In rec.aviation.student zac.badenoff wrote:
Michael Ash wrote:
You're rather jumping to conclusions here. He never stated just how far
away the other aircraft was. "Formation maneuvers" is no doubt hyperbole,

OK Michael, let's dance.

".. no doubt hyperbole" .. that would be *you* jumping to a conclusion
then?

I don't think so. The scenario is a student flying with his instructor and
getting close enough to another airplane, away from an airport, for the
student to take note. The reasonable assumption is that the instructor is
competent, the student interested, and the term "formation maneuvers" used
for effect, not a literal description, particularly given that reasonable
formation maneuvers require the cooperation of the other guy.

and given the way some pilots treat traffic the other aircraft could have
been two miles away and still have caused nervousness. Without knowing the
distances and more importantly altitudes involved we can't say whether
there was any danger, and generally you should assume that the pilots in
question were competent and thus hopefully there was none.

The way Jeff had written it though, led me to believe there *may* have
been a potential for danger, that's all.

You said it "shocked" you, and you then proceeded to question his
judgement in not contacting the other aircraft. This would appear to go
beyond idle speculation about possibilities.

PS: Finally, what is it with all the aggressive attitude against certain
posters in newsgroups? IMHO It's exceedingly immature and disheartening
in this day and age. My 2c.

I find this to be tremendously and amusingly ironic given that you
basically attacked the other poster about his behavior in the air, albeit
using nice words while doing so.

Michael, at *no* stage was my reply an attack and to make that
assumption makes me wonder about your approach to posts on Newsgroups,
that you'd immediately apply an aggressive stance to my post. There was
no such intent from me, you have read this into my post, for no good
reason, all by yourself.

Well, I don't really believe it was an attack but it's easy to read it as
one, what with "shocked", the stars around the obvious words like
"contact", the description of dire consequences should the other plane
have done something unexpected, and the overly dramatic restating of basic
principles of airmanship. This is exactly what I mean as far as posts
which are not meant to be an attack getting interpreted as one.

It is easy to misinterpret motivations over the internet when all you have
to go by is text. For best effect, give others the benefit of the doubt.

Perhaps and indeed you should apply that good advice for yourself?

The only cases of outright and unambiguous hostility I have seen in here
have been toward a target who absolutely and richly deserves it. There is
nothing immature about berating a pompous ass who has once again decided
to act like a prick.

Yes, that's why I have a kill file. If you don't wish to read this chaps
post then *plonk* him into your kill file and voila, less stress in your
life. However I do understand and note that it is *good sport* to berate
and insult those whom you vehemently disagree with, rather than take the
higher ground and simply choose to ignore them.

The poster in question goes far beyond "disagree with". He regularly posts
knowledgeable-sounding articles in subject areas with which he has no
actual experience or real knowledge, e.g. flying airplanes.

While I personally believe that if you ignore him he will go away, some
other posters seem to believe that he needs to be debunked lest some less
experienced souls mistake his worthless spoutings for actual knowledge. I
don't agree but I can certainly see why they would do this.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software