![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jim Logajan wrote:
Probably none...but if the issuing authority calls a piece of paper or plastic a "certificate", why would anyone call it something else? In your case, I think pedantry. Or ICAO compliance, although I doubt this was the reason. Convention on Inernational Civil Aviation Annex 1 - Personnel Licensing |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jim Logajan wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: But it doesn't explain why anyone would consider the unauthorized presence on a taxiway in the US to be a runway incursion because the FAA definition of runway incursion has never included taxiways. Probably because the FAA manages to contradict itself on what constitutes a runway and a taxiway. Consider "Case 1" on page B-1 of the 2008 Runway Safety Report: http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_s...RSReport08.pdf "Although he is not on the runway, the aircraft's nose is across the hold-short line, usually 175 feet from the runway. A runway incursion has occurred since separation rules require that a runway be clear of any obstacle before an aircraft can land or take off on that runway." So here we have an FAA document saying in the first sentence that example aircraft B was _not_ on the runway. In fact it indicates aircraft B's nose could be as far as 175 feet from the runway. But in the second sentence it says a runway incursion happened anyway because aircraft B _was_ on the runway! In order for me to make sense of those two sentences, either the definition of what constitutes a runway has to change between them or the definition has to contain a non-trivial conditional. If they said the runway was that portion past the hold-short line then their discussion wouldn't contradict itself (on the other hand, what would one then call 175 feet of pavement between the hold-short line and the runway proper in their example other than a "taxiway?") The second sentence does not say a runway incursion happened anyway because aircraft B was on the runway. It says, "A runway incursion has occurred since separation rules require that a runway be clear of any obstacle before an aircraft can land or take off on that runway." The aircraft had crossed the hold-short line, which put it in the Runway Safety Area, a protected surface. Since a Runway Incursion is defined as "any occurrence at an aerodrome involving the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle or person on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and takeoff of aircraft", the aircraft's incorrect presence in the Runway Safety Area constitutes a Runway Incursion. Runway Safety Areas are explained on page C-13, you obviously did not read the entire document. Based on the evidence so far, I have no confidence that you know (or the FAA actually has) a consistent definition of "runway," "taxiway," or "runway incursion." You might have greater confidence if you bothered to read fully and attempted to understand these documents. It's clear to me you're Googling keywords in an attempt to support a predetermined, and incorrect, position. So if you could stop insulting others until you or they collectively get your acts together, it would be appreciated. Otherwise you come across (as you have put it) as a "wacko." I've insulted nobody. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
C Gattman wrote:
On Sep 19, 5:46 am, "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "Bloviating gasbag", "pompous-ass newsgroup addict", "holier-than-thou attitude". I'm sure you can't see the hypocrisy in your message. You wrote: "I did not insult you" and then IN THE VERY SAME POST you wrote: "There's nothing at all professional about you, your attitude makes you unfit to teach." Why did you lie when you said you didn't insult me, when you said I was "big on ego and short on knowledge", insult me again, and then expect me to respect you at all? Those aren't insults. I posted them AFTER you demonstrated an unprofessional attitude that renders you unfit to teach. It was you that made an issue of credentials and insisted an unauthorized presence on a taxiway was a runway incursion even after documentation had been posted proving it wasn't, thus demonstrating that your'e "long on ego and short on knowledge". (If you're qoing to quote me, please quote me accurately.) I don't expect you to respect me, I don't care if you respect me, I place no value on your respect. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 21, 2:44*pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote: I don't expect you to respect me, I don't care if you respect me, I place no value on your respect. I wager that line figuring on someone's sig in a few years ![]() Ramapriya |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 17, 10:09*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Sorry gents, but this is getting needlessly heated and unfairly insulting.. Jim, Normally I agree with you but the above was not unfairly insulting. Below my name is earlier in this thread when I questioned Gattman. Not sure how you feel about instructors saying "becauese I am an instructor" being an answer to a request for source of information, even by word of mouth, but that is not representative of a good instructor in my eyes. His response to me was very insulting especially when I provide a FAA reference and he had nothing tangible to support his position.. I would hope good quality instructors would provide IN WRITING something they are trying to teach to back up their statements. Gattman did not do this at least for my initial questioning nor would I want him as my CFI with that kind of attitude. I am not a CFI but that kind of response "because I am instructor" doesn't cut it when a student challenges his or her position. They should be ready to say, I don't know but I will LOOK UP the appropriate reference and give it to the student, not just say "I am instructor" especially in a student forum. ALLEN"s question. Steven and I gave you the FAA source "read on the internet" surely you can reciprocate? http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/as a reminder. Otherwise, why would your word be of higher probative value then the FAA website? (GATTMAN replied) Because I'm an instructor and I brought it up on the student forum I feel obliged to "reciprocate" and clarify for other readers. Apparently, telling you what I saw happen has no value to you so clearly you don't respect my word. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 09/20/09 22:28, Mike Ash wrote:
As to why you'd call it someone else, if it looks like a license, walks like a license, and waddles like a license, I'm going to call it a "license". It's easier to say and much more widely understood. Do you refer to your car as a "motor vehicle"? That's what the authority calls it, after all.... Hmmm. I've referred to my certificate as a certificate to aviation- knowledgeable and non-aviation-knowledgeable folks alike and have never been asked "what is a certificate". Even though I assume some didn't know that what we have is called a certificate, none found it necessary to ask me to clarify what I was referring to. Perhaps I just run in smaller circles :-) Best Regards, -- Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot Cal Aggie Flying Farmers Sacramento, CA |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Robert Moore wrote:
C Gattman wrote Ah, I see. So everybody is wrong but you. You're attacking professional pilots, instructors, controllers and FAA representatives credentials, but, strangely, you've nothing to offer about your own credential. Chris...you've really stepped on it this time. In the 12 or so years that I have been a contributor to RAP, I have never known Steven McNicoll to be wrong. He is the without doubt, the most knowledgeable Air Traffic Controller that I have ever encountered. In my 50 years of flying, I have had occaison to deal with both local and national FAA offices in many capacities from Flight Instructor to Managing a couple of Part 141 Flight Training Centers to Director of Flight Operations for International Jet Air Carriers. I have had very little respect for the FSDO types who, often are there simply because they can't get a job flying for an Air Carrier. I have kept quiet in this discussion before now because I had erronously assummed that you were aware of Steven's qualifications and were just making an ass of yourself for some strange enjoyment. Now... I really do think that you owe Steven a huge apology. Bob Moore ATP ASMEL B-707 B-727 L-188 Flight Instructor ASEL IA Ground Instructor ADV INST USN S-2F P-2V P-3B PanAm (retired) I am glad you said that before I got to answer. I have learned from Steven's responses and subject knowledge. In the past I have even emailed directly to him on questions I had and got good answers. Now, I will admit, Steven can come across a little sharp on his responses, but I have learned to listen anyway. -- Regards, Ross C-172F 180HP Sold ![]() KSWI |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 21, 6:23*am, BeechSundowner wrote:
Not sure how you feel about instructors saying "becauese I am an instructor" being an answer to a request for source of information, You have taken my words completely out of context. His response to me was very insulting especially when I provide a FAA reference and he had nothing tangible to support his position.. Awfer... are you saying I didn't quote sources? Why, McNicoll corrected one of them. How'd he do that if I offered "nothing tangible"? What in hell is going on out here? I am not a CFI but that kind of response "because I am instructor" doesn't cut it when a student challenges his or her position. * What I said was: Because I'm an instructor and I brought it up on the student forum I feel obliged to "reciprocate" and clarify for other readers. I don't see how you could interpret that as "I'm right because I am an instructor." My point was that as an instructor I feel obligated to clarify in a case where I say something and somebody challenges it or asks for clarification. If I say something incorrect or, in reply, you say something in correct, I feel obligated to sort it out rather than have one fallacy or another (mine or yours) ending the discussion. Previously and otherwise, I'd have simply told a few people out here to go **** up a rope. The next thing I said was: "Apparently, telling you what I saw happen has no value to you so clearly you don't respect my word." To clarify, that means there's no regulation or official definition that says I heard an FBO consultant tell me that tower said there were two runway incursions reported that day. I can't provide anything "tangible" without divulging people's information in the internet who may not appreciate it. I'm starting to think that if I saw a C-172 accident, somebody would take issue with me. (Some people insist it's a CE-172, when I'll I'm saying is, I saw the goddam plane crash.) Our competitor just had their third R22 accident in about a month yesterday. Unfortunately, the last one crashed and burned with the student and instructor onboard. Let's keep things in perspective here. I have more important things to worry about in my job than what somebody on the usenet thinks of me, having never met me, and I have lots of better things to do than rifle through the internet looking for "taxiway incursion" definitions or trying to make sure that somebody isn't seeming to look for ways to take my words out of context. Guys...everybody. Stop picking fights where there are none. If you disagree with something somebody says, say so and ask for clarification or find a constructive way to disagree. It's perfectly okay to say "I think you're wrong, and here's why," but, you don't have to be a dick about it. Otherwise, the forum will continue to devolve into flamewars and spam as it has for the last years. -c |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Mark Hansen wrote: On 09/20/09 22:28, Mike Ash wrote: As to why you'd call it someone else, if it looks like a license, walks like a license, and waddles like a license, I'm going to call it a "license". It's easier to say and much more widely understood. Do you refer to your car as a "motor vehicle"? That's what the authority calls it, after all.... Hmmm. I've referred to my certificate as a certificate to aviation- knowledgeable and non-aviation-knowledgeable folks alike and have never been asked "what is a certificate". Even though I assume some didn't know that what we have is called a certificate, none found it necessary to ask me to clarify what I was referring to. Perhaps I just run in smaller circles :-) How do you know they got the right meaning if they didn't ask? ![]() Maybe it works better than I think it would. I don't believe I've actually tried it. It's just that, to me, "certificate" conjures up a cheap piece of paper that comes from completing a short training class or something of the like. For example, I would expect a "bus driver certificate" to *possibly* be a prerequisite for driving a bus, but not cover the practical aspects of driving one. -- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mike Ash wrote:
...Do you refer to your car as a "motor vehicle"? That's what the authority calls it, after all.... Funny you should mention that. I carry mental baggage that says though policemen may well pronounce it vee-HICK-ul, I want to say vee-icle, and so I do! Brian W |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ILS Runway 1, Visual approach runway 4 KMEI - Video | A Lieberma[_2_] | Owning | 0 | July 4th 09 06:13 PM |
Runway Red Lights to cut down on incursions. | Gig 601XL Builder[_2_] | Piloting | 23 | March 3rd 08 08:28 PM |
Runway incursions | James Robinson | Piloting | 6 | November 10th 07 06:29 PM |
Rwy incursions | Hankal | Piloting | 10 | November 16th 03 02:33 AM |
Talk about runway incursions... | Dave Russell | Piloting | 7 | August 13th 03 02:09 AM |