Re: Is an IPC a substitute for 6 approaches?

Gary, I have just been lurking this thread. As it winds down (we hope), I
will just comment that you are absolutely correct, regarding what the
words of the regulation actually say, independent of how they may be applied
or interpreted or intended by the FAA. I have beat this horse a bit from
time to time myself.

Stan


"Gary Drescher" <GLDrescher@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Y7WdndCZF8My_GrZnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Jim Macklin" <p51mustang[threeX12]@xxxhotmail.calm> wrote in message
news:p7JJg.6518$SZ3.3885@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
They do follow their rules on 61.57.

Yes Jim, I get that you think so. But here's a constructive suggestion, in
the event that you'd like to make progress on this question. You've
mentioned you have friends who are lawyers. Why not show some of them my
message of 8/25 12:47PM (the one with the "not-P unless Q" analysis that
you refuse to address, even though it's the crux of the whole
disagreement). If they agree with me, perhaps they can explain the
argument to you. Alternatively, if they disagree with me, perhaps they
could say why and you could post their analysis here.

--Gary




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Whats So Important About KRS?
    ... Andy68 wrote: ... I've been lurking around here for a while because I think ... > archaeology is an interesting subject. ... > disagreement has been going on for a long, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Whats So Important About KRS?
    ... I've been lurking around here for a while because I think ... archaeology is an interesting subject. ... disagreement has been going on for a long, ... Andy ...
    (sci.archaeology)