Ahh I have not heard about the DHL A-300, guess I have some research to do, thanks.



How are you going to say that and then continue to beat in your point which has been repeated?

Anyways, as for the second two paragraphs of what I said there, that wasn't so much aimed at you but at the general attitude. What I am referring to is the dismissive nature of replies with regards to scenarios given. Instead of considering the possibility that this technique may be useful, you, and others, would rather try and poke holes in given scenarios with mentioned condescending tons.

I figured chickens scenario was real, I would also assume there are other areas in the world other than that which may be susceptible to such conditions. I believe someone spoke of them early on in this thread with regards to using this technique in alaska. However, that was of course dismissed because it has props... Do you see where I am going with this? How many ways can one find to dismiss a situation, reason being in that case was spool down time...:scratches head:



Quick timeline: Idea mentioned - idea argued - idea claimed useful - condescending ton/dismissive attitude towards idea working - realize idea could work - procedure idea argued - procedures claimed to be law - procedures admitted to not be law but still be law - scenarios given - scenarios dismissed with condescending ton and dismissive attitude - scenario given that is real. Why do you think I claimed a lack of receptive behavior to new ideas early on in this thread, I think it is pretty obvious.

Had that dismissive attitude been replaced with a curiosity to understand the timeline might have gone something like this: idea presented - idea discussed - idea questioned - idea figured out - scenarios posed - scenarios debated - conclusion of said idea with given scenarios where it might be useful.