i think I flew into class c airspace accidentally withoutestablishing communication

george wrote:
On Jan 27, 11:50 am, Matt Whiting wrote:
What makes you think he's a person? That is an insult to persons
everywhere! :-)

Whoops ....
My apologies to all the 'persons' out there for claiming this ******
to be a part of the human race

Now now, you've only insulted ******s everywhere. New to this, arentcha?



Larry, go take a long roll off a short runway. The OP obviously has
already grasped the depth and scope of his snafu(s), there was and is
absolutely no need to castigate him like a ****ing nun.

Mistakes were made, noted, and will be corrected. The circle of flying
is complete.

TheSmokingGnu

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 00:38:56 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 00:20:37 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:38:36 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote in :

Like anyone could have a rational discussion with you.

You haven't tried.


QED


Oh, it's been demonstrated:

Message-ID:
Message-ID:
Message-ID:


Hey Larry, I suggested you ggo **** yourself?

Well, did you?


How can I talk to someone who can;t follow instructions?


Bertie

Hung on his own Petard.

The defense rests.

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 00:38:56 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote in
m:

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 00:20:37 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip

wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote in
m:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:38:36 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip

wrote in :

Like anyone could have a rational discussion with you.

You haven't tried.


QED


Oh, it's been demonstrated:

Message-ID:
Message-ID:
Message-ID:


Hey Larry, I suggested you ggo **** yourself?

Well, did you?


How can I talk to someone who can;t follow instructions?


Bertie

Hung on his own Petard.

The defense rests.

The mighty Betie the Bunyip. Beaten at lst by a fjuktard.

How will I ever live it down?


Bertie

On Jan 27, 8:24 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:38:17 -0800 (PST), wrote
in
:

And why on Earth would someone put my name in the thread?

Actually, you put your name is in the 'From:' field of the message you
originally posted yourself. If you have concerns about revealing your
identity, you should take steps to conceal it.

There is a huge difference between using an email address with a
partial name, as opposed to printing the entire name in full. Sure, a
pilot or interested person reading this thread could have figured it
out, but the average joe researching the OP wouldn't have found it.
But now you've put the name onto USENET for the search engines to pick
up.

Worst case: An employer, googling the name, will now find this thread.
They probably won't have an aviation background and will not have the
knowledge to evaluate the misake, so they'll probably assume the
worst.

If you felt like you HAD to name him, you could of at least obfuscated
his name slightly. J--N SM--H instead of JOHN SMITH or something.

The OP did something stupid, and realised he made a mistake. He was
man enough to own up to it. Maybe you should do the same.

Al

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:20:52 -0800 (PST), Al Borowski
wrote in
:

On Jan 27, 8:24 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:38:17 -0800 (PST), wrote
in
:

And why on Earth would someone put my name in the thread?

Actually, you put your name is in the 'From:' field of the message you
originally posted yourself. If you have concerns about revealing your
identity, you should take steps to conceal it.

There is a huge difference between using an email address with a
partial name, as opposed to printing the entire name in full. Sure, a
pilot or interested person reading this thread could have figured it
out, but the average joe researching the OP wouldn't have found it.
But now you've put the name onto USENET for the search engines to pick
up.

Worst case: An employer, googling the name, will now find this thread.
They probably won't have an aviation background and will not have the
knowledge to evaluate the misake, so they'll probably assume the
worst.

In the event Mr. Faulkiner's is employed, and his possible employer
may have reason to research Mr. Faulkiner via a Google search, and the
possibility that Mr. Faulkiner's possible employer lacks the ability
or knowledge to correctly evaluate Mr. Faulkiner's passable pilot
deviation, exactly what do you think Mr. Faulkiner's possible employer
might assume?

If you felt like you HAD to name him, you could of at least obfuscated
his name slightly. J--N SM--H instead of JOHN SMITH or something.

Perhaps Mr. Faulkiner should have taken the responsibility to do the
obfuscating you suggest if revealing his identity were an issue for
him. I assure you, that I meant no enmity toward Mr. Faulkiner.

The OP did something stupid, and realised he made a mistake. He was
man enough to own up to it. Maybe you should do the same.

Al


I would characterize it as effective in grabbing Mr. Faulkiner's
attention and impressing him with the importance of assuming command
of his flights in the future, something his CFI failed to do
apparently. If you see it as stupid, we disagree.

Main Entry:1command
Pronunciation:k*-*mand
Function:verb
Etymology:Middle English comanden, from Middle French comander,
from (assumed) Vulgar Latin commandare, alteration of Latin
commendare to commit to one's charge more at COMMEND
Date:14th century

transitive senses
1 : to direct authoritatively : ORDER
2 : to exercise a dominating influence over : have command of: as
a : to have at one's immediate disposal
b : to demand or receive as one's due *commands a high fee*
c : to overlook or dominate from or as if from a strategic
position
d : to have military command of as senior officer
3 obsolete : to order or request to be given
intransitive senses
1 : to have or exercise direct authority : GOVERN
2 : to give orders
3 : to be commander
4 : to dominate as if from an elevated place
–commandable \-*man-d*-b*l\ adjective
synonyms COMMAND, ORDER, BID, ENJOIN, DIRECT, INSTRUCT, CHARGE
mean to issue orders. COMMAND and ORDER imply authority and
usually some degree of formality and impersonality. COMMAND
stresses official exercise of authority *a general commanding
troops*. ORDER may suggest peremptory or arbitrary exercise
*ordered his employees about like slaves*. BID suggests giving
orders peremptorily (as to children or servants) *she bade him be
seated*. ENJOIN implies giving an order or direction
authoritatively and urgently and often with admonition or
solicitude *a sign enjoining patrons to be quiet*. DIRECT and
INSTRUCT both connote expectation of obedience and usually concern
specific points of procedure or method, INSTRUCT sometimes
implying greater explicitness or formality *directed her assistant
to hold all calls* *the judge instructed the jury to ignore the
remark*. CHARGE adds to ENJOIN an implication of imposing as a
duty or responsibility *charged by the President with a secret
mission*.

On 2008-01-27, Larry Dighera wrote:
I would characterize it as effective in grabbing Mr. Faulkiner's
attention and impressing him with the importance of assuming command
of his flights in the future, something his CFI failed to do
apparently. If you see it as stupid, we disagree.

You used the Usenet equivalent of shooting him in the ass with a .45 to get
his attention. You could have done so in a much more civilized manner and
just as effectively.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

On Jan 26, 9:17*pm, Jay Maynard
wrote:
On 2008-01-27, Larry Dighera wrote:

I would characterize it as effective in grabbing Mr. Faulkiner's
attention and impressing him with the importance of assuming command
of his flights in the future, something his CFI failed to do
apparently. *If you see it as stupid, we disagree.

You used the Usenet equivalent of shooting him in the ass with a .45 to get
his attention. You could have done so in a much more civilized manner and
just as effectively.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC * * * * * * * * *http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com* * *http://www.tronguy.nethttp://www..hercules-390.org* * * * * * * (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff athttp://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390


The only thing you have done is make sure that I, as well as any other
new pilots, will never ask an honest question on the ng again if we
feel we may be at fault. Having an obscured partial name is a lot
different than having your full name come up on a search engine. I
understand everything you said Larry, and I truly appreciate the bits
that were constructive. But posting of a name was totally
unnecessary. The mistakes I made during my flight have been on my
mind all day. I realize the magnitude of my mistake. I have scheduled
some time with my CFI to discuss this, and go throught the track log
of the GPS in the plane I rented.

Every time I have dealt with other pilots, I was under the impression
that we were somehow united as a group. I now realize that is not
entirely true.

Rich Ahrens wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:
wrote:
I'm sorry if I gave anyone the impression that I was not concerned for
the safety of others. I am familiar with the area we were in, but I
made a serious mistake at night. I do appreciate all the options you
all have laid out for me. I will fill out the NASA form immediately.
And why on Earth would someone put my name in the thread? That just
seems uncalled for.

Because Larry is an idiot as anyone who has followed this ng for more
than 3 months quickly figures out.

Three months? Are you a slow learner???

Not me, but some seem to have taken a while to figure out Larry.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:52:45 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:

You are Pilot In Command!
And you are a idiot!


Insults are so much easier than rational discussion, aren't they Matt?

Yes, for that does appear to be the case. I think the posts are running
nearly 100% against you, so who is and is not engaging in rational
discussion?

Larry Dighera wrote:
On 26 Jan 2008 23:26:07 GMT, Clark wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:52:45 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:

You are Pilot In Command!
And you are a idiot!

Insults are so much easier than rational discussion, aren't they Matt?


Larry, that wasn't an insult. It was an accurate descriptor.

Actually, it was an unsubstantiated insult to my intelligence that
contains a grammatical error.

Actually, it was a typographical error.


Lacking any rational argument to support it, it is just an immature
emotional outburst. If someone is able to provide any rational
justification for Mr. Whiting's contention, then let's hear it.
Otherwise, perhaps it is you who lack the depth to infer my meaning.

Your posting history in this ng stands alone as ample justification.