Runway incursions

C Gattman wrote:
If anybody
truly "fears for the fact that there are CFI's out there spreading
this level of misinformation," then, take it up with the FAA because
they licensed me.

They did? Are you sure? The FAA only issues certificates to everyone
else.

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.

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

"BeechSundowner" wrote in message
...
On Sep 17, 7:43 pm, "Morgans" wrote:
It is amazing that any person can stick to his guns, when all his
ammunition
is blanks.

He must have been flaps50 CFI LOL

Thanks, I needed a good laugh! :-)

On Sep 17, 5:43*pm, "Morgans" wrote:


That is what has happened here. *Every thing posted has been proven wrong,
but yet there is a total inability to admit wrong.

No, sir, and I don't respect the personal attack. The seminar happened
on August 7, provided by the Renton FSDO, on the second floor
classroom of the FBO. According to the FSDO official, two runway
incursions were reported that day for people wandering onto the
taxiway.

"Everything posted" has not been "proven wrong." There are arguments
over my (which is to say, local) interpretation of policy, which is
fair, except several of you are making it personal. Everybody I work
with at KTTD including ATC agrees with me. I have asked them. Prove
that wrong. In fact, your suggestion that this has been "proven wrong"
is either dishonest or demonstrates failure to grasp my original post.

If you are suggesting that I am a liar, and that the events I
described did not happen, than, then my question becomes, how much
money are you willing to bet that the above incidents didn't occur?

I will put you in contact with people who were there and will tell you
they are considered runway incursions. You will pay each of them for
their instructional time, at $40/hr. You will pay me the same for
each. You can contact the FAA yourself to confirm that the lecture
happened. I can give you contact information for other people who were
in the lectures, including two senior CFIIs who teach Ground School at
the local community college.

People like you and McNicoll are why people like me quit posting here
just to tell people WHAT HAPPENED because some pompous-ass newsgroup
addict will invariably jump in and remind everybody what an enormous
penis he is. The I'm-more-experienced-than-you-so-STFU mentality is
discussed in conjunction with Tenerife. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Tenerife_airport_disaster#Probable_cause) The junior didn't dare
contradict the senior even though the junior knew he was right. So
guess what...

Maybe McNicoll hasn't made a mistake in the nine years or whatever you
all have been out here. ATC makes mistakes, but, maybe he doesn't.
Maybe he's the ATC Messiah, or just a bloviating gasbag, but, he'll
probably end up in my killfile all the same. I don't respect his
holier-than-thou attitude, and in my profession as well as his, it
gets people killed. He's -your- alpha dog, -you- sniff his ass.

In the meantime, if you're just going to attack me here, your opinion
doesn't mean squat unless you want to back it with cash. I might read
your posts, maybe...maybe not...and you are welcome to ignore mine.
Since we all know you're not going to put your money where your mouth
is: Some of you old boys have a nice little circle-jerk going here. Be
sure to keep it up as long as you can.

-c

C Gattman wrote:

No, sir, and I don't respect the personal attack. The seminar happened
on August 7, provided by the Renton FSDO, on the second floor
classroom of the FBO. According to the FSDO official, two runway
incursions were reported that day for people wandering onto the
taxiway.

"Everything posted" has not been "proven wrong." There are arguments
over my (which is to say, local) interpretation of policy, which is
fair, except several of you are making it personal. Everybody I work
with at KTTD including ATC agrees with me. I have asked them. Prove
that wrong. In fact, your suggestion that this has been "proven wrong"
is either dishonest or demonstrates failure to grasp my original post.

If you are suggesting that I am a liar, and that the events I
described did not happen, than, then my question becomes, how much
money are you willing to bet that the above incidents didn't occur?

I will put you in contact with people who were there and will tell you
they are considered runway incursions. You will pay each of them for
their instructional time, at $40/hr. You will pay me the same for
each. You can contact the FAA yourself to confirm that the lecture
happened. I can give you contact information for other people who were
in the lectures, including two senior CFIIs who teach Ground School at
the local community college.

People like you and McNicoll are why people like me quit posting here
just to tell people WHAT HAPPENED because some pompous-ass newsgroup
addict will invariably jump in and remind everybody what an enormous
penis he is. The I'm-more-experienced-than-you-so-STFU mentality is
discussed in conjunction with Tenerife. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Tenerife_airport_disaster#Probable_cause) The junior didn't dare
contradict the senior even though the junior knew he was right. So
guess what...

Maybe McNicoll hasn't made a mistake in the nine years or whatever you
all have been out here. ATC makes mistakes, but, maybe he doesn't.
Maybe he's the ATC Messiah, or just a bloviating gasbag, but, he'll
probably end up in my killfile all the same. I don't respect his
holier-than-thou attitude, and in my profession as well as his, it
gets people killed. He's -your- alpha dog, -you- sniff his ass.

In the meantime, if you're just going to attack me here, your opinion
doesn't mean squat unless you want to back it with cash. I might read
your posts, maybe...maybe not...and you are welcome to ignore mine.
Since we all know you're not going to put your money where your mouth
is: Some of you old boys have a nice little circle-jerk going here. Be
sure to keep it up as long as you can.


"Bloviating gasbag", "pompous-ass newsgroup addict", "holier-than-thou
attitude". I'm sure you can't see the hypocrisy in your message.

I don't believe anyone from Renton FSDO told you or anyone else that, at a
towered airport, walking or taxiing onto an active taxiway is considered a
runway incursion. I don't believe it because it is unlikely that anyone
tasked with conducting a seminar on runway incursions would have done so
without as much as reviewing current directives that clearly indicate a
runway incursion can only occur on a surface designated for the landing and
take-off of aircraft. I think you simply misunderstood what was said.
After
all, you keep posting a web page that proves you wrong while insisting
you're right, thus demonstrating you lack the ability to understand the
written word. Perhaps you lack the ability to understand the spoken word as
well.

Nor do I believe everybody you work with at KTTD, including ATC, agrees with
you. If the tower had to report and process a surface incident they'd refer
to those same current directives for guidance. If the other folks you work
with at KTTD, assuming they are reasonable people, have studied this thread
they cannot possibly agree with you as solid, verifiable, irrefutable
documentation has been posted here that proves your position is incorrect.

You did post a web page by Gene Benson that supported your position. After
I contacted Mr. Benson and pointed out the errors and provided him with
current documentation he thanked me for the correction and took down his
page. That's how reasonable behave.

The attitude you've demonstrated here is not that of a reasonable person,
not that of an aviation professional. You, Mr. Gattman, are flying the
airways of life with a couple of props feathered. Seek help.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

You did post a web page by Gene Benson that supported your position. After
I contacted Mr. Benson and pointed out the errors and provided
him with current documentation he thanked me for the correction and
took down his page. That's how reasonable behave.


That last sentence should have been, "That's how reasonable people behave."
My fingers apparently move faster than electrons.

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?

Nor do I believe everybody you work with at KTTD, including ATC, agrees with you.

At this point I have no further interest in what you believe, or in
attempting to convince you.

You, Mr. Gattman, are flying the airways of life with a couple of props feathered. Seek help.

And there you go again.

The last word is yours. I'll even concede that your source is
literally more definitive than mine, despite what I was told by the
FSDO, etc.
Good for you, sir. Beyond that, I see at this point that all you're
going to do is continue to attack me personally and lie about it, and,
that's just a waste of my time. Unlike some, perhaps, my ego isn't
invested in what fellow usenet chronies think of me on the internet.

-c

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.