AOPA Propaganda, cont.

[Skylune]

AOPA said: "Already more than 18,550 pilots, an unprecedented number, have
spoken out against making the ADIZ permanent around Washington and against
allowing ADIZs to metastasize to other Class B airspace."

Truth squad: The overwhelming majority of comments do seem to come from
interested parties. Not all come from pilots.

AOPA: "Pilots now have until February 6, 2006, to file their comments."

Truth squad: True. So does every other citizen.


AOPA:

"... they (Dept of Defense, HSA) need to look pilots in the eye and hear
firsthand what their decisions are doing to general aviation."


Truth squad: No they don't.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
utaviation.com>,
"Skylune" > wrote:

> AOPA said: "Already more than 18,550 pilots, an unprecedented number, have
> spoken out against making the ADIZ permanent around Washington and against
> allowing ADIZs to metastasize to other Class B airspace."
>
> Truth squad: The overwhelming majority of comments do seem to come from
> interested parties. Not all come from pilots.
>
> AOPA: "Pilots now have until February 6, 2006, to file their comments."
>
> Truth squad: True. So does every other citizen.
>
>
> AOPA:
>
> "... they (Dept of Defense, HSA) need to look pilots in the eye and hear
> firsthand what their decisions are doing to general aviation."
>
>
> Truth squad: No they don't.

Truth squad: Turn "Skyloon" over to HSA and let HIM deal with all the
crap that they are trying to foist upon us!

[Skylune]

>>by Orval Fairbairn > Nov 10, 2005 at 08:27 PM


In article
utaviation.com>,
"Skylune" > wrote:

> AOPA said: "Already more than 18,550 pilots, an unprecedented number,
have
> spoken out against making the ADIZ permanent around Washington and
against
> allowing ADIZs to metastasize to other Class B airspace."
>
> Truth squad: The overwhelming majority of comments do seem to come
from
> interested parties. Not all come from pilots.
>
> AOPA: "Pilots now have until February 6, 2006, to file their
comments."
>
> Truth squad: True. So does every other citizen.
>
>
> AOPA:
>
> "... they (Dept of Defense, HSA) need to look pilots in the eye and
hear
> firsthand what their decisions are doing to general aviation."
>
>
> Truth squad: No they don't.

Truth squad: Turn "Skyloon" over to HSA and let HIM deal with all the
crap that they are trying to foist upon us!<<


You'd really want me to be at the HSA?! I would put an ADIZ over Ft.
Lauderdale, Miami, Boston, Chicago, etc. I would exempt light GA. I
would not exempt biz jets, turbo props, and old red Johnsons.

[sfb]

Truth squad: It is not a plebiscite so it matters not how manner folks
comment. The government by statute is seeking alternatives that they
might not have considered.

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> AOPA said: "Already more than 18,550 pilots, an unprecedented number,
> have
> spoken out against making the ADIZ permanent around Washington and
> against
> allowing ADIZs to metastasize to other Class B airspace."
>
> Truth squad: The overwhelming majority of comments do seem to come
> from
> interested parties. Not all come from pilots.
>
> AOPA: "Pilots now have until February 6, 2006, to file their
> comments."
>
> Truth squad: True. So does every other citizen.
>
>
> AOPA:
>
> "... they (Dept of Defense, HSA) need to look pilots in the eye and
> hear
> firsthand what their decisions are doing to general aviation."
>
>
> Truth squad: No they don't.
>
>

[Nick Danger]

"Skylune" > wrote

> You'd really want me to be at the HSA?! I would put an ADIZ over Ft.
> Lauderdale, Miami, Boston, Chicago, etc. I would exempt light GA. I
> would not exempt biz jets, turbo props, and old red Johnsons.

Great, now all you have to do is come up with a way to determine the
difference between a King Air and a Seneca on radar when they are both
squawking 1200 so you know when to scramble the interceptors.

[Gary G]

Truth Squad: AOPA trying to insure that appropriate feedback
opportunity exists so that government mandates cannot be
implemented without due representation of interested citizens.
AOPA doesn't exist to protect ALL citizens - they protect
the right of their members. That's what I pay them to do . . .

[Gary G]

There's nothing wrong considering such an idea . . .
And I'll bet that within minutes, given a lot of feedback,
some pretty good ideas could be devised to do such a thing.

Not that I support that . . .but I'll bet you could.
After all, I can download ring tones and talk to China while
crapping in the woods with a bear on a barren island while
trees are falling and nobody is there to hear them fall . . .

[Matt Whiting]

Skylune wrote:

>>>by Orval Fairbairn > Nov 10, 2005 at 08:27 PM
>
>
>
> In article
> utaviation.com>,
> "Skylune" > wrote:
>
>
>>AOPA said: "Already more than 18,550 pilots, an unprecedented number,
>
> have
>
>>spoken out against making the ADIZ permanent around Washington and
>
> against
>
>>allowing ADIZs to metastasize to other Class B airspace."
>>
>>Truth squad: The overwhelming majority of comments do seem to come
>
> from
>
>>interested parties. Not all come from pilots.
>>
>>AOPA: "Pilots now have until February 6, 2006, to file their
>
> comments."
>
>>Truth squad: True. So does every other citizen.
>>
>>
>>AOPA:
>>
>> "... they (Dept of Defense, HSA) need to look pilots in the eye and
>
> hear
>
>>firsthand what their decisions are doing to general aviation."
>>
>>
>>Truth squad: No they don't.
>
>
> Truth squad: Turn "Skyloon" over to HSA and let HIM deal with all the
> crap that they are trying to foist upon us!<<
>
>
> You'd really want me to be at the HSA?! I would put an ADIZ over Ft.
> Lauderdale, Miami, Boston, Chicago, etc. I would exempt light GA. I
> would not exempt biz jets, turbo props, and old red Johnsons.
>
>
>
>

But first teach him how to use a newsreader so that the previous post
has quote marks so you can tell when he/she wrote from what was written
previously.


Matt

[Skylune]

by Matt Whiting > Nov 13, 2005 at 01:44 AM


Skylune wrote:

>>>by Orval Fairbairn > Nov 10, 2005 at 08:27
PM
>
>
>
> In article
> utaviation.com>,
> "Skylune" > wrote:
>
>
>>AOPA said: "Already more than 18,550 pilots, an unprecedented number,
>
> have
>
>>spoken out against making the ADIZ permanent around Washington and
>
> against
>
>>allowing ADIZs to metastasize to other Class B airspace."
>>
>>Truth squad: The overwhelming majority of comments do seem to come
>
> from
>
>>interested parties. Not all come from pilots.
>>
>>AOPA: "Pilots now have until February 6, 2006, to file their
>
> comments."
>
>>Truth squad: True. So does every other citizen.
>>
>>
>>AOPA:
>>
>> "... they (Dept of Defense, HSA) need to look pilots in the eye and
>
> hear
>
>>firsthand what their decisions are doing to general aviation."
>>
>>
>>Truth squad: No they don't.
>
>
> Truth squad: Turn "Skyloon" over to HSA and let HIM deal with all the
> crap that they are trying to foist upon us!<<
>
>
> You'd really want me to be at the HSA?! I would put an ADIZ over Ft.
> Lauderdale, Miami, Boston, Chicago, etc. I would exempt light GA. I
> would not exempt biz jets, turbo props, and old red Johnsons.
>
>
>
>

But first teach him how to use a newsreader so that the previous post
has quote marks so you can tell when he/she wrote from what was written
previously.<<

I am trying really hard to get a "news reader." The problem is that the
local antiques dealer doesn't have anymore of the appropriate vacuum tubes
to power the damned thing! Oh well, I'll have to stick to the thing that
ALGORE invented.

[Tom Conner]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>
> I am trying really hard to get a "news reader." The problem is that the
> local antiques dealer doesn't have anymore of the appropriate vacuum tubes
> to power the damned thing! Oh well, I'll have to stick to the thing that
> ALGORE invented.

Sure. Right. You are so technically advanced and everyone else is
backward. You go out of your way to insure that your point of view can be
ignored and ridiculed. That doesn't appear to be a very successful, or
smart, strategy.

[Skylune]

by "Tom Conner" > Nov 14, 2005 at 10:10 PM


"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>
> I am trying really hard to get a "news reader." The problem is that
the
> local antiques dealer doesn't have anymore of the appropriate vacuum
tubes
> to power the damned thing! Oh well, I'll have to stick to the thing
that
> ALGORE invented.

>>Sure. Right. You are so technically advanced and everyone else is
backward. You go out of your way to insure that your point of view can
be
ignored and ridiculed. That doesn't appear to be a very successful, or
smart, strategy.<<

I'm not really that technically advanced, but I know how to use Al Gore's
internet and I have techies at the Help Desk!

Why would you say everyone else is backward?? I don't think that's true,
or very nice....

[Jay Honeck]

> I am trying really hard to get a "news reader." The problem is that the
> local antiques dealer doesn't have anymore of the appropriate vacuum tubes
> to power the damned thing! Oh well, I'll have to stick to the thing that
> ALGORE invented.

If you are running Windows 98 or XP, you already have an excellent (and
real) newsreader, called "Outlook Express".

It's also an excellent email program, and costs precisely...nothing, since
it comes bundled with Windows. It'll sure make reading your posts easier.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[BDS]

"Skylune" > wrote

> On the training, I had settled on the Cessna (How the heck do you climb in
> and out of the Piper if you're over 6' tall??? ;-) ). Then I called a
> school someone had recommended (not at the local airport, which I
> absolutely detest).

I'm sure the feeling is mutual!

> above the basic requirements to get the ticket). I may have to just
> content myself with sitting in the right seat of my buddy's Cessna and
> working the GPS for him....

We're all impressed with your ability to play with a GPS. No need to keep
bragging about it.

[Skylune]

>>by "Jay Honeck" > Nov 15, 2005 at 01:37 PM


> I am trying really hard to get a "news reader." The problem is that
the
> local antiques dealer doesn't have anymore of the appropriate vacuum
tubes
> to power the damned thing! Oh well, I'll have to stick to the thing
that
> ALGORE invented.

If you are running Windows 98 or XP, you already have an excellent (and
real) newsreader, called "Outlook Express".

It's also an excellent email program, and costs precisely...nothing,
since

it comes bundled with Windows. It'll sure make reading your posts
easier.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"<<

Hi Jay! I guess I could do that more easily with my home computer.

On the training, I had settled on the Cessna (How the heck do you climb in
and out of the Piper if you're over 6' tall??? ;-) ). Then I called a
school someone had recommended (not at the local airport, which I
absolutely detest).

I can't believe how much it costs today!!! More than double what I would
have paid about 12 years ago had I continued, even if I redo the ground
training with a software program. And then there's the fuel costs.

I can no longer claim that $3K and four weeks in a learn to fly in a month
school gets a ticket for most anyone who really wants it. The figure today
is closer to $8-10K. I'm trying to see if I can make it work in retirement
without requiring me to go back to work FT. If I had to do that, I would be
in the same situation as last time when I spent a few thousand bucks only
to decide that I couldn't fly often enough to be proficient (that is,
above the basic requirements to get the ticket). I may have to just
content myself with sitting in the right seat of my buddy's Cessna and
working the GPS for him....

Responsible guys like yourself who got their ticket years back have a huge
advantage over newcomers. I have to believe that the flight schools are
suffering.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
utaviation.com>,
"Skylune" > wrote:

> >>by "Jay Honeck" > Nov 15, 2005 at 01:37 PM
>
>
> > I am trying really hard to get a "news reader." The problem is that
> the
> > local antiques dealer doesn't have anymore of the appropriate vacuum
> tubes
> > to power the damned thing! Oh well, I'll have to stick to the thing
> that
> > ALGORE invented.
>
> If you are running Windows 98 or XP, you already have an excellent (and
> real) newsreader, called "Outlook Express".
>
> It's also an excellent email program, and costs precisely...nothing,
> since
>
> it comes bundled with Windows. It'll sure make reading your posts
> easier.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"<<
>
> Hi Jay! I guess I could do that more easily with my home computer.
>
> On the training, I had settled on the Cessna (How the heck do you climb in
> and out of the Piper if you're over 6' tall??? ;-) ). Then I called a
> school someone had recommended (not at the local airport, which I
> absolutely detest).
>
> I can't believe how much it costs today!!! More than double what I would
> have paid about 12 years ago had I continued, even if I redo the ground
> training with a software program. And then there's the fuel costs.
>
> I can no longer claim that $3K and four weeks in a learn to fly in a month
> school gets a ticket for most anyone who really wants it. The figure today
> is closer to $8-10K. I'm trying to see if I can make it work in retirement
> without requiring me to go back to work FT. If I had to do that, I would be
> in the same situation as last time when I spent a few thousand bucks only
> to decide that I couldn't fly often enough to be proficient (that is,
> above the basic requirements to get the ticket). I may have to just
> content myself with sitting in the right seat of my buddy's Cessna and
> working the GPS for him....
>
> Responsible guys like yourself who got their ticket years back have a huge
> advantage over newcomers. I have to believe that the flight schools are
> suffering.
>

It sounds as if the programs and policies that "Skylune" are giving him
a dose of reality! He WANTS flying to cost us more, but now laments the
fact that it DOES cost more!

Advice to "Skylune": Don't spit in the well!

[[email protected]]

"Skylune" > wrote:
> Responsible guys like yourself who got their ticket years back have a huge
> advantage over newcomers. I have to believe that the flight schools are
> suffering.

I don't believe that.

It's all relative. People who got their tickets years back felt they
were paying through the nose, too. I worked at a flight school in recent
past ... our quote for the private rating was $8K, based on doing the
instruction in a C172SP, approximately 50 hours (give or take) and
supplies. You can, of course, select a less expensive airplane to rent
if one is available, and that cuts the cost *some*. Our school could
have employed more CFIs if more airplanes were available (if one is down
for MX, it's helpful to have more than one other available), and they
weren't the greatest at PR or promoting business. They added a surcharge
(x-amount/hour) to cover elevated fuel costs; people were happy when the
surcharge was dropped, but no one complained about it while it was in
effect, and few seemed to bat an eye at the $8K quote. I didn't see any
evidence they were "suffering"; in fact, there was potential for more,
had they been more open to spending a *fraction* of the profits at
promoting biz. Guess they didn't have to.

[Skylune]

>>It sounds as if the programs and policies that "Skylune" are giving him
a dose of reality! He WANTS flying to cost us more, but now laments the
fact that it DOES cost more!

Advice to "Skylune": Don't spit in the well!<<

Advice taken, and filed (under delete). I've always said that if I return
to the sky, it should be on my own dime. Not the taxpaying public.

[Skylune]

>>by "BDS" > Nov 15, 2005 at 01:51 PM


"Skylune" > wrote

> On the training, I had settled on the Cessna (How the heck do you climb
in
> and out of the Piper if you're over 6' tall??? ;-) ). Then I called
a
> school someone had recommended (not at the local airport, which I
> absolutely detest).

I'm sure the feeling is mutual!

> above the basic requirements to get the ticket). I may have to just
> content myself with sitting in the right seat of my buddy's Cessna and
> working the GPS for him....

We're all impressed with your ability to play with a GPS. No need to
keep
bragging about it.<<

Bragging? Nothing to brag about. Its a fairly simple instrument to
operate. My ISP based buddy is just stuck on using the VOR and is having
trouble adapting to the new technology, despite its obvious superiority,
esp. with WAAS.

As far as the local airport: I HOPE they really, really, really detest
me!!! If some don't now, I hope they will when they hold the next public
"information" meeting. I am ready. I have a very thick file waiting.
They don't like to deal in facts. I like Will Rogers, who said, "Facts
are stubborn things."

[Skylune]

My bad: Will Rogers was quoting John Adams who said: "Facts are stubborn
things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dicatates
of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

Boyer the Destroyer obviously does not subscribe to Adam's sentiments.....

[Skylune]

No context is needed here. More absurd propaganda from a stunt pilot:

"In the aerobatic community, I have seen first hand how misunderstanding
and lack of communication can lead to real trouble for aerobatic pilots.
Without an understanding of aerobatics, it is easy to see how some people
could become annoyed on the ground below our practice area. What I hear as
a symphony of horsepower some folks hear as noise!"

What an arrogant jerk! "A symphony of horsepower." Lets see: I could say
that what a stunt pilot views as a fatal crash, I view as a great display
of fireworks!

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>I am trying really hard to get a "news reader." The problem is that the
>>local antiques dealer doesn't have anymore of the appropriate vacuum tubes
>>to power the damned thing! Oh well, I'll have to stick to the thing that
>>ALGORE invented.
>
>
> If you are running Windows 98 or XP, you already have an excellent (and
> real) newsreader, called "Outlook Express".
>
> It's also an excellent email program, and costs precisely...nothing, since
> it comes bundled with Windows. It'll sure make reading your posts easier.

And also a great conduit for viruses and hackers.

Matt

[Jay Honeck]

> On the training, I had settled on the Cessna (How the heck do you climb in
> and out of the Piper if you're over 6' tall??? ;-)

Well, when I get old and decrepit, I'll be buying myself one of those "old
man" planes, where you simply roll your wheelchair up under the wing, open
the door, and roll in.

In the meantime, until that day, I shall continue to jauntily hop up on the
wing, and sorta step/crouch/roll into my Piper... :-) (And I'm 6' tall.)

> I can't believe how much it costs today!!! More than double what I would
> have paid about 12 years ago had I continued, even if I redo the ground
> training with a software program. And then there's the fuel costs.

Shop around. If you can find a small-ish rural airstrip, you will save big
bucks on rental. If you find a private CFI who is working a day job -- and
is NOT affiliated with any FBO -- you will save big bucks on instruction.

I don't know what you do/did for a living, but do you have any opportunity
to do a trade-out? Service/product in exchange for flight? Barter is the
American way, and it keeps the tax man out of the equation.

There *are* still ways to learn to fly "cheaply"... It just takes some
ingenuity.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

>> If you are running Windows 98 or XP, you already have an excellent (and
>> real) newsreader, called "Outlook Express".
>>
>> It's also an excellent email program, and costs precisely...nothing,
>> since it comes bundled with Windows. It'll sure make reading your posts
>> easier.
>
> And also a great conduit for viruses and hackers.

That, my friend, is what keeps Norton and eTrust in business!

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

[Skylune]

Today's propaganda:

The FAA's just-released, revised "Flight Plan — 2006-2010" is still
improperly focused on user fees, as far as AOPA is concerned. Although the
agency did change some of the draft plan based on AOPA comments, the agency
continues its claims about a "funding crisis."

"There is a fundamental disagreement between the FAA and AOPA about
whether the aviation trust fund is running out of money," said AOPA
President Phil Boyer. "As I testified before Congress, even the White
House Office of Management and Budget is forecasting continued growth in
the fund, and the fiscal year 2005 numbers bear this out."


Uh, but what about the expense side of the ledger? What is OMB saying
about that??? As Boyer the Destroyer well knows, the projected gap is
composed of the shortfall between expected revenue and expedenditures.

What BS. Again, "Facts are stubborn things."

BTW: I said once before that the business aviation lobbies and AOPA are
currently on the same page on user fees. If it looks like the battle
will be lost, AOPA might go to a fallback position and try and exempt
light GA. Quotes from him yesterday indicate that this may be happening!
Divide and conquer!!!

[Steve A]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> That, my friend, is what keeps Norton and eTrust in business!
>
> :-)


True. But why not avoid the security holes in Outlook Express all
together by using Mozilla Thunderbird for an e-mail/newsreader client?

Same endorsement for a web browser: use Mozilla Firefox.

Both programs can be downloaded FREE from http://www.mozilla.org/



Steve

[OtisWinslow]

> It's all relative. People who got their tickets years back felt they
> were paying through the nose, too.


$750.

[Tom]

Skylune, you hapless Troll, are you the poster child for Home Schooling?

If so, what a failure.


"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>>>It sounds as if the programs and policies that "Skylune" are giving him
> a dose of reality! He WANTS flying to cost us more, but now laments the
> fact that it DOES cost more!
>
> Advice to "Skylune": Don't spit in the well!<<
>
> Advice taken, and filed (under delete). I've always said that if I return
> to the sky, it should be on my own dime. Not the taxpaying public.
>

[Matt Barrow]

"Tom" > wrote in message
...
> Skylune, you hapless Troll, are you the poster child for Home Schooling?
>
> If so, what a failure.

Are you kidding? Home schoolers have won like the last ten Natl Speeling
Bee's, been some of the top SAT scores...

>
>
> "Skylune" > wrote in message

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Tom" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Skylune, you hapless Troll, are you the poster child for Home Schooling?
>>
>>If so, what a failure.
>
>
> Are you kidding? Home schoolers have won like the last ten Natl Speeling
> Bee's, been some of the top SAT scores...

Yep, clearly a product of the public school system.


Matt

[Morgans]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote
>
> Yep, clearly a product of the public school system.

Once again, you've gotten on my last nerve, with that crack. See ya.

Into the kill file, again.
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote
>
>>Yep, clearly a product of the public school system.
>
>
> Once again, you've gotten on my last nerve, with that crack. See ya.
>
> Into the kill file, again.

:-) Mucho gracias.

Matt

[Skylune]

>>by "Tom" > Nov 18, 2005 at 06:30 PM


Skylune, you hapless Troll, are you the poster child for Home Schooling?

If so, what a failure.<<


Some additional silliness:

Congress funds FAA for 2006
Again says "No user fees!"

Congress has passed the FAA funding bill, and in effect said, "The current
tax system works just fine, thank you." So much for the FAA's claim that
the system is "broken." And once again, lawmakers said, "No user fees!"<<

AOPA Truth Squad: Congress has NOT declared that the current funding
situation "works just fine, thank you." They simply passed the 06 budget
(late). Passing the budget has zero to do with user fees. As such,
passing the budget cannot be used to signify that the current system is
not "broken."

But the AOPA continues to simultaneously argue that (1) GA uses very
little of the FAA infrastructure and (2) user fees for GA would adversely
harm recreational pilots interests. How can both be true???

I am only home schooled, so these nuances escape me.... ;-)


The fun part is that a subsquent AOPA article

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
utaviation.com>,
"Skylune" > wrote:
>
> But the AOPA continues to simultaneously argue that (1) GA uses very
> little of the FAA infrastructure and (2) user fees for GA would adversely
> harm recreational pilots interests. How can both be true???
>
> I am only home schooled, so these nuances escape me.... ;-)
>
>
> The fun part is that a subsquent AOPA article
>

Simple: Most of the airways system is designed for airline/military use;
GA is an incidental user and is required to use the services in some
airspace (Class B & Class C), even though the service adds little
benefit to GA operations.

User fees for those services would be a bit like charging "Skyloon" the
full charges for using a waterway or harbor that was dredged for
supertankers whenever he takes his boat (yacht?) out for a cruise.

The experience of GA in other countries (Canada, Germany, Australia, New
Zealand, the UK) has been far less than positive, as the bureaucracies
there have taken it upon themselves to charge for every radio callup, to
charge landing fees and to require a tower at any field that has flight
training.

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

[[email protected]]

Skylune wrote:
> AOPA said: "Already more than 18,550 pilots, an unprecedented number, have
> spoken out against making the ADIZ permanent around Washington and against
> allowing ADIZs to metastasize to other Class B airspace."
>
> Truth squad: The overwhelming majority of comments do seem to come from
> interested parties. Not all come from pilots.
>
> AOPA: "Pilots now have until February 6, 2006, to file their comments."
>
> Truth squad: True. So does every other citizen.
>
>
> AOPA:
>
> "... they (Dept of Defense, HSA) need to look pilots in the eye and hear
> firsthand what their decisions are doing to general aviation."
>
>
> Truth squad: No they don't.

[Skylune]

>>by Gary G > Nov 11, 2005 at 09:56 AM


Truth Squad: AOPA trying to insure that appropriate feedback
opportunity exists so that government mandates cannot be
implemented without due representation of interested citizens.
AOPA doesn't exist to protect ALL citizens - they protect
the right of their members. That's what I pay them to do . . .<<

Your money is wasted. But don't take it from me, take it from a fellow
aviator. From this months "Atlantic Flyer Magazine":

http://www.aflyer.com/cadwalladeratlarge.html

[Skylune]

AOPA prepares "independent" report on economic "impacts" (they mean
effects, but impact is becoming a verb in AOPA vernacular) of ADIZ on
Washington area airports. They say it is "clearly apparent" (I guess
just saying apparent is not clear enough) that the ADIZ is "impacting" the
area economy.

LOL. I like best the way they talk about direct, indirect, and induced
jobs lost.

"AOPA-commissioned ADIZ economic impact study reveals negative impact on
GA

The Washington, D.C., ADIZ
with Flight Restricted Zone
Ten general aviation airports inside the Washington, D.C., Air Defense
Identification Zone (ADIZ) that are dependent on providing services to
pilots of light aircraft are losing nearly $43 million per year in wages,
revenue, taxes, and local spending. That's what AOPA's independent
economic study of 13 airports impacted by the ADIZ has revealed.

"The study shows that those most affected by the ADIZ are GA aircraft
owners and pilots, and the businesses that serve this group, even though
they pose the least threat," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "If the ADIZ
is not modified, it could permanently jeopardize the economic viability of
GA operations in the Washington, D.C., area."

Total revenue at the impacted airports has dropped $27.5 million since the
ADIZ imposition in 2003. And more than 100 jobs have been lost, sales of
aviation gasoline are down by nearly 20 percent, a flight school has
closed, and many pilots have either stopped flying or have moved out of
the area.

"Overall, it is clearly apparent that airports within the ADIZ have been
negatively impacted (both operationally and economically) by the events of
9/11 and that their recovery had lagged the recovery experienced at
airports outside of the ADIZ," the study conducted by Aviation Management
and Consulting Group and Martin Associates revealed.

AOPA commissioned the study to find out just how much the ADIZ is
negatively impacting those airports because the FAA failed to gather any
data about the impact the ADIZ has on general aviation airports.

The firms analyzed economic data from 2002 through 2004 at 13 airports
within the ADIZ and 20 airports around the perimeter of the ADIZ. Airports
within the ADIZ were also compared to other national and regional airports.
In addition to gathering specific economic data, the firms conducted
one-on-one meetings and telephone conversations with airport operators,
airport businesses, and airport users.

Some of the specifics at individual airports are telling examples of the
negative effect an ADIZ can have on a GA airport.

Take Martin State Airport in Baltimore: From 2002 to 2004, Martin State
has lost nearly $7 million each year in local spending. It also reports an
annual loss of $15 million in airport revenue.

Or look at Montgomery County Airpark in Gaithersburg, Maryland: It has
lost 72 direct, induced, and indirect jobs, which equates to about $2.5
million in lost annual personal income. And airport revenue is down $3.7
million.

AOPA will be including copies of the executive summary in its comments on
the FAA proposal to make the ADIZ permanent."

Yeah, ok. Negative impact indeed.

[Jim Macklin]

The word "impact" is used because the government requires
"impact" statements, such as the EPA "environmental impact".

The AOPA is exactly correct, aviation is effected by the
number of flight restrictions, extra costs, public
perception (the media is ignorant and just wants a headline,
facts just get in the way).

Airlines have "industry organizations, as do the airport
operators, the manufactures and the oil companies. The AOPA
represents Aircraft Owners and Pilots and if they do an
independent study it means that they did the data analysis
and reached conclusions independent of those that might be
reached by the airline groups, for example.

As far as the airlines are concerned, they would like all
aircraft smaller than a DC 9 banned from all airspace within
40 miles/18,000 feet of one of THEIR airports. BTW, the
only airport actually owned by the airlines is Dallas-Ft.
Worth Regional, all other airports are owned by governments
and are open [?] to all users.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm



"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
| AOPA prepares "independent" report on economic "impacts"
(they mean
| effects, but impact is becoming a verb in AOPA vernacular)
of ADIZ on
| Washington area airports. They say it is "clearly
apparent" (I guess
| just saying apparent is not clear enough) that the ADIZ is
"impacting" the
| area economy.
|
| LOL. I like best the way they talk about direct,
indirect, and induced
| jobs lost.
|
| "AOPA-commissioned ADIZ economic impact study reveals
negative impact on
| GA
|
| The Washington, D.C., ADIZ
| with Flight Restricted Zone
| Ten general aviation airports inside the Washington, D.C.,
Air Defense
| Identification Zone (ADIZ) that are dependent on providing
services to
| pilots of light aircraft are losing nearly $43 million per
year in wages,
| revenue, taxes, and local spending. That's what AOPA's
independent
| economic study of 13 airports impacted by the ADIZ has
revealed.
|
| "The study shows that those most affected by the ADIZ are
GA aircraft
| owners and pilots, and the businesses that serve this
group, even though
| they pose the least threat," said AOPA President Phil
Boyer. "If the ADIZ
| is not modified, it could permanently jeopardize the
economic viability of
| GA operations in the Washington, D.C., area."
|
| Total revenue at the impacted airports has dropped $27.5
million since the
| ADIZ imposition in 2003. And more than 100 jobs have been
lost, sales of
| aviation gasoline are down by nearly 20 percent, a flight
school has
| closed, and many pilots have either stopped flying or have
moved out of
| the area.
|
| "Overall, it is clearly apparent that airports within the
ADIZ have been
| negatively impacted (both operationally and economically)
by the events of
| 9/11 and that their recovery had lagged the recovery
experienced at
| airports outside of the ADIZ," the study conducted by
Aviation Management
| and Consulting Group and Martin Associates revealed.
|
| AOPA commissioned the study to find out just how much the
ADIZ is
| negatively impacting those airports because the FAA failed
to gather any
| data about the impact the ADIZ has on general aviation
airports.
|
| The firms analyzed economic data from 2002 through 2004 at
13 airports
| within the ADIZ and 20 airports around the perimeter of
the ADIZ. Airports
| within the ADIZ were also compared to other national and
regional airports.
| In addition to gathering specific economic data, the firms
conducted
| one-on-one meetings and telephone conversations with
airport operators,
| airport businesses, and airport users.
|
| Some of the specifics at individual airports are telling
examples of the
| negative effect an ADIZ can have on a GA airport.
|
| Take Martin State Airport in Baltimore: From 2002 to 2004,
Martin State
| has lost nearly $7 million each year in local spending. It
also reports an
| annual loss of $15 million in airport revenue.
|
| Or look at Montgomery County Airpark in Gaithersburg,
Maryland: It has
| lost 72 direct, induced, and indirect jobs, which equates
to about $2.5
| million in lost annual personal income. And airport
revenue is down $3.7
| million.
|
| AOPA will be including copies of the executive summary in
its comments on
| the FAA proposal to make the ADIZ permanent."
|
| Yeah, ok. Negative impact indeed.
|
|

[Skylune]

>>by "Jim Macklin" > Dec 13, 2005 at
11:55 AM


The word "impact" is used because the government requires
"impact" statements, such as the EPA "environmental impact".

The AOPA is exactly correct, aviation is effected by the
number of flight restrictions, extra costs, public
perception (the media is ignorant and just wants a headline,
facts just get in the way).<<

The government uses the word "impact" as a noun: Environmental impact.

AOPA uses it incorrectly as a verb, as in "airports are negatively
impacted..."

I agree with you that GA is AFFECTED by ADIZ. Thats the idea behind the
ADIZ: protecting critical airspace from misuse. Whether this is the
right approach is debatable.

As far as the AOPA's "independent" study, I think I would prefer the ATA's
"independent" study better. Especially given the huge tax subsidies that
GA already receives. Such subsidies are in addition to the fees paid by
commercial aviation travellers to support the FAA infrastructure. GA needs
to pay its own way. An independent study is required!

[Bob Gardner]

GA has a very small, fragmented voice as it is. I'm glad that AOPA is on the
scene making outraged noises because each of us individually might as well
holler down a well or write our comments in the sand. Without AOPA, EAA,
NBAA, et al we would have been smooshed into a grease spot decades ago. More
power to them.

Bob Gardner

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> AOPA prepares "independent" report on economic "impacts" (they mean
> effects, but impact is becoming a verb in AOPA vernacular) of ADIZ on
> Washington area airports. They say it is "clearly apparent" (I guess
> just saying apparent is not clear enough) that the ADIZ is "impacting" the
> area economy.
>
> LOL. I like best the way they talk about direct, indirect, and induced
> jobs lost.
>
> "AOPA-commissioned ADIZ economic impact study reveals negative impact on
> GA
>
> The Washington, D.C., ADIZ
> with Flight Restricted Zone
> Ten general aviation airports inside the Washington, D.C., Air Defense
> Identification Zone (ADIZ) that are dependent on providing services to
> pilots of light aircraft are losing nearly $43 million per year in wages,
> revenue, taxes, and local spending. That's what AOPA's independent
> economic study of 13 airports impacted by the ADIZ has revealed.
>
> "The study shows that those most affected by the ADIZ are GA aircraft
> owners and pilots, and the businesses that serve this group, even though
> they pose the least threat," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "If the ADIZ
> is not modified, it could permanently jeopardize the economic viability of
> GA operations in the Washington, D.C., area."
>
> Total revenue at the impacted airports has dropped $27.5 million since the
> ADIZ imposition in 2003. And more than 100 jobs have been lost, sales of
> aviation gasoline are down by nearly 20 percent, a flight school has
> closed, and many pilots have either stopped flying or have moved out of
> the area.
>
> "Overall, it is clearly apparent that airports within the ADIZ have been
> negatively impacted (both operationally and economically) by the events of
> 9/11 and that their recovery had lagged the recovery experienced at
> airports outside of the ADIZ," the study conducted by Aviation Management
> and Consulting Group and Martin Associates revealed.
>
> AOPA commissioned the study to find out just how much the ADIZ is
> negatively impacting those airports because the FAA failed to gather any
> data about the impact the ADIZ has on general aviation airports.
>
> The firms analyzed economic data from 2002 through 2004 at 13 airports
> within the ADIZ and 20 airports around the perimeter of the ADIZ. Airports
> within the ADIZ were also compared to other national and regional
> airports.
> In addition to gathering specific economic data, the firms conducted
> one-on-one meetings and telephone conversations with airport operators,
> airport businesses, and airport users.
>
> Some of the specifics at individual airports are telling examples of the
> negative effect an ADIZ can have on a GA airport.
>
> Take Martin State Airport in Baltimore: From 2002 to 2004, Martin State
> has lost nearly $7 million each year in local spending. It also reports an
> annual loss of $15 million in airport revenue.
>
> Or look at Montgomery County Airpark in Gaithersburg, Maryland: It has
> lost 72 direct, induced, and indirect jobs, which equates to about $2.5
> million in lost annual personal income. And airport revenue is down $3.7
> million.
>
> AOPA will be including copies of the executive summary in its comments on
> the FAA proposal to make the ADIZ permanent."
>
> Yeah, ok. Negative impact indeed.
>
>

[Skylune]

>> by "Bob Gardner" <bobmrg@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Dec 13, 2005 at 11:08 AM


GA has a very small, fragmented voice as it is. I'm glad that AOPA is on
the
scene making outraged noises because each of us individually might as
well

holler down a well or write our comments in the sand. Without AOPA, EAA,
NBAA, et al we would have been smooshed into a grease spot decades ago.
More
power to them.

Bob Gardner<<

Well, lobbying groups are an established piece of the US political
landscape. I just think that AOPA is a very amateurish operation, and
some of their releases are completely irrational, if not downright
laughable. I once quoted from one of their missives on user fees: it was
so poorly written that people here accused me of fabricating it, until I
provided the web link to the article.


They will not convince anyone not already in the "choir." The AOPA's
IMPACT ("Impact should remain a noun; a proposal can have an impact, but
cannot impact anything without degenerating into jargon. The only thing
that can be impacted is a wisdom tooth" -- From Rutgers.edu grammar and
style guide, which AOPA writers DESPERATELY need to take a look at) on the
nonflying public is nil at best, and is probably negative. Many of their
arguments (against user fees, for example) are easily dismissed by an
undergrad that has taken a basic logic course.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
utaviation.com>,
"Skylune" > wrote:

> >>by "Jim Macklin" > Dec 13, 2005 at
> 11:55 AM
>
>
> The word "impact" is used because the government requires
> "impact" statements, such as the EPA "environmental impact".
>
> The AOPA is exactly correct, aviation is effected by the
> number of flight restrictions, extra costs, public
> perception (the media is ignorant and just wants a headline,
> facts just get in the way).<<
>
> The government uses the word "impact" as a noun: Environmental impact.
>
> AOPA uses it incorrectly as a verb, as in "airports are negatively
> impacted..."
>
> I agree with you that GA is AFFECTED by ADIZ. Thats the idea behind the
> ADIZ: protecting critical airspace from misuse. Whether this is the
> right approach is debatable.
>
> As far as the AOPA's "independent" study, I think I would prefer the ATA's
> "independent" study better. Especially given the huge tax subsidies that
> GA already receives. Such subsidies are in addition to the fees paid by
> commercial aviation travellers to support the FAA infrastructure. GA needs
> to pay its own way. An independent study is required!
>
>

Why does "Skyloon" pick on just GA? How about the $2.5 billion in
federal money for bicycle facilities? How about all the money for
waterways and Coast Guard for his boat? How about all the money being
spent for "wilderness" areas accessible only to backpackers?

We can start talking about "paying our way" when every other interest
does the same -- until then, shut the hell up!

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

[Skylune]

>>Orval f wrote: Why does "Skyloon" pick on just GA? How about the $2.5
billion in
federal money for bicycle facilities? How about all the money for
waterways and Coast Guard for his boat? How about all the money being
spent for "wilderness" areas accessible only to backpackers?

We can start talking about "paying our way" when every other interest
does the same -- until then, shut the hell up!<<

Well written Orval! Hooray! The AOPA should do as well (seriously).

As far as your questions: I "pick on" GA because the small planes make
alot of noise. If not for the noise, I could really care less how people
get their kicks. The tax subsidies add insult to injury. So I "pick."

User fees already exist in national parks and state parks that I visit.
(Many of course are infected by the horrendous droning of small
recreational airplanes, which detracts from the experience.)

I'm not familiar with the $2.5bn for bicyclists - I assume this is part of
the pork laden Transporation bill that passed congress recently? If so, I
am certainly against that also. However, since bicycles don't fly over my
head and make distubing noises, I don't care as much.

Small planes should be subject to the same community noise laws as EVERY
OTHER sound generating device, be it a car, a car stereo, a leaf blower, a
Harley Davidson motorcycle, a garage band, etc,

[Jim Macklin]

GA pays for "services" required by the airlines and military
with fuel taxes. Airlines want and pay for their services
by passing along costs to each passenger. The military uses
their own controllers in their airspace and FAA services in
civil airspace.

There is more than enough room for all to fly, but the FAA
forces flight restrictions and then wants "user fees" to pay
for "services" that are only needed because of the FAA
regulation. And now we have TSA and their regulation.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
| >>by "Jim Macklin" >
Dec 13, 2005 at
| 11:55 AM
|
|
| The word "impact" is used because the government requires
| "impact" statements, such as the EPA "environmental
impact".
|
| The AOPA is exactly correct, aviation is effected by the
| number of flight restrictions, extra costs, public
| perception (the media is ignorant and just wants a
headline,
| facts just get in the way).<<
|
| The government uses the word "impact" as a noun:
Environmental impact.
|
| AOPA uses it incorrectly as a verb, as in "airports are
negatively
| impacted..."
|
| I agree with you that GA is AFFECTED by ADIZ. Thats the
idea behind the
| ADIZ: protecting critical airspace from misuse. Whether
this is the
| right approach is debatable.
|
| As far as the AOPA's "independent" study, I think I would
prefer the ATA's
| "independent" study better. Especially given the huge tax
subsidies that
| GA already receives. Such subsidies are in addition to
the fees paid by
| commercial aviation travellers to support the FAA
infrastructure. GA needs
| to pay its own way. An independent study is required!
|
|
|
|

[Skylune]

>>GA pays for "services" required by the airlines and military
with fuel taxes. Airlines want and pay for their services
by passing along costs to each passenger. The military uses
their own controllers in their airspace and FAA services in
civil airspace.

There is more than enough room for all to fly, but the FAA
forces flight restrictions and then wants "user fees" to pay
for "services" that are only needed because of the FAA
regulation. And now we have TSA and their regulation.<<

Jeez. The few cents in AV gas taxes you pay is a pittance relative to
the
AIP capital grants and operating grants.

You say (straight from the AOPA playbook/kabuki show): Commercial air
just
passes along the costs to passengers! Awesome! You have hit on the
solution. Rather than charge pilots for user fees, just assess user fees
to the FBOs! That way no one will get hurt!!!!!

[Bob Gardner]

I'm sorry... forgot that you are a troll. Message blocker here I come.

Bob

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>>> by "Bob Gardner" <bobmrg@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Dec 13, 2005 at 11:08 AM
>
>
> GA has a very small, fragmented voice as it is. I'm glad that AOPA is on
> the
> scene making outraged noises because each of us individually might as
> well
>
> holler down a well or write our comments in the sand. Without AOPA, EAA,
> NBAA, et al we would have been smooshed into a grease spot decades ago.
> More
> power to them.
>
> Bob Gardner<<
>
> Well, lobbying groups are an established piece of the US political
> landscape. I just think that AOPA is a very amateurish operation, and
> some of their releases are completely irrational, if not downright
> laughable. I once quoted from one of their missives on user fees: it was
> so poorly written that people here accused me of fabricating it, until I
> provided the web link to the article.
>
>
> They will not convince anyone not already in the "choir." The AOPA's
> IMPACT ("Impact should remain a noun; a proposal can have an impact, but
> cannot impact anything without degenerating into jargon. The only thing
> that can be impacted is a wisdom tooth" -- From Rutgers.edu grammar and
> style guide, which AOPA writers DESPERATELY need to take a look at) on the
> nonflying public is nil at best, and is probably negative. Many of their
> arguments (against user fees, for example) are easily dismissed by an
> undergrad that has taken a basic logic course.
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
utaviation.com>,
"Skylune" > wrote:

> >>Orval f wrote: Why does "Skyloon" pick on just GA? How about the $2.5
> billion in
> federal money for bicycle facilities? How about all the money for
> waterways and Coast Guard for his boat? How about all the money being
> spent for "wilderness" areas accessible only to backpackers?
>
> We can start talking about "paying our way" when every other interest
> does the same -- until then, shut the hell up!<<
>
> Well written Orval! Hooray! The AOPA should do as well (seriously).
>
> As far as your questions: I "pick on" GA because the small planes make
> alot of noise. If not for the noise, I could really care less how people
> get their kicks. The tax subsidies add insult to injury. So I "pick."


> User fees already exist in national parks and state parks that I visit.
> (Many of course are infected by the horrendous droning of small
> recreational airplanes, which detracts from the experience.)

NONSENSE! I object to subsidizing those who attempt to inhibit MY right
to fly! Eco-Nazis head the list.

> I'm not familiar with the $2.5bn for bicyclists - I assume this is part of
> the pork laden Transporation bill that passed congress recently? If so, I
> am certainly against that also. However, since bicycles don't fly over my
> head and make distubing noises, I don't care as much.

Live with it!

> Small planes should be subject to the same community noise laws as EVERY
> OTHER sound generating device, be it a car, a car stereo, a leaf blower, a
> Harley Davidson motorcycle, a garage band, etc,


If you use any of the above more than 1000 ft away from anyone, there is
no way to enforce it. BTW, we cannot break up aviation regulation into a
million bits (local enforcement) and have any hope of being able to
comply with all of them, can we? Or is that "Skyloon's" intention in the
first place?

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

[George Patterson]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> Why does "Skyloon" pick on just GA?

He probably just picked us at random. He's just a little kid who acts up because
any attention is better than none, even if it's somebody yelling at you.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[George Patterson]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> The military uses
> their own controllers in their airspace and FAA services in
> civil airspace.

The military also provides ATC services in certain areas. Most traffic in
central New Jersey is handled by McGuire AFB.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Jay Beckman]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:3mMnf.13741$Ea6.3926@trnddc08...
> Jim Macklin wrote:
>
>> The military uses their own controllers in their airspace and FAA
>> services in civil airspace.
>
> The military also provides ATC services in certain areas. Most traffic in
> central New Jersey is handled by McGuire AFB.
>
> George Patterson

As a matter of fact, I spent a little time being shephearded by controllers
at Luke AFB just this afternoon.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
AZ Cloudbusters
Chandler, AZ

[Jim Macklin]

A jet, like the G V needs a 5,000 runway, 100 feet wide and
2 feet thick, including the sub-base.
A King Air or Citation needs 3,000, 75 feet wide and maybe
1 -2 feet thick.

An airliner such as the 747, 757, 777 needs 7,000-10,000
feet 200 feet wide and 4 feet thick.

A C152 needs even less. But the fees collected from the
fuel taxes add up to a whole lot more, particularly when you
consider that FAA "services" are only offered in controlled
airspace and controlled airspace exists because the airlines
want it.

But rational reasons are not what you want to hear, neither
do you want to hear an airplane fly over and disturb you in
your chosen pastime.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
| >>GA pays for "services" required by the airlines and
military
| with fuel taxes. Airlines want and pay for their services
| by passing along costs to each passenger. The military
uses
| their own controllers in their airspace and FAA services
in
| civil airspace.
|
| There is more than enough room for all to fly, but the FAA
| forces flight restrictions and then wants "user fees" to
pay
| for "services" that are only needed because of the FAA
| regulation. And now we have TSA and their regulation.<<
|
| Jeez. The few cents in AV gas taxes you pay is a pittance
relative to
| the
| AIP capital grants and operating grants.
|
| You say (straight from the AOPA playbook/kabuki show):
Commercial air
| just
| passes along the costs to passengers! Awesome! You have
hit on the
| solution. Rather than charge pilots for user fees, just
assess user fees
| to the FBOs! That way no one will get hurt!!!!!
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

That is true, they provide low enroute around Vance in
Oklahoma and Wichita Falls in Texas.

There are "letters of agreement" that setup who does what
for and when.

But the fact is that ATC services are generally un-needed by
GA and often used only because they are required by law.
The controllers would be sitting there, doing very little if
all they had was airline and military traffic, except in the
busiest areas, most GA flight don't need the FAA very much.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:3mMnf.13741$Ea6.3926@trnddc08...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > The military uses
| > their own controllers in their airspace and FAA services
in
| > civil airspace.
|
| The military also provides ATC services in certain areas.
Most traffic in
| central New Jersey is handled by McGuire AFB.
|
| George Patterson
| Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by
rights belong to
| your slightly older self.

[Jim Macklin]

Nice thing about military controllers, they are polite,
skilled and actually say things like "Sir" to all pilots.


"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:fvMnf.85$vx.51@fed1read01...
| "George Patterson" > wrote in message
| news:3mMnf.13741$Ea6.3926@trnddc08...
| > Jim Macklin wrote:
| >
| >> The military uses their own controllers in their
airspace and FAA
| >> services in civil airspace.
| >
| > The military also provides ATC services in certain
areas. Most traffic in
| > central New Jersey is handled by McGuire AFB.
| >
| > George Patterson
|
| As a matter of fact, I spent a little time being
shephearded by controllers
| at Luke AFB just this afternoon.
|
| Jay Beckman
| PP-ASEL
| AZ Cloudbusters
| Chandler, AZ
|
|

[Jay Beckman]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:yBNnf.60136$sg5.7675@dukeread12...
> Nice thing about military controllers, they are polite,
> skilled and actually say things like "Sir" to all pilots.

The thing that I find interesting (and I admit that I'm basing this on only
100-ish hours of experience) is that the controllers at Luke AFB all sound
really, well, glad to have you in their airspace.

It's also cool to hear them working the military flights too (it sounds as
though they multiplex some UHF radio traffic with their VHF ... better SA
for all involved maybe?)

Jay B

[Jim Macklin]

Military controller are not unionized government employees,
they know they are down there, because we are up there, the
civilian controllers (too often, not all) think we are up
there because they are down there.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:bDOnf.95$vx.59@fed1read01...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:yBNnf.60136$sg5.7675@dukeread12...
| > Nice thing about military controllers, they are polite,
| > skilled and actually say things like "Sir" to all
pilots.
|
| The thing that I find interesting (and I admit that I'm
basing this on only
| 100-ish hours of experience) is that the controllers at
Luke AFB all sound
| really, well, glad to have you in their airspace.
|
| It's also cool to hear them working the military flights
too (it sounds as
| though they multiplex some UHF radio traffic with their
VHF ... better SA
| for all involved maybe?)
|
| Jay B
|
|

[Ron Lee]

>The thing that I find interesting (and I admit that I'm basing this on only
>100-ish hours of experience) is that the controllers at Luke AFB all sound
>really, well, glad to have you in their airspace.

If you ever fly to Pueblo CO (KPUB) the controllers there (civilian ?)
are also nice and happy to have you there.

Ron Lee

[Skylune]

>>Orville, referring to local noise ordinances and motorcyles,
leaf-blowers, etc, said:
"If you use any of the above more than 1000 ft away from anyone, there is

no way to enforce it."<<

What the...? The heat, the Florida sun, and the noise and rattling of the
small plane must be to blame.

[Jay Beckman]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>
>>The thing that I find interesting (and I admit that I'm basing this on
>>only
>>100-ish hours of experience) is that the controllers at Luke AFB all sound
>>really, well, glad to have you in their airspace.
>
> If you ever fly to Pueblo CO (KPUB) the controllers there (civilian ?)
> are also nice and happy to have you there.
>
> Ron Lee

Ron,

I didn't mean it to sound like I've never heard friendly civilian
controllers...they definately exisist too. My local Class D has them in
spades. I still get a little automatic smile whenever I hear one gentleman
in particular as he was on duty the day I solo'd and the day I came wobbling
back from my long solo XC. He gave me a "congrats" on both occasions.

I just thought the point of the earlier discussions was that it was unusual
for GA to be handled by military controllers. My point was that it happens
here when you are SW of Phoenix and they're really efficient, to the point
but polite, agreeable and (so far) never seem fazed by having Cessna's in
the mix.

Jay B

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
utaviation.com>,
"Skylune" > wrote:

> >>Orville, referring to local noise ordinances and motorcyles,
> leaf-blowers, etc, said:
> "If you use any of the above more than 1000 ft away from anyone, there is
>
> no way to enforce it."<<
>
> What the...? The heat, the Florida sun, and the noise and rattling of the
> small plane must be to blame.

It is COLD here -- mid-60s! :>)

At least I have a plane and am able to fly it competently -- unlike an
obnoxious loon whom we all know and love!

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

[Jim Macklin]

West of the Mississippi River and not California metro
areas, controllers are very nice, helpful, polite and even
in the rude parts of the country (Chicago, New York, St.
Louis, etc) where being rude seems to be a local disease,
many controllers are unspoiled.

But when you ask for a deviation for weather and the
controller comes back with "Are you declaring an emergency?"
or some other challenge, rather than a useful reply, it
means that all controllers get a black eye.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm



"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
|
| >The thing that I find interesting (and I admit that I'm
basing this on only
| >100-ish hours of experience) is that the controllers at
Luke AFB all sound
| >really, well, glad to have you in their airspace.
|
| If you ever fly to Pueblo CO (KPUB) the controllers there
(civilian ?)
| are also nice and happy to have you there.
|
| Ron Lee
|

[Peter R.]

Jay Beckman > wrote:

> I just thought the point of the earlier discussions was that it was unusual
> for GA to be handled by military controllers. My point was that it happens
> here when you are SW of Phoenix and they're really efficient, to the point
> but polite, agreeable and (so far) never seem fazed by having Cessna's in
> the mix.

Yep, we have a military base (Fort Drum) located in north-central NY that
controls all airspace north of Syracuse and west of the Adirondack
mountains below 10,000 feet or so. They'll even let you fly a PAR into
their runway, as long as you don't touch wheels to runway.

--
Peter

[[email protected]]

snip....

>>>>even in the rude parts of the country (Chicago, New York, St.
Louis, etc) where being rude seems to be a local disease, many
controllers are unspoiled<<<<

Agreed. I've never had any issues with NY TRACON controllers (I fly out
SW Connecticut) as long as they see you're competant on the radio and
are not 5 miles behind the airplane. Missing calls is the fastest way
to get on a controller's sh*t list by far, especially in this busier
airspace, but on slower days they are often very accomodating to VFR GA
types.

Wooly

[Skylune]

>>by "Jim Macklin" > Dec 13, 2005 at
10:46 PM


A jet, like the G V needs a 5,000 runway, 100 feet wide and
2 feet thick, including the sub-base.
A King Air or Citation needs 3,000, 75 feet wide and maybe
1 -2 feet thick.

An airliner such as the 747, 757, 777 needs 7,000-10,000
feet 200 feet wide and 4 feet thick.

A C152 needs even less. But the fees collected from the
fuel taxes add up to a whole lot more, particularly when you
consider that FAA "services" are only offered in controlled
airspace and controlled airspace exists because the airlines
want it.

But rational reasons are not what you want to hear, neither
do you want to hear an airplane fly over and disturb you in
your chosen pastime.<<

Sigh. You are going to force me to post the financial data from the DOT
website showing how much of the Aviation Trust Fund comes from various
sources.

I am saying GA fuel taxes pay a pittance (the position Blakely is taking
in supporting user fees). Do you want the actual data? It will take a
few minutes, but I would be more than happy to retrieve it.

I can then use my favorite John Adams quote again! ;-)

[Tom Conner]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>
> Sigh. You are going to force me to post the financial data from
> the DOT website showing how much of the Aviation Trust Fund comes
> from various sources.
>
> I am saying GA fuel taxes pay a pittance (the position Blakely is
> taking in supporting user fees). Do you want the actual data? It
> will take a few minutes, but I would be more than happy to retrieve
> it.
>

You probably are correct, but I would like to either see the data, or a link
to it, and explaining how to find and understand it. Nothing personal, but
I prefer to see the data before I accept a premise.

[Jim Macklin]

My point is that MOST of the cost of the systems is due to
the air carriers and military and government imposed
regulations, but based on the actual needs of GA, we pay
more than our "fair share."


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
| >>by "Jim Macklin" >
Dec 13, 2005 at
| 10:46 PM
|
|
| A jet, like the G V needs a 5,000 runway, 100 feet wide
and
| 2 feet thick, including the sub-base.
| A King Air or Citation needs 3,000, 75 feet wide and maybe
| 1 -2 feet thick.
|
| An airliner such as the 747, 757, 777 needs 7,000-10,000
| feet 200 feet wide and 4 feet thick.
|
| A C152 needs even less. But the fees collected from the
| fuel taxes add up to a whole lot more, particularly when
you
| consider that FAA "services" are only offered in
controlled
| airspace and controlled airspace exists because the
airlines
| want it.
|
| But rational reasons are not what you want to hear,
neither
| do you want to hear an airplane fly over and disturb you
in
| your chosen pastime.<<
|
| Sigh. You are going to force me to post the financial
data from the DOT
| website showing how much of the Aviation Trust Fund comes
from various
| sources.
|
| I am saying GA fuel taxes pay a pittance (the position
Blakely is taking
| in supporting user fees). Do you want the actual data?
It will take a
| few minutes, but I would be more than happy to retrieve
it.
|
| I can then use my favorite John Adams quote again! ;-)
|
|
|
|

[Newps]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Military controller are not unionized government employees,

NATCA membership is falling because of their radical, typical union
views. There's a fighting chance we here at BIL will be a 0% union
facility shortly after the new year. At most there will be 3 members
out of the 18 controllers.

[Jim Macklin]

Some of the nicest flights I had were during the controller
strike and firings back in the 80's. Afterward, the new
hires were nice, too.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
|
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > Military controller are not unionized government
employees,
|
| NATCA membership is falling because of their radical,
typical union
| views. There's a fighting chance we here at BIL will be a
0% union
| facility shortly after the new year. At most there will
be 3 members
| out of the 18 controllers.