Return-Path: Sender: "Marvin Kaye" To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:55:34 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mailout2.pacific.net.au ([61.8.0.85] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.8) with ESMTP id 612343 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:36:18 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=61.8.0.85; envelope-from=domcrain@pacific.net.au Received: from mailproxy1.pacific.net.au (mailproxy1.pacific.net.au [61.8.0.86]) by mailout2.pacific.net.au (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-7.1) with ESMTP id j0INZlHn026510 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:35:47 +1100 Received: from CRAIN (ppp06A0.dsl.pacific.net.au [203.17.44.160]) by mailproxy1.pacific.net.au (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-7.1) with ESMTP id j0INZhj8027787 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:35:44 +1100 From: "Dominic V. Crain" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" Subject: KNOTS X-Original-Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:35:42 +1100 X-Original-Message-ID: <001901c4fdb6$6d0250c0$0301010a@CRAIN> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001A_01C4FE12.A072C8C0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C4FE12.A072C8C0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_001B_01C4FE12.A072C8C0" ------=_NextPart_001_001B_01C4FE12.A072C8C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ladies - and you other ordinary blokes, I have enjoyed and appreciate all of your responses to my original and subsequent posts on knotted terminology. However, all of us human have an interesting little quirk, and it is that we read lines the way we want to read them. Therefore, some of the responses, enjoyable to read, either failed to read my original post they way it was intended, or more likely I failed to impart clearly my question/statement. Now, purely as a tiny matter of levity - Barry, you should pop over to Da Nang, and have a look at the MIG 21's doing about 600 KMH by the time they are crossing the upwind threshold. One bloke I flew with there was saved by the fact that the AP and the AT were permanently engaged when he flew with me on the 'Bus, as after twenty odd years on the Mig, he had trouble with the rear end pucker factor on approach particularly. Mind you he did have 1000 hours total after Migs, was the chief test pilot on them, and was then aged 51. Now remember -just an aside. Now, ( I do hope I can get this right), I don't care what the numbers are, are what they are called. However, as has been pointed out by Scott, someone beat me to measuring the planet and calculating time etc., etc., and so we have differing standards in use by different nations. But there is a standard for aviation, and it is, in terms of rate of lateral navigation, KNOTS. Now my original proposal was to suggest that we who subscribe to LML, should use the standard, because of its relevance to the safety aspects of flying the Lancair. I have no doubt that many US pilots use the term MPH in their posts, when in fact they mean KNOTS. It is just a convention THEY are used to. But I am not, and I note that there are others from parts far flung who are also not used to seeing MPH used in common terminology, when in fact KNOTS may well be meant by the correspondent. No one has a higher regard for American aviation than I, (I have yet been unable to convince the POMS THEY didn't invent it), but this for me is a matter of safe operation of the Lancair, which, as I pointed out unnecessarily, is a high performance aircraft. If we all try to standardise our terminology, then it assists safety. That is why all professional operators have standardisation programs. For Bob and others who have MPH ASI's, use the qualifier MPH if you express speed, and if we assume the KNOT standard we know you mean MPH. Yes- I can do the conversion. Takes hours, but... Regards to all, Dom VH CZJ ------=_NextPart_001_001B_01C4FE12.A072C8C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ladies - and you other ordinary = blokes,

I have enjoyed and appreciate = all of your responses to my original and subsequent posts on knotted = terminology.

However, all of us human have an interesting little quirk, and it is that we read lines the way we want = to read them.

Therefore, some of the = responses, enjoyable to read, either failed to read my original post they way it was = intended, or more likely I failed to impart clearly my = question/statement.

Now, purely as a tiny matter of = levity - Barry, you should pop over to Da Nang, and have a look at the MIG 21’s = doing about 600 KMH by the time they are crossing the upwind threshold. One = bloke I flew with there was saved by the fact that the AP and the AT were = permanently engaged when he flew with me on the ‘Bus, as after twenty odd = years on the Mig, he had trouble with the rear end pucker factor on approach particularly. Mind you he did have 1000 hours total after Migs, was the = chief test pilot on them, and was then aged 51. Now remember –just an = aside.

Now, ( = I do hope I can get this right), I don’t care what the numbers are, are what = they are called.

However, as has been pointed out = by Scott, someone beat me to measuring the planet and calculating time etc., etc., = and so we have differing standards in use by different = nations.

But there is a standard for = aviation, and it is, in terms of rate of lateral navigation, = KNOTS.

Now my original proposal was to = suggest that we who subscribe to LML, should use the = standard, because of its relevance to the safety aspects of flying the = Lancair.

I have no doubt that many = US pilots use the term MPH in their posts, when in fact they mean KNOTS. It is = just a convention THEY are used to. But I am not, and I note that there are = others from parts far flung who are also not used to seeing MPH used in common = terminology, when in fact KNOTS may well be meant by the = correspondent.

No one has a higher regard for = American aviation than I, (I have yet been unable to convince the POMS THEY = didn’t invent it), but this for me is a matter of safe operation of the = Lancair, which, as I pointed out unnecessarily, is a high performance aircraft. = If we all try to standardise our terminology, then it assists safety. That is = why all professional operators have standardisation = programs.

For Bob and others who have MPH = ASI’s, use the qualifier MPH if you express speed, and if we assume the KNOT = standard we know you mean MPH. Yes- I can do the conversion. Takes hours, = but…….

 

Regards to = all,

Dom

 

VH = CZJ

 

 

------=_NextPart_001_001B_01C4FE12.A072C8C0-- ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C4FE12.A072C8C0 Content-Type: image/gif; name="image001.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: R0lGODlhQAYFAPQLAKfT/6/X/7fb/7/f/8fj/8/n/9fr/97u/+f0/+73//f8//////H3/+Lv/97w /9Dn/8Df/7DX/5/P/wECAwECAwECAwECAwECAwECAwECAwECAwECAwECAwECAwECAwECAyH/C01T T0ZGSUNFOS4wDQAAAAFzUkdCAK7OHOkAIf8LTVNPRkZJQ0U5LjAYAAAADG1zT1BNU09GRklDRTku MBObKZRkACH/C01TT0ZGSUNFOS4wGAAAAAxjbVBQSkNtcDA3MTICAAAJAtxSKQAsAAAAAEAGBQAA Bf+gJI6kBJhAqqYBELwwHAmBYN/2IAx8z0OEAWFIJBSMhWThYWg2D9BDA4FIKK6LrHbL7Xq/4LB4 TC6bz+i0es1uu9/wuHxOr9vv+Lx+z+/7/4CBgoOEhYaHiImKi4yNciWQJiIrlCwuMS80NTM4Nz4+ QQRARUdKSgZMTgcOVFUJVgqOsrO0tba3uLm6u7y9vr/AwcLDxMXGwJGQJ8uVL5cxEZk1nTk7Oz0Q PUWkSEkGBaoGUVSvsMfn6Onq6+zt7u/w8fLz9PX2vMkkJyiULSwt0GoIpKbjmo9sQ4Rw67bEmxNx UlwlYMAAy72LGDNq3Mixo8ePIEOKHOkx36RJzPoquXj2YsYmap50HAyicJuRbqkeRjlA7ooCBiSD Ch1KtKjRo0iTKl3KlE4IADs= ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C4FE12.A072C8C0--