Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
By itself, there's nothing wrong with departing upwind.

And so the merry-go-round turns. Yes, we've already turned the dead
horse to puree on this one.

There is a problem when departing upwind puts you on a collision course
with departing traffic. There, that's all. There's no more point here
for you to argue.

CTAF is not a faculty of the airport. It is a frequency, nothing more.

Pedantic, and useless to try to explain to you the subtleties of the
English language.

You got the rule wrong.

Did not.

Sure.

So how was the statement incorrect?

You didn't.

I did, you just didn't read it.

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

So, the subjective judgement is now usable as objective premise?

Maybe you should apply for the Nobel, inventing new methods of logic as
you do.

I have no physical proof

And so you cannot make physical claims.

Jay's statements
indicate there was sufficient spacing and do not suggest any controller
error.

Jay's statements specifically point out controller error to properly
manage the spacing between aircraft. The failure of the controller to
properly amend the 172's clearance to include either a long landing or a
continued roll-out caused the incident in the first place.

Jay's statements also profer that spacing was sufficient only until the
172, acting on the controller's statement (or lack thereof) stopped on
the runway (also not wrong or illegal in and of itself). It was the
controller's inherent responsibility to recognize the developing
situation and amend the clearance, even if it's not a required function
of his station. Jay did all he could to both get the 172 in front of
him, and maintain the spacing previously established by him. Without the
controller's intervention, the 172 was free to cause an incident with
sequenced traffic.

To say nothing of how the controller improperly sequenced the traffic in
the first place. If Jay had simply been allowed, as he was cleared, to
be #1, it wouldn't have mattered if the 172 stopped on the runway,
dropped a tent, and had a picnic.

And, since the argument now has nothing to it other than to turn unto
itself ad nauseum, I'm done. Save your sycophantic meanderings for
someone else who doesn't care.

TheSmokingGnu