Return-Path: Sender: "Marvin Kaye" To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 20:36:06 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.198.35] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.2) with ESMTP id 421543 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 14:57:38 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.127.198.35; envelope-from=edechazal@comcast.net Received: from cc1860069a (pcp09040864pcs.rocsth01.mi.comcast.net[69.244.182.42]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with SMTP id <20040919185709013008kvqve>; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:57:09 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <009801c49e7a$289ea1e0$6401a8c0@rocsth01.mi.comcast.net> From: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: AOA X-Original-Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 14:54:57 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0095_01C49E58.A1284CA0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0095_01C49E58.A1284CA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mark Ravinski writes: Please excuse me for quoting several recient entries. I see a disturbing trend of thinking here that might lead some to = believe an AOA indicator is a reasonable substitute for stall recovery = training or ability. Even worse, that lack of stall recovery competency = is acceptable for any standard of safety. Who are you kidding? I wouldn't have one on my plane. It's not worth it's weight. My response: Mark, that's a silly thing to say about this particular feature. For = one thing, you are over-analyzing what people intend by the comments = your quoted. No-one said lack of stall recovery training is acceptable. = Secondly, the AOA indicator functions pretty much the same way as the = airspeed indicator does, telling you how close you are to stall. Most = folks believe "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." You = seem to be suggesting you think otherwise. Personally, I prefer to stay = a distance away from the cliff. This tells me how far away from the = edge I am. =20 Regards, Ed de Chazal ------=_NextPart_000_0095_01C49E58.A1284CA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Mark Ravinski writes:

Please excuse me for quoting several recient=20 entries.

I see a disturbing trend of thinking here that = might lead=20 some to believe an AOA indicator is a reasonable substitute for stall = recovery=20 training or ability. Even worse, that lack of stall recovery = competency is=20 acceptable for any standard of safety.

Who are you kidding?

I wouldn't have one on my plane. It's not = worth it's=20 weight.

My response:

Mark, that's a silly thing to say about this particular = feature. For=20 one thing, you are over-analyzing what people intend by the comments = your=20 quoted. No-one said lack of stall recovery training is = acceptable. =20 Secondly, the AOA indicator functions pretty much the same way as the = airspeed=20 indicator does, telling you how close you are to stall. Most folks = believe=20 "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." You seem to be=20 suggesting you think otherwise. Personally, I prefer to stay a = distance=20 away from the cliff. This tells me how far away from the edge I = am. =20

Regards,

Ed de Chazal

------=_NextPart_000_0095_01C49E58.A1284CA0--