모두
← Back to Squawk list
Small Plane Buzzes Boaters in CO Before Crashing
Bad ideas just keep getting worse. The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating a small plane that buzzed low over boats on a Northern Colorado reservoir before crashing, the board said Wednesday. (www.washingtonpost.com) 기타...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Eye donut sea the problem with that state meant. Go back two bed now. Thank ewe!
Which part or parts, based on your memories, would you edit in the passage you quoted?
umm..., "through" should be "threw". I thought the pun made that clear.
[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]
Have appointed yourself as the forum policeman now?
That is, aside from your pun.
I, too, was dismayed by the improper word choice, and was amused by Greg's post. You, on the other hand, chose to push back with a rather pompous comment. You had no problem with the comments that called the pilot a moron and an idiot. He/she may well be both, but we don't know that. The pilot may have been having a medical problem, heart attack, stroke, wasp bite, etc. Here's a teachable point: don't assume you know all the facts, and don't assume everyone accepts poor grammar and word usage from media outlets, trivial matter that it may be. Fly safe.
In the case of the issue with grammar, the sentence that was quoted had wording that could come across to some as more hyperbole than facts, thus I wanted to make sure we were on the same page in the partial incident description of that moment. My presentation and readback of that was my choice and anyone is free to form their own interpretation of that; rightfully or wrongfully.
As for the rest, just because I don't address someone does not mean I did not take issue with their comments. Addressing someone with a demonstrated lack of reasoning is usually fruitless. Since the word 'you' was given in a reply to me, I must be direct in addressing this: I suggest you and readers do not mind read me regarding my assumptions or motivations. You are free to form the thoughts in your mind, but don't directly assign them to me without just cause.
Related, I have not once speculated on the cause of this incident or the events that led up to it. Using OSINT skills, I offered what was clearly my opinion was that the aircraft was within 500 feet of the vessel pictured. This is the distance addressed via FAR 91.119 (c). I did not offer an opinion if the aircraft had a valid reason or not to be within those 500 feet. I did not offer an opinion on the cause of the crash.
Safe flight.
As for the rest, just because I don't address someone does not mean I did not take issue with their comments. Addressing someone with a demonstrated lack of reasoning is usually fruitless. Since the word 'you' was given in a reply to me, I must be direct in addressing this: I suggest you and readers do not mind read me regarding my assumptions or motivations. You are free to form the thoughts in your mind, but don't directly assign them to me without just cause.
Related, I have not once speculated on the cause of this incident or the events that led up to it. Using OSINT skills, I offered what was clearly my opinion was that the aircraft was within 500 feet of the vessel pictured. This is the distance addressed via FAR 91.119 (c). I did not offer an opinion if the aircraft had a valid reason or not to be within those 500 feet. I did not offer an opinion on the cause of the crash.
Safe flight.
Settle down, Francis… And don’t call me Shirley……..
...and its a bad day to quick Drinking... :)
I suppose the ‘Autopilot’ wasn’t engaged
I think you meant the "AutomaticPilot" :)
Maybe he deflated
I through up a little in my mouth when I read that.