"Rolling" to ATC

[Mxsmanic]

Under what conditions, if any, would you explicitly tell ATC that you
are rolling, that is, actually rolling on the runway for take-off?

I hear this used occasionally, but I don't know if there are any
formal circumstances that merit it, or if it is just at pilot
discretion, or what. It is normally independent of the readback of
the take-off clearance (which precedes it), although sometimes I hear
"Rolling" without a readback of the clearance.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Are you sure you don't mean trolling?

[Casey Wilson]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Under what conditions, if any, would you explicitly tell ATC that you
> are rolling, that is, actually rolling on the runway for take-off?
>
> I hear this used occasionally, but I don't know if there are any
> formal circumstances that merit it, or if it is just at pilot
> discretion, or what. It is normally independent of the readback of
> the take-off clearance (which precedes it), although sometimes I hear
> "Rolling" without a readback of the clearance.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

None at all.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Under what conditions, if any, would you explicitly tell ATC that you
> are rolling, that is, actually rolling on the runway for take-off?
>
> I hear this used occasionally, but I don't know if there are any
> formal circumstances that merit it, or if it is just at pilot
> discretion, or what. It is normally independent of the readback of
> the take-off clearance (which precedes it), although sometimes I hear
> "Rolling" without a readback of the clearance.
>

What is the name of Dagwood's wife?

[Paul kgyy]

On Feb 4, 11:59 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Under what conditions, if any, would you explicitly tell ATC that you
> are rolling, that is, actually rolling on the runway for take-off?
>
> I hear this used occasionally, but I don't know if there are any
> formal circumstances that merit it, or if it is just at pilot
> discretion, or what. It is normally independent of the readback of
> the take-off clearance (which precedes it), although sometimes I hear
> "Rolling" without a readback of the clearance.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Tower: United xxy, cleared for takeoff, turn to heading 225
United xxy: United xxy, rolling, turn to 225

[Sam Spade]

paul kgyy wrote:

> On Feb 4, 11:59 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>>Under what conditions, if any, would you explicitly tell ATC that you
>>are rolling, that is, actually rolling on the runway for take-off?
>>
>>I hear this used occasionally, but I don't know if there are any
>>formal circumstances that merit it, or if it is just at pilot
>>discretion, or what. It is normally independent of the readback of
>>the take-off clearance (which precedes it), although sometimes I hear
>>"Rolling" without a readback of the clearance.
>>
>>--
>>Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
>
> Tower: United xxy, cleared for takeoff, turn to heading 225
> United xxy: United xxy, rolling, turn to 225
>

I think it would be "United xxy, turn to heading 225, cleared for takeoff."

"Rolling" is pure slang.

[Paul kgyy]

On Feb 4, 8:08 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
> paul kgyy wrote:
> > On Feb 4, 11:59 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> >>Under what conditions, if any, would you explicitly tell ATC that you
> >>are rolling, that is, actually rolling on the runway for take-off?
>
> >>I hear this used occasionally, but I don't know if there are any
> >>formal circumstances that merit it, or if it is just at pilot
> >>discretion, or what. It is normally independent of the readback of
> >>the take-off clearance (which precedes it), although sometimes I hear
> >>"Rolling" without a readback of the clearance.
>
> >>--
> >>Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
> > Tower: United xxy, cleared for takeoff, turn to heading 225
> > United xxy: United xxy, rolling, turn to 225
>
> I think it would be "United xxy, turn to heading 225, cleared for takeoff."
>
> "Rolling" is pure slang.

Correction accepted;
Slang, yes, but have often heard it.

[Doug[_1_]]

OK, ATC, HIT it!
(ATC)
Rollin' rollin' rollin,
Keep them aircraft rollin'
Deltaaaa
Don't try to understand em
Just throttle, stick and jam them
Soon we'll be livin high a wide......

[Allan9]

You've got the word
Make like a bird
Al

"Doug" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> OK, ATC, HIT it!
> (ATC)
> Rollin' rollin' rollin,
> Keep them aircraft rollin'
> Deltaaaa
> Don't try to understand em
> Just throttle, stick and jam them
> Soon we'll be livin high a wide......
>

[G. Sylvester]

Sam Spade wrote:
> paul kgyy wrote:
>> Tower: United xxy, cleared for takeoff, turn to heading 225
>> United xxy: United xxy, rolling, turn to 225
> I think it would be "United xxy, turn to heading 225, cleared for takeoff."

"Theodore 2501, cleared for takeoff, 225. Rolling on a river." It's
better to turn to that heading after you get off the ground unless the
actual direction of the runway is 225. ;-)


Also used for:
Flight attendant #1 - The luggage is probably thirsty. Let's get moving
on the beverage carts.

Stewardess #2 - Rolling.

[Thomas Borchert]

Paul,

> United xxy: United xxy, rolling, turn to 225
>

And that phrase as the correct answer to a take-off clearance cna be
found where in the AIM or the PC/G? It's idiot-speak, pure and simple.
Just because an airline captain says it, doesn't make it better.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Doug,

Very nice! ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

G. Sylvester writes:

> "Theodore 2501, cleared for takeoff, 225. Rolling on a river." It's
> better to turn to that heading after you get off the ground unless the
> actual direction of the runway is 225. ;-)

I have often heard "upon leaving the runway" or "when airborne" to
remove ambiguity, although I don't think too many pilots would turn to
225 while still on the ground.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> And that phrase as the correct answer to a take-off clearance cna be
> found where in the AIM or the PC/G? It's idiot-speak, pure and simple.
> Just because an airline captain says it, doesn't make it better.

There is no "correct answer." Phraseology is suggested, not required.
ATC is held to a much tighter standard in this respect, but the
objective of radio communication is to communicate, not to prove that
one has read the manual. The degree to which one can safely deviate
from guidelines and still maintain or enhance communicate becomes more
apparent with experience, which is something that most airline
captains have in abundance.

However, if you ever hear a captain say the "wrong" thing on the
radio, you can certainly call over an FA and insist that she
communicate your displeasure to him, and perhaps he'll look at the
book before he hits the PTT button next time. Most airline captains
are eager to win the approval of low-time GA pilots back in the cabin,
and will even instruct their crews to actively seek out the counsel of
these experts to bring back to the cockpit.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
et...
> Are you sure you don't mean trolling?
>

Shoots and SCORES!!!!

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Allan9" > said:
>You've got the word
>Make like a bird
>Al

Man in the tower,
this is the man in the bird
I'm ready to go,
just give me the word.

Man in the bird,
this is the man in the tower
you talk funny
your delay's an hour.

- Rod Machado.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Could you stop changing your email address willy-nilly, so my killfile
can spare me from your erudition and wit?
-- Alan Shutko

[Mxsmanic]

Under what conditions, when playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator, if any,
would you explicitly tell ATC, when playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator
that you are rolling, when playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator, that is,
actually rolling on the runway for take-off, when playing with Microsoft
Flight Simulator?

I hear this used occasionally, when playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator,
but I don't know if there are any formal circumstances that merit it, when
playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator, or if it is just at pilot
discretion, when playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator, or what. It is
normally independent of the readback of the take-off clearance (which
precedes it), when playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator, although
sometimes I hear "Rolling" without a readback of the clearance, when playing
with Microsoft Flight Simulator.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> G. Sylvester writes:
>
>
>>"Theodore 2501, cleared for takeoff, 225. Rolling on a river." It's
>>better to turn to that heading after you get off the ground unless the
>>actual direction of the runway is 225. ;-)
>
>
> I have often heard "upon leaving the runway" or "when airborne" to
> remove ambiguity, although I don't think too many pilots would turn to
> 225 while still on the ground.
>

Where have you heard this? I have never, ever heard such nonsense
instructions.

Here is how it would be done professionally:

"United 123 turn left heading 225, cleared for takeoff."

Of it more then one runway is active, such is always the case at places
like ORD and LAX:

"United 123 turn left heading 225, cleared for takeoff Runway 24L."

Professional pilot response,

"United 123 is cleared for takeoff, heading 225." (thee is no published
format for the pilot response, other than it is common practice to
readback clearances and instructions; hold-short instructions must be
read back.)

It is absolutely understood that the turn will not be made on the runway.

You love to make crap up, Mr. Troll.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Thomas Borchert writes:
>

> However, if you ever hear a captain say the "wrong" thing on the
> radio, you can certainly call over an FA and insist that she
> communicate your displeasure to him, and perhaps he'll look at the
> book before he hits the PTT button next time. Most airline captains
> are eager to win the approval of low-time GA pilots back in the cabin,
> and will even instruct their crews to actively seek out the counsel of
> these experts to bring back to the cockpit.
>
Oh Bull****.

First place, only United Airlines pipes ATC into the cabin. Second, it
is up to the captain and far fewer do it since 911.

Flight attendants are training NOT to take such bull**** from a
passenger to the flight deck.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Sam Spade > said:
>Mxsmanic wrote:
>> I have often heard "upon leaving the runway" or "when airborne" to
>> remove ambiguity, although I don't think too many pilots would turn to
>> 225 while still on the ground.
>>
>
>Where have you heard this? I have never, ever heard such nonsense
>instructions.

Well, since he's never talked on a real aviation radio and yet he has the
nerve to correct real pilots, what do you expect? Sure, some of the
controllers on VATSIM are pros, but even the pros know that they're not
going to be accountable to anybody if they're lax or screw something up on
VATSIM.

>Here is how it would be done professionally:
>
>"United 123 turn left heading 225, cleared for takeoff."
>
>Of it more then one runway is active, such is always the case at places
>like ORD and LAX:
>
>"United 123 turn left heading 225, cleared for takeoff Runway 24L."

Then there is the stunning load of crap in Michael Crichton's "Airframe":

"Tower zero one request clearance for takeoff."
"Cleared runway three contact ground point six three when off the runway."


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Sheridan: "Well, as answers go, short, to the point, utterly useless and
totally consistent, what I've come to expect from a Vorlon."
Kosh: "Good."

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>book before he hits the PTT button next time. Most airline captains
>are eager to win the approval of low-time GA pilots back in the cabin,
>and will even instruct their crews to actively seek out the counsel of
>these experts to bring back to the cockpit.

Much like the way real pilots actively seek out the counsel and approval
of simulator dweebs.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
As it should be - snipe at *.mil and expect to drop any plans for
the rest of that day.
-- Alex

[Sam Spade]

Paul Tomblin wrote:


> Then there is the stunning load of crap in Michael Crichton's "Airframe":
>
> "Tower zero one request clearance for takeoff."
> "Cleared runway three contact ground point six three when off the runway."
>
>

I like that! ;-)

[Sam Spade]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>
>>book before he hits the PTT button next time. Most airline captains
>>are eager to win the approval of low-time GA pilots back in the cabin,
>>and will even instruct their crews to actively seek out the counsel of
>>these experts to bring back to the cockpit.
>
>
> Much like the way real pilots actively seek out the counsel and approval
> of simulator dweebs.
>
>

Maybe we can get this person to hold an advanced seminar for
professional pilots and controllers. We all need serious insights from
the real pros (aka, "experts" as defined as a "has been, know it all,"
or a "drip under pressure.")

[Mark Hansen]

On 02/05/07 05:54, Sam Spade wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Thomas Borchert writes:
>>
>
>> However, if you ever hear a captain say the "wrong" thing on the
>> radio, you can certainly call over an FA and insist that she
>> communicate your displeasure to him, and perhaps he'll look at the
>> book before he hits the PTT button next time. Most airline captains
>> are eager to win the approval of low-time GA pilots back in the cabin,
>> and will even instruct their crews to actively seek out the counsel of
>> these experts to bring back to the cockpit.
>>
> Oh Bull****.
>
> First place, only United Airlines pipes ATC into the cabin. Second, it
> is up to the captain and far fewer do it since 911.
>
> Flight attendants are training NOT to take such bull**** from a
> passenger to the flight deck.

Good God, Sam. He was yanking your chain ;-\

[Newps]

Exactly. Playing.




Mxsmanic wrote:

> Under what conditions, when playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator, if any,
> would you explicitly tell ATC, when playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator
> that you are rolling, when playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator, that is,
> actually rolling on the runway for take-off, when playing with Microsoft
> Flight Simulator?
>
> I hear this used occasionally, when playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator,
> but I don't know if there are any formal circumstances that merit it, when
> playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator, or if it is just at pilot
> discretion, when playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator, or what. It is
> normally independent of the readback of the take-off clearance (which
> precedes it), when playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator, although
> sometimes I hear "Rolling" without a readback of the clearance, when playing
> with Microsoft Flight Simulator.
>

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> Exactly. Playing.
>
Hmmm...playing with himself.
>
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Under what conditions, when playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator, if
>> any, would you explicitly tell ATC, when playing with Microsoft Flight
>> Simulator that you are rolling, when playing with Microsoft Flight
>> Simulator, that is, actually rolling on the runway for take-off, when
>> playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator?
>>
>> I hear this used occasionally, when playing with Microsoft Flight
>> Simulator, but I don't know if there are any formal circumstances that
>> merit it, when playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator, or if it is just
>> at pilot discretion, when playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator, or
>> what. It is normally independent of the readback of the take-off
>> clearance (which precedes it), when playing with Microsoft Flight
>> Simulator, although sometimes I hear "Rolling" without a readback of the
>> clearance, when playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator.
>>

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Sam Spade > said:
>Maybe we can get this person to hold an advanced seminar for
>professional pilots and controllers. We all need serious insights from
>the real pros (aka, "experts" as defined as a "has been, know it all,"
>or a "drip under pressure.")

A former drip under pressure is an "ex-spurt".

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
FAQs are like flatulence. Any asshole can produce them.
-- Toni L

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

See? That wasn't so hard now, was it?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Al G[_1_]]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Under what conditions, if any, would you explicitly tell ATC that you
>> are rolling, that is, actually rolling on the runway for take-off?
>>
>> I hear this used occasionally, but I don't know if there are any
>> formal circumstances that merit it, or if it is just at pilot
>> discretion, or what. It is normally independent of the readback of
>> the take-off clearance (which precedes it), although sometimes I hear
>> "Rolling" without a readback of the clearance.
>>
>
> What is the name of Dagwood's wife?

Blondie.

Al G

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> Where have you heard this?

Listening to ATC.

> I have never, ever heard such nonsense instructions.

Maybe you should listen to more ATC.

> Here is how it would be done professionally:
>
> "United 123 turn left heading 225, cleared for takeoff."

Next time I hear ATC do it "unprofessionally," I'll be sure to write
them a strongly-worded letter communicating your disapproval. That'll
whip them into shape.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Paul Tomblin writes:

> Well, since he's never talked on a real aviation radio and yet he has the
> nerve to correct real pilots, what do you expect? Sure, some of the
> controllers on VATSIM are pros, but even the pros know that they're not
> going to be accountable to anybody if they're lax or screw something up on
> VATSIM.

I haven't heard it on VATSIM; I've only heard it on real-world ATC.

> Then there is the stunning load of crap in Michael Crichton's "Airframe":
>
> "Tower zero one request clearance for takeoff."
> "Cleared runway three contact ground point six three when off the runway."

Where's the error?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> Oh Bull****.

I suspect that's what the captain would say, yes.

> First place, only United Airlines pipes ATC into the cabin. Second, it
> is up to the captain and far fewer do it since 911.

So?

> Flight attendants are training NOT to take such bull**** from a
> passenger to the flight deck.

I guess Thomas is out of luck, then.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Paul Tomblin writes:

> Much like the way real pilots actively seek out the counsel and approval
> of simulator dweebs.

A lot of real pilots already think they know everything, especially in
general aviation, so they never seek out counsel at all, which isn't
always wise.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> Exactly. Playing.

Yes, that's what I said. What is your point?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> See? That wasn't so hard now, was it?

What are you referring to?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic writes:

> Newps writes:
>
> > Exactly. Playing.
>
> Yes, that's what I said.

No, that's not what I said. The referenced post was forged.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2

iQA/AwUBRcecshv8knkS0DI6EQIoAACfenfhBDeH0o3u287qLqHSa7 vgoIAAoJKB
Gn2QgZHruCAzPtK9KwSpXNrg
=LCOv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic drooled:
>
> Mxsmanic writes:
>
>
>>Newps writes:
>>
>>
>>>Exactly. Playing.
>>
>>Yes, that's what I said.
>
>
> No, that's not what I said. The referenced post was forged.

Doesn't matter to us.

[Mxsmanic]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic writes:

> Newps writes:
>
> > Exactly. Playing.
>
> Yes, that's what I said.

No, that's not what I said. The referenced post was simulated.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2

iQA/AwUBRcecshv8knkS0DI6EQIoAACfenfhBDeH0o3u287qLqHSa7 vgoIAAoJKB
Gn2QgZHruCAzPtK9KwSpXNrg
=LCOv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:


> Mxsmanic writes:
>
>
>>Newps writes:
>>
>>
>>>Exactly. Playing.
>>
>>Yes, that's what I said.
>
>
> No, that's not what I said. The referenced post was simulated.


The goal of simulation is to perfectly simulate reality. Mission
accomplished.

[Jim Logajan]

Newps > wrote:
> Doesn't matter to us.

Who's "us"?

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> Doesn't matter to us.

You speak for yourself only.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> The goal of simulation is to perfectly simulate reality. Mission
> accomplished.

A perfect simulation would still have a valid digital signature.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
<...>>
>>
>> No, that's not what I said. The referenced post was forged.
>
> Doesn't matter to us.

You are now on the REAL troll's side?

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 14:36:23 -0700, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>
>> Mxsmanic writes:
>>
>>
>>>Newps writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Exactly. Playing.
>>>
>>>Yes, that's what I said.
>>
>>
>> No, that's not what I said. The referenced post was simulated.
>
>
>The goal of simulation is to perfectly simulate reality. Mission
>accomplished.

Welll... a simulation is never perfect. If it were it'd be reality.
There for no simulation can be perfect as it'd no longer be a
simulation.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

Thanks- I also coach and play hockey as well as fly.

[Newps]

Viperdoc wrote:
> Thanks- I also coach and play hockey as well as fly.
>

Alllllright! I'm a referee, used to coach and my son is a junior in
high school and plays for his school. I can't be bothered on Friday and
Saturday nights if the Gophers are on.

[Tim]

You're kidding, right?


(simulating a laugh)

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Paul Tomblin writes:
>
>
>>Well, since he's never talked on a real aviation radio and yet he has the
>>nerve to correct real pilots, what do you expect? Sure, some of the
>>controllers on VATSIM are pros, but even the pros know that they're not
>>going to be accountable to anybody if they're lax or screw something up on
>>VATSIM.
>
>
> I haven't heard it on VATSIM; I've only heard it on real-world ATC.
>
>
>>Then there is the stunning load of crap in Michael Crichton's "Airframe":
>>
>>"Tower zero one request clearance for takeoff."
>>"Cleared runway three contact ground point six three when off the runway."
>
>
> Where's the error?
>

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

Just got back from practice- my son is a squirt, and I'm one of the
assistant coaches. We have play downs this weekend (do these sound
familiar?), but unfortunately I'll be in San Diego for a meeting.

It was actually warmer inside the rink than outside tonight, with the OAT
hovering at -4degrees. With two to three practices and at least one to two
games on the weekends it cuts into the flying time. However, we try to fly
to his games, even if it's only a 15 minute ride. Of course going to the
distant tournaments really becomes more fun- and I usually commute by plane
rather than drive.

Was it a big transition going from squirt to checking? My son isn't very
big, so I'm concerned about him getting crushed.

[Jay Beckman]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> Just got back from practice- my son is a squirt, and I'm one of the
> assistant coaches. We have play downs this weekend (do these sound
> familiar?), but unfortunately I'll be in San Diego for a meeting.
>
> It was actually warmer inside the rink than outside tonight, with the OAT
> hovering at -4degrees. With two to three practices and at least one to two
> games on the weekends it cuts into the flying time. However, we try to fly
> to his games, even if it's only a 15 minute ride. Of course going to the
> distant tournaments really becomes more fun- and I usually commute by
> plane rather than drive.
>
> Was it a big transition going from squirt to checking? My son isn't very
> big, so I'm concerned about him getting crushed.
>

Since no one is allowed to hit them anymore, make him a goaltender.

Jay B

[Mxsmanic]

Tim writes:

> You're kidding, right?

No. Where's the error? Do you know?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Roger writes:

> Welll... a simulation is never perfect. If it were it'd be reality.

Correct. Simulation approaches but does not attain this objective.
In practice, simulation can be perfect for a given subset of the
reality to be simulated, but not for all of it. Thus, you can have a
simulator that perfectly simulates some (possibly large) subset of the
reality of flying, but no simulator covers everything. The usual goal
is to create a simulation that covers a subset useful for the purpose
for which the simulation is being used. For example, an
instrument-flight simulator may perfectly simulate the behavior of
instruments, and this may fulfill the purpose of the simulator, even
though other aspects of the reality of flying are not simulated.

In general, many aspects of reality are not worth simulating, and some
are even undesirable in some cases. For example, you would not design
a simulator that kills the pilot in the event of a simulated crash.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[A Lieberma]

Tim > wrote in :

> You're kidding, right?
>
>
> (simulating a laugh)

Based on his response to you, clearly never been near an airport :-) nor
does he read carefully, wants it all spoon fed to him.....

Maybe one contacts ground after departure in anticipation for that off
airport emergency landing LOL

Allen

[Rip]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Roger writes:
>
>
>>Welll... a simulation is never perfect. If it were it'd be reality.
>
>
> Correct. Simulation approaches but does not attain this objective.
> In practice, simulation can be perfect for a given subset of the
> reality to be simulated, but not for all of it. Thus, you can have a
> simulator that perfectly simulates some (possibly large) subset of the
> reality of flying, but no simulator covers everything. The usual goal
> is to create a simulation that covers a subset useful for the purpose
> for which the simulation is being used. For example, an
> instrument-flight simulator may perfectly simulate the behavior of
> instruments, and this may fulfill the purpose of the simulator, even
> though other aspects of the reality of flying are not simulated.
>
> In general, many aspects of reality are not worth simulating, and some
> are even undesirable in some cases. For example, you would not design
> a simulator that kills the pilot in the event of a simulated crash.
>
Anthony, why would it be undesirable were you to kill yourself in a
simulator crash?

Rip

[G. Sylvester]

A Lieberma wrote:
> Maybe one contacts ground after departure in anticipation for that off
> airport emergency landing LOL

Nope. Contact Mommy to get another pop for playing nice (not cutting in
front of the other 747 in the pattern). LOL. Egal.

[Mxsmanic]

Rip writes:

> Anthony, why would it be undesirable were you to kill yourself in a
> simulator crash?

One of the key advantages of simulation is that undesirable aspects of
the real world can be left out. There would be little advantage to
simulation as a training tool if mistakes left the pilot dead.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Rip]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Newps writes:
>
>
>>Doesn't matter to us.
>
>
> You speak for yourself only.
>
BAAAAAAP! (Application of 50 joules at delta Tau = 1 msec through
joystick, sticky with erzatz human effluvia).
Incorrect assumption, Anthony!
Error, Error, Error!!!
He speaks also for me.

Rip

[Newps]

I don't fly to any of the away games. That almost never works.
Weather's too crappy and you need a car anyways at the other end. Not
much of a transition moving up, the kids handle it fine. Where are you
located?




Viperdoc wrote:
> Just got back from practice- my son is a squirt, and I'm one of the
> assistant coaches. We have play downs this weekend (do these sound
> familiar?), but unfortunately I'll be in San Diego for a meeting.
>
> It was actually warmer inside the rink than outside tonight, with the OAT
> hovering at -4degrees. With two to three practices and at least one to two
> games on the weekends it cuts into the flying time. However, we try to fly
> to his games, even if it's only a 15 minute ride. Of course going to the
> distant tournaments really becomes more fun- and I usually commute by plane
> rather than drive.
>
> Was it a big transition going from squirt to checking? My son isn't very
> big, so I'm concerned about him getting crushed.
>
>

[Mxsmanic]

Rip writes:

> He speaks also for me.

If that were true, you wouldn't be saying this.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jim Logajan]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Rip writes:
>
>> He speaks also for me.
>
> If that were true, you wouldn't be saying this.

Score 1 for Mxsmanic (it got a chuckle out of me, anyway).

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

My son plays in WAHA (I think it stands for Wisconsin amateur hockey
association) as a second year squirt in the Elm Brook program. I am the
level director and one of the assistant coaches for his team.

Flying to tournaments works for us, since my wife generally drives, and I
fly up for the games. I have a lot of other responsibilities related to work
and the Air Force, so this gives me more time to get other stuff done on the
weekends, as well as an opportunity to fly. Who could ask for more?

Last night we were trying to teach the defense to cut off the player coming
out of the offensive zone without drawing an interference penalty- it's
tough to make a play on the puck and cut the player off as well and make it
look like they were just playing the puck.

I tried to get the kids to turn toward the player coming out of the zone,
and not the puck. Do you have any input on this move from the ref's
perspective?
"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>I don't fly to any of the away games. That almost never works. Weather's
>too crappy and you need a car anyways at the other end. Not much of a
>transition moving up, the kids handle it fine. Where are you located?
>
>
>
>
> Viperdoc wrote:
>> Just got back from practice- my son is a squirt, and I'm one of the
>> assistant coaches. We have play downs this weekend (do these sound
>> familiar?), but unfortunately I'll be in San Diego for a meeting.
>>
>> It was actually warmer inside the rink than outside tonight, with the OAT
>> hovering at -4degrees. With two to three practices and at least one to
>> two games on the weekends it cuts into the flying time. However, we try
>> to fly to his games, even if it's only a 15 minute ride. Of course going
>> to the distant tournaments really becomes more fun- and I usually commute
>> by plane rather than drive.
>>
>> Was it a big transition going from squirt to checking? My son isn't very
>> big, so I'm concerned about him getting crushed.

[Tim]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tim writes:
>
>
>>You're kidding, right?
>
>
> No. Where's the error? Do you know?
>


More than one, but one stands out as quite ridiculous. I am trying to
work out a simulation of it right now. More later.

[Barney Rubble]

Nope he speaks for me as well, we conversed beforehand, so"us" is correct.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Newps writes:
>
>> Doesn't matter to us.
>
> You speak for yourself only.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Barney Rubble writes:

> Nope he speaks for me as well, we conversed beforehand, so"us" is correct.

Then why are you posting this?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[dlevy]

I don't know why but that is funny.

"Rip" > wrote in message
...
> Anthony, why would it be undesirable were you to kill yourself in a
> simulator crash?
>
> Rip

[Jon]

On Feb 7, 3:39 pm, "dlevy" > wrote:
> "Rip" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Anthony, why would it be undesirable were you to kill yourself in a
> > simulator crash?
>
> > Rip
>
> I don't know why but that is funny.

I'm fairly certain why I know why ;)

[Sam Spade]

A Lieberma wrote:
> Tim > wrote in :
>
>
>>You're kidding, right?
>>
>>
>>(simulating a laugh)
>
>
> Based on his response to you, clearly never been near an airport :-) nor
> does he read carefully, wants it all spoon fed to him.....
>
> Maybe one contacts ground after departure in anticipation for that off
> airport emergency landing LOL
>
> Allen

No, not that. They have a ground controller assigned to evaluate
take-offs. If you want his/her critique you must talk directly with them.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>Where have you heard this?
>
>
> Listening to ATC.
>
>
>>I have never, ever heard such nonsense instructions.
>
>
> Maybe you should listen to more ATC.
>
>
>>Here is how it would be done professionally:
>>
>>"United 123 turn left heading 225, cleared for takeoff."
>
>
> Next time I hear ATC do it "unprofessionally," I'll be sure to write
> them a strongly-worded letter communicating your disapproval. That'll
> whip them into shape.
>

Atta boy.

[Sam Spade]

Mark Hansen wrote:

> On 02/05/07 05:54, Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Thomas Borchert writes:
>>>
>>
>>>However, if you ever hear a captain say the "wrong" thing on the
>>>radio, you can certainly call over an FA and insist that she
>>>communicate your displeasure to him, and perhaps he'll look at the
>>>book before he hits the PTT button next time. Most airline captains
>>>are eager to win the approval of low-time GA pilots back in the cabin,
>>>and will even instruct their crews to actively seek out the counsel of
>>>these experts to bring back to the cockpit.
>>>
>>
>>Oh Bull****.
>>
>>First place, only United Airlines pipes ATC into the cabin. Second, it
>>is up to the captain and far fewer do it since 911.
>>
>>Flight attendants are training NOT to take such bull**** from a
>>passenger to the flight deck.
>
>
> Good God, Sam. He was yanking your chain ;-\

Yeah, I misread who said what. ;-)