Spoke with the Renton FSDO and they sent me the following link to the
2002 Runway Safety Order 7050-1. As promised, I'll share the word:

http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/aso/Media/2002%20Runway%20Safety%20Order%207050-1.pdf

Relevant part is Appendix 2, parts 1 and 2a:

1: "In April 1987, the FAA Administrator approved the following
definition of the term "runway incursion": Any occurrence at an
airport involving an aircraft, vehicle, person or object on the ground
that creates a collision hazard or results in loss of separation with
an aircraft taking off, intending to take off, landing or intending to
land.""

Well, that's obsolete, but, not substantially different. Further:

2a "Although the definition is broad, it was always intended that
runway incursions include problems on the runway, but not on the
taxiways or ramps (in this case, the runway is considered that part of
the area intended for landing and takeoff and includes the runway as
well as parts of taxiways located between the hold line and the
runway)."

2d. "Runway incursions should not include aircraft, vehicles,
pedestrians, or objects on the runway without permission when there is
no collision hazard or loss of separation... Although these and other
similar unauthorized or unapproved movements occur on the airport
surface, they are surface incidents, not runway incursions."

And, finally, an official definition of a Surface Incident:

3l: Surface Incident: "Any event, including runway incursions, other
than an accident, where unauthorized or unapproved movement occurs
within the airport surface movement area or an occurrence in the
airport surface area associate with the operation of an aircraft that
affects or could affect the safety of flight."

That's definitive enough for me, and support's McNicoll's position.
According to the FSDO, in a nutshell, if you cross the yellow single-
solid/single-dash without authorization it's considered a surface
incident. If you cross the yellow double-solid/double-dash it's likely
to be reported as a runway incursion. A runway incursion is also a
surface incident.

Fly safe.

-Chris
CFI, KTTD

On Oct 4, 5:23*pm, C Gattman > wrote:

> * That's definitive enough for me, and support's McNicoll's position.

I believe it supports everybody's position that said you were wrong in
the first place.

But you are an instructor and I am a measly pilot that gave you the
exact same verbiage in an FAA reference that I gave for runway
incursions.

On 10/04/09 16:05, BeechSundowner wrote:
> On Oct 4, 5:23 pm, C Gattman > wrote:
>
>> That's definitive enough for me, and support's McNicoll's position.
>
> I believe it supports everybody's position that said you were wrong in
> the first place.
>
> But you are an instructor and I am a measly pilot that gave you the
> exact same verbiage in an FAA reference that I gave for runway
> incursions.

For crying out loud, Allan - the man is admitting he was wrong. That's
a pretty hard thing to do. Why do you want to make it even harder?

Chris: My hat's off to you. You've been a great contributor to the
forums and I hope you stick around. There aren't too many "normal"
folks left :-(


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

On Oct 4, 4:05*pm, BeechSundowner > wrote:

> I believe it supports everybody's position that said you were wrong in the first place.

I believe you are correct. I have provided the exact official
definition and source of both runway incursions and surface incidents,
as well as a statement of clarification of what the term "runway
incursion" is intended to mean, as well as material that specifically
states what -isn't- an incursion. Nobody else provided that, so I
asked the FSDO. They gave me authoritative source material and I
shared it here.

Apparently, "everybody" was unable or unwilling to do that. But I'm
not out here for some sort of forum-bragging-rights penis-measuring
contest, and what you think you know doesn't change my responsibility
to teach what I believe to my students until I have sufficient
authoritative source material to teach otherwise. Some Guy on the
Internet and His Buddies doesn't count for "authoritative source
material," and a URL doesn't either given the circumstances of being
told otherwise by several professional sources including the FAA. You
guys made it personal. I don't care about that.

> But you are an instructor and I am a measly pilot that gave you the exact same verbiage in an FAA reference that I gave for runway
> incursions.

Do you feel better about yourself now?

I'm sure General Aviation is much safer overall now that we can all
agree on the bureaucratic distinction between a Runway Incursion and
Surface Incident. It'll never change what I teach my students, though,
which is: Don't cross onto the taxiway without clearance.

If you have a problem with THAT, contact the nearest FSDO.

-c

On Oct 4, 5:12*pm, Mark Hansen > wrote:

> For crying out loud, Allan - the man is admitting he was wrong. That's a pretty hard thing to do. Why do you want to make it even harder?
>
> Chris: My hat's off to you. You've been a great contributor to the forums and I hope you stick around. There aren't too many "normal"
> folks left :-(

Thanks, Mark. I received a phone call at home from the Renton FSDO
last week:

"Mr. Gattman, somebody forwarded us a copy of a discussion that was
posted on the internet. We want to make sure you understand the
definition of a runway incursion..." One minute I'm making coffee and
the next minute I'm on a conference call with the FAA.

I said "Wow, that's kind of creepy, but, I'm glad you called because I
sent you e-mail and left voicemail about three weeks ago trying to
clear this up..."

Everything went fine from there. I asked again for the definition of a
Surface Incident and its source, and within a day or two, I received a
very pleasant e-mail and useful information. Over the phone he briefly
explained how the runway area is measured. (My notes are around here
somewhere.) They were courteous and very helpful and I have shared
this information with the local FBO and instructors.

One problem, I fear, is that whoever forwarded it to the FSDO may have
inadvertently included another flight instructor's comments indicating
he didn't have much respect for the FSDO types that were often ATPs
who couldn't get a job, that those guys often washed out of ATC but
not the other way around, etc. I really don't think the FAA would
appreciate instructors or their own employees out here casting
disparaging remarks about their office or making it sound like they're
a bunch of washouts or flunkies, or otherwise calling into question
their credibility or authority, especially on a student pilot forum. I
have chosen not to bring this to their attention.

Be careful what you say out here, everybody.

-c

On 10/04/09 18:00, C Gattman wrote:
> On Oct 4, 5:12 pm, Mark Hansen > wrote:
>
>> For crying out loud, Allan - the man is admitting he was wrong. That's a pretty hard thing to do. Why do you want to make it even harder?
>>
>> Chris: My hat's off to you. You've been a great contributor to the forums and I hope you stick around. There aren't too many "normal"
>> folks left :-(
>
> Thanks, Mark. I received a phone call at home from the Renton FSDO
> last week:
>
> "Mr. Gattman, somebody forwarded us a copy of a discussion that was
> posted on the internet. We want to make sure you understand the
> definition of a runway incursion..." One minute I'm making coffee and
> the next minute I'm on a conference call with the FAA.
>
> I said "Wow, that's kind of creepy, but, I'm glad you called because I
> sent you e-mail and left voicemail about three weeks ago trying to
> clear this up..."
>
> Everything went fine from there. I asked again for the definition of a
> Surface Incident and its source, and within a day or two, I received a
> very pleasant e-mail and useful information. Over the phone he briefly
> explained how the runway area is measured. (My notes are around here
> somewhere.) They were courteous and very helpful and I have shared
> this information with the local FBO and instructors.
>
> One problem, I fear, is that whoever forwarded it to the FSDO may have
> inadvertently included another flight instructor's comments indicating
> he didn't have much respect for the FSDO types that were often ATPs
> who couldn't get a job, that those guys often washed out of ATC but
> not the other way around, etc. I really don't think the FAA would
> appreciate instructors or their own employees out here casting
> disparaging remarks about their office or making it sound like they're
> a bunch of washouts or flunkies, or otherwise calling into question
> their credibility or authority, especially on a student pilot forum. I
> have chosen not to bring this to their attention.

Well, I'm sure whoever that was, they have their own reasons for doing
so, and I'm just as sure it has nothing to do with safety :-(
But I'm also sure they felt they were doing a service for the common
good of all humanity ;-)

I think the important lesson to be had here is that even when getting
information from an authoritative source, it's still being provided by
a Human Being, which like the rest of us, is susceptible to errors and/or
mistakes.

>
> Be careful what you say out here, everybody.

Always good advice.

Best Regards Chris (and others),

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

On Oct 4, 8:37*pm, C Gattman > wrote:
> On Oct 4, 4:05*pm, BeechSundowner > wrote:
>
> > I believe it supports everybody's position that said you were wrong in the first place.
>
> I believe you are correct. I have provided the exact official
> definition and source of both runway incursions and surface incidents,
> as well as a statement of clarification of what the term "runway
> incursion" is intended to mean, as well as material that specifically
> states what -isn't- an incursion. Nobody else provided that, so I
> asked the FSDO. They gave me authoritative source material and I
> shared it here.
>
> Apparently, "everybody" was unable or unwilling to do that. But I'm
> not out here for some sort of forum-bragging-rights penis-measuring
> contest, and what you think you know doesn't change my responsibility
> to teach what I believe to my students until I have sufficient
> authoritative source material to teach otherwise. Some Guy on the
> Internet and His Buddies doesn't count for "authoritative source
> material," and a URL doesn't either given the circumstances of being
> told otherwise by several professional sources including the FAA. You
> guys made it personal. I don't care about that.
>
> > But you are an instructor and I am a measly pilot that gave you the exact same verbiage in an FAA reference that I gave for runway
> > incursions.
>
> Do you feel better about yourself now?
>
> I'm sure General Aviation is much safer overall now that we can all
> agree on the bureaucratic distinction between a Runway Incursion and
> Surface Incident. It'll never change what I teach my students, though,
> which is: Don't cross onto the taxiway without clearance.
>
> If you have a problem with THAT, contact the nearest FSDO.
>
> -c

Bravo.

The 'net provides a screen so people can type things that would not be
said in person. Mixed Martial Arts -- protect yourself at all times.
People tend to be more polite in states like North Carolina, not
because we are in the southeast, but because it is fairly easy to get
a permit to carry a sidearm.

An armed society is a polite society!

C Gattman wrote:
>
> I believe you are correct. I have provided the exact official
> definition and source of both runway incursions and surface incidents,
> as well as a statement of clarification of what the term "runway
> incursion" is intended to mean, as well as material that specifically
> states what -isn't- an incursion. Nobody else provided that, so I
> asked the FSDO. They gave me authoritative source material and I
> shared it here.
>
> Apparently, "everybody" was unable or unwilling to do that.
>

The subject was runway incursions, I don't believe anyone asked for the
definition of surface incident.

On Oct 4, 7:12*pm, Mark Hansen > wrote:

> For crying out loud, Allan - the man is admitting he was wrong. That's
> a pretty hard thing to do. Why do you want to make it even harder?

For crying out loud, least he could do was apologies for the rude
replies he gave me. I feel he deserved my sharp reply.

> Chris: My hat's off to you. You've been a great contributor to the
> forums and I hope you stick around. There aren't too many "normal"
> folks left :-(

Only hats off when he recognizes his errors of his ways, not only with
the regulations but on how he handles dealing with other people.

On Oct 4, 5:23*pm, C Gattman > wrote:
>
> Spoke with the Renton FSDO and they sent me the following link to the
> 2002 Runway Safety Order 7050-1. As promised, I'll share the word:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/aso/Media/2002%20Runway%20S...
>

Links to that Order and to Notice 7050.2 which revised it were posted
in the runway incursions thread on September 17th.

Mark Hansen schreef:
> On 10/04/09 16:05, BeechSundowner wrote:
>> On Oct 4, 5:23 pm, C Gattman > wrote:
>>
>>> That's definitive enough for me, and support's McNicoll's position.
>> I believe it supports everybody's position that said you were wrong in
>> the first place.
>>
>> But you are an instructor and I am a measly pilot that gave you the
>> exact same verbiage in an FAA reference that I gave for runway
>> incursions.

> For crying out loud, Allan - the man is admitting he was wrong. That's
> a pretty hard thing to do. Why do you want to make it even harder?

> Chris: My hat's off to you. You've been a great contributor to the
> forums and I hope you stick around. There aren't too many "normal"
> folks left :-(

Seconded.

On Oct 4, 6:54*pm, BeechSundowner > wrote:

> Only hats off when he recognizes his errors of his ways, not only with
> the regulations but on how he handles dealing with other people.


If you don't invest too much of your ego on usenet, it doesn't matter
what people think. There is/was a pilot out here who used to get no
end of grief from a few posters for grammar and spelling errors, what
they perceived to be judgment errors, and after awhile, just about any
reason they wanted. The next thing you know, he's got his own business
ferrying brand new SR-22s and other airplanes all over the world,
making a bunch of money, flying as often as he wants and posting his
photos on the internet, living the dream of a lot of pilots and simply
ignoring people who criticized him. His critics never left
rec.aviation.piloting...

I haven't had a bad experience with a passenger, customer, student,
examiner or instructor yet. Once again, I'm not convinced I should
change my behavior just because somebody on the internet says to, but,
I'll certainly take it under consideration. If my way means that we'll
never fly an airplane together, I'm okay with that.

Thanks for the advice.

-c

On Oct 5, 10:15*am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:

> >http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/aso/Media/2002%20Runway%20S...
>
> Links to that Order and to Notice 7050.2 which revised it were posted
> in the runway incursions thread on September 17th.

In defense of Gattman and his cronies, how would he know OUTSIDE what
you posted if he is posting a FAA website citation? Any one of us
could have fallen into this trap.

Sounds like the FAA needs to do an update to their website as the link
was valid?

On Oct 5, 1:10*pm, BeechSundowner > wrote:
> On Oct 5, 10:15*am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/aso/Media/2002%20Runway%20S....
>
> > Links to that Order and to Notice 7050.2 which revised it were posted
> > in the runway incursions thread on September 17th.
>
> In defense of Gattman and his cronies, how would he know OUTSIDE what
> you posted if he is posting a FAA website citation? * *Any one of us
> could have fallen into this trap.
>

I do not understand your question. What trap? Gattman has cronies?


>
> Sounds like the FAA needs to do an update to their website as the link
> was valid?
>

?

On Oct 5, 2:24*pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:

> I do not understand your question. *What trap? *

Read below what I said.... If you provided a later notice Notice
7050.2, the FAA website still has 7050.1. Which is correct?

> > Sounds like the FAA needs to do an update to their website as the link
> > was valid?

On 10/05/09 11:10, BeechSundowner wrote:
> On Oct 5, 10:15 am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> wrote:
>
>> >http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/aso/Media/2002%20Runway%20S...
>>
>> Links to that Order and to Notice 7050.2 which revised it were posted
>> in the runway incursions thread on September 17th.
>
> In defense of Gattman and his cronies, how would he know OUTSIDE what
> you posted if he is posting a FAA website citation? Any one of us
> could have fallen into this trap.
>
> Sounds like the FAA needs to do an update to their website as the link
> was valid?

What cronies?



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

On Oct 5, 2:49*pm, BeechSundowner > wrote:
> On Oct 5, 2:24*pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> wrote:
>
> > I do not understand your question. *What trap? *
>
> Read below what I said.... *If you provided a later notice Notice
> 7050.2, the FAA website still has 7050.1. *Which is correct?
>

You can answer that question by reading them.

On Oct 5, 9:43*pm, C Gattman > wrote:
> On Oct 4, 6:54*pm, BeechSundowner > wrote:
>
> I haven't had a bad experience with a passenger, customer, student,
> examiner or instructor yet. *Once again, I'm not convinced I should
> change my behavior just because somebody on the internet says to, but,
> I'll certainly take it under consideration.


Chris, don't also discount the fact - and this is actually more
serious than people probably realize - that emails and posts can often
look impersonal and confrontational. Mails are IMO great for two
reasons - (a) you can address many people in one go and (b) they're
non-intrusive in the sense that the recipients can read/respond at the
times they choose. That doesn't take away the fact that its big minus
is that it can't, unless carefully written, convey what the tone of a
human voice can.

Each time I've trouble sleeping, I begin counting the number of people
I've met in real life who in person are markedly nicer than the
general tenor of their mails.

Ramapriya

D Ramapriya wrote:
> On Oct 5, 9:43 pm, C Gattman > wrote:
>> On Oct 4, 6:54 pm, BeechSundowner > wrote:
>>
>> I haven't had a bad experience with a passenger, customer, student,
>> examiner or instructor yet. Once again, I'm not convinced I should
>> change my behavior just because somebody on the internet says to, but,
>> I'll certainly take it under consideration.
>
>
>/snip/
>
> Each time I've trouble sleeping, I begin counting the number of people
> I've met in real life who in person are markedly nicer than the
> general tenor of their mails.
>
> Ramapriya

There is truth to that and I have seen it at work. We use email all the
time. Sometimes it is best to pick up the phone and call the person
before things get out of hand. Just the wrong sentence structure can
have a totally different meaning from the writer to the reader.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold :(
KSWI

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 18:21:05 -0700, Mark Hansen wrote:

> On 10/04/09 18:00, C Gattman wrote:
>> On Oct 4, 5:12 pm, Mark Hansen > wrote:
>>
>>> For crying out loud, Allan - the man is admitting he was wrong. That's a pretty hard thing to do. Why do you want to make it even harder?
>>>
>>> Chris: My hat's off to you. You've been a great contributor to the forums and I hope you stick around. There aren't too many "normal"
>>> folks left :-(
>>
>> Thanks, Mark. I received a phone call at home from the Renton FSDO
>> last week:
>>
>> "Mr. Gattman, somebody forwarded us a copy of a discussion that was
>> posted on the internet. We want to make sure you understand the
>> definition of a runway incursion..." One minute I'm making coffee and
>> the next minute I'm on a conference call with the FAA.
>>
>> I said "Wow, that's kind of creepy, but, I'm glad you called because I
>> sent you e-mail and left voicemail about three weeks ago trying to
>> clear this up..."
>>
>> Everything went fine from there. I asked again for the definition of a
>> Surface Incident and its source, and within a day or two, I received a
>> very pleasant e-mail and useful information. Over the phone he briefly
>> explained how the runway area is measured. (My notes are around here
>> somewhere.) They were courteous and very helpful and I have shared
>> this information with the local FBO and instructors.
>>
>> One problem, I fear, is that whoever forwarded it to the FSDO may have
>> inadvertently included another flight instructor's comments indicating
>> he didn't have much respect for the FSDO types that were often ATPs
>> who couldn't get a job, that those guys often washed out of ATC but
>> not the other way around, etc. I really don't think the FAA would
>> appreciate instructors or their own employees out here casting
>> disparaging remarks about their office or making it sound like they're
>> a bunch of washouts or flunkies, or otherwise calling into question
>> their credibility or authority, especially on a student pilot forum. I
>> have chosen not to bring this to their attention.
>
> Well, I'm sure whoever that was, they have their own reasons for doing
> so, and I'm just as sure it has nothing to do with safety :-(
> But I'm also sure they felt they were doing a service for the common
> good of all humanity ;-)

I sent it and why not? It was for safety, common good, education and to
point out this resource called Usenet to the FAA cyberdummies.

All winkers :) (;) from you aside, why didn't you?

> I think the important lesson to be had here is that even when getting
> information from an authoritative source, it's still being provided by
> a Human Being, which like the rest of us, is susceptible to errors and/or
> mistakes.
>
>>
>> Be careful what you say out here, everybody.
>
> Always good advice.
>
> Best Regards Chris (and others),

Be careful of what? I missed ti, what exactly is there to be afraid of?

On Oct 6, 11:28*am, Ross > wrote:
> Just the wrong sentence structure can
> have a totally different meaning from the writer to the reader.

I wish this was true in Gattmans case, but I can't find it in the
below reply to me from him in the other thread. The below simply is
inexcuseably rude.

>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.

His reply above to me was a very poor representation of an instructor
and I have never had anybody tell me either in person, email, postal
mail or even Usenet the above.

On Oct 6, 10:38*am, Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:

> > But I'm also sure they felt they were doing a service for the common
> > good of all humanity ;-)
>
> I sent it and why not? It was for safety, common good, education and to
> point out this resource called Usenet to the FAA cyberdummies.
>
> All winkers :) (;) from you aside, why didn't you?

As I mentioned, I contacted them about three weeks prior, by phone and
e-mail.

> Be careful of what? I missed ti, what exactly is there to be afraid of?

That some psychotic cyber-stalker might take the dispute beyond usenet
banner and potentially destroy people's careers.

The people who criticized the FAA/FSDO in the course of the discussion
might find themselves ramp-checked or contacted too. Fortunately,
we're dealing with the FAA which I regard as the good guys, if not a
necessary bureaucracy. I enjoyed talking to them. But, if people are
going to start reporting anything that people say to each other on the
internet, then who knows what kind of creepy behavior they're into.

-c

On Oct 6, 12:44*pm, BeechSundowner > wrote:
> On Oct 6, 11:28*am, Ross > wrote:

> I wish this was true in Gattmans case, but I can't find it in the
> below reply to me from him in the other thread. *The below simply is inexcuseably rude.
>
> >Because I'm an instructor and I brought it up on the student forum I
> >feel obliged to "reciprocate" and clarify for other readers.

The renewal of this discussion with me admitting I was in error is
proof of what I already explained to you, which is that as an
instructor who started the discussion on an internet forum, I feel
obligated to clarify for readers if I have been erroneous or caused
confusion. That is why I came back to this forum and offered the
details of my discussion with the FAA.

You will, of course, interpret my words however you wish. Clearly I
cannot stop that. But I want everybody here to know exactly what I
meant when I said the above, and I feel I have proven it through my
actions.

> >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.
>
> His reply above to me was a very poor representation of an instructor and I have never had anybody tell me either in person, email, postal
> mail or even Usenet the above.

I'm sorry if I've bruised your ego. Telling you what I saw happen or
what I mean has no value to you so clearly you don't respect my word.
I'm not here to engage in a contest with you, call you rude or
otherwise insult you. Goodbye.

-c

On Oct 6, 10:30*am, Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:

>> a wrote

> Seriously, when and why did they lock your Thorazine away?

Wow. You JUST WROTE:

"In Chris case, there was no doubt he was being an assclown with
statements such as: "

And then you start dropping snarky Thorazine insults. Odd.

Mr. Bloss, your contribution to the discussion is not necessary or
helpful, but it does illustrate what this newsgroup has become since I
started reading it in 1998. Thank you for providing this clarity.

-c

On Oct 6, 9:12*pm, C Gattman > wrote:

> I'm sorry if I've bruised your ego. Telling you what I saw happen or
> what I mean has no value to you so clearly you don't respect my word.
> I'm not here to engage in a contest with you, call you rude or
> otherwise insult you. Goodbye.

You didn't bruise my ego as I am not being defensive on what I typed
out. You just can't take it that somebody questioned you to back up
what you say. Luckily it's all in these these two threads that backs
everything I have said.

My question was can you provide an internet source for what you
stated. Your response 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.

I haven't been rude, just stating my opinion on what I perceive as
your poor presentation of an instructor when you give a reply such as
the above. There is nothing subject to interpretation. YOU TYPED it
out.

Your ego apparently has issues, not mine. If you call the above
statement polite or an appropriate response BY AN INSTRUCTOR to a
question to back up what you type, you really do have issues.

I have not mis-stated one thing.nor even tried to interpret anything
you said. If you plan to say what "I did", back it up linking it to
the direct post I typed. Otherwise you still continue to blow smoke.

On Oct 6, 8:02*pm, BeechSundowner > wrote:
> On Oct 6, 9:12*pm, C Gattman > wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry if I've bruised your ego. Telling you what I saw happen or
> > what I mean has no value to you so clearly you don't respect my word.
> > I'm not here to engage in a contest with you, call you rude or
> > otherwise insult you. Goodbye.
>
> You didn't bruise my ego as I am not being defensive on what I typed
> out. *You just can't take it that somebody questioned you to back up
> what you

I said Goodbye. I don't care what you think of me or what you think I
can't take. Get over it. -c

On Oct 7, 4:31*am, C Gattman > wrote:

> I said Goodbye. I don't care what you think of me or what you think I
> can't take. Get over it. *-c

You are now becoming my source of entertainment. :-)

Apparently you do care on what I think (or even others) or you
wouldn't be so obsessed on defending yourself by replying to me (or
others).

I don't have anything to "get over" since I didn't say or do anything
wrong. I live with a clean concience in this thread and the other
thread that you unprofessionally represent yourself as an
instructor.

I mean, after all, what is your justification for posting the
following? You are being quoted in it's entirety so it's not a matter
of subjective interpretation that you want everybody to believe.

>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.

The above wasn't a good sign of an instructor trying to portray a
professional image in an aviation newsgroup. After all, as I see it,
the CFI's are the role models for todays students. If you want your
students to see how you really represent aviation, you need to clean
up your act in the public forum as the above doesn't do you well for
your image or even for other fellow CFI's to the new people stepping
into these forums for the first time.

On Oct 6, 9:03*pm, C Gattman > wrote:
> On Oct 6, 10:38*am, Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:
>
> > > But I'm also sure they felt they were doing a service for the common
> > > good of all humanity ;-)
>
> > I sent it and why not? It was for safety, common good, education and to
> > point out this resource called Usenet to the FAA cyberdummies.
>
> > All winkers :) (;) from you aside, why didn't you?
>
> As I mentioned, I contacted them about three weeks prior, by phone and
> e-mail.

Your attention to detail must not be your forte. Jeffrey's question
was directed to Mark Hansen not you. He was asking Mark why he didn't
contact the FAA..

> > Be careful of what? I missed ti, what exactly is there to be afraid of?
>
> That some psychotic cyber-stalker might take the dispute beyond usenet
> banner and potentially destroy people's careers.

Your attention to detail must not be your forte. Jeffry Bloss hasn't
stalked you. I count only one direct response from Jeffrey to you in
this thread, hardly a stalker in my eyes.

Now if you sad cyber lurker, your sentence above would reflect the
situation more accurately.

In article
>,
BeechSundowner > wrote:

> On Oct 7, 4:31*am, C Gattman > wrote:
>
> > I said Goodbye. I don't care what you think of me or what you think I
> > can't take. Get over it. *-c
>
> You are now becoming my source of entertainment. :-)
>
> Apparently you do care on what I think (or even others) or you
> wouldn't be so obsessed on defending yourself by replying to me (or
> others).

I can't imagine that anybody in this thread cares very much what other
people think, because you all look like a bunch of colossal ******s to
me.

Want to impress people? Be informative, post civilly, and don't rise to
the bait when somebody else doesn't. Few people in this thread have
managed all three of these.

If this conversation had been carried out in a bar instead of on usenet
you'd all have black eyes and broken noses by now. You wouldn't talk
this way to the other guy's face, so don't talk that way here.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

On 10/07/09 09:47, Mike Ash wrote:
> In article
> >,
> BeechSundowner > wrote:
>
>> On Oct 7, 4:31�am, C Gattman > wrote:
>>
>> > I said Goodbye. I don't care what you think of me or what you think I
>> > can't take. Get over it. �-c
>>
>> You are now becoming my source of entertainment. :-)
>>
>> Apparently you do care on what I think (or even others) or you
>> wouldn't be so obsessed on defending yourself by replying to me (or
>> others).
>
> I can't imagine that anybody in this thread cares very much what other
> people think, because you all look like a bunch of colossal ******s to
> me.
>
> Want to impress people? Be informative, post civilly, and don't rise to
> the bait when somebody else doesn't. Few people in this thread have
> managed all three of these.
>
> If this conversation had been carried out in a bar instead of on usenet
> you'd all have black eyes and broken noses by now. You wouldn't talk
> this way to the other guy's face, so don't talk that way here.
>

+1



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

On Oct 7, 9:47*am, Mike Ash > wrote:

> I can't imagine that anybody in this thread cares very much what other
> people think, because you all look like a bunch of colossal ******s to
> me.

LOL! I'm doing my best not to.

> Want to impress people? Be informative, post civilly, and don't rise to
> the bait when somebody else doesn't. Few people in this thread have
> managed all three of these.

Thanks, Mike.

> If this conversation had been carried out in a bar instead of on usenet
> you'd all have black eyes and broken noses by now. You wouldn't talk
> this way to the other guy's face, so don't talk that way here.

Well said.

-c

On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 19:03:32 -0700 (PDT), C Gattman wrote:

> On Oct 6, 10:38*am, Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:
>
>>> But I'm also sure they felt they were doing a service for the common
>>> good of all humanity ;-)
>>
>> I sent it and why not? It was for safety, common good, education and to
>> point out this resource called Usenet to the FAA cyberdummies.
>>
>> All winkers :) (;) from you aside, why didn't you?
>
> As I mentioned, I contacted them about three weeks prior, by phone and
> e-mail.

In your diligence to defend yourself from irreparable Usenet reputation
denigration <chuckle> you quick-triggered a response to me...without
realizing I was not addressing you.

Carry on but spare me the verbal spanking you're already compiling.

On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 19:03:32 -0700 (PDT), C Gattman wrote:

>> Be careful of what? I missed ti, what exactly is there to be afraid of?
>
> That some psychotic cyber-stalker might take the dispute beyond usenet
> banner and potentially destroy people's careers.

If you are concerned with your career, here are several clues from me to
you.

1) Don't give out (any more) ****ty advice.
2) Don't post under your real name.
3) Best of all, get off Usenet, take your "banner" with you.

The last is the safest, trust me on this.

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 02:31:44 -0700 (PDT), C Gattman wrote:

> Goodbye.

> I said Goodbye.

You must define "goodbye" differently than almost all others.

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 05:32:55 -0700 (PDT), BeechSundowner wrote:

> On Oct 7, 4:31*am, C Gattman > wrote:
>
>> I said Goodbye. I don't care what you think of me or what you think I
>> can't take. Get over it. *-c
>
> You are now becoming my source of entertainment. :-)
>
> Apparently you do care on what I think (or even others) or you
> wouldn't be so obsessed on defending yourself by replying to me (or
> others).

Now that is the crux of Chris' problem shared by quite a few on these
fine newsgroups. The confusion between Usenet and reality.

If one went to a psychologist and tried to explain how it is emotionally
correct to become obsessed over Usenet text talk, I would wager heavily
that he would either laugh or medicate.

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:47:34 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:

> In article
> >,
> BeechSundowner > wrote:
>
>> On Oct 7, 4:31*am, C Gattman > wrote:
>>
>>> I said Goodbye. I don't care what you think of me or what you think I
>>> can't take. Get over it. *-c
>>
>> You are now becoming my source of entertainment. :-)
>>
>> Apparently you do care on what I think (or even others) or you
>> wouldn't be so obsessed on defending yourself by replying to me (or
>> others).
>
> I can't imagine that anybody in this thread cares very much what other
> people think, because you all look like a bunch of colossal ******s to
> me.

Another crystal ball gazing, astral projecting expert on Usenet
text-to-character analysis.

lol

> Want to impress people? Be informative, post civilly, and don't rise to
> the bait when somebody else doesn't. Few people in this thread have
> managed all three of these.

I don't want to impress anyone. I'll leave that to you and your
emotionally skewed Usenet-is-reality crew, Captain.

> If this conversation had been carried out in a bar instead of on usenet

But it isn't...

> you'd all have black eyes and broken noses by now. You wouldn't talk
> this way to the other guy's face, so don't talk that way here.

Ah, I see.

What you meant to say is...

"With all seriousness, I just want you to know that anybody who does
something like that to me would be in line for retribution with extreme
prejudice and without the slightest hesitation. I don't stop until I get
what I want when I'm motivated to be on the trail of anybody who stalks
me.

You see- I have, in reserve, in bars worldwide, my own tactics for
getting back at people, and many connections with people who will do
things for me (and I for them.)"

That's it, I'm outta here, you're crazy d00d.

lol

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 10:13:42 -0700, Mark Hansen wrote:

> On 10/07/09 09:47, Mike Ash wrote:
>> In article
>> >,
>> BeechSundowner > wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 7, 4:31�am, C Gattman > wrote:
>>>
>>> > I said Goodbye. I don't care what you think of me or what you think I
>>> > can't take. Get over it. �-c
>>>
>>> You are now becoming my source of entertainment. :-)
>>>
>>> Apparently you do care on what I think (or even others) or you
>>> wouldn't be so obsessed on defending yourself by replying to me (or
>>> others).
>>
>> I can't imagine that anybody in this thread cares very much what other
>> people think, because you all look like a bunch of colossal ******s to
>> me.
>>
>> Want to impress people? Be informative, post civilly, and don't rise to
>> the bait when somebody else doesn't. Few people in this thread have
>> managed all three of these.
>>
>> If this conversation had been carried out in a bar instead of on usenet
>> you'd all have black eyes and broken noses by now. You wouldn't talk
>> this way to the other guy's face, so don't talk that way here.
>>
>
> +1

Crazy d00d II

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 10:52:50 -0700 (PDT), C Gattman wrote:

> On Oct 7, 9:47*am, Mike Ash > wrote:
>
>> I can't imagine that anybody in this thread cares very much what other
>> people think, because you all look like a bunch of colossal ******s to
>> me.
>
> LOL! I'm doing my best not to.
>
>> Want to impress people? Be informative, post civilly, and don't rise to
>> the bait when somebody else doesn't. Few people in this thread have
>> managed all three of these.
>
> Thanks, Mike.
>
>> If this conversation had been carried out in a bar instead of on usenet
>> you'd all have black eyes and broken noses by now. You wouldn't talk
>> this way to the other guy's face, so don't talk that way here.
>
> Well said.
>
> -c

El Trio Nutzoids.

On Oct 7, 11:47*am, Mike Ash > wrote:

> I can't imagine that anybody in this thread cares very much what other
> people think,

Only one person cares what others think and it's clear to me it's
Gattman.

You are right, everybody else probably doesn't give one rats butt but
it should be known if he is an instructor, other CFI's should be
cringing for the way he has responded and behaved these past two weeks
in the newsgroups.

I am not a CFI, and I am cringing as I would never post such nonsense
that Gattman did in the fashion he did. Dudley and I have had our
public rounds of disagreement in these newsgroups and NOT ONCE did he
treat me rudely in the fashion that Gattman did. Now we can talk
first class CFI.

Gattman's answer "I'm doing my best not to" act like a ****** is
still a poor excuse. Apparently he can't assure that his best isn't
enough to prevent him from acting like a ******.

You wouldnt' want your childs teacher to act like he did in this
thread, a CFI is a teacher, a leader a role model and sorry for being
repetitive but what I have quoted time over time from Gattman is
simply inexcuseable. That's what raised my dander from day one.

Bad enough the information he provided was incorrect, but to not want
to provide a source for his information other then word of mouth, you
and I know is not enough.

Gattman should know this, but instead called it a some
sort of penis-measuring contest because I (and others) questioned him
was simply wrong, unprofessional and rude. I did nothing to warrant
this kind of response.

On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 19:36:06 -0700 (PDT), C Gattman wrote:

> On Oct 6, 10:30*am, Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:
>
>>> a wrote
>
>> Seriously, when and why did they lock your Thorazine away?
>
> Wow. You JUST WROTE:
>
> "In Chris case, there was no doubt he was being an assclown with
> statements such as: "
>
> And then you start dropping snarky Thorazine insults. Odd.

Odd, why? I followed your lead.

> Mr. Bloss,

Hoo-ah!

> your contribution to the discussion is not necessary or
> helpful, but it does illustrate what this newsgroup has become since I
> started reading it in 1998. Thank you for providing this clarity.
>
> -c

And thank you for inviting me to ChrisNet, I...wait, this is Usenet, you
make no rules, you make no difference.

You had me going there, for a minute, a brief one, you almost had me
NetKopped.

lol

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 12:04:55 -0700 (PDT), BeechSundowner wrote:

> On Oct 7, 11:47*am, Mike Ash > wrote:
>
>> I can't imagine that anybody in this thread cares very much what other
>> people think,
>
> Only one person cares what others think and it's clear to me it's
> Gattman.
>
> You are right, everybody else probably doesn't give one rats butt but
> it should be known if he is an instructor, other CFI's should be
> cringing for the way he has responded and behaved these past two weeks
> in the newsgroups.

Those who can, do; those who can't, teach. In this specific case I
reference "can" as being able to separate Usenet from reality.

If the CFI shoe fits the CFI delusions, let them wear them.

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 12:04:55 -0700 (PDT), BeechSundowner wrote:

> Gattman's answer "I'm doing my best not to" act like a ****** is
> still a poor excuse. Apparently he can't assure that his best isn't
> enough to prevent him from acting like a ******.
>
> You wouldnt' want your childs teacher to act like he did in this
> thread, a CFI is a teacher, a leader a role model and sorry for being
> repetitive but what I have quoted time over time from Gattman is
> simply inexcuseable. That's what raised my dander from day one.
>
> Bad enough the information he provided was incorrect, but to not want
> to provide a source for his information other then word of mouth, you
> and I know is not enough.
>
> Gattman should know this, but instead called it a some
> sort of penis-measuring contest because I (and others) questioned him
> was simply wrong, unprofessional and rude. I did nothing to warrant
> this kind of response.

Remember the song "cruel to be kind"? Here some "of the right measure".

Today with business falling off considerably (on the overwhelming
average), being a CFI, trusting your life to student pilots for a few
asspennies a day, is either the dumbest career choice ever or one made
out of simple default and necessity. Please, no one give me that
"contribution to society" **** either. Flying isn't a social
requirement.

So to have a named CFI come to an international stage like Usenet and
drop his trousers to show his ass for the world to see only does one
thing.

It assures me that at least this Chris CFI is one dumb MF and/or he is
locked into a one pony career burdened by ****4brains as his mental
pilot.

If the latter what a better way to advance your career than to publicize
the size of your stupidity by posting as he has on Usenet.

Fre Chris-sakes, there are 5th graders with better business sense.

Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:
[ Elided for brevity. ]

Good luck in building a mighty mountain of the proverbial mole hill.

On Oct 7, 6:30*pm, a > wrote:

> We are a few plies away from the "Your mother wears combat boots"

It's beyond that and you only have Gattman to thank for that. Here it
is again in the second line.....

>> 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.

While I may have called him a crap instructor in the other thread,
that was based on the above which I feel bears merit. What kind of
instructor responds like the above? Do you know any outside Gattman
on or offline? I can't say if you have encountered some but I have
not in Usenet, aviation forums, or outside cyberspace..

Would you want an instructor teaching you how to fly a plane with a
mentality of the above? I don't. and I honestly can't imagine anybody
supporting such a response and finding any good out of it. It's been
kind of amusing to see some of the "poor Gattman" responses The man
brought this on himself, not the other way around.

> level -- or have we passed it? Would you want to fly with PICs who
> have to have the last word? Would you want them in your airspace?.

Apparently you have one in the name of Gattman. Do CFI's count?

To answer your question, IN SOME WAYS, yes, I would want a PIC that
has the guts to say the last word ESPECIALLY if it's in the interest
of safety. Better to have a PIC make a decision then have a pilot
wallowing in the skies due to indecisiveness. Wrong decision, oops,
ok, hope nobody bends metal and deal with the paperwork on the ground,
but making a decision is "having the last word".

Of course CRM is always prudent but somebody has to have the last word
if there is a decision to be made.

On Oct 7, 12:03*pm, Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:

> > If this conversation had been carried out in a bar instead of on usenet
>
> But it isn't...

And that gives people like you the courage to say anything you want
without having to worry that somebody might rub your nose in it.
You have made his point.

You sound like a 13-year-old. Are you sure you're old enough to be
posting here?

-c

On Oct 7, 6:40*pm, A Lieberman > wrote:

> >> 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.

> Would you want an instructor teaching you how to fly a plane with a mentality of the above? *I don't.

LOL! Mr. Lieberman, I know you're not saying you would rather have an
instructor who wants to engage in a penis-measuring contest, so, why
don't you just let it rest?

Everybody can snip quotes and warp people's words out of context. Or,
maybe you actually like penis-measuring contests. I don't care.

Look, I'll make this simple so I don't confuse you: I'M NOT ASKING YOU
TO BE MY STUDENT AND YOU COULDN'T PAY TO GET IN AN AIRPLANE WITH YOU.
There. You think I'm a mentally-deficient instructor, and I think
you're a bloviating jackass who just told everybody that you'd rather
fly with people who like penis measuring contests. Contexts abandoned,
dispute resolved.

-c

On Oct 6, 8:02*pm, BeechSundowner > wrote:

> not being defensive on what I typed out. *You just can't take it that somebody questioned you to back up what you say. *

Mr "Sundowner", I started a new thread acknowledging that I was wrong,
and clarified my comments which, as I've told you several times now,
were made to indicate that I felt obligated to do so, even before I
actually corrected myself. When somebody challenged me to back up what
I said, I did so. Regardless of whether I was erroneous, I went so far
as to quote several sources and I even contacted the FAA. And when
they corrected me, I shared it with you all here. That is fact.

Now, you're simply lying. I don't know what motivates you to do that,
or what you think your opinion contributes to anything, but, now
you're lying. I cannot respect that and I'm sure you don't care.

-c

On Oct 8, 3:23*pm, C Gattman > wrote:

> LOL! *Mr. Lieberman, I know you're not saying you would rather have an
> instructor who wants to engage in a penis-measuring contest, so, why
> don't you just let it rest?

Not my reputation to uphold, so I thought you said good bye? Seems
you keep bringing the thread up to the top of the line. Why is that?

> Everybody can snip quotes and warp people's words out of context. Or,
> maybe you actually like penis-measuring contests. I don't care.

Nothing warped or snipped out of context. I quoted you word for
word. Tell me what did I quote out of text. YOU TYPED IT.

> There. You think I'm a mentally-deficient instructor,

I never said this, you said it. My opinion of you is that you are a
poor representation as an instructor and all instructors. Never said
anything about your mental state.

Your responses are amazingly amusing.

On Oct 8, 3:33*pm, C Gattman > wrote:

> Now, you're simply lying. I don't know what motivates you to do that,
> or what you think your opinion contributes to anything, but, now
> you're lying. I cannot respect that and I'm sure you don't care.

Please back up with your words where I am lying with direct links to
posts that I am lying. I bet you wont.

I bet I can prove my sharp responses to you are warranted and
justified with direct links to your postings. Again, thankfully it's
all out there. I live with a very clean conscience.

Can you justify your penis statement on your FIRST RESPONSE TO A
QUESTION I asked.??? This is s a very direct question. PLEASE ANSWER
THIS. I bet you won't.

I don't instruct, I don't have to uphold a standard that an instructor
SHOULD HOLD. But these two threads do show I don't come down to your
level of verbiage in my responses to you.

What is your excuse for responding like you did to me? I bet you
won't even answer this direct question. You haven't thus far, so I
won't expect any on this posting.

On Oct 8, 2:48*pm, Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:

> The same kind that asks whether a post is underage and inquires about
> his ass.

I'd have to agree with you here. Never answers my DIRECT questions.
He just diverts the question and adds more red herrings. Now, I am a
lier, but I can't figured what I have lied about. LOL I didn't know
asking questions was a lie, did you?

IN MY OPINION Gattman is not an instructor to be looked up to, that is
for sure.

C Gattman wrote:
>
> Mr "Sundowner", I started a new thread acknowledging that I was wrong,
> and clarified my comments which, as I've told you several times now,
> were made to indicate that I felt obligated to do so, even before I
> actually corrected myself. When somebody challenged me to back up what
> I said, I did so. Regardless of whether I was erroneous, I went so far
> as to quote several sources and I even contacted the FAA. And when
> they corrected me, I shared it with you all here. That is fact.
>

The information you shared with us all here had been provided during the
earlier discussion. Why wasn't it acceptable to you at that time?

On Oct 8, 4:26*pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:

> The information you shared with us all here had been provided during the
> earlier discussion. *Why wasn't it acceptable to you at that time?

Valid point. He won't answer......

> No but he is getting out his dodge ball.

lol...

can i play too?

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:33:02 -0700 (PDT), mstroble wrote:

>> No but he is getting out his dodge ball.
>
> lol...
>
> can i play too?

Mr. Gattman took his ball...and went home.