Pilots rights with a suspention?

[shrapnel]

tell him he spelled 'suspension' rong.

I know but it's tough to correct a guy who thinks he's always rite.   

Actually I've been wondering why it's wrong to shoot at AA when AA is allowed to shoot at us. Just kidding of course. I know what is meant by the rule on this.

Nevertheless on a more serious note and without wanting to open up a can of worms, I'm genuinely curious about the rule concerning diving into AA to avoid a kill. I've always found these recordings to be way off in timing and it's often difficult to tell exactly what happened. Can you really tell without doubt that someone deliberately fired within AA range to choose death by AA rather than an opponent? Could they not perhaps be shooting at another plane that is not viewable in the recording?

Although I've never been taken to task by a sysop for anything I have had other pilots occasionally accuse me of crashing or diving into AA deliberately when I had no such thought in my mind. Usually, of course, a swift apology will mollify the offended pilot but it leaves you wondering about the different perceptions people can have of innocent actions.


I've also noted the same problem about supposedly crashing to avoid being killed which, if true, is a silly selfish thing to do. But how can one tell whether it's deliberate or not? It's not unusual for me to fly into the ground because I'm paying too much attention to what's behind me instead of looking at the road so to speak. I would assume the rule would only be applied if a) it was repeated a few times and/or b) no explanation nor apology was offered.

Just a couple of thoughts to mull over but getting back to this young headstrong individual named TAC. Since he is supposed to have his "day in court." maybe he would like to hire me as his defense attorney.   I'm pretty sure I could bs any court into letting him off. On the other hand, just like I used to say when accused of unjustly punishing my kids, if he wasn't guilty this time the punishment will serve for the other times when he wasn't caught. 

[Vipor]

Shrappy, meet me in ffa (private or open) and I will demonstrate each offense you question.   

Can you really tell without doubt that someone deliberately fired within AA range to choose death by AA rather than an opponent?

In this case, YES. In some cases one cannot determine beyond reasonable doubt.

Could they not perhaps be shooting at another plane that is not viewable in the recording?

Perhaps, but not in this case.

Since he is supposed to have his "day in court." maybe he would like to hire me as his defense attorney.   I'm pretty sure I could bs any court into letting him off. On the other hand, just like I used to say when accused of unjustly punishing my kids, if he wasn't guilty this time the punishment will serve for the other times when he wasn't caught.   

He may request "his day in court" but he is not supposed to get one. And if I am calculating correctly, Tac's suspension is to be over around 3:30 on Dec 9th.

On a personal note, I see you as being more of the Judge type over a defense atty or even a prosecutor. You are seasoned, fair, just, articulate, have your own opinion yet will listen to any and all arguments on another's behalf. But if you need some extra income, apply for a Sysop's or Admin position as the pay is extraordinarily exorbitant.
 

[_TAC_ONE]

But HE started it!!! 

Go ahead Shrappy, tell him he spelled 'suspension' rong.

I used it in a title, I can spell it anyway I see fit    

[Temper]

nuh uh! 

[shrapnel]

I understand what you're saying about this instance, Vip and I have enough trust in you guys to believe you wouldn't suspend someone if there was a reasonable doubt. I think that TAC, after thinking about it will realize the same thing. I guess I was just curious about how you go about making that sort of determination.

As for me applying to join the illustrious ranks of overpaid sysops bite yer tongue and forget it. All I want is to be loved by everyone not hated like you and Temp.  The last thing I want to be is judge and jury over anyone. What I enjoy about your facetious suggestion though, is that it will probably make Temp choke on his tequilla when he reads it. He knows me well enough to know that I'd rather be in a position to criticize than be one of the criticized. 

[_TAC_ONE]

He may request "his day in court" but he is not supposed to get one.

I requested to see the Video which I have not seen yet, have been waiting for a reply of a Pm I sent "before" my so called suspension started.

Does not matter to me, when the time limit is up, I am not flying until I get a reply to my Pm and I see the tape, Then I will determine how I should feel about the matter at hand.  

I understand what you're saying about this instance, Vip and I have enough trust in you guys to believe you wouldn't suspend someone if there was a reasonable doubt. I think that TAC, after thinking about it will realize the same thing.

I cannot have any thoughts/determination on something I have no recollection of.

[Temper]

Tac, I attached the film to the PM I sent you on the CLP. Did you not download it?

[_TAC_ONE]

Tac, I attached the film to the PM I sent you on the CLP. Did you not download it?

Nope, no film, must be something on your end, I sent my self a film and it worked fine.


Keep in mind Temp.
I am expecting the one who did the suspending  to return my pm and show me the film, or his superior, so far "to me" this has been handled amateurishly: not professional.

Even in your case, as a Sysop "if" your problem is not knowing to hit the submit key inside the attachment box, is not saying much on a professional level, one could come to the conclusion, it is not a tool the sysop uses when it should be, after all it is in their toolbox. 

[Temper]

Ok, I'll leave it to you and the sysop.

[Mutley]

Hopefully Tac you should now have the film

[j69o]

Hey I have a clip from "Debbie Does Dallas" if you didn't get your film, that should keep you busy till you can fly again! 
J

[Mutley]

Shrappy...... I've been thinking, I reckon you'd make an outstanding defense lawyer, unfortunately the evidence against your first defendant is overwhelming and you will loose but what if the incriminating film was to mysteriously disappear.

You become an overnight success and make millions as a defense Attorney while i take the hit and quietly slip away to Antigua.
 
What do you think..........£500k 

I'll check my bank balanced tomorrow

[shrapnel]

Thanks, Mutt I will transfer the money from my Isle of Man account to an account of your choosing. All I need from you are the details of your account...number, pin code etc. It would also be helpful if you supply your credit card information. On receipt of that information and payment of a $500 fee I will activate the transfer. If you need any confirmation that my offer is genuine you can contact my solicitors,Obafemi, Babadeinde and Udofia  in Nigeria.

The only reason I offered to defend TAC was so's I could lose the case. I kinda relish the image of TAC locked into the stocks on an English village green with the BBC members throwing rotten tomatoes at him.

Mind you I hope that Freshy wasn't involved in any way in this escapade. Knowing him I would suspect that, if involved, he probably incited any violence that occurred...

 

[_TAC_ONE]

Hopefully Tac you should now have the film

Yep I got it Thank you.

Shrappy...... I've been thinking, I reckon you'd make an outstanding defense lawyer, unfortunately the evidence against your first defendant is overwhelming and you will loose but what if the incriminating film was to mysteriously disappear.

Maybe so, possibly he could have got it down to only a warning, after all, that is all the pilot in this video got when he runwayed me.
Keep in mind this after I complained of him Escing on me, Targeting,Teaming  me constantly. Yet I am told to film him, I do so, he gets a warning, my first offense I get two days, Go figure.
--------------------

Like I said, in this thread though I had no recollection of the event and still kind of do not, could not even tell when this was.