Who does flight plans?

In article , Marc J. Zeitlin wrote:
To send us off on another tangent, and one that I haven't seen mentioned
in this thread before, it's "ded-reckoning", not "dead-reckoning". The
"ded" stands for "deduced", not whatever "dead" might stand for other
than the obvious.

Dead does not stand for anything.
From http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/enc..._reckoning.htm :

There is some controversy about the derivation of the phrase. It is
popularly thought to come from deduced reckoning and is sometimes given
in modern sources as ded reckoning. However, according to
the Oxford English Dictionary, the phrase dead reckoning dates from
Elizabethan times (1605-1615).

The popular etymology from deduced is not documented in the Oxford
English Dictionary or any other historical dictionary. Dead reckoning
is navigation without stellar observation. With stellar observation,
you are "live", working with the stars and the movement of the planet.
With logs, compasses, clocks, but no sky, you are working "dead".
--
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"

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 23:29:42 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:

Maule Driver wrote:


But it really came into focus when I flew one of my last contests in
Mifflin PA. It attracted a bunch of guys from the left coast who were
flying in the NE for the first time. Their discomfort with both flying
and navigating the terrain was obvious and it effected their
performance enormously - for a couple of days anyway.

I never have discomfort navigating, but I often have discomfort when
looking for an emergency landing site and finding absolutely nothing
hospitable, especially from west of N38 to nearly ERI! The thought of
full stalling into the trees has just never given me great comfort. :-)

Matt

Some years ago the BBC was filming, in Canada, from a light aircraft
(not sure if 4 or 6 seat) when the aircraft was unable to climb.
I assume due to downdraft exceeding aircraft climb. The aircraft was
descending and the pilot had no option but to fly into a forrest. The
outside camera was torn off as it went into the trees but the
cameraman inside kept filming the accident. You could see the
professionalism of the pilot as he flew the aircraft all the way to
the crash. There was one point where you could even see a slight
deviation as the pilot slightly maneuvered between the trees.

The result was not a disaster and the aircraft came to rest in the
trees with the most damage being done to the passengers when trying to
climb out of the trees. Once on the ground the presenter decided to do
a piece to camera. This was an amazing piece of filming and shows that
you should always 'Fly the plane' :-)

Peter Duniho wrote:

If and when you have incontrovertible evidence that the correct
deriviation is "deduced reckoning", feel free to make such a
correction. Until then, you're just creating unjustified smugness for
yourself.

So let's assume that you're right (and after reading some web
references, I'm inclined to believe that you are). Somehow, Dylan Smith
managed to point out the same thing in a civilized way, without being
insulting. While I usually tend to agree with your pronouncements
around here, I can certainly see why many folks can't stand you and
think that you're a complete (well, maybe not complete) dickhead.

I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong - are you?

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2005

"Maybe not complete"?

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Marc J. Zeitlin" wrote in message
...
I can certainly see why many folks can't stand you and
think that you're a complete (well, maybe not complete) dickhead.

I've been in, seen and been around the aftermath of a few landings in
the trees - gliders and SELs. No injuries in the gliders, light
injuries in the SELs.

The gliders stayed in the canopy (except mine - stunted trees) and the
SELs came to rest on the ground - 2X the wt and twice the wing perhaps

No question the most damage to the gliders was removal from the trees
(and a loss of pilot dignity for the 70+ yo we had winch down with a
stop for pics half way down, hee hee.

The take-away message is "fly it in, don't stall it in". As long as you
fly it in, seems to be very surviveable. Stall it or spin/dive it seems
to be another matter. Mininum speed/energy is different than a stall.

wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 23:29:42 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:


Maule Driver wrote:

Matt

Some years ago the BBC was filming, in Canada, from a light aircraft
(not sure if 4 or 6 seat) when the aircraft was unable to climb.
I assume due to downdraft exceeding aircraft climb. The aircraft was
descending and the pilot had no option but to fly into a forrest. The
outside camera was torn off as it went into the trees but the
cameraman inside kept filming the accident. You could see the
professionalism of the pilot as he flew the aircraft all the way to
the crash. There was one point where you could even see a slight
deviation as the pilot slightly maneuvered between the trees.

The result was not a disaster and the aircraft came to rest in the
trees with the most damage being done to the passengers when trying to
climb out of the trees. Once on the ground the presenter decided to do
a piece to camera. This was an amazing piece of filming and shows that
you should always 'Fly the plane' :-)

Grand Canyon! Yeah, that territory is at the same time feature-rich and
feature-less depending on your familiarity. Damn, I've been so lost
there! Pilotage in engineless aircraft 1500' above the terrain can be
nerve-racking - where is that damn Hornell?

I landed 'out' at Grand Canyon once in a sailplane. The PIK20b was a
2nd generation fiberglass gliders with a laminar type airfoil known to
be bug sensitive (bug smashes significantly degraded the performance).
A weak willed Citabria came to give me an aero retrieve. As he began
the takeoff roll, a rain sprinkle started. We ran down the runway and
when we reached my normal liftoff speed, I couldn't. Rain had degraded
the the performance that much. The added drag of me rolling kept him on
the ground. He got off before I did with his wheels kissing the grass.
I dragged off the end of the asphalt and found out why they call it
Grand Canyon - thank goodness. Quite a drop off as I recall... Is that
the same N38?

Interestingly I sat down at the tube last night and they were doing a
show on the Mississippi and featured Sam Clemens/Mark Twain's stories
about piloting the Mississippi. Even interviewed a river pilot about
the test they have to take and his ability to draw a detailed 100 mile
map of the river from memory.

Matt Whiting wrote:

I never have discomfort navigating, but I often have discomfort when
looking for an emergency landing site and finding absolutely nothing
hospitable, especially from west of N38 to nearly ERI! The thought of
full stalling into the trees has just never given me great comfort. :-)

Matt

Marc J. Zeitlin wrote:

To send us off on another tangent, and one that I haven't seen mentioned
in this thread before, it's "ded-reckoning", not "dead-reckoning".

Not according to the OED.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

"Maule Driver" wrote in

I've been in, seen and been around the aftermath of a few landings in the
trees - gliders and SELs. No injuries in the gliders, light injuries in
the SELs.

That aside, does anyone know anyone whose ass was saved by the pilotage and
dead reckoning skills taught at the PPL and CPL level? I do.

moo

"Marc J. Zeitlin" wrote in message
...
[...]
I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong - are you?

Sure. I'm not perfect. I have admitted to being wrong several times here,
the rare instances it happened.

My post was less-than-kind simply because your post was as well. I realize
Usenet is the perfect forum for petty nit-picking, but that doesn't make it
okay. Whether it's ded or dead, it was clear that everyone involved knew
what we were talking about. Your post had no point, other than to (falsely,
as it happens) claim some superior knowledge. It contributed nothing to the
discussion, and was no more useful than a post the purpose of which was
solely to correct a spelling or grammar error.

Those kinds of posts **** me off. If it were actually important to correct
spelling or grammar errors here on Usenet, each thread would be half
messages about spelling and grammar. Clearly it's not important, but still
every now and then, some smug "I know something you don't" person comes
along and posts nothing but a correction to spelling or grammar.

And by the way, as person who works very hard to ensure his posts are as
free of spelling and grammatical errors as possible, I feel I have the right
to assert that such errors really aren't all that important. I do the work
because it's important TO ME, not because I think it's a critical need in
the newsgroup.

Such posts are, whether worded nicely or not, simply belittling. They imply
that the person or people to whom they refer are somehow ignorant or
otherwise less-worthy of consideration, based on no greater evidence than a
simple spelling or grammatical error.

It's irritating enough when they are correct, but when they actually aren't,
it's even more annoying. Annoyances beget rude posts. Even more so when
that's the first contribution a person has made in a month.

I should probably be following the old adage, "if you have nothing good to
say, say nothing at all". But that cuts both ways. You should have thought
about that yourself before posting your message.

Pete

Oh lighten up. The supposedly offensive post was just an attempt at
being entertaining. Nothing wrong with that and it was better than this
spittle.

The original:
"To send us off on another tangent, and one that I haven't seen mentioned
in this thread before, it's "ded-reckoning", not "dead-reckoning". The
"ded" stands for "deduced", not whatever "dead" might stand for other
than the obvious."

We now return you to your regularly scheduled navigation argument.

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Marc J. Zeitlin" wrote in message
...

[...]
I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong - are you?


Sure. I'm not perfect. I have admitted to being wrong several times here,
the rare instances it happened.

My post was less-than-kind simply because your post was as well. I realize
Usenet is the perfect forum for petty nit-picking, but that doesn't make it
okay. Whether it's ded or dead, it was clear that everyone involved knew
what we were talking about. Your post had no point, other than to (falsely,
as it happens) claim some superior knowledge. It contributed nothing to the
discussion, and was no more useful than a post the purpose of which was
solely to correct a spelling or grammar error.

Those kinds of posts **** me off. If it were actually important to correct
spelling or grammar errors here on Usenet, each thread would be half
messages about spelling and grammar. Clearly it's not important, but still
every now and then, some smug "I know something you don't" person comes
along and posts nothing but a correction to spelling or grammar.

And by the way, as person who works very hard to ensure his posts are as
free of spelling and grammatical errors as possible, I feel I have the right
to assert that such errors really aren't all that important. I do the work
because it's important TO ME, not because I think it's a critical need in
the newsgroup.

Such posts are, whether worded nicely or not, simply belittling. They imply
that the person or people to whom they refer are somehow ignorant or
otherwise less-worthy of consideration, based on no greater evidence than a
simple spelling or grammatical error.

It's irritating enough when they are correct, but when they actually aren't,
it's even more annoying. Annoyances beget rude posts. Even more so when
that's the first contribution a person has made in a month.

I should probably be following the old adage, "if you have nothing good to
say, say nothing at all". But that cuts both ways. You should have thought
about that yourself before posting your message.

Pete