More political BS .... Thanks CNN

"Mike 'Flyin'8'" wrote in message
...
Go back and take a look at your source of the quote. I am certain you
will find that you have falsely accused me of something I never said.

I have checked, and you are correct, for which I apologize.

The rest of my argument stands.

-c

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:58:08 +0000, gatt wrote:

No, I think I nailed the point of the post, which was to blame the news
media for bad reporting at a minimum,

By quoting politicians?

When you put it that way, yes. Could you find a less reliable source for
information? I'd be hard-pressed to try.

It would be different if the reporters were honest about it.

"Here's reporter John Doe with another sample of mindless spew from city
councilcritter Hendme Urcash."

- Andrew

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:28:19 +0000, Flyin'8 wrote:

The max altitude through the VFR airway is 1100 ft. Kinda difficult to do
2000ft if the maximum allowed VFR is 1100 ft.

It is not correct that the maximum allowed VFR is 1100 ft.

[If I were Steve I'd stop now. I can see the temptation sometimes laugh.]

I've flown over the East River VFR before at 2000 (or perhaps a little
higher). It just involves talking to one of the nice controllers at LGA.

I'm sure you - and any other pilot - know this; you were just being a
little lazy with your terminology. But who knows: some reporter might
read this thread someday.

I'd hate for us to be responsible for more misinformation. That would
make us no better than many politicians.

- Andrew

"xeM" wrote in message ...
: On 13 Oct 2006 17:35:49 GMT, wrote:
:
: The media is to blame for their own stupidity.
: The politicians only believe what they think the public wants them to
: believe. Both attack GA out of pure ignorance.
:
: You missed the point of the entire post.
:
: So your blaming the news media - CNN or MSNBC or whoever, for
: reporting what the clueless elected officials are saying?
:
:
: No, I think I nailed the point of the post, which was to blame the
: news media for bad reporting at a minimum,( or all the ills of the
: world at a maximum), for simply quoting what some of the politicians
: are saying / considering due to the recent crash in NYC. I'm not a
: big fan of the news media either, with the current '24 hours / we must
: be sensational and get ratings' standard of journalism, but in this
: case it appears that they quoted the politicians accurately.
: I do agree with your statement that stupidity certainly seems to lie
: in the lap of the politicians and by extension, the people who elected
: them.
:
:

It is one of those self fulfilling prophesy sort of things. First someone sees plane, someone else yells. Report comes
in planes yelling. The politician says yelling is not allowed, so the news says no yelling. The plane flies by, yell
occurs, therefore the plane causes yelling and must be banned according to the politician. The new quotes the
politician, the opponent sees the popularity of the quote and says it also. The news builds it up again.

I hate politics...

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
The max altitude through the VFR airway is 1100 ft. Kinda difficult to
do
2000ft if the maximum allowed VFR is 1100 ft.

It is not correct that the maximum allowed VFR is 1100 ft.

I'm sure you - and any other pilot - know this; you were just being a
little lazy with your terminology. But who knows: some reporter might
read this thread someday.

I'd hate for us to be responsible for more misinformation.


Very nicely stated!

-c

Hmmm... As Gatt said... Nicely said.

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:26:15 -0400, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:28:19 +0000, Flyin'8 wrote:

The max altitude through the VFR airway is 1100 ft. Kinda difficult to do
2000ft if the maximum allowed VFR is 1100 ft.

It is not correct that the maximum allowed VFR is 1100 ft.

[If I were Steve I'd stop now. I can see the temptation sometimes laugh.]

I've flown over the East River VFR before at 2000 (or perhaps a little
higher). It just involves talking to one of the nice controllers at LGA.

I'm sure you - and any other pilot - know this; you were just being a
little lazy with your terminology. But who knows: some reporter might
read this thread someday.

I'd hate for us to be responsible for more misinformation. That would
make us no better than many politicians.

- Andrew


Mike Alexander
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
See my online aerial photo album at
http://flying.4alexanders.com

"gatt" wrote in message
...
Safety should not be regulated. If you can't fly your friggin' airplane
without augering into the side of an apartment building, you shouldn't be
flying your airplane around apartment buildings.

The problem here is not someone flying their aircraft *around* apartment
buildings but rather *into*... sick-grin

Odd are, the pilot just screwed up in his thinking of what sort of bank
angle might be necessary... Personally, I would have thrown my plane over
on it's side in a 60+ degree bank and had no problem with it... Hell, it
lets you see the ground better when it's straight out your side window
anyway...

It all boils down to the Law of Gross Tonnage... Buildings win over
aircraft.. Hell, the best we can hope for is a draw (i.e. the building also
gets destroyed like with the WTC towers)... With our small aircraft, it's
not like we're going to do much damage to a building, but it's a pretty good
chance that there won't be much left of our aircrafts afterwards... Oh well,
Darwin will protect us, right?