If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Trial by newspaper
"Chris" wrote in message
... "Paul kgyy" wrote in message oups.com... I feel sorry for the SW pilots who went through the fence at Midway last week. Now every edition of the local newspapers runs articles by lawyers and journalists second-guessing every decision made on a difficult approach - quartering tail wind, marginal visibility, fair braking, short runway. I'd sure hate to have my every flying decision subjected to this kind of scrutiny. So trial by newgroup is any better? At least in here there are people with actual flying experience (unlike 99.999% of the media.) Jay B |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Trial by newspaper
However, for their peace of mind, they do deserve an answer as to why this freak accident happened. I don't know that it was a "freak" accident. I think the pilots should have saw this coming a 100 miles away. Tailwind, snow and ice covered runway, short runway, low visibility, large fast aircraft, no over run with a densely developed and populated area immediately after the airport barrier fence. If the reverse thrusters or spoilers didn't work that only put the icing on the cake that was already baked. I wonder what the exact conditions were at the time and what are the FAA minimums for that runway and what the company's policy was with the situations they faced. That will determine your lawsuits. Kobra |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Trial by newspaper
I am using google groups to post, and unless I am missing something it
does not seem to allow me the option of including the previous post unless I manually cut and paste. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Trial by newspaper
I am using google groups to post, and unless I am missing something it
does not seem to allow me the option of including the previous post unless I manually cut and paste. Then manually cut and paste, choosing what you wish to reply to. Jose -- You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Trial by newspaper
"Mark Hansen" wrote in message ... On 12/14/2005 07:55, Dudley Henriques wrote: Andrew; No one knows which post you are answering if you don't reference in some way. In this case, you're either nailing me with this, or the initial post. Dudley Henriques Andrew was responding to Paul, which is clearly visible when viewing the thread. If you aren't using a news reader which supports viewing threads, perhaps you should switch. There are lots of free ones that do a fine job. If you have the option enabled to not see already read messages then there is no thread to follow. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Trial by newspaper
Andrew Sarangan wrote: I am using google groups to post, and unless I am missing something it does not seem to allow me the option of including the previous post unless I manually cut and paste. This is the new (well, from earlier this year) Google interface. If you just hit the reply button, your reply will not contain any quoted material unless you put it in manually. If you want the full-featured reply Hit "show options", THEN hit "reply" and you will get a reply window with the full quoted text of the post your are replying to. Piece of cake once you know where to find it. John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180) |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Trial by newspaper
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
oups.com... I am using google groups to post, and unless I am missing something it does not seem to allow me the option of including the previous post unless I manually cut and paste. Hm, when I click Reply in Google Groups, I automatically get the previous post conventionally quoted in the new message window. Perhaps this is a settable option, but offhand I don't see where it's set. --Gary |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Trial by newspaper
On 12/14/2005 14:54, Tom Conner wrote:
"Mark Hansen" wrote in message ... On 12/14/2005 07:55, Dudley Henriques wrote: Andrew; No one knows which post you are answering if you don't reference in some way. In this case, you're either nailing me with this, or the initial post. Dudley Henriques Andrew was responding to Paul, which is clearly visible when viewing the thread. If you aren't using a news reader which supports viewing threads, perhaps you should switch. There are lots of free ones that do a fine job. If you have the option enabled to not see already read messages then there is no thread to follow. The news reader I used allows me to see each thread which includes unread messages. It excludes threads that have no unread messages. This cuts way down on the clutter but still allows me to see the entire thread. -- Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane Sacramento, CA |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Trial by newspaper
I wonder what the exact conditions were at the time and what are the FAA
minimums for that runway and what the company's policy was with the situations they faced. That will determine your lawsuits. I've been blogging about the incident with all the factual data I can find. The ceiling was holding steady at 300 feet, the visibility was ranging between 1/4 to 3/4 of a mile. FAA minimum for 31C was 250 feet and a RVR of 4000, which apparently was met. It's been mentioned in this newsgroup that the heads up display would have enabled an approach down to 3000 RVR, but that's not confirmed. In the Burbank overrun, the NTSB discovered that it was SWA policy not to use the 737 Autobrakes, seemingly because of differences between different 737 models. Media reports today indicate that Autobrakes were set at Maximum, apparently in contradiction of company policy. I don't know what SWA policy was at the time of the crash however; maybe it changed after the Burbank accident. I'll be curious to know how the Autobrakes usage (if in fact that is true) affects the outcome. On one hand, the Autobrakes can prevent wheel lockup and keep the aircraft under control. On the otherhand, manual braking should be able to result in shorter ground rolls, generally. Charles Oppermann http://spaces.msn.com/members/chuckop/ |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Trial by newspaper
"Montblack" wrote in message ... I start with a clean slate a couple of times a day. If a post pops up without supporting references, I'm left guessing ------ RMG!! :-) ("Mark Hansen" wrote) Why is that better? Are you trying to save disk space? You're not going to start changing my computer around now, like a certain innkeeper did over Thanksgiving, are you? g ...new messages go to the BOTTOM! I don't like a cluttered tree of read posts and unread posts. Too overwhelming - searching for a better word. I delete all of the posts in a newsgroup, at one time, then plow through the next batch when I pull them up. I do this a couple of times per day. I read more posts this way - the other way, I look at the intermixed thread-tree mess and say "screw it," as often as not. Newsgroup/Properties/Local Files/Delete Do you know about "read next unread"? Control-U and/or add the "Next Unread" button to your button bar... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Trial by newspaper | Paul kgyy | Piloting | 68 | December 18th 05 02:11 AM |
Air Force Spy Trial to Proceed Despite Modified Evidence | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 13th 04 01:31 AM |
Stars and Stripes Offers Free Electronic Newspaper, By Sgt. 1st Class Doug Sample, USA | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | April 30th 04 09:45 PM |
Stars and Stripes Offers Free Electronic Newspaper, By Sgt. 1st Class Doug Sample, USA | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | April 30th 04 09:45 PM |
Trial Of Woman Accused Of Killing Military Husband Postponed | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | January 24th 04 12:05 AM |