Last year the FAA sent me a copy of a new IFR textbook. The
construction of the book was such that while reading and underlining
over one-third of the pages came loose. I found many editing mistakes,
conflicting explanations and such a mixture of alphabetic
acronyms that I was constantly making reference to the glossary.

The book of some 200+ pages was obviously written by several authors of
widely different backgrounds and experience. The book is "...designed as a
technical reference for professional pilots...". As such it leaves clarity
behind. The creation of 'new' terminology for old teminology seems to be a
primary purpose of the publication.

On my web site I have extruded as much sense as I could from the
writings and put it chapter by chapter on my web site in about 1/5
the verbage. www.whittsflying.com
The pages on my site by chapters are:
Page 7.311 Chapter 1---IFR Operations in the National Aairspace System.
Page 7.312 Chapter 2--Takeoffs and Departures
Page 7.313 Chapter 3---Enroute Operations
Page 7.314 Chapter 4---Arrivals
Page 7.315 Chapter 5---Approaches
Page 7.316 Chapter 6---System Improvement Plans

I feel very critical toward the ability of the FAA's ability to make the
massive changes in the National Airspace System needed. The book seems
dedicated to retain all of the old while overlaying it with
the new. The old do not have the knowledge or skills to appreciate
the eliminations required to make the new work as it should.

Read and weep....
Gene Whitt

Gene Whitt wrote:

> Last year the FAA sent me a copy of a new IFR textbook. The
> construction of the book was such that while reading and underlining
> over one-third of the pages came loose. I found many editing mistakes,
> conflicting explanations and such a mixture of alphabetic
> acronyms that I was constantly making reference to the glossary.
>
> The book of some 200+ pages was obviously written by several authors of
> widely different backgrounds and experience. The book is "...designed as a
> technical reference for professional pilots...". As such it leaves clarity
> behind. The creation of 'new' terminology for old teminology seems to be a
> primary purpose of the publication.
>
> On my web site I have extruded as much sense as I could from the
> writings and put it chapter by chapter on my web site in about 1/5
> the verbage. www.whittsflying.com
> The pages on my site by chapters are:
> Page 7.311 Chapter 1---IFR Operations in the National Aairspace System.
> Page 7.312 Chapter 2--Takeoffs and Departures
> Page 7.313 Chapter 3---Enroute Operations
> Page 7.314 Chapter 4---Arrivals
> Page 7.315 Chapter 5---Approaches
> Page 7.316 Chapter 6---System Improvement Plans
>
> I feel very critical toward the ability of the FAA's ability to make the
> massive changes in the National Airspace System needed. The book seems
> dedicated to retain all of the old while overlaying it with
> the new. The old do not have the knowledge or skills to appreciate
> the eliminations required to make the new work as it should.
>
> Read and weep....
>

And, you have a reactionary Air Traffic Service that is very, very resistant to
any change, especially if they believe it will adversely affect staffing
levels, pay, or working conditions. That comes ahead of any need to serve the
aviation community.

> wrote in message ...
>
> And, you have a reactionary Air Traffic Service that is very, very
resistant to
> any change, especially if they believe it will adversely affect staffing
> levels, pay, or working conditions. That comes ahead of any need to serve
the
> aviation community.

It's a government bureaucracy; what the hell did you expect?

Here! http://www.mises.org/etexts/mises/bureaucracy.asp

Matt Barrow wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > And, you have a reactionary Air Traffic Service that is very, very
> resistant to
> > any change, especially if they believe it will adversely affect staffing
> > levels, pay, or working conditions. That comes ahead of any need to serve
> the
> > aviation community.
>
> It's a government bureaucracy; what the hell did you expect?
>
> Here! http://www.mises.org/etexts/mises/bureaucracy.asp

I think I expressed my expectations quite well. Did I indicate otherwise?

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > And, you have a reactionary Air Traffic Service that is very, very
> resistant to
> > any change, especially if they believe it will adversely affect staffing
> > levels, pay, or working conditions. That comes ahead of any need to
serve
> the
> > aviation community.
>
> It's a government bureaucracy; what the hell did you expect?
>
> Here! http://www.mises.org/etexts/mises/bureaucracy.asp
>

A more interesting question might be, "what is in our (light GA's)
interests?"

I'm generally of the Hayekian school on things but I have no reason to
believe that privatizing ATC services would be beneficial to us.
Specifically, while user fees might come of their own accord, they are IMHO
a certainty if we have Boeing or LockMar running the show. Given that it
probably costs about as much to handle a C-172 on an IFR flight plan as it
does to handle a G-V, I don't see any reason to expect this to work out in
our favor.

Flying VFR? Don't worry, filing a flight plan may someday become necessary
(as it is in Canada), perhaps "for security purposes." Oh yeah, and to pay
to file the flight plan. Pure coincidence. Nothing to see here, move
along...

The way I figure it, pilots as a group are probably in the high end of the
income distribution, so the nickels and dimes we mooch off the federal ATC
system are more than made up for by the quarters and dollars we contribute
to everything else they shouldn't be doing.

Also, so long as ATC is a 100% government entity, it is easier to pressure
it to make decisions politically, which is to say un-economically.
Personally I think this works out in our favor more often than not.

I don't doubt that privatized ATC could in time become more economically
efficient, though the benefits are probably overstated by many. But I do
wonder whether the airspace that results from this would be more or less
accessible to us. I think all of us can agree that the skies belong to all
of us and should be kept as open as possible. Most of the time, freedom and
economic efficiency overlap. But when they don't, I will favor freedom.

-cwk.

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> > > wrote in message
...
> > >
> > > And, you have a reactionary Air Traffic Service that is very, very
> > resistant to
> > > any change, especially if they believe it will adversely affect
staffing
> > > levels, pay, or working conditions. That comes ahead of any need to
serve
> > the
> > > aviation community.
> >
> > It's a government bureaucracy; what the hell did you expect?
> >
> > Here! http://www.mises.org/etexts/mises/bureaucracy.asp
>
> I think I expressed my expectations quite well. Did I indicate otherwise?

"...you have a reactionary Air Traffic Service that is..."

And I said..."It's a government bureaucracy; what the hell did you expect?"

Coulda been much more succinct.

"Colin W Kingsbury" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > wrote in message
...
> > >
> > > And, you have a reactionary Air Traffic Service that is very, very
> > resistant to
> > > any change, especially if they believe it will adversely affect
staffing
> > > levels, pay, or working conditions. That comes ahead of any need to
> serve
> > the
> > > aviation community.
> >
> > It's a government bureaucracy; what the hell did you expect?
> >
> > Here! http://www.mises.org/etexts/mises/bureaucracy.asp
> >
>
> A more interesting question might be, "what is in our (light GA's)
> interests?"
>
> I'm generally of the Hayekian school on things but I have no reason to
> believe that privatizing ATC services would be beneficial to us.

Then keep the bureaucracy and quit bitchin' when it behaves like, well, like
a bureaucracy.


> Specifically, while user fees might come of their own accord, they are
IMHO
> a certainty if we have Boeing or LockMar running the show. Given that it
> probably costs about as much to handle a C-172 on an IFR flight plan as it
> does to handle a G-V, I don't see any reason to expect this to work out in
> our favor.
>
> Flying VFR? Don't worry, filing a flight plan may someday become necessary
> (as it is in Canada), perhaps "for security purposes." Oh yeah, and to pay
> to file the flight plan. Pure coincidence. Nothing to see here, move
> along...
>
> The way I figure it, pilots as a group are probably in the high end of the
> income distribution, so the nickels and dimes we mooch off the federal ATC
> system are more than made up for by the quarters and dollars we contribute
> to everything else they shouldn't be doing.
>
> Also, so long as ATC is a 100% government entity, it is easier to pressure
> it to make decisions politically, which is to say un-economically.

It's easier to pressure then to behave in the default fashion? Wowza!!!

> Personally I think this works out in our favor more often than not.

Except when we expect them to adapt or change...oh, every 20 or 30 years.

>
> I don't doubt that privatized ATC could in time become more economically
> efficient, though the benefits are probably overstated by many. But I do
> wonder whether the airspace that results from this would be more or less
> accessible to us.

Think how well Wal-Mart is doing compared to someone like Macy's. Or how
well the early Ford company did compared to all their competitors.

> I think all of us can agree that the skies belong to all
> of us and should be kept as open as possible. Most of the time, freedom
and
> economic efficiency overlap. But when they don't, I will favor freedom.

They always do. Even when it doesn't there's a big contextual gap (WW2).

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> > Also, so long as ATC is a 100% government entity, it is easier to
pressure
> > it to make decisions politically, which is to say un-economically.
>
> It's easier to pressure then to behave in the default fashion? Wowza!!!
>
> > Personally I think this works out in our favor more often than not.
>
> Except when we expect them to adapt or change...oh, every 20 or 30 years.

What specific types of change are we talking about here? OK, I think it's a
little nutty that getting a GPS certified for IFR use costs as much as it
does, when one can slap an ADF in that does hardly more than give you the
baseball scores and have it be approach legal. But in the grand scheme of
things this is small beer.

> >
> > I don't doubt that privatized ATC could in time become more economically
> > efficient, though the benefits are probably overstated by many. But I do
> > wonder whether the airspace that results from this would be more or less
> > accessible to us.
>
> Think how well Wal-Mart is doing compared to someone like Macy's. Or how
> well the early Ford company did compared to all their competitors.

Those are red herrings- mass market retail is quite a different market.

Here's a more intereting example: Perhaps you've heard of the "fire your
worst customers" trend (if not just google it for background) The basic idea
is, that in many cases 20% of your customers account for 80% of your cost of
service but only 10-20% of your revenue. A number of large retail stores
have started implementing policies designed to reduce their appeal to these
customers.

Personally, I think there's good reason to believe that as far as ATC is
concerned, piston GA is its "worst customer." Like I said, it costs roughly
as much to push a 172 through the system as it does a Gulfstream, but the
Gulfstream sure buys a lot more fuel (and thus contributes more tax).
Perhaps the 172 does ultimately pay its share, but it's sure a lot lower
margin.

> > I think all of us can agree that the skies belong to all
> > of us and should be kept as open as possible. Most of the time, freedom
> and
> > economic efficiency overlap. But when they don't, I will favor freedom.
>
> They always do. Even when it doesn't there's a big contextual gap (WW2).

Perhaps you'd care to give a little more detail? "More economically
efficient" encompasses the whole market, in other words, better ATC services
could simply make things more efficient for the airlines. Better routing,
fewer delays, less fuel burned, lower ticket prices, more people getting on
737s to visit grandma. There's a lot of potential economic benefit in there.
None of it has anything to do with *our* freedom of access. If push comes to
shove, they will win.

-cwk.

"Colin W Kingsbury" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > >
> > > Also, so long as ATC is a 100% government entity, it is easier to
> pressure
> > > it to make decisions politically, which is to say un-economically.
> >
> > It's easier to pressure then to behave in the default fashion? Wowza!!!
> >
> > > Personally I think this works out in our favor more often than not.
> >
> > Except when we expect them to adapt or change...oh, every 20 or 30
years.
>
> What specific types of change are we talking about here? OK, I think it's
a
> little nutty that getting a GPS certified for IFR use costs as much as it
> does, when one can slap an ADF in that does hardly more than give you the
> baseball scores and have it be approach legal. But in the grand scheme of
> things this is small beer.

I think you just made my point quite nicely.

Think of what motives a market based profit seeking enterprise and contrast
that with what motivates a bureaucracy/bureaucrat.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Colin W Kingsbury" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > > Personally I think this works out in our favor more often than not.
> > >
> > > Except when we expect them to adapt or change...oh, every 20 or 30
> years.
> >
> > What specific types of change are we talking about here? OK, I think
it's
> > little nutty that getting a GPS certified for IFR use costs as much as
it
> > does, when one can slap an ADF in that does hardly more than give you
the
> > baseball scores and have it be approach legal. But in the grand scheme
of
> > things this is small beer.
>
> I think you just made my point quite nicely.

What makes you think privatizing ATC will have any impact at all on this?
It's not like Flight Standards and the whole process of deciding what
constitutes "airworthy" is being changed. Besides, to the extent anything
does change, it will only become more dominated by the airlines, where all
the money resides. This would be very efficient economically speaking.
Needless to say, our interests and theirs could not be less aligned if we
tried.

> Think of what motives a market based profit seeking enterprise and
contrast
> that with what motivates a bureaucracy/bureaucrat.
>

Should the government put ATC out for bid, let's be honest here. At best
you'll have Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and one or two dark horses bidding on
it. Behind the scenes, in Boeing's bid 35% of the services will de delivered
by Lockmar, and in Lockmar's bid, 35% of the services will be delivered by
Boeing, and so on. Look at most of the really big defense contracts and you
see this sort of thing. I'm all for free markets. This is a free market like
a twinkie is a vegetable.

-cwk.

Matt Barrow wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> > Matt Barrow wrote:
> >
> > > > wrote in message
> ...
> > > >
> > > > And, you have a reactionary Air Traffic Service that is very, very
> > > resistant to
> > > > any change, especially if they believe it will adversely affect
> staffing
> > > > levels, pay, or working conditions. That comes ahead of any need to
> serve
> > > the
> > > > aviation community.
> > >
> > > It's a government bureaucracy; what the hell did you expect?
> > >
> > > Here! http://www.mises.org/etexts/mises/bureaucracy.asp
> >
> > I think I expressed my expectations quite well. Did I indicate otherwise?
>
> "...you have a reactionary Air Traffic Service that is..."
>
> And I said..."It's a government bureaucracy; what the hell did you expect?"
>
> Coulda been much more succinct.

I live with editors all the time.

"Colin W Kingsbury" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> What makes you think privatizing ATC will have any impact at all on this?
> It's not like Flight Standards and the whole process of deciding what
> constitutes "airworthy" is being changed. Besides, to the extent anything
> does change, it will only become more dominated by the airlines, where all
> the money resides.

Is retailing or any other business dominated by companies catering to the
big wheels?

> This would be very efficient economically speaking.

On the contrary...

> Needless to say, our interests and theirs could not be less aligned if we
> tried.

They are quite well aligned...but the ATC systems has been politicized.

>
> > Think of what motives a market based profit seeking enterprise and
> contrast
> > that with what motivates a bureaucracy/bureaucrat.
> >
>
> Should the government put ATC out for bid, let's be honest here. At best
> you'll have Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and one or two dark horses bidding on
> it. Behind the scenes, in Boeing's bid 35% of the services will de
delivered
> by Lockmar, and in Lockmar's bid, 35% of the services will be delivered by
> Boeing, and so on.

And if they can't hack it, they'll fail and someone else will take it over.

> Look at most of the really big defense contracts and you
> see this sort of thing.

Totally different scenario entailing highly specialized products. Almost 180
degreess reversed.

> I'm all for free markets. This is a free market like
> a twinkie is a vegetable.

Then your understanding of free markets is evidently very limited to text
book scenarios.


..

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> > > wrote in message
...
> > >
> > >
> > > Matt Barrow wrote:
> > >
> > > > > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > And, you have a reactionary Air Traffic Service that is very, very
> > > > resistant to
> > > > > any change, especially if they believe it will adversely affect
> > staffing
> > > > > levels, pay, or working conditions. That comes ahead of any need
to
> > serve
> > > > the
> > > > > aviation community.
> > > >
> > > > It's a government bureaucracy; what the hell did you expect?
> > > >
> > > > Here! http://www.mises.org/etexts/mises/bureaucracy.asp
> > >
> > > I think I expressed my expectations quite well. Did I indicate
otherwise?
> >
> > "...you have a reactionary Air Traffic Service that is..."
> >
> > And I said..."It's a government bureaucracy; what the hell did you
expect?"
> >
> > Coulda been much more succinct.
>
> I live with editors all the time.
>
Like Dan Rather does, huh?

Matt Barrow wrote:

> > I live with editors all the time.
> >
> Like Dan Rather does, huh?

I don't believe editors were Rather's undoing.

Y'All,
Glad no one read my three week effort that I tried to put up on my
web site. For reason known only to the internet GODS, noe of my links work.

Considering your attitudes as expressed it is just as well. Fixing it by
tomorrow night. Other wise just send me an email with your snail mail
address and I will send you a CD
Gene Whitt

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Colin W Kingsbury" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > What makes you think privatizing ATC will have any impact at all on
this?
> > It's not like Flight Standards and the whole process of deciding what
> > constitutes "airworthy" is being changed. Besides, to the extent
anything
> > does change, it will only become more dominated by the airlines, where
all
> > the money resides.
>
> Is retailing or any other business dominated by companies catering to the
> big wheels?

Markets evolve in the direction of whichever segment can provide the most
revenue. In retail, that's the high-volume, low-margin Wal-Mart approach. In
aviation, the money and volume are with the airlines. When the big decisions
get made, AOPA and EAA will be in the room, but they'll be sitting at the
kids' table.

> > This would be very efficient economically speaking.
>
> On the contrary...
>
> > Needless to say, our interests and theirs could not be less aligned if
we
> > tried.
>
> They are quite well aligned...but the ATC systems has been politicized.

You're kidding me, right? GA is nothing but competition for the airlines:
competition for passengers, competition for airspace, competition for pork.
IIRC a lot of the big airlines were lobbying against WAAS because they
wanted all the money to go into LAAS first, which would have been of much
lower value to GA.

> > I'm all for free markets. This is a free market like
> > a twinkie is a vegetable.
>
> Then your understanding of free markets is evidently very limited to text
> book scenarios.

And yours is perhaps limited by not reading enough of them. "The free
market" is something of a chimera in reality- most markets have shortcomings
that cause them to act in less-than-ideal ways. Different industries have
different behaviors as well. For instance, while US Gypsum dominates the
market for plasterboard, ready-mix concrete is still provided by mostly
small local firms, because there's no way to achieve useful economies of
scale in a product that has to be manufactured locally. Economics isn't
women's studies--there's much more validation of theory against what happens
in the real world. In any case, I've had the opportunity to apply what I
learned quite widely since I graduated and moved off into the real world,
including starting and running my own company. In that time I've often seen
in practice what I read about all those years ago in my textbooks in between
gulps of beer.

Best,
-cwk.

"Colin W Kingsbury" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
>
> Markets evolve in the direction of whichever segment can provide the most
> revenue.

Nope, they "evolve" in the direction that can provide the best profitability
and return on investment .

> In retail, that's the high-volume, low-margin Wal-Mart approach.

Only if one can be dominant in the market.

> In
> aviation, the money and volume are with the airlines.

What percentage of flights under ATC are airlines vs. GA?

> When the big decisions
> get made, AOPA and EAA will be in the room, but they'll be sitting at the
> kids' table.

Your still thinking of the bureaucratic mindset. Have you ever run even a
small company? Your take on markets and commerce seem right our of
Hollyweird and academia.

>
> > > This would be very efficient economically speaking.
> >
> > On the contrary...
> >
> > > Needless to say, our interests and theirs could not be less aligned if
> we
> > > tried.
> >
> > They are quite well aligned...but the ATC systems has been politicized.
>
> You're kidding me, right? GA is nothing but competition for the airlines:

Well DUH! Who allocates slots and an WHAT BASIS?

> competition for passengers, competition for airspace, competition for
pork.
> IIRC a lot of the big airlines were lobbying against WAAS because they

Funny you should use that term "lobbying", huh?

> wanted all the money to go into LAAS first, which would have been of much
> lower value to GA.
>
> > > I'm all for free markets. This is a free market like
> > > a twinkie is a vegetable.
> >
> > Then your understanding of free markets is evidently very limited to
text
> > book scenarios.
>
> And yours is perhaps limited by not reading enough of them. "The free
> market" is something of a chimera in reality- most markets have
shortcomings
> that cause them to act in less-than-ideal ways. Different industries have
> different behaviors as well. For instance, while US Gypsum dominates the
> market for plasterboard, ready-mix concrete is still provided by mostly
> small local firms, because there's no way to achieve useful economies of
> scale in a product that has to be manufactured locally. Economics isn't
> women's studies--there's much more validation of theory against what
happens
> in the real world. In any case, I've had the opportunity to apply what I
> learned quite widely since I graduated and moved off into the real world,
> including starting and running my own company. In that time I've often
seen
> in practice what I read about all those years ago in my textbooks in
between
> gulps of beer.

Yeah, sure! Like I said above...

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Colin W Kingsbury" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
>>
> > When the big decisions
> > get made, AOPA and EAA will be in the room, but they'll be sitting at
the
> > kids' table.
>
> Your still thinking of the bureaucratic mindset. Have you ever run even a
> small company? Your take on markets and commerce seem right our of
> Hollyweird and academia.

I'm currently running one now and was previously director of prof. services
at a company and oversaw many contracts for both the federal government and
many of the larger vendors including Lockheed, UTC, and GE to name a few.

You want Hollyweird? Google the name "Darleen Druyun" and see what comes up.
She was a procurement officer for the USAF for many years. Then she retired
from public service and headed off to Boeing.

Here's Boeing's press release when they hired her:
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2003/photorelease/q1/pr_030103m.html

Of course, this little employment negotiation was going on while Boeing was
trying to close an 18 billion dollar air tanker contract that Druyun was in
charge of. Gambling, at Rick's Cafe? I'm shocked!

Here's a good story about how this resulted in her getting a 16-month
federal prison sentence
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/04/60II/main664652.shtml

Actually, this woman was more unlucky than anything else. This kind of thing
happens all the time, she just got pinched because the tanker deal was so
rotten in the first place and it drew a lot of attention. Actually, that
tanker deal is also a great study in how government and private industry can
work together and result in public pickpocketing every bit as bad as any
government program.

> > IIRC a lot of the big airlines were lobbying against WAAS because they
>
> Funny you should use that term "lobbying", huh?

Well, if the feds auctioned the airspace system off to Lockheed, then AOPA,
NBAA, and ATA would all lobby Lockheed to influence their modernization
plans. It's not like there's going to be competition between the company
running the airspace in the Northeast and the other running it out West to
see who can

> > including starting and running my own company. In that time I've often
> seen
> > in practice what I read about all those years ago in my textbooks in
> between
> > gulps of beer.
>
> Yeah, sure! Like I said above...
>

You're the one who seems obsessed about credentials. My arguments are
written clearly in plain English for everyone to see. Hey, I've always liked
Bill Buckley's line about how he'd rather be governed by the first two
thousand names in the Cambridge phonebook than by the faculty of Harvard,
all the more so because I live across the river from the place. Hey, I voted
for W., twice to be precise, and am all for privatizing social security.
Hell, I'd vote to eliminate the departments of commerce, education, and HUD
effective Tuesday morning if I could. So if you want to write me off as some
kind of left-coast liberal sociology professor type, feel free, but you
couldn't be farther from the truth.

Best,
-cwk.

This "new" textbook can be downloaded from
http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/IPH.htm


"Gene Whitt" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Last year the FAA sent me a copy of a new IFR textbook. The
> construction of the book was such that while reading and underlining
> over one-third of the pages came loose. I found many editing mistakes,
> conflicting explanations and such a mixture of alphabetic
> acronyms that I was constantly making reference to the glossary.
>
> The book of some 200+ pages was obviously written by several authors of
> widely different backgrounds and experience. The book is "...designed as
> a technical reference for professional pilots...". As such it leaves
> clarity behind. The creation of 'new' terminology for old teminology
> seems to be a primary purpose of the publication.
>