Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
So it's strictly a matter of choice then, it's not "standard".

I suggest you look up the use of quotation marks to denote items which
are understood to be agreed upon but are not strictly law.

For example, if all the boats in the pond drove in one direction
(clockwise, say), it would be "standard" practice to also drive in that
direction. It's not The Letter of His Lord's Most Highest Dread
Sovereign Law, but it's a generally recognized practice performed and
expected of pilots within the vicinity.

Why not in this particular instance?

Factors contributing included wind drift, distraction, and a very busy
section of sky.

SO WHAT? IT'S ASSUMED THAT SINCE HE DEPARTED AFTER YOU HE KNOWS WHERE YOU
ARE AND IS PROPERLY AVOIDING YOU.

Assume? You're asking a pilot to /ASSUME/ traffic sees and avoids me?
The only things I assume are that the Earth will still turn and that
gravity will still work. Everything else is out the window until I see
it happening.

Where in the FARs, pray tell, does it say I should "assume" that traffic
sees and avoids me?

Where does it say he can ignore the use of a clearly functioning CTAF
facility?

IF YOU TURN CROSSWIND AND HE STAYS UPWIND
YOU'RE DIVERGING. DIVERGING TRAFFIC IS NOT A FACTOR.

See the twice above.

No, acknowledging a report involves just making receipt known. By itself
it's just unnecessary chatter.

The FARs do not qualify what constitutes "unnecessary" chatter. Care to
cite a source for that?

It's one of those darn "standard" procedures again.

But by then above the pattern and thus not a factor.

Not to the pattern traffic, no. A gigantic factor to the departing and
arriving area traffic, though.

I have to ask because it's not standard terminology.

I hear it used all the time. The "areas of likely traffic ingress or
egress".

You're wrong. Believe me, I am the worlds foremost authority on why I do
anything.

Heh. Freud would be proud.

(I, of course, know better)

You might want to look up those terms.

I know what they mean. Do you?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=accost

Especially:

1. to confront boldly.
2. to approach ... aggressively, as with a demand or request.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad%20hominem

Especially:

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather
than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.


I attacked nobody's intelligence or piloting skill.

Bull****. Just in this post:

You seem rather new to the flying game. Student?

And, to your inquiry, no. I hold a full PPL, unlike certain individuals.


I said Jay holds an
incorrect understanding of Class D airspace and ATC and he hold controllers
responsible for pilot's actions.

You first questioned the objectivity of a stated subjective, and then
proceeded to /accost/ Jay with incessant babble about the logic of said
statement (of which there was none stated in the first).

After which, you used words to the effect that he was not qualified to
use controlled airspace and that he should avoid such, that his piloting
skill was not up to snuff, and that the situation was entirely of his
own creation.

You attacked him for the articulation of the situation, not the
situation itself. Grammatical prowess is not a condition for holding a
pilot's license, nor ever will be.

You, sir, are the very definition of a pedantic ass, and may go fold
your attitude until it's all pointy corners and shove it where ever a
troll procreates from. I'll have no more to do with you or this
absolutely silly line of inquiry.

TheSmokingGnu