So, ah, where was FAA Air Traffic control during this
debacle??? Real warm fuzzy knowing a 150 can just wander in
the most restricted airspace on Earth with no bells and
whistles before it was 3 miles away from the White House. It
should have been noticed 60 miles out not 3.

Got to be an Air Traffic screw up also



Finally, when the Cessna came within three miles of the
White House -- just a few minutes flying time -- it altered
course.

After landing in Frederick, the pilot and student pilot were
handcuffed and questioned before being released. Authorities
said the two had become lost.

Sheaffer and Martin have not been available for comment.

Sheaffer didn't take the most basic steps required of pilots
before operating an aircraft, the Post reported, citing FAA
records. He failed to check the weather report before
leaving Smoketown, and he didn't check the FAA's "Notices to
Airmen," which informs pilots of airspace restrictions.

Greg Martin, the FAA spokesman, would not confirm the Post's
account.

> So, ah, where was FAA Air Traffic control

ATC is poorly named. Pilots =control= airplanes. Air traffic "control"
talks to pilots who are listening, and listens to pilots who are talking
(to them). However they do not have their hand on the yoke.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> So, ah, where was FAA Air Traffic control during this
> debacle??? Real warm fuzzy knowing a 150 can just wander in
> the most restricted airspace on Earth with no bells and
> whistles before it was 3 miles away from the White House. It
> should have been noticed 60 miles out not 3.
>
> Got to be an Air Traffic screw up also
>

Doing exactly what they were supposed to be doing, separating and sequencing
aircraft. Our ATC system does not keep track of every VFR aircraft not on
flight following, nor do we want it to. They were watching, attempting to
contact, and intercepting that plane long before 3 miles out. 3 miles is
where they finally turned west.

If you think we need more rules, you're welcome to go back to Europe. Don't
be such a doofus, think before you post.

It was the pilot's duty to file a flight plan and contact ATC; ATC had no
duty, and indeed did not have the ability, to contact the pilot without
knowing which frequency, if any, the pilot was listening to. It's pretty
apparent that he was not using his radio at all.

I have nothing but contempt for him, and cheer any move to revoke his
certificate. Everyone in the general aviation community takes a hit when
someone refuses to take advantage of the many sources of information
available for flight planning.

Bob Gardner


Bob Gardner

"SolarSapien" > wrote in message
.. .
> So, ah, where was FAA Air Traffic control during this debacle??? Real warm
> fuzzy knowing a 150 can just wander in the most restricted airspace on
> Earth with no bells and whistles before it was 3 miles away from the White
> House. It should have been noticed 60 miles out not 3.
>
> Got to be an Air Traffic screw up also
>
>
>
> Finally, when the Cessna came within three miles of the White House --
> just a few minutes flying time -- it altered course.
>
> After landing in Frederick, the pilot and student pilot were handcuffed
> and questioned before being released. Authorities said the two had become
> lost.
>
> Sheaffer and Martin have not been available for comment.
>
> Sheaffer didn't take the most basic steps required of pilots before
> operating an aircraft, the Post reported, citing FAA records. He failed to
> check the weather report before leaving Smoketown, and he didn't check the
> FAA's "Notices to Airmen," which informs pilots of airspace restrictions.
>
> Greg Martin, the FAA spokesman, would not confirm the Post's account.

There are probably several dozen planes a day that approach the ADIZ
and then turn away. The FAA can't jump everytime a plane turns that
direction. The time it takes from crossing into until over the white
house is very short.
Think of controllers as the guys at the county fare that help direct
cars in the parking lot. They suggest turns to drivers to make things
move more smoothly and prevent cars from fighting over the same space.
However, they DO NOT control the cars themselves and are not the one's
responsible when a driver hits someone.

-Robert, CFI

Bob Gardner wrote:

> Everyone in the general aviation community takes a hit when
> someone refuses to take advantage of the many sources of information
> available for flight planning.

Several postings on this topic have mentioned, in various forms, the idea of
gathering information before a flight. What puzzles me is what relevance
this has to this particular case. It's not as if the ADIZ had changed in
size recently, is it?

If not: how could a pilot on the east coast *not* be aware of the ADIZ?

- Andrew

NOT ONE DAMN AIRCRAFT SHOULD BE WITHIN 60 miles of
Washington without a transponder and being tracked from the
Ground or 0 feet to 50,000 feet

PERIOD

You open canopy fly like the wind no radio bi-plane era
boy's need to join the 21st century

If ya wanna fly without any AT instructions or squawking
move to New Mexico or Iowa. VFR through DC airspace?? STUPID

No room for joy flying in sensitive airspace like DC

The FAA SHOULD have been tracking that aircraft 60 miles out
PERIOD

What if that 150 was 2 Arabs' with a plane full of uranium
isotope????

60 miles out every damn object should be squawking and
tagged on a radar scope. The AT people make over 6 figures a
year.

DO YOUR F&*^ Job FAA TRACK AND SEQUENCE AIRCRAFT

The chaos in DC last week was FAA breakdown and a terrible
security procedure for aircraft intercept. The days of doing
what you want VFR in a puddle hopper in sensitive airspace
is OVER

DEAL WITH IT


Bob Gardner wrote:
> It was the pilot's duty to file a flight plan and contact ATC; ATC had no
> duty, and indeed did not have the ability, to contact the pilot without
> knowing which frequency, if any, the pilot was listening to. It's pretty
> apparent that he was not using his radio at all.
>
> I have nothing but contempt for him, and cheer any move to revoke his
> certificate. Everyone in the general aviation community takes a hit when
> someone refuses to take advantage of the many sources of information
> available for flight planning.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "SolarSapien" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>So, ah, where was FAA Air Traffic control during this debacle??? Real warm
>>fuzzy knowing a 150 can just wander in the most restricted airspace on
>>Earth with no bells and whistles before it was 3 miles away from the White
>>House. It should have been noticed 60 miles out not 3.
>>
>>Got to be an Air Traffic screw up also
>>
>>
>>
>>Finally, when the Cessna came within three miles of the White House --
>>just a few minutes flying time -- it altered course.
>>
>>After landing in Frederick, the pilot and student pilot were handcuffed
>>and questioned before being released. Authorities said the two had become
>>lost.
>>
>>Sheaffer and Martin have not been available for comment.
>>
>>Sheaffer didn't take the most basic steps required of pilots before
>>operating an aircraft, the Post reported, citing FAA records. He failed to
>>check the weather report before leaving Smoketown, and he didn't check the
>>FAA's "Notices to Airmen," which informs pilots of airspace restrictions.
>>
>>Greg Martin, the FAA spokesman, would not confirm the Post's account.
>
>
>

SolarSapien wrote:
> NOT ONE DAMN AIRCRAFT SHOULD BE WITHIN 60 miles of Washington without a
> transponder and being tracked from the
> Ground or 0 feet to 50,000 feet
>
> PERIOD
>
> You open canopy fly like the wind no radio bi-plane era boy's need to
> join the 21st century
>
> If ya wanna fly without any AT instructions or squawking move to New
> Mexico or Iowa. VFR through DC airspace?? STUPID
>
> No room for joy flying in sensitive airspace like DC
>
> The FAA SHOULD have been tracking that aircraft 60 miles out
> PERIOD
>
> What if that 150 was 2 Arabs' with a plane full of uranium isotope????
>
> 60 miles out every damn object should be squawking and tagged on a radar
> scope. The AT people make over 6 figures a year.
>
> DO YOUR F&*^ Job FAA TRACK AND SEQUENCE AIRCRAFT
>
> The chaos in DC last week was FAA breakdown and a terrible security
> procedure for aircraft intercept. The days of doing what you want VFR in
> a puddle hopper in sensitive airspace is OVER
>
> DEAL WITH IT


Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.........

This guy was like 69 years old and it's sure questionable how
up to date he was. The account I read said when intercepted
by the Blackhawks he totally froze and the student pilot
had to take over and land the plane. His flying career needs
to end.

There's no excuse for not getting a briefing and getting
the NOTAMS. I don't leave the ground without getting
a briefing and I fly in a low traffic part of the country.



"SolarSapien" > wrote in message
.. .
> So, ah, where was FAA Air Traffic control during this debacle??? Real warm
> fuzzy knowing a 150 can just wander in the most restricted airspace on
> Earth with no bells and whistles before it was 3 miles away from the White
> House. It should have been noticed 60 miles out not 3.
>
> Got to be an Air Traffic screw up also
>
>
>
> Finally, when the Cessna came within three miles of the White House --
> just a few minutes flying time -- it altered course.
>
> After landing in Frederick, the pilot and student pilot were handcuffed
> and questioned before being released. Authorities said the two had become
> lost.
>
> Sheaffer and Martin have not been available for comment.
>
> Sheaffer didn't take the most basic steps required of pilots before
> operating an aircraft, the Post reported, citing FAA records. He failed to
> check the weather report before leaving Smoketown, and he didn't check the
> FAA's "Notices to Airmen," which informs pilots of airspace restrictions.
>
> Greg Martin, the FAA spokesman, would not confirm the Post's account.

"OtisWinslow" > wrote in message
m...
> This guy was like 69 years old and it's sure questionable how
> up to date he was. The account I read said when intercepted
> by the Blackhawks he totally froze and the student pilot
> had to take over and land the plane. His flying career needs
> to end.
>
> There's no excuse for not getting a briefing and getting
> the NOTAMS. I don't leave the ground without getting
> a briefing and I fly in a low traffic part of the country.
>

I'd bet we all know people that don't get briefing for the vast majority of
their flights as well as people flying (or driving, if you're from Arizona
or Floriduh) well past the time their ability ran out.

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> So, ah, where was FAA Air Traffic control
>
> ATC is poorly named. Pilots =control= airplanes. Air traffic "control"
> talks to pilots who are listening, and listens to pilots who are talking
> (to them). However they do not have their hand on the yoke.
>
> Jose
> --
> Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Don't feed the trolls.

iceman wrote:
>>So, ah, where was FAA Air Traffic control during this
>>debacle??? Real warm fuzzy knowing a 150 can just wander in
>>the most restricted airspace on Earth with no bells and
>>whistles before it was 3 miles away from the White House. It
>>should have been noticed 60 miles out not 3.
>>
>>Got to be an Air Traffic screw up also
>>
>
>
> Doing exactly what they were supposed to be doing, separating and sequencing
> aircraft. Our ATC system does not keep track of every VFR aircraft not on
> flight following, nor do we want it to. They were watching, attempting to
> contact, and intercepting that plane long before 3 miles out. 3 miles is
> where they finally turned west.
>

Well, what about that ? If an area is going to lead to shooting aircraft
down, shouldn't that at least be class C ?

OtisWinslow wrote:
> This guy was like 69 years old and it's sure questionable how
> up to date he was. The account I read said when intercepted
> by the Blackhawks he totally froze and the student pilot
> had to take over and land the plane. His flying career needs
> to end.

Yea, damm 69 year olds have no business flying in the first place !

OtisWinslow wrote in message ...
>This guy was like 69 years old and it's sure questionable how
>up to date he was. The account I read said when intercepted
>by the Blackhawks he totally froze and the student pilot
>had to take over and land the plane. His flying career needs
>to end.
>
>There's no excuse for not getting a briefing and getting
>the NOTAMS. I don't leave the ground without getting
>a briefing and I fly in a low traffic part of the country.
>

A little Garmin consumer GPS receiver ($140) with a proximity waypoint set
to 15 miles around the Washington monument wouldn't have been a bad idea
either.

On Sun, 15 May 2005 16:49:03 -0400, Andrew Gideon >
wrote:

>Bob Gardner wrote:
>
>> Everyone in the general aviation community takes a hit when
>> someone refuses to take advantage of the many sources of information
>> available for flight planning.
>
>Several postings on this topic have mentioned, in various forms, the idea of
>gathering information before a flight. What puzzles me is what relevance
>this has to this particular case. It's not as if the ADIZ had changed in
>size recently, is it?
>
>If not: how could a pilot on the east coast *not* be aware of the ADIZ?

I think we just saw a good example.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
> - Andrew

On Sun, 15 May 2005 16:53:46 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.........

I think I actually understood that.


Mark Kolber
APA/Denver, Colorado
www.midlifeflight.com
======================
email? Remove ".no.spam"

go away.

"SolarSapien" > wrote in message
.. .
> NOT ONE DAMN AIRCRAFT SHOULD BE WITHIN 60 miles of Washington without a
> transponder and being tracked from the
> Ground or 0 feet to 50,000 feet
>
> PERIOD
>
> You open canopy fly like the wind no radio bi-plane era boy's need to join
> the 21st century
>
> If ya wanna fly without any AT instructions or squawking move to New
> Mexico or Iowa. VFR through DC airspace?? STUPID
>
> No room for joy flying in sensitive airspace like DC
>
> The FAA SHOULD have been tracking that aircraft 60 miles out
> PERIOD
>
> What if that 150 was 2 Arabs' with a plane full of uranium isotope????
>
> 60 miles out every damn object should be squawking and tagged on a radar
> scope. The AT people make over 6 figures a year.
>
> DO YOUR F&*^ Job FAA TRACK AND SEQUENCE AIRCRAFT
>
> The chaos in DC last week was FAA breakdown and a terrible security
> procedure for aircraft intercept. The days of doing what you want VFR in a
> puddle hopper in sensitive airspace is OVER
>
> DEAL WITH IT
>
>
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>> It was the pilot's duty to file a flight plan and contact ATC; ATC had no
>> duty, and indeed did not have the ability, to contact the pilot without
>> knowing which frequency, if any, the pilot was listening to. It's pretty
>> apparent that he was not using his radio at all.
>>
>> I have nothing but contempt for him, and cheer any move to revoke his
>> certificate. Everyone in the general aviation community takes a hit when
>> someone refuses to take advantage of the many sources of information
>> available for flight planning.
>>
>> Bob Gardner
>>
>>
>> Bob Gardner
>>
>> "SolarSapien" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>
>>>So, ah, where was FAA Air Traffic control during this debacle??? Real
>>>warm fuzzy knowing a 150 can just wander in the most restricted airspace
>>>on Earth with no bells and whistles before it was 3 miles away from the
>>>White House. It should have been noticed 60 miles out not 3.
>>>
>>>Got to be an Air Traffic screw up also
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Finally, when the Cessna came within three miles of the White House --
>>>just a few minutes flying time -- it altered course.
>>>
>>>After landing in Frederick, the pilot and student pilot were handcuffed
>>>and questioned before being released. Authorities said the two had become
>>>lost.
>>>
>>>Sheaffer and Martin have not been available for comment.
>>>
>>>Sheaffer didn't take the most basic steps required of pilots before
>>>operating an aircraft, the Post reported, citing FAA records. He failed
>>>to check the weather report before leaving Smoketown, and he didn't check
>>>the FAA's "Notices to Airmen," which informs pilots of airspace
>>>restrictions.
>>>
>>>Greg Martin, the FAA spokesman, would not confirm the Post's account.
>>
>>

Ted wrote:

> OtisWinslow wrote in message ...
> >This guy was like 69 years old and it's sure questionable how
> >up to date he was. The account I read said when intercepted
> >by the Blackhawks he totally froze and the student pilot
> >had to take over and land the plane. His flying career needs
> >to end.
> >
> >There's no excuse for not getting a briefing and getting
> >the NOTAMS. I don't leave the ground without getting
> >a briefing and I fly in a low traffic part of the country.
> >
>
> A little Garmin consumer GPS receiver ($140) with a proximity waypoint set
> to 15 miles around the Washington monument wouldn't have been a bad idea
> either.

A guy age 69 who still flys (well, until recently) perhaps could afford a
Garmin 196 or 296, perhaps learn how to use it, have a current database, and
have a really good shot of staying out of ugly airspace. ~

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Ted wrote:
>
> > OtisWinslow wrote in message ...
> > >This guy was like 69 years old and it's sure questionable how
> > >up to date he was. The account I read said when intercepted
> > >by the Blackhawks he totally froze and the student pilot
> > >had to take over and land the plane. His flying career needs
> > >to end.
> > >
> >
> > A little Garmin consumer GPS receiver ($140) with a proximity waypoint
set
> > to 15 miles around the Washington monument wouldn't have been a bad idea
> > either.
>
> A guy age 69 who still flys (well, until recently) perhaps could afford a
> Garmin 196 or 296, perhaps learn how to use it, have a current database,
and
> have a really good shot of staying out of ugly airspace. ~

I keep thinking of this 80 year old "geezer"...doing single pilot Cessna
Citation and handling an emergency that would put many of us to shame.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20030724X01192&key=1


--
You know the world is off tilt when the
best rapper is a white guy, the best
golfer is a black guy, the tallest
basketball player is Chinese,
and Germany doesn't want
to go to war." - Charles Barkley

> I keep thinking of this 80 year old "geezer"...doing single pilot Cessna
> Citation and handling an emergency that would put many of us to shame.
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20030724X01192&key=1

I wonder why this pilot didn't pull the circuit breaker or turn the
electric trim off.

Jose
--
I used to make money in the stock market, now I make money in the basement.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Perhaps even a pilot age 68 could do the sme thing.

Or 67...

Or 66...

Or...



> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Ted wrote:
>
> > OtisWinslow wrote in message ...
> > >This guy was like 69 years old and it's sure questionable how
> > >up to date he was. The account I read said when intercepted
> > >by the Blackhawks he totally froze and the student pilot
> > >had to take over and land the plane. His flying career needs
> > >to end.
> > >
> > >There's no excuse for not getting a briefing and getting
> > >the NOTAMS. I don't leave the ground without getting
> > >a briefing and I fly in a low traffic part of the country.
> > >
> >
> > A little Garmin consumer GPS receiver ($140) with a proximity waypoint
set
> > to 15 miles around the Washington monument wouldn't have been a bad idea
> > either.
>
> A guy age 69 who still flys (well, until recently) perhaps could afford a
> Garmin 196 or 296, perhaps learn how to use it, have a current database,
and
> have a really good shot of staying out of ugly airspace. ~
>

wrote:
> Perhaps even a pilot age 68 could do the sme thing.
>
> Or 67...
>
> Or 66...
>
> Or...
>
>
>
> > wrote in message ...
>
>>
>>Ted wrote:
>>
>>
>>>OtisWinslow wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>>This guy was like 69 years old and it's sure questionable how
>>>>up to date he was. The account I read said when intercepted
>>>>by the Blackhawks he totally froze and the student pilot
>>>>had to take over and land the plane. His flying career needs
>>>>to end.
>>>>
>>>>There's no excuse for not getting a briefing and getting
>>>>the NOTAMS. I don't leave the ground without getting
>>>>a briefing and I fly in a low traffic part of the country.
>>>>
>>>
>>>A little Garmin consumer GPS receiver ($140) with a proximity waypoint
>
> set
>
>>>to 15 miles around the Washington monument wouldn't have been a bad idea
>>>either.
>>
>>A guy age 69 who still flys (well, until recently) perhaps could afford a
>>Garmin 196 or 296, perhaps learn how to use it, have a current database,
>
> and
>
>>have a really good shot of staying out of ugly airspace. ~

Yes, this pilot's problem wasn't age, it was not being prepared for the
airspace in which he was flying. This could be the case with a pilot 16
or 86.

My primary instructor is 84 and still flies fairly regularly. I don't
think he instructs or otherwise exercises his commercial privileges, but
he kept one of his 150s when he retired as the operator of N38 and still
flies it often as well as riding his Harley. His flying skills are
still the envy of many much younger pilots, myself included.

Matt

The point I was trying to make is that age 69, he should more likely be able to
afford a Garmin 196 or 296 than the typical 18 year old pilot.

Matt Whiting wrote:

> wrote:
> > Perhaps even a pilot age 68 could do the sme thing.
> >
> > Or 67...
> >
> > Or 66...
> >
> > Or...
> >
> >
> >
> > > wrote in message ...
> >
> >>
> >>Ted wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>OtisWinslow wrote in message ...
> >>>
> >>>>This guy was like 69 years old and it's sure questionable how
> >>>>up to date he was. The account I read said when intercepted
> >>>>by the Blackhawks he totally froze and the student pilot
> >>>>had to take over and land the plane. His flying career needs
> >>>>to end.
> >>>>
> >>>>There's no excuse for not getting a briefing and getting
> >>>>the NOTAMS. I don't leave the ground without getting
> >>>>a briefing and I fly in a low traffic part of the country.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>A little Garmin consumer GPS receiver ($140) with a proximity waypoint
> >
> > set
> >
> >>>to 15 miles around the Washington monument wouldn't have been a bad idea
> >>>either.
> >>
> >>A guy age 69 who still flys (well, until recently) perhaps could afford a
> >>Garmin 196 or 296, perhaps learn how to use it, have a current database,
> >
> > and
> >
> >>have a really good shot of staying out of ugly airspace. ~
>
> Yes, this pilot's problem wasn't age, it was not being prepared for the
> airspace in which he was flying. This could be the case with a pilot 16
> or 86.
>
> My primary instructor is 84 and still flies fairly regularly. I don't
> think he instructs or otherwise exercises his commercial privileges, but
> he kept one of his 150s when he retired as the operator of N38 and still
> flies it often as well as riding his Harley. His flying skills are
> still the envy of many much younger pilots, myself included.
>
> Matt

Scott Moore wrote:

> OtisWinslow wrote:
> > This guy was like 69 years old and it's sure questionable how
> > up to date he was. The account I read said when intercepted
> > by the Blackhawks he totally froze and the student pilot
> > had to take over and land the plane. His flying career needs
> > to end.
>
> Yea, damm 69 year olds have no business flying in the first place !

I won't be 69 for five more months. It seems that my 27 years as an air
carrier pilot, some 4,500 light aircraft time, and working with regs,
procedures, and current/next-generation terminal instrument procedures
design keeps me in the game, provided I have a safety pilot, of course.

wrote:
> The point I was trying to make is that age 69, he should more likely be able to
> afford a Garmin 196 or 296 than the typical 18 year old pilot.

That's true. Then again, depending on how long he has been flying, he
is less likely to NEED a GPS than is a typical 18 year old pilot! I
flew at least one cross country with no radios at all when getting my
private. My instructor made sure I could fly by ded reckoning and/or
pilotage before the VORs ever got powered up.

I am wondering if this pilot had some sort of mental lapse as there are
so many good landmarks around DC, both natural (Potomac) as well as
man-made, that I just can't imagine getting lost. And then there is
always the compass...


Matt

wrote:

>
> Scott Moore wrote:
>
>
>>OtisWinslow wrote:
>>
>>>This guy was like 69 years old and it's sure questionable how
>>>up to date he was. The account I read said when intercepted
>>>by the Blackhawks he totally froze and the student pilot
>>>had to take over and land the plane. His flying career needs
>>>to end.
>>
>>Yea, damm 69 year olds have no business flying in the first place !
>
>
> I won't be 69 for five more months. It seems that my 27 years as an air
> carrier pilot, some 4,500 light aircraft time, and working with regs,
> procedures, and current/next-generation terminal instrument procedures
> design keeps me in the game, provided I have a safety pilot, of course.

Sounds like quite a career. It is good to see pilots flying at 60+
years of age. It gives us "youngsters" in our 40's some hope!

Matt

Maybe. This thing still boggles my mind. I don't know how two guys in an
airplane could not miss the Distirct of Columbia in good weather if they
wanted to, with or without a 196.

I'd give $100 just to sit down with both these guys for about an hour, just
to be able to ask them, for starters, "What the f___ were you thinking?"




> wrote in message ...
> The point I was trying to make is that age 69, he should more likely be
able to
> afford a Garmin 196 or 296 than the typical 18 year old pilot.
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> > wrote:
> > > Perhaps even a pilot age 68 could do the sme thing.
> > >
> > > Or 67...
> > >
> > > Or 66...
> > >
> > > Or...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > wrote in message
...
> > >
> > >>
> > >>Ted wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>OtisWinslow wrote in message ...
> > >>>
> > >>>>This guy was like 69 years old and it's sure questionable how
> > >>>>up to date he was. The account I read said when intercepted
> > >>>>by the Blackhawks he totally froze and the student pilot
> > >>>>had to take over and land the plane. His flying career needs
> > >>>>to end.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>There's no excuse for not getting a briefing and getting
> > >>>>the NOTAMS. I don't leave the ground without getting
> > >>>>a briefing and I fly in a low traffic part of the country.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>A little Garmin consumer GPS receiver ($140) with a proximity
waypoint
> > >
> > > set
> > >
> > >>>to 15 miles around the Washington monument wouldn't have been a bad
idea
> > >>>either.
> > >>
> > >>A guy age 69 who still flys (well, until recently) perhaps could
afford a
> > >>Garmin 196 or 296, perhaps learn how to use it, have a current
database,
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > >>have a really good shot of staying out of ugly airspace. ~
> >
> > Yes, this pilot's problem wasn't age, it was not being prepared for the
> > airspace in which he was flying. This could be the case with a pilot 16
> > or 86.
> >
> > My primary instructor is 84 and still flies fairly regularly. I don't
> > think he instructs or otherwise exercises his commercial privileges, but
> > he kept one of his 150s when he retired as the operator of N38 and still
> > flies it often as well as riding his Harley. His flying skills are
> > still the envy of many much younger pilots, myself included.
> >
> > Matt
>

" wrote:

> Maybe. This thing still boggles my mind. I don't know how two guys in an
> airplane could not miss the Distirct of Columbia in good weather if they
> wanted to, with or without a 196.
>
> I'd give $100 just to sit down with both these guys for about an hour, just
> to be able to ask them, for starters, "What the f___ were you thinking?"

I suppose we cannot dismiss the possibility they did it deliberately for some
"fun."

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> wrote:
>
>>
>> Scott Moore wrote:
>>
>>
>>>OtisWinslow wrote:
>>>
>>>>This guy was like 69 years old and it's sure questionable how
>>>>up to date he was. The account I read said when intercepted
>>>>by the Blackhawks he totally froze and the student pilot
>>>>had to take over and land the plane. His flying career needs
>>>>to end.
>>>
>>>Yea, damm 69 year olds have no business flying in the first place !
>>
>>
>> I won't be 69 for five more months. It seems that my 27 years as an
>> air carrier pilot, some 4,500 light aircraft time, and working with
>> regs, procedures, and current/next-generation terminal instrument
>> procedures design keeps me in the game, provided I have a safety
>> pilot, of course.
>
> Sounds like quite a career. It is good to see pilots flying at 60+
> years of age. It gives us "youngsters" in our 40's some hope!

I hope I can still be flying then. I don't even hope to be able to
retire before then. Social Security won't be enough, and my 401(k),
which is only a few years old, keeps going down in value, not up.
People who want to put their money into a private account rather than
Social Security need to really think about the possibility. Several
counties around here did just that with their employees, and those
retirees are in a real bind, with little or no retirement income.
They're just screwed.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
...
> I hope I can still be flying then. I don't even hope to be able to
> retire before then. Social Security won't be enough, and my 401(k),
> which is only a few years old, keeps going down in value, not up.

Sounds like someone is speculating.

> People who want to put their money into a private account rather than
> Social Security need to really think about the possibility.

Your retirement account is supposed to make its gains over several years,
not a "few" years. How diversified is your account and in what ratios?

> Several
> counties around here did just that with their employees, and those
> retirees are in a real bind, with little or no retirement income.
> They're just screwed.


> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

When people post that quote I wonder if they read the rest of Franklin's
statement (which said "security", not "safety"). The other line is "The way
to be safe is to never be secure" (meaning "don't get complacent").


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Stan Gosnell wrote:

> I hope I can still be flying then. I don't even hope to be able to
> retire before then. Social Security won't be enough, and my 401(k),
> which is only a few years old, keeps going down in value, not up.
> People who want to put their money into a private account rather than
> Social Security need to really think about the possibility. Several
> counties around here did just that with their employees, and those
> retirees are in a real bind, with little or no retirement income.
> They're just screwed.


Yes, being able to afford to fly later in life is the other component in
addition to health. My 401K has been rising since about 2002. You must
have some poor funds in your account. Mine took a big hit in the
2000-2002 time when telecomm collapsed, but it has since recovered to
more than its pre-bubble value. It won't hit what it peaked at during
the bubble prior to my retirement! :-(

I'm guessing maybe you opened your 401K at the market peak and then
sustained the downturn loses, but even so, you should be seeing
increases in value over the last year or so. If not, you need to
rethink your investment choices.

It would be a real shame to be healthy and have a medical at 75 and not
be able to afford to use it.


Matt

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Yes, being able to afford to fly later in life is the other component
> in addition to health. My 401K has been rising since about 2002. You
> must have some poor funds in your account. Mine took a big hit in the
> 2000-2002 time when telecomm collapsed, but it has since recovered to
> more than its pre-bubble value. It won't hit what it peaked at during
> the bubble prior to my retirement! :-(

I have the funds available to me, through MFS, which are indeed poor.

> I'm guessing maybe you opened your 401K at the market peak and then
> sustained the downturn loses, but even so, you should be seeing
> increases in value over the last year or so. If not, you need to
> rethink your investment choices.

I opened it when the company offered it. My last statement showed
basically zero growth, even with max contributions. My investment
choices are severely limited by the company. I have them as diversified
is possible considering the poor mutual funds available.

> It would be a real shame to be healthy and have a medical at 75 and
> not be able to afford to use it.

I don't ever expect to be able to fly after I retire, unless my real
retirment fund kicks in (a lottery ticket). I can't afford to fly for
fun now.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in
:

>
> "Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I hope I can still be flying then. I don't even hope to be able to
>> retire before then. Social Security won't be enough, and my 401(k),
>> which is only a few years old, keeps going down in value, not up.
>
> Sounds like someone is speculating.

I'm reading the regular Social Security report I get. It tells me how
much I can expect to receive based on my contributions. Social Security
was never intended to provide a comfortable retirement, just enough to
eke by on.

>> People who want to put their money into a private account rather than
>> Social Security need to really think about the possibility.
>
> Your retirement account is supposed to make its gains over several
> years, not a "few" years. How diversified is your account and in what
> ratios?

It's as diversified as I can get it, given the limited options provided.
I've followed Morningstar's recommendations to the extent possible. MFS
just provides ****-poor funds, and we have no other choices. I have some
other mutual funds, invested over a couple of decades, but they still
haven't recovered to the value of my original investments. Given 40
years of average growth, and my net gain will probably be a couple of
percent, if I'm lucky. And these are no-load funds.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> I hope I can still be flying then. I don't even hope to be able to
> >> retire before then. Social Security won't be enough, and my 401(k),
> >> which is only a few years old, keeps going down in value, not up.
> >
> > Sounds like someone is speculating.
>
> I'm reading the regular Social Security report I get. It tells me how
> much I can expect to receive based on my contributions. Social Security
> was never intended to provide a comfortable retirement, just enough to
> eke by on.
>
> >> People who want to put their money into a private account rather than
> >> Social Security need to really think about the possibility.
> >
> > Your retirement account is supposed to make its gains over several
> > years, not a "few" years. How diversified is your account and in what
> > ratios?
>
> It's as diversified as I can get it, given the limited options provided.
> I've followed Morningstar's recommendations to the extent possible. MFS
> just provides ****-poor funds, and we have no other choices. I have some
> other mutual funds, invested over a couple of decades, but they still
> haven't recovered to the value of my original investments. Given 40
> years of average growth, and my net gain will probably be a couple of
> percent, if I'm lucky. And these are no-load funds.
>
My wife is the financial type in our family (16 years with Merrill-Lynch
before she "retired" to run our business), but she would probably recommend
minimizing your 401K contribution and go with an investment account (NOT
with one of the big brokerage firms) on your own. That's what we did, when I
got laid off in 1997 -- she rolled our account into a separate/private
account, mainly tied to index funds and some growth funds. Our returns since
have been very good and we "missed" the dot.com collapse in 2000.

Funny, I think, that being laid off has proven to be the best thing ever
happened to me.


Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Stan Gosnell wrote:

>
> I hope I can still be flying then. I don't even hope to be able to
> retire before then. Social Security won't be enough, and my 401(k),
> which is only a few years old, keeps going down in value, not up.
> People who want to put their money into a private account rather than
> Social Security need to really think about the possibility.

If I had the chance when I started working to put all my social security
money into the same funds as my FAA 401K I would do that in a heartbeat.
All Federal employees have the same 401K, called the Thrift Savings
Plan. All the funds are index funds. I would be so far ahead of social
security in the long run. If I was king I would eliminate SS and make
everybody take the same amount of money as they currently send SS every
month and invest it in the same 401K plan I have now. If you don't want
stocks you can pick our fund that isn't a stock or bond fund. It always
gives you 2-3% above inflation. That still would give you far more than
SS would.

Stan Gosnell wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Yes, being able to afford to fly later in life is the other component
>>in addition to health. My 401K has been rising since about 2002. You
>>must have some poor funds in your account. Mine took a big hit in the
>>2000-2002 time when telecomm collapsed, but it has since recovered to
>>more than its pre-bubble value. It won't hit what it peaked at during
>>the bubble prior to my retirement! :-(
>
>
> I have the funds available to me, through MFS, which are indeed poor.
>
>
>>I'm guessing maybe you opened your 401K at the market peak and then
>>sustained the downturn loses, but even so, you should be seeing
>>increases in value over the last year or so. If not, you need to
>>rethink your investment choices.
>
>
> I opened it when the company offered it. My last statement showed
> basically zero growth, even with max contributions. My investment
> choices are severely limited by the company. I have them as diversified
> is possible considering the poor mutual funds available.
>
>
>>It would be a real shame to be healthy and have a medical at 75 and
>>not be able to afford to use it.
>
>
> I don't ever expect to be able to fly after I retire, unless my real
> retirment fund kicks in (a lottery ticket). I can't afford to fly for
> fun now.
>

That is too bad. I'm lucky in that my company gives us a pretty good
selection of fairly good funds from Fidelity, Vanguard and a couple of
others although we recently lost some good ones (Dodge and Cox, for
example).

Might want to think about a Roth IRA that you can self-direct.

A pilot not being able to fly after retirement is something that just
must be avoided! :-)

Matt

Matt Barrow wrote:

> My wife is the financial type in our family (16 years with Merrill-Lynch
> before she "retired" to run our business), but she would probably recommend
> minimizing your 401K contribution and go with an investment account (NOT
> with one of the big brokerage firms) on your own. That's what we did, when I
> got laid off in 1997 -- she rolled our account into a separate/private
> account, mainly tied to index funds and some growth funds. Our returns since
> have been very good and we "missed" the dot.com collapse in 2000.

Hopefully, she wouldn't recommend minimizing (whatever that means) his
401K. She should recommend that he contribute to the 401K only enough
to capture the full employer match and then turn to a Roth IRA and max
that out before looking at other alternatives.

Matt

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Stan Gosnell wrote:
>
>>
>> I hope I can still be flying then. I don't even hope to be able to
>> retire before then. Social Security won't be enough, and my 401(k),
>> which is only a few years old, keeps going down in value, not up.
>> People who want to put their money into a private account rather than
>> Social Security need to really think about the possibility.
>
>
> If I had the chance when I started working to put all my social security
> money into the same funds as my FAA 401K I would do that in a heartbeat.
> All Federal employees have the same 401K, called the Thrift Savings
> Plan. All the funds are index funds. I would be so far ahead of social
> security in the long run. If I was king I would eliminate SS and make
> everybody take the same amount of money as they currently send SS every
> month and invest it in the same 401K plan I have now. If you don't want
> stocks you can pick our fund that isn't a stock or bond fund. It always
> gives you 2-3% above inflation. That still would give you far more than
> SS would.

Well, unfortunately, this isn't the case. If this was the case, then SS
would be in much better shape. The reality is that current recipients
of SS are getting MUCH more back than what they put in plus any
reasonably earnings. That is why the system is going broke. If it
weren't for the fact that it will go broke at some point, SS is a great
deal from an investment perspective assuming you live very long in
retirement.

Even so, I'd still rather have personal control of the money I put into
the SS system, but that is for reasons of security, not effective rate
of earnings.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Well, unfortunately, this isn't the case. If this was the case, then SS
> would be in much better shape. The reality is that current recipients
> of SS are getting MUCH more back than what they put in plus any
> reasonably earnings. That is why the system is going broke.

There are poeple who've recovered everything they put into SS within the
first five years of their "retirement".

> If it
> weren't for the fact that it will go broke at some point, SS is a great
> deal from an investment perspective assuming you live very long in
> retirement.

That's why it's appropriately called a _Ponzi scheme_.

> Even so, I'd still rather have personal control of the money I put into
> the SS system, but that is for reasons of security, not effective rate
> of earnings.

If you don't have control of it, it's not YOUR money, or your property as
the case may be....it's called fascism (ie, private "ownership", but
governmental control).


Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> > My wife is the financial type in our family (16 years with Merrill-Lynch
> > before she "retired" to run our business), but she would probably
recommend
> > minimizing your 401K contribution and go with an investment account (NOT
> > with one of the big brokerage firms) on your own. That's what we did,
when I
> > got laid off in 1997 -- she rolled our account into a separate/private
> > account, mainly tied to index funds and some growth funds. Our returns
since
> > have been very good and we "missed" the dot.com collapse in 2000.
>
> Hopefully, she wouldn't recommend minimizing (whatever that means) his
> 401K. She should recommend that he contribute to the 401K only enough
> to capture the full employer match

That's what she means...minimizing contrabution to the 401 plan to maximize
tax benefits as an EMPLOYEE.

> and then turn to a Roth IRA and max
> that out before looking at other alternatives.

WIFE: "If he can't manage his own portfolio, that would be
advantageous...I'm too long out of the field to be up-to-date with the
current laws".

My wife manages ours through TradeStation -- her PC has dual monitors, one
of which has our account status going all day long.

As I estimate that Stan is fairly young, he should have a mix in his
portfolio weighted more towards growth than safety.


Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> If it weren't for the fact that it will go broke at some point, SS is a
> great deal from an investment perspective assuming you live very long in
> retirement.
>

Exactly. Ponzi schemes would be great if not for the fact that they don't
work.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in
:

> As I estimate that Stan is fairly young, he should have a mix in his
> portfolio weighted more towards growth than safety.

Bad estimate. I'll be 60 all too soon. No way am I going to risk
putting everything in growth funds.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

Newps > wrote in
:

> If I had the chance when I started working to put all my social
> security money into the same funds as my FAA 401K I would do that in a
> heartbeat.
> All Federal employees have the same 401K, called the Thrift Savings
> Plan. All the funds are index funds. I would be so far ahead of
> social security in the long run. If I was king I would eliminate SS
> and make everybody take the same amount of money as they currently
> send SS every month and invest it in the same 401K plan I have now.
> If you don't want stocks you can pick our fund that isn't a stock or
> bond fund. It always gives you 2-3% above inflation. That still
> would give you far more than SS would.
>
I don't agree. I don't think it is at all possible to invest SS taxes
and come out ahead, and the trouble is if you don't, you're screwed. No
social security, no nothing. I know several people who did that through
city retirement, and now they're just out of luck. In the long run, the
stock market will never increase at anything close to 10%, and nothing is
guaranteed. The people who are really pushing this fiasco are stock
brokers, and they *always* make money, even when everyone else is losing
it.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Even so, I'd still rather have personal control of the money I put
> into the SS system, but that is for reasons of security, not effective
> rate of earnings.

The stock market offers no security at all. None. If you want security,
then the US govt is as secure as it's possible to get right now. After a
few more years of Republican administrations, that may not be the case.
Can you say Argentina?

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in
:


> If you don't have control of it, it's not YOUR money, or your property
> as the case may be....it's called fascism (ie, private "ownership",
> but governmental control).

No, it's called a tax. Civilization does not work without taxes.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in
> :
>
> > As I estimate that Stan is fairly young, he should have a mix in his
> > portfolio weighted more towards growth than safety.
>
> Bad estimate. I'll be 60 all too soon. No way am I going to risk
> putting everything in growth funds.
>

Your 401 is HOW old?

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Whiting > wrote in
> :
>
> > Even so, I'd still rather have personal control of the money I put
> > into the SS system, but that is for reasons of security, not effective
> > rate of earnings.
>
> The stock market offers no security at all. None. If you want security,
> then the US govt is as secure as it's possible to get right now. After a
> few more years of Republican administrations, that may not be the case.
> Can you say Argentina?

Can you say "Nanny State"? Can you say "someone hold my hand and wipe my
nose"?

Geez, America, grow the **** up!!

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>If it weren't for the fact that it will go broke at some point, SS is a
>>great deal from an investment perspective assuming you live very long in
>>retirement.
>>
>
>
> Exactly. Ponzi schemes would be great if not for the fact that they don't
> work.
>
>

Well, they work for the folks in first ... just like SS. :-)

Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, they work for the folks in first ... just like SS. :-)
>

Social Security IS a Ponzi scheme.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>If it weren't for the fact that it will go broke at some point, SS is a
> >>great deal from an investment perspective assuming you live very long in
> >>retirement.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Exactly. Ponzi schemes would be great if not for the fact that they
don't
> > work.
> >
> >
>
> Well, they work for the folks in first ... just like SS. :-)

You do know, don't you, the SS was developed using a Ponzi scheme model. It
didn't just HAPPEN that way, it was intended that way since its conception.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Well, they work for the folks in first ... just like SS. :-)
>>
>
>
> Social Security IS a Ponzi scheme.
>
>


Never said it wasn't. I just said that even Ponzi schemes work for
some, just not for all ... and not for long.


Matt

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in news:DIuke.51$Kp2.6060
@news.uswest.net:

> Your 401 is HOW old?

About 5 years. The company didn't offer one until it became a tax
advantage to offer it.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Never said it wasn't. I just said that even Ponzi schemes work for some,
> just not for all ... and not for long.
>

So in other words, you said Ponzi schemes work just like a Ponzi scheme.

In article >, Stan Gosnell >
wrote:

> I don't agree. I don't think it is at all possible to invest SS taxes
> and come out ahead

I once did a calculation that showed I would have 4x the retirement income
from my contribution than I would receive from SS (and the amount contributed
into each plan was comparable). This was based on conservative returns
of 2-3% real returns.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

On Mon, 23 May 2005 23:55:17 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>In article >, Stan Gosnell >
>wrote:
>
>> I don't agree. I don't think it is at all possible to invest SS taxes
>> and come out ahead
>
>I once did a calculation that showed I would have 4x the retirement income
>from my contribution than I would receive from SS (and the amount contributed
>into each plan was comparable). This was based on conservative returns
>of 2-3% real returns.

Typically you can expect real returns to average about twice that with
inflation taken into account.

Historically the market has averaged 11% per year when the crashes are
included in the average. Certainly some years it has been less, way
less, or even negative, but long term a diversified account is the
best plan you can find.

One problem with the market that used to be common with small
investors was the lemming like fleeing with any negative indicators.
I think some of those same people are not managing some large
retirement funds and making their panic self fulfilling.

Another thing to remember: You usually have a choice of short term or
long term gains. The two are *usually* mutually exclusive. IOW, you
can have one or the other. There have been exceptions but they are
long shots, sorta like winning the lottery.

Very few people make money day trading in the long run. Again there
are exceptions. With lots of study giving a through knowledge of the
market, conditions, the stocks, outside influences, and a bit of luck
some do make a lot of money, but it's about as sure a thing as the
lottery for the small investor, or those not willing to spend the time
studying and that is a lot of time.

Had I had the option of putting half my SS into stock over the years I
could have retired a multi-millionaire.

Yes, there is risk associated with investing and one of the first
steps is risk assessment and risk tolerance studies for both the
investment and investor.

Probably the most important point to make about investing: You need
to know how to save before you can invest. There are a lot of
meanings hidden in that statement. "Save now, spend later". Settle
for a bit less to begin so you have more to invest. Don't purchase
new cars regularly, they are the worst investment you can make. If
you must purchase a new car, drive it till the wheels are ready to
fall off. Don't over extend. Get rid of all but the necessary credit
card and pay it off at the end of the month, every month. If in the
hole now, make use of credit management as an aid to get out of debt.
Learn to manage your circumstances instead of letting circumstances
manage you.

Most individuals can do far better financially than they are now doing
by spending some time with a credit counselor.

There are those due to health and other circumstances who will never
be able to do much in the way of investing, but that is not true for
the vast majority who decide to do something other than grouse about
their circumstances.

Like becoming a pilot, most of us have far more capability for saving
and investing than we give ourselves credit. Like becoming a pilot
the first step is deciding that we are going to commit ourselves to
doing it. For all but a few the choice is ours.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Never said it wasn't. I just said that even Ponzi schemes work for some,
>>just not for all ... and not for long.
>>
>
>
> So in other words, you said Ponzi schemes work just like a Ponzi scheme.
>
>

That is right. They work for the orginators of the scheme, but not the
suckers who come later. With SS, the baby boomers, and the post-baby
boomers likely will be the suckers. The government has deep pockets so
they can perpetuate the scheme much longer than other entities could.


Matt

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article >, Stan Gosnell >
> wrote:
>
>
>>I don't agree. I don't think it is at all possible to invest SS taxes
>>and come out ahead
>
>
> I once did a calculation that showed I would have 4x the retirement income
> from my contribution than I would receive from SS (and the amount contributed
> into each plan was comparable). This was based on conservative returns
> of 2-3% real returns.
>

I'd like to see that calculation. That certainly isn't what I've seen.
Then again, it all depends on what age you plan to retire and how long
you plan to live.


Matt

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Stan Gosnell
>
> wrote:
>
> > I don't agree. I don't think it is at all possible to invest SS taxes
> > and come out ahead
>
> I once did a calculation that showed I would have 4x the retirement income
> from my contribution than I would receive from SS (and the amount
contributed
> into each plan was comparable). This was based on conservative returns
> of 2-3% real returns.
>

Consider, too, that SS funds go into consumption (it's a Ponzi scheme
afterall) rather than investment like, well...like real investments.

The basis of mercantilism was increasing consumption, not production. It's
the increases in production that generates wealth and better standards of
living.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Never said it wasn't. I just said that even Ponzi schemes work for
some,
> >>just not for all ... and not for long.
> >>
> >
> >
> > So in other words, you said Ponzi schemes work just like a Ponzi
scheme.
> >
> >
>
> That is right. They work for the orginators of the scheme, but not the
> suckers who come later. With SS, the baby boomers, and the post-baby
> boomers likely will be the suckers. The government has deep pockets so
> they can perpetuate the scheme much longer than other entities could.

They also have guns and badges.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Noel wrote:
>
> > In article >, Stan Gosnell
>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I don't agree. I don't think it is at all possible to invest SS taxes
> >>and come out ahead
> >
> >
> > I once did a calculation that showed I would have 4x the retirement
income
> > from my contribution than I would receive from SS (and the amount
contributed
> > into each plan was comparable). This was based on conservative returns
> > of 2-3% real returns.
> >
>
> I'd like to see that calculation. That certainly isn't what I've seen.

Check www.techcentralstation.com, someone did those calucations about two
years ago.

> Then again, it all depends on what age you plan to retire and how long
> you plan to live.

Pardon?

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> The government has deep pockets so they can perpetuate the scheme much
> longer than other entities could.
>

The government cannot perpetuate the scheme, SS will either be altered
drastically or collapse. The scheme persists temporarily only because
citizens are forced to participate. I chuckle when I hear Congress Critters
claim SS is a very popular program. If it's so popular then why not make it
voluntary?

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Bob Noel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >, Stan Gosnell
>
> >
>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't agree. I don't think it is at all possible to invest SS taxes
>>>>and come out ahead
>>>
>>>
>>>I once did a calculation that showed I would have 4x the retirement
>
> income
>
>>>from my contribution than I would receive from SS (and the amount
>
> contributed
>
>>>into each plan was comparable). This was based on conservative returns
>>>of 2-3% real returns.
>>>
>>
>>I'd like to see that calculation. That certainly isn't what I've seen.
>
>
> Check www.techcentralstation.com, someone did those calucations about two
> years ago.

I didn't see anything on this site related to SS.


>> Then again, it all depends on what age you plan to retire and how long
>>you plan to live.
>
>
> Pardon?

SS keeps paying for as long as you live. So if you live to be 95, you
can easily collect 30+ years of SS payments. If you die at 65, you may
collect very little. The amount you collect compared to what you payed
in is your effective earnings. The longer you live the greater your
rate of return.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:

> >
> >
> > Check www.techcentralstation.com, someone did those calucations about
two
> > years ago.
>
> I didn't see anything on this site related to SS.

Use the button on the left side, gets you
http://www.techcentralstation.com/socialsecurity.html

> >> Then again, it all depends on what age you plan to retire and how long
> >>you plan to live.
> >
> >
> > Pardon?
>
> SS keeps paying for as long as you live. So if you live to be 95, you
> can easily collect 30+ years of SS payments. If you die at 65, you may
> collect very little. The amount you collect compared to what you payed
> in is your effective earnings. The longer you live the greater your
> rate of return.

Hell of a crap shoot.

I intend to die at 90, in bed with a 21 year old nympho; my wife tells me
I'll be lucky to live 'til my next birthday.

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>Check www.techcentralstation.com, someone did those calucations about
>
> two
>
>>>years ago.
>>
>>I didn't see anything on this site related to SS.
>
>
> Use the button on the left side, gets you
> http://www.techcentralstation.com/socialsecurity.html

I saw lots of articles with lots of discussion, but I didn't find one
that had a numerical analysis comparing a private investment plan with
today's SS.

Can you reference the specific article?


Matt

Stan Gosnell wrote:
In the long run, the
> stock market will never increase at anything close to 10%,

The average is 11%.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> > "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Matt Barrow wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>Check www.techcentralstation.com, someone did those calucations about
> >
> > two
> >
> >>>years ago.
> >>
> >>I didn't see anything on this site related to SS.
> >
> >
> > Use the button on the left side, gets you
> > http://www.techcentralstation.com/socialsecurity.html
>
> I saw lots of articles with lots of discussion, but I didn't find one
> that had a numerical analysis comparing a private investment plan with
> today's SS.
>
> Can you reference the specific article?
>

Whoops...wrong site!!

http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp31.pdf (Which is a CATO
sub-species)

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Stan Gosnell wrote:
> In the long run, the
> > stock market will never increase at anything close to 10%,
>
> The average is 11%.

There's a lot of people have done very well just doing indexes.

"Matt Barrow" > writes:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote
> > SS keeps paying for as long as you live. So if you live to be 95, you
> > can easily collect 30+ years of SS payments. If you die at 65, you may
> > collect very little. The amount you collect compared to what you payed
> > in is your effective earnings. The longer you live the greater your
> > rate of return.
>
> Hell of a crap shoot.
>
> I intend to die at 90, in bed with a 21 year old nympho; my wife tells me
> I'll be lucky to live 'til my next birthday.

She's predicting your future if she catches you with the nympho?

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Stan Gosnell wrote:
>>In the long run, the
>>
>>>stock market will never increase at anything close to 10%,
>>
>>The average is 11%.
>
>
> There's a lot of people have done very well just doing indexes.

That is the indexes. As a federal employee that's also all i have
access to. I should have between 1 and 2 million in my 401k when I
retire, depending on the market and when I decide to go.

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Check www.techcentralstation.com, someone did those calucations about
>>>
>>>two
>>>
>>>
>>>>>years ago.
>>>>
>>>>I didn't see anything on this site related to SS.
>>>
>>>
>>>Use the button on the left side, gets you
>>>http://www.techcentralstation.com/socialsecurity.html
>>
>>I saw lots of articles with lots of discussion, but I didn't find one
>>that had a numerical analysis comparing a private investment plan with
>>today's SS.
>>
>>Can you reference the specific article?
>>
>
>
> Whoops...wrong site!!
>
> http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp31.pdf (Which is a CATO
> sub-species)
>
>

Much better! It will take a while to read and digest this article to
see what their assumptions are.

Thanks,
Matt

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> "Newps" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> Stan Gosnell wrote:
>>> In the long run, the
>>>
>>>> stock market will never increase at anything close to 10%,
>>>
>>>
>>> The average is 11%.
>>
>>
>>
>> There's a lot of people have done very well just doing indexes.
>
>
> That is the indexes. As a federal employee that's also all i have
> access to. I should have between 1 and 2 million in my 401k when I
> retire, depending on the market and when I decide to go.

The real question is, what will the cash flows be if you have say $1MM
and live for 20 years? People often forget that 401K contributions are
often taxable as many use before tax contributions and also you need to
figure the withdrawals considering both the ongoing earnings of the 401K
and the need to increase withdrawals each year to cover inflation.
Often the net amount you get each year is surprisingly small after taxes.

You need to make a gamble on your lifespan when you set up your 401K
withdrawals to avoid running out of money before you run out of life.
SS takes care of that by paying until you die and giving COLA increases
each year as well. If you live a long time, you can win with SS, but if
you don't, then you lose, although your spouse will get a portion of
your benefits in many cases.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:


>
> The real question is, what will the cash flows be if you have say $1MM
> and live for 20 years? People often forget that 401K contributions are
> often taxable as many use before tax contributions and also you need to
> figure the withdrawals considering both the ongoing earnings of the 401K
> and the need to increase withdrawals each year to cover inflation. Often
> the net amount you get each year is surprisingly small after taxes.
>
> You need to make a gamble on your lifespan when you set up your 401K
> withdrawals to avoid running out of money before you run out of life. SS
> takes care of that by paying until you die and giving COLA increases
> each year as well. If you live a long time, you can win with SS, but if
> you don't, then you lose, although your spouse will get a portion of
> your benefits in many cases.

My 401k is only one of three legs of my retirement income. Assume I go
until 56 when the FAA says I must retire. I get social security upon
retiring, probably about $29K per year. I also get a pension. Leaving
at age 56 I will get 42% of my base pay, that's another $57K per year.
So if I take only 5% of my 401k per year that gives me $50K and my 401k
grows. More likely I'll take 10-12% per year and leave the principal
alone. 11% would be $110K per year for a total yearly income of damn
near $200K per year. Most people try and figure at what percentage
below 100% they figure they can live on after retirement. My income
should increase by 50% and with some more 30% market returns like we had
in the 90's maybe more than double. But for now at age 40 I will
continue to put the IRS max into my 401k, currently $14K per year.