"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message
...

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


By itself, there's nothing wrong with departing upwind.



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


CTAF is not a faculty of the airport. It is a frequency, nothing more.
There may be a UNICOM at the airport that operates on CTAF. CTAF is defined
in the P/CG as:
COMMON TRAFFIC ADVISORY FREQUENCY (CTAF)? A frequency designed for the
purpose of carrying out airport advisory practices while operating to or
from an airport without an operating control tower. The CTAF may be a
UNICOM, Multicom, FSS, or tower frequency and is identified in appropriate
aeronautical publications.



Nothing wrong with reminding him of the rules.


You got the rule wrong.



Will you?


Sure.



I already explained that one.


You didn't.



Which report are you using? The initial? The revised?


The one where Jay says he was 1/2 mile from the threshold when the 172
landed 25% down the 6000' runway.



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.


I have no physical proof, I'm relying on Jay's statements. Jay's statements
indicate there was sufficient spacing and do not suggest any controller
error.