Runway incursions

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

He must have been flaps50 CFI LOL

Sorry gents, but this is getting needlessly heated and unfairly insulting.
I've seen postings over the years from almost every one of the participants
of this thread and Chris Gattman has been around a while and is no flake.
None of you are flakes (well, mostly. ;-)) Could you gentlemen please try
to stay civil? I see no good reason to lob these insults - particularly
since it has already been made clear that several sources beyond Gattman
have indicated that some FAA personnel (and others) are operating under
conflicting or at least different definitions.

Jim Logajan wrote:
Sorry gents, but this is getting needlessly heated and unfairly insulting.
I've seen postings over the years from almost every one of the participants
of this thread and Chris Gattman has been around a while and is no flake.
None of you are flakes (well, mostly. ;-)) Could you gentlemen please try
to stay civil? I see no good reason to lob these insults - particularly
since it has already been made clear that several sources beyond Gattman
have indicated that some FAA personnel (and others) are operating under
conflicting or at least different definitions.

Ditto.

I think the amount of vitriol generated by this argument over semantics
only reinforces the OP's original call for etiquette.

The FAA is inconsistent with the interpretation of their own
regulations. Is that news?

Can we at least agree that blundering onto either a taxiway or runway
without clearance is wrong and can get your flying, if not your
breathing, privileges suspended?

Curt

On Sep 17, 8:09*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:

Sorry gents, but this is getting needlessly heated and unfairly insulting..
I've seen postings over the years from almost every one of the participants
of this thread and Chris Gattman has been around a while and is no flake.
None of you are flakes (well, mostly. ;-)) Could you gentlemen please try
to stay civil? I see no good reason to lob these insults - particularly
since it has already been made clear that several sources beyond Gattman
have indicated that some FAA personnel (and others) are operating under
conflicting or at least different definitions.

Thank you sincerely, Jim. I'm not going to say that crossing the
taxiway is a runway incursion again until I hear it from the FAA
directly and can give you the name and direct quote. That's fair.

It's up to you guys whether you want to accept that an FSDO speaker
and tower reported the incidents I described as runway incursions. Out
here, though, every instructor, pilot and tower operator I've been
able to talk to about it considers it a runway incursion. I'm
repeating what several sources have taught me, and, they're all good
people. Maybe we're all wrong. In practice, our students do not cross
the line without clearance from tower. If anybody here finds fault
with -that-, please explain why.

The ONLY reason I posted it here after not posting so long is to share
to other pilots so that perhaps they will be more careful at
unfamiliar airports, and so that they don't get reported to the FAA,
because I saw it happen on August 7 and 8 at Troutdale. 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. Be sure to tell them that I am trying to get people
to stay off of taxiways without clearance, and make sure you give them
my name. If I'm indeed incorrect about what a runway incursion is, I
can tell them exactly why their documentation is misleading.
Otherwise, please keep that snarky nonsense to yourself because it
doesn't contribute to the discussion.

As for the civility, I am truly sorry if I have helped diminish it.
That is the opposite of my intent.

-Chris

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.


That's a good idea. Thanks.

C Gattman wrote

there are CFI's out there spreading this level of misinformation,"
then, take it up with the FAA because they licensed me.

Mr. Gattman.....First, you are NOT a CFI and second, the FAA did
NOT "license" you. The FAA has issued me a Certificate (not License)
as a Flight Instructor (not CFI).

Bob Moore
Flight Instructor Certificate Number CFI1450645

On Sep 19, 6:27*am, Robert Moore wrote:
C Gattman wrote

there are CFI's out there spreading this level of misinformation,"
then, take it up with the FAA because they licensed me.

Mr. Gattman.....First, you are NOT a CFI and

I beg your pardon? Let's put money on it. You want to see my CFI
number, it's going to cost you.

the FAA did NOT "license" you

Have you not heard of a pilot's license? Or, are just you trying to
belittle me through symantics?

Why are you doing this? Why are you trying to discredit me
professionally by suggesting I'm not a CFI?

-c

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

On Sep 21, 6:14*pm, C Gattman wrote:

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"?

Only when Steve push you to put up or shut up did you offer anything.
When I provided my link at that time (READ this thread), you offered
me nothing. It's here in this thread if you don't believe me.

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.

Which I did, I challenged you to give me a source of your information
OUTSIDE hearsay.. I asked you for a source you wouldn't produce WHEN
I ASKED. Your answer 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.
Apparently, telling you what I saw happen has no value to you so
clearly you don't respect my word. I'm not out here to engage in some
sort of penis-measuring contest with a couple of usenet know-it-alls,
if that's what this is going to turn into.

Nothing taken out of context, word for word I copied and pasted your
response above. What kind of CRAP instructor are you? You want
respect GIVE RESPECT. I see nothing respectful out of your response
to me.

I didn't say I know it all, I responded back with a source supporting
what I thought was a definition of a runway incursion. You my friend
did not return that courtesy TO ME for which I asked from you. It's
all here in this thread.