"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message
...

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.


It seems you're determined not to understand. So be it.



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


You're not in a position to explain language to anyone.



Did not.


Yes you did. You said the rules give planes below the right-of-way over
planes above. FAR 91.113(g) says aircraft on final have the right of way.



So how was the statement incorrect?


It implied that not departing the pattern on the downwind was an error.



I did, you just didn't read it.


I can't read what you don't write.



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.


Logic is not new, it's just new to you.



And so you cannot make physical claims.


I'm not. I'm saying if the distances provided by Jay are accurate the
spacing was sufficient. What part of that are you having trouble with?



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.


No, the incident was caused by the 172's unexpected stop on the runway.



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).


Not illegal, definitely wrong.



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.


He did, when he saw the 172 stop he sent Jay around.



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.


If the 172 hadn't stopped on the runway Jay would have been allowed, as he
was cleared, to land. There is no clearance to be #1, #2, etc.

Sounds like you're about as inexperienced with ATC as Jay is.