Recommended Posts
1969912 0
QuoteCould someone on this list inform me as to how I can block him on DZ PMs as well.
Quote
Go to “My profile”, select “edit”, find the box marked “Block Private Messages from these Users: (one user per line)” .
Edited. Yup. Pretty easy.
"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG
Hominid 0
Airtwardo,
Since apparently you've flown light planes, what do you personally think about the questions I posed?
The article is inconclusive for me. On the one hand, he seems to acknowledge that quite a few pilots don't mind flying in moderate or even heavy rain. On the other hand, it appears that such flying is probably stressful for most pilots.
Since apparently you've flown light planes, what do you personally think about the questions I posed?
The article is inconclusive for me. On the one hand, he seems to acknowledge that quite a few pilots don't mind flying in moderate or even heavy rain. On the other hand, it appears that such flying is probably stressful for most pilots.
georger 244
1. I am not "stone deaf". I have never made such a statement to anyone.
Then when you first started what was all of the TTY
talk about on your part? I thought you said you were
deaf? I will go back and read those emails (maybe).
JT told me you were deaf - totally deaf. We
discussed a conference call and you used TTY
(you said) and would need that? This is what I recall.
I told you I could use a facility I have which gives
the deaf the ability type and have their words
become audio ... what was that all about!? You
and JT brought it up!
I didnt invent this!
I just read my mail.
I apologize if I somehow made a mistake.
But its one large mistake on somebody's part!!
My credentials are not in the area of psychiatry
per se but in ed-psych measurement. I was an
evaluator and test designer working for the govt.
Go back and read the thread, Robert99. Its all
there.
I try to accomodate and believe people! (does
nothing but get me in trouble here).
Robert99 50
Quote
1. I am not "stone deaf". I have never made such a statement to anyone.
Then when you first started what was all of the TTY
talk about on your part? I thought you said you were
deaf? I will go back and read those emails (maybe).
JT told me you were deaf - totally deaf. We
discussed a conference call and you used TTY
(you said) and would need that? This is what I recall.
I told you I could use a facility I have which gives
the deaf the ability type and have their words
become audio ... what was that all about!? You
and JT brought it up!
I didnt invent this!
I just read my mail.
I apologize if I somehow made a mistake.
My credentials are not in the area of psychiatry
per se but in ed-psych measurement. I was an
evaluator and test designer working for the govt.
Go back and read the thread, Robert99. Its all
there.
I am not "stone deaf" or "totally deaf" and have not made such a statement to anyone, but I do have a hearing problem in the critical frequencies for human speech. Consequently, the use of voice phones does not work for me.
georger 244
QuoteThe person posting as Georger over at the Realm article has vanished. Or at least the comment did. Not too big a deal, I just figured people would like to know when others use their DZ name, or username anyway, to make posts about Cooper elsewhere on the internet from the DZ thread. Especially when those comments get disgusting. If it was me, I would want to know this was happening.
Play it again, Blevins.
We didnt get it the first 30 times.
Its your problemo -
QuoteAirtwardo,
Since apparently you've flown light planes, what do you personally think about the questions I posed?
The article is inconclusive for me. On the one hand, he seems to acknowledge that quite a few pilots don't mind flying in moderate or even heavy rain. On the other hand, it appears that such flying is probably stressful for most pilots.
Like Robert99 said ~ with proper training, the right equipment and staying with-in your abilities & personal comfort zone ...there isn't anything one needs to be overly concerned about.
I think maybe it tends to stress me more so than my better 1/2 (who is a MUCH better pilot) because of my skydiver mentality always thinking too hard about 'what if'...
I does add factors that you need to consider and contend with, and overall I think you'll find most light aircraft pilots prefer to avoid flying through weather when at all possible...that said, it's kinda like bad weather driving, sometimes you just end up doing it, so you take appropriate measures.
There is certainly more to it than sunny & calm VFR flying.
Is it more 'dangerous' taking a light plane into weather?
General statistic don't really tell a complete story in that there are more clear weather VFR accidents than IFR, but there's also more VFR pilots.
~ Flying in rain probably fractionally increases the risk, but not in any way outside of acceptable limits.
~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
georger 244
QuoteQuote
1. I am not "stone deaf". I have never made such a statement to anyone.
Then when you first started what was all of the TTY
talk about on your part? I thought you said you were
deaf? I will go back and read those emails (maybe).
JT told me you were deaf - totally deaf. We
discussed a conference call and you used TTY
(you said) and would need that? This is what I recall.
I told you I could use a facility I have which gives
the deaf the ability type and have their words
become audio ... what was that all about!? You
and JT brought it up!
I didnt invent this!
I just read my mail.
I apologize if I somehow made a mistake.
My credentials are not in the area of psychiatry
per se but in ed-psych measurement. I was an
evaluator and test designer working for the govt.
Go back and read the thread, Robert99. Its all
there.
I am not "stone deaf" or "totally deaf" and have not made such a statement to anyone, but I do have a hearing problem in the critical frequencies for human speech. Consequently, the use of voice phones does not work for me.
Well thanks !
At least Im not dreaming this.
Hominid 0
Quote
Call me old fashioned but I think if you want to
understand these stories, you need to interview the
people in addition to outside data. That would be
the normal approach vs sitting here and just
presuming Dona and the others are idiots or liars
(as Robert99 contended), because for one thing you
need to know how Dona may be in error - not just
that she is (or may be) in error apriori, if she is.
Why are all of you complicating this so much?
Why are we even discussing this! ?
I'm not in a position to interview people who have claimed to witness bad weather, so I'm doing what I can. If anyone is ever able to interview a "witness" I would hope the interviewer would know what the questions should be and how to evaluate the answers. I would be hoping to understand why their stories conflict with authoritive data. I doubt that any of the witnesses will have any specific info, so how do you evaluate vague claims? Personal perception is part of this.
I'm not presuming any of the "witnesses" are idiots or liars.
I'm not thinking about witnesses in general. I'm thinking about "witnesses" who have apparently said they were out FLYING in terrible weather that night. How would such a person recognize this terrible weather in the dark if they've not flown at least a few times in moderate weather during the day? How would a person distinguish terrible weather from a little rain while in the dark with a big fan beating the little rain down against the windows and fuselage unless the person had been in that situation at least a few times?
The discussion about bad weather during the hijacking has been around a long time. It is complicated because there have been claims that are not consistent with our limited data from a trusted govt source. We are not complicating it. It is complicated and I am trying to deal with it.
What discussion there has been of this is simply because I asked for it. I'm trying to do what analysis can be done regarding the weather that night. I would like us to do what we can about that weather rather than flitting from topic to topic without ever settling anything. There are multiple discussions going on here. I participate in some and skip others. If you have some topic you want to address, go ahead and do it. If I think I have anything to contribute I'll be happy to.
Hominid 0
Thanks Robert.
Am I right to assume that some of the technology wasn't available or as good in '71, so it would have been even less wise then to fly in moderate rain?
Am I right to assume that some of the technology wasn't available or as good in '71, so it would have been even less wise then to fly in moderate rain?
georger 244
QuoteQuote
Call me old fashioned but I think if you want to
understand these stories, you need to interview the
people in addition to outside data. That would be
the normal approach vs sitting here and just
presuming Dona and the others are idiots or liars
(as Robert99 contended), because for one thing you
need to know how Dona may be in error - not just
that she is (or may be) in error apriori, if she is.
Why are all of you complicating this so much?
Why are we even discussing this! ?
I'm not in a position to interview people who have claimed to witness bad weather, so I'm doing what I can. If anyone is ever able to interview a "witness" I would hope the interviewer would know what the questions should be and how to evaluate the answers. I would be hoping to understand why their stories conflict with authoritive data. I doubt that any of the witnesses will have any specific info, so how do you evaluate vague claims? Personal perception is part of this.
I'm not presuming any of the "witnesses" are idiots or liars.
I'm not thinking about witnesses in general. I'm thinking about "witnesses" who have apparently said they were out FLYING in terrible weather that night. How would such a person recognize this terrible weather in the dark if they've not flown at least a few times in moderate weather during the day? How would a person distinguish terrible weather from a little rain while in the dark with a big fan beating the little rain down against the windows and fuselage unless the person had been in that situation at least a few times?
The discussion about bad weather during the hijacking has been around a long time. It is complicated because there have been claims that are not consistent with our limited data from a trusted govt source. We are not complicating it. It is complicated and I am trying to deal with it.
What discussion there has been of this is simply because I asked for it. I'm trying to do what analysis can be done regarding the weather that night. I would like us to do what we can about that weather rather than flitting from topic to topic without ever settling anything. There are multiple discussions going on here. I participate in some and skip others. If you have some topic you want to address, go ahead and do it. If I think I have anything to contribute I'll be happy to.
Im going to say this just for the sake of saying it -
I take the data as the primary evidence. Everything
else is secondary pending the discovery of different
data. I tend to think some of the people making
ground reports are confusing Nov24th with what
happened later starting on the 26th.
The 'alleged' reports of Rataczak saying there was
turbulence in the 8:00pm period, is unconfirmed
so far as I am concerned, but of interest.
I dont know where anyone gets the idea I was
trumpeting BAD-SEVERE weather over wx data!
We have discussed this so many times, so long ...
its almost a worn out topic. I almost regret having
brought it back up .
Thanks.
G.
Hominid 0
Thanks.
Hominid 0
I agree with the first. I also have not seen your recent posts as arguing that weather was bad.
I think the Rataczak re. turbulence is irrelevant because all I've seen is like "a little" which would not be extraordinary and not an indicator of particularly bad weather.
Hang in Georger. Unless someone comes up with some new data or different angle on what we have, I don't see what more I can say about it other than exploring veracity of a couple of reports from people (person) supposedly in a helo that night.
I think the Rataczak re. turbulence is irrelevant because all I've seen is like "a little" which would not be extraordinary and not an indicator of particularly bad weather.
Hang in Georger. Unless someone comes up with some new data or different angle on what we have, I don't see what more I can say about it other than exploring veracity of a couple of reports from people (person) supposedly in a helo that night.
Quote
I tend to think some of the people making
ground reports are confusing Nov24th with what
happened later starting on the 26th.
The 'alleged' reports of Rataczak saying there was
turbulence in the 8:00pm period, is unconfirmed
so far as I am concerned, but of interest.
I dont know where anyone gets the idea I was
trumpeting BAD-SEVERE weather over wx data!
We have discussed this so many times, so long ...
its almost a worn out topic. I almost regret having
brought it back up .
BobKnoss 0
Quote
....I'm not thinking about witnesses in general. I'm thinking about "witnesses" who have apparently said they were out FLYING in terrible weather that night. How would such a person recognize this terrible weather in the dark if they've not flown at least a few times in moderate weather during the day? How would a person distinguish terrible weather from a little rain while in the dark with a big fan beating the little rain down against the windows and fuselage unless the person had been in that situation at least a few times?
The discussion about bad weather during the hijacking has been around a long time. It is complicated because there have been claims that are not consistent with our limited data from a trusted govt source. We are not complicating it. It is complicated and I am trying to deal with it......
Thanks.
G.
The reason pilots have reported more than mild weather is that the whole operation was executed by pilots as a group. The FAA was the primary supporter and almost ALL of the participants were pilots. Some were even parachutists and riggers. Hemmelsbach, O'Hara, Haapala, all these guys were PILOTS! (Except NIxon I guess.) Pilot support pilots here. It was a giant game with the airlines and government. Cooper HAD to escape. The Hague Convention, the Montreal Convention, etc. If you look at your history of the FAA you will see the progression right up to Nixon's Executive Order instituting Rataczak's, et. al., wild ass dreams. Yah-da-yah-da-yah-da.
Robert99 50
QuoteQuote
Call me old fashioned but I think if you want to
understand these stories, you need to interview the
people in addition to outside data. That would be
the normal approach vs sitting here and just
presuming Dona and the others are idiots or liars
(as Robert99 contended), because for one thing you
need to know how Dona may be in error - not just
that she is (or may be) in error apriori, if she is.
Why are all of you complicating this so much?
Why are we even discussing this! ?
I'm not in a position to interview people who have claimed to witness bad weather, so I'm doing what I can. If anyone is ever able to interview a "witness" I would hope the interviewer would know what the questions should be and how to evaluate the answers. I would be hoping to understand why their stories conflict with authoritive data. I doubt that any of the witnesses will have any specific info, so how do you evaluate vague claims? Personal perception is part of this.
I'm not presuming any of the "witnesses" are idiots or liars.
I'm not thinking about witnesses in general. I'm thinking about "witnesses" who have apparently said they were out FLYING in terrible weather that night. How would such a person recognize this terrible weather in the dark if they've not flown at least a few times in moderate weather during the day? How would a person distinguish terrible weather from a little rain while in the dark with a big fan beating the little rain down against the windows and fuselage unless the person had been in that situation at least a few times?
The discussion about bad weather during the hijacking has been around a long time. It is complicated because there have been claims that are not consistent with our limited data from a trusted govt source. We are not complicating it. It is complicated and I am trying to deal with it.
What discussion there has been of this is simply because I asked for it. I'm trying to do what analysis can be done regarding the weather that night. I would like us to do what we can about that weather rather than flitting from topic to topic without ever settling anything. There are multiple discussions going on here. I participate in some and skip others. If you have some topic you want to address, go ahead and do it. If I think I have anything to contribute I'll be happy to.
Just to set the record straight, Georger's statement "That would be the normal approach vs sitting here and just presuming Dona and the others are idiots or liars (as Robert99 contended), . . . " is just more of G.'s nonsense. I haven't "called" or "presumed" anyone to be an idiot or liar in this weather matter.
Could someone on this list inform me as to how I can block him on DZ PMs as well.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites