Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotati...28incorrect.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_marks#Irony

You've got it backward. I'm explaining these things to help you understand
them.

Ad hominem. I'll keep pointing them out, so you can get an idea of what
they are.

I can only work with what you write.

No common sense inference?

The sky is red, Steven. Red.

As I recall, your complaint was that his failure to depart from the downwind
was the cause of the incident. That clearly was not the case.

My complaint was that he didn't follow local procedures, that he didn't
inform anyone of his actions, and that he put himself on a collision
course with my aircraft such that I was the one forced to take
corrective action.

And that he departed the upwind, not the crosswind as he should have,
and definitely not the downwind.

Yes, and that is not an example.

Heh.

If you weren't assuming that he'd be adhering to a non-required "standard"
practice why are you complaining?

Expect != assume.

CTAF is a frequency, not a faculty.

CTAF is a faculty of the airport. It's arbitrary definition anyway.

Good question. Let's get back to "standard". Please provide an official
FAA definition of "standard" before we move on.

Please provide an official FAA definition of "unecessary" before we move on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw-man

Why do they assume traffic won't be there, in that direction, at that
altitude, at that speed? Didn't you say assuming was bad?

Expect != assume. That's two strikes.

How does one make a snide inference?

I couldn't explain it to you with three linguistics professors, a jar of
peanut butter and a hungry badger.

Such as?

"Then you should have quoted him the right-of way rules (planes below
have right over those above, planes on approach have right over those in
the pattern), and told him that you were taking your CLEARANCE and using
the RUNWAY."

Nothing wrong with reminding him of the rules.


"You'll get lots of people that, for example, won't depart the pattern on
the
downwind..."

Will you?


And there was that cryptic reference to "descent vectors".

I already explained that one.

Yes, we're relying on Jay's statements about the spacing. If the spacing
was as he reported then there was sufficient spacing.

Which report are you using? The initial? The revised? Or the one you
coerced with ad hominem attacks on his piloting skill?

The problem is his anecdote does not support his conclusion.

Then if it is false as a premise in one argument, how can you turn it
around and use it as a pillar of truth in yours?

Logic begs the question.

That was an unreasonable expectation on Jay's part. I can easily make the
argument that the controller does not share the bulk of the responsibility
in this case to by demonstrating that the controller did not make an error.

Please by all means do so. I would like to see the physical proof you
have no doubt obtained in this case, the objective and nonpartisan fact
which will prove the correct spacing and correct actions taken by both
parties.

TheSmokingGnu