Trial by newspaper

Mark Hansen wrote:

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.

I have a thread capable newsreader and it is still much preferred to
quote a sufficient portion of the thread to which you are replying to
let the reader know the context. I read from message to message and
typically the message window is covering the window that shows the
thread structure.

Dudley's advice is right on here.

Matt

Mark Hansen wrote:

On 12/14/2005 08:13, Dudley Henriques wrote:

I'm using Outlook Express 6.0 and every thread on every newsgroup I'm
using is showing normally, including your post which shows a pickup
reference properly.
Andrew's post shows up with a blank screen and a single sentence with
no pickup reference.
If you are seeing a pickup reference, the problem might be somewhere
other than my news reader.
There is one anomaly however. The OP has cross posted to "owning" as
well as "piloting". I'm answering to "piloting" only, and have
defaulted through "owning" as the other group won't rectify. Perhaps
that is the issue.
Dudley Henriques


Strange. I'm looking at the thread posted to both owning and piloting, and
in both cases, the entire thread is there. I'm using Mozilla 1.7.5 on a
Windows platform (Windows/2000 Professional).

Likewise, I see the thread structure clearly, but I'm using Netscape 7.2
which is Mozilla based. Even so, including a short quote is good form.

Matt

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!

Paul is using dial-up strategies in a DSL world. He started doing things
that way in "the olden days", and continues to do so because it's
comfortable, even though the need to save time and disk space is long gone.

I'm the same way with cut-and-paste operations. I *know* that "CTRL-C"
works just as well as "ALT-E-C", and takes one less keystroke, too -- but I
still use the old Lotus 1-2-3 "ALT-E-C" as often as not...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

Dudley

I was responding to the original post by Paul. I am sorry if it came
off as 'nailing' anyone. I totally agree with your sentiments about
lawyers trying to turn tragedy into income. However, the victim in
question was not an airline passenger or even a pedestrian at the
airport property. I did not suggest that the victims parents should sue
SWA. However, for their peace of mind, they do deserve an answer as to
why this freak accident happened.


And they deserve to know if it really was a freak accident or an error
in judgement. The NTSB is pretty good at sorting these out so I suspect
the parents will get an answer in due time.


Matt

Jay Beckman wrote:

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Paul kgyy" wrote in message
groups.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.)

True, but we still enjoy speculating just as the media folks do!

Matt

Mark Hansen wrote:

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.

I only have displayed unread posts so if I read the original post it may
well be his post is first next time I check the news.

Charles Oppermann wrote:

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.

I disagree that this is true generally. Everything I've read about
anti-lock braking systems suggests that they will outperform humans
under all but a few special conditions. The special conditions are the
cases where locking the wheels is beneficial to a short stop. These
conditions are basically deep snow or other soft material such as sand.
In these cases, the material builds up in front of the lock tires and
increases the resistance of the tire moving through the material (forms
a bow wave essential). However on dry or wet pavement, ice, light snow,
light layer of sand or loose dirt, etc., the ABS wins.

I have seen a few tests (auto and motorcycle, not airplane) where very
highly skilled racers have been able to outbrake and ABS vehicle on dry
pavement. However, the margin of winning was very small, and only a few
REALLY skilled drivers/riders could beat the ABS with any regularity.
And through in a patch of loose dirt or oil, etc., and, at least with
the motorcycles, the ABS would allow control to be maintained.


Matt

I disagree that this is true generally. Everything I've read about
anti-lock braking systems suggests that they will outperform humans under
all but a few special conditions. The special conditions are the cases
where locking the wheels is beneficial to a short stop.

This is good info, thanks. Here's a nugget from the NTSB report on the SWA
accident at Burbank:

"At the request of the Safety Board.s Airplane Performance Group, Boeing ran
stopping distance simulations for this accident wherein maximum, medium, and
minimum 737 autobrake applications, as well as maximum manual brake
applications, were simulated for wet runway conditions after the 182-knot
touchdown. These data indicate that the accident airplane would have
required about 5,000 feet of runway length after touchdown to stop using
maximum autobrakes and about 4,700 feet of runway length after touchdown to
stop using maximum manual brakes."

Still, that's not to say that manual braking would always result in shaving
off 300 feet of the ground roll. I guess it depends on the exact conditions
and pilot experience and technique.

My current opinion is that stomping on the brakes would have been worse than
allowing the Autobrake system, but that's just a WAG.

Charles Oppermann
http://spaces.msn.com/members/chuckop/

Thanks for pointing that out!

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
ups.com...
Thanks for pointing that out!


Pointing what out?