Gliders in the Grand Canyon

[Mxsmanic]

If there were no airspace restrictions, would it be possible/safe to fly
gliders in the Grand Canyon? There's not much of a place to land in the
canyon, of course, but I don't know if there are thermals or something (?)
that would allow a glider to climb back up out of the canyon after gliding
below the rim. Is it possible? Has anyone done it?

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> If there were no airspace restrictions, would it be possible/safe to fly
> gliders in the Grand Canyon? There's not much of a place to land in the
> canyon, of course, but I don't know if there are thermals or something (?)
> that would allow a glider to climb back up out of the canyon after gliding
> below the rim. Is it possible? Has anyone done it?

Go read SFAR 50-2 and come back if you have further questions.
You can't operate even a powered aircraft below the rim in most
places.

[Bob Moore]

Ron Natalie wrote

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> If there were no airspace restrictions, would it be possible/safe to
>> fly gliders in the Grand Canyon?
>
> Go read SFAR 50-2 and come back if you have further questions.
> You can't operate even a powered aircraft below the rim in most
> places.

Ron, he stated "If there were no airspace restrictions". Seems to me
as if he is inquiring about the physics of the situation, not the
legality.

Bob Moore

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> Go read SFAR 50-2 and come back if you have further questions.

Go back and read the qualifier "IF THERE WERE NO AIRSPACE RESTRICTIONS" in my
original question, and then answer the question, if you can and wish to do so.

[d&tm[_2_]]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> If there were no airspace restrictions, would it be possible/safe to fly
>> gliders in the Grand Canyon? There's not much of a place to land in the
>> canyon, of course, but I don't know if there are thermals or something
>> (?)
>> that would allow a glider to climb back up out of the canyon after
>> gliding
>> below the rim. Is it possible? Has anyone done it?
>
> Go read SFAR 50-2 and come back if you have further questions.
> You can't operate even a powered aircraft below the rim in most
> places.

Is that a recent rule? I vividly remember my trip to the Grand Canyon in
1985 It was our honeymoon and I havent been able to get back since.
We took a 1 hour flight in a Twin Otter of Grand Canyon Airlines. It went
way down into canyon, and it was quite specatacular looking out the window
to see a rock wall. I will also never forget hearing on the news about 3
months later that one of these planes ( I never did find out if it was the
same one) had a midair with a helicopter killing all onboard.
Terry
PPL Downunder

[Peter Dohm]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Natalie writes:
>
> > Go read SFAR 50-2 and come back if you have further questions.
>
> Go back and read the qualifier "IF THERE WERE NO AIRSPACE RESTRICTIONS" in
my
> original question, and then answer the question, if you can and wish to do
so.

[Peter Dohm]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Ron Natalie writes:
> >
> > > Go read SFAR 50-2 and come back if you have further questions.
> >
> > Go back and read the qualifier "IF THERE WERE NO AIRSPACE RESTRICTIONS"
in
> my
> > original question, and then answer the question, if you can and wish to
do
> so.
>
>
That was not supposed to be sent!

What I intended to say was that: "If a picture is worth 1000 words, a look
from the rim is worth 1000 volumes."

[Bertie the Bunyip[_4_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> If there were no airspace restrictions, would it be possible/safe to
> fly gliders in the Grand Canyon? There's not much of a place to land
> in the canyon, of course, but I don't know if there are thermals or
> something (?) that would allow a glider to climb back up out of the
> canyon after gliding below the rim. Is it possible? Has anyone done
> it?
>

Why, ? You'll never do it.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_6_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Ron Natalie writes:
>
>> Go read SFAR 50-2 and come back if you have further questions.
>
> Go back and read the qualifier "IF THERE WERE NO AIRSPACE
> RESTRICTIONS" in my original question, and then answer the question,
> if you can and wish to do so.
>


I can. I learned to fly in gliders and I'll send you the answer for a
bargain $100


Bertie

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> If there were no airspace restrictions, would it be possible/safe to fly
> gliders in the Grand Canyon? There's not much of a place to land in the
> canyon, of course, but I don't know if there are thermals or something (?)
> that would allow a glider to climb back up out of the canyon after gliding
> below the rim. Is it possible? Has anyone done it?

Since according to you MSFS acurately simulates everything including
wake turbulance and posters here are not believeable, why are you
asking instead of just using MSFS to answer the question?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Since according to you MSFS acurately simulates everything including
> wake turbulance and posters here are not believeable, why are you
> asking instead of just using MSFS to answer the question?

Because I know very little about flying gliders, and trial and error is a slow
way to learn.

Do you know anything about gliders?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Since according to you MSFS acurately simulates everything including
> > wake turbulance and posters here are not believeable, why are you
> > asking instead of just using MSFS to answer the question?

> Because I know very little about flying gliders, and trial and error is a slow
> way to learn.

> Do you know anything about gliders?

Why do you ask?

According to you posters here are neither reliable nor believeable.

Only MSFS has the true answers.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_7_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Since according to you MSFS acurately simulates everything including
>> wake turbulance and posters here are not believeable, why are you
>> asking instead of just using MSFS to answer the question?
>
> Because I know very little about flying gliders, and trial and error
> is a slow way to learn.

You know almost nothing about flying, period.
>
> Do you know anything about gliders?
>


I do, but I'#m not going to tell you because you are a dick.


Bertie

[Snowbird]

"Mxsmanic" wrote :
> ........
>> Since according to you MSFS acurately simulates everything including
>> wake turbulance and posters here are not believeable, why are you
>> asking instead of just using MSFS to answer the question?
>
> Because I know very little about flying gliders, and trial and error is a
> slow
> way to learn.
>

Why do you want this information?
What possible use is the answer to you, since by your own admission you'd
never dare to try it yourself?
Why can't you research it yourself? Google is your friend. And MSFS too, it
seems.
Why do you want us to spend our time on researching your problem, especially
since you seem to have lots of time yourself ?
Why do you pose the question to this group anyway, as you have already
repeatably dismissed our answers as "incorrect" ?
You say you base your present knowledge on your own research, yet now you
want to avoid learning by your own simulation experience, and instead rely
on our information, despite having numerous times dismissed such
information. Based on that behavior, how can we trust that you are actually
interested in the information, and not just in endless arguing ?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Why do you ask?

Never mind.

[Mxsmanic]

Snowbird writes:

> Why do you want this information?
> What possible use is the answer to you, since by your own admission you'd
> never dare to try it yourself?
> Why can't you research it yourself? Google is your friend. And MSFS too, it
> seems.
> Why do you want us to spend our time on researching your problem, especially
> since you seem to have lots of time yourself ?
> Why do you pose the question to this group anyway, as you have already
> repeatably dismissed our answers as "incorrect" ?
> You say you base your present knowledge on your own research, yet now you
> want to avoid learning by your own simulation experience, and instead rely
> on our information, despite having numerous times dismissed such
> information. Based on that behavior, how can we trust that you are actually
> interested in the information, and not just in endless arguing ?

If you don't know, there's no point in posting.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 3, 9:45 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> If you don't know, there's no point in posting.

Nor in your asking. The correct answer is that gliders are dangerous,
just like the powered "tin cans" your deathly fear and consider those
who fly them foolish.

F--

[Mxsmanic]

Richard Riley writes:

> From what you've posted previously, you'd only use
> my answer as a starting point to insult me, belittle my experience and
> claim I don't know what I'm talking about.

I don't insult anyone, even after being insulted myself, as this post proves.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Jun 3, 3:44 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Why do you ask?
>
> Never mind.


What planning your next terrorist attack using gliders?


Bwawhawhahwhahswhhwhahhw

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Jun 3, 6:30 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Richard Riley writes:
> > From what you've posted previously, you'd only use
> > my answer as a starting point to insult me, belittle my experience and
> > claim I don't know what I'm talking about.
>
> I don't insult anyone, even after being insulted myself, as this post proves.


Actuaslly, you do, your autism prevents you from seeing this.


bertie

[Mxsmanic]

d&tm writes:

> Is that a recent rule? I vividly remember my trip to the Grand Canyon in
> 1985 It was our honeymoon and I havent been able to get back since.
> We took a 1 hour flight in a Twin Otter of Grand Canyon Airlines. It went
> way down into canyon, and it was quite specatacular looking out the window
> to see a rock wall.

The rules are post-1985. Today you cannot go below 14,500 feet MSL, except in
designated corridors, all of which have a minimum floor of 10,5000 feet MSL.

In other words, you can no longer go down into the canyon, except for take-off
and landing there.

[Mxsmanic]

Richard Riley writes:

> There's an old Irish saying: 'If everybody says you're drunk, you'd
> better sit down.'

Another saying is that the majority is not always right. However, there's no
majority here, only some posters who are far more active than others. Being
active doesn't make one right.

[RomeoMike]

Where can a general aviation aircraft take off and land IN the Grand Canyon?

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> In other words, you can no longer go down into the canyon, except for take-off
> and landing there.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Richard Riley writes:

> > There's an old Irish saying: 'If everybody says you're drunk, you'd
> > better sit down.'

> Another saying is that the majority is not always right. However, there's no
> majority here, only some posters who are far more active than others. Being
> active doesn't make one right.

And we all know how important being right is to you.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[BT]

d&tm, the "VFR CHART" depicting the rules of SFAR 50-2 was first printed on
4 April 1991.

I too took a great tour operated canyon flight in 1983.

The current charting depicts where GA VFR pilots can cross the canyon below
14,500MSL, normal crossing altitudes in those corridors follow standard VFR
navigation rules but limit altitudes to no lower than 10,500MSL. Any
crossings above 14,500 are not restricted.

There are designated "tour routes" for specific "tour operators" that follow
the path of the canyon, but 90% or more of those routes are maintained at or
above the "rim level" of the canyon. There are a few heliports down in the
canyon for specific uses in specific areas.

There are no charted airports "within the designated canyon protection
airspace" that I can readily see. Even Grand Canyon airport is outside of
the SFAR airspace. Flight areas restricted to 14,500 MSL are colored purple
(magenta) for easy recognition, other sections depicted within SFAR airspace
have the altitudes annotated, as in 8900MSL-SURFACE, in which case you can
cross that area at 9000MSL or higher with proper altitude for direction of
flight. Surface areas along the canyon rim are between 5000-7000MSL or
higher.

As for gliders down below the rim of the canyon? No sane glider pilot would
ever allow himself to get into that position. Having flown in Death Valley
in gliders, get too low, everything is hot, and there are not enough rising
air currents to get up and out of trouble.

Gliders do venture out "over" the Grand Canyon on a regular basis, venturing
there from the Phoenix or Prescott AZ area, and recently down from Parowan
UT and Zion Park areas to the North Rim and return.

Someone did set an altitude record climb in Death Valley many years ago for
his Diamond Badge. A very rare, 3 Diamonds in one flight, Departing Minden
NV for distance, forcing himself low in Death Valley to again climb high
enough for Diamond Altitude while remaining outside Class A airspace
(18,000MSL in USA) and returning to Minden NV. Diamond Distance, Diamond
Goal and Diamond Altitude.

BT

"d&tm" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Is that a recent rule? I vividly remember my trip to the Grand Canyon in
> 1985 It was our honeymoon and I havent been able to get back since.
> We took a 1 hour flight in a Twin Otter of Grand Canyon Airlines. It went
> way down into canyon, and it was quite specatacular looking out the window
> to see a rock wall. I will also never forget hearing on the news about
> 3 months later that one of these planes ( I never did find out if it was
> the same one) had a midair with a helicopter killing all onboard.
> Terry
> PPL Downunder
>
>
>
>
>
>

[buttman]

On Jun 3, 8:59 am, Richard Riley > wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:05:06 +0200, Mxsmanic >
> wrote:
>
> >If there were no airspace restrictions, would it be possible/safe to fly
> >gliders in the Grand Canyon? There's not much of a place to land in the
> >canyon, of course, but I don't know if there are thermals or something (?)
> >that would allow a glider to climb back up out of the canyon after gliding
> >below the rim. Is it possible? Has anyone done it?
>
> I know. I learned to fly in gliders and flew right seat many times in
> a sight-seeing Twin Otter at the canyon.
>
> I won't tell you. From what you've posted previously, you'd only use
> my answer as a starting point to insult me, belittle my experience and
> claim I don't know what I'm talking about.

OK then, if him asking the question bothers you so much, then how
about if I asked?

If there were no airspace restrictions, would it be possible/safe to
fly
gliders in the Grand Canyon? There's not much of a place to land in
the
canyon, of course, but I don't know if there are thermals or something
(?)
that would allow a glider to climb back up out of the canyon after
gliding
below the rim. Is it possible? Has anyone done it?

[Mxsmanic]

RomeoMike writes:

> Where can a general aviation aircraft take off and land IN the Grand Canyon?

I count at least four airfields, plus Grand Canyon West and Grand Canyon
National Park airports (but these two aren't actually in the canyon).

[RomeoMike]

Again, NAME one place "down into the canyon" where one can take off and
land a general aviation aircraft.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> RomeoMike writes:
>
>> Where can a general aviation aircraft take off and land IN the Grand Canyon?
>
> I count at least four airfields, plus Grand Canyon West and Grand Canyon
> National Park airports (but these two aren't actually in the canyon).

[george]

On Jun 3, 5:16 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Since according to you MSFS acurately simulates everything including
> > wake turbulance and posters here are not believeable, why are you
> > asking instead of just using MSFS to answer the question?
>
> Because I know very little about flying gliders, and trial and error is a slow
> way to learn.
>
> Do you know anything about gliders?

FFS hasn't this pillock learnt anything while he's been polluting the
group

[Mxsmanic]

RomeoMike writes:

> Again, NAME one place "down into the canyon" where one can take off and
> land a general aviation aircraft.

I should think that any real pilot would already have the references at hand,
but if you need help, here are four airports in the canyon:

Marble Canyon
Cliff Dweller's Lodge
Tuweep
Grand Canyon Bar Ten

[John Theune]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> RomeoMike writes:
>
>> Again, NAME one place "down into the canyon" where one can take off and
>> land a general aviation aircraft.
>
> I should think that any real pilot would already have the references at hand,
> but if you need help, here are four airports in the canyon:
>
> Marble Canyon
> Cliff Dweller's Lodge
> Tuweep
> Grand Canyon Bar Ten
Marble Canyon is about 45 miles away from the Grand Canyon in Marble Canyon
Cliff Dweller's Lodge is also in Marble Canyon about 40 miles from Grand
Canyon
Tuweep Cannot find anything about this one, maybe it's a made up one in MSFS
Grand Canyon Bar Ten is also outside of the Grand Canyon area about 56
miles west of Grand Canyon airport ( which is also not in the canyon but
rather on the rim to the south of the canyon.

[RomeoMike]

I guess you're not going to inform me. I have personally flown into all
of these that you mention, except Cliff Dwellers, which I'm not sure
even exists anymore. In any case, none of them is "down in the canyon."
None of them is even within the Grand Canyon National Park boundary,
though they are close. I will say that even some real pilots, impressed
with the scenery, have thought they were in the Grand Canyon when
flying into Marble Canyon airport, but they were not. Thanks, but I
don't need your help. BTW, I know the answer to your original question,
but what's the use.

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> I should think that any real pilot would already have the references at hand,
> but if you need help, here are four airports in the canyon:
>
> Marble Canyon
> Cliff Dweller's Lodge
> Tuweep
> Grand Canyon Bar Ten

[RomeoMike]

Marble Canyon airport sits above the part of the Grand Canyon known as
Marble Canyon, but it's not in the Park Boundary or down in the Canyon.
Cliff Dwellers is nearby. Bar Ten is in Whitmore Canyon, which feeds
into Grand Canyon from the north. Helicopters bring rafters out of the
canyon up to Bar Ten to be flown out to Vegas. Tuweep (aka Tuweap) is
just north of the Park Boundary in Tuweep Valley. It is a dirt/clay
strip that used to be used to fly rafters and supplies to the river.

John Theune wrote:

>>
>> Marble Canyon
>> Cliff Dweller's Lodge Tuweep Grand Canyon Bar Ten
> Marble Canyon is about 45 miles away from the Grand Canyon in Marble Canyon
> Cliff Dweller's Lodge is also in Marble Canyon about 40 miles from Grand
> Canyon
> Tuweep Cannot find anything about this one, maybe it's a made up one in
> MSFS
> Grand Canyon Bar Ten is also outside of the Grand Canyon area about 56
> miles west of Grand Canyon airport ( which is also not in the canyon but
> rather on the rim to the south of the canyon.

[BT]

I believe that all of these airports are outside the SFAR protected area and
are not "down in the Canyon".
BT

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> RomeoMike writes:
>
>> Again, NAME one place "down into the canyon" where one can take off and
>> land a general aviation aircraft.
>
> I should think that any real pilot would already have the references at
> hand,
> but if you need help, here are four airports in the canyon:
>
> Marble Canyon
> Cliff Dweller's Lodge
> Tuweep
> Grand Canyon Bar Ten

[Marty Shapiro]

RomeoMike > wrote in
:

> Marble Canyon airport sits above the part of the Grand Canyon known as
> Marble Canyon, but it's not in the Park Boundary or down in the
> Canyon. Cliff Dwellers is nearby. Bar Ten is in Whitmore Canyon,
> which feeds into Grand Canyon from the north. Helicopters bring
> rafters out of the canyon up to Bar Ten to be flown out to Vegas.
> Tuweep (aka Tuweap) is just north of the Park Boundary in Tuweep
> Valley. It is a dirt/clay strip that used to be used to fly rafters
> and supplies to the river.
>
> John Theune wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Marble Canyon
>>> Cliff Dweller's Lodge Tuweep Grand Canyon Bar Ten
>> Marble Canyon is about 45 miles away from the Grand Canyon in Marble
>> Canyon Cliff Dweller's Lodge is also in Marble Canyon about 40 miles
>> from Grand Canyon
>> Tuweep Cannot find anything about this one, maybe it's a made up one
>> in MSFS
>> Grand Canyon Bar Ten is also outside of the Grand Canyon area about
>> 56 miles west of Grand Canyon airport ( which is also not in the
>> canyon but rather on the rim to the south of the canyon.

There is a real nice picture of Marble Canyon taken about 3 months ago
at http://airnav.com/airport/L41 It clearly shows the airport at the top
of the canyon, not in the canyon. Of course, MXmoron is too lazy to try
and look anything up. If he had, he would have also noticed that the
pictures of Cliff Dweller's Lodge and Grand Canyon Bar Ten also show them
at the top of the canyon, not in the canyon.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_12_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Snowbird writes:
>
>> Why do you want this information?
>> What possible use is the answer to you, since by your own admission
>> you'd never dare to try it yourself?
>> Why can't you research it yourself? Google is your friend. And MSFS
>> too, it seems.
>> Why do you want us to spend our time on researching your problem,
>> especially since you seem to have lots of time yourself ?
>> Why do you pose the question to this group anyway, as you have
>> already repeatably dismissed our answers as "incorrect" ?
>> You say you base your present knowledge on your own research, yet now
>> you want to avoid learning by your own simulation experience, and
>> instead rely on our information, despite having numerous times
>> dismissed such information. Based on that behavior, how can we trust
>> that you are actually interested in the information, and not just in
>> endless arguing ?
>
> If you don't know, there's no point in posting.


Well, there oyu are. You know nothing and you post like fjukk.


I know, though.

Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_13_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> RomeoMike writes:
>
>> Again, NAME one place "down into the canyon" where one can take off
>> and land a general aviation aircraft.
>
> I should think that any real pilot would already have the references
> at hand, but if you need help, here are four airports in the canyon:



I do, but I wouldn't tell you fjukkwit



Bertie
>
> Marble Canyon
> Cliff Dweller's Lodge
> Tuweep
> Grand Canyon Bar Ten
>

[Marty Shapiro]

"BT" > wrote in
:

> d&tm, the "VFR CHART" depicting the rules of SFAR 50-2 was first
> printed on 4 April 1991.
>
> I too took a great tour operated canyon flight in 1983.
>

By any chance do you remember if your tour was with either Air Nevada
or Scenic Airways?

I did the same tour on my first trip to Las Vegas in the late 1970's.
I had just hit three straight numbers at roulette and rather than give it
back to the casino, I went over to the tour desk and bought whatever would
exhaust my winnings. It was a deluxe tour of the Grand Canyon. The neat
thing was it was in a Ford Trimotor. We were well below the rim of the
canyon for most of the flight. This was one of the things that got me on
the road to eventually becoming a pilot.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Mxsmanic]

John Theune writes:

> Marble Canyon is about 45 miles away from the Grand Canyon in Marble Canyon

Marble Canyon is part of the Grand Canyon, and part of the Grand Canyon SFRA.

> Cliff Dweller's Lodge is also in Marble Canyon about 40 miles from Grand
> Canyon

See above.

> Tuweep Cannot find anything about this one, maybe it's a made up one in MSFS

Are you not a pilot? Just look at the Grand Canyon VFR chart--as I did.

> Grand Canyon Bar Ten is also outside of the Grand Canyon area about 56
> miles west of Grand Canyon airport ( which is also not in the canyon but
> rather on the rim to the south of the canyon.

This airport, like Tuweep, is well within the canyon, and well within the
SFRA. Look at the chart.

[Mxsmanic]

RomeoMike writes:

> Marble Canyon airport sits above the part of the Grand Canyon known as
> Marble Canyon, but it's not in the Park Boundary or down in the Canyon.

It is indeed in the canyon, which starts at Lee's Ferry.

It's not inside the park, but it's inside the SFRA, which is bigger than the
park (the park covers only a fraction of the canyon).

There's also Phantom Ranch, but it cannot accommodate fixed-wing aircraft as
far as I know.

[Mxsmanic]

Marty Shapiro writes:

> There is a real nice picture of Marble Canyon taken about 3 months ago
> at http://airnav.com/airport/L41 It clearly shows the airport at the top
> of the canyon, not in the canyon. Of course, MXmoron is too lazy to try
> and look anything up. If he had, he would have also noticed that the
> pictures of Cliff Dweller's Lodge and Grand Canyon Bar Ten also show them
> at the top of the canyon, not in the canyon.

I looked it all up. On a topographic map it is clear that these are all in
the canyon. And if you look closely you'll see that the canyon is about 2000
feet deep where these airports sit.

[Mxsmanic]

RomeoMike writes:

> I guess you're not going to inform me. I have personally flown into all
> of these that you mention, except Cliff Dwellers, which I'm not sure
> even exists anymore. In any case, none of them is "down in the canyon."

They are 2000 feet below the rim. How much further down do they have to be in
a 5000-foot canyon before they qualify as "inside" to you?

> None of them is even within the Grand Canyon National Park boundary,

Neither is most of the Grand Canyon.

> I will say that even some real pilots, impressed
> with the scenery, have thought they were in the Grand Canyon when
> flying into Marble Canyon airport, but they were not.

I will say that some people hate it when not looking something up comes back
to bite them.

> BTW, I know the answer to your original question, but what's the use.

If you aren't even familiar with the SFRA, I rather doubt that you could know
the answer to my question.

[Mxsmanic]

BT writes:

> I believe that all of these airports are outside the SFAR protected area and
> are not "down in the Canyon".

Two are inside the SFRA, two are just outside. They are all in the canyon,
which is larger than both the SFRA and the national park.

[RomeoMike]

You see, this is why no one wants to engage you. You are either stupid
or a troll for sure. I have the USGS 'Navajo Bridge Quad.' 7.5'
topographic map in front of me. It clearly shows Marble Canyon airport
ABOVE the canyon. To the northwest are the Vermilion Cliffs, which have
nothing to do with the Grand Canyon. I have the appropriate topos for
the Tuweep and Bar Ten areas as well, but what's the use.

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> I looked it all up. On a topographic map it is clear that these are all in
> the canyon. And if you look closely you'll see that the canyon is about 2000
> feet deep where these airports sit.

[RomeoMike]

Mxsmanic wrote:
in the Canyon.
>
> It is indeed in the canyon, which starts at Lee's Ferry.

No, not in the canyon or even in the Park.

>
> It's not inside the park, but it's inside the SFRA, which is bigger than the
> park (the park covers only a fraction of the canyon).

How big a fraction would that be? About 100%? (Not including certain
tribal rights.)
>
> There's also Phantom Ranch, but it cannot accommodate fixed-wing aircraft as
> far as I know.

Ever been there? I have.It can't accommodate any GA aircraft. But at
least you have finally named a place that is "down in the canyon."

[RomeoMike]

Thanks for the photo. For the troll MX, what you see in this photo is
the airport with the canyon to the right and the Vermilion Cliffs to the
left. The Vermilion Cliffs are not part of the Grand Canyon. If you
would like for me to prove this further, meet me there, and I will, with
great glee, throw you off the rim into Marble Canyon, and you can
protest all the way down how stupid real pilots are.



Marty Shapiro wrote:

>
> There is a real nice picture of Marble Canyon taken about 3 months ago
> at http://airnav.com/airport/L41 It clearly shows the airport at the top
> of the canyon, not in the canyon. Of course, MXmoron is too lazy to try
> and look anything up. If he had, he would have also noticed that the
> pictures of Cliff Dweller's Lodge and Grand Canyon Bar Ten also show them
> at the top of the canyon, not in the canyon.
>

[RomeoMike]

I've made my case elsewhere in this thread and am done with your
argumentative, trolling stupidity. Ciao!

Mxsmanic wrote:
> RomeoMike writes:
>
>> I guess you're not going to inform me. I have personally flown into all
>> of these that you mention, except Cliff Dwellers, which I'm not sure
>> even exists anymore. In any case, none of them is "down in the canyon."
>
> They are 2000 feet below the rim. How much further down do they have to be in
> a 5000-foot canyon before they qualify as "inside" to you?
>
>> None of them is even within the Grand Canyon National Park boundary,
>
> Neither is most of the Grand Canyon.
>
>> I will say that even some real pilots, impressed
>> with the scenery, have thought they were in the Grand Canyon when
>> flying into Marble Canyon airport, but they were not.
>
> I will say that some people hate it when not looking something up comes back
> to bite them.
>
>> BTW, I know the answer to your original question, but what's the use.
>
> If you aren't even familiar with the SFRA, I rather doubt that you could know
> the answer to my question.

[Marty Shapiro]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

>
> I looked it all up. On a topographic map it is clear that these are
> all in the canyon. And if you look closely you'll see that the canyon
> is about 2000 feet deep where these airports sit.

Bull. If you had looked it all up you would have known that Tuweep
(L50) has been closed.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> John Theune writes:
>
>> Marble Canyon is about 45 miles away from the Grand Canyon in Marble
>> Canyon
>
> Marble Canyon is part of the Grand Canyon, and part of the Grand
> Canyon SFRA.
>
>> Cliff Dweller's Lodge is also in Marble Canyon about 40 miles from
>> Grand Canyon
>
> See above.
>
>> Tuweep Cannot find anything about this one, maybe it's a made up one
>> in MSFS
>
> Are you not a pilot? Just look at the Grand Canyon VFR chart--as I
> did.

You aren't a pilot, fjukkwit.

And you never will be


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Marty Shapiro writes:
>
>> There is a real nice picture of Marble Canyon taken about 3 months
>> ago at http://airnav.com/airport/L41 It clearly shows the airport at
>> the top of the canyon, not in the canyon. Of course, MXmoron is too
>> lazy to try and look anything up. If he had, he would have also
>> noticed that the pictures of Cliff Dweller's Lodge and Grand Canyon
>> Bar Ten also show them at the top of the canyon, not in the canyon.
>
> I looked it all up. On a topographic map it is clear that these are
> all in the canyon. And if you look closely you'll see that the canyon
> is about 2000 feet deep where these airports sit.
>



So what, fjukwit?


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Marty Shapiro writes:

> If you had looked it all up you would have known that Tuweep
> (L50) has been closed.

It's marked as open on the current chart.

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Marble Canyon is about 45 miles away from the Grand Canyon in Marble Canyon
>
>Marble Canyon is part of the Grand Canyon, and part of the Grand Canyon SFRA.
>

How is it that I flew into Marble Canyon last year and did not enter the
SFRA? You are completely without a clue.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200706/1

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Marty Shapiro writes:
>
>> If you had looked it all up you would have known that Tuweep
>> (L50) has been closed.
>
> It's marked as open on the current chart.
>

You're an idiot

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

buttman > wrote in
oups.com:

> On Jun 3, 8:59 am, Richard Riley > wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:05:06 +0200, Mxsmanic >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >If there were no airspace restrictions, would it be possible/safe to
>> >fly gliders in the Grand Canyon? There's not much of a place to
>> >land in the canyon, of course, but I don't know if there are
>> >thermals or something (?) that would allow a glider to climb back up
>> >out of the canyon after gliding below the rim. Is it possible? Has
>> >anyone done it?
>>
>> I know. I learned to fly in gliders and flew right seat many times
>> in a sight-seeing Twin Otter at the canyon.
>>
>> I won't tell you. From what you've posted previously, you'd only use
>> my answer as a starting point to insult me, belittle my experience
>> and claim I don't know what I'm talking about.
>
> OK then, if him asking the question bothers you so much, then how
> about if I asked?
>
> If there were no airspace restrictions, would it be possible/safe to
> fly
> gliders in the Grand Canyon? There's not much of a place to land in
> the
> canyon, of course, but I don't know if there are thermals or something
> (?)
> that would allow a glider to climb back up out of the canyon after
> gliding
> below the rim. Is it possible? Has anyone done it?


And you still call yourself an instrucor?

You should burn your instructor ticket. do it now.


Unbelievable.


Bertie
>
>

[Mxsmanic]

JGalban via AviationKB.com writes:

> How is it that I flew into Marble Canyon last year and did not enter the
> SFRA?

I suppose it depends on how you define the limits of Marble Canyon. The gorge
is completely contained within the SFRA, but parts of the Grand Canyon as a
whole in the area fall outside of the SFRA (the rim areas, for example).

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Marty Shapiro writes:
>
>> If you had looked it all up you would have known that Tuweep
>> (L50) has been closed.
>
> It's marked as open on the current chart.

You, and your charts are wrong. From the Arizona Dept. of
Transportation:

http://www.azdot.gov/aviation/airports/airports_list.asp?FAA=L50

It isn't listed at Airnav.com. It isn't listed on any
sectional, let alone the Grand Canyon VFR chart or listed at your
beloved Skyvector.com. Like told many times before, get your facts
straight before shooting off your mouth.

Actually, don't. It's a lot more fun showing how wrong you are
and how much of a fool you can be.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGZb5LyBkZmuMZ8L8RAlSNAJ9YQqC/I54aAjH7+G7fNLJIf65P/gCeJOX1
DRoSt1yyYMR3OC548iIn8SU=
=A5jA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> You, and your charts are wrong.

They are not my charts; they are prepared by the Federal government. Surely
you've seen the specific VFR chart for the Grand Canyon SFRA?

> It isn't listed at Airnav.com. It isn't listed on any
> sectional, let alone the Grand Canyon VFR chart or listed at your
> beloved Skyvector.com.

It's on the Las Vegas sectional (which doesn't expire until August), and on
the Grand Canyon SFRA chart (which doesn't have regular cycles), at N
36.301407 W 113.071384. You can see it on Google Maps, and various pilots
have put pictures of it on the Web.

In the face of so much documentary evidence, it is impossible for me to lend
any real credence to your point of view. It's a bit like saying there's no
such place as Los Angeles.

> Like told many times before, get your facts
> straight before shooting off your mouth.
>
> Actually, don't. It's a lot more fun showing how wrong you are
> and how much of a fool you can be.

Anyone looking it up will find out very quickly just who is right and who is
wrong, and I recommend that anyone who is curious do exactly that.

[Marty Shapiro]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> You, and your charts are wrong.
>
> They are not my charts; they are prepared by the Federal government.
> Surely you've seen the specific VFR chart for the Grand Canyon SFRA?
>
>> It isn't listed at Airnav.com. It isn't listed on any
>> sectional, let alone the Grand Canyon VFR chart or listed at your
>> beloved Skyvector.com.
>
> It's on the Las Vegas sectional (which doesn't expire until August),
> and on the Grand Canyon SFRA chart (which doesn't have regular
> cycles), at N 36.301407 W 113.071384. You can see it on Google Maps,
> and various pilots have put pictures of it on the Web.
>
> In the face of so much documentary evidence, it is impossible for me
> to lend any real credence to your point of view. It's a bit like
> saying there's no such place as Los Angeles.
>
>> Like told many times before, get your facts
>> straight before shooting off your mouth.
>>
>> Actually, don't. It's a lot more fun showing how wrong you are
>> and how much of a fool you can be.
>
> Anyone looking it up will find out very quickly just who is right and
> who is wrong, and I recommend that anyone who is curious do exactly
> that.
>

Not only are you a moron, you're an asshole as well. How stupid does
one have to be to think that just because a printed chart (updated every 6
months, and at least 1 month out of date when it appears) shows an airport
that the airport is still really operational as an airport? Only you, play
pilot, are that stupid.

The VFR sectional charts are issued every 6 months. The Grand Canyon
chart is on a "when issued" cycle. Only a stupid buttwipe like you would
believe that just because it's on the unexpired chart its still there.

Did you try looking up Tuweep in the A/FD, which is also a federal
government publication, but is updated on 56 day cycle? Newsflash asshole
- Tuweep isn't there anymore. This is from the federal government's NACO
web site which lists all airports in any selected state. No Tuweep or L50.


The federal goverment does maintain, online, a current data base of
airports. Tuweep is NOT there. The Arizona Department of Transportation
used to maintain Tuweep. Their web pages lists the airport as closed. Only
a moronic buttwipe like you would bleat "it's on the chart which hasn't
expired, its got to be there."

The AOPA, which has a vested interest in maintining up-to-date
information for pilots, no longer shows Tuweep or L50. Do you have some
inside knowledge on Tuweep which neither the federal goverment, the AOPA,
or the Arizona DOT posses? If so, please tell us the source. You
obviously don't have a clue on how to properly inform yourself of all
factors which could affect your flight. That's right. Your not a pilot.
Your not even a competent play pilot.

Try filing a VFR flight plan to L50 with DUATS. Let us know if it is
accepted. Try getting an area weather briefing for L50. The weather
service knows nothing about L50 any more.

Did you search the NOTAM file to see if L50 still exists? Did you
know that this is where changes are documented until the next chart cycle?
If you did, why didn't you check it? If you didn't, why did you shoot your
stupid mouth off and try to claim that Tuweep is still there? Is it your
goal in life to subtract from the sum total of human knowledge?

Your statements are pure unadulterated bull ****.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> You, and your charts are wrong.
>
> They are not my charts; they are prepared by the Federal government. Surely
> you've seen the specific VFR chart for the Grand Canyon SFRA?

So your charts are the only ones that are right, and the
Arizona state government is wrong? You are delusional, Anthony. Next,
I'll suppose you want to believe you're right, and the state law is
wrong? If so, we'll see you on the next episode of COPS: Paris.

>> It isn't listed at Airnav.com. It isn't listed on any
>> sectional, let alone the Grand Canyon VFR chart or listed at your
>> beloved Skyvector.com.
>
> It's on the Las Vegas sectional (which doesn't expire until August), and on
> the Grand Canyon SFRA chart (which doesn't have regular cycles), at N
> 36.301407 W 113.071384. You can see it on Google Maps, and various pilots
> have put pictures of it on the Web.

Show me at NACO, MyAirplane, or anyplace where a current A/FD
exists that has L50.

> In the face of so much documentary evidence, it is impossible for me to lend
> any real credence to your point of view. It's a bit like saying there's no
> such place as Los Angeles.
>
>> Like told many times before, get your facts
>> straight before shooting off your mouth.
>>
>> Actually, don't. It's a lot more fun showing how wrong you are
>> and how much of a fool you can be.
>
> Anyone looking it up will find out very quickly just who is right and who is
> wrong, and I recommend that anyone who is curious do exactly that.

We have. You're wrong, and a bloody idiot for not seeing it.

Oh wait.. Dilbert Rule still applies, doesn't it?

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGZeVVyBkZmuMZ8L8RAkT2AJ9o4T+cZ8NJHluuTnTknU iohhkGowCffo7p
9voJKHoxMjw/bgshyZlUfjk=
=dGgN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[[email protected]]

On Jun 5, 3:11 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I suppose it depends on how you define the limits of Marble Canyon.

Or how one defines an obnoxious, Google know-it-all.

[RomeoMike]

wrote:
> On Jun 5, 3:11 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> I suppose it depends on how you define the limits of Marble Canyon.
>
> Or how one defines an obnoxious, Google know-it-all.


MX sounds like Bill Clinton: "It depends on what the definition of 'is'
is."

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

RomeoMike > wrote:
>
>
> wrote:
>> On Jun 5, 3:11 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>>> I suppose it depends on how you define the limits of Marble Canyon.
>>
>> Or how one defines an obnoxious, Google know-it-all.
>
>
> MX sounds like Bill Clinton: "It depends on what the definition of 'is'
> is."

On top of that, it is bad pilots with poor/outdated charts that
cause potentially fatal incidents that will ruin GA.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGZgFcyBkZmuMZ8L8RAlY1AJ9oOcIjdv+6r8sXC8rUmN Ttu+0kewCgyhKP
Ued/x8d+NFWcrXqymjCZ/+w=
=HcbE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Marty Shapiro]

wrote in
ups.com:

> On Jun 5, 3:11 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> I suppose it depends on how you define the limits of Marble Canyon.
>
> Or how one defines an obnoxious, Google know-it-all.
>

Anthony the MxsMoron is not even competent to use Google. He can't
tell the difference between obsolete information and current information
even when Google gives it to him. The boob can't even type "Tuweep Airport
closure" into Google and understand the results it gives him.

Had he bothered, he would have found that the airport was closed in
December, 2004. There is an effort to get it reopened. Of course, such
research is far beyond the mental abilities of Anthony the MxsMoron.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Mxsmanic]

Marty Shapiro writes:

> Not only are you a moron, you're an asshole as well. How stupid does
> one have to be to think that just because a printed chart (updated every 6
> months, and at least 1 month out of date when it appears) shows an airport
> that the airport is still really operational as an airport?

It's just a strip of dirt. That's all it has ever been. You can still land
on it and take off from it, so it's operational. It doesn't need a tower or
terminal or first-class lounge to be a usable airport.

> The VFR sectional charts are issued every 6 months. The Grand Canyon
> chart is on a "when issued" cycle. Only a stupid buttwipe like you would
> believe that just because it's on the unexpired chart its still there.

It's on both charts.

> Did you try looking up Tuweep in the A/FD, which is also a federal
> government publication, but is updated on 56 day cycle?

Yes, but it's not listed. Of course, many airports are not listed.

> The Arizona Department of Transportation used to maintain Tuweep.

What maintenance did a dirt strip require?

> Try filing a VFR flight plan to L50 with DUATS. Let us know if it is
> accepted.

You can fly VFR without a flight plan.

> Your statements are pure unadulterated bull ****.

In other words, you disagree, which is your prerogative.

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> So your charts are the only ones that are right, and the
> Arizona state government is wrong?

The charts are what I would use if I had to land somewhere.

Why is the State suddenly more right than the charts? Do you consult the
State before flying, or the charts?

> Show me at NACO, MyAirplane, or anyplace where a current A/FD
> exists that has L50.

Why is MyAirplane more reliable than an official chart?

[Mxsmanic]

RomeoMike writes:

> MX sounds like Bill Clinton: "It depends on what the definition of 'is'
> is."

Bill Clinton became President. You did not.

[Mxsmanic]

Marty Shapiro writes:

> Had he bothered, he would have found that the airport was closed in
> December, 2004.

It's just a dirt strip. "Open" and "closed" don't have much meaning.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Marty Shapiro writes:
>
>> Not only are you a moron, you're an asshole as well. How stupid does
>> one have to be to think that just because a printed chart (updated every 6
>> months, and at least 1 month out of date when it appears) shows an airport
>> that the airport is still really operational as an airport?
>
> It's just a strip of dirt. That's all it has ever been. You can still land
> on it and take off from it, so it's operational. It doesn't need a tower or
> terminal or first-class lounge to be a usable airport.

There is a HUGE difference between a strip of dirt, and an
open, Operational field. According to the owners of the field, The
Arizona DOT, it is closed and not to be used for any operations. And
you of all people should know that, seeing that you allegedly LIVED in
Arizona.

It is CLOSED, and therefore not a usable field for anything at
all, expect a decent place to put down for an emergency landing.

Expect this field to show up shortly at airfields-freeman.com
for being Abandoned/Closed. I'm even willing to bet it won't even show
up as abandoned on the next sectional.

>> The VFR sectional charts are issued every 6 months. The Grand Canyon
>> chart is on a "when issued" cycle. Only a stupid buttwipe like you would
>> believe that just because it's on the unexpired chart its still there.
>
> It's on both charts.

How about this. Pull up Skype and call the closest FSS to
Tuweep (Prescott FSS). Ask them if Tuweep is an open field. Then report
back to us what their answer was. Be sure to put your tail between your
legs when you do.

>> Did you try looking up Tuweep in the A/FD, which is also a federal
>> government publication, but is updated on 56 day cycle?
>
> Yes, but it's not listed. Of course, many airports are not listed.

So you refuse to believe the government, who controls the
charts and listings for active fields? You are pathetic.

>> The Arizona Department of Transportation used to maintain Tuweep.
>
> What maintenance did a dirt strip require?

Lessee.. Active listing in A/FDs, for one, magnetic variation
for the runway, appropriate calculable runway length/width, MVAs for
that area.. Need I go on?

>> Try filing a VFR flight plan to L50 with DUATS. Let us know if it is
>> accepted.
>
> You can fly VFR without a flight plan.

Well, no ****. Read what he said. File a flight plan, VFR, IFR
or whatever, to L50 with DUATs. And while he may not say it, I will.
I'll guaran-damn-tee it won't be accepted.

>> Your statements are pure unadulterated bull ****.
>
> In other words, you disagree, which is your prerogative.

I have to agree with him. Your statements are pure
unsustantiated bull****.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGZmmwyBkZmuMZ8L8RAk/5AJ0dx8+uo0pbDehJjdBOo9caLT78WACgge17
bfXmlKGkzByAIpUqKjriMxE=
=ci/d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> So your charts are the only ones that are right, and the
>> Arizona state government is wrong?
>
> The charts are what I would use if I had to land somewhere.
>
> Why is the State suddenly more right than the charts? Do you consult the
> State before flying, or the charts?

If the state owns the airport (which in the US, the city and/or
state's Dept. of Transportation owns and operates the airport)
indicates that the field is closed, I would believe the state over old
charts. See below for why.

>> Show me at NACO, MyAirplane, or anyplace where a current A/FD
>> exists that has L50.
>
> Why is MyAirplane more reliable than an official chart?

Because MyAirplane as well as NACO contain the official A/FDs
for a given airport. They are also on a more updated cycle than
sectionals. A good pilot shall and must ALWAYS have the most recent
charts with them. If they don't, they are asking for being blasted by
controllers. If the latest A/FDs show a field to be closed, then the
sectionals that have the field shown as open are outdated. Therefore,
your charts are outdated, and you are wrong.

Yet another among countless times 'you are wrong' has to be
drilled into your head. Perhaps next time we shouldn't use a statement,
but an actual drill.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGZmsryBkZmuMZ8L8RApffAJ9cI7182/B7tHrU3X56ql3bRa8jcgCg6Mmj
FJzqo8FsypiNZAbiH8TC25I=
=MxL9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Marty Shapiro writes:
>
>> Had he bothered, he would have found that the airport was closed in
>> December, 2004.
>
> It's just a dirt strip. "Open" and "closed" don't have much meaning.

Grasping at straws, Anthony. It's there in black and white.
I'll even be generous to you and point you to it:

Talk of the Arizona Pilot's Association accepting donations to
reopen Tuweep after CLOSURE:

http://www.azpilots.org/tuweep.htm

The RAF's talk of Tuweep's CLOSURE:

http://www.recreationalaviationfoundation.org/raf/tuweep.htm

Bloody hell, they even mention the X's on the strip.

Perhaps the heavy metal band Anthrax was right; talking to you
is like clapping with one hand.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGZm02yBkZmuMZ8L8RAg53AKCvBATkxazmHw86mQFTdW PAO5xjVwCg8KG/
PuObYIuQwQBH/cJHtZ0XU/g=
=RQpS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Marty Shapiro]

Mxsmanic > took his dick out of his mouth and wrote in
:

>
> It's just a strip of dirt. That's all it has ever been. You can
> still land on it and take off from it, so it's operational. It
> doesn't need a tower or terminal or first-class lounge to be a usable
> airport.
>
BULL ****. An "X" on a runway means that the controlling authority
for that runway has closed it. While it might be usable in an emergency,
there is no guarantee that the runway is in any condition to safely land or
take off. The owner of L50, Arizona DOT, has put an "X" on the runway. It
is not an operational airfield any more than a stretch of an interstate
highway or an open field is an operational runway. Even a moron would know
something like that. Your IQ appears to be many orders of magnitude below
that of a moron.

>> The VFR sectional charts are issued every 6 months. The Grand Canyon
>> chart is on a "when issued" cycle. Only a stupid buttwipe like you
>> would believe that just because it's on the unexpired chart its still
>> there.
>
> It's on both charts.
>

So what? You don't know **** from shinola when it comes to reading a
sectional. Look at the current Las Vegas sectional published on March 15,
2007 containing data current through January 18, 2007. Tell us what the
"U" inside the magenta circle means.

Hmmm. Let's see. We have no name by the airport, no identifier by
the airport, no frequency listed for the airport, and a "U" inside the
circle. Yet you claim this represents an operational airport there. When
it comes to reading a sectional, you don't know **** from shinola. Did you
even bother to look at the date on the charts you are citing to claim L50
is an operational airport? The GC chart was last published in April, 2001.
L50 was closed in December of 2004. Only in the vacuum between your ears
would the concept of the a 6 year old chart being 100% current exist.

>> Did you try looking up Tuweep in the A/FD, which is also a federal
>> government publication, but is updated on 56 day cycle?
>
> Yes, but it's not listed. Of course, many airports are not listed.
>
>> The Arizona Department of Transportation used to maintain Tuweep.
>
> What maintenance did a dirt strip require?
>
You are just diplaying your ignorance again.

>> Try filing a VFR flight plan to L50 with DUATS. Let us know if it is
>> accepted.
>
> You can fly VFR without a flight plan.
>

No one said you couldn't. Only you have enough of a short circuit in
your neural pathways to come up with a non sequitur like this.

>> Your statements are pure unadulterated bull ****.
>
> In other words, you disagree, which is your prerogative.

No, in plain English: YOU ARE FULL OF ****.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[BDS[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote...
> Marty Shapiro writes:
>
> > Had he bothered, he would have found that the airport was closed in
> > December, 2004.
>
> It's just a dirt strip. "Open" and "closed" don't have much meaning.

What a strange statement from someone who thinks they would make an
"exceptionally safe" pilot.

BDS

[[email protected]]

On Jun 6, 8:15 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Marty Shapiro writes:
> > Had he bothered, he would have found that the airport was closed in
> > December, 2004.
>
> It's just a dirt strip. "Open" and "closed" don't have much meaning.

Unless the Army has bought the land and is using it as a landmine
testing facility.

-Kees.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

You're giving morons a bad name.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

Since you will be just simulating the landing, you will be OK.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Marty Shapiro writes:
>
>> Had he bothered, he would have found that the airport was closed in
>> December, 2004.
>
> It's just a dirt strip. "Open" and "closed" don't have much meaning.

You're just a sim-sot, you have no meaning.

[Bret Berger]

Marty Shapiro wrote:
> Mxsmanic > took his dick out of his mouth and wrote in
> :
>
>> It's just a strip of dirt. That's all it has ever been. You can
>> still land on it and take off from it, so it's operational. It
>> doesn't need a tower or terminal or first-class lounge to be a usable
>> airport.
>>
> BULL ****. An "X" on a runway means that the controlling authority
> for that runway has closed it. While it might be usable in an emergency,
> there is no guarantee that the runway is in any condition to safely land or
> take off. The owner of L50, Arizona DOT, has put an "X" on the runway. It

I drove the entire length of the runway at Toroweep (Tuweap) a few
months ago in a pickup truck. I didn't see an X. The national park
service ranger stationed about a mile away says that it still gets very
occasional use.

[ManhattanMan]

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
> Yet another among countless times 'you are wrong' has to be
> drilled into your head. Perhaps next time we shouldn't use a
> statement, but an actual drill.
>


Be prepared for the cloud of methane that will be released.. :)

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> There is a HUGE difference between a strip of dirt, and an
> open, Operational field.

There are many strips of dirt that are open and operational fields.

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> What a strange statement from someone who thinks they would make an
> "exceptionally safe" pilot.

Who are "they" in this context?

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>> How is it that I flew into Marble Canyon last year and did not enter the
>> SFRA?
>
>I suppose it depends on how you define the limits of Marble Canyon. The gorge
>is completely contained within the SFRA, but parts of the Grand Canyon as a
>whole in the area fall outside of the SFRA (the rim areas, for example).

I flew into the airport at Marble Canyon. At no time did I enter the SFRA.
Actual pilots who fly actual airplanes into this actual airport would know
how this is done.

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

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> There is a HUGE difference between a strip of dirt, and an
>> open, Operational field.
>
> There are many strips of dirt that are open and operational fields.

Which those 'many strips of dirt' are irrelevant to the one in
discussion: Tuweep. The airport is closed. It is no longer open and
operational. There is documentation publically available to support
this, yet you refuse to believe it.

Like others, I hope to never fly with you or around you (which
won't happen, since you said you won't/don't fly).

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGZzc2yBkZmuMZ8L8RAp3vAJ4mBqMLluHKYUpJYLEx3i WBkCBU0wCeM7il
NunJpEq/y+uldIgBOb5B/Fg=
=P5Z4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Richard Riley writes:
>
>> There's an old Irish saying: 'If everybody says you're drunk, you'd
>> better sit down.'
>
> Another saying is that the majority is not always right.

What, you claiming to be in some sort of majority?

Cuz you're neve rright at all,

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> BDS writes:
>
>> What a strange statement from someone who thinks they would make an
>> "exceptionally safe" pilot.
>
> Who are "they" in this context?

Fjukkwit

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> RomeoMike writes:
>
>> I guess you're not going to inform me. I have personally flown into
>> all of these that you mention, except Cliff Dwellers, which I'm not
>> sure even exists anymore. In any case, none of them is "down in the
>> canyon."
>
> They are 2000 feet below the rim. How much further down do they have
> to be in a 5000-foot canyon before they qualify as "inside" to you?
>
>> None of them is even within the Grand Canyon National Park boundary,
>
> Neither is most of the Grand Canyon.
>
>> I will say that even some real pilots, impressed
>> with the scenery, have thought they were in the Grand Canyon when
>> flying into Marble Canyon airport, but they were not.
>
> I will say that some people hate it when not looking something up
> comes back to bite them.
>
>> BTW, I know the answer to your original question, but what's the use.
>
> If you aren't even familiar with the SFRA, I rather doubt that you
> could know the answer to my question.
>

I could.

But I won't tell you unlees you give me $4,287.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> BT writes:
>
>> I believe that all of these airports are outside the SFAR protected
>> area and are not "down in the Canyon".
>
> Two are inside the SFRA, two are just outside. They are all in the
> canyon, which is larger than both the SFRA and the national park.


So what, you'll never fly so it doesn't matter.


Fjukkwit


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> RomeoMike writes:
>
>> Marble Canyon airport sits above the part of the Grand Canyon known
>> as Marble Canyon, but it's not in the Park Boundary or down in the
>> Canyon.
>
> It is indeed in the canyon, which starts at Lee's Ferry.
>

So what, fjukkwit wannabe boi?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> So your charts are the only ones that are right, and the
>> Arizona state government is wrong?
>
> The charts are what I would use if I had to land somewhere.
>
> Why is the State suddenly more right than the charts? Do you consult the
> State before flying, or the charts?
>
>> Show me at NACO, MyAirplane, or anyplace where a current A/FD
>> exists that has L50.
>
> Why is MyAirplane more reliable than an official chart?

What's it matter to yuo. The only official chart you need is the one that
gets you to your Fritos.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Marty Shapiro writes:
>
>> Not only are you a moron, you're an asshole as well. How stupid does
>> one have to be to think that just because a printed chart (updated
>> every 6 months, and at least 1 month out of date when it appears)
>> shows an airport that the airport is still really operational as an
>> airport?
>
> It's just a strip of dirt. That's all it has ever been. You can
> still land on it and take off from it, so it's operational. It
> doesn't need a tower or terminal or first-class lounge to be a usable
> airport.

How would you know, wannabe boi?

You've never taken off or landed in your life.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> There is a HUGE difference between a strip of dirt, and an
>> open, Operational field.
>
> There are many strips of dirt that are open and operational fields.
>

How would you know wannabe boi?

You don't fly and never will.


Bertie

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Richard Riley writes:
>
>> There's an old Irish saying: 'If everybody says you're drunk, you'd
>> better sit down.'
>
> Another saying is that the majority is not always right. However, there's no
> majority here, only some posters who are far more active than others. Being
> active doesn't make one right.

Yet another saying: There's lies, damn lies, and statistics.

As we have (and continue to do) shown you statistics, yet you
have nothing to back up your claims, it is easily conclusive that you
are a damn lie.

With mediums like USENET and the Internet, when you make a
statement, you had best have the documentation or supporting tools to
back up your claim. In the beginning you are implicitly given the
benefit of the doubt, but when you waste that, you become the boy who
cried wolf. No-one believes you, even if you may be right.

Right now, no-one believes you, and we're all at the point that
we don't care.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGZ0C0yBkZmuMZ8L8RAlqfAJ9l8uZ6BTtcJoG6b/FwcyufC/5JCACcCkbt
83SnKT4UqIxAmTxW3qk/C0A=
=Yg5/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[RomeoMike]

Bret Berger wrote:

>
> I drove the entire length of the runway at Toroweep (Tuweap) a few
> months ago in a pickup truck. I didn't see an X. The national park
> service ranger stationed about a mile away says that it still gets very
> occasional use.

The following is offered because a lot has been said about Tuweep.
This airstrip is an example of the fuzzy (IMHO) distinction between
open, closed, maintained or not. Though it's legally closed, as the
above poster states, it is usable. Its condition unmaintained appears to
be the same as it was maintained. I landed there once a few years ago
for the heck of it and to take a pee. I drive by it about once a year.
It's 60-70 miles from any paved road in a hot dry landscape with no
building or natural shade. Aside from the NPS ranger (who has no
authority over the strip), there is only one other resident in the whole
valley, I believe. Any airport manager was in name only, and there was
no equipment for maintenance. Possibly the county road grader made an
appearance every few years, but I haven't seen any evidence of it. There
is absolutely no place to go once you land there, unless you're a hiker
used to the heat. The nearest and only attraction is about 6.5 miles by
road at the Toroweap overlook of the Grand Canyon, and that is as
spectacular a sight as you'll ever see, well worth the effort, but would
suggest you drive in and spend the night at the campground. Despite
attempts by back country pilots to "reopen" this strip, I think its
"glory" days ended when they stopped flying in supplies and rafters for
the Colorado River trips many years ago.

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> Like others, I hope to never fly with you or around you (which
> won't happen, since you said you won't/don't fly).

Neither do you. Why is that significant for me, but not for you?

[Mxsmanic]

JGalban via AviationKB.com writes:

> I flew into the airport at Marble Canyon. At no time did I enter the SFRA.

Yes, you did. The SFRA starts at the surface.

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> Right now, no-one believes you, and we're all at the point that
> we don't care.

Does the alpha dog approve of your sycophancy?

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> Like others, I hope to never fly with you or around you (which
>> won't happen, since you said you won't/don't fly).
>
> Neither do you. Why is that significant for me, but not for you?

Don't know where you heard that; I just transferred my hours
from my time at CCSN at VGT to the flight school at Rancho Murieta.

You just proved my point; you mouth off before you have any
facts to support your comment. That makes you, and everything you say,
a crock.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGZ5YUyBkZmuMZ8L8RAtZiAKD3cHc7mrDcMT8bco6IQN xITPL8dQCgyqLc
CN4zU5mmqFfHdBOzVC/Xq2o=
=bUE4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> Right now, no-one believes you, and we're all at the point that
>> we don't care.
>
> Does the alpha dog approve of your sycophancy?

Do the people in this newsgroup approve and tolerate your
incorrect vernacular?

If you want to start a war of words, I'm more than happy to
oblige.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGZ5bDyBkZmuMZ8L8RAjAgAKC5cFESdoyWq3K4yssqX0 RwxW0w4QCfd7ub
507Unt+5qathLm8PKGQFwHo=
=NrW0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> Don't know where you heard that ...

From the FAA.

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> Do the people in this newsgroup approve and tolerate your
> incorrect vernacular?

I rarely use the vernacular.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 7, 8:00 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
> > Don't know where you heard that ...
>
> From the FAA.

Do you expect us to believe you actually "heard" anything from the
FAA? When you google up an FAA document, do you hear FAA worker
voices in your head?

F--

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> Do the people in this newsgroup approve and tolerate your
>> incorrect vernacular?
>
> I rarely use the vernacular.

My point proven.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGaEBayBkZmuMZ8L8RAl3SAKC+TSyv3LO7smL0KfqQde H6Ul6dFgCfcqbw
xRyveQ1ApucT54wdiI/3Vv8=
=apN5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Do you expect us to believe you actually "heard" anything from the
> FAA?

What you choose to believe is unimportant to me.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Do you expect us to believe you actually "heard" anything from the
>> FAA?
>
> What you choose to believe is unimportant to me.

What you constantly say here without any documentation,
references, or citations to support your statements makes everything
you say here unimportant and irrelevant.

If you want respect here, back up what you say to build
credibility. Otherwise, cry wolf.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGaFaryBkZmuMZ8L8RAmkIAKDBGZbavkJ+yDykMT5NKt iyiv6DdQCg4kAY
WW0+unEl6AgF6sK7itnB3OU=
=piV+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> If you want respect here ...

I already have the respect of those who matter.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> If you want respect here ...
>
> I already have the respect of those who matter.


Everyone that respects MX please raise your hand.

[ManhattanMan]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>>
>>> If you want respect here ...
>>
>> I already have the respect of those who matter.
>
>
> Everyone that respects MX please raise your hand.


ROFLMFAO

[sitting on hands]

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> I already have the respect of those who matter.
>

So nobody matters here?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[[email protected]]

On Jun 7, 2:42 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Do you expect us to believe you actually "heard" anything from the
> > FAA?
>
> What you choose to believe is unimportant to me.

Wow. You just proved your extreme, self-centered nature. Alternative
response would have been, sorry, I read an FAA document which states,
"...." But see, real pilots occasionally do hear FAA. They call the
local FSDO and ask questions. Most FAA workers try to be helpful to an
actual pilot.

F--

[george]

On Jun 8, 7:33 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
> > If you want respect here ...
>
> I already have the respect of those who matter.

Not in here and not from any of the current posters and pilots..
you spend time in here posting upon subjects that are beyond you and
when corrected you start empty argument thus making a fool of yourself

[flynrider via AviationKB.com]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>> I flew into the airport at Marble Canyon. At no time did I enter the SFRA.
>
>Yes, you did. The SFRA starts at the surface.

Oh really? That would be news to the folks that make the charts. You'd
better inform them of this important discovery right away!

You really are clueless.

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

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> Right now, no-one believes you, and we're all at the point that
>> we don't care.
>
> Does the alpha dog approve of your sycophancy?

Does your's?

k00k?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> Do the people in this newsgroup approve and tolerate your
>> incorrect vernacular?
>
> I rarely use the vernacular.
>


Snort@!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> JGalban via AviationKB.com writes:
>
>> I flew into the airport at Marble Canyon. At no time did I enter
>> the SFRA.
>
> Yes, you did. The SFRA starts at the surface.
>

Not in your world, k00kee boi:

Bertei

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> Don't know where you heard that ...
>
> From the FAA.
>



The FAA are talking to you now, are they?


Got a special chip installed, did you?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Do you expect us to believe you actually "heard" anything from the
>> FAA?
>
> What you choose to believe is unimportant to me.
>


Yes.

Of course.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> If you want respect here ...
>
> I already have the respect of those who matter.

Whikc of course, is noone, in your book.


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> Like others, I hope to never fly with you or around you (which
>> won't happen, since you said you won't/don't fly).
>
> Neither do you. Why is that significant for me, but not for you?
>

I fly, therefore I can say you are nothing but a coprophilic insect..


Fjukktard

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> You, and your charts are wrong.
>
> They are not my charts;

You don't have charts. you don't fly.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> RomeoMike writes:
>
>> MX sounds like Bill Clinton: "It depends on what the definition of 'is'
>> is."
>
> Bill Clinton became President. You did not.
>

Wheras you'd never even be elected president of your dumpster.

bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> So nobody matters here?

Some do, some don't.

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> Not in here and not from any of the current posters and pilots..

The active posters here who matter also show at least a modicum of respect,
since both civility and competence have a common root in intelligence. The
others don't matter, and so their respect or lack thereof is unimportant.

Like most newsgroups, this newsgroup is afflicted by a gang of regulars who
depend on each other for validation and bully anyone they don't like or anyone
who threatens their security (which essentially means anyone who doesn't
submit to them, as they tend to be very insecure). These people are not very
intelligent and whether they respect others or not makes not difference
(although it is interesting to note that such people rarely respect anyone
beyond themselves). They also are not very knowledgeable on the topics under
discussion, and their strutting aggression in the newsgroup cannot hide this.
Their posts consist mostly of highly predictable personal attacks, and are
easy to identify and ignore.

I look past the standard noise for information that will be useful to me.
Some people occasionally provide it. The rest is removed by the noise
filters.

> you spend time in here posting upon subjects that are beyond you and
> when corrected you start empty argument thus making a fool of yourself

Not really. I post questions to which I'd like to have answers. Sometimes
people give me useful answers; sometimes not. The static from the little boys
may hide the useful information (if any) from the uninitiated but not from
USENET veterans.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Wow. You just proved your extreme, self-centered nature.

It's rather the other way around. You apparently feel that anyone who doesn't
value your beliefs is extremely self-centered, which is the sort of thing that
only an extremely self-centered person would believe.

Most people don't care about your beliefs. That's a simple fact of life for
everyone. It's highly unrealistic to think otherwise.

> But see, real pilots occasionally do hear FAA. They call the
> local FSDO and ask questions. Most FAA workers try to be helpful to an
> actual pilot.

Most FAA workers try to be helpful, period, especially to friends and
relatives but also to strangers. It's a natural human tendency.

[Mxsmanic]

flynrider via AviationKB.com writes:

> Oh really? That would be news to the folks that make the charts.

I think not. The charts are marked in the standard way to indicate the
vertical boundaries of the SFRA. All sectors start at the surface, although
the ceilings vary.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> flynrider via AviationKB.com writes:
>
>> Oh really? That would be news to the folks that make the charts.
>
> I think not. The charts are marked in the standard way to indicate the
> vertical boundaries of the SFRA. All sectors start at the surface, although
> the ceilings vary.

Apparently you have never heard of shelving or floors. Take
example, Las Vegas Departure or Las Vegas Approach. Technically
Departure's floor there is 3500ft; at the ceiling of the pattern
altitude around Tower's airspace. Departure is split, to where a
sector's ceiling is 13000, while the rest of the next departure sector
has a ceiling of FL190[1].

Approach is the same. Their the first approach sector will have
their ceiling be at either 16000 or 12000[2], while their floor be at
8000. Next sector (final) has from 8000 until handoff to tower.

All of that information is available on the Las Vegas
Sectional, which you would have realized if you looked at it, since
it's publically available.

And to top that off, you can hear it in use on the KLAS
LiveATC.net feed.

BL.

[1] altimeter won't matter, as pilots will know that below
29.92, FL190 won't be used for a cruise altitude.

[2] Coming from the northwest, the crossing restrictions coming
into the Vegas Valley on a published STAR is 16000; MVAs in
area vary from 10500ft MSL to 14000ft MSL.

- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGaO8byBkZmuMZ8L8RAq+nAKCsqPyNvrBphJQkpdjLad 22OYNqNgCgishZ
rP+5bL3DtBfNvWV5gozllWE=
=ZQDb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Not really. I post questions to which I'd like to have answers. Sometimes
> people give me useful answers; sometimes not. The static from the little boys
> may hide the useful information (if any) from the uninitiated but not from
> USENET veterans.

So enlighten us, Anthony.. exactly how long have you been
posting on USENET to label yourself as a 'veteran'? I'd love to know
this.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGaO+oyBkZmuMZ8L8RAgaJAJ9Y+o1KjE3Nmp5Gk9bDIa 6V08ztKgCgwNR/
0pfk2uTWpDxvYPOtrgH7NVQ=
=Yp47
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> So enlighten us, Anthony.. exactly how long have you been
> posting on USENET to label yourself as a 'veteran'? I'd love to know
> this.

Google is your friend, although that will not show my earliest activity.

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> Apparently you have never heard of shelving or floors.

I have, but that's irrelevant here. The chart is clearly marked, e.g.,

9999' MSL
=========
SURFACE

Surface means the ground. You can't go below an airspace that starts on the
ground.

> All of that information is available on the Las Vegas
> Sectional, which you would have realized if you looked at it, since
> it's publically available.

I'm looking at the Grand Canyon chart, which is also publically available, and
is much more relevant to the Grand Canyon SFRA than any other chart.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> So enlighten us, Anthony.. exactly how long have you been
>> posting on USENET to label yourself as a 'veteran'? I'd love to know
>> this.
>
> Google is your friend, although that will not show my earliest activity.

Typical response; I'm pretty sure it would be easier to provide
an answer.

Either way, I'm more than positive I've been on USENET longer
than you. Also, it doesn't mean that you haven't contributed to the
signal-to-noise ratio in this group, because in judging from your
previous slathering of posts, you clearly have, and it's caused a lot
of people here (who not only are more than respectable, but have gone
beyond the call of duty to EARN that respect) to not respect you.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGaP+DyBkZmuMZ8L8RAn63AKDtk+0bzp/SRCbsx2Q9DlXtqTuvEQCgx6gR
YanER2cet9bwBg4by1qJ1cs=
=Drhw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Keith Archer]

Nice one!

K

"ManhattanMan" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>>>
>>>> If you want respect here ...
>>>
>>> I already have the respect of those who matter.
>>
>>
>> Everyone that respects MX please raise your hand.
>
>
> ROFLMFAO
>
> [sitting on hands]
>

[Keith Archer]

Another nice one!

K

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic,
>
>> I already have the respect of those who matter.
>>
>
> So nobody matters here?
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> Apparently you have never heard of shelving or floors.
>
> I have, but that's irrelevant here. The chart is clearly marked, e.g.,
>
> 9999' MSL
> =========
> SURFACE
>
> Surface means the ground. You can't go below an airspace that starts on the
> ground.
>
>> All of that information is available on the Las Vegas
>> Sectional, which you would have realized if you looked at it, since
>> it's publically available.
>
> I'm looking at the Grand Canyon chart, which is also publically available, and
> is much more relevant to the Grand Canyon SFRA than any other chart.

True; while this may be irrelevant to the Grand Canyon chart,
it goes back to the previous statement; the Grand Canyon Chart is 6
years out of date, according to the FAA; last update for that was April
19th, 2001. I understand that 'because a new chart hasn't been issued
still makes the old one current'; but it also does mean that any
changes to airports in the A/FD (closure, changes to the diagram,
layout of the airport, etc.) would supercede the chart you have, making
it old and out of date.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGaQHJyBkZmuMZ8L8RAnbAAKCjoaz7/4xcZt512aVr3UKlllDfSACfa4pK
BSL6SP8EcTNi3nBPv7XpFaA=
=XHPA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> > So nobody matters here?
>
> Some do, some don't.
>

Per your own definition, none do.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Wow. You just proved your extreme, self-centered nature.
>
> It's rather the other way around. You apparently feel that anyone who
> doesn't value your beliefs is extremely self-centered, which is the
> sort of thing that only an extremely self-centered person would
> believe.

Oh brother.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> flynrider via AviationKB.com writes:
>
>> Oh really? That would be news to the folks that make the charts.
>
> I think not. The charts are marked in the standard way to indicate
> the vertical boundaries of the SFRA. All sectors start at the
> surface, although the ceilings vary.

no they don;t fjukkwit

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> Apparently you have never heard of shelving or floors.
>
> I have, but that's irrelevant here. The chart is clearly marked,
> e.g.,
>
> 9999' MSL
> =========
> SURFACE
>
> Surface means the ground. You can't go below an airspace that starts
> on the ground.
>
>> All of that information is available on the Las Vegas
>> Sectional, which you would have realized if you looked at it, since
>> it's publically available.
>
> I'm looking at the Grand Canyon chart, which is also publically
> available, and is much more relevant to the Grand Canyon SFRA than any
> other chart.


Matters nada. You don't fly and never will fjukkkktard


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> So enlighten us, Anthony.. exactly how long have you been
>> posting on USENET to label yourself as a 'veteran'? I'd love to know
>> this.
>
> Google is your friend, although that will not show my earliest activity.
>

Nope, it's your friend. your only friend.

bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> george writes:
>
>> Not in here and not from any of the current posters and pilots..
>
> The active posters here who matter also show at least a modicum of
> respect, since both civility and competence have a common root in
> intelligence. The others don't matter, and so their respect or lack
> thereof is unimportant.


Bwawhahwhahwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahhwhah wh!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> So nobody matters here?
>
> Some do, some don't.
>

You don't

Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> True; while this may be irrelevant to the Grand Canyon chart,
> it goes back to the previous statement; the Grand Canyon Chart is 6
> years out of date, according to the FAA; last update for that was April
> 19th, 2001. I understand that 'because a new chart hasn't been issued
> still makes the old one current'; but it also does mean that any
> changes to airports in the A/FD (closure, changes to the diagram,
> layout of the airport, etc.) would supercede the chart you have, making
> it old and out of date.

The most recent sectional also shows the airports.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> True; while this may be irrelevant to the Grand Canyon chart,
>> it goes back to the previous statement; the Grand Canyon Chart is 6
>> years out of date, according to the FAA; last update for that was April
>> 19th, 2001. I understand that 'because a new chart hasn't been issued
>> still makes the old one current'; but it also does mean that any
>> changes to airports in the A/FD (closure, changes to the diagram,
>> layout of the airport, etc.) would supercede the chart you have, making
>> it old and out of date.
>
> The most recent sectional also shows the airports.

Back to the same issue again; If the A/FD shows that the
airport is closed (and keep in mind the A/FD is updated every 56 days),
your 3 month old 'recent sectional' is out of date and needs to be
updated. Once again, A/FD changes would supercede the chart you have.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGaZchyBkZmuMZ8L8RAnKbAJ4kXxvZt4GYaxPIQnxVVu Ja7Aq3tgCeJoCI
ll59cg18kgHwcMyjXKwFLVo=
=3Nds
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> Back to the same issue again; If the A/FD shows that the
> airport is closed (and keep in mind the A/FD is updated every 56 days),
> your 3 month old 'recent sectional' is out of date and needs to be
> updated. Once again, A/FD changes would supercede the chart you have.

More precisely, anything that agrees with you would supersede anything that
agrees with me.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> Back to the same issue again; If the A/FD shows that the
>> airport is closed (and keep in mind the A/FD is updated every 56 days),
>> your 3 month old 'recent sectional' is out of date and needs to be
>> updated. Once again, A/FD changes would supercede the chart you have.
>
> More precisely, anything that agrees with you would supersede anything that
> agrees with me.

You want to take it personal, that is your call. But evidence
and support of it (A/FD vs. outdated sectional/charts) still stand. Now
you're trolling, and you're not going to bait me.

Anywho, Don't take my word for it (you won't anyway). Go search
for Tuweep at http://www.naco.faa.gov and let us know what you do (more
importantly, DON'T) find.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGabMwyBkZmuMZ8L8RAgaOAJwLD+IumfVoZjydfl2HMm 2rZ/gWNACcDPhA
VZ6luhaf0k4q0bbyX9mxq18=
=4wS2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[george]

On Jun 8, 5:05 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> george writes:

>
> > you spend time in here posting upon subjects that are beyond you and
> > when corrected you start empty argument thus making a fool of yourself
>
> Not really. I post questions to which I'd like to have answers. Sometimes
> people give me useful answers; sometimes not. The static from the little boys
> may hide the useful information (if any) from the uninitiated but not from
> USENET veterans.

What you should stop and consider is how the pilots in here no matter
from whatever part of the world and levels of skill attained have very
little disagreement with each other..
And to claim that you are a veteran of the Internet is a wee bit on
the silly side.
Do you recognise this form of address?
3:774/605.112

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> > Back to the same issue again; If the A/FD shows that the
> > airport is closed (and keep in mind the A/FD is updated every 56 days),
> > your 3 month old 'recent sectional' is out of date and needs to be
> > updated. Once again, A/FD changes would supercede the chart you have.

> More precisely, anything that agrees with you would supersede anything that
> agrees with me.

Have you ever seen a real A/FD and noticed the chapter "Chart Bulletin"
where updates to charts are published or the chapter "Notices" were
the current altitudes for SFAR-50-2 are published?

I thought not; you would rather argue endlessly about something you
know little to nothing about.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> What you should stop and consider is how the pilots in here no matter
> from whatever part of the world and levels of skill attained have very
> little disagreement with each other..

I'm interested in all opinions. In some cases there is no answer that is
demonstrably correct from any objective standpoint.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Have you ever seen a real A/FD and noticed the chapter "Chart Bulletin"
> where updates to charts are published or the chapter "Notices" were
> the current altitudes for SFAR-50-2 are published?

I've seen SFAR-50-2, the one that says "extending upward from the surface" and
names a number of airfields within the SFRA.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> True; while this may be irrelevant to the Grand Canyon chart,
>> it goes back to the previous statement; the Grand Canyon Chart is 6
>> years out of date, according to the FAA; last update for that was April
>> 19th, 2001. I understand that 'because a new chart hasn't been issued
>> still makes the old one current'; but it also does mean that any
>> changes to airports in the A/FD (closure, changes to the diagram,
>> layout of the airport, etc.) would supercede the chart you have, making
>> it old and out of date.
>
> The most recent sectional also shows the airports.
>

How exciting for you. You can plug it into your nintendo, fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> Back to the same issue again; If the A/FD shows that the
>> airport is closed (and keep in mind the A/FD is updated every 56
>> days), your 3 month old 'recent sectional' is out of date and needs
>> to be updated. Once again, A/FD changes would supercede the chart you
>> have.
>
> More precisely, anything that agrees with you would supersede anything
> that agrees with me.
>

Nothing agrees with you.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Have you ever seen a real A/FD and noticed the chapter "Chart
>> Bulletin" where updates to charts are published or the chapter
>> "Notices" were the current altitudes for SFAR-50-2 are published?
>
> I've seen SFAR-50-2, the one that says "extending upward from the
> surface" and names a number of airfields within the SFRA.
>

So what, you can't fly into any of them and never will fjukkwit.


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> george writes:
>
>> What you should stop and consider is how the pilots in here no matter
>> from whatever part of the world and levels of skill attained have very
>> little disagreement with each other..
>
> I'm interested in all opinions.


no you aren't


In some cases there is no answer that is
> demonstrably correct from any objective standpoint.

You're an idiot.


bertie

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Have you ever seen a real A/FD and noticed the chapter "Chart Bulletin"
> > where updates to charts are published or the chapter "Notices" were
> > the current altitudes for SFAR-50-2 are published?

> I've seen SFAR-50-2, the one that says "extending upward from the surface" and
> names a number of airfields within the SFRA.

That's not what I asked, you babbling, arrogant, childish, twit.

Could it be that since MSFS doesn't have anything like the A/FD you
just can't understand the concept?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

> Could it be that since MSFS doesn't have anything like the A/FD you
> just can't understand the concept?

Bingo.

Why is this twit still here?

Why has he not been shunned?

He is far worse than Ralphie, Zoom, Juan, .....all put together.

Why is he still being acknowledged?
--
Jim in NC

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> The active posters here who matter also show at least a modicum of
> respect,
> since both civility and competence have a common root in intelligence.
> The
> others don't matter, and so their respect or lack thereof is unimportant.

Interesting statement for someone clearly shows not respect for those that
attempt to educate him.

>
> Like most newsgroups, this newsgroup is afflicted by a gang of regulars
> who
> depend on each other for validation and bully anyone they don't like or
> anyone
> who threatens their security (which essentially means anyone who doesn't
> submit to them, as they tend to be very insecure). These people are not
> very
> intelligent and whether they respect others or not makes not difference
> (although it is interesting to note that such people rarely respect anyone
> beyond themselves). They also are not very knowledgeable on the topics
> under
> discussion, and their strutting aggression in the newsgroup cannot hide
> this.
> Their posts consist mostly of highly predictable personal attacks, and are
> easy to identify and ignore.

Your usual troll, meant only to irritate and inflame. You really do sound
like a broken record. I feel so sorry for the poor soul that desperately
seeks the truth in aviation.

>
> I look past the standard noise for information that will be useful to me.
> Some people occasionally provide it. The rest is removed by the noise
> filters.

Your noise filter is your own insanity.

>
>
> Not really. I post questions to which I'd like to have answers.
> Sometimes
> people give me useful answers; sometimes not. The static from the little
> boys
> may hide the useful information (if any) from the uninitiated but not from
> USENET veterans.

You're a lying asswipe. You post here only to irritate pilots, and attempt
to degrade their forum. The only thing that keeps your worthless butt alive
is either the constant stream of the unsuspecting, or those with an
overwhelming urge to be helpful to most anyone.

You are simply a parasite of the sickest kind.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Interesting statement for someone clearly shows not respect for those that
> attempt to educate him.

I don't follow the alpha dog, and I don't join social clubs. If you know what
you are talking about, you don't need anyone's validation; if you don't, no
amount of validation will eliminate your insecurity.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Interesting statement for someone clearly shows not respect for those that
>> attempt to educate him.
>
> I don't follow the alpha dog, and I don't join social clubs. If you know what
> you are talking about, you don't need anyone's validation; if you don't, no
> amount of validation will eliminate your insecurity.

Based on the number of things you think you know and how many
times you've been corrected by real world pilots and controllers in
this group, not only do you not follow any alpha dog in this group,
you're no-where near the pack; in fact, I doubt anyone would want you
near the pack.

See Anthony, You come here with off the wall, incorrect, and
most of the time, outlandish statements that you think are fact, and
argue that experienced people here are wrong when they correct you.
You've done it so much that you'vegone beyond us having to prove you
wrong. You actually need to prove yourself RIGHT. And time and time
again you have *FAILED* to do that.

Insecure? no. bark dog and yip dog following alpha dog in a
pack? no. Waiting for you to come to your senses and see how foolish
you are to throw the experience of pilots in this group back in their
faces? yes. However, there's more of a chance that the US will launch
spy satellites over Canada and than you coming to your senses.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGbPftyBkZmuMZ8L8RAhTCAJ9Don3F2gS8Xf2w1ZQWKd 2YlIQp+QCfUDTw
IOazNDFonezFKuegs4ZkvHQ=
=F6mH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Interesting statement for someone clearly shows not respect for those
>> that
>> attempt to educate him.
>
> I don't follow the alpha dog, and I don't join social clubs. If you know
> what
> you are talking about, you don't need anyone's validation; if you don't,
> no
> amount of validation will eliminate your insecurity.

Clearly not the point dumbass. Your lack of respect simply disqualifies any
of you opinions based on your own criteria.

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> Based on the number of things you think you know and how many
> times you've been corrected by real world pilots and controllers in
> this group, not only do you not follow any alpha dog in this group,
> you're no-where near the pack; in fact, I doubt anyone would want you
> near the pack.

I wouldn't want to follow the alpha dog, either. That's for schoolchildren
and angry young males, and I am neither.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Clearly not the point dumbass. Your lack of respect simply disqualifies any
> of you opinions based on your own criteria.

Respect has no correlation with the validity of statements a person might
make.

[Big John]

Another War Story

In the time frame '49-'53 I was instructing in F-80A/B's at Willie
Field, Chandler AZ (just south of Phoenix).

On numerous occasions I would fly up to the Grand Canyon and do loops
in Canyon below the rim.

They finally made us stop as we were scaring the donkeys carrying
tourists up and down from rim to river at bottom.

Oh, those were the days :o)

Big John

**********************************************

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:05:06 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>If there were no airspace restrictions, would it be possible/safe to fly
>gliders in the Grand Canyon? There's not much of a place to land in the
>canyon, of course, but I don't know if there are thermals or something (?)
>that would allow a glider to climb back up out of the canyon after gliding
>below the rim. Is it possible? Has anyone done it?

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Clearly not the point dumbass. Your lack of respect simply disqualifies
>> any
>> of you opinions based on your own criteria.
>
> Respect has no correlation with the validity of statements a person might
> make.

6/8/2007 at 12:05 am, in this thread you wrote.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> The active posters here who matter also show at least a modicum of
> respect,
> since both civility and competence have a common root in intelligence.

Your own words just two days ago dip****.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> 6/8/2007 at 12:05 am, in this thread you wrote.
>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The active posters here who matter also show at least a modicum of
> > respect,
> > since both civility and competence have a common root in intelligence.
>
> Your own words just two days ago dip****.

Civility, not respect. I deliberately wrote it that way.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> 6/8/2007 at 12:05 am, in this thread you wrote.
>>
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > The active posters here who matter also show at least a modicum of
>> > respect,
>> > since both civility and competence have a common root in intelligence.
>>
>> Your own words just two days ago dip****.
>
> Civility, not respect. I deliberately wrote it that way.

Play your word games with someone else moron. You're a liar.

[Tuno]

As a cross-country soaring enthusiast, the notion of soaring below the
rim and out again (assuming the legalities of course) is exciting --
and foolish.

A fundamental rule of safe soaring is that you always have a safe
place to land, iow never assume there is a thermal between you and the
closest place on the ground that will not break your glider. I've seen
the Big Ditch a number of times from the air (and twice from my
sailplane) and have never seen a safe place to land.

-ted
Ventus 2C "2NO"

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Play your word games with someone else moron.

There aren't that many morons around.

[Mxsmanic]

Tuno writes:

> As a cross-country soaring enthusiast, the notion of soaring below the
> rim and out again (assuming the legalities of course) is exciting --
> and foolish.
>
> A fundamental rule of safe soaring is that you always have a safe
> place to land, iow never assume there is a thermal between you and the
> closest place on the ground that will not break your glider. I've seen
> the Big Ditch a number of times from the air (and twice from my
> sailplane) and have never seen a safe place to land.

Understood.

If you _did_ have a safe place to land, somewhere, would there be enough
rising air in the canyon to safely lift you out after gliding some distance
below the rim? If so, how low could you go? I don't know much about sources
of rising air for gliding, so the question may be naïve.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Maxwell writes:

> > Play your word games with someone else moron.

> There aren't that many morons around.

Yep, mostly you.

Though in fairness you're mostly malicious.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Tuno]

> If you _did_ have a safe place to land, somewhere, would there be enough
> rising air in the canyon to safely lift you out after gliding some distance
> below the rim? If so, how low could you go? I don't know much about sources
> of rising air for gliding, so the question may be naïve.

The answer to your first question is Yes. I have thermalled over the
canyon once, I have friends who have thermalled over the canyon a
number of times, and those thermals had to have originated on the
canyon floor, where daytime heating would be good.

Next time you're there in warm weather and you see cumulus clouds
forming over the canyon, visualize lines from their bottoms down to
the ground, adjusted for winds. You'll see that many of the CUs
originated from thermals by the river bank.

Good thermals, too. Making it to the Canyon is a real treat for
Arizona x/c pilots. I hope to do it again in a few weeks en route to
Parowan, UT.

-ted

[Mxsmanic]

Tuno writes:

> Good thermals, too. Making it to the Canyon is a real treat for
> Arizona x/c pilots. I hope to do it again in a few weeks en route to
> Parowan, UT.

Don't the current rules pretty much exclude glider flights over the canyon,
even above the rim? It doesn't look like you can get below 11,500 MSL or so,
and not at all through the no-fly areas. Unless gliders are special (which
they could be, since I think the main motivation for the SFRA is noise).

[Tuno]

> Don't the current rules pretty much exclude glider flights over the canyon,
> even above the rim? It doesn't look like you can get below 11,500 MSL or so,
> and not at all through the no-fly areas. Unless gliders are special (which
> they could be, since I think the main motivation for the SFRA is noise).

No. The special air traffic rules specify 14500 MSL as the lowest you
can go. That gives a VFR window up to 17999, or higher with clearance
from Center.

-ted