61.56 BFR Whaaaat?

[Dallas]

c. Except as provided in paragraphs (d), (e), and (g) of this section, no
person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft unless, since the
beginning of the 24th calendar month before the month in which that pilot
acts as pilot in command, that person has --

Sorry... I can usually decode the FARs but my decoder ring broke trying to
unravel this one.

I've been assuming that the BFR had to be accomplished like the FAA usual
"last day of the month". i.e. Last BFR December 12, 2007 - Next BFR
before December 31, 2009?


--
Dallas

[Robert Moore]

Dallas > wrote
> c. Except as provided in paragraphs (d), (e), and (g) of this
> section, no person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft unless,
> since the beginning of the 24th calendar month before the month in
> which that pilot acts as pilot in command, that person has --

> I've been assuming that the BFR had to be accomplished like the FAA
> usual "last day of the month". i.e. Last BFR December 12, 2007 -
> Next BFR before December 31, 2009?

Yep...that's what paragraph (c.) says. If the Flight Review (not BFR)
takes place on any day in Dec 2007, you're good to go throughout Dec
2009.

Bob Moore
ATP
Flight Instructor ASE-IA

[Jim Logajan]

Dallas > wrote:
> c. Except as provided in paragraphs (d), (e), and (g) of this
> section, no person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft unless,
> since the beginning of the 24th calendar month before the month in
> which that pilot acts as pilot in command, that person has --
>
> Sorry... I can usually decode the FARs but my decoder ring broke
> trying to unravel this one.

That sort of language is a result of someone trying to cram too many things
into one sentence. I've noticed a mix of good and bad writing styles in the
FAA regulations. But I doubt they'll rewrite that regulation just to make
it easier to understand.

Anyway, assume the pilot wants to act as PIC on December 24, 2009. One
month before December 2009 is November 2009. So 24 months before December
2009 is December 2007. So if the pilot had a BFR anytime on or after
December 1, 2007 (e.g. December 12, 2007) they may act as PIC any day of
calendar month December 2009. Hence till December 31, 2009.

> I've been assuming that the BFR had to be accomplished like the FAA
> usual "last day of the month". i.e. Last BFR December 12, 2007 -
> Next BFR before December 31, 2009?

Your understanding appears correct and as far as I can tell, and is
equivalent to the tortured FAA language.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Oct 5, 4:48*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Dallas > wrote:
> > c. *Except as provided in paragraphs (d), (e), and (g) of this
> > section, no person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft unless,
> > since the beginning of the 24th calendar month before the month in
> > which that pilot acts as pilot in command, that person has --
>
> > Sorry... I can usually decode the FARs but my decoder ring broke
> > trying to unravel this one.
>
> That sort of language is a result of someone trying to cram too many things
> into one sentence. I've noticed a mix of good and bad writing styles in the
> FAA regulations. But I doubt they'll rewrite that regulation just to make
> it easier to understand.
>
> Anyway, assume the pilot wants to act as PIC on December 24, 2009. One
> month before December 2009 is November 2009. So 24 months before December
> 2009 is December 2007. So if the pilot had a BFR anytime on or after
> December 1, 2007 (e.g. December 12, 2007) they may act as PIC any day of
> calendar month December 2009. Hence till December 31, 2009.
>
> > I've been assuming that the BFR had to be accomplished like the FAA
> > usual "last day of the month". *i.e. *Last BFR December 12, 2007 -
> > Next BFR before December 31, 2009?
>
> Your understanding appears correct and as far as I can tell, and is
> equivalent to the tortured FAA language.

In my dealings with the FAA over 50 years in aviation I have
discovered what I call the FAA regulatory syndrome. :-))

I'll try and sum it up this way for any uninitiated among us :-)

"If you understand Part A, you haven't yet read Part A-1b which
negates Part A...IF....you qualify under Sub Part B, but ONLY if you
haven't yet read and complied with Sub Part C which refers you to Part
57g in another regulation ."

It has to do with authority. You see, if THEY understand it and YOU
don't, the purpose for establishing the term "governing authority" has
been satisfied and the proper structure of power is in place and they
are at peace when they arrive at the FAA office for work each day. YOU
are now completely subservient to the regulations by the fact that
your ability to function in the environment covered by the regulation
requires that you spend the rest of your life and possibly a bit more
trying to understand it.

Therefore, the FAA is ALWAYS there to look down upon you from their
perch of complete authority and understanding, to advise you and
perform other actions suitable to be performed by those "in charge"
for "those less fortunate". The quality of this assistance I have
noted on occasion, unfortunately seems to be directly related to the
proximity of the FAA person asked a question about the regulations to
a rather large and heavy book that explains the regulations to THEM,
for you see............THEY don't understand the damn things
either!!!!!!!!!!!!" :-))
Dudley Henriques

[Dallas]

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:48:44 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

> Your understanding appears correct and as far as I can tell, and is
> equivalent to the tortured FAA language.

Thanks Robert and Jim... and thanks for commiserating.
--
Dallas

[Dallas]

On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 14:39:49 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:

> It has to do with authority.

Yep... and how they hang on to their "phony baloney" jobs for life.

Government sector jobs are now more than 50% of total employment in this
country and considering benefits, they now make double the average private
sector salary.

When I was a kid, government jobs were for underpaid losers, performed in
offices constructed in the 1930's and executed behind those big greenish
grey desks that were in surplus after WWII.

Now, they office out of brand new gleaming glass towers with marble lobbies
and fountained courtyards, and retire in a style that 90% of their salary
can provide.

If I had only known that when I was 20 years old I would've signed up.

--
Dallas

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Oct 5, 8:11*pm, Dallas > wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 14:39:49 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > It has to do with authority.
>
> Yep... *and how they hang on to their "phony baloney" jobs for life.
>
> Government sector jobs are now more than 50% of total employment in this
> country and considering benefits, they now make double the average private
> sector salary.
>
> When I was a kid, government jobs were for underpaid losers, performed in
> offices constructed in the 1930's and executed behind those big greenish
> grey desks that were in surplus after WWII.
>
> Now, they office out of brand new gleaming glass towers with marble lobbies
> and fountained courtyards, and retire in a style that 90% of their salary
> can provide.
>
> If I had only known that when I was 20 years old I would've signed up. *
>
> --
> Dallas

Trust me, you wouldn't have liked it. :-))
D

[Æslop]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
> Yep... and how they hang on to their "phony baloney" jobs for life.
>
> Government sector jobs are now more than 50% of total employment in this
> country and considering benefits, they now make double the average private
> sector salary.
>
> When I was a kid, government jobs were for underpaid losers, performed in
> offices constructed in the 1930's and executed behind those big greenish
> grey desks that were in surplus after WWII.
>
> Now, they office out of brand new gleaming glass towers with marble
> lobbies
> and fountained courtyards, and retire in a style that 90% of their salary
> can provide.
>
> If I had only known that when I was 20 years old I would've signed up.

Do you just make this crap up? I am a government (State) employee, and have
worked very hard at it for 14 years. Including benefits, I still don't make
comparable salary to the same job in the private sector. It was close some
time ago, but due to numerous factors over the last 8 or 9 years, our
salaries have fallen well behind. For an idea of the total government jobs,
you can read this:

http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/government_finance/2009-08-20-State_Local_Employment.pdf

I work on average 50 - 60 hours a week, and am salaried so get no overtime.
Believe me, I earn every dollar I make.

[Dallas]

On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 22:20:07 -0700, Æslop wrote:

> Do you just make this crap up?

Nope.

"Federal wages and benefits have been rising quickly, and by 2004 the
average compensation of federal workers was almost twice the average in the
private sector."

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0605-35.pdf

--
Dallas

[Ross]

Æslop wrote:
> "Dallas" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Yep... and how they hang on to their "phony baloney" jobs for life.
>>
>> Government sector jobs are now more than 50% of total employment in this
>> country and considering benefits, they now make double the average private
>> sector salary.
>>
>> When I was a kid, government jobs were for underpaid losers, performed in
>> offices constructed in the 1930's and executed behind those big greenish
>> grey desks that were in surplus after WWII.
>>
>> Now, they office out of brand new gleaming glass towers with marble
>> lobbies
>> and fountained courtyards, and retire in a style that 90% of their salary
>> can provide.
>>
>> If I had only known that when I was 20 years old I would've signed up.
>
> Do you just make this crap up? I am a government (State) employee, and have
> worked very hard at it for 14 years. Including benefits, I still don't make
> comparable salary to the same job in the private sector. It was close some
> time ago, but due to numerous factors over the last 8 or 9 years, our
> salaries have fallen well behind. For an idea of the total government jobs,
> you can read this:
>
> http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/government_finance/2009-08-20-State_Local_Employment.pdf
>
> I work on average 50 - 60 hours a week, and am salaried so get no overtime.
> Believe me, I earn every dollar I make.
>
>

I believe the post would be more appropriate to the elected officials in
Washington. I thought once for running for one term in Congress. My
platform is "I just want a piece of your pie. I will give you 100% for
one term, take my benefits, and go back home." :)

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold :(
KSWI

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Oct 6, 12:30*pm, Ross > wrote:
> Æslop wrote:
> > "Dallas" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Yep... *and how they hang on to their "phony baloney" jobs for life.
>
> >> Government sector jobs are now more than 50% of total employment in this
> >> country and considering benefits, they now make double the average private
> >> sector salary.
>
> >> When I was a kid, government jobs were for underpaid losers, performed in
> >> offices constructed in the 1930's and executed behind those big greenish
> >> grey desks that were in surplus after WWII.
>
> >> Now, they office out of brand new gleaming glass towers with marble
> >> lobbies
> >> and fountained courtyards, and retire in a style that 90% of their salary
> >> can provide.
>
> >> If I had only known that when I was 20 years old I would've signed up.
>
> > Do you just make this crap up? I am a government (State) employee, and have
> > worked very hard at it for 14 years. Including benefits, I still don't make
> > comparable salary to the same job in the private sector. It was close some
> > time ago, but due to numerous factors over the last 8 or 9 years, our
> > salaries have fallen well behind. For an idea of the total government jobs,
> > you can read this:
>
> >http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/government_finance/2009-08-20-State_Local...
>
> > I work on average 50 - 60 hours a week, and am salaried so get no overtime.
> > Believe me, I earn every dollar I make.
>
> I believe the post would be more appropriate to the elected officials in
> Washington. I thought once for running for one term in Congress. My
> platform is "I just want a piece of your pie. I will give you 100% for
> one term, take my benefits, and go back home." :)
>
> --
>
> Regards, Ross
> C-172F 180HP
> Sold :(
> KSWI

I think the gist of the opinion expressing a negative viewpoint on
government workers was meant to be directed in the overall sense, and
in that context, I believe the evidence is absolutely overwhelming in
favor of general incompetence as pertains to the government worker.
Individual workers notwithstanding of course, where many individuals
do their best to work competently within a structure wrought with
corruption, favoritism, and God only knows what else.
Everyone will have personal examples both pro and con concerning the
government employment experience. In my own family we have not one but
two sons who spent professional careers in government work. BOTH speak
of gross incompetence at all levels of their respective occupations.
One son who worked at the highest level of the defense industry was
relieved beyond words to reach retirement age. I'm sure there will be
other individuals with more positive opinions of government competence
than mine.
This anecdotal data is as I say strictly personal, and the real answer
to government competence must be sought in it's systemic context. My
opinion on that level would be that what would be found is
overwhelming inferiority when directly compared to the private sector.

Dudley Henriques

[VOR-DME]

George Orwell once wrote a short piece called "Politics and the English
Language." It is worth a read, if only for a hearty laugh and a firm
acknowlegement that yes, others HAVE noticed!

Of the many literary quotes he reproduces in the text, here is one of my
favorites :

"I am not indeed sure whether it is not true to say that the Milton who
once seemed not unlike a seventeenth-century Shelly had not become out of
an experience ever more bitter in each year, more alien to the founder of
that Jesuit sect which nothing could induce him to tolerate."

You almost need a calculator to get through this one sentance!

[Peter Dohm]

"VOR-DME" > wrote in message
...
> George Orwell once wrote a short piece called "Politics and the English
> Language." It is worth a read, if only for a hearty laugh and a firm
> acknowlegement that yes, others HAVE noticed!
>
> Of the many literary quotes he reproduces in the text, here is one of my
> favorites :
>
> "I am not indeed sure whether it is not true to say that the Milton who
> once seemed not unlike a seventeenth-century Shelly had not become out of
> an experience ever more bitter in each year, more alien to the founder of
> that Jesuit sect which nothing could induce him to tolerate."
>
> You almost need a calculator to get through this one sentance!
>

Almost?

Well, I certainly require a scratch pad!

Peter :-)))))

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Oct 6, 5:56*pm, VOR-DME > wrote:
> George Orwell once wrote a short piece called "Politics and the English
> Language." It is worth a read, if only for a hearty laugh and a firm
> acknowlegement that yes, others HAVE noticed!
>
> Of the many literary quotes he reproduces in the text, here is one of my
> favorites :
>
> "I am not indeed sure whether it is not true to say that the Milton who
> once seemed not unlike a seventeenth-century Shelly had not become out of
> an experience ever more bitter in each year, more alien to the founder of
> that Jesuit sect which nothing could induce him to tolerate."
>
> You almost need a calculator to get through this one sentance!

I think I saw this on the old ATR written exam :-)
Dudley Henriques

[Æslop]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 22:20:07 -0700, Æslop wrote:
>
>> Do you just make this crap up?
>
> Nope.
>
> "Federal wages and benefits have been rising quickly, and by 2004 the
> average compensation of federal workers was almost twice the average in
> the
> private sector."
>
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0605-35.pdf


What about the 50% of all workers? Where did this number come from? It's
actually about 17% TOTAL, Fed, State Local combined.

As an average of total salaries, yes the number is double. But this is
completely and totally meaningless. Government agencies don't hire (for the
most part) unskilled labor, and far less semi-skilled than make up the
"average" workforce. In my dept, over 50% of employees have a 4 year degree
or higher.This is well over double the average of about 25 percent of all
workers over 25 in the US. Stating the average government wage is double or
triple or whatever the national average is as meaningless as saying the
average at Boeing, or FedEx, or any other large corporation is higher than
average of all workers. They don't hire burger-flippers and day-laborers.
Even in the doc you quoted, the authors state that on a position to position
comparison, the Federal jobs are either slightly higher or slightly lower
than public sector, depending on the study.

Personally, I could care less what your opinion of gubmint workers is. But
at least get some actual facts instead of just pulling numbers out of your
ass and quoting meaningless stats that you apparently have been unable to
comprehend.

[Æslop]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...

>This anecdotal data is as I say strictly personal, and the real answer
>to government competence must be sought in it's systemic context. My
>opinion on that level would be that what would be found is
>overwhelming inferiority when directly compared to the private sector.

And mine is the opposite, based on *first-hand* experience over quite a few
years. Is there incompetence in the government sector? Without a doubt.
I see it all the time. Is it pervasive? Not at all. I have actually found
more incompetence in the consultants we engage from the private sector than
in our own workforce. But this is only my anecdotal evidence.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Oct 6, 10:45*pm, "Æslop" > wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >This anecdotal data is as I say strictly personal, and the real answer
> >to government competence must be sought in it's systemic context. My
> >opinion on that level would be that what would be found is
> >overwhelming inferiority when directly compared to the private sector.
>
> And mine is the opposite, based on *first-hand* experience over quite a few
> years. Is there incompetence in the government sector? Without a doubt.
> I see it all the time. Is it pervasive? Not at all. I have actually found
> more incompetence in the consultants we engage from the private sector than
> in our own workforce. But this is only my anecdotal evidence.

As is always the case in these "discussions" :-)) opinions vary of
course.
DH

[Æslop]

"Ross" > wrote in message
...

> I believe the post would be more appropriate to the elected officials in
> Washington.

And with that, I cannot argue :-)

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Dallas > wrote:

> Government sector jobs are now more than 50% of total employment in this
> country and considering benefits, they now make double the average private
> sector salary.

I usually stay out of these discussions but this is just absurd.

50% of total employment and 2x the average private sector salary would
imply that 67% of total salaries in the US are paid to government
employees, and only 33% of total salaries are paid to private employees.

And that is just the minimum. You're claiming "more than 50%", which
would mean more than 67% of total salaries are paid to government
employees, and less than 33% to the private sector.

Did you stop and think about what your claims meant before you made
them? These numbers simply don't line up. How are they getting enough
money from that 33% pool to pay for the 67% pool? It simply doesn't pass
the smell test. If you think about it for a moment, I bet you'll agree.

When you claim big numbers, stop for a moment and see if they actually
make sense. It will save much silliness and conflict if you do so. If
you still believe them, then do us all a favor and actually back up
crazy numbers with sources when you post them.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Jim Logajan]

Mike Ash > wrote:
> In article >,
> Dallas > wrote:
>
>> Government sector jobs are now more than 50% of total employment in
>> this country and considering benefits, they now make double the
>> average private sector salary.
>
> I usually stay out of these discussions but this is just absurd.
>
> 50% of total employment and 2x the average private sector salary would
> imply that 67% of total salaries in the US are paid to government
> employees, and only 33% of total salaries are paid to private
> employees.

Just for the record, historical federal income and expenditures are
available here:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/hist.html

Obviously not included are state and local taxes (typically income, sales,
and property taxes being the most well known.)

Federal outlays alone accounts for ~19.4% of GDP.

Including such state and local taxes, I think it is reasonable to assume
that government burden approaches a third of GDP - could be even one half.
I leave the actual research on the local government burden to someone who
isn't about to go to bed, as I am. ;-)

Also, because not all U.S. federal government expenditures are on direct
labor to government employees (think all that capital expenditure and use
of private services,) it is plausible (even if it may not be true) to claim
double salary compensation over private sector without having government
salary account for 67% of all salaries, public and private.

[Jim Logajan]

"Æslop" > wrote:
> Government agencies don't hire
> (for the most part) unskilled labor, and far less semi-skilled than
> make up the "average" workforce. In my dept, over 50% of employees
> have a 4 year degree or higher.

I seem to recall reading once that the highest concentration or PhDs in the
U.S. live in and around Washington DC.

Another place with a high percentage of esteemly degreed people is, I
believe, Wall Street.

And yet somewhere else I recall reading the advice someone made to a man of
no talent that his best bet for making money was to find where said money
is being exchanged and insert himself into the flow.

[Matt Barrow[_8_]]

"Mike Ash" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Dallas > wrote:
>
>> Government sector jobs are now more than 50% of total employment in this
>> country and considering benefits, they now make double the average
>> private
>> sector salary.
>
> I usually stay out of these discussions but this is just absurd.
>
> 50% of total employment and 2x the average private sector salary would
> imply that 67% of total salaries in the US are paid to government
> employees, and only 33% of total salaries are paid to private employees.

I think he's referring to the latest data that shows government people make
50% more than their private sector counterparts.

I don't know if that includes their benefit packages that only Fortune 500
CEO's get.

Matt

[Matt Barrow[_8_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Mike Ash > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Dallas > wrote:
>>
>>> Government sector jobs are now more than 50% of total employment in
>>> this country and considering benefits, they now make double the
>>> average private sector salary.
>>
>> I usually stay out of these discussions but this is just absurd.
>>
>> 50% of total employment and 2x the average private sector salary would
>> imply that 67% of total salaries in the US are paid to government
>> employees, and only 33% of total salaries are paid to private
>> employees.
>
> Just for the record, historical federal income and expenditures are
> available here:
>
> http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/hist.html
>
> Obviously not included are state and local taxes (typically income, sales,
> and property taxes being the most well known.)
>
> Federal outlays alone accounts for ~19.4% of GDP.


On budget; Off Budget spending is substantially higher.

Matt

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> "Mike Ash" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Dallas > wrote:
> >
> >> Government sector jobs are now more than 50% of total employment in this
> >> country and considering benefits, they now make double the average
> >> private
> >> sector salary.
> >
> > I usually stay out of these discussions but this is just absurd.
> >
> > 50% of total employment and 2x the average private sector salary would
> > imply that 67% of total salaries in the US are paid to government
> > employees, and only 33% of total salaries are paid to private employees.
>
> I think he's referring to the latest data that shows government people make
> 50% more than their private sector counterparts.
>
> I don't know if that includes their benefit packages that only Fortune 500
> CEO's get.

I can only read what he wrote, I can't read his mind. "50% of total
employment" is quite clear, and it does not mean "make 50% more than
their private sector counterparts".

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Jim Logajan > wrote:

> Mike Ash > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Dallas > wrote:
> >
> >> Government sector jobs are now more than 50% of total employment in
> >> this country and considering benefits, they now make double the
> >> average private sector salary.
> >
> > I usually stay out of these discussions but this is just absurd.
> >
> > 50% of total employment and 2x the average private sector salary would
> > imply that 67% of total salaries in the US are paid to government
> > employees, and only 33% of total salaries are paid to private
> > employees.
>
> Just for the record, historical federal income and expenditures are
> available here:
>
> http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/hist.html
>
> Obviously not included are state and local taxes (typically income, sales,
> and property taxes being the most well known.)
>
> Federal outlays alone accounts for ~19.4% of GDP.
>
> Including such state and local taxes, I think it is reasonable to assume
> that government burden approaches a third of GDP - could be even one half.
> I leave the actual research on the local government burden to someone who
> isn't about to go to bed, as I am. ;-)
>
> Also, because not all U.S. federal government expenditures are on direct
> labor to government employees (think all that capital expenditure and use
> of private services,) it is plausible (even if it may not be true) to claim
> double salary compensation over private sector without having government
> salary account for 67% of all salaries, public and private.

I'm not objecting to either individual claim he made, although, the 50%
of total employment figure is clearly wrong all by itself. I am
objecting to the combination of 50% of total employment and 2x average
salary. Put these two claims together and you must necessarily reach 67%
of total salaries going to government workers. It's just simple math.

The obvious conclusion, if the 2x salaries thing is correct, is that the
50% of total employment figure is dead wrong.

What I'm really objecting to, though, is spouting figures which are
obviously nonsensical on their face when you take two minutes to do some
basic analysis. Political discussion is filled with far too much hot air
and not nearly enough thought.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[C Gattman[_3_]]

On Oct 6, 2:56*pm, VOR-DME > wrote:


> "I am not indeed sure whether it is not true to say that the Milton who
> once seemed not unlike a seventeenth-century Shelly had not become out of
> an experience ever more bitter in each year, more alien to the founder of
> that Jesuit sect which nothing could induce him to tolerate."

So -that's- who wrote the FARs!

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Æslop" > wrote

> Personally, I could care less what your opinion of gubmint workers is. But
> at least get some actual facts instead of just pulling numbers out of your
> ass and quoting meaningless stats that you apparently have been unable to
> comprehend.

Figures lie and liars figure. You can make statistics prove anything you
want, if your try hard enough.
--
Jim in NC

(who has had his wages frozen for over a third of the 15 years he has been a
teacher. Where does that happen in the private sector?)

[C Gattman[_3_]]

On Oct 7, 2:09*pm, Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 10:59:23 -0700 (PDT), C Gattman wrote:

> > So -that's- who wrote the FARs!
>
> Much better post, Chris, keeping your ass firmly clenched so as to not provide more shame on yourself.

Wow. In your previous post, you told Dallas "That was a fart. It had
to be, it emanated from your ass."

What's it with you and our asses? What are you, 13?

One more for the killfile, I guess...

-c

[Blanche]

And with the NPRM about 61 & 91, the FAA is moving to EOM (end of month)
calendars rather than X years (or months) to the day.