different emphasis? Certainly. However, EAA and Airventure are
not a single vision but the collective vision of the entire organization.
Just because the organization's vision isn't YOUR particular vision or MY
particular vision doesn't make them wrong, just different. And, if you want
a louder voice for how you think the ship should be steered, volunteer for
the crew of the ship.

Jim




> Wow - that's the second time I've been called a troll in as many months.
> :)
> Anyway, moving right along... I decided to peek around a little and I
> found
> this line " You must be an EAA member to purchase a ticket" in:
>
> http://www.avweb.com/news/osh2002/181590-1.html
>
> So, either the article is wrong or the policy has changed since 2002. I
> also remember a few other write-ups about this 'technique' to (at least
> temporarily) boost the EAA membership. BTW: I'm not saying it is right or
> wrong - I simply posted in response to Jay's comment "So WHAT is there to
> hate about EAA?" - I'm sure there are people out there that don't like to
> be
> forced to join an organization just to attend an airshow.

[Blanche]

No, it is NOT a requirement to be an EAA member to buy an admission
ticket -- unless they changed the rule from last year. You do have
the option at the gate to join and get the discounted admission
price.

And, if I remember correctly, you do not need to be a member to
park the aircraft, but if you want to camp with the aircraft, you
must be an EAA member.

On the other hand, in my case, senility set in with puberty and I
could be wrong.

[W P Dixon]

"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
>
> On the other hand, in my case, senility set in with puberty and I
> could be wrong.
>
Thanks for the good laugh Blanche ! ;) That just tickled me good!

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Hilton" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> So, either the article is wrong or the policy has changed since 2002. I
> also remember a few other write-ups about this 'technique' to (at least
> temporarily) boost the EAA membership. BTW: I'm not saying it is right or
> wrong - I simply posted in response to Jay's comment "So WHAT is there to
> hate about EAA?" - I'm sure there are people out there that don't like to
> be
> forced to join an organization just to attend an airshow.
>

Nobody is forced to join an organization to attend an airshow. This is an
organization's annual convention. How many organizations allow the general
public to attend their conventions?

[Montblack]

("Hilton" wrote)
> Is it true that the EAA force people to become EAA members to attend
> Oshkosh?


You get the EAA Member's daily "ticket discount" if you choose to join. They
make it easy to join right there on the spot - then they give you a
thank-you gift to lug around (We got an insulated coffee mug for the car)

Last year I enjoyed the member's discount *and* a guest discount. Combined
over 3 days, it paid for the EAA membership ...plus I got a one year
subscription to EAA's Sport Aviation magazine thrown in to boot ..."free."
:-)

I'm switching to their Sport Pilot magazine, that Sport Aviation magazine
didn't do it for me.

http://www.eaa.org/memberbenefits.html


Montblack

[Dave Stadt]

"Hilton" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Dave Stadt wrote:
> >
> > Hilton wrote:
> > > Jay,
> > > > So WHAT is there to hate about EAA? I just don't get it.
> > >
> > > Is it true that the EAA force people to become EAA members to attend
> > > Oshkosh?
> > >
> > > Hilton
> >
> > Yep, they hold guns to people's heads and force them to pull out their
> > credit cards before they are allowed to enter. Not only that, they
hijack
> > people that are headed to Green Bay and force them to become members.
> >
> > I assume your question is a troll but if it isn't.......no you do not
need
> > to be a member to attend. But if it was a requirement so what, it is an
> EAA
> > event and if the decision was to limit it to EAA members so be it.
>
> Wow - that's the second time I've been called a troll in as many months.
:)
> Anyway, moving right along... I decided to peek around a little and I
found
> this line " You must be an EAA member to purchase a ticket" in:
>
> http://www.avweb.com/news/osh2002/181590-1.html
>
> So, either the article is wrong or the policy has changed since 2002. I
> also remember a few other write-ups about this 'technique' to (at least
> temporarily) boost the EAA membership. BTW: I'm not saying it is right or
> wrong - I simply posted in response to Jay's comment "So WHAT is there to
> hate about EAA?" - I'm sure there are people out there that don't like to
be
> forced to join an organization just to attend an airshow.

Then they need to exercise their option to stay home. If you aren't willing
to support the organization, any organization, you are not welcome.

[George Patterson]

Hilton wrote:
>
> Is it true that the EAA force people to become EAA members to attend
> Oshkosh?

I don't know about walking in the main gate, but the last time I attended, you
had to be a member to enter from the North 40. If you aren't, they sign you up
right there.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[John T]

I always thought that removing the members only flight line admissions
was a mistake. Not just because of the ignorant types, but food and
drink also. They should have at least kept the gates to the flight line
and enforced the no food and drink rule (except water bottles).

John

[Jay Honeck]

>> > Is it true that the EAA force people to become EAA members to attend
>> > Oshkosh?

When we first started attending OSH, back in the early '80s, you could
attend the fly-in without being a member, but you could not go on the flight
line without a separate pass that required membership. To get that precious
pass, you had to join EAA -- which is what got me in the fold! I wanted to
be where the action was, and I couldn't see it from 200 yards away behind a
fence.

At some point they eliminated that whole thing, and now just let everyone
in, everywhere, although they do charge non-members more.

IMHO it was better to only allow full members access to the flight line.
Some of the show planes at OSH represent thousands of hours and tens of
thousands (hundreds of thousands, in some cases) of time and money, and I
don't think letting the NASCAR crowd in unimpeded was a good idea. Not
often, but occasionally I have seen ignorant parents letting their kids run
around too near fabric planes, and have just about had a heart attack. That
NEVER happened under the old rules.

To combat this, they now have an entire battalion of volunteers called
"Protect Our Planes" (or something similar), to police the grounds. This
seems silly, to me, (as opposed to going back to the old rules) but I
suppose they are trying to open the flight line to everyone in hopes of
growing GA?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[john smith]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> At some point they eliminated that whole thing, and now just let everyone
> in, everywhere, although they do charge non-members more.

Two years ago I had a few of the non-aviation types in front of me
during the airshow. When the show was over they stood up and started to
walk away, leaving their trash behind them on the ground.
I called after them and told them to pick up their trash stating, "We
don't leave trash on the grounds here."
Despite his indignant glare, I stood and pointed to the mess they had
left. He came back and picked it up, but was not happy that I publicly
pointed out his littering.

[Jay Honeck]

> Two years ago I had a few of the non-aviation types in front of me during
> the airshow. When the show was over they stood up and started to walk
> away, leaving their trash behind them on the ground.
> I called after them and told them to pick up their trash stating, "We
> don't leave trash on the grounds here."
> Despite his indignant glare, I stood and pointed to the mess they had
> left. He came back and picked it up, but was not happy that I publicly
> pointed out his littering.

THANK YOU. This kind of activity epitomizes what I mean when I call them
"the NASCAR crowd."

Since EAA got rid of the flight line members-only rule, I've had to tell
people not to smoke, not to leave piles of crap next to planes, not to touch
fabric or props, not to let their kids climb on a wing. And I'm not even
camped in that area -- I just see it and instinctively react.

I have come to expect this kind of behavior at every other airshow in
America -- but never, ever, EVER in Oshkosh. The day it becomes the norm at
Airventure is the day I stop going to OSH.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:Rsywe.101244$_o.82057@attbi_s71...
>>
>> Wow -- 1970! That's really a surprise.
>>
>> I wonder what he was thinking at the time? Creating a new Association
>> sounds like the kind of thing someone would do who is facing a power
>> struggle for control at the top of an organization.
>>
>> Was someone bucking Paul for control of EAA back in '70?
>>
>
> I don't know. I first learned of the EAA in 1970 when I was a mere lad of
> 13. That was the year the convention moved permanently to OSH and local
> television began covering it. I became a member the following year. I
> don't recall any effort to oust Paul but at that age I wouldn't have paid
> any attention to that kind of stuff. I have since obtained all back
> issues of "Sport Aviation", one of these days I'll dig into them and see
> what I can find out.
>

The following appeared in the January 1971 "Sport Aviation" in Paul
Poberezny's "Homebuilder's Corner" column:


SPORT AVIATION ASSOCIATION?

All of you undoubtedly have noticed how commercial magazines have edged in
on the name of our organization - and, particularly the name of our
publication, SPORT AVIATION. We receive letters regularly asking about
things which have appeared in "our" magazine "Sport Flying" which happens to
be a similarly named, but commercial product. Imagine the confusion if
someone came up with the name "Sport Aviation Association" and used this in
the name of their publication!

Therefore, EAA has registered the name "Sport Aviation Association" and has
formed a corporation - so as to protect the name and reputation of our
existing organization.

Due to the increased pressure on all sport flyers in the form of
ever-tightening government control, problems with the press, insurance
companies, and even other aviation groups over the real meaning of the word
"experimental" - many EAA members have expressed a desire to change the name
of EAA to something like "SAA" (for "Sport Aviation Association"). Further,
they would continue the widening of the scope of the organization to include
a larger number of enthusiasts so as to offer a more massive front to those
who would legislate sport flyers out of the air. It should be noted that
most of these sincere members recommend that if such a name change were ever
made, that it be done gradually over a period of years to forestall a
self-induced identity crisis.

At any rate, the name "Sport Aviation Association" is now protected - if we
ever decide to use it, it's there. What are your comments on this?

Sincerely,

Paul H. Poberezny

PRESIDENT

[Jay Honeck]

> At any rate, the name "Sport Aviation Association" is now protected - if
> we
> ever decide to use it, it's there. What are your comments on this?

Wow -- that's fascinating stuff.

Prescient, that Paul Poberezny guy was -- but just a little ahead of his
time.

In any event, they *should* have changed the name when they had the chance.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:knTye.138606$xm3.17918@attbi_s21...
>
> Wow -- that's fascinating stuff.
>
> Prescient, that Paul Poberezny guy was -- but just a little ahead of his
> time.
>
> In any event, they *should* have changed the name when they had the
> chance.
>

Yeah, they should have renamed the organization at the same time they
changed the name of the magazine from "Experimenter" to "Sport Aviation".