On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 18:21:05 -0700, Mark Hansen wrote:

On 10/04/09 18:00, C Gattman wrote:
On Oct 4, 5:12 pm, Mark Hansen wrote:

For crying out loud, Allan - the man is admitting he was wrong. That's a pretty hard thing to do. Why do you want to make it even harder?

Chris: My hat's off to you. You've been a great contributor to the forums and I hope you stick around. There aren't too many "normal"
folks left :-(

Thanks, Mark. I received a phone call at home from the Renton FSDO
last week:

"Mr. Gattman, somebody forwarded us a copy of a discussion that was
posted on the internet. We want to make sure you understand the
definition of a runway incursion..." One minute I'm making coffee and
the next minute I'm on a conference call with the FAA.

I said "Wow, that's kind of creepy, but, I'm glad you called because I
sent you e-mail and left voicemail about three weeks ago trying to
clear this up..."

Everything went fine from there. I asked again for the definition of a
Surface Incident and its source, and within a day or two, I received a
very pleasant e-mail and useful information. Over the phone he briefly
explained how the runway area is measured. (My notes are around here
somewhere.) They were courteous and very helpful and I have shared
this information with the local FBO and instructors.

One problem, I fear, is that whoever forwarded it to the FSDO may have
inadvertently included another flight instructor's comments indicating
he didn't have much respect for the FSDO types that were often ATPs
who couldn't get a job, that those guys often washed out of ATC but
not the other way around, etc. I really don't think the FAA would
appreciate instructors or their own employees out here casting
disparaging remarks about their office or making it sound like they're
a bunch of washouts or flunkies, or otherwise calling into question
their credibility or authority, especially on a student pilot forum. I
have chosen not to bring this to their attention.

Well, I'm sure whoever that was, they have their own reasons for doing
so, and I'm just as sure it has nothing to do with safety :-(
But I'm also sure they felt they were doing a service for the common
good of all humanity ;-)

I sent it and why not? It was for safety, common good, education and to
point out this resource called Usenet to the FAA cyberdummies.

All winkers ( from you aside, why didn't you?

I think the important lesson to be had here is that even when getting
information from an authoritative source, it's still being provided by
a Human Being, which like the rest of us, is susceptible to errors and/or
mistakes.


Be careful what you say out here, everybody.

Always good advice.

Best Regards Chris (and others),

Be careful of what? I missed ti, what exactly is there to be afraid of?