Canals in Missouri?

"BT" wrote in message
...

I have been on both sides of the mic. If a VFR aircraft chooses to proceed
through a HOT MOA and mix it up with fast fighters doing ACM (air combat
maneuvers) and I am not controlling the fighters.

He is on his own.


Weak stick.

And choosing to discuss this with you is not being diverted by logic.

I doubt that you will ever be diverted by logic.

Ouch. No smiley, either.

:-(
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
And choosing to discuss this with you is not being diverted by logic.


I doubt that you will ever be diverted by logic.



Damn Steven you certainly have sand in your vagina this weekend.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

Which is all picking nits at definitions and terminology. ATC requested
that he divert, when he gave a suggested heading. Of course Jay could
ignore it, but that would not be very smart, would it?


Jay said nothing about an ATC suggestion, he said that he was diverted by
ATC.

He did say that he was diverted in the first post. When he was called on
it, he admitted as being wrong, and had this to say:

(Note: second quote is from Jay, the first from Blueskies)

Quote:
You 'were diverted' around an MOA? Don't you mean you decided to fly
around it. There is no requirement to stay out of
MOAs...

True enough. However, approach strongly "suggested" a course of 360
to avoid the MOA, because it was "hot". I heard him working several
F-16s out of Springfield, IL, as well as a couple of unidentified
other fighters (F-15s?). They had the airspace to 50,000 feet, so I
wasn't gonna fly over it!

I didn't want to mess them up, nor did I want to see one up close --
so diverted we did.

End quote.

He admitted being wrong. Can you move on, now that has been made public?
--
Jim in NC

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote

Weak stick.

How so? He was advised to go around, and chose not to. If it was a good
idea to go through, he would not have suggested to go around.

I would not fault a controller not wanting any part of a flight through a
hot MOA. Are you saying that you would be happy to continue being
responsible, as a controller, for a plane flying through a hot MOA?
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
news

He did say that he was diverted in the first post. When he was called on
it, he admitted as being wrong, and had this to say:

(Note: second quote is from Jay, the first from Blueskies)

Quote:
You 'were diverted' around an MOA? Don't you mean you decided to fly
around it. There is no requirement to stay out of
MOAs...

True enough. However, approach strongly "suggested" a course of 360
to avoid the MOA, because it was "hot". I heard him working several
F-16s out of Springfield, IL, as well as a couple of unidentified
other fighters (F-15s?). They had the airspace to 50,000 feet, so I
wasn't gonna fly over it!

I didn't want to mess them up, nor did I want to see one up close --
so diverted we did.

End quote.

He admitted being wrong. Can you move on, now that has been made public?


Sure. Your post suggested you were unaware of the situation.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
And choosing to discuss this with you is not being diverted by logic.

I doubt that you will ever be diverted by logic.

Ouch. No smiley, either.

That is OK, Jay.

I'll bet Stephen argued with the doctor, about who his mother was, before
his umbilical cord was cut.

Note that there was no smiley there, either.

I have yet to see another human being who likes to pick a smaller nit, than
him. (besides he whose name will not be spoken, and I'm not positive about
that, either)
--
Jim in NC

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote

Sure. Your post suggested you were unaware of the situation.

There was nothing in my post that had any inference of when I became aware
of the situation, or whether I was or was not aware of the situation. You
chose to read that into it, but that is hardly surprising.
Anything to have a reason to argue.

Did you once work for the writers of Monty Python? I'm positive you had
something to do with the "I paid for an argument" skit.
--
Jim in NC

he not him

On Mar 18, 5:17 am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Kennett is one of my regular fuel stops. I had always assumed the
canals had something to do with irrigation. Lots of cotton grown
there. Rice a little farther south.

Biggest danged drainage system I've seen. They make the locks in
Sault.Ste Marie look like drainage ditches.

When the canal you're looking at stretches from horizon to horizon in
an absolutely straight line -- and you're at 7500 feet -- you know
someone has spent some tax dollars.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Awww, all those little duckies lost their swampy homes.
Probably made floods on the Mississippi all that much worse, too.
Bet they couldn't get that project approved today!