Seminole crash - 3 CFIs

"Maule Driver" wrote in message
r.com...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:5KDJb.738451$Fm2.658693@attbi_s04...
Weird. Bob's post appeared normally on my PC.

Same here. No crap.

That's because you are all using a newsreader that interprets HTML, which is
what Bob's original post was written in.

He shouldn't have used HTML (nor should anyone be posting to a newsgroup
like this one using HTML), and Robert wound up suffering because he did.
Most people don't, just because their newsreader is hiding poor posting
practices from them.

(Actually, the truth is that if you're paying attention, even in Outlook
Express or other HTML-aware newsreaders, the HTML posts look different. The
poor posting practice isn't so much hidden, as it is made less obvious to
those not aware of the issue).

As for the topic at hand, I don't know much about the Seminole, but without
knowing the weights of the four people in the plane, I don't see how Bob can
say that it's "not a real four passenger airplane". I'm not a small person
(200 pound-ish), and I've flown a 172 with all four seats occupied with
adults, and legally so at that.

Seems to me it's a little premature to be making conclusions about the cause
of the accident. Could easily be that the aircraft load had *nothing* to do
with the crash.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
| "Maule Driver" wrote in message
| r.com...
|
| "Jay Honeck" wrote in message
| news:5KDJb.738451$Fm2.658693@attbi_s04...
| Weird. Bob's post appeared normally on my PC.
|
| Same here. No crap.
|
| That's because you are all using a newsreader that interprets HTML, which
is
| what Bob's original post was written in.
|
| He shouldn't have used HTML (nor should anyone be posting to a newsgroup
| like this one using HTML

OTOH, what kind of benighted troglodyte still uses a newsreader that cannot
properly interpret HTML?

C J Campbell wrote:
OTOH, what kind of benighted troglodyte still uses a newsreader that cannot
properly interpret HTML?

Me. I still use command-line email and news on Unix/Linux.

Incredibly fast.
No chance of spam, trojans or virii.

And yes, I do have spamassassin running, too.

I am *PROUD* to be a troglodyte!

C J Campbell wrote:
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
[...]
He shouldn't have used HTML (nor should anyone be posting to a
newsgroup like this one using HTML

OTOH, what kind of benighted troglodyte still uses a newsreader that
cannot properly interpret HTML?

Does it matter? Usenet is a text-only medium and has always been.
Many gateways automatically block any non-text article or articles with
attachments (unless they are posted in one of the *.binary.* NGs). And I for
one am glad they do.

If font and layout are more important to you than content, then you are
welcome to go to some web board. But _PLEASE_ leave Usenet the way it is.

jue

"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message
...
| C J Campbell wrote:
| "Peter Duniho" wrote in message
| [...]
| He shouldn't have used HTML (nor should anyone be posting to a
| newsgroup like this one using HTML
|
| OTOH, what kind of benighted troglodyte still uses a newsreader that
| cannot properly interpret HTML?
|
| Does it matter? Usenet is a text-only medium and has always been.
| Many gateways automatically block any non-text article or articles with
| attachments (unless they are posted in one of the *.binary.* NGs). And I
for
| one am glad they do.
|
| If font and layout are more important to you than content, then you are
| welcome to go to some web board. But _PLEASE_ leave Usenet the way it is.
|

I have no plans to change Usenet. But you have to realize that text only
news readers will one day be as obsolescent as the buggy whip and the
Teletype. Neither you nor I will be able to stop it.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message
...
| OTOH, what kind of benighted troglodyte still uses a newsreader that
| cannot properly interpret HTML?
| If font and layout are more important to you than content, then you are
| welcome to go to some web board. But _PLEASE_ leave Usenet the way it
is.
|

I have no plans to change Usenet. But you have to realize that text only
news readers will one day be as obsolescent as the buggy whip and the
Teletype. Neither you nor I will be able to stop it.

Or, as obsolete as the internal combustion engine...

In article , C J Campbell wrote:
OTOH, what kind of benighted troglodyte still uses a newsreader that cannot
properly interpret HTML?

Me.

I switch HTML *off* for reading mail and newsgroups. It's just a
security hole waiting to happen (web-bugs et al.)
Most real (ham) email is written in plaintext. Most spam is written in
HTML.

HTML adds nothing worthwhile to usenet, and seldom adds anything
worthwhile to email.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"C J Campbell" writes:

OTOH, what kind of benighted troglodyte still uses a newsreader that cannot
properly interpret HTML?

Me. Much safer, and better looking, and easier to read, and faster,
and better facilities for all the important stuff (like deciding which
messages to read).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Photos: dd-b.lighthunters.net Snapshots: www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Maule Driver" wrote in message
r.com...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:5KDJb.738451$Fm2.658693@attbi_s04...
Weird. Bob's post appeared normally on my PC.

Same here. No crap.

That's because you are all using a newsreader that interprets HTML, which
is
what Bob's original post was written in.

He shouldn't have used HTML (nor should anyone be posting to a newsgroup
like this one using HTML), and Robert wound up suffering because he did.
Most people don't, just because their newsreader is hiding poor posting
practices from them.

(Actually, the truth is that if you're paying attention, even in Outlook
Express or other HTML-aware newsreaders, the HTML posts look different.
The
poor posting practice isn't so much hidden, as it is made less obvious to
those not aware of the issue).

As for the topic at hand, I don't know much about the Seminole, but
without
knowing the weights of the four people in the plane, I don't see how Bob
can
say that it's "not a real four passenger airplane". I'm not a small
person
(200 pound-ish), and I've flown a 172 with all four seats occupied with
adults, and legally so at that.

Seems to me it's a little premature to be making conclusions about the
cause
of the accident. Could easily be that the aircraft load had *nothing* to
do
with the crash.

Pete


Ah but the issue in twins is how well it flies on one engine; and many fly
very poorly while still legal.
A Seminole with two onboard flies nicely on one engine below about 6,000
feet.
Gross weight is another matter; the engines are only 180 hp each.
A PA44-180 was my first twin. I flew it as far as Vermont from Austin,
Texas.
I flew it into Angel Fire, N.M. twice. (Well below gross weight)
Been into grass strips and Sewanee TN. Mustang beach and Love field.
This is not speculation on the cause of the crash, but commentary on the
single-engine performance of the Seminole.
H.

H. Adam Stevens
Comm Multi Inst
ex N2196B PA44-180
ex N739CD C172N
ex N502TB BE58P

"H. Adam Stevens" writes:

Been into grass strips and Sewanee TN. Mustang beach and Love field.
This is not speculation on the cause of the crash, but commentary on the
single-engine performance of the Seminole.

Many people (arguably not enough of them) consider the phrase "single-
engine performance" to be a self-contradictory expression when used
to refer to a light twin. (For the record, my multi checkride back
in 1973 was in a Seneca I on a very hot August day. The examiner
gave me the usual engine failure shortly after takeoff and asked for
an immediate turn into the good engine over a nearby ridge; I told him
where to stuff the request, and passed...)

Joe Morris