Chicago lawyers plane found in Toronto harbour

"Richard Riley" wrote in message
As far as the NTSB is concerned, I've been there and done that. My
work is with TSA and DHS now.

Hotdayyum, and acronym from rdhr, Mr. acronym himself.

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 18:33:26 -0400, Wooduuuward
wrote:

Now who said that? Is that yours? I really got a 'kick' out of it.
I'm for computer assisted flight with small voices that say
"hello Dave. Did you check your altimeter Dave? Dave . . .
you're too low, Dave "
Computers these days are not expensive. Hooking one
up to an airplanes instruments together with monitoring long and lat
should not be that difficult. My own computer talks at me sometimes
if I forget to close an appl. or something.
I think a new look at how things are done could cheat gravity and leave
a family with a dad.

clare, @, snyder.on, .ca wrote:

Gravity is like the RCMP, always gets it's man.
Yeah, I have to admit to that one being mine.

Only problem with your suggestion is I have yet to meet a computer I
totally trust my life to. This one is NOT mine, but I'll use it
anyway.

"To err is human, to really screw something up takes a computer."

I work with the little demons day in and day out, and, like a woman
(this one is mine), just when you think you've got them all figured
out, they surprize you AGAIN!.

That said, a computerized checklist that reminds you is a good idea.
The use of a GPS to give the altimeter a sanity check also makes sense
- but as I said before, flying into an unfamiliar airport under poor
conditions in thick IFR is NOT the time for a lone pilot to be taking
on an extra workload.
Another one I can't take credit for:
"Takeoffs are optional, Landings are mandatory".
Make sure your landing site is clear or you have other options (like
lots of fuel to take you elsewhere) before taking off. Hamilton,
Brantford, Buttonville, Brampton, and numerous other airports within
less than 50 miles were in VFR at the time of the crash. Hamilton is
an international, and a bit busier, but nothing like Pearson.

He reads all this:

There is no such thing as a visible laser beam. In order for you to see any
kind of light, it has to be reflected off some kind of surface. If you want
to see a laser beam you have to shine it through a fog or cloud of dust of
some kind. I know that in Hollywood you can always see laser beams, but all
Hollywood movies use physics from some other universe than our own. This is
why in movies you not only see laser beams, but also bullets always flash
when they hit something, people can outrun shock waves, and people can stand
around in shorts and without oxygen masks in a cargo plane that has the
doors open in flight, but the hero needs oxygen and a protective suit the
moment he leaves the airplane. You cannot shine a laser beam at an airplane
cockpit because it might blind the pilot. The same fog or clouds that render
an airport invisible will also obscure a laser beam.

and then Wooduuuward wrote:

The area was fogged in at the time of the crash.

Don't confuse him with reality, please. It doesn't agree with him.

Mark Hickey

"Wooduuuward" wrote in message
...
There is nothing more boring in leaving things the way they are because
they've 'always been
done that way'. If the current method of doing things worked perfectly,
there would be no need
to look at alternatives. The plane went down. Experienced pilot. Good
aircraft. The systems
failed him. This is 2003 isn't it?
If anyone figures they know everything, and everything in place already
works perfectly,
why would you be talking about leaf blowers and aircraft?

Ploink!

"Wooduuuward" wrote in message
...
| Now who said that? Is that yours? I really got a 'kick' out of it.
| I'm for computer assisted flight with small voices that say
| "hello Dave. Did you check your altimeter Dave? Dave . . .
| you're too low, Dave "
| Computers these days are not expensive. Hooking one
| up to an airplanes instruments together with monitoring long and lat
| should not be that difficult.

You still don't get it, do you? All of this stuff exists already and is in
common use -- we call it ILS, approach lights, GPS, terrain avoidance, etc.
It is not cheap -- equipping a Cessna 182 with WAAS certified GPS,
multi-function display, with terrain and traffic avoidance (which come with
voice warning systems), will cost a minimum of $40,000. It is outrageous,
considering the MFD is probably running Windows NT 4.0 on a Pentium
processor and an 8 inch display, the rest using stuff that you would see in
a PDA.

If you think you can do better, take a look at the avionics manufacturers'
web sites and find out what is out there before shooting your mouth off
about stuff you don't know anything about. And learn some basic physics
while you are at it.

Clare, I wouldn't mind talking with you, outside of this 'clic' if you would.
Discuss a few things already floating around here.
Leave it up to you.

clare, @, snyder.on, .ca wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 18:33:26 -0400, Wooduuuward
wrote:

Now who said that? Is that yours? I really got a 'kick' out of it.
I'm for computer assisted flight with small voices that say
"hello Dave. Did you check your altimeter Dave? Dave . . .
you're too low, Dave "
Computers these days are not expensive. Hooking one
up to an airplanes instruments together with monitoring long and lat
should not be that difficult. My own computer talks at me sometimes
if I forget to close an appl. or something.
I think a new look at how things are done could cheat gravity and leave
a family with a dad.

clare, @, snyder.on, .ca wrote:

Gravity is like the RCMP, always gets it's man.
Yeah, I have to admit to that one being mine.

Only problem with your suggestion is I have yet to meet a computer I
totally trust my life to. This one is NOT mine, but I'll use it
anyway.

"To err is human, to really screw something up takes a computer."

I work with the little demons day in and day out, and, like a woman
(this one is mine), just when you think you've got them all figured
out, they surprize you AGAIN!.

That said, a computerized checklist that reminds you is a good idea.
The use of a GPS to give the altimeter a sanity check also makes sense
- but as I said before, flying into an unfamiliar airport under poor
conditions in thick IFR is NOT the time for a lone pilot to be taking
on an extra workload.
Another one I can't take credit for:
"Takeoffs are optional, Landings are mandatory".
Make sure your landing site is clear or you have other options (like
lots of fuel to take you elsewhere) before taking off. Hamilton,
Brantford, Buttonville, Brampton, and numerous other airports within
less than 50 miles were in VFR at the time of the crash. Hamilton is
an international, and a bit busier, but nothing like Pearson.

Wooduuuward wrote in message ...
I think I'm going to like sparing with you, Mark, you're so friendly
and understanding. Must be why so many people want to post here.

One word here guys... TROLL....

Ewe guys are all experienced with this type, yet, I just read a thread
with one of the best trolls I've ever seen.. He starts innocent
enough, but now he's sitting back beaming with glee at how easily he
got his fishies on his hook...

Filter the bum out... He's just another troll, but one that is more
subtile in his approach than most.. Just like with brainwashing
technique, you'll never get him to agree with even the most logical
response, he'll challenge everything you say and on it will go..

Wayne Sagar

On 13 Jul 2003 12:20:43 -0700, (Wayne Sagar) wrote:

Wooduuuward wrote in message news:
I think I'm going to like sparing with you, Mark, you're so friendly
and understanding. Must be why so many people want to post here.

One word here guys... TROLL....

Ewe guys are all experienced with this type, yet, I just read a thread
with one of the best trolls I've ever seen.. He starts innocent
enough, but now he's sitting back beaming with glee at how easily he
got his fishies on his hook...

Filter the bum out... He's just another troll, but one that is more
subtile in his approach than most.. Just like with brainwashing
technique, you'll never get him to agree with even the most logical
response, he'll challenge everything you say and on it will go..

Wayne Sagar
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Smells like shades of..... Liability Stealth.

What the hell is a 'wooduuuward', anyway?
Anybody know, heard or ever met this flake?


Barnyard BOb --

Wooduuuward wrote:
Now who said that? Is that yours? I really got a 'kick' out of it.
I'm for computer assisted flight with small voices that say
"hello Dave. Did you check your altimeter Dave? Dave . . .
you're too low, Dave "
Computers these days are not expensive. Hooking one
up to an airplanes instruments together with monitoring long and lat
should not be that difficult. My own computer talks at me sometimes
if I forget to close an appl. or something.
I think a new look at how things are done could cheat gravity and leave
a family with a dad.

clare, @, snyder.on, .ca wrote:

Gravity is like the RCMP, always gets it's man.


Watch it. Microsoft will have that damnable paperclip in your airplane,
and it will be just as irritating as it is in the office.

I read somewhere that during the Nam era, the engineers kept adding more
and more 'warning' instrumentation to 'protect' the pilot. It got to
the point where the first job after takeoff was to switch off all the
damn warning systems.

It's easy to say that the ship should give a warning in this instance
because we think there's a possibilty that we have an accurate
speculation as to what happened, and a simple warning would have fixed
the problem. But how many problems can be fixed with a simple warning
given early enough, and how soon would you begin turning off the warner
if it was constantly berating you.

--
----Because I can----
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
------------------------

On 13 Jul 2003 23:42:57 -0700, wrote:

What the hell is a 'wooduuuward', anyway?
Anybody know, heard or ever met this flake?


Barnyard BOb --

Maybe the same family, but not the same guy. Interesting google search. He
first shows up May 17 2003, and has about 180 posts since then. He's all over
the map, but lots of posts in bible/religious groups. Mostly positive,
innoffensive stuff. I don't know why, in this group, he suddenly thinks he
knows everything.

I find him as annoying as you do, but I wonder if we're too sensitive.
Objectively, he's not that bad. We may be too ready to pull the trigger
(understandable, given the history here)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

'Wooduuuward' is harmless enough and for my money, he can
certainly say and do whatever he wishes here. However, I have
place wooduuuward and Jay in my filtered list. If anything useful
or amusing should come about, I will pick it up via the replys of
those that suffer these ilk more glady than I do. If I miss anything,
it will be my loss and I surely will be heartbroken. However....
nobody ever said life would be easy for us 'ultra-sensitive' types.

Barnyard BOb - YMMV ;o)