Why so many abbreviations in NOTAMs, etc.?

[Mxsmanic]

Why are so many things abbreviated in NOTAMs and other similar documents?
Even words that aren't very long to begin with are often abbreviated, saving
only a letter or two. I can't think of any situation today in which bandwidth
would be so severely limited that saving a letter or two would make a
difference, so I assume there is some historical reason for the abbreviations.
Were such messages transmitted by Morse code or something in the past, or is
someone still transmitting them that way (or over some other extremely slow
channel) today?

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

[Snowbird]

"Mxsmanic" wrote ...
> Why are so many things abbreviated in NOTAMs and other similar documents?
> Even words that aren't very long to begin with are often abbreviated,
> saving
> only a letter or two. I can't think of any situation today in which
> bandwidth
> would be so severely limited that saving a letter or two would make a
> difference, so I assume there is some historical reason for the
> abbreviations.
> Were such messages transmitted by Morse code or something in the past, or
> is
> someone still transmitting them that way (or over some other extremely
> slow
> channel) today?
>

Org dsgnd for 110 Bd tty. ;-)

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Why are so many things abbreviated in NOTAMs and other similar documents?
> Even words that aren't very long to begin with are often abbreviated, saving
> only a letter or two. I can't think of any situation today in which bandwidth
> would be so severely limited that saving a letter or two would make a
> difference, so I assume there is some historical reason for the abbreviations.
> Were such messages transmitted by Morse code or something in the past, or is
> someone still transmitting them that way (or over some other extremely slow
> channel) today?

Teletype machines and abreviations understandable by everyone
without regard to native language.

Teletype machines are still used in many parts of the world.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Tauno Voipio]

Snowbird wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" wrote ...
>
>>Why are so many things abbreviated in NOTAMs and other similar documents?
>>Even words that aren't very long to begin with are often abbreviated,
>>saving
>>only a letter or two. I can't think of any situation today in which
>>bandwidth
>>would be so severely limited that saving a letter or two would make a
>>difference, so I assume there is some historical reason for the
>>abbreviations.
>>Were such messages transmitted by Morse code or something in the past, or
>>is
>>someone still transmitting them that way (or over some other extremely
>>slow
>>channel) today?
>>
>
>
> Org dsgnd for 110 Bd tty. ;-)
>
>

The TTY was 45.45 bits/s in US and 50 bit/s in Europe,
with 5 bit coding (Telex).

The 8 bit 110 bit/s thingy is newer.

--

Tauno Voipio
tauno voipio (at) iki fi

[Snowbird]

"Tauno Voipio" wrote ...
>
> The TTY was 45.45 bits/s in US and 50 bit/s in Europe,
> with 5 bit coding (Telex).
>
> The 8 bit 110 bit/s thingy is newer.
>

I was afraid of that ;-o
So it's really old then.

[Rich Ahrens]

Snowbird wrote:
> "Tauno Voipio" wrote ...
>> The TTY was 45.45 bits/s in US and 50 bit/s in Europe,
>> with 5 bit coding (Telex).
>>
>> The 8 bit 110 bit/s thingy is newer.
>>
>
> I was afraid of that ;-o
> So it's really old then.

My first "laptop" was a portable hardcopy terminal whose standard speed
was 110 baud. High speed was 300 baud! Acoustic coupler for connectivity
and rolls of thermal paper for media. It rocked.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Why are so many things abbreviated in NOTAMs and other similar
> documents? Even words that aren't very long to begin with are often
> abbreviated, saving only a letter or two. I can't think of any
> situation today in which bandwidth would be so severely limited that
> saving a letter or two would make a difference, so I assume there is
> some historical reason for the abbreviations. Were such messages
> transmitted by Morse code or something in the past, or is someone
> still transmitting them that way (or over some other extremely slow
> channel) today?
>

You're an idiot.

Bertie

[Judah]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in :

> My first "laptop" was a portable hardcopy terminal whose standard speed
> was 110 baud. High speed was 300 baud! Acoustic coupler for connectivity
> and rolls of thermal paper for media. It rocked.

Yes, but back then "It rocks" refered to Granny and Pappy on the front
porch...

[Erik]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Why are so many things abbreviated in NOTAMs and other similar documents?
> Even words that aren't very long to begin with are often abbreviated, saving
> only a letter or two. I can't think of any situation today in which bandwidth
> would be so severely limited that saving a letter or two would make a
> difference, so I assume there is some historical reason for the abbreviations.
> Were such messages transmitted by Morse code or something in the past, or is
> someone still transmitting them that way (or over some other extremely slow
> channel) today?
>

I was told that the fewer characters transmitted, the more
cost-effective it became.

I was hoping that in this age of the internet, they would change this
before I had to take my written (no luck). I passed it anyway, but I'm
certain that part of the questions I got wrong were for the stupid
weather reading.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Erik wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Why are so many things abbreviated in NOTAMs and other similar
>> documents? Even words that aren't very long to begin with are often
>> abbreviated, saving only a letter or two. I can't think of any
>> situation today in which bandwidth would be so severely limited that
>> saving a letter or two would make a difference, so I assume there is
>> some historical reason for the abbreviations. Were such messages
>> transmitted by Morse code or something in the past, or is someone
>> still transmitting them that way (or over some other extremely slow
>> channel) today?
>
> I was told that the fewer characters transmitted, the more
> cost-effective it became.
>
> I was hoping that in this age of the internet, they would change this
> before I had to take my written (no luck). I passed it anyway, but
> I'm certain that part of the questions I got wrong were for the stupid
> weather reading.

Well then study up because you will be asked at your check ride.

[Mark Hansen]

On 04/18/07 11:34, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Erik wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>> Why are so many things abbreviated in NOTAMs and other similar
>>> documents? Even words that aren't very long to begin with are often
>>> abbreviated, saving only a letter or two. I can't think of any
>>> situation today in which bandwidth would be so severely limited that
>>> saving a letter or two would make a difference, so I assume there is
>>> some historical reason for the abbreviations. Were such messages
>>> transmitted by Morse code or something in the past, or is someone
>>> still transmitting them that way (or over some other extremely slow
>>> channel) today?
>>
>> I was told that the fewer characters transmitted, the more
>> cost-effective it became.
>>
>> I was hoping that in this age of the internet, they would change this
>> before I had to take my written (no luck). I passed it anyway, but
>> I'm certain that part of the questions I got wrong were for the stupid
>> weather reading.
>
> Well then study up because you will be asked at your check ride.
>
>

Are you sure about that?

During my check ride, the DE was concerned about my ability to get current
weather, which I did - from sources like DUATS, etc., where the text is
translated already. The DE didn't care whether I knew any of the abbreviations.

This was true both for my PP-ASEL and IR check rides.

I think the only people that think everyone must learn those abbreviations
are the pilots that had to learn them. It just isn't the case any more, but
some just refuse to let go of the 'old ways'.

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mark Hansen wrote:
> On 04/18/07 11:34, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> Erik wrote:
>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why are so many things abbreviated in NOTAMs and other similar
>>>> documents? Even words that aren't very long to begin with are often
>>>> abbreviated, saving only a letter or two. I can't think of any
>>>> situation today in which bandwidth would be so severely limited
>>>> that saving a letter or two would make a difference, so I assume
>>>> there is some historical reason for the abbreviations. Were such
>>>> messages transmitted by Morse code or something in the past, or is
>>>> someone still transmitting them that way (or over some other
>>>> extremely slow channel) today?
>>>
>>> I was told that the fewer characters transmitted, the more
>>> cost-effective it became.
>>>
>>> I was hoping that in this age of the internet, they would change
>>> this before I had to take my written (no luck). I passed it
>>> anyway, but I'm certain that part of the questions I got wrong were
>>> for the stupid weather reading.
>>
>> Well then study up because you will be asked at your check ride.
>>
>>
>
> Are you sure about that?
>
> During my check ride, the DE was concerned about my ability to get
> current weather, which I did - from sources like DUATS, etc., where
> the text is translated already. The DE didn't care whether I knew any
> of the abbreviations.
>
> This was true both for my PP-ASEL and IR check rides.
>
> I think the only people that think everyone must learn those
> abbreviations are the pilots that had to learn them. It just isn't
> the case any more, but some just refuse to let go of the 'old ways'.

You may well be right but the DE knows what you missed and can test you on
them.

[Mark Hansen]

On 04/18/07 11:59, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Mark Hansen wrote:
>> On 04/18/07 11:34, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>> Erik wrote:
>>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why are so many things abbreviated in NOTAMs and other similar
>>>>> documents? Even words that aren't very long to begin with are often
>>>>> abbreviated, saving only a letter or two. I can't think of any
>>>>> situation today in which bandwidth would be so severely limited
>>>>> that saving a letter or two would make a difference, so I assume
>>>>> there is some historical reason for the abbreviations. Were such
>>>>> messages transmitted by Morse code or something in the past, or is
>>>>> someone still transmitting them that way (or over some other
>>>>> extremely slow channel) today?
>>>>
>>>> I was told that the fewer characters transmitted, the more
>>>> cost-effective it became.
>>>>
>>>> I was hoping that in this age of the internet, they would change
>>>> this before I had to take my written (no luck). I passed it
>>>> anyway, but I'm certain that part of the questions I got wrong were
>>>> for the stupid weather reading.
>>>
>>> Well then study up because you will be asked at your check ride.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Are you sure about that?
>>
>> During my check ride, the DE was concerned about my ability to get
>> current weather, which I did - from sources like DUATS, etc., where
>> the text is translated already. The DE didn't care whether I knew any
>> of the abbreviations.
>>
>> This was true both for my PP-ASEL and IR check rides.
>>
>> I think the only people that think everyone must learn those
>> abbreviations are the pilots that had to learn them. It just isn't
>> the case any more, but some just refuse to let go of the 'old ways'.
>
> You may well be right but the DE knows what you missed and can test you on
> them.

Of course. But you said that the applicant will be tested and I don't
think that's necessarily true - it's up to the DE...

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mark Hansen wrote:
>>
>> You may well be right but the DE knows what you missed and can test
>> you on them.
>
> Of course. But you said that the applicant will be tested and I don't
> think that's necessarily true - it's up to the DE...


You're right I should have said "can," "might be" or maybe even "probably
will be." I know I was asked about everything I missed on my written.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> You're right I should have said "can," "might be" or maybe even "probably
> will be." I know I was asked about everything I missed on my written.

The DE that did my PP required my CFI to add a logbook endorsement that
stated I had been given additional ground training on missed written
questions.

At the actual oral exam, the DE complimented my written score, and never
asked anything regarding the 2 missed questions.

[Kev]

On Apr 17, 1:20 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Why are so many things abbreviated in NOTAMs and other similar documents?
> Even words that aren't very long to begin with are often abbreviated, saving
> only a letter or two. I can't think of any situation today in which bandwidth
> would be so severely limited that saving a letter or two would make a
> difference, so I assume there is some historical reason for the abbreviations.
> Were such messages transmitted by Morse code or something in the past, or is
> someone still transmitting them that way (or over some other extremely slow
> channel) today?

Yes, Morse code before WW-II. Afterwards, Teletype starting at 75
words per minute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFTN

http://users.bigpond.net.au/ctdavies/Aeronautical%20Fixed%20Telecommunications%20Networ k.htm

http://www.sdxf.org/alfa/dxinfo/hfrtty.pdf

Kev

[Jon]

On Apr 19, 9:49 am, Kev > wrote:
>
> > Why are so many things abbreviated in NOTAMs and other similar documents?

They're referred to as NOTAM Contractions:

<https://www.notams.jcs.mil/downloads/contractions.pdf>

> > Even words that aren't very long to begin with are often abbreviated, saving
> > only a letter or two.

How foolish it must seem.

> > I can't think of any situation today in which bandwidth
> > would be so severely limited that saving a letter or two would make a
> > difference,

Not being in the loop limits scope to thought.

> > so I assume

I don't

> > there is some historical reason for the abbreviations.

There are still several systems still operating in the NAS with low
bandwidth, low storage capacity and running legacy software. The NAS
world doesn't begin/end the Internet, high bandwidth, high capacity
storage, that many take for granted.

There are many I've never seen or read about... or care to... (read:
The novelty of testing the 6V6 at the Radio Shack when I was a kid,
has long since worn off)

But I know of several systems running on machine decades old.

Last I was working with it (~'93), the AWPs were running old Tandem
(Fault Tolerant) hardware.

We did an interface to a system running on 486 boxes, using 19.2Kbaud
modems. Those systems are still running today (and it's usually their
end running Gate$ware that has the problem) <- Obligatory Windows
Shot ;)


Changes to operational systems are co-ordinated very carefully as
there's much more at stake than just a software/hardware upgrade.
Requirements trace well beyond the nearest neighbor sometimes you
don't just do it because you can or it because it's cheap or because
it's cool or because someone proved it could work in a simulated
environment.

NAS Modernization is coming. But it won't come all at once. Much to
big a web (bad word choice) was woven over the decades to even
contemplate doing it any other way.


> > Were such messages transmitted by Morse code or something in the past, or is
> > someone still transmitting them that way (or over some other extremely slow
> > channel) today?
>
> Yes, Morse code before WW-II. Afterwards, Teletype starting at 75
> words per minute.

Interestingly enough, here's some GNSS datapoints:

GPS - 50 bps
WAAS - 250 bps

;)

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFTN
>
> http://users.bigpond.net.au/ctdavies/Aeronautical%20Fixed%20Telecommu...
>
> http://www.sdxf.org/alfa/dxinfo/hfrtty.pdf

Good 'ole AFTN. Widely in use today domestically and esp.
internationally (many over PSNs - X.25 running over 64Kbit links)

Several sponsors (DFS, Airservices Australia, NavCanada, DECEA) all
require AFTN support.

Any you know what? It still works just fine.

What's typically done is to take advantage of encapsulation, to take
advantage of better Transport layers, while still maintaining
compatibility with existing systems.

> Kev

Regards,
Jon

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jon wrote:

>
> NAS Modernization is coming. But it won't come all at once. Much to
> big a web (bad word choice) was woven over the decades to even
> contemplate doing it any other way.
>

It would probably be less expensive and easier in both the long and short
run to not update the current system but to create a completely new one and
let it run in parallel with the current system and then just let the last
one out turn out the light.

[Jose]

>> I can't think of any situation today in which bandwidth
>> would be so severely limited that saving a letter or two would make a
>> difference,

METARs by cell phone text message service would be quite unwieldy if
they were not abbreviated, and imagine if some yahoo decides that HTML
format is the "modern" way to go.

Feh

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Jon writes:

> Changes to operational systems are co-ordinated very carefully as
> there's much more at stake than just a software/hardware upgrade.
> Requirements trace well beyond the nearest neighbor sometimes you
> don't just do it because you can or it because it's cheap or because
> it's cool or because someone proved it could work in a simulated
> environment.

Then why do people buy G1000s?

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

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jon writes:

> > Changes to operational systems are co-ordinated very carefully as
> > there's much more at stake than just a software/hardware upgrade.
> > Requirements trace well beyond the nearest neighbor sometimes you
> > don't just do it because you can or it because it's cheap or because
> > it's cool or because someone proved it could work in a simulated
> > environment.

> Then why do people buy G1000s?

Hint:

"operational systems" = ATC and all associated facilities and activities
such as FSS, NOTAM, METAR, TAF, etc.

G1000 = what some guy puts in his airplane.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jon]

wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > Jon writes:
>
> > > Changes to operational systems are co-ordinated very carefully as
> > > there's much more at stake than just a software/hardware upgrade.
> > > Requirements trace well beyond the nearest neighbor sometimes you
> > > don't just do it because you can or it because it's cheap or because
> > > it's cool or because someone proved it could work in a simulated
> > > environment.
>
> > Then why do people buy G1000s?
>
> Hint:
>
> "operational systems" = ATC and all associated facilities and activities
> such as FSS, NOTAM, METAR, TAF, etc.
>
> G1000 = what some guy puts in his airplane.

Wait a damn minute! I thought we were talking about avionics!

Oh wait, we weren't :P

> --
> Jim Pennino

Thanks, Jim :)

Regards,
Jon

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Hint:
>
> "operational systems" = ATC and all associated facilities and activities
> such as FSS, NOTAM, METAR, TAF, etc.
>
> G1000 = what some guy puts in his airplane.

Oh. I thought "operational system" meant "a system that operates."

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

[Jon]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
> > Hint:
> >
> > "operational systems" = ATC and all associated facilities and activities
> > such as FSS, NOTAM, METAR, TAF, etc.
> >
> > G1000 = what some guy puts in his airplane.
>
> Oh. I thought "operational system" meant "a system that operates."

Stop.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Hint:
> >
> > "operational systems" = ATC and all associated facilities and activities
> > such as FSS, NOTAM, METAR, TAF, etc.
> >
> > G1000 = what some guy puts in his airplane.

> Oh. I thought "operational system" meant "a system that operates."

Of course it does.

However people in the real world also understand that general phrases
have contextual meaning, i.e. the the precise meaning for "operational
system" is going to depend on the context within which it was used.

This, it seems, is a subtlety of real human communications you are
incapable of understanding.

Since the orginal author was talking about the many bits and pieces
that go to make up the ATC system and all it's support systems, it
was obvious to just about everyone but you what "operational system"
meant.

Show of hands; anyone besides Mxsmanic not understand what the original
author meant by "operational system"?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Hint:
>>
>> "operational systems" = ATC and all associated facilities and activities
>> such as FSS, NOTAM, METAR, TAF, etc.
>>
>> G1000 = what some guy puts in his airplane.
>
> Oh. I thought "operational system" meant "a system that operates."
>

Well there you go, you know nothng.

Bertie

[Jon]

> writes:
>
> > Hint:
> >
> > "operational systems" = ATC and all associated facilities and activities
> > such as FSS, NOTAM, METAR, TAF, etc.
> >
> > G1000 = what some guy puts in his airplane.


> Oh. I thought

Hopefully, the relavant authorities were notified and proper
precautions were taken to evacuate the immediate area, lest people be
sucked into the black hole caused by the intense gravity field
produced during the massive cranial inflation. Impressive as it may
have seemed at first, It began to suck the very life out of everything
in its path. People fled in terror, for fear that it would think some
more, swell up, and begin consuming entire collections of normative
behavior systems known to be in the neighborhood.

> "operational system" meant "a system that operates."

Does a G1000 deal with processing NOTAMs or NOTAM contractions?
Is the purpose of the thread to talk about G1000s or about information
systems that deal with NOTAMs?

When one is able to think properly, does the answer to the previous
question become obvious?

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

"You are what you is" - Frank Zappa

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> However people in the real world also understand that general phrases
> have contextual meaning, i.e. the the precise meaning for "operational
> system" is going to depend on the context within which it was used.

I understood it the same way in context.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jon writes:

> Does a G1000 deal with processing NOTAMs or NOTAM contractions?

A G1000 is an operational system, one that doesn't seem to have been as
rigorously tested as other operational systems (such as some ATC systems). I
was asking why the standards seem to vary. Perhaps the G1000 is sexy and
changes to NOTAM wording are not.

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

[Jon]

> Jon writes:
>
> > Does a G1000 deal with processing NOTAMs or NOTAM contractions?
>
> A G1000 is an operational system,

Failure to answer question. Please wait while the treehouse club
committee you seem to think inhabits the space, considers whether to
allow another opportunity to answer the question.

> one that

One that doesn't have anything to do with the thread.

> doesn't seem to have been as rigorously tested

No one cares here in this thread, on this topic, about which it has no
context. Put another way: it's has no place in this thread.

> as other operational systems (such as some ATC systems).

> I was asking why the standards seem to vary.

Here's what you asked, in case you're having trouble following, what
with all the other NlogN^Infinite_Power number of threads you're
injecting yourself into (violating the 'we were given two ears and one
mouth and they should be used in those proportions' rule you were
commanded to obey):

"Why are so many things abbreviated in NOTAMs and other similar
documents?
Even words that aren't very long to begin with are often abbreviated,
saving
only a letter or two. I can't think of any situation today in which
bandwidth
would be so severely limited that saving a letter or two would make a
difference, so I assume there is some historical reason for the
abbreviations.
Were such messages transmitted by Morse code or something in the past,
or is
someone still transmitting them that way (or over some other extremely
slow
channel) today? "

You initially were asking about NOTAM Contractions, which, from
everything I've been able to ascertain, has approximately somewhere
between 0% and 0% do with the G1000....

Why the G1000 was brought into the discussion, lies somewhere on the
spectrum between 'not interesting' and 'mostly uninteresting.'

Some would call it an attempt at Thread Drift, others would call it an
inability to remain focused on the subject matter at hand,

> Perhaps the G1000 is sexy and changes to NOTAM wording are not.

Perhaps the G1000 has to do with NOTAMs, the original point of the
thread.

Yet you continue talking about it, attempting to keep the non-sequitir
alive.

Hey, I got an idea. Start a thread on the G1000 and let's talk about
NOTAMs in there, for no apparent reason.

It'd be kinda sexy, wouldn't it, sexy?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jon writes:
>
>> Does a G1000 deal with processing NOTAMs or NOTAM contractions?
>
> A G1000 is an operational system, one that doesn't seem to have been
> as rigorously tested as other operational systems (such as some ATC
> systems). I was asking why the standards seem to vary. Perhaps the
> G1000 is sexy and changes to NOTAM wording are not.


Do you have one cite to support this thing you have against the G-1000
system other than the single problem that was brought up here about the one
on the ferry flight?

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > However people in the real world also understand that general phrases
> > have contextual meaning, i.e. the the precise meaning for "operational
> > system" is going to depend on the context within which it was used.

> I understood it the same way in context.

Then why post what you did other than to be contentious?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jon writes:

> > Does a G1000 deal with processing NOTAMs or NOTAM contractions?

> A G1000 is an operational system, one that doesn't seem to have been as
> rigorously tested as other operational systems (such as some ATC systems). I
> was asking why the standards seem to vary. Perhaps the G1000 is sexy and
> changes to NOTAM wording are not.

So is my neighor's new washing machine which he had to have repaired
eight times now, but neither it nor G1000's have crap to do with the
subject or context of the discussion.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> So is my neighor's new washing machine which he had to have repaired
> eight times now, but neither it nor G1000's have crap to do with the
> subject or context of the discussion.

A washing machine isn't likely to kill you if it fails.

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

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> So is my neighor's new washing machine which he had to have repaired
>> eight times now, but neither it nor G1000's have crap to do with the
>> subject or context of the discussion.
>
> A washing machine isn't likely to kill you if it fails.
>

And that's off topic as well. You just don't get it, do you dufis?

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > So is my neighor's new washing machine which he had to have repaired
> > eight times now, but neither it nor G1000's have crap to do with the
> > subject or context of the discussion.

> A washing machine isn't likely to kill you if it fails.

Once again a true, but utterly irrelevant statement.

If a G1000 fails, it isn't "likely to kill you" either.

Now, if you want to push your nonsense to the extreme, people have
in fact been electrocuted by washing machines where the frame
ground has failed.

And, once again, neither it nor G1000's have crap to do with the subject
or context of the discussion.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> So is my neighor's new washing machine which he had to have repaired
>> eight times now, but neither it nor G1000's have crap to do with the
>> subject or context of the discussion.
>
> A washing machine isn't likely to kill you if it fails.
>

That what you use for motion these days? Vroom vroom!


Bertie

[Peter Dohm]

> >> I can't think of any situation today in which bandwidth
> >> would be so severely limited that saving a letter or two would make a
> >> difference,
>
> METARs by cell phone text message service would be quite unwieldy if
> they were not abbreviated, and imagine if some yahoo decides that HTML
> format is the "modern" way to go.
>
Or menu generated Java. Proprietary, of course... :-(