Steven P, McNicoll just ****ed me off

[Mike Weller]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Slightly, but having another airplane land on top of you delays your
>>departure even more.
>>
>
>
> Well, if the visibility is such that the arriving aircraft can't see you and
> it lands on top of you, then it's unlikely that sitting kind of sideways
> would allow you to see him.
>
>

Boy, I just checked my log book. I landed at Sarasota Florida on
runway 14 on March 10, 2000 on top of a black spot on the runway.

An honest-to-God FAA controller had cleared a plane for position and
hold and at the same time cleared another airplane to take off.

They hit at the intersection where the first plane was in position and
hold. The plane that hit them was an instructor with a student pilot.

For the life of me, I can't see why it happened, but the plane that
was in position and hold never had a chance to see the plane that ran
into them.

So what is so honest-to-God bad about not lining up perfectly on the
runway instead of stopping a little bit crossways to watch what is
happening on the runway?

And don't give me any excuses about one of the aircraft not obeying
ATC instructions. Neither plane did anything against ATC
instructions. Read the NTSB report. It was a human error on the part
of the controller.

Mike Weller

[Robert M. Gary]

Steven was the tower controller? I thought he worked in Wisconsin.

[Mike Weller]

On 17 Aug 2005 09:23:50 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote:

>Steven was the tower controller? I thought he worked in Wisconsin.

Cute. I thought you were going to tell me that I can't spell.

Mike Weller

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
news:1124291160.a4b773a96257a25b104a0209edc5c8ac@o nlynews...
>
> Boy, I just checked my log book. I landed at Sarasota Florida on
> runway 14 on March 10, 2000 on top of a black spot on the runway.
>
> An honest-to-God FAA controller had cleared a plane for position and
> hold and at the same time cleared another airplane to take off.
>

I'm familiar with this incident. The local controller believed the Skyhawk
was departing full length because strip marking indicated that's where he
was and there was a Skyhawk in that position. The Skyhawk pilot did not
properly identify his position as being at an intersection downfield.


>
> They hit at the intersection where the first plane was in position and
> hold. The plane that hit them was an instructor with a student pilot.
>
> For the life of me, I can't see why it happened, but the plane that
> was in position and hold never had a chance to see the plane that ran
> into them.
>

Did you not read the report? Did the aircraft departing full length have a
chance to see the plane downfield? Why did the Skyhawk pilot not hear the
takeoff clearance issued to the full length departure?


>
> So what is so honest-to-God bad about not lining up perfectly on the
> runway instead of stopping a little bit crossways to watch what is
> happening on the runway?
>

How far off the runway alignment would a Skyhawk at an intersection need to
be in order to have an unobstructed view?


>
> And don't give me any excuses about one of the aircraft not obeying
> ATC instructions. Neither plane did anything against ATC
> instructions. Read the NTSB report. It was a human error on the part
> of the controller.
>

Errors were made by the ground controller and the Skyhawk pilot, but not by
the local controller.

So, what ****ed you off?

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Steven P. McNicoll > posted:
(much snipped re: collision on the runway)
>
> Errors were made by the ground controller and the Skyhawk pilot, but
> not by the local controller.
>
Wait a second... if the tower and ground controllers are two different
people...where and when do ground controllers give position & hold or
clearances for departure?

Neil

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> Recently, Steven P. McNicoll > posted:
> (much snipped re: collision on the runway)
>>
>> Errors were made by the ground controller and the Skyhawk pilot, but
>> not by the local controller.
>>
> Wait a second... if the tower and ground controllers are two different
> people...where and when do ground controllers give position & hold or
> clearances for departure?
>

The local controller issued a "taxi into position and hold" instruction to
an Skyhawk he believed to be at the end of the runway. He believed that
because the strip, which was prepared by the ground controller, was marked
to indicate a full length departure. The Skyhawk involved in the collision
called ready to go but did not indicate he was an intersection departure.
It so happened that there was a Skyhawk at the far end of the runway. It
was the Skyhawk at the full length position that the local controller
believed had called ready to go.

[Mike Weller]

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 17:53:32 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
>news:1124291160.a4b773a96257a25b104a0209edc5c8ac@o nlynews...
>>
>> Boy, I just checked my log book. I landed at Sarasota Florida on
>> runway 14 on March 10, 2000 on top of a black spot on the runway.
>>
>> An honest-to-God FAA controller had cleared a plane for position and
>> hold and at the same time cleared another airplane to take off.
>>
>

>So, what ****ed you off?
>

Your know it all attitude.

Mike Weller

[Jose]

> How far off the runway alignment would a Skyhawk at an intersection need to
> be in order to have an unobstructed view?

30 degrees would do it. It would take about one second to straighten
out during the start of the takeoff roll, and since the takeoff roll is
a necessary maneuver to fly most 172s, there would be minimum ... er...
impact on the takeoff.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
news:1124304865.3ffa3812a56509dda6ca3417c2357737@o nlynews...
>
> Your know it all attitude.
>

I never claimed to know it all, but I do know a lot. I think you're reading
things in to my messages.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>
> 30 degrees would do it.

It probably would, if the wing was transparent.

[Jose]

>>30 degrees would do it.
>
> It probably would, if the wing was transparent.

Aren't the wings made of Aluminum?

Scotty
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Aren't the wings made of Aluminum?
>

Yes, but transparent aluminum has yet to be developed. We're still using
polymers for those applications.

[Jose]

> Yes, but transparent aluminum has yet to be developed. We're still using
> polymers for those applications.

Yeah, and you folks probably still have the wings up on top.

I was actually thinking of my recent experience, which is in Cherokees.
(yes I know - the OP said 172) I'll be flying a Cutlass in a few
weeks, I'll see how much or how little angle it takes.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mike Weller]

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:04:38 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
>news:1124304865.3ffa3812a56509dda6ca3417c2357737@o nlynews...
>>
>> Your know it all attitude.
>>
>
>I never claimed to know it all, but I do know a lot.

So do a lot of us. I think that your condescending language on this
particular topic will not serve any purpose to improve flying safety.

>I think you're reading
>things in to my messages.
>

I think not.

Mike Weller

[Dave]

> 30 degrees would do it. It would take about one second to straighten
> out during the start of the takeoff roll, and since the takeoff roll is a
> necessary maneuver to fly most 172s, there would be minimum ... er...
> impact on the takeoff.

Reminds me of something wierd that happened a few years back. We were on a
company outing to Southern California, flew into John Wayne Airport.

On the way out, we were in an MD80 or something. The Plane was waiting to
pull onto the runway. The engines revved up, and the plane accelerated,
kept going, turned 45 degrees, and launched down the runway. I've never
been in a plane that accelerated through the turn onto the runway. He never
slowed down, or stopped accelerating from the hold position. Freaked me
out. Its bad enough that they shut down/throttle back the engines for a few
seconds after takeoff for noise compliance. I know that runway is short
too.

Anyone familiar with this?

Dave

[Arketip]

Dave wrote:
>>30 degrees would do it. It would take about one second to straighten
>>out during the start of the takeoff roll, and since the takeoff roll is a
>>necessary maneuver to fly most 172s, there would be minimum ... er...
>>impact on the takeoff.
>
>
> Reminds me of something wierd that happened a few years back. We were on a
> company outing to Southern California, flew into John Wayne Airport.
>
> On the way out, we were in an MD80 or something. The Plane was waiting to
> pull onto the runway. The engines revved up, and the plane accelerated,
> kept going, turned 45 degrees, and launched down the runway. I've never
> been in a plane that accelerated through the turn onto the runway. He never
> slowed down, or stopped accelerating from the hold position. Freaked me
> out. Its bad enough that they shut down/throttle back the engines for a few
> seconds after takeoff for noise compliance. I know that runway is short
> too.
>
> Anyone familiar with this?
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
They probably asked them to do an immediate takeoff, to speed up
operation, with a traffic on final.
It does happen sometimes.

And after T/O they don't shut down the engines, they just throttle back
a bit to reduce noise but always with safety as priority in mind.

[Stefan]

Dave wrote:

> On the way out, we were in an MD80 or something. The Plane was waiting to
> pull onto the runway. The engines revved up, and the plane accelerated,
> kept going, turned 45 degrees, and launched down the runway. I've never
> been in a plane that accelerated through the turn onto the runway. He never
> slowed down, or stopped accelerating from the hold position. Freaked me
> out.

Pretty standard procedure in many airports. Why stopping again when
you're already rolling and all checks have been done?

Stefan

[Dave]

I understand what you are saying..I've been on planes that kept rolling
turned, and took off....

But this guy floored it before the turn was even made. Full throttle.

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Dave wrote:
>
>> On the way out, we were in an MD80 or something. The Plane was waiting
>> to pull onto the runway. The engines revved up, and the plane
>> accelerated, kept going, turned 45 degrees, and launched down the runway.
>> I've never been in a plane that accelerated through the turn onto the
>> runway. He never slowed down, or stopped accelerating from the hold
>> position. Freaked me out.
>
> Pretty standard procedure in many airports. Why stopping again when you're
> already rolling and all checks have been done?
>
> Stefan

[Skywise]

Jose > wrote in news:75NMe.2376$Z%6.1389
@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com:

>> Yes, but transparent aluminum has yet to be developed. We're still using
>> polymers for those applications.
>
> Yeah, and you folks probably still have the wings up on top.
<Snipola>

hehehehe...they're still using "wings"!!!! <snicker> :)

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Garner Miller]

In article >, Dave
> wrote:

> On the way out, we were in an MD80 or something. The Plane was waiting to
> pull onto the runway. The engines revved up, and the plane accelerated,
> kept going, turned 45 degrees, and launched down the runway. I've never
> been in a plane that accelerated through the turn onto the runway. He never
> slowed down ... Freaked me out.

My guess is the radio exchange was something like this:

ATC: Airliner XXXX, can you take it on the roll? There's a G-4 just
inside a 2-mile final.

Airliner: Affirmative, we're ready.

ATC: Airliner XXXX, cleared for immediate takeoff, traffic a Gulfstream
IV on a mile-and-a-half final.



Basically, it was go now, or wait several minutes wasting time and fuel
at the hold short line. I've done the same thing.

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Clifton Park, NY =USA=

[RST Engineering]

Hey, when you are at The Duke's airport, you take those chances, pilgrim.
Got it?

{;^)

Jim


"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>I understand what you are saying..I've been on planes that kept rolling
>turned, and took off....
>
> But this guy floored it before the turn was even made. Full throttle.

[John Gaquin]

"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
>
> .... I think that your condescending language on this
> particular topic will not serve any purpose to improve flying safety.


In future, Steven, do not concern yourself with accuracy. However, be sure
your tone doesn't offend anyone. This is more important.

[George Patterson]

Garner Miller wrote:
>
> Basically, it was go now, or wait several minutes wasting time and fuel
> at the hold short line. I've done the same thing.

I got that at RDU once. They told me to expedite 'cause a Delta 737 was on a
four mile final. I was 400' up when I passed the tower.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Jim Burns]

I had that conversation at an airport outside Atlanta this spring.

N6205Y, you ready to go? We're gonna shoot you out of here fast, once
cleared for take off, do NOT, repeat do NOT stop on the runway, traffic is a
xxxsuperjet on a x mile final. I need a tight left turn out when able.

Cessna took the runway in front of me, once he was airborne, Tower told me
ready set go and I was gone. Did a short field take off, and a max
performance climbing left turn. We got a "yee-haw" from somebody and a
"thank-you very much" from the tower.

Jim

[Hilton]

John Gaquin wrote:
>
> Mike Weller wrote:
> >
> > .... I think that your condescending language on this
> > particular topic will not serve any purpose to improve flying safety.
>
>
> In future, Steven, do not concern yourself with accuracy. However, be
sure
> your tone doesn't offend anyone. This is more important.

Interesting... Is it more important for a CFI to be accurate or have a
better 'tone'? I guess I prefer a more accurate CFI 'cause I stuck with my
Private CFI for my Instrument. Don't tell him that though. ;)

Hilton

[Joe Feise]

Dave wrote on 08/17/05 15:15:

> I understand what you are saying..I've been on planes that kept rolling
> turned, and took off....
>
> But this guy floored it before the turn was even made. Full throttle.


Otherwise, he wouldn't have made it off the runway...
Someday, somebody ends up on the freeway at the end. The runway is
awfully short.
But the local population didn't want to have the El Toro base converted
to a civilian airport.

-Joe

[Peter Duniho]

"Hilton" > wrote in message
k.net...
>> In future, Steven, do not concern yourself with accuracy. However, be
>> sure your tone doesn't offend anyone. This is more important.
>
> Interesting... Is it more important for a CFI to be accurate or have a
> better 'tone'? I guess I prefer a more accurate CFI 'cause I stuck with
> my
> Private CFI for my Instrument.

It would be best to have both, however.

It's funny, I can relate both to the folks who get irritated with Steven
(though frankly, in this particular set of threads, it seems to me all he's
done is provide accurate information...I didn't see anything irritating
about that), as well as to Steven himself. We both get crap for our "method
of delivery", even when we are providing accurate information, while the
folks who go around cussing and throwing around personal insults are
apparently condoned (activities that Steven and I both practically never
engage in, nor do many of the other "factually correct" folks here).

Just one of the funny things about Usenet, I guess. It's okay to go ad
hominem and use foul language, but don't you dare get caught acting like you
actually might KNOW something.

Pete

[Happy Dog]

"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:04:38 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
>>news:1124304865.3ffa3812a56509dda6ca3417c2357737@o nlynews...
>>>
>>> Your know it all attitude.
>>>
>>
>>I never claimed to know it all, but I do know a lot.
>
> So do a lot of us. I think that your condescending language on this
> particular topic will not serve any purpose to improve flying safety.

And your infantile cry for attention by naming another poster in the subject
line will?

>>I think you're reading
>>things in to my messages.
>>
> I think not.

Well, you appear to be wrong. Nobody's defending you in this thread. You
are empirically certified as ignored and unloved. Now, OT, it's hard to see
planes on runways. I've missed one; and I'm not alone. Ask.

moo

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

George Patterson wrote:
>> Basically, it was go now, or wait several minutes wasting time and fuel
>> at the hold short line. I've done the same thing.
>
> I got that at RDU once. They told me to expedite 'cause a Delta 737 was on a
> four mile final. I was 400' up when I passed the tower.


I had a courier job once where I flew out of RDU five days a week. On numerous
occasions I was given a "go now or hold your piece (spelling intentional)". I'd
forego the wake separation, blast off and turn onto course once I was 20 feet or
so in the air... getting away from the centerline ASAP so someone else could use
it. Sometimes they'd let me go before an airliner that got there first simply
because they knew I wouldn't be a factor for very long at all. The airliners
couldn't do the same.

My cancelled checks sitting in the back never complained.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Joe Feise wrote:
> Otherwise, he wouldn't have made it off the runway...
> Someday, somebody ends up on the freeway at the end. The runway is
> awfully short.
> But the local population didn't want to have the El Toro base converted
> to a civilian airport.


Ever been to Grand Cayman? I flew down there once on a Cayman Airways B-727 and
when we got stopped and turned to taxi back to the terminal, the right wing was
hanging over the water at the end of the strip.

I know I was impressed.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[James Robinson]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:

> George Patterson wrote:
>>>
>>> Basically, it was go now, or wait several minutes wasting time and
>>> fuel at the hold short line. I've done the same thing.
>>
>> I got that at RDU once. They told me to expedite 'cause a Delta 737
>> was on a four mile final. I was 400' up when I passed the tower.
>
> I had a courier job once where I flew out of RDU five days a week. On
> numerous occasions I was given a "go now or hold your piece (spelling
> intentional)". I'd forego the wake separation, blast off and turn
> onto course once I was 20 feet or so in the air... getting away from
> the centerline ASAP so someone else could use it. Sometimes they'd
> let me go before an airliner that got there first simply because they
> knew I wouldn't be a factor for very long at all. The airliners
> couldn't do the same.
>
> My cancelled checks sitting in the back never complained.

Do such actions also help explain the high fatality rate of commercial
pilots, one of the highest rates of any occupation?

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

James Robinson wrote:
> Do such actions also help explain the high fatality rate of commercial
> pilots, one of the highest rates of any occupation?


No. The high fatality rate is due to the crap we have to operate, and the
crappy weather in which we are expected to operate. Commercial pilots aren't
able to always sit on the ground and wait out the weather; we are expected to
go. Should it be that way? No, It just is.

Please take your judgemental attitude and shove it up your ass. And have a nice
day.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Dave]

There is no fear of retaliation.

People say stuff here that they would never say to you face to face. These
kinds of forums have opened up a way for people to say whats "REALLY" on
their minds without any fear.

Some of the things I've seen people say here would get them a severe
beating, or DEAD if they were talking to a person live. I also guess that
depends on who they are talking to.

When I joined the piloting news groups, I thought I would find a more
mature, intelligent group of people. Nope, same ol flaming bull****. (There
are exceptions of course)

Think about it this way before you post, wuld you say this to a person face?
Don't just say "of course", really think about it, and think about social
ettiquette. Pretend you are at a party. You can get into a lively
discussion, but would you flat out insult someone like that? Chances are
you would be standing by yourself if you did. People usually come up with
more "polite" ways to insult people in good company.

Now some people just plain deserve to be told off, but I try not to waste my
energy on those people. I just ignore their post, and continue on my way.

Uh oh, I sense some heat coming my way.......

Dave


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Hilton" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>> In future, Steven, do not concern yourself with accuracy. However, be
>>> sure your tone doesn't offend anyone. This is more important.
>>
>> Interesting... Is it more important for a CFI to be accurate or have a
>> better 'tone'? I guess I prefer a more accurate CFI 'cause I stuck with
>> my
>> Private CFI for my Instrument.
>
> It would be best to have both, however.
>
> It's funny, I can relate both to the folks who get irritated with Steven
> (though frankly, in this particular set of threads, it seems to me all
> he's done is provide accurate information...I didn't see anything
> irritating about that), as well as to Steven himself. We both get crap
> for our "method of delivery", even when we are providing accurate
> information, while the folks who go around cussing and throwing around
> personal insults are apparently condoned (activities that Steven and I
> both practically never engage in, nor do many of the other "factually
> correct" folks here).
>
> Just one of the funny things about Usenet, I guess. It's okay to go ad
> hominem and use foul language, but don't you dare get caught acting like
> you actually might KNOW something.
>
> Pete
>

[Mike Weller]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 04:31:43 -0400, "Happy Dog"
> wrote:


>And your infantile cry for attention by naming another poster in the subject
>line will?
>

You're right about that. I regret naming Steven in the original
title. I was wrong to do that and I promise never to do it again.

It's just that I've never felt comfortable with position and hold.
Usually it's because there is another aircraft on a parallel runway
taking off. I have been flying airplanes for 40 years now and there
is no good reason to substitute situational awaresness for some other
"higher power".

>>>I think you're reading
>>>things in to my messages.
>>>
>> I think not.
>
>Well, you appear to be wrong. Nobody's defending you in this thread. You
>are empirically certified as ignored and unloved. Now, OT, it's hard to see
>planes on runways. I've missed one; and I'm not alone. Ask.
>
>moo
>

I don't need any "defending".

Mike Weller

[OtisWinslow]

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Anyone familiar with this?
>
> Dave

I've been on airliners where they did this. I guess if they're already
rolling why stop and start up again.

[Peter Duniho]

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Some of the things I've seen people say here would get them a severe
> beating, or DEAD if they were talking to a person live. I also guess that
> depends on who they are talking to.

Well, *that* is a funny commentary on human society. Personally, I grew up
with the "sticks and stones..." philosophy taught to me. Why would I
physically attack a person just because they are making an ass of
themselves? But you're right...there are plenty of people out there who
react just that way. (I guess refer back to my "most people are idiots"
post :) ).

> [...]
> Think about it this way before you post, wuld you say this to a person
> face? Don't just say "of course", really think about it, and think about
> social ettiquette.

One of the other funny things is that some people have accused me of saying
things I wouldn't say to a person face to face (keep in mind here that they
are saying this about statements that are decidedly not ad hominem attacks
nor that use foul language). Those people obviously haven't met me face to
face. :) I say what I think, and my friends know that. They are still my
friends, and most of them appreciate that I say what I think.

That's not particularly germane to your point (which was about blatantly
offensive statements), but I still find the situation ironic.

As far as the explicitly offensive stuff goes, if anything, I'm more likely
to use rude or foul language in person than here. It's much easier to take
things back face to face. (Though, I obviously try to avoid it in any
context).

Pete

[Dave]

Well, that may be true for you but in my experience, most people that I've
met live from newsgroups wouldn't DARE say half the things in person that
they say on here.

I can even go back to the early 80s when we had BBS's to post on. We would
have parties, and it was amazing how different people were in person. You
have this little wimpy pale guy who would shake if you talked to him, but
online he was the biggest ass.

I've tried to stay true to my personality both online and in person. When I
wrote a few weeks ago that some guy acted like he had a stick up his ass,
its something I would have said to him in person, even at a social event,
because he was jumping all over people over slight mis-spellings, and
grammar errors.

Now I know, I shouldn't have even posted it, but I saw so many of his
negative posts that day, I thought I would call him on it. I was enjoying
reading positive, informative information, but then this guy would pop in
every time with some stupid ass comment.

What I'm trying to say, is that people need to "grow up" online, and stop
with the jr. high school crap.

Flame all you want, I just think its stupid.

Dave


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> ...
>> [...]
>> Some of the things I've seen people say here would get them a severe
>> beating, or DEAD if they were talking to a person live. I also guess
>> that depends on who they are talking to.
>
> Well, *that* is a funny commentary on human society. Personally, I grew
> up with the "sticks and stones..." philosophy taught to me. Why would I
> physically attack a person just because they are making an ass of
> themselves? But you're right...there are plenty of people out there who
> react just that way. (I guess refer back to my "most people are idiots"
> post :) ).
>
>> [...]
>> Think about it this way before you post, wuld you say this to a person
>> face? Don't just say "of course", really think about it, and think about
>> social ettiquette.
>
> One of the other funny things is that some people have accused me of
> saying things I wouldn't say to a person face to face (keep in mind here
> that they are saying this about statements that are decidedly not ad
> hominem attacks nor that use foul language). Those people obviously
> haven't met me face to face. :) I say what I think, and my friends know
> that. They are still my friends, and most of them appreciate that I say
> what I think.
>
> That's not particularly germane to your point (which was about blatantly
> offensive statements), but I still find the situation ironic.
>
> As far as the explicitly offensive stuff goes, if anything, I'm more
> likely to use rude or foul language in person than here. It's much easier
> to take things back face to face. (Though, I obviously try to avoid it in
> any context).
>
> Pete
>

[Robert M. Gary]

Steven has ****ed me off a number of times too, don't worry about it.
:) Sometimes he's a great person to pick an arguement with.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Steven has ****ed me off a number of times too, don't worry about it.
> :) Sometimes he's a great person to pick an arguement with.
>

Aaawwww, cut it out! Yer makin' me blush!

[George Patterson]

James Robinson wrote:
>
> Do such actions also help explain the high fatality rate of commercial
> pilots, one of the highest rates of any occupation?

Not likely. In my case, it would take about two minutes for that 737 to cover
that 4 miles. Even an O-320 can get me out of the way by the time he gets there.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Happy Dog]

"Dave" > wrote in
> There is no fear of retaliation.
>
> People say stuff here that they would never say to you face to face.
> These kinds of forums have opened up a way for people to say whats
> "REALLY" on their minds without any fear.
>
> Some of the things I've seen people say here would get them a severe
> beating, or DEAD if they were talking to a person live. I also guess that
> depends on who they are talking to.

he he The joys of Usenet. I don't write anything I wouldn't say in person
except to someone who poses some sort of threat. Even here, though, I've
seen people stalked and harrassed by idiots who think it's fair game to post
personal information on people whos views they don't like. It's happened to
me a few times. But, after more than a decade of this, it's still an
enjoyable pasttime and way better than watching television.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
>>And your infantile cry for attention by naming another poster in the
>>subject
>>line will?
>
> You're right about that. I regret naming Steven in the original
> title.

That's commendable. Pardon my net-nanny routine.

m

[James Robinson]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:

> James Robinson wrote:
>> Do such actions also help explain the high fatality rate of
>> commercial pilots, one of the highest rates of any occupation?
>
> No. The high fatality rate is due to the crap we have to operate, and
> the crappy weather in which we are expected to operate. Commercial
> pilots aren't able to always sit on the ground and wait out the
> weather; we are expected to go. Should it be that way? No, It just
> is.
>
> Please take your judgemental attitude and shove it up your ass. And
> have a nice day.

Now is that nice? I only asked an innocent little question. Well perhaps
not so innocent...