Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 05:33:25 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

32 Hurt in Airbus Test Evacuation
From Reuters
March, 27 2006

PARIS - European aircraft maker Airbus said Sunday that 32 people were
injured, including one whose leg was broken, in a test evacuation of its
new A380 double-decker airliner, but it called the test a success.

And they cheated and BARELY made it. They used a normal load, which
is something like 650 people, but the damn thing can carry 850 people
in it's max load configuration.

It's a disaster waiting to happen.


That thing is just too big. It'll never fly.

RCE

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
RCE wrote:
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 05:33:25 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

32 Hurt in Airbus Test Evacuation
From Reuters
March, 27 2006

PARIS - European aircraft maker Airbus said Sunday that 32 people were
injured, including one whose leg was broken, in a test evacuation of
its
new A380 double-decker airliner, but it called the test a success.
And they cheated and BARELY made it. They used a normal load, which
is something like 650 people, but the damn thing can carry 850 people
in it's max load configuration.

It's a disaster waiting to happen.


That thing is just too big. It'll never fly.

RCE

Not with "me" on it, it won't.

Where the heck are you today, fella? Fargo?

Still in Lexington, Nebraska. Took a chill day Sunday. Going to be leaving
here in a couple of hours for the rest of the trip to Denver. Meeting with
the seller at noon, inspect the truck, do the transaction, load it on the
trailer and start the return voyage.

RCE

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:34:50 -0500, "RCE" wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 05:33:25 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

32 Hurt in Airbus Test Evacuation
From Reuters
March, 27 2006

PARIS - European aircraft maker Airbus said Sunday that 32 people were
injured, including one whose leg was broken, in a test evacuation of its
new A380 double-decker airliner, but it called the test a success.

And they cheated and BARELY made it. They used a normal load, which
is something like 650 people, but the damn thing can carry 850 people
in it's max load configuration.

It's a disaster waiting to happen.

That thing is just too big. It'll never fly.

The sad part is it passed it's initial qualifications and actually
flew.

Off the ground.

I hate to fly unless I'm the pilot and I'm not qualified to fly one of
these things. :)

On my last flight, USAir from Philadelphia to Long Island-McArthur, the
plane had bald tires. It was a small plane, no boarding tunnel, and the
pilot was waiting at the bottom of the stairs when we departed. I asked him
about the bald tires. He said it only mattered during landing, if the runway
was slippery. Nice answer. I like all these bankrupt airlines. I really do.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:34:50 -0500, "RCE" wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 05:33:25 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

32 Hurt in Airbus Test Evacuation
From Reuters
March, 27 2006

PARIS - European aircraft maker Airbus said Sunday that 32 people were
injured, including one whose leg was broken, in a test evacuation of
its
new A380 double-decker airliner, but it called the test a success.

And they cheated and BARELY made it. They used a normal load, which
is something like 650 people, but the damn thing can carry 850 people
in it's max load configuration.

It's a disaster waiting to happen.

That thing is just too big. It'll never fly.

The sad part is it passed it's initial qualifications and actually
flew.

Off the ground.

I hate to fly unless I'm the pilot and I'm not qualified to fly one of
these things. :)

On my last flight, USAir from Philadelphia to Long Island-McArthur, the
plane had bald tires. It was a small plane, no boarding tunnel, and the
pilot was waiting at the bottom of the stairs when we departed. I asked
him about the bald tires. He said it only mattered during landing, if the
runway was slippery. Nice answer. I like all these bankrupt airlines. I
really do.

Heh,

It's unlikely that they were "bald", unless you could see thread coming
through the rubber.
And if you could, you were crazy to get on the plane.

That's what aircraft tires look like.

RCE

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:34:50 -0500, "RCE" wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 05:33:25 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

32 Hurt in Airbus Test Evacuation
From Reuters
March, 27 2006

PARIS - European aircraft maker Airbus said Sunday that 32 people were
injured, including one whose leg was broken, in a test evacuation of
its
new A380 double-decker airliner, but it called the test a success.

And they cheated and BARELY made it. They used a normal load, which
is something like 650 people, but the damn thing can carry 850 people
in it's max load configuration.

It's a disaster waiting to happen.

That thing is just too big. It'll never fly.

The sad part is it passed it's initial qualifications and actually
flew.

Off the ground.

I hate to fly unless I'm the pilot and I'm not qualified to fly one of
these things. :)

On my last flight, USAir from Philadelphia to Long Island-McArthur, the
plane had bald tires. It was a small plane, no boarding tunnel, and the
pilot was waiting at the bottom of the stairs when we departed. I asked
him about the bald tires. He said it only mattered during landing, if the
runway was slippery. Nice answer. I like all these bankrupt airlines. I
really do.

Heh,

It's unlikely that they were "bald", unless you could see thread coming
through the rubber.
And if you could, you were crazy to get on the plane.

That's what aircraft tires look like.

RCE


No tread at all? That's what they look like when they're new? I wonder why
the pilot didn't point that out.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 07:55:49 -0500, "RCE" wrote:


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:34:50 -0500, "RCE" wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
om...
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 05:33:25 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

32 Hurt in Airbus Test Evacuation
From Reuters
March, 27 2006

PARIS - European aircraft maker Airbus said Sunday that 32 people
were
injured, including one whose leg was broken, in a test evacuation of
its
new A380 double-decker airliner, but it called the test a success.

And they cheated and BARELY made it. They used a normal load, which
is something like 650 people, but the damn thing can carry 850 people
in it's max load configuration.

It's a disaster waiting to happen.

That thing is just too big. It'll never fly.

The sad part is it passed it's initial qualifications and actually
flew.

Off the ground.

I hate to fly unless I'm the pilot and I'm not qualified to fly one of
these things. :)

On my last flight, USAir from Philadelphia to Long Island-McArthur, the
plane had bald tires. It was a small plane, no boarding tunnel, and the
pilot was waiting at the bottom of the stairs when we departed. I asked
him about the bald tires. He said it only mattered during landing, if
the
runway was slippery. Nice answer. I like all these bankrupt airlines. I
really do.

Heh,

It's unlikely that they were "bald", unless you could see thread coming
through the rubber.
And if you could, you were crazy to get on the plane.

That's what aircraft tires look like.

I'll never forget my first helicopter assault training ride. I looked
at the door gunner and said "There's something just not safe about a
helicopter". He grins and says "Yep"...

I never quite knew what he meant. :)

It really is a wacky invention.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 13:15:55 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:34:50 -0500, "RCE" wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news:noif221cdjpukgaud2nr4tsnndd8smtvq7@4ax. com...
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 05:33:25 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

32 Hurt in Airbus Test Evacuation
From Reuters
March, 27 2006

PARIS - European aircraft maker Airbus said Sunday that 32 people
were
injured, including one whose leg was broken, in a test evacuation of
its
new A380 double-decker airliner, but it called the test a success.

And they cheated and BARELY made it. They used a normal load, which
is something like 650 people, but the damn thing can carry 850
people
in it's max load configuration.

It's a disaster waiting to happen.

That thing is just too big. It'll never fly.

The sad part is it passed it's initial qualifications and actually
flew.

Off the ground.

I hate to fly unless I'm the pilot and I'm not qualified to fly one of
these things. :)

On my last flight, USAir from Philadelphia to Long Island-McArthur, the
plane had bald tires. It was a small plane, no boarding tunnel, and the
pilot was waiting at the bottom of the stairs when we departed. I asked
him about the bald tires. He said it only mattered during landing, if
the
runway was slippery. Nice answer. I like all these bankrupt airlines. I
really do.

Heh,

It's unlikely that they were "bald", unless you could see thread coming
through the rubber.
And if you could, you were crazy to get on the plane.

That's what aircraft tires look like.

No tread at all? That's what they look like when they're new? I wonder why
the pilot didn't point that out.

Of course not - just another looney passenger. :)

They look bald - they aren't. The compounds are sticky and weight
takes care of the rest of the traction issue.

Hmmm. I don't like it. I don't care what anyone says. And then, there are
the pilots who think it's cute to be in the hotel bar until 2:00 AM, and
then on duty at 6:30 AM.

I'll drive.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

On my last flight, USAir from Philadelphia to Long Island-McArthur, the
plane had bald tires. It was a small plane, no boarding tunnel, and the
pilot was waiting at the bottom of the stairs when we departed. I asked
him
about the bald tires. He said it only mattered during landing, if the
runway
was slippery. Nice answer. I like all these bankrupt airlines. I really
do.

Reminds me of a jumper flight from Playa Del Carmen to Cozumel. Bald tires
on the 5 passenger Cessna. Apparently 'aircraft maintenance' doesn't
translate into Spanish. What was funnier was the plastic Jesus on the dash;
I'm NOT kidding. That and the pilot and copilot turning to each other, just
before throttling up, and making the sign of the cross to each other.
Wheeeee!

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"Bill Kearney" wrote in message
t...
On my last flight, USAir from Philadelphia to Long Island-McArthur, the
plane had bald tires. It was a small plane, no boarding tunnel, and the
pilot was waiting at the bottom of the stairs when we departed. I asked
him
about the bald tires. He said it only mattered during landing, if the
runway
was slippery. Nice answer. I like all these bankrupt airlines. I really
do.

Reminds me of a jumper flight from Playa Del Carmen to Cozumel. Bald
tires
on the 5 passenger Cessna. Apparently 'aircraft maintenance' doesn't
translate into Spanish. What was funnier was the plastic Jesus on the
dash;
I'm NOT kidding. That and the pilot and copilot turning to each other,
just
before throttling up, and making the sign of the cross to each other.
Wheeeee!


This is why I tip my car mechanic. Heavily.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 07:55:49 -0500, "RCE" wrote:


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:34:50 -0500, "RCE" wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news:noif221cdjpukgaud2nr4tsnndd8smtvq7@4ax. com...
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 05:33:25 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

32 Hurt in Airbus Test Evacuation
From Reuters
March, 27 2006

PARIS - European aircraft maker Airbus said Sunday that 32 people
were
injured, including one whose leg was broken, in a test evacuation of
its
new A380 double-decker airliner, but it called the test a success.

And they cheated and BARELY made it. They used a normal load, which
is something like 650 people, but the damn thing can carry 850
people
in it's max load configuration.

It's a disaster waiting to happen.

That thing is just too big. It'll never fly.

The sad part is it passed it's initial qualifications and actually
flew.

Off the ground.

I hate to fly unless I'm the pilot and I'm not qualified to fly one of
these things. :)

On my last flight, USAir from Philadelphia to Long Island-McArthur, the
plane had bald tires. It was a small plane, no boarding tunnel, and the
pilot was waiting at the bottom of the stairs when we departed. I asked
him about the bald tires. He said it only mattered during landing, if
the
runway was slippery. Nice answer. I like all these bankrupt airlines. I
really do.

Heh,

It's unlikely that they were "bald", unless you could see thread coming
through the rubber.
And if you could, you were crazy to get on the plane.

That's what aircraft tires look like.

I'll never forget my first helicopter assault training ride. I looked
at the door gunner and said "There's something just not safe about a
helicopter". He grins and says "Yep"...

I never quite knew what he meant. :)

It really is a wacky invention.


For giggles go down to a local, small airport where they have a flight
school for helicopters and try flying one.

RCE

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 13:15:55 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:34:50 -0500, "RCE" wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news:noif221cdjpukgaud2nr4tsnndd8smtvq7@4ax .com...
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 05:33:25 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

32 Hurt in Airbus Test Evacuation
From Reuters
March, 27 2006

PARIS - European aircraft maker Airbus said Sunday that 32 people
were
injured, including one whose leg was broken, in a test evacuation
of
its
new A380 double-decker airliner, but it called the test a success.

And they cheated and BARELY made it. They used a normal load,
which
is something like 650 people, but the damn thing can carry 850
people
in it's max load configuration.

It's a disaster waiting to happen.

That thing is just too big. It'll never fly.

The sad part is it passed it's initial qualifications and actually
flew.

Off the ground.

I hate to fly unless I'm the pilot and I'm not qualified to fly one
of
these things. :)

On my last flight, USAir from Philadelphia to Long Island-McArthur,
the
plane had bald tires. It was a small plane, no boarding tunnel, and
the
pilot was waiting at the bottom of the stairs when we departed. I
asked
him about the bald tires. He said it only mattered during landing, if
the
runway was slippery. Nice answer. I like all these bankrupt airlines.
I
really do.

Heh,

It's unlikely that they were "bald", unless you could see thread coming
through the rubber.
And if you could, you were crazy to get on the plane.

That's what aircraft tires look like.

No tread at all? That's what they look like when they're new? I wonder
why
the pilot didn't point that out.

Of course not - just another looney passenger. :)

They look bald - they aren't. The compounds are sticky and weight
takes care of the rest of the traction issue.

Hmmm. I don't like it. I don't care what anyone says. And then, there are
the pilots who think it's cute to be in the hotel bar until 2:00 AM, and
then on duty at 6:30 AM.

I'll drive.


Now you are thinking like me.

RCE

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 13:15:55 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:34:50 -0500, "RCE" wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news:noif221cdjpukgaud2nr4tsnndd8smtvq7@4a x.com...
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 05:33:25 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

32 Hurt in Airbus Test Evacuation
From Reuters
March, 27 2006

PARIS - European aircraft maker Airbus said Sunday that 32 people
were
injured, including one whose leg was broken, in a test evacuation
of
its
new A380 double-decker airliner, but it called the test a success.

And they cheated and BARELY made it. They used a normal load,
which
is something like 650 people, but the damn thing can carry 850
people
in it's max load configuration.

It's a disaster waiting to happen.

That thing is just too big. It'll never fly.

The sad part is it passed it's initial qualifications and actually
flew.

Off the ground.

I hate to fly unless I'm the pilot and I'm not qualified to fly one
of
these things. :)

On my last flight, USAir from Philadelphia to Long Island-McArthur,
the
plane had bald tires. It was a small plane, no boarding tunnel, and
the
pilot was waiting at the bottom of the stairs when we departed. I
asked
him about the bald tires. He said it only mattered during landing, if
the
runway was slippery. Nice answer. I like all these bankrupt airlines.
I
really do.

Heh,

It's unlikely that they were "bald", unless you could see thread
coming
through the rubber.
And if you could, you were crazy to get on the plane.

That's what aircraft tires look like.

No tread at all? That's what they look like when they're new? I wonder
why
the pilot didn't point that out.

Of course not - just another looney passenger. :)

They look bald - they aren't. The compounds are sticky and weight
takes care of the rest of the traction issue.

Hmmm. I don't like it. I don't care what anyone says. And then, there are
the pilots who think it's cute to be in the hotel bar until 2:00 AM, and
then on duty at 6:30 AM.

I'll drive.


Now you are thinking like me.

RCE


I hate to fly also, due mainly to the fact that I spent over 25 years
covering the United States and being out of town some 20~24 weeks/year. I
still drive to Chicago vs. flying whenever I go there.

When driving you can get on the road when you are ready to do so and travel
at your own pace.....no waiting at crowded airports.....no need to "check
in" 1 1/2 hours before departure............no "flight" delays.

It may take a bit longer but sometimes (as in the case of Cleveland to
Chicago) you can do better driving.

My air travel days are pretty much over....................thank goodness
for that.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 07:55:49 -0500, "RCE" wrote:


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:34:50 -0500, "RCE" wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news:noif221cdjpukgaud2nr4tsnndd8smtvq7@4ax .com...
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 05:33:25 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

32 Hurt in Airbus Test Evacuation
From Reuters
March, 27 2006

PARIS - European aircraft maker Airbus said Sunday that 32 people
were
injured, including one whose leg was broken, in a test evacuation
of
its
new A380 double-decker airliner, but it called the test a success.

And they cheated and BARELY made it. They used a normal load,
which
is something like 650 people, but the damn thing can carry 850
people
in it's max load configuration.

It's a disaster waiting to happen.

That thing is just too big. It'll never fly.

The sad part is it passed it's initial qualifications and actually
flew.

Off the ground.

I hate to fly unless I'm the pilot and I'm not qualified to fly one
of
these things. :)

On my last flight, USAir from Philadelphia to Long Island-McArthur,
the
plane had bald tires. It was a small plane, no boarding tunnel, and
the
pilot was waiting at the bottom of the stairs when we departed. I
asked
him about the bald tires. He said it only mattered during landing, if
the
runway was slippery. Nice answer. I like all these bankrupt airlines.
I
really do.

Heh,

It's unlikely that they were "bald", unless you could see thread coming
through the rubber.
And if you could, you were crazy to get on the plane.

That's what aircraft tires look like.

I'll never forget my first helicopter assault training ride. I looked
at the door gunner and said "There's something just not safe about a
helicopter". He grins and says "Yep"...

I never quite knew what he meant. :)

It really is a wacky invention.


For giggles go down to a local, small airport where they have a flight
school for helicopters and try flying one.

RCE




Heck, try flying a remote control helicopter. ;-)

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"Bill Kearney" wrote in message
t...
On my last flight, USAir from Philadelphia to Long Island-McArthur, the
plane had bald tires. It was a small plane, no boarding tunnel, and the
pilot was waiting at the bottom of the stairs when we departed. I asked
him
about the bald tires. He said it only mattered during landing, if the
runway
was slippery. Nice answer. I like all these bankrupt airlines. I really
do.

Reminds me of a jumper flight from Playa Del Carmen to Cozumel. Bald
tires
on the 5 passenger Cessna. Apparently 'aircraft maintenance' doesn't
translate into Spanish. What was funnier was the plastic Jesus on the
dash;
I'm NOT kidding. That and the pilot and copilot turning to each other,
just
before throttling up, and making the sign of the cross to each other.
Wheeeee!


I thought I was the only one that ever saw that. The puddle-jumper shuttle
flights from San Juan to Ponce, Puerto Rico had the same deal. I watched
with eyes wide as the pilot started the engines, made the sign of the cross
while the co-pilot did the same plus kissed the statue hanging from a knob
on the cockpit panel. At least they could have pulled the curtain.

RCE

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"RCE" wrote in message
...

I'll never forget my first helicopter assault training ride. I looked
at the door gunner and said "There's something just not safe about a
helicopter". He grins and says "Yep"...

I never quite knew what he meant. :)

It really is a wacky invention.


For giggles go down to a local, small airport where they have a flight
school for helicopters and try flying one.

I will never fly in anything that has just one engine. That's just plain
stupid.


What's your boat got?

RCE

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:34:50 -0500, RCE penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 05:33:25 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

32 Hurt in Airbus Test Evacuation
From Reuters
March, 27 2006

PARIS - European aircraft maker Airbus said Sunday that 32 people were
injured, including one whose leg was broken, in a test evacuation of its
new A380 double-decker airliner, but it called the test a success.

And they cheated and BARELY made it. They used a normal load, which
is something like 650 people, but the damn thing can carry 850 people
in it's max load configuration.

It's a disaster waiting to happen.


That thing is just too big. It'll never fly.

RCE


Actually, economically, I think you are right!


That's what I meant, but I guess it was too punny.

RCE

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

I thought I was the only one that ever saw that. The puddle-jumper
shuttle flights from San Juan to Ponce, Puerto Rico had the same deal. I
watched with eyes wide as the pilot started the engines, made the sign of
the cross while the co-pilot did the same plus kissed the statue hanging
from a knob on the cockpit panel. At least they could have pulled the
curtain.


Here's a puddle jumper story. On a flight from Miami to Marsh Harbour, I'm
sitting right behind the pilot (some damn 12 year old beat me to the right
seat). As we're approaching the airstrip in Marsh Harbour, the pilot drops
the landing gear. I just happen to notice that he's only got two of the
three lock lights lit. I says to myself, "well, this is an interesting
development". I'm thinking this pilot, who looks to be about 21 years old,
will be doing an instrument scan any moment and will notice the missing lit
bulb. Finally, we're on final approach less than a minute to touchdown, and
the pilot is clueless. I'm thinking, do I deliver him a clue, or just let
it go? Being the gutless wonder that I am, I choose to bring awareness to
the pilot. He's wearing headphones, so I can't just say "excuse me, but
we're all about to die", so I tap him on the right shoulder and point might
finger to the less than complete triad of lights. He utters an "Oh ****",
shoves the throttles to the firewall, and we get about as close to a touch
and go as you get without the touching part. After gaining altitude, he
pushes the test button and all three lights glow, eliminating the
possibility of a burnt out bulb. The next 15 minutes are spent circling the
airport while he studies the procedure manual. His corporate bosses back in
Miami instruct him to do a flyby of the Marsh Harbour tower (well it's sort
of a tower) to see if they can tell if all three gear are down. The tower
says they look down to them, but who knows. His only alternative at that
point is to make as gentle a landing as possible, and hope for the best. As
I recall, the gear in question was under the right wing. This kid make a
beautiful soft landing, first touching down the left gear, then the nose
gear, and finally, like his grandmother was on board, the softest touch
imaginable on the right gear. Turns out the gear was in fact down and
locked, so no big deal. After he parks and cuts the engines, I ask him what
happens next to him and the plane. He says he'll be spending the night on
the island, and a mechanic will be flown in tomorrow, probably to replace a
sensor. A great way to start a vacation in the Bahamas. Rum for everybody!

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Bill Kearney" wrote in message
t...
On my last flight, USAir from Philadelphia to Long Island-McArthur, the
plane had bald tires. It was a small plane, no boarding tunnel, and the
pilot was waiting at the bottom of the stairs when we departed. I asked
him
about the bald tires. He said it only mattered during landing, if the
runway
was slippery. Nice answer. I like all these bankrupt airlines. I really
do.

Reminds me of a jumper flight from Playa Del Carmen to Cozumel. Bald
tires
on the 5 passenger Cessna. Apparently 'aircraft maintenance' doesn't
translate into Spanish. What was funnier was the plastic Jesus on the
dash;
I'm NOT kidding. That and the pilot and copilot turning to each other,
just
before throttling up, and making the sign of the cross to each other.
Wheeeee!


I thought I was the only one that ever saw that. The puddle-jumper
shuttle flights from San Juan to Ponce, Puerto Rico had the same deal. I
watched with eyes wide as the pilot started the engines, made the sign of
the cross while the co-pilot did the same plus kissed the statue hanging
from a knob on the cockpit panel. At least they could have pulled the
curtain.

RCE


I flew to Puerto Rico a couple of years back. Most of the passengers were
Puerto Rican. When the plane landed, everyone applauded.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"RCE" wrote in message
...

I'll never forget my first helicopter assault training ride. I looked
at the door gunner and said "There's something just not safe about a
helicopter". He grins and says "Yep"...

I never quite knew what he meant. :)

It really is a wacky invention.


For giggles go down to a local, small airport where they have a flight
school for helicopters and try flying one.

I will never fly in anything that has just one engine. That's just plain
stupid.


What's your boat got?

RCE


Did you miss the word "fly"?

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"RCE" wrote in message
...

I'll never forget my first helicopter assault training ride. I
looked
at the door gunner and said "There's something just not safe about a
helicopter". He grins and says "Yep"...

I never quite knew what he meant. :)

It really is a wacky invention.


For giggles go down to a local, small airport where they have a flight
school for helicopters and try flying one.

I will never fly in anything that has just one engine. That's just plain
stupid.


What's your boat got?

RCE


Did you miss the word "fly"?


Nope.

RCE

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"RCE" wrote in message
...

I'll never forget my first helicopter assault training ride. I
looked
at the door gunner and said "There's something just not safe about a
helicopter". He grins and says "Yep"...

I never quite knew what he meant. :)

It really is a wacky invention.


For giggles go down to a local, small airport where they have a flight
school for helicopters and try flying one.

I will never fly in anything that has just one engine. That's just
plain stupid.


What's your boat got?

RCE


Did you miss the word "fly"?


Nope.

RCE

Uh oh. If my yacht's single motor dies, I don't fall out of the sky and die.
If I'm trying to deal with insanely nasty weather, maneuvering around big
waves, it **may** be a problem. But, if a plane's single engine dies, so do
the occupants, unless they're still on the ground.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message news:Iu9Wf.5335
Uh oh. If my yacht's single motor dies, I don't fall out of the sky and die.
If I'm trying to deal with insanely nasty weather, maneuvering around big
waves, it **may** be a problem. But, if a plane's single engine dies, so
do the occupants, unless they're still on the ground.

Your logic is flawed?

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"JIMinFL" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news:Iu9Wf.5335 Uh oh. If my yacht's single motor dies, I don't fall out
of the sky and die.
If I'm trying to deal with insanely nasty weather, maneuvering around big
waves, it **may** be a problem. But, if a plane's single engine dies, so
do the occupants, unless they're still on the ground.

Your logic is flawed?


How is it flawed? Be sure to go back a few messages so you're clear on what
RCE responded to.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

RG wrote:
I thought I was the only one that ever saw that. The puddle-jumper
shuttle flights from San Juan to Ponce, Puerto Rico had the same deal. I
watched with eyes wide as the pilot started the engines, made the sign of
the cross while the co-pilot did the same plus kissed the statue hanging
from a knob on the cockpit panel. At least they could have pulled the
curtain.



Here's a puddle jumper story. On a flight from Miami to Marsh Harbour, I'm
sitting right behind the pilot (some damn 12 year old beat me to the right
seat). As we're approaching the airstrip in Marsh Harbour, the pilot drops
the landing gear. I just happen to notice that he's only got two of the
three lock lights lit. I says to myself, "well, this is an interesting
development". I'm thinking this pilot, who looks to be about 21 years old,
will be doing an instrument scan any moment and will notice the missing lit
bulb. Finally, we're on final approach less than a minute to touchdown, and
the pilot is clueless. I'm thinking, do I deliver him a clue, or just let
it go? Being the gutless wonder that I am, I choose to bring awareness to
the pilot. He's wearing headphones, so I can't just say "excuse me, but
we're all about to die", so I tap him on the right shoulder and point might
finger to the less than complete triad of lights. He utters an "Oh ****",
shoves the throttles to the firewall, and we get about as close to a touch
and go as you get without the touching part. After gaining altitude, he
pushes the test button and all three lights glow, eliminating the
possibility of a burnt out bulb. The next 15 minutes are spent circling the
airport while he studies the procedure manual. His corporate bosses back in
Miami instruct him to do a flyby of the Marsh Harbour tower (well it's sort
of a tower) to see if they can tell if all three gear are down. The tower
says they look down to them, but who knows. His only alternative at that
point is to make as gentle a landing as possible, and hope for the best. As
I recall, the gear in question was under the right wing. This kid make a
beautiful soft landing, first touching down the left gear, then the nose
gear, and finally, like his grandmother was on board, the softest touch
imaginable on the right gear. Turns out the gear was in fact down and
locked, so no big deal. After he parks and cuts the engines, I ask him what
happens next to him and the plane. He says he'll be spending the night on
the island, and a mechanic will be flown in tomorrow, probably to replace a
sensor. A great way to start a vacation in the Bahamas. Rum for everybody!



Imagine all the other passengers, happily looking at the scenery unaware
of what's going on. Guess that's the best way to be sometimes. Show up
in heaven before the devil knows you're dead.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...


Uh oh. If my yacht's single motor dies, I don't fall out of the sky and
die. If I'm trying to deal with insanely nasty weather, maneuvering
around big waves, it **may** be a problem. But, if a plane's single
engine dies, so do the occupants, unless they're still on the ground.


Nonsense. Part of flight instruction focuses on engine failures and
landings. Remember, we are talking single engine airplanes now, not a
F-18.

All small planes have an optimum speed that you default to in order to
maximize the glide ratio. As long as you have enough altitude, there's
plenty of time to find a place to land.

I'd rather loose the engine in a Cessna at 5000 feet than lose the engine
in a single engine boat in 6-8 footers.

RCE


Hopefully, you have no dreams of becoming the next Jimmy the Greek. You'd be
lousy at laying odds on much of anything. Seriously.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...


Uh oh. If my yacht's single motor dies, I don't fall out of the sky and
die. If I'm trying to deal with insanely nasty weather, maneuvering
around big waves, it **may** be a problem. But, if a plane's single
engine dies, so do the occupants, unless they're still on the ground.


Nonsense. Part of flight instruction focuses on engine failures and
landings. Remember, we are talking single engine airplanes now, not a
F-18.

All small planes have an optimum speed that you default to in order to
maximize the glide ratio. As long as you have enough altitude, there's
plenty of time to find a place to land.

I'd rather loose the engine in a Cessna at 5000 feet than lose the engine
in a single engine boat in 6-8 footers.

RCE


Hopefully, you have no dreams of becoming the next Jimmy the Greek. You'd
be lousy at laying odds on much of anything. Seriously.

Really? Ummm... I think my luck has been pretty good, quite frankly.

RCE

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"JIMinFL" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news:Iu9Wf.5335 Uh oh. If my yacht's single motor dies, I don't fall out
of the sky and die.
If I'm trying to deal with insanely nasty weather, maneuvering around
big waves, it **may** be a problem. But, if a plane's single engine
dies, so do the occupants, unless they're still on the ground.

Your logic is flawed?


How is it flawed? Be sure to go back a few messages so you're clear on
what RCE responded to.

I'm sorry. I thought your statement was meant to stand on it's own. What am
I missing?
You can't depend on a boat without power to be able to be steered to a soft
landing on a sandy beach. On the other hand a powerless plane can still be
controlled in many cases.
Jim

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"JIMinFL" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"JIMinFL" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news:Iu9Wf.5335 Uh oh. If my yacht's single motor dies, I don't fall
out of the sky and die.
If I'm trying to deal with insanely nasty weather, maneuvering around
big waves, it **may** be a problem. But, if a plane's single engine
dies, so do the occupants, unless they're still on the ground.

Your logic is flawed?


How is it flawed? Be sure to go back a few messages so you're clear on
what RCE responded to.

I'm sorry. I thought your statement was meant to stand on it's own. What
am I missing?
You can't depend on a boat without power to be able to be steered to a
soft landing on a sandy beach. On the other hand a powerless plane can
still be controlled in many cases.
Jim



We're talking about probability here, Jim. I see crippled boats towed into
the bay here all the time. I do not see ambulances waiting for the
occupants. You are right - if you're in hideous seas and you lose power, you
may be in deep ****. And, it *is* possible to land a crippled plane safely,
but the word "possible" is far from the word "likely".

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"JIMinFL" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"JIMinFL" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news:Iu9Wf.5335 Uh oh. If my yacht's single motor dies, I don't fall
out of the sky and die.
If I'm trying to deal with insanely nasty weather, maneuvering around
big waves, it **may** be a problem. But, if a plane's single engine
dies, so do the occupants, unless they're still on the ground.

Your logic is flawed?


How is it flawed? Be sure to go back a few messages so you're clear on
what RCE responded to.

I'm sorry. I thought your statement was meant to stand on it's own. What
am I missing?
You can't depend on a boat without power to be able to be steered to a
soft landing on a sandy beach. On the other hand a powerless plane can
still be controlled in many cases.
Jim



We're talking about probability here, Jim. I see crippled boats towed into
the bay here all the time. I do not see ambulances waiting for the
occupants. You are right - if you're in hideous seas and you lose power,
you may be in deep ****. And, it *is* possible to land a crippled plane
safely, but the word "possible" is far from the word "likely".

Now you are being more reasonable.
Jim

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"JIMinFL" wrote in message
link.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"JIMinFL" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"JIMinFL" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news:Iu9Wf.5335 Uh oh. If my yacht's single motor dies, I don't fall
out of the sky and die.
If I'm trying to deal with insanely nasty weather, maneuvering around
big waves, it **may** be a problem. But, if a plane's single engine
dies, so do the occupants, unless they're still on the ground.

Your logic is flawed?


How is it flawed? Be sure to go back a few messages so you're clear on
what RCE responded to.

I'm sorry. I thought your statement was meant to stand on it's own. What
am I missing?
You can't depend on a boat without power to be able to be steered to a
soft landing on a sandy beach. On the other hand a powerless plane can
still be controlled in many cases.
Jim



We're talking about probability here, Jim. I see crippled boats towed
into the bay here all the time. I do not see ambulances waiting for the
occupants. You are right - if you're in hideous seas and you lose power,
you may be in deep ****. And, it *is* possible to land a crippled plane
safely, but the word "possible" is far from the word "likely".

Now you are being more reasonable.
Jim


I was reasonable right from the get-go. You were claiming that surviving a
plane crash was a common occurrence. It is not.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"JIMinFL" wrote in message
link.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"JIMinFL" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"JIMinFL" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news:Iu9Wf.5335 Uh oh. If my yacht's single motor dies, I don't fall
out of the sky and die.
If I'm trying to deal with insanely nasty weather, maneuvering
around big waves, it **may** be a problem. But, if a plane's single
engine dies, so do the occupants, unless they're still on the
ground.

Your logic is flawed?


How is it flawed? Be sure to go back a few messages so you're clear on
what RCE responded to.

I'm sorry. I thought your statement was meant to stand on it's own.
What am I missing?
You can't depend on a boat without power to be able to be steered to a
soft landing on a sandy beach. On the other hand a powerless plane can
still be controlled in many cases.
Jim



We're talking about probability here, Jim. I see crippled boats towed
into the bay here all the time. I do not see ambulances waiting for the
occupants. You are right - if you're in hideous seas and you lose power,
you may be in deep ****. And, it *is* possible to land a crippled plane
safely, but the word "possible" is far from the word "likely".

Now you are being more reasonable.
Jim


I was reasonable right from the get-go. You were claiming that surviving a
plane crash was a common occurrence. It is not.

It probably is a common occurrence, but I never made that claim. And I did
not say anything about the survival rate of crashes. You said that if a
single engine plane loses power, the occupants die. That is an unreasonable
assumption.
Jim

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"JIMinFL" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"JIMinFL" wrote in message
link.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"JIMinFL" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"JIMinFL" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news:Iu9Wf.5335 Uh oh. If my yacht's single motor dies, I don't
fall out of the sky and die.
If I'm trying to deal with insanely nasty weather, maneuvering
around big waves, it **may** be a problem. But, if a plane's single
engine dies, so do the occupants, unless they're still on the
ground.

Your logic is flawed?


How is it flawed? Be sure to go back a few messages so you're clear
on what RCE responded to.

I'm sorry. I thought your statement was meant to stand on it's own.
What am I missing?
You can't depend on a boat without power to be able to be steered to a
soft landing on a sandy beach. On the other hand a powerless plane can
still be controlled in many cases.
Jim



We're talking about probability here, Jim. I see crippled boats towed
into the bay here all the time. I do not see ambulances waiting for the
occupants. You are right - if you're in hideous seas and you lose
power, you may be in deep ****. And, it *is* possible to land a
crippled plane safely, but the word "possible" is far from the word
"likely".

Now you are being more reasonable.
Jim


I was reasonable right from the get-go. You were claiming that surviving
a plane crash was a common occurrence. It is not.

It probably is a common occurrence, but I never made that claim. And I did
not say anything about the survival rate of crashes. You said that if a
single engine plane loses power, the occupants die. That is an
unreasonable assumption.
Jim


I just e-mailed the NTSB, and asked to know how many single engine aircraft
fell out of the sky in this country during the past 10 years, and how many
of those incidents had survivors. I'll let you know if they respond.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"JIMinFL" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"JIMinFL" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news:Iu9Wf.5335 Uh oh. If my yacht's single motor dies, I don't fall
out of the sky and die.
If I'm trying to deal with insanely nasty weather, maneuvering around
big waves, it **may** be a problem. But, if a plane's single engine
dies, so do the occupants, unless they're still on the ground.

Your logic is flawed?


How is it flawed? Be sure to go back a few messages so you're clear on
what RCE responded to.

I'm sorry. I thought your statement was meant to stand on it's own. What
am I missing?
You can't depend on a boat without power to be able to be steered to a
soft landing on a sandy beach. On the other hand a powerless plane can
still be controlled in many cases.
Jim



We're talking about probability here, Jim. I see crippled boats towed into
the bay here all the time. I do not see ambulances waiting for the
occupants. You are right - if you're in hideous seas and you lose power,
you may be in deep ****. And, it *is* possible to land a crippled plane
safely, but the word "possible" is far from the word "likely".


Small private plane? Engine failure? More than possible, more like very
likely. Now, if a wing falls off, you're screwed.

RCE

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...



I was reasonable right from the get-go. You were claiming that surviving a
plane crash was a common occurrence. It is not.


Who said crash? I thought we were comparing the risks of loosing an engine
on a single engine boat and a single engine airplane.

Granted, on a nice day with calm to moderate seas, you aren't in immediate
danger in a boat. Rough it up a bit and the story changes.

This is getting too convoluted to continue anyway.

RCE

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...



I just e-mailed the NTSB, and asked to know how many single engine
aircraft fell out of the sky in this country during the past 10 years, and
how many of those incidents had survivors. I'll let you know if they
respond.


You are wasting your time. Engine failures. Engine failures. Engine
failures.


RCE

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...



I just e-mailed the NTSB, and asked to know how many single engine
aircraft fell out of the sky in this country during the past 10 years,
and how many of those incidents had survivors. I'll let you know if they
respond.


You are wasting your time. Engine failures. Engine failures. Engine
failures.


RCE



Wasting my time? How so?

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Doug Kanter wrote:
"RCE" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
I just e-mailed the NTSB, and asked to know how many single engine
aircraft fell out of the sky in this country during the past 10 years,
and how many of those incidents had survivors. I'll let you know if
they respond.

You are wasting your time. Engine failures. Engine failures. Engine
failures.


RCE



Wasting my time? How so?

Methinks he is positing that a light plane engine failure does not often
end in a crash.

Correct.

RCE

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Doug Kanter wrote:
"RCE" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
I just e-mailed the NTSB, and asked to know how many single engine
aircraft fell out of the sky in this country during the past 10 years,
and how many of those incidents had survivors. I'll let you know if
they respond.

You are wasting your time. Engine failures. Engine failures. Engine
failures.


RCE



Wasting my time? How so?

Methinks he is positing that a light plane engine failure does not often
end in a crash.

Maybe. I'll still be interested in seeing the stats I asked for.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..

Methinks he is positing that a light plane engine failure does not often
end in a crash.

Maybe. I'll still be interested in seeing the stats I asked for.


Me too. I don't know, but I'd hazard a guess that there are far more fatal
boating accidents (for all causes) than small, private plane fatal accidents
(for all causes).

Boating may be a bigger in terms of participants though, so we'd have to
convert the numbers to percentages of registered boats and small aircraft.

RCE

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
 

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..

Methinks he is positing that a light plane engine failure does not often
end in a crash.

Maybe. I'll still be interested in seeing the stats I asked for.


Me too. I don't know, but I'd hazard a guess that there are far more
fatal boating accidents (for all causes) than small, private plane fatal
accidents (for all causes).

Boating may be a bigger in terms of participants though, so we'd have to
convert the numbers to percentages of registered boats and small aircraft.

RCE


Probably, but I'm still talking about percentage vs falling out of the sky.