Commercial tour operator turning off ADS-B

MauleSkinner said:
I am asking because you said it would be a valid reason to do so.
Click to expand...
Actually, that's not what I said. In the post that you are referring to, I wrote "...a frame of reference can be built around this question..." Nowhere did I say that the questions themselves constitute valid reasons to act. Anticipating your follow-up, examples of valid reasons to act could include being witness to, or involved in, one or more incidents in which an individual engaged in careless, reckless, negligent, or non-compliant behavior that jeopardized the safety of others. Whether one such an incident, by itself, would be sufficient grounds to confront or report the individual depends on the circumstances, and the willingness of those involved to act. In all cases, whether to act and what action to take are decisions that must be made by the individual--as EdFred wittily noted, there's no ACS to turn to for guidance.
 
Roger Wilco said:
That was not my claim
Click to expand...

you wrote:
Roger Wilco said:
When we, the GA community, become aware of the bad actors among us but we fail to take action, then we must shoulder a portion of blame when things go horribly wrong.
Click to expand...

my restatement of that was “You lost me at the point of claiming that I must be a bad actor because I took no action. ...”. What did you mean that was different from what I wrote?
 
bflynn said:
my restatement of that was “You lost me at the point of claiming that I must be a bad actor because I took no action. ...”. What did you mean that was different from what I wrote?
Click to expand...
Your restatement reflects your misinterpretation of what I wrote, putting your words into my keyboard, so to speak. I believe that my first post on this topic stands on its own without need of explanation or amplification. But this is an internet forum where misinterpretation and misunderstanding are unavoidable and keep us busy for hours and hours so we don't have to do anything meaningful. So, let me clarify the statement in question: Bad actors are the ones who crash the planes. Those of us who might have, at some point, intervened in such a way that could have prevented those tragedies, but who instead chose not to do so, bear a certain blame. Nowhere did I state or imply that choosing not to intervene makes one a bad actor; but perhaps, in that sense, we would be bad non-actors.

Your point seems to be that you refuse to accept the blame that I described, and, simply put, I accept that.
 
Roger Wilco said:
Actually, that's not what I said. In the post that you are referring to, I wrote "...a frame of reference can be built around this question..." Nowhere did I say that the questions themselves constitute valid reasons to act. Anticipating your follow-up, examples of valid reasons to act could include being witness to, or involved in, one or more incidents in which an individual engaged in careless, reckless, negligent, or non-compliant behavior that jeopardized the safety of others. Whether one such an incident, by itself, would be sufficient grounds to confront or report the individual depends on the circumstances, and the willingness of those involved to act. In all cases, whether to act and what action to take are decisions that must be made by the individual--as EdFred wittily noted, there's no ACS to turn to for guidance.
Click to expand...
And the frame of reference had nothing to do with “being witness to, or involved in, one or more incidents in which an individual engaged in careless, reckless, negligent, or non-compliant behavior that jeopardized the safety of others.” It was solely about that person meeting one’s personal standards.
You also said:
Roger Wilco said:
Hell No! would definitely merit intervention.
Click to expand...
I see no leeway here for decisions to be made by the individual.
 
MauleSkinner said:
And the frame of reference had nothing to do with “being witness to, or involved in, one or more incidents in which an individual engaged in careless, reckless, negligent, or non-compliant behavior that jeopardized the safety of others.” It was solely about that person meeting one’s personal standards.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The list of concrete, valid reasons that I proposed was not meant to amplify my earlier frame-of-reference post, but as a specific response to your reply. It is clear now that I should have put more thought into that post--and I have you to thank for that realization--but you and I both know that checkrides aint' got nuthin' to do with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top