If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
Runway incursions
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 02:22:38 -0700 (PDT), C Gattman wrote:
On Sep 15, 8:35*pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "Any occurrence at an aerodrome involving the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle or person on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and take-off of aircraft" http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...N%207050.2.pdf I strongly encourage you to discuss this with your FAA official guest from the Seattle FSDO that gave that CFI seminar and bring him up to speed. I'll be sure to tell him some guy on the internet said he was wrong, after ATC--totally different people that the guest--filed two runway incursion reports for taxiway incursions. Well, bad news ole boi, you were wrong, you were corrected by someone "on the internet". Life is good, learn lessons. Just b/c the discussion happens ion Usenet, you feel it is of downgraded value? Interesting. Do we apply the same denigration to your participations? |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
Runway incursions
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:33:32 -0700, Jim Stewart wrote:
Steven P. McNicoll wrote: Morgans wrote: "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote A clearance is required to operate on a taxiway, operating on a taxiway without a clearance does NOT constitute a runway incursion. I agree fully with that. Isn't there an official term for operation on a taxiway without permission, or operating equipment that does not have a yellow blinking light? I seem to recall "unauthorized movement" or something like that. Unauthorized operation on a taxiway would be a Pilot Deviation, Vehicle Deviation, or Pedestrian Deviation, depending on the culprit. I saw a Coyote Deviation a couple of days ago... I have a septum deviation........... |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
Runway incursions
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 05:44:48 -0500, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
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.) So you were able to claim Chris' unfit to teach from a Usenet post? Really amazing. I don't expect you to respect me, I don't care if you respect me, I place no value on your respect. This is Usenet. The above statement is superfluous. |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
Runway incursions
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:49:51 -0500, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
C Gattman wrote: I've been out here since 1998. Unlike, I guess, a lot of people here, I'm not out here to "establish credibility." And you haven't. Also, I forwarded links and references including those from the FAA. Which indicated runway incursions can only occur on runways. You chose to attack me personally I did not attack you personally. and ignore my sources, I didn't ignore your sources, I acknowledged them and pointed out that they do not support your position. In fact, they clearly indicate that a runway incursion can only occur on a runway. You should have read them. and you wrote " I cited the FAA notice that defines runway incursion and posted a link to it." I cited the FAA as well, repeatedly, which you consistently refused to acknowledge, so now I'm going to rub your nose in it: "It is important to note that the FAA formerly tracked incidents that did not involve potential aircraft conflicts as surface incidents. These incidents were not classified as "runway incursions" and were tracked and monitored separately. Most of these events are now considered Category C or D incursions, which are low-risk incidents with either no conflict potential or ample time or distance to avoid a collision. This means that the total number of runway incursion reports increased primarily because surface incidents are now classified as runway incursions." http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/...m?newsId=10166 Dated July 30, 2009. Why don't you read the material you cite? Here's the paragraph, with emphasis added by me, that immediately precedes what you copied and pasted from that page: "What is a RUNWAY INCURSION? A RUNWAY INCURSION is any unauthorized intrusion onto a RUNWAY, regardless of whether or not an aircraft presents a potential conflict. This is the international standard, as defined by the International Civil Aviation Organization and adopted by the FAA in fiscal year 2008." You are, I trust, aware that www.faa.gov is the Federal Aviation Administration and not some clueless FSDO rep or air traffic controller. Yup. According to the ATC who is working right now, Pilot Deviation and Vehicle Deviation are causes of the incursions, not the incursions themselves. I trust our local Air Traffic Controller. Are you suggesting that pilots shouldn't trust FAA ATC? Say it. Okay. I'm ATC, trust me. How's that? I don't know what tower dudes or FSDO dude told you. You've clearly demonstrated an inability to understand the written word, perhaps you lack the ability to understand the spoken word as well. As a professional pilot and instructor, There's nothing at all professional about you, your attitude makes you unfit to teach. Step away from the glue gun. |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
Runway incursions
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 23:20:25 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
So if you could stop insulting others until you or they collectively get your acts together, it would be appreciated. Otherwise you come across (as you have put it) as a "wacko." I've insulted nobody. You are not in a position to make that assertion unless you have ESP. The real problem is that there is any discussion on Usenet insulting anyone fer Chrissakes it's Usenet, it's print on screen. |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
Runway incursions
Jeffrey Bloss wrote:
So you were able to claim Chris' unfit to teach from a Usenet post? Affirmative. Really amazing. Thank you. |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
Runway incursions
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 16:03:58 -0500, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Jeffrey Bloss wrote: So you were able to claim Chris' unfit to teach from a Usenet post? Affirmative. Did you use crystal balls or astral projection? Really amazing. Thank you. That you would continue to post like an idiot. You're welcome. |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
Runway incursions
Jeffrey Bloss wrote:
Did you use crystal balls or astral projection? No. |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
Runway incursions
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 20:45:02 -0500, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Jeffrey Bloss wrote: Did you use crystal balls or astral projection? No. That leaves talking out your ass when you claimed "Chris Gattman was unfit to teach" from a Usenet post? Snipping your asstalk, then having me reinsert it, really doesn't deal you a hunk of credibility. Which is very important to you otherwise why snip your asstalk in the first place. Oh well, there's no undoing those who sink their personal feelings into Usenet posts. That is best left to psychoanalysts, best of luck there. |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
Runway incursions
Jeffrey Bloss wrote:
That leaves talking out your ass when you claimed "Chris Gattman was unfit to teach" from a Usenet post? Actually, it leaves what he wrote, but you're not expected to understand that. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ILS Runway 1, Visual approach runway 4 KMEI - Video | A Lieberma[_2_] | Owning | 0 | July 4th 09 06:13 PM |
Runway Red Lights to cut down on incursions. | Gig 601XL Builder[_2_] | Piloting | 23 | March 3rd 08 08:28 PM |
Runway incursions | James Robinson | Piloting | 6 | November 10th 07 06:29 PM |
Rwy incursions | Hankal | Piloting | 10 | November 16th 03 02:33 AM |
Talk about runway incursions... | Dave Russell | Piloting | 7 | August 13th 03 02:09 AM |