Can GPS be *too* accurate? Do I need some XTE??

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
news
Someone named "Peter R." gave an interpretation of a section of the AIM;
4-4-10. IFR SEPARATION STANDARDS

I posted the text of that section; if you want to call that bringing
something up, be my guest.

That section has nothing to do with "VFR-on-top".

You're only looking for an argument anyway.

Ad hominem.

I said I was a professional writer; I in no way implied that you were a
competent reader.

Ad hominem.

b. Separation will be provided (by ATC - my note) between all aircraft
operating on IFR flight plans except during that part of the flight (outside
of Class B airspace or a TRSA) being conducted on a VFR-on-top/VFR
conditions clearance. Under these conditions, ATC may issue traffic
advisories, but it is the sole responsibility of the pilot to be vigilant so
as to see and avoid other aircraft.

That's the section I posted. The third line down references VFR-on-top.

Reading is fundamental...



"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Bill Denton" wrote in message
news
Someone named "Peter R." gave an interpretation of a section of the AIM;
4-4-10. IFR SEPARATION STANDARDS

I posted the text of that section; if you want to call that bringing
something up, be my guest.

That section has nothing to do with "VFR-on-top".

You're only looking for an argument anyway.

Ad hominem.

I said I was a professional writer; I in no way implied that you were a
competent reader.

Ad hominem.

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
[snip]

That's the section I posted. The third line down references VFR-on-top.

So, now you are agreeing that it was you that brought up VFR-on-top? As
irrelevant as it is to this thread, you are the person who introduced it.
By your own admission.

No, I am not agreeing to anything. I will state that I was the first to
introduce the words VFR-on-top into the thread, while quoting a section of
the AIM.

The AIM states that ATC will provide IFR/IFR separation. But, a VFR-on-fop
flight is an IFR flight, and ATC does not provide separation to VFR-on-top
aircraft. We were discussing IFR separation and this is a part of them, so
it is relevant to the thread.



"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
[snip]

That's the section I posted. The third line down references VFR-on-top.

So, now you are agreeing that it was you that brought up VFR-on-top? As
irrelevant as it is to this thread, you are the person who introduced it.
By your own admission.

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
[...] We were discussing IFR separation

No, we weren't. YOU turned it into that discussion, but nothing about the
original post had anything to do with IFR separation.

That is, in fact, the entire point of this monster subthread you've
inspired.