Re: JEFX over Pahrump 4/22

On Apr 24, 8:21�am, obviouslydelusional
<obviouslydelusio...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 24, 7:28�am, 150flivver <timothyw...@hotmail.com> wrote:

There are three possible settings for an altimeter, QFE, QNE, and
QNH. �In England for instance, when approaching to land, a QFE setting
is received by the airport which causes the altimeter to indicate feet
above the runway and is closest to a setting for AGL. �Of course,
since the ground level varies with terrain, QFE is only accurately an
AGL altitude above the reporting point (ie. runway). �QFE is not
usually used for operations in the US.. �QNH is the setting that gives
you altitude above Mean Sea Level. �This altimeter setting is good for
a particular area and must be continually updated as you fly along by
receiving local altimeter settings from stations along your flight
path or from Air Traffic Control. �QNE is 29.92 and is used above
transition altitude by all aircraft so that everyone is on the same
page of music and ground obstacles are not a factor. �Transition
altitude can be as low as 3000 ft in some some countries; in the US,
it is 18000 feet.

If you simply ask a question about things you are not familiar with
instead of posting erroneous assumptions, the usenet might be less
riddled with BS �Posting the notam verbatim would have been okay,
Posting a translation of the notam without the knowledge to interpret
it was not. �Hope this helps, but by your defensive remarks, I doubt
it. �Hope I'm wrong.


Since you care about the BS in Usenet and apparently know what is OK
and what isn't, I offer the following constructive criticism to aid in
your future postings.

Your response, while technically correct is unnecessarily filled with
jargon and not readily accessible to readers of this newsgroup (This
isn't one of the rec.aviation.* newsgroups). �You also spend time
explaining details from other countries that aren't relevant to the
NOTAM in question. �When this sort of thing occurs on Usenet, as I'm
sure you are aware, being a Usenet expert, it's usually a display of
"Ooooh, I am SO much smarter than you and I am truly knowledgeable".
This is also known as douchebaggery. �As you seem to know what is and
what isn't "OK" on Usenet, then you know a proper response would have
been to provide the answers in clear, easily understood prose without
inserting personal barbs as a further demonstration of your
preeminence.

I hope this helps, but by your douchebaggery remarks, I doubt it. �I
hope I'm wrong.


There really is not cure for these types. It all started with Rush
Limbaugh. With the advent of Limbaugh, it became fashionable to be an
asshole. The right wingers adopted the attitude. Monkey see, monkey
do. Recall Dick Chenney telling Patrick Leahy to go fuck himself,
right on the senate floor. It's really sad since the father of modern
conservatism, William F. Buckley, never stooped to such levels.
People on the left respected the man. Hell, PBS gave him a TV show.

Ron did a good job of explaining this. I hope he pokes around here on
occasion. Regarding the NOTAM, all I really cared about is time and
location. I'm tracking down someone who was at the airfield in Pahrump
and get some intel. I gave him a likely frequency (260.1) and he said
it was hopping.

Next up is an updated Nellis Range frequency list. I put in all the
UHF frequencies from the SPINS. I don't trust the VHF frequencies on
that document. I guess to be really clear here, about half the UHF
frequencies from the SPINS were frequencies I had anyway from
bandscanning or an old FLIMSY (in flight guide) I was shown, so I have
confidence that the remaining frequencies are good. But the VHF
frequencies are really close (5khz) to other frequencies used on the
range, so I just don't feel comfortable putting them on the list until
I personally hear them used.

Here is the USAFdefinition of FLIMSY:
Aircrew Flimsy. Aircrew flimsies are a standardized collection of
essential operational informa-
tion required by aircrews to complete mission planning, conduct route
study, fly the mission, and comply
with post-mission ground procedures and debriefing requirements.

I really need to file a FOIA and try to get the Nellis FLIMSY. I've
seen it and it is not classified, but much like the SPINS, they don't
want to give it out.  The mindset the powers that be use is individual
elements of the FLIMSY are not secret, but the document in it's
entirety shouldn't be released since the package of frequencies are
considered sensitive. A thread went around on the fedcom list a few
years ago where Larry Van Horn said a similar thing about the IRAC.
That is, they won't release the entire IRAC, but you could request a
frequency of a particular organization, or more likely state a
frequency you monitored, then ask what organization owns it. It is a
lot like playing "mother may I."

It was Ronald Reagan that made the IRAC restricted. At one time, you
could buy the IRAC on microfiche. Used copies went on ebay, but with
the advent of trunking, they became kind of useless.