A tower-induced go-round

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
I looked at several sources but couldn't find any that indicated that was a
proper use of quotation marks.

No you didn't, otherwise you would have found the answer in the Great
Repository of Human Knowledge. But then, I don't expect trolls to be
able to read in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_marks

But that
wouldn't make it the standard practice.

Do you have to take classes to be so pedantic? I've already explained
the vernacular, the onus is now on you to understand the topic at hand.

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?


I find it funny that you only considered /me/ to be the one under these
influences. Time to think outside the troll box.

I departed. I corrected for winds and flew a proper upwind in-line with
the runway. He departed, and did not. The winds were such that his track
was inside of mine. I made the turn crosswind. He did not inform anyone
of his intentions beyond taking the runway. Our tracks nearly
intersected. He was distracted by something (else he would have been
making intent/position reports, or responding to ours). There were a lot
of other aircraft in that patch of sky that day, and I was working a
scan not entirely in his direction at the time of the incident. My
copilot did spot him, and we managed to avoid each other.

I never did get an apology, though.


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.

Assume? BY WHO? Define your indefinite.

Do you have any reason to believe that was not the case?

Since it didn't occur, yes. I have very strong reason to believe he was
not doing that.

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.

Ad hominem. You wanted an example?

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?

I assume nothing, remember? I expect him to be doing both, and will look
for that first. Failing that, we go into contingency mode.

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

Faculty, not facility. I goofed there (and bad. I dunno how that got in
there).

He was on the CTAF. He made two calls, one to announce taxi, and another
to announce that he was taking the runway. Neither of these calls
announced an intention to leave the pattern (he had previously been
doing closed patterns), nor his departure direction.

At no time after takeoff did he make any other CTAF transmissions at
all, nor to Unicom, nor to FSS.

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

That's not an FAA source. How can I know what officially constitutes
"unnecessary" chatter when the FAA doesn't define it?

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

Source?

Please explain why.

I already have, multiple times. Want it again?

They don't expect traffic there, in that direction, at that altitude, at
that speed.

Really? How do you know? Have we met?

My god, do you take everything literally?

I meant "better than Freud". I will refrain in the future from trying to
make snide inferences, so that your limited ability to understand
articulated speech is not questioned.

Since you used them improperly I have to
conclude that you do not.

And you've yet to make a definitive proof of such, which I must conclude
is a failing on your part to make yet another ad hominem attack on my
person. You'll have to do a lot better than grammatical pandering.

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

Why, since not only is it painfully obvious, but you refuse to make one
of mine?

How is that insulting your intelligence or piloting skill?

Here's your Word of the Day:

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

It was written
after you posted several messages suggesting a rather limited level of
aviation knowledge.

Such as?

Unlike what certain individuals? Is there a partial PPL?

Sorry, sorry. Forgot about that "you can't read into anything at all"
disease you have.

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.

You would have to ask him on that. My comment was not about that
specifically, but the manner in which you dismissed him and his piloting
skill /flippantly/, with an air of superiority, and told him in so many
words that he wasn't good enough to use controlled airspace.

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

Where did you establish that? As I recall, you're relying on Jay's
assumptions about spacing and separation, and whether they were
appropriate or not. How can you both disprove a point and rely on its
premise for your conclusion?

Besides, without definitive objective proof, the premise could never be
established in the first place, since it's an anecdote, and made under
no pretense of authority.

but Jay nevertheless holds the controller responsible, we have
to conclude he holds controllers responsible for pilot's actions.

The controller was expected in this circumstance to amend the 172's
clearance such that they were told to either land long or continue
rolling. Expected, not required. You cannot make the argument that the
controller did not share the bulk of the responsibility in this case to
properly inform and administer the aircraft in his care. A simple
amendment, comment, or otherwise remark to EITHER aircraft would have
avoided the entire situation, but instead the controller allowed it to
unfold and then attempted to clean up afterwards. It's a sign of poor
controller-dom.

And, it's also about time for a new killfile.

TheSmokingGnu

"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message
...

No you didn't, otherwise you would have found the answer in the Great
Repository of Human Knowledge. But then, I don't expect trolls to be able
to read in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_marks


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotati...28incorrect.29



Do you have to take classes to be so pedantic? I've already explained the
vernacular, the onus is now on you to understand the topic at hand.


You've got it backward. I'm explaining these things to help you understand
them.



I find it funny that you only considered /me/ to be the one under these
influences. Time to think outside the troll box.


I can only work with what you write.



I departed. I corrected for winds and flew a proper upwind in-line with
the runway. He departed, and did not. The winds were such that his track
was inside of mine. I made the turn crosswind. He did not inform anyone of
his intentions beyond taking the runway. Our tracks nearly intersected. He
was distracted by something (else he would have been making
intent/position reports, or responding to ours). There were a lot of other
aircraft in that patch of sky that day, and I was working a scan not
entirely in his direction at the time of the incident. My copilot did spot
him, and we managed to avoid each other.


As I recall, your complaint was that his failure to depart from the downwind
was the cause of the incident. That clearly was not the case.



Ad hominem. You wanted an example?


Yes, and that is not an example.



I assume nothing, remember? I expect him to be doing both, and will look
for that first. Failing that, we go into contingency mode.


If you weren't assuming that he'd be adhering to a non-required "standard"
practice why are you complaining?



Faculty, not facility. I goofed there (and bad. I dunno how that got in
there).


CTAF is a frequency, not a faculty.



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

That's not an FAA source. How can I know what officially constitutes
"unnecessary" chatter when the FAA doesn't define it?


Good question. Let's get back to "standard". Please provide an official
FAA definition of "standard" before we move on.



I already have, multiple times. Want it again?

They don't expect traffic there, in that direction, at that altitude, at
that speed.


Why do they assume traffic won't be there, in that direction, at that
altitude, at that speed? Didn't you say assuming was bad?



My god, do you take everything literally?

I meant "better than Freud". I will refrain in the future from trying to
make snide inferences, so that your limited ability to understand
articulated speech is not questioned.


How does one make a snide inference?



Why, since not only is it painfully obvious, but you refuse to make one of
mine?


Because citing one is the only way to make your case. If there was one to
cite, you'd have cited it.



Such as?


"Then you should have quoted him the right-of way rules (planes below
have right over those above, planes on approach have right over those in
the pattern), and told him that you were taking your CLEARANCE and using
the RUNWAY."

"You'll get lots of people that, for example, won't depart the pattern on
the
downwind..."

And there was that cryptic reference to "descent vectors".



Where did you establish that? As I recall, you're relying on Jay's
assumptions about spacing and separation, and whether they were
appropriate or not. How can you both disprove a point and rely on its
premise for your conclusion?


Yes, we're relying on Jay's statements about the spacing. If the spacing
was as he reported then there was sufficient spacing.



Besides, without definitive objective proof, the premise could never be
established in the first place, since it's an anecdote, and made under no
pretense of authority.


The problem is his anecdote does not support his conclusion.



The controller was expected in this circumstance to amend the 172's
clearance such that they were told to either land long or continue
rolling. Expected, not required. You cannot make the argument that the
controller did not share the bulk of the responsibility in this case to
properly inform and administer the aircraft in his care. A simple
amendment, comment, or otherwise remark to EITHER aircraft would have
avoided the entire situation, but instead the controller allowed it to
unfold and then attempted to clean up afterwards. It's a sign of poor
controller-dom.


That was an unreasonable expectation on Jay's part. I can easily make the
argument that the controller does not share the bulk of the responsibility
in this case to by demonstrating that the controller did not make an error.