Editorial on Glider Exemption from NexGen Plans

[Mike[_28_]]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/FAA-wrong-to-exempt-gliders-from-new-rule-97810114.html

[Frank Whiteley]

On Jul 6, 1:39*pm, Mike > wrote:
> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/FAA-wrong-to-exempt-gliders...

That's all they could come up with after a 30-minute interview with
the SSA chair? Gather the rest didn't support their agenda.

[Burt Compton - Marfa]

I have been educated that . . . the Washington Examiner is a tabloid
newspaper that is given away free.

The city of Alexandria, Virginia proposed a "Do Not Deliver" list in
response to people's complaints about not being able to unsubscribe,
when they hadn't subscribed in the first place. More info at
Wikipedia.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jul 6, 9:02*pm, Burt Compton - Marfa > wrote:
> I have been educated that . . . the Washington Examiner is a tabloid
> newspaper that is given away free.
>
> The city of Alexandria, Virginia proposed a "Do Not Deliver" list in
> response to people's complaints about not being able to unsubscribe,
> when they hadn't subscribed in the first place. * More info at
> Wikipedia.

This is another of the Examiner properties owned by Philip Anschutz.
Anschutz's private jet was involved in a near miss with a glider some
time ago and he has been on a private campaign about transponders etc.
in gliders since then. I personally want to encourage transponder
adoption in certain areas, for just the reasons like his incident, but
my largest concern about this is the apparent lack of technical/
aviation knowledge that keeps reoccuring in these editorials. It was
transponders and now it's ADS-B. I'm sure it's all a blur to them.

By all means if he's concerned about this go have an investigative
journalist (not editorial writer) interview experts and present the
issues. I have no problem with any media company owner getting upset
about something and workign to correct stuff they feel is wrong. Just
get the facts straight, and be above board an honest about this. But
all we've seen are sloppy editorials, and as with this article a
failure to disclose the near miss involving Anschutz -- and the
presumed direction from him to cover this topic.

I am not sure why the SSA agreed to an interview. I would not have
given an interview to anybody from any of the Examiner companies on
ADS-B or transponder issues given their past coverage.

While tempting as it is, it may be counterproductive to post comments
on the examiner article websites trying to correct errors or educate
people about gliding. It's just not a forum to have a cogent or
helpful discussion. Kind of like trying to have a fancy meal at a
garbage dump. I suspect what has this editorial writer pursuing ADS-B/
NextGen now was posts to previous editorials in different Examiner
newspapers on transponders where glider pilots posted comments
advocated ADS-B and the Miter box as a replacement for transponders.
Maybe we get what we deserve.

The San Francisco Examiner where I live also as a reputation for
delivering unwanted/unstoppable free newspapers. A waste of energy/
resources and a blight that just mostly fills up paper recycling bins.

Darryl

[Mike Schumann]

On 7/6/2010 11:02 PM, Burt Compton - Marfa wrote:
> I have been educated that . . . the Washington Examiner is a tabloid
> newspaper that is given away free.
>
> The city of Alexandria, Virginia proposed a "Do Not Deliver" list in
> response to people's complaints about not being able to unsubscribe,
> when they hadn't subscribed in the first place. More info at
> Wikipedia.
>

The Washington Examiner is very interested in the issue of transponders
on gliders, as their owner (Philip Anschutz) apparently had a near miss
between his private jet and a glider a number of years ago.

--
Mike Schumann

[Phil Umphres]

On Jul 6, 2:39*pm, Mike > wrote:
> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/FAA-wrong-to-exempt-gliders...

I played it straight when the reporter called. I gave the author a
lengthy interview and talked in detail about the ADS-B project.
Disappointing that the only quote they used (which I don't recall, but
may very well have said at the end of the interview) was the one
cited. Oh, well. No good deed goes unpunished.
Phil Umphres, Chairman
The Soaring Society of America, Inc.

[Mike Schumann]

On 7/8/2010 1:51 PM, Phil Umphres wrote:
> On Jul 6, 2:39 pm, > wrote:
>> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/FAA-wrong-to-exempt-gliders...
>
> I played it straight when the reporter called. I gave the author a
> lengthy interview and talked in detail about the ADS-B project.
> Disappointing that the only quote they used (which I don't recall, but
> may very well have said at the end of the interview) was the one
> cited. Oh, well. No good deed goes unpunished.
> Phil Umphres, Chairman
> The Soaring Society of America, Inc.

So how is the ADS-B project going? Has the SSA had any serious
discussions with the FAA about getting the MITRE and NAVWORX
transceivers certified? Any feedback on timeframes, etc???

--
Mike Schumann