X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:48:14 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao04.cox.net ([68.230.241.35] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.0) with ESMTP id 1482555 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:09:13 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.35; envelope-from=sportform@cox.net Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao04.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20061018020851.TMOZ22409.fed1rmmtao04.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net> for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:08:51 -0400 Received: from [10.0.1.2] ([70.187.131.148]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id be8d1V00t3CFU5S0000000 Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:08:38 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-54-294019088 X-Original-Message-Id: From: Barry Hancock Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Lancair driver make the AVWEB news X-Original-Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:08:49 -0700 X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) --Apple-Mail-54-294019088 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed On Oct 12, 2006, at 8:56 PM, VTAILJEFF@aol.com wrote: > There are many non warbird aircraft that use the warbird arrival. I > think it is a much better arrival procedure for our aircraft. > > Regards, > > Jeff Edwards To kick an already dead horse, I'll just second that (Jeff, mark that on your calendar! LOL!). This year I called in on "the east side of the lake"...."Lancair, report the island", came the controller's reply. Now, having flown the warbird arrival dozens of times (albeit in warbirds) it is something that I am personally way more comfortable with (though when it gets jammed up and a hold is created at the island, it can get a bit hairy....including guys making orbits in the opposite direction...whoops!) So, bottom line is I was cleared without question to use the warbird arrival and no one on the ground questioned or followed me. I'm not suggesting this to stir anarchy and disregard for the NOTAM. I agree with Grayhawk that our type aircraft need to be strongly considered for the warbird arrival in 2007. There are not that many of us, relatively speaking, and it takes a layer of sophistication out of what is sometimes the busiest arrival pattern in the world. With forward visibility already somewhat limited, slowing to 135 knots an mixing with a bunch of other traffic isn't my first choice.... Cheers, Barry 122LL --Apple-Mail-54-294019088 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Oct 12, 2006, = at 8:56 PM, VTAILJEFF@aol.com = wrote:

=A0
Regards,
=A0

I'm not suggesting this to = stir anarchy and disregard for the NOTAM.=A0 I agree with Grayhawk that = our type aircraft need to be strongly considered for the warbird arrival = in 2007.=A0 There are not that many of us, relatively speaking, and it = takes a layer of sophistication out of what is sometimes the busiest = arrival pattern in the world.=A0 With forward visibility already = somewhat limited, slowing to 135 knots an mixing with a bunch of other = traffic isn't my first choice....

Cheers,

Barry
122LL
= --Apple-Mail-54-294019088--