Originally Posted by
ad-astra
Might I suggest that this is a windup or a thread that realy did not have any substance save for the attention seeking.
If the young man or woman who is defending this thought process so passionately ( but does not agree with it) tries the same on an Examiner or Check Captain then the issue will be resolved.
If he or she flys a approach and missed approach in this manner then the issue may very well be resolved.
Let's hope the Examiner/Check Captain is first.
Either way nature will take it's course!
That's a very interesting suggestion. Because it alludes to one of only two possibilities: that I discovered and applied this legal loophole all by myself . . . or that it was suggested to me by an ATO and a number of other instructors.
Take your pick. If it's the former, I sure would love the attention . . .
If it's the latter, well, not even you have offered a legal argument against the practice. So there would really be no grounds for a failed IPC, would there? Prove otherwise. Oh, you can't.
Well, I guess if you can't argue the simple facts, you can always attack me personally . . .
Originally Posted by
AerocatS2A
Originally Posted by
Virtually There 
There's a difference between arguing a point and aligning yourself with it. Lawyers do it all the time. I'm not a lawyer.
Lawyers are paid to represent a client.
Other people who argue points they don't align with are internet trolls.
I'm not sure which I'd rather be compared to.
Because ad hominems are an incomparable form of argument - is that what you're trying to say?