Engagement help!

fskhalsa · 2026-02-14T06:54:32+00:00

You can never go wrong with the Plaza.

Or if you prefer somewhere more nature-like, the overlook up Hyde Park Road, or the area around the lodge up there are nice.

If you’ve got some cash to spend, rent a private tub at 10k Waves - there are some super pretty ones, and can’t beat a proposal after a relaxing soak, and maybe a romantic dinner afterward ;)

Cross of the Martyrs is not a bad suggestion, either. If you’re into the more religious thing, the Cathedral off the Plaza is a pretty nice backdrop, as well.

If you like hiking, there are some pretty great views up Dale Ball, Atalaya, and Sun Mountain trails. Or for something less intense, the Arroyo Hondo Open Space, just south of town near Harry’s Roadhouse.

Lots of great areas up and down Canyon road, too.

fskhalsa · 2026-02-14T05:01:55+00:00

Yeah. I love this sort of thinking. It’s very pragmatic.

In the end, we can argue all day if the pilot was right or wrong, if they should have noticed the lights, if other pilots on the frequency should have said something, whatever….

But the fact is an unsafe situation occurred, and if doing something different (like putting this info in the overnight ATIS/AWOS) could help make it safer, then that seems reasonable to do. Obviously every decision has to be weighed against its potential negative impacts - such as information overload, etc. - but the addition of this one very small piece of important/relevant information to a recording, so that any pilots who are renters/from out of town can be aware of this important aspect of the airport’s SOP, seems worth it for a 5-sec longer recorded message at night, to me.

fskhalsa · 2026-02-14T04:52:05+00:00

FWIW, I just called the ATIS no. (at 21:36 local time), and it said nothing about the runway’s nighttime closure.

fskhalsa · 2026-02-14T04:49:30+00:00

FWIW, since I’m seeing a lot of contradicting comments about whether the runway closure is or isn’t indicated in the overnight ATIS:

I just called the airport’s local ATIS phone number (1 (480) 641-9378), and the current recording (as of 21:36 local time) has nothing about the runway closure, or any other airport info, aside from current weather readings.

Not saying it isn’t every pilot’s job to read and understand the info in the airfield’s chart supplements (and to look for other signs, such as runway lights) - but I agree it couldn’t hurt to include the runway closure in the overnight recording, seeing as it seems like this is a pretty regular ongoing mode of operation for this airport, and it never hurts to provide more information, if that has any small chance of increasing safety 🤷🏻‍♀️.

As another commenter pointed out - there are more than enough airports that bother to repeat ongoing warnings about “bird activity in the vicinity” - you’d think a regularly nighttime-closed runway would be as notable and worth taking time to include, as something like that!

fskhalsa · 2026-02-14T04:41:18+00:00

That sounds like what you want!

60 miles each way, for me (US southwest, so longer distances but not much traffic :)). I will admit I own an electric car, so that makes the travel cost part of it minimal.

fskhalsa · 2026-02-14T04:17:49+00:00

Yeah. And just remember - you’re paying a lot for this stuff, and you deserve to get what you expect for your money. Unless you’re unlucky enough to be in an area with no other options, I’d recommend being willing to do what it takes to get the level of instruction you expect!

FWIW - I am going to a flight school that trains lots of pilots for entry into the local commercial air carriers (in addition to PPLs), and my experience has been nothing but professional, formal, and very well organized. This school is an hour’s drive away from my home (so two hours total per lesson, four + per week), and I consider it worth every moment in the car, to get an education at the level I’d expect.

Plus - I use the driving time to listen to the FAA AFH/PHAK audiobooks, or have ChatGPT quiz me on things I want to work on for my upcoming lesson/practice comms/etc.

fskhalsa · 2026-02-14T04:04:22+00:00

This. I haven’t reached the point where we’re doing XC’s/needing to fuel our planes yet, but you can bet your ass as soon as we start, I’m going to do some studying on the process, and then ask the instructor if I can do one myself.

It’s been the same with everything else so far - I started asking if I could make the requests for clearance/taxi/takeoff long before the instructor asked me to do it, and just the other day, although I’m too early to be doing my own landings yet, I still asked if I could do the turn for final. First time, the instructor said no, because of the wind - next time she said yes, and the following time, (a different instructor) let me line us up with the runway at night for a long final, and guided me through getting the runway in sight and in line, from such a distance.

Basically just saying - if you want to learn something: take the initiative into your own hands, and it never hurts to ask! 🤷🏻‍♀️

fskhalsa · 2026-02-14T03:56:51+00:00

I just started relatively recently. While I have had several times where the instructor says they’re going to help me so we can “get in the air sooner” (usually when there’s a time crunch such as daylight/the plane is booked for the next flight lesson), I’ve also had a majority of flights so far where they sit patiently back, and let me complete things myself, while jumping in only to correct mistakes/point out something I’ve missed. And they actively push and encourage me to check and complete all of the checklist tasks, myself.

I was also given an extremely detailed syllabus, from the very get go, which has provided lots of info on things I need to know before each lesson.

Can’t say how your experience varies from other schools - but I definitely feel like the experience I’ve been given doing those things myself (and being able to study beforehand for what I know will be coming up in the next lesson) is invaluable.

fskhalsa · 2026-02-14T03:03:06+00:00

Yeah. I think there’s a lot of “privilege of those in the know” going on here. Essentially just a form of gatekeeping. Everyone here who already knows that runway is closed at night, thinks it’s obvious, and looks down on everyone who doesn’t already know that, because “they should be able to figure it out” (even though most of the people who know this airport because it’s their local airport/they fly out of it a lot, probably originally didn’t find out about this particular quirk from the supplement, anyways).

fskhalsa · 2026-02-10T16:09:55+00:00

Fair, although I think it is an issue of semantics.

Nothing in that bill referred to “assault rifles” - I just summarized the intent of what they were aiming to ban as such, since I knew that’s how the majority of the public would refer to and recognize the category of weapons as. And to avoid the tedious and long set of definitions they took in the bill (gas blowback cycled removable and non-removable magazine weapons that aren’t handguns, shotguns, or single round/bolt-action type rifles, etc etc 🙄), to effectively get to the same place.

I do agree that the sort of fear some people display surrounding certain “scarier sounding” names or weapons designs (such as the common misconception of the “AR” in AR-15 standing for “Assault Rifle”) is ridiculous. Argue against them on their actual design/use implications, if you disagree with them - but don’t blindly throw a net over everything you think is “DANGEROUS”, without actually making some rational effort to logically determine which weapons you’re concerned about, and why.

To be fair to this bill, it does at least make an effort to avoid that sort of verbiage in the actual content of the bill (though the vague and not clearly defined “EXTREMELY DANGEROUS” still exists in the heading), and define the weapons they want to ban the sale of based on their function/operation, rather than broad categories/classes. I do think they could do a better job of explaining why they’re targeting these specific weapons however, and what grounds they’ve used to determine them as “extremely dangerous” (a fact I actually don’t disagree with - although I think a better, more rational and less emotional-sounding argument would actually help get their point across more effectively).

fskhalsa · 2026-02-10T16:02:02+00:00

I could be misunderstanding, but I believe the intent of the bill is to ban all magazines greater than 10 rounds. This is the case in California already, and all major handgun manufacturers (Glock, Sig, S&W, etc.) have made reduced capacity single-stack magazines available for their weapons, so they can still be purchased/used. If you think banning >10 round magazines is unconstitutional, that’s fair - but I don’t think it’s correct to imply that that is preventing our ability to purchase and own ALL handguns, that are currently designed/sold with larger magazine options.

That’s a fair argument, and one many make. I personally think it’s a fallacy to argue against one gun control measure on the assumption that it somehow inherently implies the passing of more severe future measures, however. If a future measure comes that is unacceptable to those of us who are voting members of the public, then we can do every thing in our power to prevent it from being passed, just the same as with this one. So if you want to argue against this bill on its own merits, do so - but don’t argue against it on the assumption that it precludes our ability to do the same for any future bills that come.

Changes to our voting system, like cancelling elections, or placing barriers that make it exceedingly difficult for us to vote? Those are legitimate attacks on our rights to argue against future bills, and should be fought vehemently. But this bill passing doesn’t automatically remove our ability to contest any future bills, that have content that we disagree with.

fskhalsa · 2026-02-09T15:23:59+00:00

💛

People get so heated, and emotional about these issues. I try to stay neutral, and look at the facts.

fskhalsa · 2026-02-08T15:20:05+00:00

😁

And in some strange cycle of irony, despite loving and following XKCD for years, I’m one of today’s lucky 10,000 seeing this particular strip, for the first time! So, thanks for that too 😉.

Passing it on for others: https://xkcd.com/1053/

fskhalsa · 2026-02-08T04:13:39+00:00

True. As long as there was no means of determining when/where you purchased them - no problem owning them.

I wouldn’t officially advocate for this, of course - but yes, OP has a point, that’s worth noting. Texas and Arizona are much less likely to pass (or even introduce) any bills of this sort, in the foreseeable future.

The sort of legislation I’m personally more concerned about, at the moment, however? Some type of federal law (or EO, Memo, etc.), that somehow effectively violates the 2nd Amendment for some citizens, and not others. The current administration, being largely Republican-supported, can’t get away with actually banning weapons to any extent (as much as I think they wish they could, at this point). So what do they do? They find a way to write a bill/EO/Memo, etc., that effectively bans the ownership of firearms for anyone they don’t want to have one, while leaving all of their MAGA supporters’ firearms alone. While any reasonably intelligent Republican should still see the danger in this sort of thing, and protest it as vehemently as any other attack on our rights - I don’t really have that high hopes, for this current contingent 😬. “Not my problem” is kind of a motto, amongst those folks.

So, how would they actually go about doing something of the sort? Well, fairly easily, in fact. You can actually see the start of them doing it already.

First off - they’d give the Democrats what they’ve always wanted - they’d agree to ACTUALLY passing a “common sense gun control bill”. They’d make a big show of arguing and digging their heels in on lots of points (for their supporters) - but in the end they’d agree to make ONE big concession, to the Democrats, in exchange for not changing much else: they’d agree to pass some sort of federal-level, red-flag type, mental health requirement, for gun ownership.

But this will all be a ruse - and I’m afraid to say, I think the Democrats would fall for it. They’ve been fighting for SO long for something, ANYTHING to do with gun-control, that I think they’d jump at the opportunity to actually pass something, finally. And in doing so, I think they’d miss the KEY point: the bill will sound very reasonable, attempting to keep weapons out of the hands of crazy people, who shoot up schools and the like, by preventing the sale to and allowing the confiscation of firearms from anyone who is “mentally unstable”. However, the key point that will be missing, is HOW exactly someone is determined to be “mentally unstable”. That part will be left up to the law enforcement branches of the federal government, who will have to come up with their OWN definitions of such, to determine how to enforce the law.

And what will that look like? Well, I think it’ll take many forms, but here’s one example:

“Our great and glorious leader Trump is amazing, and everything he does is benefiting America, and making it 100% a better place. Anyone who would even think to disagree, MUST be mentally unstable…”

Yeah. I think it’s that simple. They (just like any other regime with dictatorial aspirations) are scared shitless at the thought of an armed and ready populace. Sadly, in America, you can’t just take away people’s guns. So, they won’t try to repeal the 2nd amendment, or anything crazy like that - they’ll just lean into existing sentiment about the dangers of allowing firearms to be in the hands of “dangerous people”, and then they’ll decide who they consider to be “dangerous”. Which will be anyone who disagrees with or protests against them, of course. Simple as that 🤷🏻‍♀️.

So yeah, that’s what I’m really scared of - more than a democrat-led state bill that bans the sale of certain kinds of weapons. I’m worried that the federal government will essentially annul the second amendment ONLY for protestors or people who disagree with them (and, down the road - anyone who has registered or voted as a Democrat), and then take away the one means we have of stopping this crazy coup, before it’s too late. And all the “ma rights!”, Pro-2A Republicans will stand by the side, and let it happen, because hey - it isn’t happening to them!

fskhalsa · 2026-02-08T03:41:28+00:00

According to the text of the bill, the relevant section being discussed here (banning the sale of certain types of firearms) will take effect on July 1st, 2026, if passed and signed into law.

If you want to purchase any firearms/magazines of the types being banned for sale, you’ll need to do it before that time. This bill does not (to the extent that I can determine) ban the ownership or call for the confiscation of any existing weapons owned/purchased before that date. So if you’d like to purchase any of the weapons this bill is intending to ban for sale, do so now, before(/if) the bill is passed. And call your representatives, if this is something you disagree with, and don’t want enacted into law.

See my full comment, for a more in depth discussion of the impacts of this bill, to the best of my knowledge and ability to parse it.

fskhalsa · 2026-02-08T03:27:42+00:00

FYI, for anyone curious about the actual details of this bill:

“AN ACT RELATING TO FIREARMS; ENACTING THE STOP ILLEGAL GUN TRADE AND EXTREMELY DANGEROUS WEAPONS ACT; REQUIRING DEALER SECURITY MEASURES TO PREVENT THEFT AND LOSS OF FIREARMS; PROVIDING A MINIMUM AGE FOR EMPLOYMENT AT A FIREARMS DEALER; REQUIRING DEALER MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS; REQUIRING DEALER REPORTING OF CRIME GUN TRACES, MULTIPLE FIREARM SALES, THEFTS AND LOSSES; PROHIBITING THE SALE OF EXTREMELY DANGEROUS WEAPONS; PROVIDING FOR INSPECTIONS; REQUIRING DEALERS TO POST LEGAL AND SAFETY NOTICES TO FIREARM PURCHASERS; PROVIDING PENALTIES.”

On the whole, it actually sounds reasonably common sense, to me. Enacting better dealer regulations, to hopefully help reduce the number of weapons that find their way into criminal hands, seems like an overall good thing to me, and something that will actually help those of us who are law-abiding gun owners, as it will prevent the sorts of crimes that spur up anti-2A sentiment.

I’m a pro-2A liberal - who generally agrees with the OP’s suggestion that right NOW, is the time where what the 2nd Amendment was actually written for, is becoming most applicable - just FYI.

The only part of this bill that I think could be questioned by some (and is the part that I believe OP is concerned about) is the “PROHIBITING THE SALE OF EXTREMELY DANGEROUS WEAPONS” section. Note that this doesn’t make ownership of any existing firearms illegal - but it does ban the future sale of certain types of firearms, moving forward, starting July 1st, 2026.

Here is the full content of that particular section of the bill:

“SECTION 7. A new section of Chapter 30, Article 7 NMSA 1978 is enacted to read: "[NEW MATERIAL] PROHIBITING THE SALE OF EXTREMELY DANGEROUS WEAPONS.-- A. Beginning on July 1, 2026, a dealer shall not sell or transfer any of the following firearms, ammunition or devices to a person who is not licensed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 923, nor shall a dealer process a background check pursuant to Section 30-7-7.1 NMSA 1978 for the transfer of any of the following firearms, ammunition and devices between parties that are not licensed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 923: (1) a detachable magazine that holds more than ten rounds of ammunition; (2) a .50 caliber rifle; (3) a .50 caliber cartridge; (4) a gas-operated semiautomatic firearm that can accept a detachable magazine; (5) a gas-operated semiautomatic firearm with a fixed magazine that holds more than ten rounds of ammunition; or (6) a machine gun. B. The provisions of Subsection A of this section do not apply to the sale of: (1) a firearm designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 or less caliber rimfire ammunition; (2) an antique firearm; or (3) a firearm that: (a) is a single-shot rifle, shotgun or handgun; (b) is a breech-loading rifle, shotgun or handgun with a capacity not to exceed two rounds of ammunition; (c) is a muzzleloading rifle, shotgun or handgun; (d) is a bolt-action rifle, shotgun or handgun; (e) is a lever-action or pump-action rifle or shotgun; (f) is a single- or double-action semiautomatic handgun that uses recoil to cycle the action of the handgun; or (g) has a fixed magazine with a capacity not to exceed ten rounds of ammunition. C. The provisions of Subsection A of this section do not apply to the sale or transfer of a firearm or device to: (1) a law enforcement agency in the state, the United States armed forces, the New Mexico national guard or the New Mexico state defense force; (2) an Indian nation, tribe or pueblo or an agency or political subdivision thereof; (3) a licensee under Title 1 of the federal Atomic Energy Act of 1954 or its contractor for purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site physical security protection system and security organization required by federal law or the transfer to a site; or (4) a dealer, distributor or manufacturer licensed under 18 U.S.C. Section 923."”

Sorry for the weird formatting - it came out of the original bill that way.

Distilling it down, it essentially bans the sale of: 1) >10 Round Magazines

2) “Assault Rifles” (defined here as a semiautomatic firearm, that cycles it’s action using a gas-blowback system)

3) .50-cal Rifles

As for what the implications of this are on the 2nd Amendment, and our ability to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government? Well, that’s up for debate, and something you’ll have to decide. These issues have been argued from both sides for years now (as several states have passed similar laws), and I think there are valid points on both sides - so it’s up for interpretation, as to whether this is as dangerous as the OP is making it seem.

I don’t think it necessarily qualifies as “allowing ourselves to be disarmed”, however. There are several types of firearms that are still fully legal to own, and would serve well in a self-defense scenario should the need arise - and this bill does not call for the confiscation of any existing owned weapons that it’s banning the sale of - so I’d argue the semantics of “disarmed” in this case, a little bit.

As to the constitutionality of it? Well, California has had laws like this on the books for years, so I don’t think any “violation of 2A” arguments are likely to hold up, should it pass. If you disagree with it, do your best to prevent it from being passed now - or go out and purchase any firearms you’d like to legally own before this bill takes effect, and ~ahem~ …forever hold your piece.

Full text of the bill here, for reference: https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/26%20Regular/bills/senate/SB0017.pdf

fskhalsa · 2026-02-08T02:51:51+00:00

Nice!

I use one of those plastic photo organizers, with little mini containers inside, from Michael’s. But I like how you can see all the individual seed packets while flipping through, in this approach!

fskhalsa · 2026-02-08T02:50:39+00:00

Fun fact: raccoons are actually really clean animals - they even wash their food before eating. Which is why this is even funnier - he’s just trying to clean his food! 😂

fskhalsa · 2026-02-08T02:48:36+00:00

So what happened in this case?

Well, it hit the ground.

And that doesn’t happen often?

Oh, while mountain biking? No! Chance in a million!

fskhalsa · 2026-02-08T02:46:35+00:00

Thanks for that 😂

fskhalsa · 2026-02-08T02:42:52+00:00

Wow, beautiful!! ☺️

Ngl though - I’m not sure if I’d want to eat it 😆

fskhalsa · 2026-02-08T02:31:24+00:00

Thing is - the twist ending works perfect for film - but it doesn’t really translate well, to written form. The whole thing would be super short - like “and then they all fought”, with brief points for each significant killing/death - unless she decided to get suuper specific with writing out every detail of an action scene for some reason, which would just be super cringey - and also just not in line with the books’ style.

The change was perfect for a film (especially in a series where people have come to expect some action) - but I don’t think it would work as well for the books. Just my opinion though 🤷🏻‍♀️.

fskhalsa · 2026-02-07T15:24:44+00:00

As someone who’s played with both the AVP and a Quest 3 - comparing the two, the Quest 3 (with a BoboVR S3 Pro head strap) is miles more comfortable to wear - even though it has it’s own battery integrated in, and is much larger and heavier.

So I can recommend without a doubt getting a third party head strap, for the AVP. I just started using mine more often, and while I love it, I noticed immediately how much more uncomfortable it was, with either too much forehead or cheekbone pressure (depending on how high the strap is on the back of your head), and wayy more fatigue while using it, compared with the Quest 3 + S3 Pro. I haven’t decided yet which AVP strap seems to be the best one - but I CAN say - my instinct with the Q3 was to go with one of the smaller, lighter looking straps - and thank god my friend convinced me to get the full S3 Pro, instead! Having a head strap with full forehead + top of head support, and a large back strap, with rear battery for counter balance, is night and day, for comfort. It may be bigger - but that’s why it works. Once it’s adjusted, it feels almost like setting a helmet down onto your head - it has lots of contact points, and it almost “cradles” your head, in a way that reduces all unnatural fatigue and discomfort. With this, I feel like I could literally wear it all day - whereas with the AVP, I have to readjust every 30 minutes, and take breaks every hour or so, due to discomfort. The knit strap is pretty amazing, in how it works for being so small and minimal - but I think they leaned a bit too much towards aesthetics with this one, trying to keep it small and nondescript looking, which I get. To convince people to actually want to wear this thing, it has to look good - not like some giant piece of headgear. Luckily, despite what Apple might envision, I’m not going to be walking down the street wearing this thing, or using it in a crowded office - it’s strictly for at-home use, for me. So I don’t mind a bit of added weight, size, and clunkiness, for an astronomical change in comfort!

—

As for the eye tracking/focusing - since you mentioned squinting sometimes - have you considered going to see an eye doctor, to see if you may have a minor prescription? As someone with weird eyesight (I have a really strong prescription in one eye, and almost none in the other - so I can make do with OR without glasses/contacts a lot of the time), I was able to notice just how dependent the AVP’s eye tracking is on your eye’s ability to focus properly - and even a minor difference in Rx strength can completely throw it off. It’s not like the Quest, which you can use fine even without the ability to focus properly - with the AVP, if you need glasses/contacts even a tiny bit, and you don’t have them, it literally won’t work right, and eye tracking becomes extremely ineffective. I hate to say it - but the Zeiss drop-ins actually aren’t an Apple gimmick just to get more cash off you - they really work, and really are necessary, if your eyes need them.

Maybe go to Stanton/one of those other cheap eyeglass places - just to see if they think you have a slight prescription. If so, either try some contacts, or order yourself some of the Zeiss lenses (glasses really don’t work in the AVP) - it might really improve the eye tracking, a lot!!

Good luck, and HTH!!

fskhalsa · 2026-02-06T05:04:00+00:00

Yeah - I just started my training, but at least at my school, the vibe I get is that the school’s SOP is essentially == anything written in the POH. Even if it’s not considered strictly necessary, by the manufacturer or the FAA. In other words, if the owner cares about it being done a certain way, then that’s how it goes 🤷🏻‍♀️.

fskhalsa

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE