Sport Pilot ever going to happen? [Archive]

Scrappman

March 23rd 04, 12:24 AM

I just got a forward message, from one of the U.L. e-mail lists, hope its
bull,,,,,,, here it is,

Hi All,
> It was announced at our ultralight safety seminar today by the
> local FSDO that sport pilot rules is on hold. The rule was found to
> have problems that need further reform after a recent review by FAA.
> It will not be announced at Sun-N-Fun and possibly not at Oshkosh
> this summer. Hurray, a reprieve for at least another year.

Wonder if its B.S. , anyone else attend this meeting, it was posted on
the 20th,,,
Scrappman

TaxSrv wrote:

> "Joepole" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>Didn't the DOT sign off on it on December 23rd, meaning the Office
>>
> of
>
>>Management and Budget (OMB) has 90 days to sign off and return it to
>>the FAA?
>>
>>Isn't today (March 22nd) 90 days after December 23rd?
>>
>
> I think I found the rule, just an Executive Order - #12866. OMB has
> 90 calendar days to complete review, but it can by mutual agreement be
> extended another 30. After that and with no disputes to resolve, I
> can't find anywhere in 5 USC (law governing agency rulemaking ) that
> says how long an agency (FAA) has to publish the final.
>
> Also, the criteria under which OMB reviews the rule appear to be
> things which are not involved in Sport Pilot (e.g., excessive
> regulation; conflict with other agency rules). So it's likely just a
> matter where, in the grand scheme of things a rather minor rule, all
> the parties use the full time given to tend to more important
> rulemaking matters.
>
> Fred F.
>
>

Regnirps

March 23rd 04, 04:53 AM

Maybe they will have to do it again. Please raise the speed limit! (Actually, I
want a Vans RV-8 to qualify in case my BP goes up in a physical).

-- Charlie Springer

SadlerVampire18

March 23rd 04, 11:16 PM

Sport Pilot is not on hold, See the comments just publiched on the USUA
site. - Bartman
From http://www.usua.org

03/23/2004: Sport Pilot Rumors Abound; And They Are Just That -
RUMORS

As Sport Pilot/Light Sport Aircraft weaves it's way through the
regulatory process, much anticipation and concern is felt by all who
will be affected by the new rules. Under these circumstances, rumors
and misinformation can be interpreted as truth.

Recently, at the Virginia State Ultralight Safety Seminar, at which I
was privileged to attend, it was reported by FAA that Sport Pilot was
sent back to FAA for a re-write, and that the rule was effectively on
hold. This information was given by the local Richmond FSDO Safety
Program Manager, so much interest was given to his statement.

After hearing this, I immediately contacted Sport Pilot Program
Manager Sue Gardner for verification and clarification. Ms. Gardner
replied directly to me via phone, just minutes ago, that this
information was NOT CORRECT. She stated that the rule was NOT SENT
BACK TO FAA FOR A RE-WRITE, AND THAT IS WAS INDEED STILL AT THE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET PROGRESSING AS EXPECTED. She would
give no time frame to expect the rule to be released, however it is
safe to expect release later this year.

For those of us hungry for new information concerning this very
important regulation, it is sometimes easy to fall victim to any
rumor that may provide insight into what to expect. USUA cautions
everyone to wait until information is provided from the highest
levels of FAA before jumping to any conclusions. USUA is in direct
communication with persons in those offices, and will post only
confirmed updates.

United States Ultralight Association, Inc.
Dale Hooper
Executive Vice President

UltraJohn

March 24th 04, 03:36 AM

DOT took considerably longer than their allotted time but passed it!

Leon McAtee wrote:

> (Joepole) wrote in message
> >...
>> Didn't the DOT sign off on it on December 23rd, meaning the Office of
>> Management and Budget (OMB) has 90 days to sign off and return it to
>> the FAA?
>>
>> Isn't today (March 22nd) 90 days after December 23rd?
>
> That's the way it was explained to me, or at least my understanding of
> the explination. NPRM - comment periond - FAA aproval - then off to
> DOT for 30 day review - then off to OMB for their review. If DOT or
> the OMB didn't approve in the alloted time then we start all over with
> another NPRM.
>
> Could be working days not calander days? Or maybe the OMB didn't like
> it and killed it with the equivilant of a "pocket veto"?
>
> ===================
> Leon McAtee
> Believe it when I see it..as long as the vision is confirmed by an
> independent observer.
>

Scrappman

March 24th 04, 10:26 PM

Cool man, Thanks for the info man,
Scrappman

SadlerVampire18 wrote:

> Sport Pilot is not on hold, See the comments just publiched on the USUA
> site. - Bartman
> From http://www.usua.org
>
> 03/23/2004: Sport Pilot Rumors Abound; And They Are Just That -
> RUMORS
>
> As Sport Pilot/Light Sport Aircraft weaves it's way through the
> regulatory process, much anticipation and concern is felt by all who
> will be affected by the new rules. Under these circumstances, rumors
> and misinformation can be interpreted as truth.
>
> Recently, at the Virginia State Ultralight Safety Seminar, at which I
> was privileged to attend, it was reported by FAA that Sport Pilot was
> sent back to FAA for a re-write, and that the rule was effectively on
> hold. This information was given by the local Richmond FSDO Safety
> Program Manager, so much interest was given to his statement.
>
> After hearing this, I immediately contacted Sport Pilot Program
> Manager Sue Gardner for verification and clarification. Ms. Gardner
> replied directly to me via phone, just minutes ago, that this
> information was NOT CORRECT. She stated that the rule was NOT SENT
> BACK TO FAA FOR A RE-WRITE, AND THAT IS WAS INDEED STILL AT THE
> OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET PROGRESSING AS EXPECTED. She would
> give no time frame to expect the rule to be released, however it is
> safe to expect release later this year.
>
> For those of us hungry for new information concerning this very
> important regulation, it is sometimes easy to fall victim to any
> rumor that may provide insight into what to expect. USUA cautions
> everyone to wait until information is provided from the highest
> levels of FAA before jumping to any conclusions. USUA is in direct
> communication with persons in those offices, and will post only
> confirmed updates.
>
> United States Ultralight Association, Inc.
> Dale Hooper
> Executive Vice President
>
>
>

Checkursix

March 25th 04, 02:59 AM

Why would anybody NOT want Sport Pilot to pass?? Would that be a GA Pilot
barking because HE went the GA Way and now doesn't want anybody to enjoy
flying unless they go HIS way?

Propbuster
"Scrappman" > wrote in message
...
> I just got a forward message, from one of the U.L. e-mail lists, hope its
> bull,,,,,,, here it is,
>
> Hi All,
> > It was announced at our ultralight safety seminar today by the
> > local FSDO that sport pilot rules is on hold. The rule was found to
> > have problems that need further reform after a recent review by FAA.
> > It will not be announced at Sun-N-Fun and possibly not at Oshkosh
> > this summer. Hurray, a reprieve for at least another year.
>
> Wonder if its B.S. , anyone else attend this meeting, it was posted on
> the 20th,,,
> Scrappman
>
> TaxSrv wrote:
>
> > "Joepole" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> >>Didn't the DOT sign off on it on December 23rd, meaning the Office
> >>
> > of
> >
> >>Management and Budget (OMB) has 90 days to sign off and return it to
> >>the FAA?
> >>
> >>Isn't today (March 22nd) 90 days after December 23rd?
> >>
> >
> > I think I found the rule, just an Executive Order - #12866. OMB has
> > 90 calendar days to complete review, but it can by mutual agreement be
> > extended another 30. After that and with no disputes to resolve, I
> > can't find anywhere in 5 USC (law governing agency rulemaking ) that
> > says how long an agency (FAA) has to publish the final.
> >
> > Also, the criteria under which OMB reviews the rule appear to be
> > things which are not involved in Sport Pilot (e.g., excessive
> > regulation; conflict with other agency rules). So it's likely just a
> > matter where, in the grand scheme of things a rather minor rule, all
> > the parties use the full time given to tend to more important
> > rulemaking matters.
> >
> > Fred F.
> >
> >
>

Ron Wanttaja

March 25th 04, 05:24 AM

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:59:34 GMT, "Checkursix"
> wrote:

>Why would anybody NOT want Sport Pilot to pass?? Would that be a GA Pilot
>barking because HE went the GA Way and now doesn't want anybody to enjoy
>flying unless they go HIS way?

No, I think you'll find it the other way around. Some people in the
ultralight community are concerned that it's the first nail in the coffin
for Part 103. IIRC, one big objection is that it takes the two-seat
ultralight trainers and requires them to be licensed.

Ron Wanttaja

Skyking

March 25th 04, 12:32 PM

"Checkursix" > wrote in message
...
> Why would anybody NOT want Sport Pilot to pass?? Would that be a GA Pilot
> barking because HE went the GA Way and now doesn't want anybody to enjoy
> flying unless they go HIS way?
>
> Propbuster

No, I haven't heard of any GA comment against
Sport..
Most of the negative Sport people are pure ULers.
Many don't want to loose the 2 place exemption.

Hey, it's too late for official comment anyway.

Skyking

www.JimWilliamson.net

March 25th 04, 03:20 PM

"Skyking" > wrote:
>No, I haven't heard of any GA comment against
>Sport..
>Most of the negative Sport people are pure ULers.
>Many don't want to loose the 2 place exemption.
>
>Hey, it's too late for official comment anyway.

If you would, clue me in on something. I consider myself a pure UL'er -
103 is not going away is it? If not why as a pure ul'er would I care?

I am somewhat interested in moving to SP when it happens tho.

Thanks,
Jim

March 25th 04, 03:57 PM

(www.JimWilliamson.net) wrote in
:

> "Skyking" > wrote:
>>No, I haven't heard of any GA comment against
>>Sport..
>>Most of the negative Sport people are pure ULers.
>>Many don't want to loose the 2 place exemption.
>>
>>Hey, it's too late for official comment anyway.
>
> If you would, clue me in on something. I consider myself a pure UL'er
> - 103 is not going away is it? If not why as a pure ul'er would I
> care?
>
> I am somewhat interested in moving to SP when it happens tho.
>
> Thanks,
> Jim
>

103 is alive and well and is not currently scheduled to change.

It's the way 2 place UL's and "FAT" (read "illegal") UL's are handled
that will change. All 2 place UL's will have to be converted to LSA's
after the grandfathering period the way I read it. "FAT" UL's (one
place UL's that are over weight) were never legal anyway and SP will
give them a shot a flying legally...

It's the BFI with a 2 place that has given 500 "lessons" but never
solo'd a student that is against it... why? I have no idea....

--
ET >:)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

Gilan

March 25th 04, 04:03 PM

a pure Ultralighter wouldn't care about Sport Pilot would they?
An Ultralight is 254lbs or less
--
You may be an Ultralighter if........
http://www.flyinggators.com/news/Bill%20Cook/Bill.htm
--
Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/

"Skyking" wrote ..
No, I haven't heard of any GA comment against
Sport..
Most of the negative Sport people are pure ULers.
Many don't want to loose the 2 place exemption.

Hey, it's too late for official comment anyway.

Skyking

Cloud_dancer

March 25th 04, 04:20 PM

In article > ET,
writes:
>It's the BFI with a 2 place that has given 500 "lessons" but never
>solo'd a student that is against it... why? I have no idea....

Actually, most of the real BFI's I've talked to are against it. The
reason is, if I understand it correctly, that it takes your currently
usable training aircraft and regulates it out of use in 3 years, and
forces you to buy a factory built aircraft to teach in instead. I know
that I won't be able to make that kind of financial stretch to keep on
teaching - it simply won't pay back - and resent being forced to when I
have a perfectly serviceable aircraft now. I expect most other BFI's are
in the same situation.

So in 3 years many of the current BFI's will be forced out of business.
That means fewer people to train new pilots, and more expensive training
if you can find it. It's not even clear whether many manufacturers will
even be willing to sell completed aircraft for training use, with the
potential liability issues there. So you may be forced to train in GA
aircraft and then self transition into lighter UL types. Less training
and training in a different class of aircraft than you are actually going
to fly in probably won't do good things for the accident rate. :-(

And if you buy a factory built aircraft, you can't do your own work and
repairs on it, so it has to go to an AP, again increasing costs to the
BFI, and thence to the student. Too high a cost is what has shrunk the
American flying public from about 800,000 at it's peak down to the
current <500,00 or so.

IMHO - Sport Pilot could be ok, IF they left the 2 seat training
exemption in place, and just bumped up the UL empty weight limits to 350#
for part 103 and 600# for 2 seaters under the training exemption. But as
we last saw it, it looks like it's intended to screw the current BFI's
out of existance and force all training to the existing GA CFI's. I'd
rather have what we have now than that.

Kevin

Ron

March 25th 04, 05:54 PM

Current online message from EAA :
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FAA TEMPORARILY RETRACTS SPORT PILOT PROPOSAL
Action Allows FAA to Answer OMB Questions

March 25, 2004 - FAA Administrator Marion Blakey ordered an
administrative move on Wednesday, March 24, that keeps the sport
pilot/light-sport aircraft rule on track for final approval this spring. She
withdrew the proposal from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to
answer several final questions about the rulemaking package.
That maneuver saves the rule from facing a potential significant delay
in its approval. By bringing the proposal back to FAA, Blakey can address
OMB's questions in the most expeditious manner and return it quickly for
final approval. FAA will return the rulemaking package directly to OMB
without another complete review by the Department of Transportation.

March 24 marked the end of OMB's 90-day review period. Had FAA not
retracted the rule, OMB could have rejected it, severely delaying issuance
of a final rule.

While expressing disappointment in the 11th-hour development, EAA
President Tom Poberezny commended FAA's decision and acknowledged it as the
best way for the agency to address OMB's questions and secure a final rule
as quickly as possible.

"This is a temporary timing setback," he said. "EAA continues to
champion and support the sport pilot/light-sport aircraft rule, as evidenced
by the considerable resources we've dedicated to developing programs and
services for our members, including the introduction this week of EAA Sport
Pilot & Light-Sport Aircraft magazine." Poberezny also noted an upcoming
announcement regarding a major sport pilot and instructor training program.

FAA officials confirmed to EAA that answering OMB's questions about
the proposed rule is a top priority.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Gilan" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> Only 24 days, 1 hours, 56 minutes, and 59 seconds left until Sun n Fun
> I wonder if Sport Pilot will ever come out???
>
> --
> You may be an Ultralighter if........
> http://www.flyinggators.com/news/Bill%20Cook/Bill.htm
>
> --
> Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
> See ya on Sport Aircraft group
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
>
>
>
>

Mark Smith

March 25th 04, 05:55 PM

Cloud_dancer wrote:
>
> In article > ET,
> writes:
> >It's the BFI with a 2 place that has given 500 "lessons" but never
> >solo'd a student that is against it... why? I have no idea....
>
> Actually, most of the real BFI's I've talked to are against it. The
> reason is, if I understand it correctly, that it takes your currently
> usable training aircraft and regulates it out of use in 3 years, and
> forces you to buy a factory built aircraft to teach in instead. I know
> that I won't be able to make that kind of financial stretch to keep on
> teaching - it simply won't pay back - and resent being forced to when I
> have a perfectly serviceable aircraft now. I expect most other BFI's are
> in the same situation.
>
> So in 3 years many of the current BFI's will be forced out of business.
> That means fewer people to train new pilots, and more expensive training
> if you can find it. It's not even clear whether many manufacturers will
> even be willing to sell completed aircraft for training use, with the
> potential liability issues there. So you may be forced to train in GA
> aircraft and then self transition into lighter UL types. Less training
> and training in a different class of aircraft than you are actually going
> to fly in probably won't do good things for the accident rate. :-(
>
> And if you buy a factory built aircraft, you can't do your own work and
> repairs on it, so it has to go to an AP, again increasing costs to the
> BFI, and thence to the student. Too high a cost is what has shrunk the
> American flying public from about 800,000 at it's peak down to the
> current <500,00 or so.
>
> IMHO - Sport Pilot could be ok, IF they left the 2 seat training
> exemption in place, and just bumped up the UL empty weight limits to 350#
> for part 103 and 600# for 2 seaters under the training exemption. But as
> we last saw it, it looks like it's intended to screw the current BFI's
> out of existance and force all training to the existing GA CFI's. I'd
> rather have what we have now than that.
>
> Kevin

being a past BFI, I think you have it about right,

if the exemption wasn't involved, i wouldn't have read the NPRM much
less commented about it,

planes must be factory certfiied to be used as trainers, this means the
estimates from 35,000 to 60,000 would place them out of my reach as UL
trainers,

i have not heard of any US mfr commit to building one either,

the repairs would require factory parts, changing a prop would require
factory approval, or perhaps an STC

work must be done by an AnP or a person with FnAA training on that
particular plane,,,,,,,

no more replacing fuel lines or experiementing with a new regulator, the
addition of a radio, or even the removal would DE certify the ppane for
commercial use,,,,,,,

just like the real ones !!!
it sounds like a 'mini GA' plan to me,

make and model will kill most legal flying anyway, since there are
SOOOOOOOOmany makes and models, an many without two places for the
required training,,,,,,,,

again, a rule written by those who don't fly much about planes they
don't fly at all,,,,,,,,,

I just heard the FnAA pulled the rule back from OMB to avoid getting
their comments officially, which were to have sunk it at the
pier,,,,,,,,,,,,

but I have been criticized for rumor mongering, so maybe it is really
OK, and the head of the FnAA didn't say anything, and maybe the FSDOs
that broke the news at twqo safety seminars last week were jumping the
gun incorrectly ,

long live sprot,,,,,,,,,,may it rot !
--

Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales http://www.trikite.com
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620

March 25th 04, 06:11 PM

Cloud_dancer > wrote in
:

> In article > ET,
> writes:
>>It's the BFI with a 2 place that has given 500 "lessons" but never
>>solo'd a student that is against it... why? I have no idea....
>
> Actually, most of the real BFI's I've talked to are against it. The
> reason is, if I understand it correctly, that it takes your currently
> usable training aircraft and regulates it out of use in 3 years, and
> forces you to buy a factory built aircraft to teach in instead. I know
> that I won't be able to make that kind of financial stretch to keep on
> teaching - it simply won't pay back - and resent being forced to when
> I have a perfectly serviceable aircraft now. I expect most other BFI's
> are in the same situation.

Yes I agree, this part is quite troubling...

>
> So in 3 years many of the current BFI's will be forced out of
> business. That means fewer people to train new pilots, and more
> expensive training if you can find it. It's not even clear whether
> many manufacturers will even be willing to sell completed aircraft for
> training use, with the potential liability issues there. So you may be
> forced to train in GA aircraft and then self transition into lighter
> UL types. Less training and training in a different class of aircraft
> than you are actually going to fly in probably won't do good things
> for the accident rate. :-(

Another part of the NPRM talks about having to train in a smaller,
slower aircraft first than transition to the larger faster aircraft... I
dunno how this will be resolved, but I expect some of this has already
been changed... we shall see.. hopefully soon.

>
> And if you buy a factory built aircraft, you can't do your own work
> and repairs on it, so it has to go to an AP, again increasing costs to
> the BFI, and thence to the student. Too high a cost is what has shrunk
> the American flying public from about 800,000 at it's peak down to the
> current <500,00 or so.

Hrm, I know you can take a course for 2 levels of maint for LSA, I dunno
about the differing requirements for trainers though.

>
> IMHO - Sport Pilot could be ok, IF they left the 2 seat training
> exemption in place, and just bumped up the UL empty weight limits to
> 350# for part 103 and 600# for 2 seaters under the training
> exemption. But as we last saw it, it looks like it's intended to screw
> the current BFI's out of existance and force all training to the
> existing GA CFI's. I'd rather have what we have now than that.
>
> Kevin

It is my expectation (although I cannot back this expectation up with
any facts whatsoever)..., that the planned obsolesence of these trainers
may be overturned, either by the final rule or an amendment later on....

Most of my focus in sport pilot is on the new class of license created,
rather than the restrictions on existing UL's that are imposed. For me,
I expect it will allow me to get a SP lic for "about" half the cost of a
PPL and fly pretty much the way I would use a PPL anyway.... For my
father, who bought a high doller plane, only to have a minor medical
event that cause him to have to quit flying less than 30 days later :-(
it's an opportunity to fly, period.

I believe OMB's 90 days was yesterday.... of course we would have all
fallen over dead in surprise if they had acted within the deadline...

--
ET >:)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

Cloud_dancer

March 25th 04, 08:31 PM

In article > ET,
writes:

>Another part of the NPRM talks about having to train in a smaller,
>slower aircraft first than transition to the larger faster aircraft... I
>dunno how this will be resolved, but I expect some of this has already
>been changed... we shall see.. hopefully soon.

That's one problem, past a certain point, we have had *no* visibility to
what has been kept or changed. The rule the OMB is balking over may not
closely resemble the rule as we last saw it.

And for starting LSA pilots, the idea was start in a small slow plane and
work up. But for UL pilots, who will have to solo slow, light, single
seat part103 aircraft - if there are no two seat trainers of that type -
how will they learn? My two seat Hawk flies much like a single seat
version, but neither fly much like a cub or champ, which might be the
closest aircraft type available to train in. We still have to have a
mechanism to train part 103 pilots, but the new rules effectively outlaw
the pool of training planes.

I don't mind creating a new upscale class of aircraft and somewhat
'better' (read 'more expensively') trained pools of certified pilots. I
*do* mind breaking a system that has been working well for a number of
years for the separate UL community. Killing the training exemption is a
stake in the heart of the UL community. Where's the corresponding gain
that makes that worthwhile?

So called "FAT UL's" ultralights have not proven to be a problem. In many
ways they are fat because the pilots wanted them safer - things like
decent horsepower engines, brakes, enough fuel not to run out just
puddling around for an hour, etc. Personally, I refuse to fly in an
aircraft that weighs less than I do! :-) The FAA has looked the other
way, because generally speaking, it hasn't been an issue. And also
because the FAA's original target weight was 500 lbs, but they got talked
down to 254 by some vendors who wanted to capture the market by setting
the limit just above their build weights. If/When Sport Pilot goes
through, the indications are that they will start enforcing 254/5gal more
vigorously - which is going to be a problem for about 80 percent of the
fleet of currently flying aircraft. That's going to break a much larger
part of a system that has been working well for years. Where's the gain
that makes *that* worthwhile?

>
>>
>> And if you buy a factory built aircraft, you can't do your own work
>> and repairs on it, so it has to go to an AP, again increasing costs to
>> the BFI, and thence to the student. Too high a cost is what has shrunk
>> the American flying public from about 800,000 at it's peak down to the
>> current <500,00 or so.
>
>Hrm, I know you can take a course for 2 levels of maint for LSA, I dunno
>about the differing requirements for trainers though.

From what I can see, a training airplane has to be serviced by an AP. $$$
And they probably don't know as much about servicing my Hawk as I do.
Hell, I'm not sure I can fly into our fancy county airport where the AP's
are based without getting insurance to make the county manager happy. I'd
have to find an AP who makes housecalls. That's not gonna be cheap. And
they may not want the liability of working on that class of unfamiliar
aircraft. What if I can't find an AP who will service my plane? Do the
new rules *compel* AP's to work on UL's? I doubt it.

>
>It is my expectation (although I cannot back this expectation up with
>any facts whatsoever)..., that the planned obsolesence of these trainers
>may be overturned, either by the final rule or an amendment later on....

That's my hope also, but generally speaking, whenever the government
'helps' me, I lose. EIther money or rights, and usually both, I lose. So
I don't have high hopes.

>
>Most of my focus in sport pilot is on the new class of license created,
>rather than the restrictions on existing UL's that are imposed.

But then it's "I got mine" at the expense of all those other folks who
were here before you. Eye's on the prize, and the heck with who gets
trampled in the process? :-)

Again, I don't mind them creating a new class. I very much mind them
breaking the ones that already exist. There are a lot more UL and fat UL
pilots at risk than the number of new LSA's who will be created. Look at
the recreational pilot license - there's how many of those, a few
hundred? Worth breaking the UL system as it works now for say 2000-3000
new pilots who could achieve much of what they want now just flying under
a loosely enforced part 103? Not in my book.

For me,
>I expect it will allow me to get a SP lic for "about" half the cost of a
>PPL and fly pretty much the way I would use a PPL anyway.... For my
>father, who bought a high doller plane, only to have a minor medical
>event that cause him to have to quit flying less than 30 days later :-(
>it's an opportunity to fly, period.

He could fly a UL, either part 103 legal or a 'fat' one. Many of the UL
pilots in the air today either got medical'd out, or priced out, of GA
and have moved to UL's in response. If it's a high dollar airplane, it's
probably something more complicated or heavier/faster than a champ or cub
class anyway, and won't be available to him under LSA privileges. If it's
not, then a UL will give him a similar performance envelope at much lower
cost. And with a lot less fuss.

>
>I believe OMB's 90 days was yesterday.... of course we would have all
>fallen over dead in surprise if they had acted within the deadline...

And isn't that just an eloquent comment on the quality of government and
it's systems. We don't even expect it to obey the rules any more, and
would be surprised if they did.

Kevin

SadlerVampire18

March 25th 04, 08:57 PM

For those wishing to read the latest Sport Pilot Temporairy Proposal Retract
by the FAA, go to
http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/040325_sp.html

Bart

"Ron" <no one @home.com> wrote in message
...
> Current online message from EAA :
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> FAA TEMPORARILY RETRACTS SPORT PILOT PROPOSAL
> Action Allows FAA to Answer OMB Questions
>
>
> March 25, 2004 - FAA Administrator Marion Blakey ordered an
> administrative move on Wednesday, March 24, that keeps the sport
> pilot/light-sport aircraft rule on track for final approval this spring.
She
> withdrew the proposal from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to
> answer several final questions about the rulemaking package.
> That maneuver saves the rule from facing a potential significant
delay
> in its approval. By bringing the proposal back to FAA, Blakey can address
> OMB's questions in the most expeditious manner and return it quickly for
> final approval. FAA will return the rulemaking package directly to OMB
> without another complete review by the Department of Transportation.
>
> March 24 marked the end of OMB's 90-day review period. Had FAA not
> retracted the rule, OMB could have rejected it, severely delaying issuance
> of a final rule.
>
> While expressing disappointment in the 11th-hour development, EAA
> President Tom Poberezny commended FAA's decision and acknowledged it as
the
> best way for the agency to address OMB's questions and secure a final rule
> as quickly as possible.
>
> "This is a temporary timing setback," he said. "EAA continues to
> champion and support the sport pilot/light-sport aircraft rule, as
evidenced
> by the considerable resources we've dedicated to developing programs and
> services for our members, including the introduction this week of EAA
Sport
> Pilot & Light-Sport Aircraft magazine." Poberezny also noted an upcoming
> announcement regarding a major sport pilot and instructor training
program.
>
> FAA officials confirmed to EAA that answering OMB's questions about
> the proposed rule is a top priority.
>
>
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "Gilan" > wrote in message
> .net...
> >
> > Only 24 days, 1 hours, 56 minutes, and 59 seconds left until Sun n Fun
> > I wonder if Sport Pilot will ever come out???
> >
> > --
> > You may be an Ultralighter if........
> > http://www.flyinggators.com/news/Bill%20Cook/Bill.htm
> >
> > --
> > Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
> > See ya on Sport Aircraft group
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

March 26th 04, 08:51 AM

> For me,
>>I expect it will allow me to get a SP lic for "about" half the cost of a
>>PPL and fly pretty much the way I would use a PPL anyway.... For my
>>father, who bought a high doller plane, only to have a minor medical
>>event that cause him to have to quit flying less than 30 days later :-(
>>it's an opportunity to fly, period.
>
> He could fly a UL, either part 103 legal or a 'fat' one. Many of the UL
> pilots in the air today either got medical'd out, or priced out, of GA
> and have moved to UL's in response. If it's a high dollar airplane, it's
> probably something more complicated or heavier/faster than a champ or cub
> class anyway, and won't be available to him under LSA privileges. If it's
> not, then a UL will give him a similar performance envelope at much lower
> cost. And with a lot less fuss.
>
>>
>>I believe OMB's 90 days was yesterday.... of course we would have all
>>fallen over dead in surprise if they had acted within the deadline...
>
> And isn't that just an eloquent comment on the quality of government and
> it's systems. We don't even expect it to obey the rules any more, and
> would be surprised if they did.
>
> Kevin

There is a considerable difference between an UL and a SP aircraft
performance. 130+mph flying can get you most anywhere which I would not
even try in an UL. I lost my medical and am working to get it back now
(probably will) but it is a hastle. It would be a lot more convienient to
go the SP route with the drivers license medical than going through annual
expensive testing/paperwork to maintain a medical than is dictated by a
bunch of old school government doctors.

John

[email protected]

March 27th 04, 10:35 PM

So does anybody know how long it will be retracted before it goes back
to the OMB? Also, will it go to the OMB where it left off or will
they get another 90 days?

Dennis.

"SadlerVampire18" > wrote:

> For those wishing to read the latest Sport Pilot Temporairy Proposal Retract
> by the FAA, go to
> http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/040325_sp.html
>
> Bart

Dennis Hawkins
n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)

"A RECESSION is when you know somebody who is out of work.
A DEPRESSION is when YOU are out of work.
A RECOVERY is when all the H-1B's are out of work."

To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm

Cy Galley

March 28th 04, 04:29 AM

I read about another concern with the Sport Pilot. Home land security is
worried about "fat" ultralights being used by terrorists. Another knee jerk
reaction by the feds that haven't a clue and want to keep their "fat"
salaries.

> wrote in message
...
>
> So does anybody know how long it will be retracted before it goes back
> to the OMB? Also, will it go to the OMB where it left off or will
> they get another 90 days?
>
> Dennis.
>
>
> "SadlerVampire18" > wrote:
>
> > For those wishing to read the latest Sport Pilot Temporairy Proposal
Retract
> > by the FAA, go to
> > http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/040325_sp.html
> >
> > Bart
>
> Dennis Hawkins
> n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)
>
> "A RECESSION is when you know somebody who is out of work.
> A DEPRESSION is when YOU are out of work.
> A RECOVERY is when all the H-1B's are out of work."
>
> To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
> them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
> web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
> video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm
>
>

[email protected]

March 28th 04, 01:20 PM

Especially considering that a fat ultralight would do little more than
be a bug splat on a skyscraper's window.

Dennis H.

"Cy Galley" > wrote:

> I read about another concern with the Sport Pilot. Home land security is
> worried about "fat" ultralights being used by terrorists. Another knee jerk
> reaction by the feds that haven't a clue and want to keep their "fat"
> salaries.

Dennis Hawkins
n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)

"A RECESSION is when you know somebody who is out of work.
A DEPRESSION is when YOU are out of work.
A RECOVERY is when all the H-1B's are out of work."

To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm

Skyking

March 28th 04, 01:49 PM

"www.JimWilliamson.net" > wrote in message
...
> "Skyking" > wrote:
> >No, I haven't heard of any GA comment against
> >Sport..
> >Most of the negative Sport people are pure ULers.
> >Many don't want to loose the 2 place exemption.
> >
> >Hey, it's too late for official comment anyway.
>
> If you would, clue me in on something. I consider myself a pure UL'er -
> 103 is not going away is it? If not why as a pure ul'er would I care?
>
> I am somewhat interested in moving to SP when it happens tho.
>
> Thanks,
> Jim

No, 103 isn't going away but the 2 place training exemption is going away if
Sport becomes reality.

Please don't misunderstand, I was not making pro or con statement about
Sport, just speculating on who
the Anti-Sport group consisted of. I did use the
wrong label when I said pure ULer because I was
referring to the "Outlaw ULers".

All that we can do is wait because I believe even
Congress bows to OMB.

Skyking

SadlerVampire18

March 28th 04, 04:26 PM

....Or a great way to deliver Bio-Chemical Warfare agents, Dirty
Bombs.....etc.

Don't think the Feds collectively are not nervous about all these
unregistered airplane thingies...

Bart

> wrote in message
...
>
> Especially considering that a fat ultralight would do little more than
> be a bug splat on a skyscraper's window.
>
> Dennis H.
>
> "Cy Galley" > wrote:

Dillon Pyron

March 28th 04, 08:57 PM

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 22:35:19 GMT, wrote:

>
>So does anybody know how long it will be retracted before it goes back
>to the OMB? Also, will it go to the OMB where it left off or will
>they get another 90 days?
>
>Dennis.
>
>
>"SadlerVampire18" > wrote:
>
>> For those wishing to read the latest Sport Pilot Temporairy Proposal Retract
>> by the FAA, go to
>> http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/040325_sp.html
>>
>> Bart
>
>Dennis Hawkins
>n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)
>
>"A RECESSION is when you know somebody who is out of work.
> A DEPRESSION is when YOU are out of work.
> A RECOVERY is when all the H-1B's are out of work."
>
>To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
>them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
>web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
>video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm
>
Ask about L1's also. There are no limits on the numbers, and many
companies are bringing in totally unqualified people, having their
employees train them then letting the employees go and either using
the L1's or shipping them and the jobs "home".

No, I'm not bitter.
--
dillon

Life is always short, but only you can make it sweet

[email protected]

March 28th 04, 10:34 PM

You can do that in a car just as easily and effectively. Or a helium
ballon if being airborne is mandatory.

Dennis H.

"SadlerVampire18" > wrote:

> ...Or a great way to deliver Bio-Chemical Warfare agents, Dirty
> Bombs.....etc.
>
Dennis Hawkins
n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)

"A RECESSION is when you know somebody who is out of work.
A DEPRESSION is when YOU are out of work.
A RECOVERY is when all the H-1B's are out of work."

To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm

[email protected]

March 28th 04, 10:42 PM

Dillon Pyron > wrote:

> >Dennis Hawkins
> >n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)
> >
> >"A RECESSION is when you know somebody who is out of work.
> > A DEPRESSION is when YOU are out of work.
> > A RECOVERY is when all the H-1B's are out of work."
> >
> >To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
> >them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
> >web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
> >video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm
> >
> Ask about L1's also. There are no limits on the numbers, and many
> companies are bringing in totally unqualified people, having their
> employees train them then letting the employees go and either using
> the L1's or shipping them and the jobs "home".
>
> No, I'm not bitter.
> --
> dillon
>
> Life is always short, but only you can make it sweet

Its kind of like an Indian guy walks into your office with a pink slip
while you are writing code and says "Here, the boss told me to give
this to you....He layed you off...Now before you leave, show me how to
work this thing."

I don't hate Indians, just the corporations and laws that make it
almost mandatory that they are brought here.

Dennis H.

Dennis Hawkins
n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)

"A RECESSION is when you know somebody who is out of work.
A DEPRESSION is when YOU are out of work.
A RECOVERY is when all the H-1B's are out of work."

To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm

Richard Lamb

March 28th 04, 10:46 PM

wrote:
>
> Its kind of like an Indian guy walks into your office with a pink slip
> while you are writing code and says "Here, the boss told me to give
> this to you....He layed you off...Now before you leave, show me how to
> work this thing."
>
> I don't hate Indians, just the corporations and laws that make it
> almost mandatory that they are brought here.
>
> Dennis H.
>

Did all this come about because of a tax break for businesses that moved
jobs off shore?

Veeduber

March 29th 04, 12:46 AM

>You can do that in a car just as easily and effectively. Or a helium
>ballon if being airborne is mandatory.

-------------------------------------------------

Or a garbage truck. Or an airport shuttle-bus. (Neither of which is inspected
in the literal sense; both of which are allowed to drive right up to the
terminal. [One out front, the other out back.] )

Or with a home-made RPV. (Think 'model airplane.' Now think BIG model
airplane.)

Using GPS and a solid-state autopilot the delivery error is about +/- 50m. At
about $20k a copy, with a 200 pound payload, 700 nm range and an average
service life of two trips, it's the cheapest way to fly dope since SAT.

Or so they say.

With regard to terrorists, the use of RPV'S (or their precursors) been in the
Threat Book since about 1996 (ie, since the availability of off-the-shelf
miniturized GPS receivers & autopilots... if this is news to you, check with
the model airplane builders).

The fact a potential threat has been defined doesn't mean anyone has paid any
attention. The use of kamikaze airliners went into the book sometime in the
sixties (it was already there, had been discussed -- and ruled 'not credible'
-- by the early 1970's)

As a point of interest, the WTC towers were designed to withstand the impact of
a fully fueled 707 -- the 'maximum credible threat' (aviation-wise) at the time
they were DESIGNED. By the time they were built the 747 was flying but nothing
was done to upgrade their structure to withstand the impact of a fully fueled
wide-body.

Most of the new 'Homeland Defense' crowd are bean counters. They'll do a fine
job making sure WTC doesn't happen again. Unfortunately, because they ARE bean
counters, the odds are about even money they'll be unprepared for the next
attack.

-R.S. Hoover

Richard Carlisle

March 29th 04, 01:15 AM

>
> I don't hate Indians, just the corporations and laws that make it
> almost mandatory that they are brought here.
>

They are not on the top MY list of favorite people. Add me to the list of
unemployed software people....thanks to the Indians.

Ross

Richard Carlisle

March 29th 04, 01:20 AM

>
>
> Did all this come about because of a tax break for businesses that moved
> jobs off shore?

They government does make it attractive to outsource, but the real reason is
the bottom line. A company can hire an H1B for 1/3 of what they used to pay
us and they can outsource to India for even less.

Most of my friends in the software consulting business are either barely
making ends meet on a fraction of what they were making two years ago or
have made a career change....which is what I did.

Ross

RobertR237

March 29th 04, 04:48 AM

>>
>>To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
>>them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
>>web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
>>video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm
>>
>Ask about L1's also. There are no limits on the numbers, and many
>companies are bringing in totally unqualified people, having their
>employees train them then letting the employees go and either using
>the L1's or shipping them and the jobs "home".
>
>No, I'm not bitter.
>--

Well, I sure as hell am!

>dillon
>
>Life is always short, but only you can make it sweet
>

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

Dillon Pyron

March 29th 04, 05:22 AM

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 21:46:51 GMT, Richard Lamb >
wrote:

wrote:
>>
>> Its kind of like an Indian guy walks into your office with a pink slip
>> while you are writing code and says "Here, the boss told me to give
>> this to you....He layed you off...Now before you leave, show me how to
>> work this thing."
>>
>> I don't hate Indians, just the corporations and laws that make it
>> almost mandatory that they are brought here.
>>
>> Dennis H.
>>
>
>
>Did all this come about because of a tax break for businesses that moved
>jobs off shore?

Nope, it comes from paying programmers and other skilled workers the
equivalent of $6/hr with no benefits.
--
dillon

Life is always short, but only you can make it sweet

D. Grunloh

March 29th 04, 07:38 AM

Cloud_dancer wrote:

> I
> puddling around for an hour, etc. Personally, I refuse to fly in an
> aircraft that weighs less than I do! :-)

Han gliders and PPG's are out then?

> The FAA has looked the other
> way, because generally speaking, it hasn't been an issue. And also
> because the FAA's original target weight was 500 lbs, but they got talked
> down to 254 by some vendors who wanted to capture the market by setting
> the limit just above their build weights

I wonder if that is an urban myth started by critics of quicksilver. Sure
some
people asked for more, but almost the entire industry expected the
limit to be set to 220 lbs. There were planes designed to that limit
and displayed at Sun-N-Fun with that claimed weight. CGS Hawk
was one of them. Almost everybody was surprised when the
limit came out at 254 lbs I remember precisly the moment when I
first heard the news.

--Dan Grunloh

> . If/When Sport Pilot goes
> through, the indications are that they will start enforcing 254/5gal more
> vigorously - which is going to be a problem for about 80 percent of the
> fleet of currently flying aircraft. That's going to break a much larger
> part of a system that has been working well for years. Where's the gain
> that makes *that* worthwhile?
>
> >
> >>
> >> And if you buy a factory built aircraft, you can't do your own work
> >> and repairs on it, so it has to go to an AP, again increasing costs to
> >> the BFI, and thence to the student. Too high a cost is what has shrunk
> >> the American flying public from about 800,000 at it's peak down to the
> >> current <500,00 or so.
> >
> >Hrm, I know you can take a course for 2 levels of maint for LSA, I dunno
> >about the differing requirements for trainers though.
>
> From what I can see, a training airplane has to be serviced by an AP. $$$
> And they probably don't know as much about servicing my Hawk as I do.
> Hell, I'm not sure I can fly into our fancy county airport where the AP's
> are based without getting insurance to make the county manager happy. I'd
> have to find an AP who makes housecalls. That's not gonna be cheap. And
> they may not want the liability of working on that class of unfamiliar
> aircraft. What if I can't find an AP who will service my plane? Do the
> new rules *compel* AP's to work on UL's? I doubt it.
>
> >
> >It is my expectation (although I cannot back this expectation up with
> >any facts whatsoever)..., that the planned obsolesence of these trainers
> >may be overturned, either by the final rule or an amendment later on....
>
> That's my hope also, but generally speaking, whenever the government
> 'helps' me, I lose. EIther money or rights, and usually both, I lose. So
> I don't have high hopes.
>
> >
> >Most of my focus in sport pilot is on the new class of license created,
> >rather than the restrictions on existing UL's that are imposed.
>
> But then it's "I got mine" at the expense of all those other folks who
> were here before you. Eye's on the prize, and the heck with who gets
> trampled in the process? :-)
>
> Again, I don't mind them creating a new class. I very much mind them
> breaking the ones that already exist. There are a lot more UL and fat UL
> pilots at risk than the number of new LSA's who will be created. Look at
> the recreational pilot license - there's how many of those, a few
> hundred? Worth breaking the UL system as it works now for say 2000-3000
> new pilots who could achieve much of what they want now just flying under
> a loosely enforced part 103? Not in my book.
>
> For me,
> >I expect it will allow me to get a SP lic for "about" half the cost of a
> >PPL and fly pretty much the way I would use a PPL anyway.... For my
> >father, who bought a high doller plane, only to have a minor medical
> >event that cause him to have to quit flying less than 30 days later :-(
> >it's an opportunity to fly, period.
>
> He could fly a UL, either part 103 legal or a 'fat' one. Many of the UL
> pilots in the air today either got medical'd out, or priced out, of GA
> and have moved to UL's in response. If it's a high dollar airplane, it's
> probably something more complicated or heavier/faster than a champ or cub
> class anyway, and won't be available to him under LSA privileges. If it's
> not, then a UL will give him a similar performance envelope at much lower
> cost. And with a lot less fuss.
>
> >
> >I believe OMB's 90 days was yesterday.... of course we would have all
> >fallen over dead in surprise if they had acted within the deadline...
>
> And isn't that just an eloquent comment on the quality of government and
> it's systems. We don't even expect it to obey the rules any more, and
> would be surprised if they did.
>
> Kevin

sleepy6

March 29th 04, 12:39 PM

In article >,
says...
>
>
>
>Cloud_dancer wrote:
>
>> The FAA has looked the other
>> way, because generally speaking, it hasn't been an issue. And also
>> because the FAA's original target weight was 500 lbs, but they got t
>alked
>> down to 254 by some vendors who wanted to capture the market by sett
>ing
>> the limit just above their build weights
>
>I wonder if that is an urban myth started by critics of quicksilver.
>Sure
>some
>people asked for more, but almost the entire industry expected the
>limit to be set to 220 lbs. There were planes designed to that limit
>and displayed at Sun-N-Fun with that claimed weight. CGS Hawk
>was one of them. Almost everybody was surprised when the
>limit came out at 254 lbs I remember precisly the moment when I
>first heard the news.
>
>--Dan Grunloh

Chuck S has publically posted that we could have had 500 pounds if not
for "Lyle and Larry". Hardly folklore.

[email protected]

March 29th 04, 01:27 PM

Richard Carlisle > wrote:

>
> >
> > I don't hate Indians, just the corporations and laws that make it
> > almost mandatory that they are brought here.
> >
>
> They are not on the top MY list of favorite people. Add me to the list of
> unemployed software people....thanks to the Indians.
>
> Ross
>

You really should put the blame where it needs to go. The big
corporations lobbied congress with lies that they couldn't find any
Americans willing to do the work. Consequently, the H-1B quota was
raised year after year until virtually no American software person is
still employed. (80% actual unemployment in that field.)

The indians wouldn't be here if congress hadn't taken the bribes and
sold out the country. There are also H-1B's from other countries.
Countries like china and England. The H-1B's come here for 2 reasons:
1) to get work, and 2) to become American citzens. This makes them
into indentured slaves. They are treated badly. I have even seen
cases where they were physically beaten. They can't complain or
they'll be on the next plane to india.

Think of it this way. The indians are the knife that congress is
stabbing us in the back with. Blame congress, not the knife.

To solve the problem, vote out the congressional incumbants (the
people already in office). Send the scumbags a message that if they
don't abolish H-1B and L-1 visas that they will be replaced with new
scumbags.

Dennis H.

Dennis Hawkins
n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)

"A RECESSION is when you know somebody who is out of work.
A DEPRESSION is when YOU are out of work.
A RECOVERY is when all the H-1B's are out of work."

To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm

[email protected]

March 29th 04, 01:35 PM

Richard Lamb > wrote:

> wrote:
> >
> > Its kind of like an Indian guy walks into your office with a pink slip
> > while you are writing code and says "Here, the boss told me to give
> > this to you....He layed you off...Now before you leave, show me how to
> > work this thing."
> >
> > I don't hate Indians, just the corporations and laws that make it
> > almost mandatory that they are brought here.
> >
> > Dennis H.
> >
>
>
> Did all this come about because of a tax break for businesses that moved
> jobs off shore?

Offshoring is a different problem than H-1B and L-1 visas. Offshoring
mostly affects manufacturing and other, non-computer service jobs.
However, there are prime examples of where whole computer departments
are in india. Bank of America is a good example of a US company with
there entire computer department in india. In other words, India
knows all about your finances if you have an account with BOA.

In most cases, its far cheaper to rent an indian from TATA and have
the work done here. Most of the time, mamagers like to look over
programmer's shoulders and they can't do that when the programmer is
in india and the manager is in Dallas. This is why H-1B's and L-1
visas are more of a threat to computer people than offshoring.

The problem is that the honest corporations are forced to follow suit
because they can't compete with the crooked corporations.

Dennis H.

Dennis Hawkins
n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)

"A RECESSION is when you know somebody who is out of work.
A DEPRESSION is when YOU are out of work.
A RECOVERY is when all the H-1B's are out of work."

To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm

Richard Lamb

March 29th 04, 03:11 PM

wrote:
>
> Richard Lamb > wrote:
>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Its kind of like an Indian guy walks into your office with a pink slip
> > > while you are writing code and says "Here, the boss told me to give
> > > this to you....He layed you off...Now before you leave, show me how to
> > > work this thing."
> > >
> > > I don't hate Indians, just the corporations and laws that make it
> > > almost mandatory that they are brought here.
> > >
> > > Dennis H.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Did all this come about because of a tax break for businesses that moved
> > jobs off shore?
>
> Offshoring is a different problem than H-1B and L-1 visas. Offshoring
> mostly affects manufacturing and other, non-computer service jobs.
> However, there are prime examples of where whole computer departments
> are in india. Bank of America is a good example of a US company with
> there entire computer department in india. In other words, India
> knows all about your finances if you have an account with BOA.
>
> In most cases, its far cheaper to rent an indian from TATA and have
> the work done here. Most of the time, mamagers like to look over
> programmer's shoulders and they can't do that when the programmer is
> in india and the manager is in Dallas. This is why H-1B's and L-1
> visas are more of a threat to computer people than offshoring.
>
> The problem is that the honest corporations are forced to follow suit
> because they can't compete with the crooked corporations.
>
> Dennis H.
>
> Dennis Hawkins
> n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)
>
> "A RECESSION is when you know somebody who is out of work.
> A DEPRESSION is when YOU are out of work.
> A RECOVERY is when all the H-1B's are out of work."
>
> To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
> them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
> web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
> video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm

Funny you mentioned Bank of America.
I've been closing down my BoA accounts.
All credit cards are paid off and I'm closing out once
my pension check starts showing up in my credit union account.

It's not a political move, or in reponse to the Indian situation.

It's just because their services have become so expensive.

Hmmm - go figure. Move the jobs out to save costs and raise
prices for the customers.

Richard

Jay

March 29th 04, 07:29 PM

I guess it serves us right for taking their land and giving them those
infested blankets. But I guess they have those casinos so that makes
up for all that earlier bad stuff right? just kidding...

It sucks when your specific occupation is being globalized and you
still have to buy products and services from people who's occupations
haven't (e.g. legal drugs). In theory, as your wages are being
reduced, so are the costs of the things you have to buy. Your
neighbors make less money too, so when you go compete to buy that
house, you both offer less. It's called deflation, and when people
have borrowed all the cheap money they can, you'll see it in full
effect. When you call customer service, you're talking to someone
that makes $3/hr instead of $30/hr, and that, COULD reduce the price
of that service. Its a race to the bottom.

More likely, in the short term, it just boosts corporate profits.
Look at the stock market, going like gang busters. But anyone can be
a share holder, and many of us are. So some of that money goes in our
pockets.

In this environment people dig in and go to zones of protection. AMA
keeps foreign doctors from being down the price of doctors. Engineers
move back to aerospace jobs (and lower pay) that require citizenship.
Businesses collude to protect ther markets, and politicians are
"incented" to pass laws that further protect their markets.

Example: Normally globalization of the perscription drug biz would
mean that this cost would go down. It started to happen with people
going to Canada to buy the exact same drugs for a fraction of the
price they were being charged here. So if you're in the business of
selling drugs how do you counter that? You get politicians to make
drug a card for everyone to use where the counter price is about the
same as the Canada price. Then you collect the aggregate difference
in price (High price - card price) from the same individuals every
week in their paychecks, call it federal tax, and hand it over to the
drug sellers. You can't stop 'em from docking your wages, so ya might
as well use the card right? There's a word for a system like that:
"corrupt".

Regarding Canadian drugs, the FDA has stepped in and said its illegal,
and that they're protecting us from ourselves. Thats just total f'ing
BS because Canadians take those drugs and don't love life any less
than us. What is the health effect on somone that doesn't take a drug
because he couldn't afford it? I say give 'em a choice, they're
grown-ups and deserve, if nothing else, a fighting chance.

<stepping off soap box>

Richard Carlisle > wrote in message >...
> >
> > I don't hate Indians, just the corporations and laws that make it
> > almost mandatory that they are brought here.
> >
>
> They are not on the top MY list of favorite people. Add me to the list of
> unemployed software people....thanks to the Indians.
>
> Ross

Henry Bibb

March 29th 04, 08:19 PM

"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
> >
> > Richard Lamb > wrote:
>
> Funny you mentioned Bank of America.
> I've been closing down my BoA accounts.
> All credit cards are paid off and I'm closing out once
> my pension check starts showing up in my credit union account.
>
> It's not a political move, or in reponse to the Indian situation.
>
> It's just because their services have become so expensive.
>
> Hmmm - go figure. Move the jobs out to save costs and raise
> prices for the customers.
>
> Richard

You forgot to figure in executive salaries and bonuses....

Richard Carlisle

March 30th 04, 04:28 AM

> haven't (e.g. legal drugs). In theory, as your wages are being
> reduced, so are the costs of the things you have to buy. Your
> neighbors make less money too, so when you go compete to buy that
> house, you both offer less. It's called deflation, and when people
> have borrowed all the cheap money they can, you'll see it in full
> effect. When you call customer service, you're talking to someone
> that makes $3/hr instead of $30/hr, and that, COULD reduce the price
> of that service. Its a race to the bottom.
>

You're kidding again right? Have you bought gas, steel, lumber, etc.
lately? Cost of "things we buy" are most certainly not going down. The
price of steel has doubled as of 6 months ago and they are predicting
another increase. Aluminum prices are doing the same and gas prices are
expected to top 2.50 this summer. While all of this is happening, people
are still losing jobs to outsourcing and H1B imports.

When was the last time you saw the cost of a product or service go down just
because the initial cost for the producing company went down. It doesn't
happen very often. Generally, as the cost to produce goes down the price
either stays the same or goes up and the quality of the product or service
goes down. I can see this pattern in just about everything I buy. The
reason they outsource is to increase the bottom line. Reducing prices
defeats that.

I doubt you'll find many executives sitting around the boardroom trying to
figure out how they can sell their products cheaper.

Ross

Bob Fry

March 30th 04, 05:52 AM

(Jay) writes:

> In theory, as your wages are being
> reduced, so are the costs of the things you have to buy.

Nice theory. But mine is that we are simply equilibrating with the
rest of the world; third-world countries are improving a little and we
are degenerating to their level.

D. Grunloh

March 30th 04, 03:28 PM

sleepy6 wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> >
> >Cloud_dancer wrote:
> >
> >> The FAA has looked the other
> >> way, because generally speaking, it hasn't been an issue. And also
> >> because the FAA's original target weight was 500 lbs, but they got t
> >alked
> >> down to 254 by some vendors who wanted to capture the market by sett
> >ing
> >> the limit just above their build weights
> >
> >I wonder if that is an urban myth started by critics of quicksilver.
> >Sure
> >some
> >people asked for more, but almost the entire industry expected the
> >limit to be set to 220 lbs. There were planes designed to that limit
> >and displayed at Sun-N-Fun with that claimed weight. CGS Hawk
> >was one of them. Almost everybody was surprised when the
> >limit came out at 254 lbs I remember precisly the moment when I
> >first heard the news.
> >
> >--Dan Grunloh
>
> Chuck S has publically posted that we could have had 500 pounds if not
> for "Lyle and Larry". Hardly folklore.

I'm sorry but it's still folklore to me.

I believe my good friend Chuck has embellished the point
just a little bit here. If a story is repeated often enough
it begins to sound true. I cannot believe that some crafty
UL manufacturer managed to talk the FAA down from
500 lbs empty weight to the 200 lbs which they eventually
proposed.

The truth is that there was much disagreement about
how much weight should be requested. Many thought
we should start very high as a negotiating point and
Chuck was one of those. He was probably right.

The FAA actually offered 200 lbs and many feared that would
be the limit once FAR103 was issued. In some part
the final increase was due to the John Chotia fatality
in his prototype J-24 which was said to have been
built to the 200lb limit.

The only organization representing UL's at the time was EAA.
They pushed for 220 lbs instead of 200lbs and that was also
the opinion given in editorials in Glider Rider magazine
(which later became "Ultralight Flying")

Another interesting fact came directly Mike Sacrey the
author of FAR103 at the FAA. He was asked years later
about how they came up with the 254 number. It did not
correspond to any international standard and comes
out to be about 115 kilograms.

Mike said they simply surveyed all the product liturature
in 1982 and picked a number which would allow all of the
ultralights at the time to continue to fly under the
new FAR103 rules. They didn't intend to ground anyone.
Unfortunately some manufacturers had under-reported
their empty weights by quite a bit.

The model most affected in 1982 was the Goldwing which
claimed 240lbs but actually weighed closer to 270 lbs.
As a result, it was the only ultralight at the time
which was excluded by FAR103. This was just before
the introduction of the Challenger, CGS Hawk, and
the Mimi-Max.

There was a humourous irony in the Goldwing situation
because of their company slogan, "Alone in it's class".

--Dan Grunloh

sleepy6

March 30th 04, 04:01 PM

In article >,
says...
>
>
>sleepy6 wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> says...
>> >
>> >Cloud_dancer wrote:
>> >
>> >> The FAA has looked the other
>> >> way, because generally speaking, it hasn't been an issue. And als
>o
>> >> because the FAA's original target weight was 500 lbs, but they go
>t t
>> >alked
>> >> down to 254 by some vendors who wanted to capture the market by s
>ett
>> >ing
>> >> the limit just above their build weights
>> >
>> >I wonder if that is an urban myth started by critics of quicksilver
>.
>> >Sure
>> >some
>> >people asked for more, but almost the entire industry expected the
>> >limit to be set to 220 lbs. There were planes designed to that lim
>it
>> >and displayed at Sun-N-Fun with that claimed weight. CGS Hawk
>> >was one of them. Almost everybody was surprised when the
>> >limit came out at 254 lbs I remember precisly the moment when I
>> >first heard the news.
>> >
>> >--Dan Grunloh
>>
>> Chuck S has publically posted that we could have had 500 pounds if n
>ot
>> for "Lyle and Larry". Hardly folklore.
>
>I'm sorry but it's still folklore to me.
>
>I believe my good friend Chuck has embellished the point
>just a little bit here. If a story is repeated often enough
>it begins to sound true. I cannot believe that some crafty
>UL manufacturer managed to talk the FAA down from
>500 lbs empty weight to the 200 lbs which they eventually
>proposed.
>
>The truth is that there was much disagreement about
>how much weight should be requested. Many thought
>we should start very high as a negotiating point and
>Chuck was one of those. He was probably right.
>
>The FAA actually offered 200 lbs and many feared that would
>be the limit once FAR103 was issued. In some part
>the final increase was due to the John Chotia fatality
>in his prototype J-24 which was said to have been
>built to the 200lb limit.
>
>The only organization representing UL's at the time was EAA.
>They pushed for 220 lbs instead of 200lbs and that was also
>the opinion given in editorials in Glider Rider magazine
>(which later became "Ultralight Flying")
>
>Another interesting fact came directly Mike Sacrey the
>author of FAR103 at the FAA. He was asked years later
>about how they came up with the 254 number. It did not
>correspond to any international standard and comes
>out to be about 115 kilograms.
>
>Mike said they simply surveyed all the product liturature
>in 1982 and picked a number which would allow all of the
>ultralights at the time to continue to fly under the
>new FAR103 rules. They didn't intend to ground anyone.
>Unfortunately some manufacturers had under-reported
>their empty weights by quite a bit.
>
>The model most affected in 1982 was the Goldwing which
>claimed 240lbs but actually weighed closer to 270 lbs.
>As a result, it was the only ultralight at the time
>which was excluded by FAR103. This was just before
>the introduction of the Challenger, CGS Hawk, and
>the Mimi-Max.
>
>There was a humourous irony in the Goldwing situation
>because of their company slogan, "Alone in it's class".
>
>
>--Dan Grunloh

Chuck has proven himself to be completely honest. You have proven
yourself to have a selective memory about more recent events that I
know about personally. I have to go with Chuck. Also Chuck was part
of the manufacturers group that dealt with the FAA at the time and was
present at the meetings.

Richard Lamb

March 30th 04, 04:14 PM

Richard Carlisle wrote:
>
> > haven't (e.g. legal drugs). In theory, as your wages are being
> > reduced, so are the costs of the things you have to buy. Your
> > neighbors make less money too, so when you go compete to buy that

In theory, theory and practice ar eabout the same.
In practice, they are often quite different.

pacplyer

March 31st 04, 06:23 AM

> >
> > To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
> > them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
> > web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
> > video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm
>
>
> Funny you mentioned Bank of America.
> I've been closing down my BoA accounts.
> All credit cards are paid off and I'm closing out once
> my pension check starts showing up in my credit union account.
>
> It's not a political move, or in reponse to the Indian situation.
>
> It's just because their services have become so expensive.
>
> Hmmm - go figure. Move the jobs out to save costs and raise
> prices for the customers.
>
> Richard

Yeah Richard, I've been with them forever and it's the last straw.
They keep sneaking charges into everything. And since I'm into a
rebelious mood I just sent Ralph Nader 100 bucks. He has no chance of
winning, but he gave such a scathing diatribe on C-Span the other day
inditing corporate americas CEO's for misdeeds like shipping our jobs
overseas that I think his noise will change the issues some if he
keeps at it.

pacman

Richard Lamb

March 31st 04, 07:59 AM

pacplyer wrote:
>
> > >
> > > To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
> > > them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
> > > web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
> > > video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm
> >
> >
> > Funny you mentioned Bank of America.
> > I've been closing down my BoA accounts.
> > All credit cards are paid off and I'm closing out once
> > my pension check starts showing up in my credit union account.
> >
> > It's not a political move, or in reponse to the I/n/dian situation.
> >
> > It's just because their services have become so expensive.
> >
> > Hmmm - go figure. Move the jobs out to save costs and raise
> > prices for the customers.
> >
> > Richard
>
> Yeah Richard, I've been with them forever and it's the last straw.
> They keep sneaking charges into everything. And since I'm into a
> rebelious mood I just sent Ralph Nader 100 bucks. He has no chance of
> winning, but he gave such a scathing diatribe on C-Span the other day
> inditing corporate americas CEO's for misdeeds like shipping our jobs
> overseas that I think his noise will change the issues some if he
> keeps at it.
>
> pacman

Far out!

Money is always an issue, as well as the root of all evil.

But it's how they keep score, so sending money counts.

[email protected]

March 31st 04, 01:19 PM

(pacplyer) wrote:

> Yeah Richard, I've been with them forever and it's the last straw.
> They keep sneaking charges into everything. And since I'm into a
> rebelious mood I just sent Ralph Nader 100 bucks. He has no chance of
> winning, but he gave such a scathing diatribe on C-Span the other day
> inditing corporate americas CEO's for misdeeds like shipping our jobs
> overseas that I think his noise will change the issues some if he
> keeps at it.
>
> pacman

Ralph would really make a good president, however, if you vote for
him, you'll be inadvertantly voting for Bush. A vote for anyone
except Kerry is a vote for Bush. I like Ralph much better than all
the rest, but I'm voting for Kerry because he is the candidate with
the best chance of beating "Geroge Offshoring-Helps-America Bush". In
many states, only Republicans and Democrats will be on the ballot. So
in those states, it is virtually impossible for an independant to get
that state's electoral votes. In fact, I don't recall any independant
EVER walking away with any state's electoral votes.

Dennis H.

Dennis Hawkins
n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)

"A RECESSION is when you know somebody who is out of work.
A DEPRESSION is when YOU are out of work.
A RECOVERY is when all the H-1B's are out of work."

To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm

Jerry Springer

March 31st 04, 02:16 PM

wrote:

> (pacplyer) wrote:
>
>
>
>>Yeah Richard, I've been with them forever and it's the last straw.
>>They keep sneaking charges into everything. And since I'm into a
>>rebelious mood I just sent Ralph Nader 100 bucks. He has no chance of
>>winning, but he gave such a scathing diatribe on C-Span the other day
>>inditing corporate americas CEO's for misdeeds like shipping our jobs
>>overseas that I think his noise will change the issues some if he
>>keeps at it.
>>
>>pacman
>
>
> Ralph would really make a good president, however, if you vote for
> him, you'll be inadvertantly voting for Bush. A vote for anyone
> except Kerry is a vote for Bush. I like Ralph much better than all
> the rest, but I'm voting for Kerry because he is the candidate with
> the best chance of beating "Geroge Offshoring-Helps-America Bush". In
> many states, only Republicans and Democrats will be on the ballot. So
> in those states, it is virtually impossible for an independant to get
> that state's electoral votes. In fact, I don't recall any independant
> EVER walking away with any state's electoral votes.
>
> Dennis H.
>
>
>
> Dennis Hawkins
> n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)

Oh you mean Kerry/Hinze 57 offshore business' Yes right he calls off shore
business traitors at the same time his wifes is associated with 57 of them.

Del Rawlins

March 31st 04, 05:04 PM

In >
wrote:

> Ralph would really make a good president, however, if you vote for
> him, you'll be inadvertantly voting for Bush.

God bless Ralph Nader.

> In fact, I don't recall any independant
> EVER walking away with any state's electoral votes.

Ross Perot nearly did it in Alaska. Bill Clinton came in third up here.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

Jay

March 31st 04, 07:10 PM

Richard Carlisle > wrote in message
> You're kidding again right? Have you bought gas, steel, lumber, etc.
> lately? Cost of "things we buy" are most certainly not going down. The
> price of steel has doubled as of 6 months ago and they are predicting
> another increase. Aluminum prices are doing the same and gas prices are
> expected to top 2.50 this summer. While all of this is happening, people
> are still losing jobs to outsourcing and H1B imports.

Items that have a high raw material content (like raw materials)
aren't reduced in cost by cheaper labor. As the value of the dollar
reduces, the price we pay in the world market (in dollars) goes up
(except oil which, for now, is still priced in dollars). Now look at
manufactured goods, you'd have to admit, the Walmart effect is very
strong. You can go to Walmart and buy a Chinese toaster for $7.99,
its a throw away item. In the old days, a toaster was considered an
electrical appliance, and cost a lot more (adjusted for inflation).
Or look at machine tools, you can get these things for nothing these
days. This stuff used to be harder to make and we added the value to
the raw materials here in the USA and sold them to the world and added
wealth to our middle class. Now every country can make that low tech
stuff, we sold them the technology and first gen tools, and its way
cheaper to the consumer.

Now look at the price of the things you spend most of your income on-
real estate. Where I live, the price of the land is several times the
price of the structure. The price of that land is set completely by
what other people in my village are willing to pay for that plot. If
everybody takes a 20% pay cut (which seems like everybody I know has),
the high prices cannot be sustained. As a transient effect, the feds
can juice the economy by flooding it with cheap money (low interest
rates). But eventually, when people have borrowed all the equity in
there inflated house value and gave it to foreign manufacturers, the
spigot stops.

> When was the last time you saw the cost of a product or service go down just
> because the initial cost for the producing company went down. It doesn't
> happen very often. Generally, as the cost to produce goes down the price
> either stays the same or goes up and the quality of the product or service
> goes down. I can see this pattern in just about everything I buy. The
> reason they outsource is to increase the bottom line. Reducing prices
> defeats that.

In addition to the stuff mentioned ealier, look at the price of
communications. I pay 4 cents a minute anywhere in the US (Pioneer)
with no miniumum or monthly charge. Someone calling "Long Distance"
used to mean something special because it was so expensive.

> I doubt you'll find many executives sitting around the boardroom trying to
> figure out how they can sell their products cheaper.

Nope. But you will get a lot of those types saying "Our competitors
are beating us on price, what can we do to reduce our selling price
but still maintain our margin?" You see companies that used to be
manufacturers that now just market their old brand name on an imported
product. Its a short term benefit because eventually people will just
buy the manufacturers brand directly when they realize all they bought
with the American brand was a label.

> Ross

Regards

p.s. And the guy that said we're normalizing with the rest of the
world would seem to be correct. Your average Joe in the US is doing
down. The average Joe in China is coming up. And, in the short term,
corporations in the US are making lots of $.

Skyking

April 1st 04, 01:31 PM

IT PASSED!!!!! APRIL FOOL's!!!
"Gilan" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> Only 24 days, 1 hours, 56 minutes, and 59 seconds left until Sun n Fun
> I wonder if Sport Pilot will ever come out???
>
> --
> You may be an Ultralighter if........
> http://www.flyinggators.com/news/Bill%20Cook/Bill.htm
>
> --
> Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
> See ya on Sport Aircraft group
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
>
>
>

[email protected]

April 2nd 04, 01:50 PM

Jerry Springer > wrote:

>
> Oh you mean Kerry/Hinze 57 offshore business' Yes right he calls off shore
> business traitors at the same time his wifes is associated with 57 of them.
>

That wouldn't surprise me. However, I say again, we must vote
strategically and not simply for the best guy. I'm voting for Kerry,
not because I think he would make a good president, but because he is
the only candidate capable of overthrowing the Bush dynasty. If Ralph
had half a chance, I would vote for him.

Ralph made a serious mistake coming into the race so late and also
running as an Independant. If he were to run as a democrat, he would
have a much better chance.

Dennis H.

Dennis Hawkins
n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)

"A RECESSION is when you know somebody who is out of work.
A DEPRESSION is when YOU are out of work.
A RECOVERY is when all the H-1B's are out of work."

To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm

pacplyer

April 3rd 04, 09:38 AM

wrote in message >...
> Jerry Springer > wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Oh you mean Kerry/Hinze 57 offshore business' Yes right he calls off shore
> > business traitors at the same time his wifes is associated with 57 of them.
> >
>
> That wouldn't surprise me. However, I say again, we must vote
> strategically and not simply for the best guy. I'm voting for Kerry,
> not because I think he would make a good president, but because he is
> the only candidate capable of overthrowing the Bush dynasty. If Ralph
> had half a chance, I would vote for him.
>
> Ralph made a serious mistake coming into the race so late and also
> running as an Independant. If he were to run as a democrat, he would
> have a much better chance.
>
> Dennis H.
>

**** Dennis. I hate it when you're right. I had planned to vote for
old horse-face just to get even at Shrub for screwing over labor, then
I changed my mind after reading www.votenader.org Now... O.K.
I'll vote for Kerry. But I think I'll need to take a shower after I
do it.

As for the rest of those backstabbers: I'm going to vote against all
the incombants just to get even with them. We lost our manufacturing
economy and now we retrained ourselves to mesh into a service economy.
Now the traitors (current congress and current admin) are selling out
our service jobs to Bombay! (and bad news for me, they just passed
Cabatoge: foreign cargo pilots working for squat to fly between Alaska
and the U.S.)

Let's get em!

pacplyer - out

Big John

April 3rd 04, 08:20 PM

pacplyer

In this mornings Houston Chronicle, they lamented about the shortage
of rr train crews.

If flying goes in the bucket, you can cross train and haul freight.

Don't think they can 'off shore' our rail roads???

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ````````````

On 3 Apr 2004 00:38:48 -0800, (pacplyer) wrote:

wrote in message >...
>> Jerry Springer > wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Oh you mean Kerry/Hinze 57 offshore business' Yes right he calls off shore
>> > business traitors at the same time his wifes is associated with 57 of them.
>> >
>>
>> That wouldn't surprise me. However, I say again, we must vote
>> strategically and not simply for the best guy. I'm voting for Kerry,
>> not because I think he would make a good president, but because he is
>> the only candidate capable of overthrowing the Bush dynasty. If Ralph
>> had half a chance, I would vote for him.
>>
>> Ralph made a serious mistake coming into the race so late and also
>> running as an Independant. If he were to run as a democrat, he would
>> have a much better chance.
>>
>> Dennis H.
>>
>
>**** Dennis. I hate it when you're right. I had planned to vote for
>old horse-face just to get even at Shrub for screwing over labor, then
>I changed my mind after reading www.votenader.org Now... O.K.
>I'll vote for Kerry. But I think I'll need to take a shower after I
>do it.
>
>As for the rest of those backstabbers: I'm going to vote against all
>the incombants just to get even with them. We lost our manufacturing
>economy and now we retrained ourselves to mesh into a service economy.
> Now the traitors (current congress and current admin) are selling out
>our service jobs to Bombay! (and bad news for me, they just passed
>Cabatoge: foreign cargo pilots working for squat to fly between Alaska
>and the U.S.)
>
>Let's get em!
>
>pacplyer - out