HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mtc@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Mark Cousins)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: radios and non-pilots
Date: 10 Nov 92 23:39:30 GMT
Organization: HP General Systems Division

In rec.aviation.misc, gamiddle@math.uwaterloo.ca (Guy Middleton) writes:

>Of course, the requirements vary from country to country.  As far as I can
>tell, in Canada, *anybody* can get a Restricted (Aeronautical) Radiotelephone
>Operator's Certificate.  You just write a test, they don't care who you are.

In the US, these used to be required to operate aircraft radios (I have such a
license), but they are now not required for VHF.  They are still required for
HF.  And there is no test.

But be careful.  This is an operator license; you still need a station license
to operate the transmitter -- in the US anyway.

Mark
--
Mark Cousins                Hewlett-Packard Co.        mtc@hpsemc.cup.hp.com
HP-UX VAB programs    19055 Pruneridge Ave., MS 46T5
(408) 447-4659             Cupertino, CA  95014          FAX: (408) 447-4364
Xref: sparky rec.aviation.misc:658 rec.aviation.homebuilt:327 rec.aviation:17280
From: rfh3273@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com (Dick Harrigill)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Flying Saucers
Date: 13 Nov 92 20:25:16 GMT
Followup-To: rec.aviation.misc
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle

I'm waiting for a craft that works on the Frisbee principle
of flying.  You could conceivably build a flying machine that
is frisbee shaped, with a rotating outer hull. 



-- 
Dick Harrigill, an independent voice from:     Boeing Commercial Airplanes 
M/S 9R-49  PO BOX 3707                       Renton Avionics/Flight Systems
Seattle, WA  91824                                  Computing Support
(206) 393-9539    rfh3273@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com    CDP, PP-ASEL
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh)
Subject: Re: getting tired
Reply-To: venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh)
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown NJ
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 15:29:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.150522.20173@cbnews.cb.att.com> tel@cbnews.cb.att.com (thomas.e.lester) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.221142.7065@netcom.com> hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) writes:
>>From article <1992Nov9.164808.8774@cbis.ece.drexel.edu>, by jpw@minerva.ece.drexel.edu (Joseph Wetstein):
>!>> Why do people get so tired while flying?
>!>> 
>!>I would think that your body is constantly trying to adjust to new
>!>altitude density, plus countering the feet-not-on-firm-ground effect, 
>!>etc, etc.
>
>    My guess would be the constant noise level. Without headsets, the noise,
>    while acceptable can be VERY tiring. Try flying with and then without
>    headsets and I think you will find your answer.

As long as people are guessing, a *possible* reason is lack of good ventilation,
something that affects car passengers frequently if they leave their control
on recycle rather than fresh air. But then cars are a lot more airtight than
planes. On the other hand, a lot of planes have terrible ventilation. Also, if
you have the heater on, some people tend to fall asleep rather fast.

venky
From: spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Accident rated (was Re: Corporate reimbursement ...)
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:49:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: transfer.1dosmfINNg8k
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: wiley.ts.stratus.com

Far greater than the risk of dying while doing something you love (flying)
is the risk of living long but enjoying little.


Unfortunately, many people don't even understand this, let alone agree with
it.
-- 
     Steve Pennypacker		     PP-ASEL

     spenny@wiley.ts.stratus.com     Stephen_Pennypacker@vos.stratus.com
From: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Stay on the ground, Reba.
Date: 13 Nov 1992 08:34:45 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


In article <1992Nov12.165126.6017@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
"Toby . Hughes" <thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu> writes:

>>In article <1992Nov10.211435.27216@eecs.nwu.edu>,
>>William LeFebvre <phil@eecs.nwu.edu> writes:
>>
>>WHY was this such a big deal?  So the guy made an emergency landing.
>>SO WHAT?  This is like pulling over to the side of an expressway because
>>you have a flat.


>Hardly like pulling over to change a tire, more like
>a blowout at 60 MPH on a mountain road.  There are emergency landings and
>there are EMERGENCY landings!

Yeah, but when was the last time a news crew showed up for a blowout on a
mountain road?


Dave Hyde
davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
So I said to the Navy, "These are my opinions, go and get your own."
From: phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: logging solo and ground time
Date: 13 Nov 92 16:17:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.1992Nov13.161702.28228
Distribution: na
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University

In article <BERRY.92Nov10100123@athos.pei.com>, berry@athos.pei.com (Berry Kercheval) writes:
|> >>>>> On 9 Nov 1992 22:58:12 GMT, ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie) said:
|> Ron> Who logs ground instruction?
|> 
|> I do.  Mainly because I was paying my instructor more-or-less monthly
|> and the logbook is a convenient place to keep track of ground
|> instruction, since I'm keeping track of dual there anyway.

My new CFII showed me a FAR that I had never seen before.  I don't
have the exact reference handy (please don't shoot me), but it is in
Part 61 under the section devoted to flight instructors.  It *requires*
that instructors log and sign all ground instruction in the pilot's
logbook.

My CFII discussed this with some other instructors, and concluded that
the FAA has a rather braod definition of a logbook, and that it need not
be the same logbook that has flights logged in it.  And I'm sure things
are different for part 141.  What's odd, tho, is that this is the only
place in part 61 that this is mentioned, and the requirements for ratings
do not mention it as a necessity:  they only require ground instruction
in a list of topics, they do not state that such instruction must have
been logged nor do they require a minimum number of hours (well, I 
understand that the CFI ratings may require that).

		William LeFebvre
		Computing Facilities Manager and Analyst
		Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
		Northwestern University
		<phil@eecs.nwu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
Subject: Re: Exceed Vne or max G's first? (was Re: looping a non-acro aircraft)
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<1992Nov3.195207.14369@pony.Ingres.COM>
	<1992Nov5.121947.1266@eplrx7.es.duPont.com> <pZ==7-@engin.umich.edu>
	<ansc8hs@Unify.Com> <T0B=!6@engin.umich.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 12:04:13 GMT

In article <T0B=!6@engin.umich.edu> dlevy@viper.engin.umich.edu (David W Levy) writes:

   VNE is *always* quoted as INDICATED airspeed, not true.  That is why it
   is a red line on the airspeed indicator.  Only when you get to high subsonic
   speeds is true speed important.  Then you get to VMO/MMO -- Maximum Operating
   Speed or Mach number.  These aircraft are usually equipped with an air data
   computer, which has the aircraft limits programmed in it and can compute
   Mach number.  The aispeed indicator has a "Barber Pole" which moves to the
   indicated speed corresponding to VMO/MMO for the ambient pressure and
   temperature.

   The above discussion relates to powered aircraft.  Is there something
   different about sailplanes that I don't know?

If Vne is determined primarily by flutter, it is the true airspeed
that matters, not the indicated airspeed. In sailplanes, flutter is
often the main problem. In that case, the POH will give a set of
different (indicated) Vnes to use at different altitudes, OR (less
useful) a statement that Vne is a true airspeed and that the pilot
must compute the corresponding indicated airspeed for the altitudes he
intends to fly at.

Sailplanes also have redlines, but no barberpole, so the redline
marking is really only useful close to the ground.
--
Lars-Henrik Eriksson                            Internet: lhe@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science           Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09
Box 1263                                        Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
S-164 28  KISTA, SWEDEN                         Fax: +46 8 751 72 30
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: holthous@news.cis.ohio-state.edu (michael andrew holthouse)
Subject: Aviation videos for sale
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 08:23:03 GMT

Hello,

	I need $$$$ so I am getting rid of the following aviation videos:

	From the Air Combat Series (Time-Life Video):

		- SR-71 Blackbird:		$50
		  (I am not very willing to part with this one,
		   but I can be bought...)
		- The World's Aerobatic Teams:	$25
		- Vertical Flight:		$20
			(helicopters)
		- X-Planes:			$20
		- Flight Deck:			$10
			(introductory video - Naval Aviation)
		- Test Pilot:			$10
		- Air Supeiority:		$10
		- Future Flight:		$10

	I paid almost $30 for each video (except Flight Deck), so
		I am making a sacrifice in the name of cash!

	From the Air Combat Video Collection (US News Video): 

		- The War Aces:			$10
			(introductory video)
		- The Carriers:			$10
		- The Fighters:			$10

	These were about $25 when I got them...


	All prices negotiable and I will take the best offer!
	Please respond via E-mail on or before November 14, 1992
	and I will mail all who respond on Nov 15 or 16.

	Make an offer!
-- 


                              _ _ _   _  _ __ ___
                      ____   | \ \ \ | || / /| __|
                     /____/  |  | | || ||  < | _|
                             |__|_|_||_||_\_\|___|
  
	             (holthous@cis.ohio-state.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
Subject: Re: radios and non-pilots
Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose CA
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 08:00:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.180210.18690@astroatc.uucp> ludeman@astroatc.uucp (Weekend Pilot) writes:
> So how does one go about helping a particularly annoying [offender]
> *get* caught?  This past Summer I experienced persistant problems from a
> couple of different sources.
> 
> Source 1) A skydiving operation with *incessantly* blabby pilots.  Examples
> include telling very long, drawn out stories and jokes, sometimes keeping
> the mic keyed for 60 seconds at a shot, *many* irrelevant transmissions and
> never *ever* a call sign other than a nickname.  All this was happening on
> 123.5 in Northern Illinois/Southern Wisconsin.  When these guys get up in
> the air it sounds like a telephone conversation.  You wouldn't believe the
> things we've all learned about somebody's girlfriend.

Call the local FSDO and ask to speak to the manager of the Accident
Prevention Program.  It would help if you were to name the particular
skydiving operation.

> Source 2) Some (presumably ground bound) sort had a particular interest in
> playing music (mostly country and western, a little rock & roll ;-)) on
> 123.3 and 123.5.  This source was quite a lot less powerful and somewhere
> fairly close to Rockford, Il, although I have heard the same crap as far
> as 40 miles away at times.  Typically transmissions would be several
> minutes in length and repeated at random intervals throughout the
> afternoon.  

Call the FCC.  This is a clear abuse of the particular frequencies in
question.  If you point out that this could be a hazard to air navigation
(and it could), they will probably actually get right on it.

> Both sources have been heard on at least 8 or 10 occaisions.

This should help the appropriate authorities locate the culprits and take
action.

						Geoff
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin)
Subject: Porterfield?
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:16:28 GMT

Does anyone know anything about aircraft built by "Porterfield?"  (I admit
to having never heard of one).  Apparently in business at least in 1942
building Liaison birds for the USAAF (L-6?).

-- 
Robert J. Granvin                                       School of Statistics
rjg@stat.umn.edu                                     University of Minnesota
From: raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: FAR 91.119.A (was: Problem Pilots)
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:19:49 GMT
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)

In article <1194@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com>, rfh3273@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com (Dick Harrigill) writes:

	[About minimum altitude requirements]
 
> In my above example, if you are flying over a densely wooded area
> at 500, chances are you aren't gonna find a place to set down unless
> you are really high.   B & C are minimums that do not reflect the 
> safety of a specific location.  If you are buzzing your house at
> 1,000 feet, you had better be withing gliding distance of a safe
> landing area; if not you're violating an FAR.

	I'm curious to find out what people think about this sample...

	A couple weekends ago while working in the back yard a Pitts
	came by and buzzed a new house across a road, about a quarter
	mile away.  The house is in an area subdivided into 5-10 acre
	parcels, mainly occupied by people who keep horses.  This
	qualifies as a sparsely populated area, though the piece across
	the road (where I live) doesn't.  I figured the Pitts pilot
	was probably the owner of the new house, and generally suspect
	Pitts pilots of being competent.

	He (maybe she?) came down to about 200-300 feet agl for one pass,
	and probably passed just about 500 feet from the house.  He
	carried extra speed and chose a direction pointed downhill along
	a low valley.  I'm pretty sure that if the engine had failed
	the Pitts could have swapped airspeed for altitude and glided
	to Folsom Lake, which now has lots of acres of dry bottom exposed.

	It's clear that this pilot pushed the limits of the FARs, and
	a tape measure may or may not show that he busted one.  Still,
	it's possible that he's experience enough to handle a Pitts
	well at low altitude and high speed, and was prepared to accept
	the worst-case risk of a lakebed landing.

	What do you think?  Should we (a) condemn such a pilot for
	pushing to the brink of safe procedures, (b) admire such a pilot
	for his skills, (c) do both, or (d) do neither? 


------------------
Paul Raveling
Raveling@Unify.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: wd@cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Diestelkamp)
Subject: Re: Accident rated (was Re: Corporate reimbursement ...)
Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany
	<1992Nov04.021659.8435@qdeck.com> <BxH6C9.CJ@news.udel.edu>
	<WD.92Nov10113423@sam.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 10:37:05 GMT

In article <WD.92Nov10113423@sam.cs.tu-berlin.de> wd@cs.tu-berlin.de (I) wrote:

> on the other hand I can help having some other thoughts:
                      ^^^
cannot, i.e.
-- 
Wolfgang Diestelkamp
wd@cs.tu-berlin.de
wolfgang@first.gmd.de
From: stadler@Apple.COM (Andy Stadler)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: FAR 91.119.A (was: Problem Pilots)
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:41:04 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <n2wcobn@Unify.Com> raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling) writes:
>
>	It's clear that this pilot pushed the limits of the FARs, and
>	a tape measure may or may not show that he busted one.  Still,
>	it's possible that he's experience enough to handle a Pitts
>	well at low altitude and high speed, and was prepared to accept
>	the worst-case risk of a lakebed landing.
>
>	What do you think?  Should we (a) condemn such a pilot for
>	pushing to the brink of safe procedures, (b) admire such a pilot
>	for his skills, (c) do both, or (d) do neither? 

Interesting that you ask this question during a thread about public percep-
tion of GA.  One could argue till the cows come home about the competence
of this pilot or the safety precautions s/he took.  However, what do you
think Joe NextDoorNeighbor thinks about it?  Simple: "There goes another 
Goddamn Piper Cub" and you've just obtained another "No on Measure G" vote
to close the local airport.

"Wise" and "Legal" are not always the same thing.  This Pitts driver needs
a good talkin to.  Get out the field glasses, write down his N number, and
tell your local friendly APC. 

My response to proposed answer "B" by the way is the old saw "A superior
pilot uses her superior judgement to avoid needing to use her superior skills."

--Andy     stadler@apple.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: jbrown@qdeck.com (Jordan Brown)
Subject: Re: Flying Under Bridges
Organization: Quarterdeck Office Systems, Santa Monica CA
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1992 22:54:17 GMT

geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck) writes:
>> Any ideas from you Ercoupe-loopers?
>
>Many Ercoupes have no rudder pedals; instead, they have interconnected
>ailerons and rudders.  This would make most aerobatic maneuvers, such as a
>loop, impractical or impossible to perform, as the several flight controls
>must be manipulated separately to successfully perform such maneuvers.

Uh, Geoff, we've got to get you some acro lessons.

While many maneuvers do require appropriate uncoordinated use of rudders,
loops aren't one of them.  The basic simple procedure for a loop (don't
try this at home kiddies) is "pull, and when the world is right-side-up
again, stop pulling".  The major effect rudder has on the maneuver is
when you accidentally put pressure unevenly on the pedals; this leaves you
banked at the top.  (How a yaw and a pitch turn into a roll is left as
an exercise for the reader.)  I do this often enough that I try to
consciously get my feet off the pedals during loops.

You could almost certainly do a roll in an autocoordinated airplane like
an Ercoupe, but it would be a bit sloppy.  A simple roll is aileron-only;
the yaw from the autocoordination would just get in your way.

Loop-roll combo maneuvers (Immelman, split S) should also be possible.
Don't know about barrel rolls.  Think so.

Other maneuvers (slow roll, snap roll, spin, hammerhead) would be problematic
without rudder.

(As with all discussions of aerobatics, reading is no substitute for
training.  This is especially true in cases like this article which
deliberately oversimplify the maneuvers.  Whether or not it is possible
to perform these maneuvers in random non-aerobatic airplanes is interesting
only in theory; in practice it is extremely unwise to do so.)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: facemire@Software.ORG (Jeffrey Facemire)
Subject: Re: Flying Saucers
Reply-To: facemire@Software.ORG
Organization: Software Productivity Consortium, Herndon, Virginia
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:11:27 GMT


There was also a writeup either in AOPA Pilot or Plane&Pilot several years back.
(It was featured in the last article of the magazine inside the back cover.)
It also was a "saucer", and the name Dr. Mohler does ring a bell.  It was a
single-seat prototype saucer with, as I recall, 8 directional fans that were
all computer controlled.  The pilot controlled lateral direction by simply
pointing the stick in the direction desired.  This article was essentially a
call for financial supporters.  This machine looked like it would have been
a blast to fly (unfortunately, I wasn't in the position to "invest" with
him at the time).

Jeff Facemire
"I'd sure rather fly for a living!!!"


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: tel@cbnews.cb.att.com (thomas.e.lester)
Subject: Re: radios and non-pilots
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:36:47 GMT

In article <1dn32sINNbsh@agate.berkeley.edu> chem4-aa@garnet.berkeley.edu (Lonnie C. Martin) writes:
!>In article <1dmpsdINNr9c@topaz.bds.com> ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie) writes:
!>...
!>>Here in the US, the operator doesn't need a license.  But the radio station
!>>itself must be licensed.  Hand helds are usually covered by the plane they
!>>are used in (or in the other cases listed by the previous poster).
!>
!>I was told otherwise by phone in a conversation with the local FCC, applied
!>for, and received a station license for a handheld transceiver (the ICOM
!>aviation type machine).  I was told that the aircraft station license applies 
!>to _installed_ transceivers only.  Regardless of the other opinions that 
!>have appeared, this was my experience.
!>
!>Perhaps the FCC interpretation varies (just like our FAA), but, the above
!>was the case in ~1989 in the SF Bay area FCC office.  I have a feeling that
!>when my station license expires, there could well be a new policy.
!>
!>Lonnie

	Lonnie,  (or anyone else that knows)

    How is the handheld liscensed ?   Do you get your own "N" number ?
    What, if any restrictions are placed on its use ?

    I suspect you may be on of a very few that has ever done this.

    Please post all details.


-- 
	-----------------------------------------------------------------
	Tom Lester				att!cblph!tel
	Sonerai IIL (under TEST)		(614) 860-3259
	N4LX 					(614) 927-8106
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: cap@selway.umt.edu (Charles A. Smith)
Subject: Re: Flying Under Bridges
Summary: Mooney Cadet
Organization: University of Montana
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:43:17 GMT

The ercoupe design was purchased by mooney, and renamed the Cadet.  I believe
the model was the M-10.  And I believe that it was modified to have a single
rudder, controlled by pedals.  I think that they also increased the engine
size (100 HP ?)

Cap


-- 
Cap Smith                 Assistant Prof. of MIS           
cap@selway.umt.edu        University of Montana
From: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Flying Under Bridges
Date: 12 Nov 1992 09:55:03 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


In article <1992Nov10.222657.13189@qdeck.com> jbrown@qdeck.com (Jordan Brown)
writes:
>
>Saying that "flying aerobatics in non-aerobatic airplanes will kill you"
>is statistically true...[deleted]

and then in article <1992Nov11.194746.10335@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
"Toby . Hughes" <thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu> writes:
>More accurately, "flying aerobatics in non-aerobatic airplanes
>*can* kill you."
[deleted]
>Sometimes it's that stuffy advice from a 'stick-in-the-mud' pilot can prevent
>one from becoming a 'stuck-in-the-mud' pilot.

minor point, but how does making a warning _less_severe_ help presvent an
accident.  But that's beside the point.
I vote for:  "flying aerobatics in non-aerobatic airplanes *should* kill you."
Be as stupid as you want, but be prepared to pay the price.

Dave Hyde
davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
So I said to the Navy, "These are my opinions, go and get your own."


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: cap@selway.umt.edu (Charles A. Smith)
Subject: Re: Flying Under Bridges
Summary: What about seaplanes?
Organization: University of Montana
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 23:35:51 GMT


I seem to remember a seaplane pilot from Pittsburgh tell me that he
routinely had to land between two bridges on the river in downtown
Pittsburgh.  

Thinking about this sort of situation, it seems reasonable that in order to 
takeoff between two bridges, that one might extend the "takeoff roll"
a bit downwind, and actually be completely airborne as one passed under the
first bridge, so that one could clear the second bridge by as much as possible.

Are seaplanes given an exemption from the bridge rule?

Cap 
-- 
Cap Smith                 Assistant Prof. of MIS           
cap@selway.umt.edu        University of Montana
From: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: fuel leaking from gas caps
Date: 13 Nov 1992 08:33:36 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


In article <1992Nov12.140142.16094@nlm.nih.gov>
"Dr. Daniel R. Masys" <masys@nlm.nih.gov> writes:

[deletions]
>I finally just poured a little on the ground and
>lit it with a match to convince myself it was gas and not water.  (It
>was indeed gas).

Have your eyebrows grown back yet? :)


Dave Hyde
davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
So I said to the Navy, "These are my opinions, go and get your own."