A tower-induced go-round

On Mar 31, 7:10 am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message

...



I suggest you look up the use of quotation marks to denote items which are
understood to be agreed upon but are not strictly law.

I looked at several sources but couldn't find any that indicated that was a
proper use of quotation marks. Please cite your source.



For example, if all the boats in the pond drove in one direction
(clockwise, say), it would be "standard" practice to also drive in that
direction. It's not The Letter of His Lord's Most Highest Dread Sovereign
Law, but it's a generally recognized practice performed and expected of
pilots within the vicinity.

I don't think so. If all the boats in the pond were going in one direction,
it would be the current practice to also go in that direction. But that
wouldn't make it the standard practice. Tomorrow they could all be going in
the other direction.



Factors contributing included wind drift, distraction, and a very busy
section of sky.

Why don't you correct for winds? What distracted you? What section of sky
was very busy and how did it affect your interaction with the pilot you're
complaining about?



Assume? You're asking a pilot to /ASSUME/ traffic sees and avoids me? The
only things I assume are that the Earth will still turn and that gravity
will still work. Everything else is out the window until I see it
happening.

I'm not asking you to assume anything, I'm telling you it's assumed that
since he departed after you he knows where you are and is properly avoiding
you. Do you have any reason to believe that was not the case?

Perhaps if you paid a little more attention to the operation of your own
aircraft and a little less to the operator behind you'd be less distracted
and better able to manage wind drift.



Where in the FARs, pray tell, does it say I should "assume" that traffic
sees and avoids me?

Nowhere, but FAR 91.113(b) does say "vigilance shall be maintained by each
person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft." Why do
you assume that a pilot might not be doing what is required by the FARs,
while assuming that he will adhere to a non-required "standard" practice?



Where does it say he can ignore the use of a clearly functioning CTAF
facility?

CTAF is a frequency, not a facility. Where does it say he must use CTAF?
Are you saying he made no calls on CTAF?



The FARs do not qualify what constitutes "unnecessary" chatter. Care to
cite a source for that?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unnecessary



It's one of those darn "standard" procedures again.

It's not only nonstandard it's also a poor practice.



Not to the pattern traffic, no. A gigantic factor to the departing and
arriving area traffic, though.

Please explain why.



Heh. Freud would be proud.

(I, of course, know better)

Really? How do you know? Have we met?



I know what they mean. Do you?

Yes, I know what they mean. Since you used them improperly I have to
conclude that you do not.







http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=accost

Especially:

1. to confront boldly.
2. to approach ... aggressively, as with a demand or request.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad%20hominem

Especially:

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather
than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Now cite an applicable message of mine to make your case.



Bull****. Just in this post:

You seem rather new to the flying game. Student?

How is that insulting your intelligence or piloting skill? It was written
after you posted several messages suggesting a rather limited level of
aviation knowledge.



And, to your inquiry, no. I hold a full PPL, unlike certain individuals.

Unlike what certain individuals? Is there a partial PPL?



You first questioned the objectivity of a stated subjective, and then
proceeded to /accost/ Jay with incessant babble about the logic of said
statement (of which there was none stated in the first).

What messages are you referring to?



After which, you used words to the effect that he was not qualified to use
controlled airspace and that he should avoid such, that his piloting skill
was not up to snuff, and that the situation was entirely of his own
creation.

You attacked him for the articulation of the situation, not the situation
itself. Grammatical prowess is not a condition for holding a pilot's
license, nor ever will be.

I said Jay holds an incorrect understanding of Class D airspace and ATC and
he holds controllers responsible for pilot's actions. Since Jay's
statements about Class D airspace and ATC are demonstrably incorrect, if we
assume he is sincere when he states them, we have to conclude that he holds
an incorrect understanding of Class D airspace and ATC. Since we have
established that there was sufficient spacing and that minimum same runway
separation would have been achieved if the 172 had not unexpectedly stopped
on the runway but Jay nevertheless holds the controller responsible, we have
to conclude he holds controllers responsible for pilot's actions.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Steven. P Mc Nicolls wrote............

Nowhere, but FAR 91.113(b) does say "vigilance shall be maintained by each
person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft." Why do
you assume that a pilot might not be doing what is required by the FARs,
while assuming that he will adhere to a non-required "standard" practice?

Then what in the hell do we need dumb ass controllers
for????????????????????????????????