Co-Pilot Needed (URGENT)

"Ed" wrote in message
. ..
Is there a website you can go to self-test for a sense of humor?

Unfortunately not...and there are a lot of "humor challenged" AS WELL as
those that think if it's not on SNOPES it must be true.


Good try, but seems to be an urban legend:

http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/pluckyew.htm

"Matt Barrow" wrote:
Unfortunately not...and there are a lot of "humor challenged" AS WELL as
those that think if it's not on SNOPES it must be true.

Would you put more faith in it if I could find a Wikipedia article on the
subject? :-)

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
"Matt Barrow" wrote:
Unfortunately not...and there are a lot of "humor challenged" AS WELL as
those that think if it's not on SNOPES it must be true.

Would you put more faith in it if I could find a Wikipedia article on the
subject? :-)

Well, first of all, if you did provide such EVIDENCE (_real_ evidence, not
flatulent opinions ..especially opinions using selective data), I'd no
longer have to take it on "faith", right. So right there your credibility is
a bit stunted as you don't apparently comprehend what constitutes a proper
epistemology or method.

Secondly, I've seen stuff on Wikipedia (an open encyclopedia) that was
dubious. Noam Chomsky comes to mind.

Thirdly, well, I guess you are just an example of the former. :~)

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
"Matt Barrow" wrote:
Unfortunately not...and there are a lot of "humor challenged" AS WELL
as
those that think if it's not on SNOPES it must be true.

Would you put more faith in it if I could find a Wikipedia article on
the
subject? :-)

Well, first of all, if you did provide such EVIDENCE (_real_ evidence, not
flatulent opinions ..especially opinions using selective data), I'd no
longer have to take it on "faith", right. So right there your credibility
is
a bit stunted as you don't apparently comprehend what constitutes a proper
epistemology or method.

Secondly, I've seen stuff on Wikipedia (an open encyclopedia) that was
dubious. Noam Chomsky comes to mind.

Thirdly, well, I guess you are just an example of the former. :~)

Addendum:

You still haven't addressed that many Urban Legends are lame attempts at
humor.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
Calling the shuttle a "glider" is a bit of a stretch. It basically
comes straight down. Your Cessna in a red line power on nose dive could
never keep up with the rate of decent. There is the approach plate out
there for the space shuttle. As I recall, it turns base at about 30,000
feet. I'm sure it easily stays over 60,000 outside the Edwards
airspace.

-Robert


IIRC,

The Shuttle Landing Trainer is a clip-winged Gulfstream that is flown at or
slightly above gross weight and it glides like a brick.

Saw in interview with a former Shuttle astronaut (didn't catch his name,
sorry) on CNN today who said that, back in the day, he flew over 1,000
approaches in the SLT Gulfstream while prepping for a flight.

Jay B

In a previous article, "Jay Beckman" said:
The Shuttle Landing Trainer is a clip-winged Gulfstream that is flown at or
slightly above gross weight and it glides like a brick.

I was under the impression that the SLT flies with thrust reversers on.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Violence, rude language, excessive drinking, paganism. It's hard to
find children's books like that these days.
-- Stig Morten Valstad

"Jay Beckman" wrote:
The Shuttle Landing Trainer is a clip-winged Gulfstream that is flown at or
slightly above gross weight and it glides like a brick.

I read an article about that once. If memory serves, it's got more mods
than just cliped wings. The use reverse thrust on the engines in flight to
get the (lack of) glide characteristics they need.

Matt Barrow wrote:

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Unfortunately not...and there are a lot of "humor challenged" AS WELL as
those that think if it's not on SNOPES it must be true.

Would you put more faith in it if I could find a Wikipedia article on the
subject? :-)


Well, first of all, if you did provide such EVIDENCE (_real_ evidence, not
flatulent opinions ..especially opinions using selective data), I'd no
longer have to take it on "faith", right. So right there your credibility is
a bit stunted as you don't apparently comprehend what constitutes a proper
epistemology or method.

Secondly, I've seen stuff on Wikipedia (an open encyclopedia) that was
dubious. Noam Chomsky comes to mind.

Thirdly, well, I guess you are just an example of the former. :~)


I think what Matt is trying to say in so many words is that for him to
believe it, you'll have to get Rush Limbaugh to say it.

HTH.

"xyzzy" wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Unfortunately not...and there are a lot of "humor challenged" AS WELL
as
those that think if it's not on SNOPES it must be true.

Would you put more faith in it if I could find a Wikipedia article on
the
subject? :-)


Well, first of all, if you did provide such EVIDENCE (_real_ evidence,
not
flatulent opinions ..especially opinions using selective data), I'd no
longer have to take it on "faith", right. So right there your
credibility is
a bit stunted as you don't apparently comprehend what constitutes a
proper
epistemology or method.

Secondly, I've seen stuff on Wikipedia (an open encyclopedia) that was
dubious. Noam Chomsky comes to mind.

Thirdly, well, I guess you are just an example of the former. :~)


I think what Matt is trying to say in so many words is that for him to
believe it, you'll have to get Rush Limbaugh to say it.


I think you are a pompous ass and totally full of ****. Based on this last,
it's proven AFAIC.

AMF.

[plonk]

Interesting that the airport is "Open to the public" but has "- RSTD:
OFFL BUS ONLY. FOR PPR FONE C321-867-2100. AFLD UNATTENDED HOL." in the
Remarks section.


Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI


Blanche wrote:
Stubby wrote:

Marco Leon wrote:


That actually brings up an interesting point. Does anyone know what
coordination needs to happen with the FAA? Are they even involved other than
clearing the airspace?

I sure would like to have a type certificate for a space shuttle!
Their IFR flight plan must be bizarre.



Actually, the SMS does not have a type cert. It's officially
designated a rocket, not an aircraft. I got curious about this many
years ago and called Canaveral and talked with the head of air ops.
Delightful gentleman who graciously explained it during a lengthy
conversation.

There's more details for TTS (Titusville, which is the name for
NASA Shuttle Landing Facility) at

www.airnav.com/airport/KTTS

Then there's Patrick AFB at KXMR.