Surface class E ?

[poadeleted20]

I've received NOTAMs indicating ASOS/AWOS out of service, but I never assumed the airport manager was the source of the NOTAM.

Airport facility NOTAMs are normally generated by the airport manager. Others can do so, e.g., FAA navaid maintenance folks can generate NOTAMs on the navaids they service, but most airport-based NOTAMs come from the airport manager. In fact, airport managers are supposed to be in on all NOTAMs affecting their airports. I recently spoke with the SBY manager (who is an inactive pilot) and asked about the NOTAM raising the mins on the VOR 23 approach. He was upset to learn about it from me now, rather than the FAA when it was done a couple of months ago.

 

[roncachamp]

Yes, and you're reading more into the original premise than was there.

Here's the OP, what do you feel I'm reading into it?

"LNR airport has class E airspace from the surface. The ASOS is not correct on the visibility most of the time. Today it was reporting 2 miles and clear. I saw the airport from 8 miles out, runway clearly in sight. Who has precedence the ASOS or the pilots visibility?"

He was speaking to strictly visibility. Period!

So am I.

Look at the second part in 91.155(d)(2):
"...or, while operating in the traffic pattern is at least 3 statute miles."

Look at the first part of 91.155(d)(2):

"If ground visibility is not reported at that airport,"

Since ground visibility was reported at LNR 91.155(d)(2) does not come into play.

Continue and observe. If it's the least bit questionable, continue to the alternate. By your interpretation, the tower's reporting of "tower visibility" in remarks would be irrelevant.

If the ASOS says there's 4 miles visibility and the tower says there's 2 miles visibility then the visibility is 2 miles. If the ASOS says there's 2 miles visibility and the tower says there's 4 miles visibility and the tower does not have the ability to augment the ASOS then the visibility is 2 miles.

BTW, LNR does not have a tower.

More than a few times ASOS would report 2-2.5 miles while tower would add remarks for much more by comparison. What makes that tower controller's ATIS remarks more credible than my observation?

He's looking at identifiable objects at a known distance and direction from the observation point and you're not. But note that tower visibility does not override a lower ASOS observed visibility.

In Pegasus' original question there was no comment on clouds or otherwise.

Actually, there was a comment on clouds in Pegasus' original message. He said the LNR ASOS "...was reporting 2 miles and clear." "Clear" refers to sky condition, I asked him why the emphasis on clear but he didn't respond.

I responded to the question as presented.

So did I. Your answer was wrong.

 

[roncachamp]

For the first, I can only offer experiential data -- the NOTAMs showing ASOS's are unreliable in one area or another. Look around the NOTAM file, and you'll find them. For some time last year, the KGED ASOS was NOTAM'd unreliable for wind direction.

You claimed the airport manager can NOTAM the ASOS as being "unreliable" in any or all of its sensory categories. I asked if you could offer any verifiable documentation to support that assertion, clearly you cannot. It appears you simply assumed that airport managers were the source of unreliable ASOS NOTAMs.

 

[roncachamp]

Airport facility NOTAMs are normally generated by the airport manager. Others can do so, e.g., FAA navaid maintenance folks can generate NOTAMs on the navaids they service, but most airport-based NOTAMs come from the airport manager. In fact, airport managers are supposed to be in on all NOTAMs affecting their airports. I recently spoke with the SBY manager (who is an inactive pilot) and asked about the NOTAM raising the mins on the VOR 23 approach. He was upset to learn about it from me now, rather than the FAA when it was done a couple of months ago.

An airport manager is not necessarily in a position to know if an ASOS is reporting reliable information.

 

[KennyFlys]

Steven, go back and read the FAR. Note the word, "or".

You even want to argue his mentioning clear was referencing clouds. Take it that "clear" meant clouds were not a factor in the question and leave it at that. Geeze.

I've gone back into Austin several times where there were NO clouds below 12,000 by not just the ASOS but by common sense observation. Visibility was 8-10 by the ASOS but much less by "common sense" observation; anywhere from 3-6 miles. It was simply haze lowering visibility. Regardless of what the ASOS said, I had the visibility of the airport at four miles and continued. It was legal and more importantly, it was safe.

Please, please, please... stay up north. Please don't ever transfer to a Texas facility.

 

[poadeleted20]

You claimed the airport manager can NOTAM the ASOS as being "unreliable" in any or all of its sensory categories. I asked if you could offer any verifiable documentation to support that assertion, clearly you cannot. It appears you simply assumed that airport managers were the source of unreliable ASOS NOTAMs.

Good night, Steven.

 

[roncachamp]

Steven, go back and read the FAR. Note the word, "or".

Here's the regulation with the word "or" emphasized:

(d) Except as provided in §91.157 of this part, no person may take off or land an aircraft, or enter the traffic pattern of an airport, under VFR, within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport—


(1) Unless ground visibility at that airport is at least 3 statute miles; or


(2) If ground visibility is not reported at that airport, unless flight visibility during landing or takeoff, or while operating in the traffic pattern is at least 3 statute miles.




Clearly, you believe the word "or" allows pilots to choose between flight and ground visibility. That is not the case, flight visibility comes into play ONLY if ground visibility is not reported.

You even want to argue his mentioning clear was referencing clouds. Take it that "clear" meant clouds were not a factor in the question and leave it at that. Geeze.

His mentioning clear was referencing clouds, what did you think it meant? "Clear" means the ASOS has not detected any clouds within 12,000 feet of the surface. I asked him why he put emphasis on "clear" since clouds were obviously not a factor.

I've gone back into Austin several times where there were NO clouds below 12,000 by not just the ASOS but by common sense observation. Visibility was 8-10 by the ASOS but much less by "common sense" observation; anywhere from 3-6 miles.

How do you know what the "common sense" observation was?

It was simply haze lowering visibility. Regardless of what the ASOS said, I had the visibility of the airport at four miles and continued. It was legal and more importantly, it was safe.

Is an ASOS reported visibility of two miles in a surface area legal and safe to continue to the airport?

Please, please, please... stay up north. Please don't ever transfer to a Texas facility.

I'm willing to help you gain an understanding of these matters but you're going to have to change your attitude. It's not like I can access your brain and overwrite your misconceptions with an accurate understanding. It's time for you to put some effort into your aviation education.

 

[roncachamp]

Good night, Steven.

Good afternoon.

 

[Everskyward]

flight visibility comes into play ONLY if ground visibility is not reported.

I agree. You need to go by the ASOS. For example, if our takeoff minimums are 1/4 mile and the ASOS is reporting 1/8 mile we can't go even if our eyeballs say the visibility is at least a mile.

As far as the inaccurate ASOS goes, here is an example. Of course you can't tell who initiated the NOTAM. I have never reported an inaccurate ASOS but I have reported an inaccurate PAPI for which there was no NOTAM. I first reported it to the airport manager. His response was that he knew it was inaccurate and they were working on it. I thought that was a little risky because it was indicating high when the airplane was low so I reported it to the controlling FSS. They said they would look into it. I think that if you have an ASOS that you know is inaccurate you can report it to an FSS also.

 

[KennyFlys]

I was referencing "or". There was not the word, "and" which is how you seem to be interpreting that rule.

As far as clouds, I assumed the person was smart enough to clearly determine the sky was clear by old fashioned common sense observation. Unlike you seem to do, I don't assume their dumb.

If I have to explain common sense to you then we better include it in a lesson on ADM.

I may not be the smartest cookie here on this board but I'm not short any chips where they need to be. You, on the other hand, seem to be carrying your chips on the shoulder ready to argue with a single cloud.

To quote Vincent "Vinny" Gambini, "I have to further use for this witness." Good day, Sir.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Yes, and you're reading more into the original premise than was there.

I guess that's what happens when people use a term that doesn't have an official definition, such as "hard" IMC. You take the term to mean in the clouds at or near minimums; Steven apparently takes it to mean flight in any conditions that are defined as IMC, even if it's 900' below the clouds with 100 miles visibility (IMC in Class E above 10,000 msl).

 

[KennyFlys]

I guess that's what happens when people use a term that doesn't have an official definition, such as "hard" IMC. You take the term to mean in the clouds at or near minimums; Steven apparently takes it to mean flight in any conditions that are defined as IMC, even if it's 900' below the clouds with 100 miles visibility (IMC in Class E above 10,000 msl).

Heck, I take it to mean I have no visibility much beyond the cowling and I'm in the middle of the clouds. If I have any glimpses of the ground, it may be legal IMC but at the point one could soon begin to recover visually. If I have a glimpses of a clear sky, again it's legal IMC but there's the chance to climb to VFR on top. In other words, I see such views as options.

The other day, I took a primary student up on top for maneuvers. We descended back through a layer that started about 5,500. ATC allowed me to descend to 3,000. I advised him if I could have 2,000 I'd be in VMC. Obviously, I had enough glimpses of the ground to make that reasonable determination. He let me come down to 2,500 which apparently was his minimum vectoring altitude (MSA on the plate is 2600). But I was still close to skimming the bases. A bit closer in, he allowed me to come down to 2,000 for a visual into 17L.

Amazingly, some common sense observation when nearing the base allowed me to provide some information which ultimately allowed me to get lower and take the simpler route as opposed to mixing it up with the airliners for an ILS. Now, had I been coming from the south... I'd stick it out in the clouds. There's some steel stick in the ground that makes it up to 2,049 southwest of the airport. There's a bunch more of 'em to the west. Common sense, I tell ya... oh so valuable!

 

[roncachamp]

I was referencing "or". There was not the word, "and" which is how you seem to be interpreting that rule.

As far as clouds, I assumed the person was smart enough to clearly determine the sky was clear by old fashioned common sense observation. Unlike you seem to do, I don't assume their dumb.

You don't assume their dumb what?

If I have to explain common sense to you then we better include it in a lesson on ADM.

You're not in a position to explain common sense to me or to anyone else.

I may not be the smartest cookie here on this board but I'm not short any chips where they need to be. You, on the other hand, seem to be carrying your chips on the shoulder ready to argue with a single cloud.

Actually, you ARE short on chips where they need to be. You just don't realize that you are. Please, please, please... stay in Texas, and advise your students to stay there also. We don't need any more poorly trained pilots up north.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Remember that little thing about how a station in one corner of the airport won't necessarily accurately report what's happening in the other corner?

Now, if you would read the OP's original premise, pilot judgment would not be an issue. He's not arriving in hard IMC. If it's a non-towered airport, fly over and look. If the situation looks better than reported, continue an approach to the point it's deemed visibility requirements are no longer there.

That's what I was thinking - that until your wheels touch the ground, it'd be flight visibility, and that if you ducked your head an inch with your wheels an inch off the ground that you'd know the actual ground visibility.

However, that doesn't work. From 14 CFR 1.1:

Flight visibility means the average forward horizontal distance, from the cockpit of an aircraft in flight, at which prominent unlighted objects may be seen and identified by day and prominent lighted objects may be seen and identified by night.

Ground visibility means prevailing horizontal visibility near the earth's surface as reported by the United States National Weather Service or an accredited observer.

Now the question becomes "Is an ASOS an official US NWS source, or is it an FAA source?" I couldn't find that info for AWOS, but the AIM says the following about ASOS:

ASOS/AWSS is the primary surface weather observing system of the U.S. (See Key to Decode an ASOS/AWSS (METAR) Observation, FIG 7-1-8 and FIG 7-1-9.) The program to install and operate these systems throughout the U.S. is a joint effort of the NWS, the FAA and the Department of Defense.

So it would appear that the ASOS could be considered to be "reported by the United States National Weather Service" while an AWOS might not be.

 

[brcase]

Simple solution, keep calling the controlling agency give them a Pirep and request special VFR operations. If they get it enough they may send someone to fix the ASOS

And get a many pilots as you can to report it. That way if there ever is a legal problem it will be on record from multiple sources that the ASOS has been reported inaccurate.

Brian

 

[gismo]

For the first, I can only offer experiential data -- the NOTAMs showing ASOS's are unreliable in one area or another. Look around the NOTAM file, and you'll find them. For some time last year, the KGED ASOS was NOTAM'd unreliable for wind direction

For grins I called a friend who runs an airport near here with an ASOS about this. He said that when (not if BTW, apparently his has indeed had problems) the ASOS is screwed up he reports it to the MNDOT who actually installed and maintains the system. Apparently they then report it to FSS for NOTAM generation.

 

[KennyFlys]

Scenario 1: Pilot is under IFR and descends as allowed to a lower altitude placing him in VMC. It's hazy but visibility is 4-5 miles by his determination and he's well under the base by the required 500 feet. He has good ground contact as he flies over the airport on the outbound leg of his VOR approach. He contacts the TRACON or ARTCC as appropriate and request a visual approach for the airport. However, the AWOS for his intended field is reporting less than VFR on visibility only. The sky is clear. The controller sees this and reasonably refuses to authorize the visual approach as it's him also on the line here. The pilot may cancel IFR and continue to the airport under VFR provided he does indeed observe the VFR minimums required. He's perfectly legal to do so.

Scenario 2: The sky is clear but visibility is hanging around 4-5 miles. A pilot is approaching from nearby airport. He sees the lower visibility but determines it's high enough for him to safely land and does so. By the way, he has no radio so no weather information is received from an AWOS. He's also perfectly legal.

So... Where in the following is it indicated the source of the the data must be an ASOS, AWOS or ATIS? That seems to be the assumption here. It can be strictly pilot observation.

91.155

(d) Except as provided in Sec. 91.157 of this part, no person may take off or land an aircraft, or enter the traffic pattern of an airport, under VFR, within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport--
(1) Unless ground visibility at that airport is at least 3 statute miles; or
(2) If ground visibility is not reported at that airport, unless flight visibility during landing or takeoff, or while operating in the traffic pattern is at least 3 statute miles.

 

[roncachamp]

So it would appear that the ASOS could be considered to be "reported by the United States National Weather Service" while an AWOS might not be.

A surface area requires a federally certified weather observer or a federally commissioned automated weather observing system. All FAA and NWS approved and certified weather reporting systems are included.

 

[roncachamp]

Scenario 1: Pilot is under IFR and descends as allowed to a lower altitude placing him in VMC. It's hazy but visibility is 4-5 miles by his determination and he's well under the base by the required 500 feet. He has good ground contact as he flies over the airport on the outbound leg of his VOR approach. He contacts the TRACON or ARTCC as appropriate and request a visual approach for the airport. However, the AWOS for his intended field is reporting less than VFR on visibility only. The sky is clear. The controller sees this and reasonably refuses to authorize the visual approach as it's him also on the line here. The pilot may cancel IFR and continue to the airport under VFR provided he does indeed observe the VFR minimums required. He's perfectly legal to do so.

Wrong. The pilot cannot continue to the airport under VFR. The airport is in a surface area, VFR requires the ground visibility at that airport to be at least 3 statute miles.

Scenario 2: The sky is clear but visibility is hanging around 4-5 miles. A pilot is approaching from nearby airport. He sees the lower visibility but determines it's high enough for him to safely land and does so. By the way, he has no radio so no weather information is received from an AWOS. He's also perfectly legal.

Wrong. The pilot cannot continue to the airport under VFR. The airport is in a surface area, VFR requires the ground visibility at that airport to be at least 3 statute miles. There is no exemption from VFR weather minima for non-radio aircraft.

So... Where in the following is it indicated the source of the the data must be an ASOS, AWOS or ATIS?

Where it says "ground visibility" in 91.155(d)(1).

A surface area requires a federally certified weather observer or a federally commissioned automated weather observing system. That includes all FAA and NWS approved and certified automated weather reporting systems. The source of weather on an ATIS is a federally certified weather observer or a federally commissioned automated weather observing system.

That seems to be the assumption here. It can be strictly pilot observation.

Do you ever think? How did the arriving pilots in your scenarios above determine the ground visibility?

 

[poadeleted20]

The only visibility a pilot may legally determine from the air is flight visibility. If there is no official observation (no observer or AWOS/ASOS), the pilot may determine ground visibility from the surface. If it the airport was in G-space below E (either 700 or 1200 variety), and there was no observer or AWOS/ASOS, then the pilot could determine it was more than 1 mile and launch VFR into the G-space, and then determine that the flight vis was more than 3 and enter the overlying E-space. However, since an official observation is necessary for there to be surface-based controlled airspace, that won't work in the posted situation.

 

[KennyFlys]

Is the controller going to refuse to allow the pilot to cancel IFR? I doubt it. The now VFR pilot may descend and take a look-see just as the following pilot can.

Is the NORDO VFR pilot going to call ahead? Even if he did, perhaps the temperature decreased the spread so visibility decreased while en route. It's not illegal for him to look at the circumstance and determine one, if it's legal; two, if it's safe; three, is it within his personal minimums?

Simple, Steven... They looked! As they continued to descend, visibility straight ahead was either sufficient to be marginal or better or it became diminished. In the latter, a good pilot would climb back up and return home or pick an alternate.

Are you this way with aircraft you "control"?

 

[roncachamp]

Is the controller going to refuse to allow the pilot to cancel IFR? I doubt it. The now VFR pilot may descend and take a look-see just as the following pilot can.

Wrong. The now "VFR" pilot is operating in an area with less than the required minimum visibility for VFR flight.

Is the NORDO VFR pilot going to call ahead? Even if he did, perhaps the temperature decreased the spread so visibility decreased while en route. It's not illegal for him to look at the circumstance and determine one, if it's legal; two, if it's safe; three, is it within his personal minimums?

Wrong. It's illegal to operate "VFR" in a surface area with less than the required minimum visibility. It doesn't matter if the pilot has a radio or not, minimums are minimums.

Simple, Steven... They looked! As they continued to descend, visibility straight ahead was either sufficient to be marginal or better or it became diminished. In the latter, a good pilot would climb back up and return home or pick an alternate.

They looked and determined the ground visibility was at least three miles? Please explain exactly how they did that.

Are you this way with aircraft you "control"?

Absolutely. Would you want it any other way? Would you prefer controllers used less than the minimum required separation?

I find it hard to believe you're a CFI. This is pretty basic stuff, every instructor should have a good understanding of it. You do not.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Scenario 1: Pilot is under IFR and descends as allowed to a lower altitude placing him in VMC. It's hazy but visibility is 4-5 miles by his determination and he's well under the base by the required 500 feet. He has good ground contact as he flies over the airport on the outbound leg of his VOR approach. He contacts the TRACON or ARTCC as appropriate and request a visual approach for the airport. However, the AWOS for his intended field is reporting less than VFR on visibility only. The sky is clear. The controller sees this and reasonably refuses to authorize the visual approach as it's him also on the line here. The pilot may cancel IFR and continue to the airport under VFR provided he does indeed observe the VFR minimums required. He's perfectly legal to do so.

No, he's not. 14 CFR 91.155(d)(1) requires GROUND visibility of at least 3 statute miles, and 14 CFR 1.1 clearly defines who can determine ground visibility, and it ain't the pilot.

Scenario 2: The sky is clear but visibility is hanging around 4-5 miles. A pilot is approaching from nearby airport. He sees the lower visibility but determines it's high enough for him to safely land and does so. By the way, he has no radio so no weather information is received from an AWOS. He's also perfectly legal.

No, he's not either, and for the same reason.

So... Where in the following is it indicated the source of the the data must be an ASOS, AWOS or ATIS? That seems to be the assumption here.

It doesn't say ASOS, AWOS, or ATIS. It says "as reported by the United States National Weather Service or an accredited observer." See the definitions of flight and ground visibility from 14 CFR 1.1 that I posted earlier.

It can be strictly pilot observation.

No, it can't.

Is the controller going to refuse to allow the pilot to cancel IFR? I doubt it.

No. But as soon as the pilot cancels IFR, he assumes responsibility for maintaining VFR minimums, and if he lands, he has busted 91.155(d)(1).

The now VFR pilot may descend and take a look-see just as the following pilot can.

He can take a look-see all day long, but as soon as he enters the pattern or wheels hit the ground, it's a bust.

Is the NORDO VFR pilot going to call ahead? Even if he did, perhaps the temperature decreased the spread so visibility decreased while en route. It's not illegal for him to look at the circumstance and determine one, if it's legal; two, if it's safe; three, is it within his personal minimums?

It is illegal. If you disagree, show me where lack of radios exempts you from 91.155.

As for how to tell - Someone mentioned the ASOS turning on the beacon automatically. I know that is what the tower does at the home drome when the field goes IFR.

BTW, I've also had this situation happen at a class C, and the same rules apply. I had taken off from RYV and I could see the field, and the runway, from over 20 miles away. But, fog was rolling in and had covered the ASOS after I listened to ATIS (and they were cutting a new ATIS while I called Approach). Approach said "The field just went IFR, say intentions." I reported that I had the field in sight, but the controller again stated "The field is IFR." So I requested a pop-up clearance and shot the ILS. On final, Tower advised "RVR 2400, rollout 6000." I was in clear air the whole way down.

Now I realize that controller did me a favor.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Well.....I've gotten different vis reports from tower and ground at a Class D airport. One would allow me to meet standard departure minimums; one wouldn't. Of course, part 91 doesn't have any departure minimums unless something goes wrong <g>. I was IFR. Oh me, on my, what to do!!

As I climbed after departure, I called tower and report the vis on the runway was what tower had stated to me. That field didn't have RVR.

Best,

Dave

 

[RMCN172RG]

Two things to muck up here.

How about a request for a contact approach?

I had the opposite experiaence as reporteed here I was IFR to PTK and as I was roughly entering a downwind passing the airport on a 270 heading to shoot the ILS 9R the airport went VFR.

So I was asked if I had the airport in sight.

Answer yes, but I will be into the clouds which were just West of the airport momentarily.

Vectors too, and shot the ILS breaking out 1/2 mile west of the airport.

 

[Missa]

And get a many pilots as you can to report it. That way if there ever is a legal problem it will be on record from multiple sources that the ASOS has been reported inaccurate.

Brian

Nah, you just get 10 pilots togeter to go to breakfast at the airport, each call up in sequance and give the Pirep and request special VFR. You'll all be stuck circling outside the class E airspace as you are allowed in one at a time to land... but the controlling agency may want to get the ASOS fixed and fast... before the next breakfast crowd comes next weekend.

 

[PittsDriver]

Is an ASOS reported visibility of two miles in a surface area legal and safe to continue to the airport?

No, and maybe. It's not legal to continue VFR on into, or launch out of Class E surface area of an airport when the ASOS on that field is reporting < 3mi. I'm not sure how that's ambiguous or unclear to anyone.

Legal and safe are two completely different things and that's why I said 'maybe.' But let me ask this esteemed group this question: if it's a towered field and I ask for a Special VFR and get it - is it now legal for me to fly in and land there?

 

[roncachamp]

Legal and safe are two completely different things and that's why I said 'maybe.'

Legal and safe are two completely different things but there was just one question, the correct answer is "No."

But let me ask this esteemed group this question: if it's a towered field and I ask for a Special VFR and get it - is it now legal for me to fly in and land there?

Yes, that's true even if it's a nontowered field.

 

[KennyFlys]

One thing I completely missed in the original post all along was "from the surface." I had too much else going on while coming back to this board and should have left it alone while attempting to accomplish other things. So, I was wrong on certain issues.

That being said, Steven's arguing attitude is appalling. His belittling of others is unnecessary. I have no problem admitting I'm wrong. I've done so with my students and others. Unlike what Steven wants to insinuate, there is no CFI who knows every answer just like there is no controller who knows every answer. Having obtained a CFI ticket only means I've met the PTS in required knowledge level and the ability to teach it. I was told long ago I would never learn near as much until I began teaching. There's more truth in that than I ever envisioned. There's at least one thing new, if not several, everyday that comes to me. On top of this, I continually dig into old issues of various periodicals so I may glean from those. It doesn't end. But, I won't hold a superior attitude while I learn these things nor when I teach them to others.

 

[Missa]

No, and maybe. It's not legal to continue VFR on into, or launch out of Class E surface area of an airport when the ASOS on that field is reporting < 3mi. I'm not sure how that's ambiguous or unclear to anyone.

Legal and safe are two completely different things and that's why I said 'maybe.' But let me ask this esteemed group this question: if it's a towered field and I ask for a Special VFR and get it - is it now legal for me to fly in and land there?

It doesn't have to be a towered feild as long as you get a special VFR clearance from the controlling authority. If the ASOS is reporting 2 miles and clear, but that's only in the ditch they put the ASOS in... and you can see just fine. Then get the special and go.

 

[roncachamp]

One thing I completely missed in the original post all along was "from the surface."

You posted nine messages in a thread called "Surface class E ?" and never noticed the title? You posted a quote of FAR 91.155(d) and didn't notice it was limited to surface areas?

I had too much else going on while coming back to this board and should have left it alone while attempting to accomplish other things. So, I was wrong on certain issues.

That implies you feel you were right on some issues. So on which issues do you now recognize that you were wrong and on which issues do you still feel you were right?

That being said, Steven's arguing attitude is appalling.

How so?

His belittling of others is unnecessary.

What belittling of others?

Unlike what Steven wants to insinuate, there is no CFI who knows every answer just like there is no controller who knows every answer.

But every competent CFI knows basic VFR minima. You just learned it today in this thread. That's appalling.

 

[LearDriver]

Steven P McNicoll, relax man. You are coming off looking like a jerk. You can convey your thoughts a little more of a toned down manner. Otherwise you are just going to be having everyone tuning you out.

 

[bbchien]

What belittling of others?

Sigh...

 

[roncachamp]

Steven P McNicoll, relax man. You are coming off looking like a jerk. You can convey your thoughts a little more of a toned down manner. Otherwise you are just going to be having everyone tuning you out.

I'm quite relaxed, mellow even. You're reading things into my messages.

 

[roncachamp]

Sigh...

Sighing does not point out any belittling of others.

 

[LearDriver]

I'm quite relaxed, mellow even. You're reading things into my messages.

No, I am not reading anything into what you are writing. You made the following statements which are belittling.


I find it hard to believe you're a CFI. This is pretty basic stuff, every instructor should have a good understanding of it. You do not.

But every competent CFI knows basic VFR minima. You just learned it today in this thread. That's appalling.

Actually, you ARE short on chips where they need to be. You just don't realize that you are. Please, please, please... stay in Texas, and advise your students to stay there also. We don't need any more poorly trained pilots up north.

 

[roncachamp]

No, I am not reading anything into what you are writing. You made the following statements which are belittling.


I find it hard to believe you're a CFI. This is pretty basic stuff, every instructor should have a good understanding of it. You do not.

But every competent CFI knows basic VFR minima. You just learned it today in this thread. That's appalling.

Actually, you ARE short on chips where they need to be. You just don't realize that you are. Please, please, please... stay in Texas, and advise your students to stay there also. We don't need any more poorly trained pilots up north.

Yes, I made those statements, but they are not belittling. To belittle is to regard or portray as less impressive or important than appearances indicate. All of those statements are accurate and they are all supported by Kenny's messages in this thread.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

You can be factually correct; yet, bruise egos to the point no one cares to listen. Let's see: you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar---mean anything?

We ALL make mistakes. Some folks ask nice questions that cause us to think through them, or point them out in nonconfrontational terms. Some folks rub noses in the dirt.

Best,

Dave

 

[Clark1961]

Yes, I made those statements, but they are not belittling. To belittle is to regard or portray as less impressive or important than appearances indicate. All of those statements are accurate and they are all supported by Kenny's messages in this thread.

Get thee to a nunnery dude, it's your only hope.

(yup, I meant what I typed, just hope they let you in...maybe wear a dress or something)

 

[poadeleted20]

I find it hard to believe you're a CFI.

He's not.

Name : MCNICOLL, STEVEN PATRICK
FAA Region : Great Lakes
Airman Certificates : Control Tower Operator