Who does flight plans?

"Maule Driver" wrote in message
...
Oh lighten up. The supposedly offensive post was just an attempt at being
entertaining.

We'll just have to disagree on that claim. I saw no smiley, and found the
post far from entertaining.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"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.

Becuzz I'm in agreemint with youre pazishun about knot kerrecting posts
jest to bee doing somthing, I offer the following in regards to Dead
Reckoning:

The Dictionary of Misinformation says of the "deduced" theory, "There is no
evidence for such a belief." The Oxford English Dictionary says that the
term is from the adjective "dead" and doesn't deign to even discuss the
supposed derivation from "deduced". The Oxford Dictionary of English
Etymology provides the final nail in the coffin: "a proposed etym. ded., for
deduced, has no justification." [From:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/...eckoning.html]

Regards,

Casey

Peter Duniho wrote:

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

Very big of you :-). In many years of watching you post, I can't
remember any, but maybe my memory is just faulty.

My post was less-than-kind simply because your post was as well....
.... 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.

That's certainly not what was intended, nor what I believe I did - see
below.

Those kinds of posts **** me off.

What, if anything, does not?

extraneous contemporizing about grammer and spelling posts deleted for
brevity's sake, since no one was correcting grammer and/or spelling.

Such posts are, whether worded nicely or not, simply belittling.....

There was no reference to spelling, since the issue at hand was whether
or not "ded" or "dead" was the right "reckoning" type, based on the
derivation of the term, not on the spelling of a word. I THOUGHT that I
knew the answer, so was explaining it. Since I was probably wrong, a
couple of folks nicely pointed that out, with references to where I
could find the correct information. There was nothing belittling about
my post, and no-one else seemed to take it that way. Is it at all
possible that the fact that you seem to find just about everything
annoying a function of you, and not the world around you?

It's irritating enough when they are correct, but when they actually
aren't, it's even more annoying. Annoyances beget rude posts.

Especially when someone has an particularly short fuse.

.... Even more so when that's the first contribution a person has made
in a month.

Aha. So the validity of a post is determined by the prolificity of the
poster? My post was probably wrong, but certainly on topic for the
group. If you do a Google search on my postings, you'll find that I'm
on topic 99% of the time, and have a very high S/N ratio. Many other
folks would be hard pressed to say the same.

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.

Since I thought that I was distributing information that might be of
interest to folks (wrongly, as it probably turns out), and wasn't
attacking anyone or insulting them, I'm not sure how that applies.

NOW, we're off topic, so I won't respond any more.

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

Casey Wilson wrote:
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

"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.


Becuzz I'm in agreemint with youre pazishun about knot kerrecting posts
jest to bee doing somthing, I offer the following in regards to Dead
Reckoning:

The Dictionary of Misinformation says of the "deduced" theory, "There is no
evidence for such a belief." The Oxford English Dictionary says that the
term is from the adjective "dead" and doesn't deign to even discuss the
supposed derivation from "deduced". The Oxford Dictionary of English
Etymology provides the final nail in the coffin: "a proposed etym. ded., for
deduced, has no justification." [From:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/...eckoning.html]

Regards,

Casey

"Marc J. Zeitlin" wrote in message
...
What, if anything, does not?

Hardy har har har. Still, it should be clear enough to the most casual
observer that there are plenty of posts that don't **** me off.

extraneous contemporizing about grammer and spelling posts deleted for
brevity's sake, since no one was correcting grammer and/or spelling.

I put the type of correction you made in exactly that same category.
Whether we spell it "ded" or "dead" is irrelevant, and amounts only to a
spelling "error" one way or the other.

[...]
Especially when someone has an particularly short fuse.

It's true I have a shorter fuse than many other folks. So what? Life would
be pretty boring if we were all exactly the same.

Aha. So the validity of a post is determined by the prolificity of the
poster?

No. But certainly when it's your sole contribution for the month, it
illustrates quite clearly what your primary interest in the newsgroup is.
That primary interest is clearly correcting other people's language usage,
rather than contributing to aviation topics.

Pete

Marc J. Zeitlin wrote:

Peter Duniho wrote:


How so? Dead-reckoning is not nearly as reliable as pilotage....


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.


Hardly that clear. There are about as many references that say "dead"
as there are that say "ded."

Saying deduced reckoning is close to being redundant.


Matt

wrote:

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' :-)

I agree. I would certainly plan to do that should I have no choice, but
it still doesn't give me great comfort! :-)

All it takes is one errant limb to snap and come through the windshield
and you become a kabob.

A lot depends on the type of trees. Evergreens are generally much more
resilient than the hardwoods that predominant in my part of PA. A might
oak tree would stop most light planes in very short order and with high
deceleration and also the possibility of a broken limb coming right
through the windshield or door.


Matt

Maule Driver wrote:

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?

Yes, it is feature-rich, but I don't think feature-less. Then again, I
was born here... :-)


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?


Yep, it is the same Grand Canyon airport, but not for long. It will
soon be renamed to something like the Wellsboro Johnston airport in
honor of Dick and Ada Johnston who operated the airport for many decades
and just retired a few years ago when the state sold the airport to a
local airport authority.


Matt

"Michael 182" wrote

Hmmm - I think I write the OP poorly.

I agree. "...does anyone with more than 100 hours do a flight plan..."

BTW, are you a doctor? You sound like a doctor in an airplane.

In article , Happy Dog wrote:
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.

There's a very good story in one of the ILAFFT books from a military
instructor who had a total radio and electrical failure in hard IMC, and
dead reckoned himself out of trouble.

--
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"