On Sep 13, 1:44 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
Best of luck in your "Cessna pilot training program."

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:12:08 -0000, Richard Carpenter
wrote in
.com:
[...]

To think that your opinion would be superior to those regulations,
without you even bothering to expend the effort to consult them, seems
the height of blind hubris to me.

First off, if everyone meticulously poured over all relevant FAA
guidelines and came to their own conclusions prior to posting their
thoughts here for feedback, two things would happen:

1) As you mention, the signal to noise ratio would very likely
increase, but only at the cost of actual productive discussion.

So you find explicitly stated uninformed opinion contributes to
productive discussion?

You bet I do. There are words to describe an environment where
discussion of ideas that may be contrary to established rule are
discouraged - few of them are positive.

I find it reveals a mind that is too lazy to become informed.

It can, I suppose, but not necessarily.

The "knuckleheads" will still be showing their "knuckleheadedness".

If the readership tolerates such, there is no question that it will
continue. Usenet is built upon self-governance after all.

I agree. However, what I *do* dispute is the claim that this is one of
those instances.

2) Many misinterpretations of FAA rules and established protocols
would occur, as people would, in the interests of avoiding any
incidental offenses to the sensibilities of hard-liners such as
yourself, creating unecessary risks as the pilots proceed to operate
under their own, possibly mistaken, understanding of established code.
This, IMHO, is not worth the Usenet utopia for which would strive.

I'm having some difficulty parsing that "sentence." But without
researching the governing regulations, how can one intelligently
discuss them?

Basically through experience. Besides, you keep claiming the OP came
in here and started spouting misinformation. It looked a *lot* more to
me like he was stating opinion - a disagreement with how a particular
situation was handled, whether it was according to regs or not.

The point is, that maybe some people , and maybe you're included in this
group, should not just blindly assume that because something is written in
a book that is is almighty and the absolute very best way to do things.

Without even bothering to consult the regulations, how can you
possibly be qualified to pass judgment on what others assume or not?

Why would such prejudicial inclinations even be expected?

Huh? You find the expectation that the author of an article perform
some research before publishing it to be a "prejudicial inclination?"
I believe it is an airman's responsibility to be aware of the
regulations and orders governing aviation. If that's "a "prejudicial
inclination" in your opinion, than so be it.

Prejudicial inclinations in this case would be the tendancy to assume
everything in the FAA regs is undeniably correct and illustrating of
best practice and above any sort of review. The mere fact that is is a
law/regulation doesn't automatically mean it's the best solution in
all situations.

Good Lord,

Oh, now you're going to invoke your deity....

Right. That's exactly what that meant. Now you're just being
argumentative.

I can only imagine if my CFI were to follow your line of reasoning on
every uninformed question I might think to ask.

Questions are not uninformed opinion. Why do you raise that issue?

The thread subject was phrased as a question. Most of the OP's initial
post was based on concepts that began with something to the effect of,
"How does the controller know..." or "...it doesn't sound right
logically."

Sure, there is a rec.aviation.student group, but, gee, where do I go once
I receive my certificate? Would you suggest that the newly-certified pilot
be left to make their own sense out of FAA regulations??

Talk about "textbook non-sequitur" ...

Not at all. This question pertained directly to the execution of
normal flight procedures as they may or may not be dictated by the
FAA. The only leg to stand on here is the fact that the OP didn't
track down the specific article addressing the scenario in question,
even though it wouldn't really be relevant, anyway, as they were at
the same time expressing their disagreement with that particular reg.
Take a look back. It's been illustrated clearly that the ATC followed
protocol, so the question has been answered. That still leaves the
point that the OP disagreed with that protocol, at least at first
thought.

Basically, getting bent out of shape just because someone asks a
question about or takes issue with any regulation that is clearly
spelled out in the FAA regs is pretty judgemental on your part,
whether they looked it up or not.

I suggesting that authors make an effort to research the subject
before offering their opinion. Do you find that unreasonable?

Suggesting they do? Not really. Being so snarky about it? Yeah, pretty
much.

I offered a logical approach that made sense to me to be a much more
effective catchall for runway incursion type accidents.

To be so presumptuous as to think your idea would be superior to the
existing regulation, without even knowing what it is (and so
admitting), reveals a certain self-assured certainty reminiscent of
the only US president to hold office by virtue of Judicial Department
decision, who consulted a "higher source" to reach the decision to
plunge our nation into an unjustified, $3-billion per week war for at
least the next decade. Thankfully, the scientific mind consults
reality (not his imaginary friend) before reaching a conclusion. And
so should airmen.

Textbook non-sequitur.

You are entitled to your opinion, as am I.

Ain't Usenet grand?

Newps, demonstrating his clear understanding of both sound logic and in
depth knowledge of the regulations as well as real life operations has shed
light on how it works in the real world. So it seems clear to me that
there's always a compromise , if you do things the absolute safest way ,
you lose a lot in terms of delays and inefficient use of time. but if you
are too loose with the regs , then you start having more accidents
statistically. So the FAA has come up with what is probably the best
balance between the two to keep us moving and keep the potential for
accidents at a low level. So the way things are , I can see sequences of
several things that come together which would still cause an accident.. for
example, the pilot in the light aircraft leans for taxi and accidently
stalls the engine on the runway at the same time the heavy with a newbie
first officer has a checklist problem that gets the captain funbling around
the panel as he starts the roll and the tower controller spills his coffee.
etc. etc. My proposal would probably keep us away from accidents caused by
this scenario , but , it would also slow us down greatly in day to day
normal operations.... so we have to decide after crunching some numbers
that the probability chance that all these bad things will come together for
an accident does not balance the benefit we get on a regular basis. So I
guess the moral of the story is that the law of large numbers says that
given enough time there WILL be accidents caused by various different
scenarios like the one I described above so PAY ATTENTION to what you're
doing at all times.

As a certificated airman, you should be aware, that it is your
responsibility to operate your aircraft safely at all times. That's
why FAA regulations make room for the PIC to deviate from regulations
when his judgment dictates it. If you are only coming to the
realization of that responsibility now, I must conclude that you
haven't too much experience yet, or ...

You said it yourself - "when his judgement dictates it". Yet when a
pilot comes here seeking clarity and feedback on just such a judgement
call, both on their part and on the part of the ATC at the time, you
chide them?

Please provide an example of my words that you feel supports that
allegation.

Well, just for one example: "To think that your opinion would be
superior to those regulations, without you even bothering to expend
the effort to consult them, seems the height of blind hubris to me."

I'll repeat. Why do automatically label a person unjustified in
voicing the opinion that a given regulation might not be as well
thought out as it could be, merely because they didn't look it up? The
fact that it *is* specified in the regs and they didn't go find it
really has little to do with their opinion that there may be a better
way, right or wrong.

My comments were regarding stated uninformed opinion, not an author
"seeking clarity and feedback."

So, what you're saying is that a person shouldn't voice an opinion
unless they've gone to a level of effort that you deem appropriate.

Here's the text of the offending
article so that you can see that there was no real request for
clarity; there was effectively a proposal by the author to amend FAA
Order 7110.65 without a clear understanding of the responsibilities of
air traffic controllers and pilots in command:


Message-ID:
How does the controller know you won't have a problem and not get
off the runway ?
I'm not sure what the regulations technically say about it but it
doesn't sound right logically.
-- A better policy would be to give position & hold until the other
plane is actually in the process of turning off, then when some
clear action toward the turnoff is commenced, anticipate it as
cleared and give a takeoff clearance.

Like I said. The subject, itself, was phrased as a question. The OP
stated that "it didn't sound right logically". Looks like stated
opinion inviting feedback to me.

Air traffic controllers issue their clearances based on their
judgment, and they amend them based on their judgment. The PIC uses
his certified visual acuity to assure that the takeoff path is clear
before commencing takeoff. It's simple. It works. And it emphasizes
the crucial role of situational awareness incumbent on the PIC.

I'm not saying I disagree with you on either the letter of the reg or
it's validity - only on your assertion that the OP's opinion isn't
valid merely because he didn't confirm the existance of the reg in the
first place. He wasn't disputing that. He clearly stated that he
didn't know if that was according to reg or not. He merely stated that
he didn't feel it *should* be.

If the OP's suggested policy thesis were to be spread among the
existing regulations, the increases in separation requirements in the
misguided attempt to increase safety, and resulting delays would make
the National Airspace System unworkable.

No it wouldn't.

At what point would YOU implement pilot judgment in lieu of failsafe
operations? As long as humans are involved in the decision making
process, it's inevitable that compromises are made.

Sure is. What's your point?

I'd say that hubris is at fault here, but not on the part
of the one seeking enlightenment.

One does not seek enlightenment through proselytizing uninformed
opinion.

Like you said yourself, we're all entitled to an opinion. You just
don't get to decide if it has to be correct or not.

Too many airmen act as though piloting is an inconsequential "hobby"
worthy of no more concern than a game of Chess. In my opinion, if the
act of becoming a pilot didn't change an airman's life, s/he has not
fully appreciated the responsibility expected of him by the FAA, his
passengers, his fellow airmen, and the public over whom he navigates.
A blasé attitude toward regulations reveals a lack of appreciation
for that responsibility.

Wow. Did you have to file a flight plan before making a leap of that
magnitude? Seriously. Did you honestly take the OP's post as a slap in
the face of the FAA and GA in general??

I believe the OP fails to appreciate the wisdom contained in
regulations honed by decades of experience.

Another leap. Disagreement with one concept does not indicate a
disregard of them all.

Over the past couple of decades, the level of cognitive, informed
discourse in this newsgroup has declined to where now there are many
who feel that inane, prattling chit-chat (I'm accusing you of this.)
is appropriate here. Due to that influx of noise, it appears that
many newly among the readership of this newsgroup have very low
expectations for participation in this forum. These lowered standards
lead to further lowering standards, and most importantly, drive away
those with valuable experience and insights to share. After all, who
want's to who want's to "cast his pearls" among those unworthy of
them?

Really??

You find it surprising?

No, "really??" as in "you're kidding me, right?"

"Unworthy"?

Serious airmen take airmanship seriously. Those who don't are
unworthy of being an airman.

Who said he doesn't take it seriously? You're really spinning this one
hard.

There are many different standards that can decline for a community such
as this.

To which specific "community" are you referring, the community of
airman, the readership of this newsgroup, the participants in Usenet,
...?

This newsgroup mainly, but it can certainly be applied to a wider
scope.

I might point out fellowship, civil discourse and a healthy, on-going
desire to both learn and teach as appropriate being right up there near
the top of the list.

Why do you feel that it is appropriate for the standards of
"fellowship, civil discourse and a healthy, on-going desire to both
learn and teach" to decline. (If that wasn't what you meant to say,
perhaps you can rephrase your statement.)

Read it again. That's not what I said.

*http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...air_traffic_or....

3-9-5. ANTICIPATING SEPARATION
Takeoff clearance needs not be withheld until
prescribed separation exists if there is a reasonable
assurance it will exist when the aircraft starts takeoff
roll.

3-9-6. SAME RUNWAY SEPARATION
Separate a departing aircraft from a preceding
departing or arriving aircraft using the same runway
by ensuring that it does not begin takeoff roll until:
a. The other aircraft has departed and crossed the
runway end or turned to avert any conflict. (See
FIG 3-9-1.) If you can determine distances by
reference to suitable landmarks, the other aircraft
needs only be airborne if the following minimum
distance exists between aircraft: (See FIG 3-9-2.)
1. When only Category I aircraft are involved-
3,000 feet.
2. When a Category I aircraft is preceded by a
Category II aircraft- 3,000 feet.
3. When either the succeeding or both are
Category II aircraft- 4,500 feet.
4. When either is a Category III aircraft-
6,000 feet.
5. When the succeeding aircraft is a helicopter,
visual separation may be applied in lieu of using
distance minima.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"...if there is a reasonable assurance it will exist when the aircraft
starts takeoff roll."

You could have stopped right there and had all the topic you needed
for discussion.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Did you notice, that I had
posted the regulations in a follow up article in this message thread
previous to the in question?

No. I'm saying you didn't have to quote the entire reg when the mere
inclusion of a term such as "reasonable assurance" opens it up to
interpretation. Are you just trying to be obtuse?

"Reasonable assurance" is nothing if not subjective.

You seem to have a firm grasp of the obvious. Is there a reason you
mention that?

Yes. The point is evidently lost on you. The regs aren't some exact
black and white no questions asked doctrine. As they are open to
interpretation, they are also open to debate.

I really don't mean to over-step my bounds or imply a higher level of
knowledge or experience than I possess, but this just seem to me to be
more of an issue of social skills, than whether or not a particular
point of discussion is justified.

It's not either.

You claim to have "been around the Usenet block a time or two,"
therefore you are probably familiar with newsgroup charters. Here's
the charter that was hammered out and agreed upon for
rec.aviation.piloting"

From: Geoff Peck )
Subject: CHARTER: rec.aviation.piloting
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting

The charter of rec.aviation.piloting is:

************************************************** *****************
* Information pertinent to pilots of general aviation aircraft
* which would not fall into one of the other non-misc
* rec.aviation groups. Topics include, but are not limited to
* flying skills, interesting sights, destinations, flight
* characteristics of aircraft, unusual situations, handling
* emergencies, working with air traffic control, international
* flights, customs and immigration, experiences with
* ground support facilities, etc.
************************************************** *****************

I call your attention to the first word of the newsgroup charter:
INFORMATION. Uninformed opinion is not information.


Perhaps not in this context, but it can most certainly facilitate the
passing on of such. At the very least it can be considered a
solicitation for informed and "more correct" information. As you more
specifically dictate, of course.

--
Rich