violation

[AC560]

The bottom line: It is never a bad idea to submit a NASA form except if you intentionally created an unsafe situation.

Please explain why it would be a bad idea to submit the form if you intentionally created the unsafe situation. In specific how filing the form makes your situation worse then if you don't file it.

 

[JediNein]

Thanks AAFlyer! I last read AA's ASAP program briefing in early 1998 after an outstation incident, so I was going on old faded memory for that.

Two questions if you know the answers: Does the ASAP prevent, prohibit, or ignore ASRS reports for AA's program? Is there a limit to the number of ASAP reports a pilot can file before AA's 'train to proficiency' goes out the window?

 

[AV80R]

Do NOT listen to Russian I cannot believe he is asking you NOT to file!? Remember that you are always guilty until proven innocent – NASA form can only help NEVER hurt you!

Was your transponder on? If so, they’ll know if it was you or not. You think you were not guilty and you probably weren’t, HOWEVER, what if you are wrong? Maybe you were off by a mile or so? Sometimes it’s hard to tell from the cockpit but it's easy for them looking on the radar where different airspace borders are very clear.

In the WORST case scenario, IF they do find you guilty of some kind of violation a NASA form might be used in lie of the violation. Lets say they give you a 60 day suspension (which I seriously doubt in your case) if you have filed a NASA form your record will say “NASA form #... used in lie of a 60-day suspension” In other words you’ll keep your ticket. However, they don’t even have to know about the NASA form until you deem like you need it.

In my view, a NASA form can only help; it can NEVER be used to “identify you” etc. Russian gives you wrong information!

Btw, you only have 10 days after the incident to file it. Anyone telling you not to file is doing you a major disservice! I think nothing will happen in your case but you never know - please be smart and file!

“The one draw back to filing the NASA form is that it is a once in a life time get out of jail almost free card.”

Learwannabe – totally false! You can file 10 NASA forms a day, there’s NO limit to that. However, once a NASA form has been used (in other words you have been notified of a potential violation and are using the NASA form to waive any suspensions etc) you must wait 5 years before you can use a NASA form to defend your license again.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Please explain why it would be a bad idea to submit the form if you intentionally created the unsafe situation. In specific how filing the form makes your situation worse then if you don't file it.

Because he and the Russian say so.

That's all - personal opinion having nothing to do with the way the program works.

 

[AC560]

once a NASA form has been used (in other words you have been notified of a potential violation and are using the NASA form to waive any suspensions etc) you must wait 5 years before you can use a NASA form to defend your license again.

No, no, no. Use of the NASA form has nothing to do with it. Use it/don't use it. The only thing that matters is whether or not you have had a violation in the past five years.

It does not matter if you filled out a report, used a report, looked at a report, thought about a report, or did anything with the report, all that matters is:

1. the violation was inadvertent and not deliberate;
2. the violation did not involve a criminal offense, or accident. or action under 49 U.S.C. Section 44709 which discloses a lack of qualification or competency, which is wholly excluded from this policy;
3. the person has not been found in any prior FAA enforcement action to have committed a violation of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII, or any regulation promulgated there for a period of 5 years prior to the date of occurrence; and
4. the person proves that, within 10 days after the violation, he or she completed and delivered or mailed a written report of the incident or occurrence to NASA under ASRS. See paragraphs 5c and 7b.

Rather then continuing on with this I would suggest everyone go and read this. Far to many people that think they know what they are talking about as opposed to taking the time to reevaluate their thoughts to make sure they are right.

Whether you have a PPL or a ATP that piece of paper gives you the same opportunity, an opportunity to learn. Far to many people around here seem to think at some point they stop learning, these are usually the people who get a violation or worse yet kill themselves. Don't be one of those people.

 

[AAflyer]

Thanks AAFlyer! I last read AA's ASAP program briefing in early 1998 after an outstation incident, so I was going on old faded memory for that.

Two questions if you know the answers: Does the ASAP prevent, prohibit, or ignore ASRS reports for AA's program? Is there a limit to the number of ASAP reports a pilot can file before AA's 'train to proficiency' goes out the window?

Hi Jedi,

My undestanding is it prevents the ASRS report. (Will have to check). There is No limit on the number of ASAPs we can file. In fact in recurrent they stress if you are concerned at all file one. In the last year I filed 3.

One the cockpit door came open on TO, the locking soleniod failed.

I had a waypoint drop out on a flight from BDL to ORD.

Lastly a month ago flying to SFO, approach cleared American XXX to descend to FL210. !0 seconds later he asked UAL XXX what altitude he was at. He meant to send UAL down to 210 and leave us up a little longer. It was his mistake, he apologized and said not to worry about it. Well, we filed an ASAP anyway.


Regards,

AA

P.S. I would have filed the NASA form in the event that the thread is about.

P.S.S Rereading your question I am not sure about what type would end the train to proficiency. I am sure 3 ASAPS for landing early due to running out of gas would most likely negate the ASAP. It was never mentioned in the briefing. I would safely say that it is most likely based on the individual and the type of incident.

 

[avbug]

I believe that the pilot should not file the ASRS report due to the fact that he knows he was not the sought pilot. If he did not make a deviation due to safety, then he should not file. He knows, and explained to the controlling agency, that it was not him. If it truly was him, and he was sure about it. A filing of a ASRS report would be applicable due to an accidental deviation into class B.

Now, say he caused a major traffic deviation. The FAA could find criminal neglect on the pilot if the passengers on the deviating plane were injured in the manuever. And, the ASRS system will not be able to protect him. Of course, this is all hypothetical. But, it could happen.

If the FAA would like to press the issue further, he would recieve a letter of investigation with or without filing to the ASRS system. If the FAA can prove that the said pilot knew better, the FAA can seek certificate action under criminal charges.

On another note, his filing fill falsify the statistics. This would be due to a deviation filed that was not committed.

Every time you tap on that keyboard, somehow you just come out dumber and dumber. Okay, genius...

The FAA seeks certificate action under criminal charges?

You understand that FAA regulation, being part of the Code of Federal Regulations, is ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, not criminal law, right??? You had the FAA getting people fired before (which they gladly accepted rather than have their certificates suspended)...Now you've given them the authority of the judiciary, too.

Under very unusual circumstances criminal charges may be proferred (very rarely, such as in the proceedings from the loss of Valuejet against certain of Sabretechs employees)...but this has NOTHING to do with certificate action. Nothing. Nada. You undertstand and grasp this concept in some small way??

The ASRS isn't about statistics, or about deviations. It isn't. It's about safety. It can be for anything a reporting party--pilot or non-pilot--wants to report. Your assertion that the submitter is falsifying statistics is idiotic. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Not a clue. Yet, you keep talking about it, and your rambling is starting to make you sound like one of the three dumbest posters I've seen here in years. Good grief...do a little research, get some semblence of a clue as to what you're saying before you keep posting this garbage.

If the original poster had been the subject of enforcement action and waited to file an ASRS report, then he could seek no protection under the program. He would have gone past the 10 day limit. Strike one for you, my boy.

If the original poster had been the subject of enforcement action and had filed the report, the FAA would have no way of knowing he had filed the report unless he elected to reveal it to them...as it's sanitized with all names and information removed before the FAA ever gets to see it. Strike two for you, mate.

If the original poster had been the subject of enforcement action and was given an administrative penalty, at that time he would have the option of producing the date and time-stamped title strip to the report, and claiming his privilege of waiving the penalty of the enforcement action...unless he listened to you, brightspark. Strike three.

 

[AAflyer]

Russian,

You have to be the first guy in all my GA years and airline flying years that promoted not filing an ASRS. I think you should read Avbugs response above.

I am little disappointed in that you are 121 airline captain dispensing bad information. If you are unsure it may be wise not to say anything.

Regards,

AAflyer

P.S. It appears the individual THINKS and almost 100% sure it was not him. When in doubt...Well many of us have explained that to you already. Maybe you should call the FSDO and see what they say.

 

[Almerick07]

Every time you tap on that keyboard, somehow you just come out dumber and dumber. Okay, genius...

Now that was funny

 

[JimNtexas]

Please explain why it would be a bad idea to submit the form if you intentionally created the unsafe situation. In specific how filing the form makes your situation worse then if you don't file it.

Well, I think that intentionally creating an unsafe situation is probably a crime, and you're not suppose to use the form to report crimes.

But on the other hand you won't get into trouble for anything you submit to NASA, they won't turn you in.

Let's suppose you are operating a jet plane using the callsign 'Ghost Rider'. You call JFK tower and ask to do a high speed tower fly-by.

JFK Tower replies "Negative Ghost Rider, the pattern is closed". But you go ahead and do the high speed pass anyway, intentionally creating an unsafe situation.

You decide to file a NASA report. On the description line, the line that the FAA does see, you write "Intentional disregard of ATC instruction".

You won't get in trouble for admiting to the fly by in the text of the NASA form. NASA won't burn you.

On the other hand, in this case you're probably not going to get out jail free, report or no report. But heck, give it try!

Now when the FAA calls you in demanding your butt you can slap the NASA tear off on the table and laugh at them, saying "here's my get out of jail card suckers!" and just start laughing at them. Good luck with that.

Kidding aside, one thing that I think has the Russian confused is that you do want to be careful about what you write on the tear off part of the NASA form, the part that you show to the FAA. It's better to not confess to a violation in the description at the top of the form. For example, if you are reporting an altitude bust you might consider putting "question about assigned altitude" rather than "leveled off at wrong altitude".

You'd really rather have no certificate action on your record rather than an action with punishment waived due to the NASA form. The FAA will see the tear off before they make the final decision to pursue formal certificate action. There is no point in turning in a written confession of a crime to them as part of this process.

If the FAA can convince the judge that the violation was intentional then you don't get out of jail free, and the NASA report just added gas to the fire.

ETA: Avbug is correct, it's very possible that your tower fly-by was a violation of blackletter federal law. If you break federal law then your friendly neighborhood U.S. District Attorney won't be impressed at all by your NASA form.

 

[AC560]

It appears the individual THINKS and almost 100% sure it was not him. When in doubt...Well many of us have explained that to you already. Maybe you should call the FSDO and see what they say.

Do not do that, ever. Anything you say in that conversation could be used against you. Your calling alone could prompt them to open an investigation. A very good link was provided EdAtTheAirport talking about what information you are required to provide if contacted by the FAA and other good advice in general (from an aviation lawyer). Any time you go beyond that understand you can be digging a hole for yourself. He filed the report, he should forget about it until he hears something and when he does his first call should be to an aviation lawyer.

If the FAA can convince the judge that the violation was intentional then you don't get out of jail free, and the NASA report just added gas to the fire.

I don't disagree my point to you was it seemed you were implying that what you put on that report can be used against you. Even if that report nails your ass to the wall and you introduce it, it can't be used per 14 CFR 91.25 against you by the FAA. They got to show something else to prove your intent.

It might be pretty stupid to write a report describing how you were a moron but unless you are describing a criminal act you got nothing to worry about.

 

[AAflyer]

Do not do that, ever. Anything you say in that conversation could be used against you. Your calling alone could prompt them to open an investigation. A very good link was provided EdAtTheAirport talking about what information you are required to provide if contacted by the FAA and other good advice in general (from an aviation lawyer). Any time you go beyond that understand you can be digging a hole for yourself. He filed the report, he should forget about it until he hears something and when he does his first call should be to an aviation lawyer.



I don't disagree my point to you was it seemed you were implying that what you put on that report can be used against you. Even if that report nails your ass to the wall and you introduce it, it can't be used per 14 CFR 91.25 against you by the FAA. They got to show something else to prove your intent.

It might be pretty stupid to write a report describing how you were a moron but unless you are describing a criminal act you got nothing to worry about.

You misunderstood, I am asking the Russian to call the FSDO and ask their opinion of when to use the ASRS. I would never suggest calling the FAA if you are worried you broke an FAR.

AAflyer

 

[AC560]

You misunderstood, I am asking the Russian to call the FSDO and ask their opinion of when to use the ASRS. I would never suggest calling the FAA if you are worried you broke an FAR.

Sorry for the misunderstanding!

 

[JimNtexas]

I don't disagree my point to you was it seemed you were implying that what you put on that report can be used against you. Even if that report nails your ass to the wall and you introduce it, it can't be used per 14 CFR 91.25 against you by the FAA. They got to show something else to prove your intent.

It might be pretty stupid to write a report describing how you were a moron but unless you are describing a criminal act you got nothing to worry about.

You are of course correct. My main point is that the FAA never, ever sees the actual text of your report, the big white block where it says 'describe event/situation'.

All the FAA sees is the tear off part of the form where there is a line for 'type of event/situation'. I've often heard it said that one should not confess to a violation on that line. You just want enough on the 'type of event line' to show that the form you filed related to the event that the FAA is investigating.

 

[The_Russian]

I do not have much time to post. I am out on the line and quite busy. I cannot understand why you folks can't see what I am saying. I strongly think we all agree on the use of the ASRS system. What I don't think you understand is that the ASRS system does not make you invincible. It is not a "get out of jail free card" that can give pilots an excuse to deviate or make mistakes. That is all I am trying to say.

The story I told about the two pilots getting fired is true. The ASRS system self-disclosure they made of their error led the FAA to make their decision. I will not give any more details to protect their identity. You must understand that.

I would not hesitate to call the FSDO if I had any questions. Even if I had caused a deviation. Working directly alongside the FAA and admitting your mistakes is the best way to improve safety. The ASRS sytem is not proactive in increasing safety, only in creating statistics.

Avbug, do not every speak of me that way again. You do not know me, and I do not appreciate it when someone speak to me in such a tone. You speak a lot, and should really take some time to listen.

The FAA already knows who he is because he told them on the phone.

 

[Alamanach]

...I cannot understand why you folks can't see what I am saying. I strongly think we all agree on the use of the ASRS system. What I don't think you understand is that the ASRS system does not make you invincible. It is not a "get out of jail free card" that can give pilots an excuse to deviate or make mistakes. That is all I am trying to say...

You've said somewhat more than that; you've said that Almerick07 shouldn't submit an ASRS report. But as I said in my last post to you:

(I)t seems to me that there was a genuine safety concern, in that ATC couldn't keep track of which plane was which. Based on what you've said-- that the ASRS reports are for safety issues, that a pilot can submit one whether he made an error or not, that this is a safety reoprting tool, and that it is not a "get out of jail free" card-- I would think an ASRS report would be appropriate.

You say it's not appropriate, but I can't see how you come to that conclusion in light of the other things you've said.

If you can clear up this apparent contradiction, please do so when you have the time. Thanks.

 

[The_Russian]

You've said somewhat more than that; you've said that Almerick07 shouldn't submit an ASRS report. But as I said in my last post to you:



If you can clear up this apparent contradiction, please do so when you have the time. Thanks.

Sorry if I confused anyone. Sometimes it is difficult to keep track of your posts when you are running in and out of crew rooms.

To respond to your question, I would say that would be appropriate. But, this is not what he did, nor was it what he inquired about. He asked if he should admit error to a deviation he did not make.

Kudos for bringing that up. It is actually the most appropriate way to handle this concerning the ASRS system. Reporting that controllers were unable, maybe by no fault of their own, to identify previously identified aircraft near class B airspace could be a safety hazard. If filed under that pretense, then the FAA may be able to find a hole in the controllers communication system or a procedure with a flaw in it.

Hope this helps clear that up. Off to the next crew room.

 

[Alamanach]

Well, there you go, everybody, we all agree. Almerick07 should file an ASRS report. He needs to be careful about what he's actually reporting, especially in the title strip, but we all agree he should file a report. Somewhere down the road, should the FAA pursue an investigation, such a report might even protect him from a suspension.

 

[SIG600]

1) If you think "should I file a NASA report?" the answer is always "yes I should" unless you engaged in a willful violation.

2) The report goes to NASA, not the FAA.

3) NASA pays the postage.

4) It can only help you should a certificate action occur.

+1 billion... In six months when you walk to your mailbox and find some BS about this matter from the FAA (which is how long it could take), that is NOT the time to be filling it out. It'll take you 5 minutes, and is cheap insurance (but not a get out of jail free card).

 

[avbug]

If filed under that pretense, then the FAA may be able to find a hole in the controllers communication system or a procedure with a flaw in it.

See? It does get dumber and dumber.

Pretense? Say what happened. Describe your lot, and move on. Sad days.

Gulfstream Airlines captain was it? I get it, now.

I would not hesitate to call the FSDO if I had any questions. Even if I had caused a deviation. Working directly alongside the FAA and admitting your mistakes is the best way to improve safety. The ASRS sytem is not proactive in increasing safety, only in creating statistics.

Well there you go...your voice on this subject has been so informed, everyoen would be listening to the voice of reason and knowledge to follow this counsel...how dimwitted can one get in one thread??

The ASRS...the Aviation SAFETY Reporting System...isn't about safety, is that correct? Rather than report a problem via the program approved by the FAA...you counsel anyone foolish enough to listen to you to pick up the phone and call the friendly FAA? Ever tried that after you committed a violation?

You're aware that under administrative law, particularly as administered by the FAA, you're guilty until proven innocent, and when you call the FAA, you're not being listened to in order to hear your side of the story, right? You're being recorded for the express purpose of using that call against you...you do know that right? Tell me you're not so dense as to not know that, please. Lemme guess...you did a professional flight program at a school and you took an aviation law class (which appears to have been failed)...and now you're an expert? Ever been the subject of enforcement action? Ever walked through the process? Or do you know of a case you can't cite (if the FAA dealt with it, it's public information, brightspark), can't properly apply, involved with a program you don't understand and can't intelligently discuss, and use that for the basis of providing disinformation?

No need to answer...it's all quite clear.

Avbug, do not every speak of me that way again. You do not know me, and I do not appreciate it when someone speak to me in such a tone. You speak a lot, and should really take some time to listen.

All you base belong to us, is that it, mate? Are you drinking when you're typing? Do not every speak of you that way again? What every way would you like? I did listen to you. I laughed a lot, got a little disgusted, and the part that really gets your goat is I QUOTED YOU!! That's really tough, isn't it? Try learning just a little, just a scad, just a touch about whence you speak, don't sound so stupid, don't dole out such uninformed, idiotic advice that someone might actually follow...and you won't be spoken to like that again. Fair enough?

As far as knowing you, I know more about you from your few posts than I care to know, and I'm not impressed.

 

[The_Russian]

Avbug,

You are so worked up on arguing with me that you are missing my points. None of what you are arguing with me about at this point is on the subject. Instead, you are attemting to insult my person. Stop talking about me in this way. The slander is not appreciated. You are also not getting any points across by adding injury to insult. Please read what I am writing and comment on that, not on me.

 

[avbug]

Oh, we already did that, mate. Seinfeld could have run two years just from the material you've given us here. Despite you being wrong about nearly everything you've given us, you continue to defend such ludicrous points that one really has to question if you're even a certificated pilot.

Truly...I've known two other screen names, long since banned from here,who sounded just like you...both fakes, but both handing out bad advice based on a complete lack of understanding. For the professional...not a big deal. But for the private or student, or new instructor who listens to what you have to say...you could actually hurt someone. If you're truly a pilot, I have a bigger concern that you really may hurt someone...this level of ignorance about something so simple and basic to the industry at large just isn't possible for someone who claims to be an airline captain. Even someone who bought their way into an industry when they couldn't get hired the normal route.

We've already addressed your comments, quoted you line by line, and you've been inaccurate and wrong on each count....you just keep coming back and have the gall to not only argue the same tired, inaccurate, false points, but defend them, and then demand to be heard. Don't talk to you this way, you say. Mate, how could I address you in any other?

But seeing as you asked...I'll throw you one more bone.

The slander is not appreciated.

You may not know this, but slander is spoken. Libel is written. Therefore, this would be libel...but it's not, because it's based on your own words, and these are observations that have been clearly laid out over eight pages now. And it's accurate. Keep on fanning the flames...your posts are what are often referred to as flame bait...so keep on baiting, keep on biting, and keep on entertaining. If you do see some genuine libel, you be sure to let us all know it's slander, so we can stop, okay?

 

[Charlie_Foxtrot]

Oh, we already did that, mate. Seinfeld could have run two years just from the material you've given us here. Despite you being wrong about nearly everything you've given us, you continue to defend such ludicrous points that one really has to question if you're even a certificated pilot.

Truly...I've known two other screen names, long since banned from here,who sounded just like you...both fakes, but both handing out bad advice based on a complete lack of understanding. For the professional...not a big deal. But for the private or student, or new instructor who listens to what you have to say...you could actually hurt someone. If you're truly a pilot, I have a bigger concern that you really may hurt someone...this level of ignorance about something so simple and basic to the industry at large just isn't possible for someone who claims to be an airline captain. Even someone who bought their way into an industry when they couldn't get hired the normal route.

We've already addressed your comments, quoted you line by line, and you've been inaccurate and wrong on each count....you just keep coming back and have the gall to not only argue the same tired, inaccurate, false points, but defend them, and then demand to be heard. Don't talk to you this way, you say. Mate, how could I address you in any other?

But seeing as you asked...I'll throw you one more bone.



You may not know this, but slander is spoken. Libel is written. Therefore, this would be libel...but it's not, because it's based on your own words, and these are observations that have been clearly laid out over eight pages now. And it's accurate. Keep on fanning the flames...your posts are what are often referred to as flame bait...so keep on baiting, keep on biting, and keep on entertaining. If you do see some genuine libel, you be sure to let us all know it's slander, so we can stop, okay?

Wow, Avbug, you've done it again!! Right on-- :smash: ....this is more fun than the "other site!"

 

[Alamanach]

Well there you go...your voice on this subject has been so informed, everyone would be listening to the voice of reason and knowledge to follow this counsel...how dimwitted can one get in one thread??

Hey, avbug, what's your point? How's Russian supposed to respond to talk like this? You're picking a fight with him that can't possibly be won by anybody.

 

[avbug]

That's really the point, isn't it?

When the red square peg finally sees the dawning light and is able to determine for himself that thus far he's managed to be wrong about every bit of counsel he's provided, including the cases to which he's been able to allude but not cite, the actions of NASA, the Administrator and the US Criminal Justice system...he will hopefully learn that it's far better to shut up and appear less foolish than continue to rant and ramble, and clearly remove all doubt.

The goal here is truth, not winning an arguement, and red dawn doesn't seem to understand that one doesn't win an "arguement" in which one has no grounding in reality. If he or she would only lift a finger to become educated in some small way regarding the subject matter of this thread, rather than continue to argue imaginary points which do nothing but display grand, loud ignorance...then there might be no need to be where we are now. That hasn't happened yet. And yet in spite of clear, concise evidence that both darwin was right and that cousins shouldn't marry, we hold out a sliver of hope for his Lordship, the czar but a day longer...

He's been given the word for word program outline, and it's been explained every way from sunday. No need to expain it further. We're dealing with a density here that far exceeds the blackest of holes save the very red russian front that plagues us here...and the soloution is most simple. READ!!!!! Take time out from all those "crew rooms" and educate yourself, Mr. High Command. Do that then return to attempt an intelligent conversation, and we can continue in a more positive light. If instead you insist on disinformation and miseducation, then feign no surprise at the handling you earn.

Your ball.

 

[Alamanach]

When the red square peg finally sees the dawning light and is able to determine for himself that thus far he's managed to be wrong about every bit of counsel he's provided, including the cases to which he's been able to allude but not cite, the actions of NASA, the Administrator and the US Criminal Justice system...he will hopefully learn that it's far better to shut up and appear less foolish than continue to rant and ramble, and clearly remove all doubt.

You have read the first three posts at the top of this page, right? Russian arrives at the same fundamental conclusion as all the rest of us. We didn't get to that point by ranting and rambling; we got there because Russian engaged in some genuine back-and-forth discussion.

From what you're saying, it seems like you want Russian to post something like "Wow! I have been f-ing stupid! Thank you, avbug, for showing me what a moron I am! I'll stop posting now and just listen to your wisdom, hoping to learn something..." But nobody on any website will ever post such a thing.

And anyway, that kind of capitulation isn't the point. At the end of the day, we've all agreed that Almerick07 should file an ASRS. There are a lot of different elements factoring into our decisions, and we will never all see those elements in quite the same way; my rose-colored glasses are not quite the same tint as yours. Obviously, Russian's views are heavily colored by the unfortunate experience of his friends. That the three of us (and everybody else on the thread) all arrive at the same conclusion is pretty significant. In this case, carrying on about somebody else's roundabout path to that conclusion strikes me as an odd waste of time. I don't see the constructive side to what you're trying to accomplish.

Brilliantly written post, though!

 

[Daytonaflyer]

Good info, better arguments.
And after all of this, does everybody finally understand that while both are commonly called NASA reports: ASRS and ASAP reports are two completely different things?
ASAP reports do not apply to this topic.

 

[The_Russian]

Avbug,

You must calm yourself if we are to have a civil conversation. And yes, I do understand the difference between slander and libel. I apologize for improperly categorizing your defamation of my character.

Sir, you are way out of line. Nothing that I have said here is untrue. I do not lie, nor have any reason to lie to you or anyone else on this forum. I have always stood for who and what I am, even though others do not agree. Do you realize how difficult it is to have a decent conversation on this board due to the fact that I work for Gulfstream? No, you don’t. I hold myself out to this board, gladly admitting who and what I am. Where have you done that?

How do I know who you are? How do I know you really are a pilot? I don’t. You do not sincerely act as though you have “good moral character”. But, I must remember that it is not my place to judge you on a personal level because I do not know you. And, you must respect me in that way.

Sir, I would not expect a person of your so called “stature” on this board to be acting in this manner. If you would like to get down to business and talk about this, we can. Personally, I feel that this is just your excuse to have an argument with someone. And, I do not think it would be beneficial to this forum to continue. However, if you would like to hash it out some more, I would be glad to talk it over in a civil manner.

Finally, I believe that you owe me a public apology on this thread. Also, I would like you to submit an apology on the Caravan WX Radar thread. What was said there was also uncalled for.


Ruskie

 

[The_Russian]

You have read the first three posts at the top of this page, right? Russian arrives at the same fundamental conclusion as all the rest of us. We didn't get to that point by ranting and rambling; we got there because Russian engaged in some genuine back-and-forth discussion.

From what you're saying, it seems like you want Russian to post something like "Wow! I have been f-ing stupid! Thank you, avbug, for showing me what a moron I am! I'll stop posting now and just listen to your wisdom, hoping to learn something..." But nobody on any website will ever post such a thing.

And anyway, that kind of capitulation isn't the point. At the end of the day, we've all agreed that Almerick07 should file an ASRS. There are a lot of different elements factoring into our decisions, and we will never all see those elements in quite the same way; my rose-colored glasses are not quite the same tint as yours. Obviously, Russian's views are heavily colored by the unfortunate experience of his friends. That the three of us (and everybody else on the thread) all arrive at the same conclusion is pretty significant. In this case, carrying on about somebody else's roundabout path to that conclusion strikes me as an odd waste of time. I don't see the constructive side to what you're trying to accomplish.

Brilliantly written post, though!

Thanks for your support.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Finally, I believe that you owe me a public apology on this thread. Also, I would like you to submit an apology on the Caravan WX Radar thread. What was said there was also uncalled for.

Don't take it personally. Avbug has a style that involves using belittling phrasing to explain a point and calling people who disagree with him idiots (though not always - I almost fell off my chair when I once corrected him and he agreed). That's just the way it is. - somewhat (actually a lot) off-putting but if you can see your way through his apparent rage, there's a lot you can learn.

Besides, in your early "Don't file an ASRS" posts you may have =meant= "Don't admit to doing something you didn't do," but it sure didn't come out that way and left me wondering whether you were just being obstinate in being incorrect. That doesn't excuse the personal attacks, but given Avbug's real or put-on "personally defect," hardly surprising and, in the context of a forum on which he regularly posts and people come to expect these attacks, probably not even really libelous.