"Kev" wrote in message
oups.com...
I've been online in some form or
another for over 30 years, and he's one of the most polite and
forgiving posters I've seen (albeit extremely hard headed), considering
the bile thrown at him by some crabby old men and women here.

Those latter people, who think they can dictate whom the rest of us
converse with, should be ashamed of themselves. I've lost a lot of
respect for some of the regulars here, because they've shown just how
full of themselves they are.

I think he's a good test of how well we can explain things. If we
can't convince someone like him, who's very interested in aviation, how
flying works... then what chance do we have with people who want a TFR
everywhere?

You're right that the schoolyard taunts directed at mxsmanic are an
embarrassment to this group (as is the credential-mongering that some people
have resorted to).

The problem, though, is that while much of mxsmanic's discussion is
reasonable (hence, my initial defense of his participation here), much of it
seems instead to be deliberately provocative (which still does not warrant
uncivil responses, but does explain some of the frustration that erupts).

Consider the following assertions he made in the recent "Flying patterns"
thread:

"In IFR, you don't have to look out the window for other aircraft. You
have help from controllers."

"By definition, if you are flying by instruments, you aren't looking
out the window. ATC provides separation."

" Most IFR flights are NOT in IMC.
But IFR means that they are conducted as if they were in IMC,
irrespective of actual conditions."

"You follow their instructions, therefore they are providing
separation."

"Show me where I said that you don't have to look out the window."

"A controller may ask if you have visual contact with traffic. If you
do, you can say so, and thereby assume responsibility for maintaining
separation with it. If you don't see it, you cannot maintain
separation, so you are not responsible for doing so."

"If you are flying IFR, by definition, you may or may not be able to
see other aircraft. If you can see aircraft, you can maintain visual
separation; otherwise you cannot."

"By definition, if you are flying IFR, you don't have to be able to see or
visually maintain separation from anything, unless you implicitly
agree to do so by acknowledging visual contact."

" Where are you getting your information?
I read it, but I don't remember where."

"If you are flying IFR in VMC, VFR traffic is required to see you, but
you are not required to see VFR traffic (or any other traffic)."

In response to his earliest posts above, many of us explained the reality of
IFR in VMC, and provided him with the relevant (free, online) references.
But his stream of obviously, dangerously false assertions continued
unabated. He never tried to cite any factual basis for his claims, but did
phrase them as (insistent, authoritative) statements of fact, which (many of
us felt) required us to keep rebutting him in order to preserve the
integrity of the aviation advice presented here.

He did not appear to be making an effort to engage in responsible,
good-faith discussion in this instance and others. In some threads, he
behaves more reasonably, which may give you a different impression of his
participation.

--Gary