"Flying too High" by Steven Pomper

[Skylune]

Holy cow. A friend of mine (a like minded person who wants GA to be
professionalized and regulated -- no its not regulated now) just referred
me to this excellent piece of journalism. A bit dated, to be sure, but
still relevant. (Ironic that this was being written at the same time GA
schools were training the Saudi terrorists who flew into the WTC.)

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0010.pomper.html

[ET]

"Skylune" > wrote in
lkaboutaviation.com:

> Holy cow. A friend of mine (a like minded person who wants GA to be
> professionalized and regulated -- no its not regulated now) just referred
> me to this excellent piece of journalism. A bit dated, to be sure, but
> still relevant. (Ironic that this was being written at the same time GA
> schools were training the Saudi terrorists who flew into the WTC.)
>
> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0010.pomper.html
>
>
>

Ah, your in the wrong thread, this belongs in the "Troll of the year
award" thread.

--
-- ET >:-)

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

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
utaviation.com>,
"Skylune" (the Fig Plucker's son) > plucked
a fig, wet his bed (yet again) and scribbled:

> Holy cow. A friend of mine (a like minded person who wants GA to be
> professionalized and regulated -- no its not regulated now) just referred
> me to this excellent piece of journalism. A bit dated, to be sure, but
> still relevant. (Ironic that this was being written at the same time GA
> schools were training the Saudi terrorists who flew into the WTC.)
>
> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0010.pomper.html


Once again, "Skyloser" (and the "reporter," Stephen Pomper) shows his
complete depth of understanding of GA (less than the depth of a
mudpuddle after a brief summer shower).

The piece is obviously a hit piece and worthless as objective reporting.
the writer sounds like a flunkout from a third-rate journalism school.

[Skylune]

It is truly frightening that you are allowed to pilot an airplane. Pilots
such as you will cause harm to come to GA. Therefore, keep it up,
Orville!

[[email protected]]

That article was so full of half-truths and outright distortions as to
be laughable, although people unfamiliar with aviation (like the
author) might read it and be indignant that "those rich pilots" are
scamming the system.

I thought "Where to begin with this" but as ET pointed out it's troll
bait.

However, Boyer is right - you can't legislate common sense. What
safeguards are in place to keep a drunk from driving and killing
innocents? It happens a lot more often in cars than in airplanes if not
only because the number of road vehicles is much higher. JFK Jr. should
have exercised better judgement that night in his decision making even
though he was not legal to fly in the conditions that existed.

Skylune, how many people are involved in drunk boating accidents on
your lake in NH? What stops them from getting tanked and going out on
the lake? Same self-regulation that most pilots abide by.

[Skylune]

Funny, but the user fees and so called "corporatization" are happening,
five years after the article was published. Boyer has not succeeded in
his quest to stop it, and it is coming soon, to an airfield near you.
Just today, Bush talked about spending "offsets" to cut the deficit. The
groundwork is laid.

The author's main point was that a moron like JFK Jr. can fly legally
(LEGALLY, that is the point!) with VFR at night in hazy conditions,
unsupervised. This is a fact.

True, you cannot legislate common sense, and Boyer really likes to muddy
the waters. Saying that people drive drunk, or drive or fly drunk too
does not change anything). Besides, I have seen boaters and auto drivers
being given sobriety checks when they were pulled over. How often does
that happen with pilots?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>
> Holy cow. A friend of mine (a like minded person who wants GA to be
> professionalized and regulated -- no its not regulated now)
>

Actually, GA is quite heavily regulated now.


>
> just referred
> me to this excellent piece of journalism. A bit dated, to be sure, but
> still relevant. (Ironic that this was being written at the same time GA
> schools were training the Saudi terrorists who flew into the WTC.)
>
> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0010.pomper.html
>

Actually, that is a very poor piece of "journalism", very little in it is
accurate.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ET" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ah, your in the wrong thread, this belongs in the "Troll of the year
> award" thread.
>

Skylune declared himself ineligible for that award.

[Skylune]

In theory, yes. In actuality, of course it is not as all honest GA pilots
know you can bust minimums and get away with all sorts of stuff,
undetected.

[Michael 182]

For those of you looking for an afternoon chuckle, here is a quite from the
article ...

" ... the world of private flying is full of these kinds of surprises. It's
the Wild Wild West meets Sherwood Forest stood on its head. Private flyers
are regulated in theory, but hardly supervised in practice. This generally
well-heeled group ..."

Michael

[Jay Honeck]

> True, you cannot legislate common sense, and Boyer really likes to muddy
> the waters. Saying that people drive drunk, or drive or fly drunk too
> does not change anything). Besides, I have seen boaters and auto drivers
> being given sobriety checks when they were pulled over. How often does
> that happen with pilots?

It's called a "ramp check", and the FAA does them at airports
regularly.

In my ten years of flying, I've seen one pilot being given a breath
test, and I've been ramp checked (although not "breath tested") myself.
Given how little GA flying actually occurs anymore, that's an
amazingly high percentage of flights being checked. (Or I'm just
lucky.)

In that same period of time I've NEVER seen a motorist being given a
breath test, even though I've driven exponentially more than I've
flown.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steve Foley]

That's what passes for 'Excellent Journalism' these days.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> That article was so full of half-truths and outright distortions as to
> be laughable,

[Skylune]

Generally well heeled: I don't think that is a huge leap. Wild Wild West,
well, I agree with that, as does my pilot friend who cannot operate the
GPS (still!). As do many of your fellow pilots, judging by this news
group....

[Skylune]

Who administered the breath test to the pilot?

I'm not really suggesting it is needed before each flight (except maybe in
Orville's case, who also needs a random pee test), I'm just suggesting that
standards to obtain your ticket should be much tougher than they are now.
And, a standard annual drug test should be required -- that is a no
brainer.

[Steve Foley]

An annual drug test would do nothing. Any druggie knows to cut it out for a
few days when you have to take a whiz-quiz.

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Who administered the breath test to the pilot?
>
> I'm not really suggesting it is needed before each flight (except maybe in
> Orville's case, who also needs a random pee test), I'm just suggesting
that
> standards to obtain your ticket should be much tougher than they are now.
> And, a standard annual drug test should be required -- that is a no
> brainer.
>

[Bob Moore]

ET > wrote

> Ah, your in the wrong thread, this belongs in the "Troll of the year
> award" thread.

And perhaps your's belongs in the English Challenged thread! "You're"
is the correct contraction for "you are".

Bob Moore

[Skylune]

Well then the hair test s/b administered.

[Mark T. Dame]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> The piece is obviously a hit piece and worthless as objective reporting.

What's "objective reporting"? I've never heard of that before...


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"In accord with UNIX philosophy, Perl gives you enough rope to
hang yourself."
-- Programming perl, Larry Wall and Randal L. Schwartz

[Mark T. Dame]

Skylune wrote:

> I'm not really suggesting it is needed before each flight (except maybe in
> Orville's case, who also needs a random pee test), I'm just suggesting that
> standards to obtain your ticket should be much tougher than they are now.
> And, a standard annual drug test should be required -- that is a no
> brainer.

Only if the same is required for your driver's license.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"All your base are belong us!!"

[ET]

Bob Moore > wrote in
. 121:

> ET > wrote
>
>> Ah, your in the wrong thread, this belongs in the "Troll of the year
>> award" thread.
>
> And perhaps your's belongs in the English Challenged thread! "You're"
> is the correct contraction for "you are".
>
> Bob Moore
>

So the spelling and grammer police have nothing to do today eh??? git a
live!

<yes I did it on porpose... yeah that one two.., oh, and that one>

--
-- ET >:-)

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

[Mark T. Dame]

Skylune wrote:

> Generally well heeled: I don't think that is a huge leap. Wild Wild West,
> well, I agree with that, as does my pilot friend who cannot operate the
> GPS (still!).

A GPS isn't required to fly safely. Just because one pilot can't figure
out how to operate a GPS (probably can't get his VCR to stop flashing
'12:00' either) doesn't say anything about the competency of the pilot
population as a whole. But it does explain a lot about your views.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"Drop your carrier! We have you surrounded!"
-- The FBI

[Skylune]

Excellent examples of "objective reporting" are written on the AOPA's
presidents page. Especially when he writes about "taking on" a US
Attorney from Minnesota, who was able to ride his bike, undeterred, onto a
GA airfield. Of course Boyer, with his acute analytic ability, stated that
this "proved" the voluntary security system was working, because everyone
knew the intruder was not a threat! Awesome. The TV executive speaks!

How about this tid-bid, written today by a "conservative issue advocacy
group"? Is this objective?

US Reports Over 3,000 Restricted Airspace Violations

by Jim Kouri, CPP



The Federal Aviation Administration reported about 3,400 violations of
restricted airspace from September 12, 2001, to December 31, 2004, most of
which were committed by general aviation pilots.

Violations can occur because pilots may divert from their flight plan to
avoid bad weather, the Administration may establish newly restricted
airspace with little warning, and pilots in the air may be unaware of the
new restrictions, or pilots do not check for notices of restrictions, as
required. Also, terrorists may deliberately enter restricted airspace to
test the government's response or carry out an attack.

One government official claims this is a serious problem considering the
timeline between an intentional violation and an actual terrorist attack
using an aircraft in a Kamikaze-type attack.

"The problem of airspace violations is one needing constant attention by
several agencies including the military," he said.

Federal agencies have acted individually or have coordinated to enhance
aviation security. For example, the Transportation Security Administration
established a national operations center that disseminates operational- and
intelligence-related information, and has enhanced passenger and checked
baggage screening, secured cockpit doors, and assessed the risk to some,
but not all, commercial airports.

Also, few general aviation airport owners have conducted risk assessments.
The North American Aerospace Defense Command's mission was expanded to
include monitoring domestic air traffic and conducting air patrols.
Collectively, the agencies are operating the National Capital Region
Coordination Center to secure the National Capital Region.

The General Accounting Office identified gaps in the simultaneous,
time-critical, multi-agency response to airspace violations. While it may
not be possible to prevent all violations or deter all attacks, GAO
identified some gaps in policies and procedures. Specifically, the
agencies were operating without an organization in the lead. They also
lacked: fully developed interagency policies and procedures for the
airspace violations response teleconferencing system; information sharing
protocols and procedures; or accepted definitions of a violation. As a
result, opportunities may be missed to enhance the security of US
aviation, according to the GAO study.



Sources: General Accounting Office, Transportation Security
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, National Security
Institute

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National
Association of Chiefs of Police. He's former chief at a New York City
housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters
covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of
public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for
several major organizations. He's also served on the National Drug Task
Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.
He writes for many police and crime magazines including Chief of Police,
Police Times, The Narc Officer, Campus Law Enforcement Journal, and
others, and he's a columnist for TheConservativeVoice.Com. He's appeared
as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows
including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.
His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com,
Booksamillion.com, and can be ordered at local bookstores. Kouri holds a
bachelor of science in criminal justice and master of arts in public
administration and he's a board certified protection professional.


The opinions expressed in this column represent those of the author and do
not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or philosophy of
TheRealityCheck.org, Inc.

[Dave Stadt]

"Mark T. Dame" > wrote in message
...
> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> >
> > The piece is obviously a hit piece and worthless as objective reporting.
>
> What's "objective reporting"? I've never heard of that before...

"Objective reporting" is an oxymoron and frequently just a moron.

[Skylune]

Annual drug tests s/b given to drivers as well. Perhaps supplemented with
random drug tests for Massachusetts drivers.

[[email protected]]

Skylune wrote:

> True, you cannot legislate common sense, and Boyer really likes to muddy
> the waters.

The problem isn't legislating common sense, it's enforcing it.

> Saying that people drive drunk, or drive or fly drunk too
> does not change anything). Besides, I have seen boaters and auto drivers
> being given sobriety checks when they were pulled over. How often does
> that happen with pilots?

If alcohol were a factor in only 1% of automobile accidents, there
probably wouldn't be any DWI laws. That's the average statistic for GA.

-cwk.

[Steve Allison]

Skylune wrote:
> .............................................


From the Thunderbird tool bar click on "Messages", select "Ignore Thread".

[Steve Foley]

Shave

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Well then the hair test s/b administered.
>

[[email protected]]

>>>The author's main point was that a moron like JFK Jr. can fly legally
(LEGALLY, that is the point!) with VFR at night in hazy conditions,
unsupervised. This is a fact<<<

I don't think it's appropriate to disparage the deceased, I don't think
the guy was a moron - he just made a bad decision that had tragic
results.

As long as the visibility is 3 miles with a 1000' ceiling, yes you can
fly "unsupervised" at night. Few would attempt VFR flight in those
conditions, and that's where the poor judgement came into play.

[[email protected]]

Skylune wrote:
> Annual drug tests s/b given to drivers as well. Perhaps supplemented with
> random drug tests for Massachusetts drivers.

On Planet Skylune, everyone is a suspected criminal. Glad to see we got
you on the record about that. It's always the same with people who
spend their time fighting to eliminate other people's freedoms. Deep
down you're all motivated by contempt and loathing for your fellow man
and if given the opportunity would gladly march all of the people you
disagree with into the gas chamber.

-cwk.

[Dave Stadt]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> If alcohol were a factor in only 1% of automobile accidents, there
> probably wouldn't be any DWI laws. That's the average statistic for GA.
>
> -cwk.
>

It's around 50% for automobile accidents and near 0% for aircraft accidents.

[Jay Beckman]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Annual drug tests s/b given to drivers as well. Perhaps supplemented with
> random drug tests for Massachusetts drivers.

Start with the Kennedys...

Jay B

[Pesky Irritant]

Bob Moore > wrote:
> ET > wrote
>
>> Ah, your in the wrong thread, this belongs in the "Troll of the year
>> award" thread.
>
> And perhaps your's belongs in the English Challenged thread! "You're"
> is the correct contraction for "you are".

What is this, a meeting of the Two Stooges of grammar? Curly, meet Moe.
Moe, meet Curly. There are no apostrophes in possessive personal pronouns.
It should be "yours" not "your's."

[Skylune]

"The Gas Chamber." Wow! That would definitely eliminate someone's
freedom.

"Contempt and loathing..." Is that anything like "Fear and Loathing?"

Not everyone is a suspected criminal: just GA pilots.

[Skylune]

Here is the solution:

http://ismydrivingsafe.com/rs/Driver%20Surveillance%20Program.htm

[ET]

Pesky Irritant > wrote in
:

> Bob Moore > wrote:
>> ET > wrote
>>
>>> Ah, your in the wrong thread, this belongs in the "Troll of the year
>>> award" thread.
>>
>> And perhaps your's belongs in the English Challenged thread!
>> "You're" is the correct contraction for "you are".
>
> What is this, a meeting of the Two Stooges of grammar? Curly, meet
> Moe. Moe, meet Curly. There are no apostrophes in possessive personal
> pronouns. It should be "yours" not "your's."
>


HA! touche!
--
-- ET >:-)

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

[[email protected]]

Skylune wrote:
> Here is the solution:
>
> http://ismydrivingsafe.com/rs/Driver%20Surveillance%20Program.htm

Solution to what, lack of employment opportunities for police officers?
What you're proposing is a police state. Perhaps instead of the gas
chamber you'd put every one of us in an infant's crib where smarter,
better people protect us from all the Bad Things that can hurt Baby. If
people like you managed to ban GA completely you'd just find something
new to go after. Motorcycles, personal watercraft, cigarettes, red
meat, cell phones, pornography, there's a whole world of personal
freedoms out there just waiting to **** you off.

-cwk.

[Bob Moore]

Pesky Irritant > wrote

It should be "yours" not "your's."

I don't believe that I did that! :(

Bob

[TaxSrv]

"Skylune" wrote:
> The author's main point was that a moron like JFK Jr. can
> fly legally (LEGALLY, that is the point!) with VFR at night
> in hazy conditions, unsupervised. This is a fact.

He was not a moron, but rather a Kennedy, and Kennedys are people
who must succeed. He was well aware he lacked the skills for this,
but pressed on as Kennedys must. Read the NTSB carefully, and see
the lack of self-confidence, like how he had an instructor with him
on almost all his cross-country trips, on even nice days, and
despite having over 300 hours. Does any pilot here know somebody
who does this? Imagine also how none of his instructors may have
had the courage to tell him, or Uncle Ted, he's a failure at this.
FAA thus need not tighten the rules because of such an
extraordinary case.

Fred F.

[Hank Rausch]

Skylune wrote:
> Here is the solution:
>
> http://ismydrivingsafe.com/rs/Driver%20Surveillance%20Program.htm

I went to this site and now I think I understand your position
vis-a-vis GA. The website is a prescription for a citizen surveillance
program that would have found acceptance in East Germany or communist
China. Anyone who would advocate such a sytem must have a deep seated
fear of personal liberty. If GA (and personal liberty) really bothers
you all that much, there are many more restrictive regimes on the
planet in which to live. I suspect that killing off GA would not
satisfy a person who advocates the driving surveillance program, as
there are many other ways Americans exercise their personal freedoms
that would remain. Short of some sort of fascist takeover, you can't
strip all the liberties away that bother you--it would be easier just
to move to an authoritarian country.

[[email protected]]

Jay Beckman wrote:
> "Skylune" > wrote in message
> lkaboutaviation.com...
> > Annual drug tests s/b given to drivers as well. Perhaps supplemented with
> > random drug tests for Massachusetts drivers.
>
> Start with the Kennedys...

LOL for real! I'm a Bostonian and luckily I'd already finished my sip
of beer when I read that, or I'd be wiping down my monitor. You don't
need drug tests for Massholes, we're mostly just drunks. It's those
hippies in Vermont you've got to worry about.

[Gary Drescher]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> The author's main point was that a moron like JFK Jr. can fly legally
> (LEGALLY, that is the point!) with VFR at night in hazy conditions,
> unsupervised.

Yes, and that's perfectly appropriate. What the author fails to understand
is that the primary purpose of flying IFR is to have ATC take responsibility
for aircraft separation if visibility isn't good enough to see and avoid
visually. The conditions during JFK Jr.'s flight were entirely adequate for
visual separation.

Flying IFR does not help you use instruments to keep the plane upright in
the absence of a visible horizon. Contrary to naive opinion, that's a *VFR*
skill, and it's taught (in the US anyway) as part of the basic private-pilot
curriculum. The bulk of instrument-rating training takes for granted the
basic ability to fly by instruments, and concentrates on the details of en
route and approach procedures.

As with any other aspect of flying, it's possible for a pilot who hasn't
done it enough (and recently enough) to be less than adequately proficient
at it. Pilots have a responsibility is to assess the recency of their
experience and their current proficiency at various tasks, including the
task of flying at night with marginal visibility.

--Gary

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, and that's perfectly appropriate. What the author fails to understand
> is that the primary purpose of flying IFR is to have ATC take
> responsibility for aircraft separation if visibility isn't good enough to
> see and avoid visually. The conditions during JFK Jr.'s flight were
> entirely adequate for visual separation.
>

Is it? Then what's the purpose in IFR flight in uncontrolled airspace?

[Gary Drescher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Yes, and that's perfectly appropriate. What the author fails to
>> understand is that the primary purpose of flying IFR is to have ATC take
>> responsibility for aircraft separation if visibility isn't good enough to
>> see and avoid visually. The conditions during JFK Jr.'s flight were
>> entirely adequate for visual separation.
>>
>
> Is it? Then what's the purpose in IFR flight in uncontrolled airspace?

It's other than the primary purpose.

--Gary

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's other than the primary purpose.
>

So you don't know the purpose of IFR flight in uncontrolled airspace then?

[alexy]

Bob Moore > wrote:

>ET > wrote
>
>> Ah, your in the wrong thread, this belongs in the "Troll of the year
>> award" thread.
>
>And perhaps your's belongs in the English Challenged thread! "You're"
>is the correct contraction for "you are".
>
>Bob Moore

Then again, there's no apostrophe in "yours"! <g>

USENET rule: Any post correcting spelling or grammer must contain at
least one such mistake.

I'm safe.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, and that's perfectly appropriate. What the author fails to understand
> is that the primary purpose of flying IFR is to have ATC take
> responsibility for aircraft separation if visibility isn't good enough to
> see and avoid visually. The conditions during JFK Jr.'s flight were
> entirely adequate for visual separation.
>
> Flying IFR does not help you use instruments to keep the plane upright in
> the absence of a visible horizon. Contrary to naive opinion, that's a
> *VFR* skill, and it's taught (in the US anyway) as part of the basic
> private-pilot curriculum. The bulk of instrument-rating training takes for
> granted the basic ability to fly by instruments, and concentrates on the
> details of en route and approach procedures.
>

So why is it that US airlines were flying IFR in the US for years before
Airways Traffic Control was established?

[Jon Woellhaf]

I'm not going to bight.

"alexy" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Moore > wrote:
>
> USENET rule: Any post correcting spelling or grammer must contain at
> least one such mistake.
>
> I'm safe.

[Gary Drescher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Yes, and that's perfectly appropriate. What the author fails to
>> understand is that the primary purpose of flying IFR is to have ATC take
>> responsibility for aircraft separation if visibility isn't good enough to
>> see and avoid visually. The conditions during JFK Jr.'s flight were
>> entirely adequate for visual separation.
>>
>> Flying IFR does not help you use instruments to keep the plane upright in
>> the absence of a visible horizon. Contrary to naive opinion, that's a
>> *VFR* skill, and it's taught (in the US anyway) as part of the basic
>> private-pilot curriculum. The bulk of instrument-rating training takes
>> for granted the basic ability to fly by instruments, and concentrates on
>> the details of en route and approach procedures.
>>
>
> So why is it that US airlines were flying IFR in the US for years before
> Airways Traffic Control was established?

I don't know. I haven't studied that history. What was the purpose of IFR
before ATC was established?

--Gary

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't know. I haven't studied that history. What was the purpose of IFR
> before ATC was established?
>

Same as now, to keep the plane upright in the absence of a visible horizon.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
utaviation.com>,
"Skylune" > plucked another fig (after all,
he IS the Fig Plucker's son), wet the bed and scribbled incoherently:

> Who administered the breath test to the pilot?
>
> I'm not really suggesting it is needed before each flight (except maybe in
> Orville's case, who also needs a random pee test), I'm just suggesting that
> standards to obtain your ticket should be much tougher than they are now.
> And, a standard annual drug test should be required -- that is a no
> brainer.

I would be happy to take the pee test, if "Skyloser" acts as the
receptacle! We already have the drug test when we get our medical.

The only no-brainers I have seen in this NG are "Skyloser," "jgrove" and
Bill Mulcahy.

BTW< "Skyloser" is such a loser that he can't even copy my name right.
No wonder he washed out of pilot school!

[Gary Drescher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I don't know. I haven't studied that history. What was the purpose of IFR
>> before ATC was established?
>
> Same as now, to keep the plane upright in the absence of a visible
> horizon.

Yet the FAA not only allows VFR flying in the absence of a visible horizon,
it even allows you to log instrument time when flying VFR under those
conditions. That's why I conclude that the primary purpose (these days) of
the IFR-VFR distinction concerns separation rather than instrument flying
per se.

--Gary

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yet the FAA not only allows VFR flying in the absence of a visible
> horizon, it even allows you to log instrument time when flying VFR under
> those conditions. That's why I conclude that the primary purpose (these
> days) of the IFR-VFR distinction concerns separation rather than
> instrument flying per se.
>

The first airway of any distance to have a continuous radio-marked course
went into full-time operation in November 1928 between New York and
Cleveland. Separation would not be provided on it until 1935.

[Montblack]

("Steven P. McNicoll" wrote)
> The first airway of any distance to have a continuous radio-marked course
> went into full-time operation in November 1928 between New York and
> Cleveland. Separation would not be provided on it until 1935.


1935? How did that work?


Montblack

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
>
> 1935? How did that work?
>

The first Airways Traffic Control Center was established at Newark on
December 1, 1935. Centers at Chicago and Cleveland would soon follow. They
were initially operated by the airlines with the expectation that the
federal government would assume control of them. That occurred in July
1936. As more Centers were established in the following years more airways
became controlled.

[Mark T. Dame]

Dave Stadt wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>If alcohol were a factor in only 1% of automobile accidents, there
>>probably wouldn't be any DWI laws. That's the average statistic for GA.
>
> It's around 50% for automobile accidents and near 0% for aircraft accidents.

Around 25% of statistics are BS. About another 25% aren't relevant to
the conversation their brought into. The other 50% are made up.

(-:


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it's still a foolish
thing."
-- Bertrand Russell

[Mark T. Dame]

TaxSrv wrote:
>
> He was not a moron, but rather a Kennedy, and Kennedys are people
> who must succeed. He was well aware he lacked the skills for this,
> but pressed on as Kennedys must. Read the NTSB carefully, and see
> the lack of self-confidence, like how he had an instructor with him
> on almost all his cross-country trips, on even nice days, and
> despite having over 300 hours. Does any pilot here know somebody
> who does this?

Most people like this don't have the Kennedy money, so they quit and
troll around Usenet groups providing sage wisdom to dumb pilots.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"Suddenly, Dr. Frankenstein realized he had left his brain in San
Francisco."
-- The Far Side, Gary Larson

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Hank Rausch" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Skylune wrote:
>> Here is the solution:
>>
>> http://ismydrivingsafe.com/rs/Driver%20Surveillance%20Program.htm
>
> I went to this site and now I think I understand your position
> vis-a-vis GA. The website is a prescription for a citizen surveillance
> program that would have found acceptance in East Germany or communist
> China. Anyone who would advocate such a sytem must have a deep seated
> fear of personal liberty. If GA (and personal liberty) really bothers
> you all that much, there are many more restrictive regimes on the
> planet in which to live. I suspect that killing off GA would not
> satisfy a person who advocates the driving surveillance program, as
> there are many other ways Americans exercise their personal freedoms
> that would remain. Short of some sort of fascist takeover, you can't
> strip all the liberties away that bother you--it would be easier just
> to move to an authoritarian country.
>

I love knee jerk reactions as much as the next guy but...

How does hiring a company to see if those you have authorized to drive your
vehicles and buy doing so put you at great liability in any way have a damn
thing to do with the loss of personal liberty?

[Skylune]

Sorry Orville.

[Montblack]

("Steven P. McNicoll" wrote)
[snip]
> As more Centers were established in the following years more airways
> became controlled.


How did they plot all of those planes' positions? Pilot reports or their own
triangulations?

With no radar, what were the controllers doing in the late 30's, waiting for
pilots to call in and tell Center where they thought they were?

Curious how things worked before radar?


Montblack

[Jay Honeck]

> The first Airways Traffic Control Center was established at Newark on
> December 1, 1935. Centers at Chicago and Cleveland would soon follow.
> They were initially operated by the airlines with the expectation that the
> federal government would assume control of them. That occurred in July
> 1936. As more Centers were established in the following years more
> airways became controlled.

Steven, can you recommend a good "History of the Airways" book that covers
all this kind of stuff?

I am better versed than average on the history of aviation, but I'm pretty
fuzzy on the details of ATC history.

Thanks!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
>
> How did they plot all of those planes' positions? Pilot reports or their
> own triangulations?
>

Position reports and filed speeds were used to plot positions of aircraft on
a large map table initially. Eventually the map table was dispensed with
and controllers just used the "map" in their heads.


>
> With no radar, what were the controllers doing in the late 30's, waiting
> for pilots to call in and tell Center where they thought they were?
>

Not pilots, Center controllers didn't have direct pilot/controller radio
communications until the early fifties. Position reports and clearances
were relayed via telephone through Airway Radio Stations (Renamed Airway
Communication Stations in 1938, Air Traffic Communications Stations in 1958,
and Flight Service Stations in 1960. That's why we address FSS as "Radio".)
and airline dispatchers.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:w4X0f.213977$084.171985@attbi_s22...
>
> Steven, can you recommend a good "History of the Airways" book that covers
> all this kind of stuff?
>

"Air Traffic Control" by Glen A. Gilbert, published in 1945. Glen Gilbert
is known as "The Father of Air Traffic Control", he developed most of the
early procedures. He was the first manager of the Chicago Airway Traffic
Control Center. He wrote another book in 1973, "Air Traffic Control: The
Uncrowded Sky".


DOT had published a series of books on the history of civil aviation policy:

"Bonfires to Beacons: Federal Civil Aviation Policy Under the Air Commerce
Act, 1926-1938", by Nick A. Komons, 1978.

"Turbulence Aloft: The Civil Aeronautics Administration Amid Wars and
Rumors of Wars, 1938-1953", by John R. M. Wilson, 1979.

"Takeoff at Mid-Century: Federal Civil Aviation Policy in the Eisenhower
Years, 1953-1961, by Stuart I. Rochester, 1976.

"Safe, Separated, and Soaring: A History of Federal Civil Aviation Policy,
1961-1972, by Richard J. Kent, Jr., 1980.

"Troubled Passage: The Federal Aviation Administration During the
Nixon-Ford Term, 1973-1977, by Edmund Preston, 1987.

[[email protected]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> "Hank Rausch" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Skylune wrote:
> >> Here is the solution:
> >>
> >> http://ismydrivingsafe.com/rs/Driver%20Surveillance%20Program.htm
> >
> > I went to this site and now I think I understand your position
> > vis-a-vis GA. The website is a prescription for a citizen surveillance
snip
> >
>
> I love knee jerk reactions as much as the next guy but...
>
> How does hiring a company to see if those you have authorized to drive your
> vehicles and buy doing so put you at great liability in any way have a damn
> thing to do with the loss of personal liberty?

Because skycrank suggested this sort of program be applied to you,
diving your car home from the grocery store. The guy has a much more
generalized problem with personal freedom than just being an anti-GA
zealot.

[Jay Honeck]

>> Steven, can you recommend a good "History of the Airways" book that
>> covers
>> all this kind of stuff?
>>
>
> "Air Traffic Control" by Glen A. Gilbert, published in 1945. Glen Gilbert

<Big Snip>

Wow, thanks. I have a feeling me and Amazon are going to be getting to
know each other better, soon!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Q9b1f.403853$_o.383045@attbi_s71...
>>
>> "Air Traffic Control" by Glen A. Gilbert, published in 1945. Glen
>> Gilbert
>>
>
> <Big Snip>
>
> Wow, thanks. I have a feeling me and Amazon are going to be getting to
> know each other better, soon!
>

You're welcome. I don't know what kind of luck you'll have locating a copy
for purchase, but you should be able to find it through interlibrary loan.
The DOT series of books I mentioned are still available for purchase.

http://www.faa.gov/about/history/history_pubs/