NATCA Going Down in Flames

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> But you didn't answer my question.
>
> How would *I* do it when I'm not remotely located near uncontrolled
> airspace?
>

That's not what you asked. You asked how remaining clear of Class B, C, and
D airspace presented no problem. Where there is little such airspace it's
easy, where such airspace is prevalent it's rather hard. You did not
specify a location.

[Jim Burns]

Take off from an airport with surface area G airspace. Climb beyond the
overlying Class E transition area, if such exists, fly below any overlying
Class E, remaining in Class G. Around here this gives you from the surface
up to 1200ft AGL not withstanding the required people, obstacle, and
populated area type altitude clearance requirements. This is without
entering controlled airspace....

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Jim Burns wrote:
>> Avoid class A, B, C, D, & E.... 1 mile clear of clouds
>> Jim
>
> I'm well aware of when radio contact with ATC and an IFR flight plan is is
> necessary, thank you. I simply fail to see how all of the above is not
> difficult.

[Jim Burns]

You left out the particulars of your circumstances and your location.
Jim

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> "Emily" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> Why would I want to do that. I don't have a problem with talking to
>>> ATC. I'm simply pointing out, not to you, that avoiding controlled
>>> airspace and ATC is not as easy as some people are making it seem.
>>>
>>
>> It can be very easy. You asked how it's not hard to fly 1000 hours in a
>> summer without entering Class B, C, or D airspace. One must assume you
>> asked because you did not know.
> But you didn't answer my question.
>
> How would *I* do it when I'm not remotely located near uncontrolled
> airspace?

[Ron Lee]

Emily > wrote:

>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> So.. how much would you be willing to pay, per use, for this privatized
>>> ATC that you advocate?
>>
>> Zero. I would fly VFR, without them.
>
>How could you get away with flying VFR 100% of the time?

A privatized ATC and GA user fees may not be tied to each other. But
let's assume GA fees for ATC services. Very likely many GA pilots,
including myself, will reduce or eliminate the use of those services.

That brings us to the law of unintended consequences. A lamebrain
Congress institutes GA user fees. Where before I get traffic
advisories when puttering above my airport to ensure safety and
facilitate commercial aircraft arrival/departures, now I blow it off.
I have already had one near-miss with a CRJ around 9000' MSL (not
high above the ground here). Cases like that are bound to increase.
In addition, since the local ATC cannot ask me to change directions
commercial aircraft will have to change directions to avoid me at an
unverified altitude.

One scenario is an economic detriment. The other risks many lives.

Ron Lee

[Jose[_1_]]

> But
> let's assume GA fees for ATC services. Very likely many GA pilots,
> including myself, will reduce or eliminate the use of those services.

When that happens, the now privatized ATC will probably petition the FAA
for rules mandating ATC contact. They already mandate "weather" briefings.

> In addition, since the local ATC cannot ask me to change directions
> commercial aircraft will have to change directions to avoid me at an
> unverified altitude.

This will be used as a reason to require positive control. Likely the
floor of the A could be brought down to Great Britan levels.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Emily[_1_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> But you didn't answer my question.
>>
>> How would *I* do it when I'm not remotely located near uncontrolled
>> airspace?
>>
>
> That's not what you asked. You asked how remaining clear of Class B, C, and
> D airspace presented no problem. Where there is little such airspace it's
> easy, where such airspace is prevalent it's rather hard. You did not
> specify a location.

I'm glad you don't work where I live.

I still don't see how people can say that remaining clear of B, C, and D
presents no problem when I've proved that it does for some people.

[Emily[_1_]]

Jim Burns wrote:
> Take off from an airport with surface area G airspace. Climb beyond the
> overlying Class E transition area, if such exists, fly below any overlying
> Class E, remaining in Class G. Around here this gives you from the surface
> up to 1200ft AGL not withstanding the required people, obstacle, and
> populated area type altitude clearance requirements. This is without
> entering controlled airspace....

Like I pointed out, where do I find a Class G airport near where I live?
Simple...there aren't any.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> I'm glad you don't work where I live.
>

Why?


>
> I still don't see how people can say that remaining clear of B, C, and D
> presents no problem when I've proved that it does for some people.
>

They say it because it presents no problem to them.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Like I pointed out, where do I find a Class G airport near where I live?
> Simple...there aren't any.
>

Where do you live?

[Emily[_1_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Like I pointed out, where do I find a Class G airport near where I live?
>> Simple...there aren't any.
>>
>
> Where do you live?
>
>
DFW.

And no, the airports on the outskirts don't count, as they are at least
a two hour drive from work/home.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> DFW.
>

You live on the airport?


>
> And no, the airports on the outskirts don't count, as they are at least a
> two hour drive from work/home.
>

Where do you live? City. Township. Something I can work with.

[Emily[_1_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> DFW.
>>
>
> You live on the airport?

DFW is the term for the metropolitan region.

>> And no, the airports on the outskirts don't count, as they are at least a
>> two hour drive from work/home.
>>
>
> Where do you live? City. Township. Something I can work with.

Not on Usenet, sorry.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Not on Usenet, sorry.
>

Then I can't help you.

[Emily[_1_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Not on Usenet, sorry.
>>
>
> Then I can't help you.
>
>
I wasn't asking for help. I know full well what kind of flying I can
and can't do based on my location. VFR in uncontrolled airspace is very
difficult.

[Newps]

Emily wrote:

VFR in uncontrolled airspace is very
> difficult.

You're the only one that thinks that.

[Emily[_1_]]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Emily wrote:
>
> VFR in uncontrolled airspace is very
>> difficult.
>
> You're the only one that thinks that.

Well, someone has yet to give me a way that I can fly IN MY LOCAL AREA
without talking to ATC.

And driving two hours to an airport outside of town doesn't count - that
makes it difficult.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Well, someone has yet to give me a way that I can fly IN MY LOCAL AREA without talking to ATC.

Sounds like a case of "if it's not in my back yard, it's not a problem".
It reminds me of the DC ADIZ.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Beckman]

"Emily" > wrote in message
...
> Newps wrote:
>>
>>
>> Emily wrote:
>>
>> VFR in uncontrolled airspace is very
>>> difficult.
>>
>> You're the only one that thinks that.
>
> Well, someone has yet to give me a way that I can fly IN MY LOCAL AREA
> without talking to ATC.

Are you unable (from where you're based) to remain below the DFW Class
Bravo...? What, are you based *in* the DFW surface area, like *at* DFW? If
that's the case, it's a loaded question!!!

Here in Phoenix, from my home field (P19 - Stellar Airpark), we can depart
straight out on RWY17 and step climb out from under the Class B. And as far
as going north is concerned we just head northwest toward Falcon Field
(KFFZ) staying east of the Class Bravo surface area and under the first
outer ring. You can turn north while still west of Falcon's Class Delta.
There is plenty of room to climb above the cumulous granite and still not
bust the Class Bravo...and you don't have to talk to anyone.

> And driving two hours to an airport outside of town doesn't count - that
> makes it difficult.

From reading what you're "saying" I would think this would just make it
*more* difficult. You already are saying it's difficult to begin with.

Jay B

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
> Why do you care what they look like? Aren't there more important issues
> with the FAA?

Obviously, they have determined that how a controller is dressed directly
effects whether aircraft depart from the correct runway...

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:_x2Lg.2559$8J2.647@fed1read11...
> It seems that NATCA did not have the guts to talk with their feet on their
> new contract that was forced down their throat. IIRC Prez Billy called
their
> bluff back in the early 90s contract negotiation also.

Kind of seems like a profession where there is only one employer... Does
your run of the mill controller really have any other job opportunities? I
suspect that senior management would have other opportunities in that they
can shuffle papers just about anywhere, but what about the guys who are
actually doing the work?

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Nor should he. But controllers dressed like that were clearly the
exception
> and the problem could have been remedied simply by banning cut-offs and
> flip-flops. What the impose instead can only have a negative effect.

But they should be equal in what they are banning... Exactly what
constitutes flip-flops? If a man's open healed leather sandals are banned,
then many women's shoes should also be banned... Many women's blouses do not
have collars and are not in the least considered casual... Personally, I
don't care what they are wearing... I would prefer them to be comfortable so
that they don't allow me to attempt to takeoff from the 3000 ft runway
instead of the 7000 ft one... Oh, wait a minute... My plane doesn't have a
problem taking off from the 3000 ft runway... Oh well... Never mind...

Seriously though... Let 'me be comfortable... If they don't want them to
wear shorts and t-shirts, turn up the air-conditioning... That'll put a stop
to that fashion trend... Hell, back at NASA, we had this one room that the
air-conditioning was so good that people would bring parkas when it was 100F
outside... It was the TFCR -- Transitional Flight Control Room... I would
always answer the phone, "Cryrogenic Research"... Even during late night
test times, NO ONE considered wearing shorts and a t-shirt...

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
...
> Again, what's the point? Management isn't the enemy...or is that a
> naive position?

Nawh, not always... Sometimes they're just clueless...

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> And I said, "name on company who makes machinery workers wear ties"

Never operated a large paper shredder?

What about the large tractor feed printers?

Back when I used to pull MAA duty and Shore Patrol in the Navy, we were
advised to only wear clip-on ties when the Uniform of the Day required a tie
due to the possibility of someone being able to strangle you with your own
tie...

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> I wasn't asking for help. I know full well what kind of flying I can and
> can't do based on my location. VFR in uncontrolled airspace is very
> difficult.
>

We're not talking about VFR in uncontrolled airspace, we're talking about
VFR without having to contact ATC.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, someone has yet to give me a way that I can fly IN MY LOCAL AREA
> without talking to ATC.
>

Someone would have, if you hadn't refused to identify your local area.

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Emily wrote:
>
> I'm still trying to figure out how that's not hard. At least where I
> fly, it's very difficult to not enter controlled airspace.

You don't need a controller to fly in E, and there's still a lot of G
under the E.

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Emily wrote:
>
> Well, someone has yet to give me a way that I can fly IN MY LOCAL AREA
> without talking to ATC.
>
> And driving two hours to an airport outside of town doesn't count - that
> makes it difficult.


Remember, contract towers aren't FAA "ATC", so you may be able to fly
from some Delta space without contacting "ATC". =8^0

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Grumman-581 wrote:
>
> Obviously, they have determined that how a controller is dressed directly
> effects whether aircraft depart from the correct runway...
>

The tie points in the direction of the runway!

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> But they should be equal in what they are banning... Exactly what
> constitutes flip-flops? If a man's open healed leather sandals are banned,
> then many women's shoes should also be banned... Many women's blouses do not
> have collars and are not in the least considered casual...

There's always uniforms... <G>


> Personally, I
> don't care what they are wearing...

Me either. The only reason I even know what my local folks wear is
because I took a tour. After the tour, they're still the same folks on
the other end of the radio, who I happen to hold in very high regard.

A local acquaintance of mine owns a successful catering biz that also
runs a high-rise contract cafeteria. He's a Julliard trained chef, and
has an additional master's degree. His work has won accolades from
magazines, the New York Times, and other critical works.

One morning, "Tim" was manning the cafeteria omelet station, as he was
short on help after a busy catering weekend. One of the suits from the
high-rise gave him a speech about how _he_ used to be a "grill guy"
until he went to night school at the local community college, and now
he's the _assistant manager_ of the customer service department of a
mortgage company.

I also know of a very esteemed, jeans and flannel wearing woodworker,
who runs a one-man furniture shop, who happens to posses a Masters of
Economics from Princeton University. <G>

It's not the appearance, it's what you _do_ that counts!

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> Remember, contract towers aren't FAA "ATC", so you may be able to fly from
> some Delta space without contacting "ATC". =8^0
>

FAA towers, FAA contract towers, non-federal control towers, and military
towers are all "ATC".

[Emily[_1_]]

Jose wrote:
>> Well, someone has yet to give me a way that I can fly IN MY LOCAL AREA
>> without talking to ATC.
>
> Sounds like a case of "if it's not in my back yard, it's not a problem".
> It reminds me of the DC ADIZ.
>
> Jose
I'm not saying anything's not a problem. If you can fly without talking
to ATC, more power to you. I can't.

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> FAA towers, FAA contract towers, non-federal control towers, and military
> towers are all "ATC".
>

My typo!

I left out "union".

[Emily[_1_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Well, someone has yet to give me a way that I can fly IN MY LOCAL AREA
>> without talking to ATC.
>>
>
> Someone would have, if you hadn't refused to identify your local area.
>
>
DFW. You honestly think I'm going to get more specific that that?

[Emily[_1_]]

B A R R Y wrote:
> Emily wrote:
>>
>> I'm still trying to figure out how that's not hard. At least where I
>> fly, it's very difficult to not enter controlled airspace.
>
> You don't need a controller to fly in E, and there's still a lot of G
> under the E.
Not around here.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm not saying anything's not a problem. If you can fly without talking
> to ATC, more power to you. I can't.
>

You probably can.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
...
>
> DFW. You honestly think I'm going to get more specific that that?
>

No. You probably realize if you got more specific than that you'd receive
an explanation of how you can fly VFR near your home without talking to ATC,
and you don't want that.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not around here.
>


There probably is.

[Dave Stadt]

"Emily" > wrote in message
...
> Jose wrote:
>>> Well, someone has yet to give me a way that I can fly IN MY LOCAL AREA
>>> without talking to ATC.
>>
>> Sounds like a case of "if it's not in my back yard, it's not a problem".
>> It reminds me of the DC ADIZ.
>>
>> Jose
> I'm not saying anything's not a problem. If you can fly without talking
> to ATC, more power to you. I can't.

What, the airplane will fall out of the air if you aren't talking to
someone?

[Emily[_1_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> ...
>> DFW. You honestly think I'm going to get more specific that that?
>>
>
> No. You probably realize if you got more specific than that you'd receive
> an explanation of how you can fly VFR near your home without talking to ATC,
> and you don't want that.
>
>
No. I realize that I've had stalkers on Usenet before, and it's no
one's business where I live. I live in the surface area of a Class B
airport. Check out a chart and you'll see how far it is from any Class
B airport in this area to airports and airspace where I don't have to
talk to ATC.

[Emily[_1_]]

Dave Stadt wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jose wrote:
>>>> Well, someone has yet to give me a way that I can fly IN MY LOCAL AREA
>>>> without talking to ATC.
>>> Sounds like a case of "if it's not in my back yard, it's not a problem".
>>> It reminds me of the DC ADIZ.
>>>
>>> Jose
>> I'm not saying anything's not a problem. If you can fly without talking
>> to ATC, more power to you. I can't.
>
> What, the airplane will fall out of the air if you aren't talking to
> someone?
>
>
No, there are no airports around me that are not B or D.

[Matt Barrow]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
om...
> Grumman-581 wrote:
>>
>> Obviously, they have determined that how a controller is dressed directly
>> effects whether aircraft depart from the correct runway...
>>
>
> The tie points in the direction of the runway!

What if he's got a Dilbert tie?

[Ron Lee]

Emily > wrote:

>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> "Emily" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> DFW. You honestly think I'm going to get more specific that that?
>>>
>>
>> No. You probably realize if you got more specific than that you'd receive
>> an explanation of how you can fly VFR near your home without talking to ATC,
>> and you don't want that.
>>
>>
>No. I realize that I've had stalkers on Usenet before, and it's no
>one's business where I live. I live in the surface area of a Class B
>airport. Check out a chart and you'll see how far it is from any Class
>B airport in this area to airports and airspace where I don't have to
>talk to ATC.

Now if I could get a female stalker, 5'7" or less, trim, brunette or
blonde, active, adventurous, no kids. Stalking must be innocuous and
not symptomatic of any psychoses (sp). Need not be a pilot but that
is a plus.

Ron Lee

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-09-04, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> An employer not only has the right to impose a dress code on employees
> -- he has a DUTY to do so.
>
> In our college town, we've visited restaurants where you couldn't tell
> the employees from the customers. College girls wearing peasant shirts
> that showed their tatooed butts, no name badge, and no "we're here to
> serve you" attitude translated into a single-visit, never to return.

In a customer facing, customer service job what you wear drastically
affects your performance because it alters customer perception.

In a job where you're never ever seen by a customer, what you wear
simply doesn't matter. The employer merely has a duty to insist that
employees don't dress in a way offensive to other employees.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-09-05, Emily > wrote:
> Second, how the hell can you find 300 hours a year of VMC in Colorado?
> We get that where I live now, but I wouldn't have been able to do that
> in Indiana. Unless I was into scud running, which I'm not.

You can't practically do much IFR flying in a non-turboed/oxygened plane
in Colorado anyway - have you seen what the MEAs are like? If it's IMC
and you're in a non-turboed, non de-iced aircraft it's probably a no-go
due to the MEAs exceeding the altitude you can fly at and icing.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-09-06, Jose > wrote:
> This will be used as a reason to require positive control. Likely the
> floor of the A could be brought down to Great Britan levels.

The floor of class A in Great Britain (most of the British Isles is
class G airspace up to FL245) is only low in a few places. In a light
plane (anythign under 2 metric tonnes) you aren't charged any ATC fees.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-09-05, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> If the FAA can't even dictate a ban on flip flops in the workplace
> without generating a union uproar (and open insubordination), the FAA
> is irretrievably broken and *should* be privatized. What a shame it's
> come to this.

How would privatizing ATC solve the union problems? The new private ATC
would still have to deal with NATCA, who undoubtedly would still want
their members to be able to wear flip flops.

Privatizing ATC in Britain has not made the unions go away. All it's
done is made ATC cost the air traveller more (both airline users and GA
pilots). A privatized monopoly is seldom any better than a government
run monopoly.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Jay Honeck]

> In a job where you're never ever seen by a customer, what you wear
> simply doesn't matter. The employer merely has a duty to insist that
> employees don't dress in a way offensive to other employees.

I believe it's been established that ATC faciliities are subject to
visits by tours, VIPs, Senators, etc., without notice.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> It wouldn't be a problem for some pilots, but it might be a problem for
> Jay. It would mean he can no longer fly in to AirVenture.

I could always remove the radios, and fly NORDO.

"We don't need no steenkin' tower!"

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

[Jay Honeck]

> And no, the airports on the outskirts don't count, as they are at least
> a two hour drive from work/home.

So, it's difficult do fly VFR where you live. It's not where *I* live.

Mary and I have flown coast to coast, for 12 years and 1500+ hours, all
VFR. It's easy, it's fun, and it's never a problem, as long as you're
flexible.

Now, of course, would I *prefer* to use ATC? Sure! We use VFR flight
following on virtually every flight, and we enjoy visiting big-city
airports. But if the FAA imposes user fees based on ATC use, it would
be child's play to stop talking to them -- especially now that we have
XM weather on-board.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:41:11 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote in
>:

>How would privatizing ATC solve the union problems?

In the US, it would presumably remove the automatic congressional
ratification of FAA proposed labor contracts as apparently occurred in
this case. Having a contract shoved down your throat has got to be a
problem for the union.

Or wasn't that the problem to which you were referring? :-)

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 23:52:23 -0400, "John T" > wrote in
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>>
>>> Requiring professional attire equates to "employee abuse"?
>>
>> If it is a change in the working agreement, that hasn't been agreed to
>> by both parties, I would see it as inequitable and unjust. If changes
>> are desired, they should be openly negotiated by all concerned.
>
>You didn't answer my question. :)
>
>"Inequitable" and "unjust" don't equate to "abuse" in any thesaurus I know,
>so I'm still wondering how requiring professional attire equates to
>"employee abuse".


Don't you agree, that denying an employee his right to bargain may
constitute abuse?

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 16:16:56 -0700, "BTIZ" >
wrote in <Ht2Lg.2558$8J2.2200@fed1read11>:

>If you are going to get paid for being a professional, you should dress like
>a professional.

One might expect to see some esprit de corps among controllers, and a
desire to elevate their stature by establishing their own dress code
independent of management. Of course, that would take proactive
leadership ...

[Ron Lee]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>Mary and I have flown coast to coast, for 12 years and 1500+ hours, all
>VFR. It's easy, it's fun, and it's never a problem, as long as you're
>flexible.
>
>Now, of course, would I *prefer* to use ATC? Sure! We use VFR flight
>following on virtually every flight, and we enjoy visiting big-city
>airports. But if the FAA imposes user fees based on ATC use, it would
>be child's play to stop talking to them -- especially now that we have
>XM weather on-board.

I also fly VFR only but it is easy where I live (Colorado). I also
use ATC for flight following, going into towered airports, get
clearance into Denver Class B, etc. But impose fees (I already pay
via fuel taxes) then expect all these non-essential ATC contacts to go
away.

Go to Pueblo for breakfast? Not with a fee.

Go to COS to refuel? Not with a fee.

Talk to Denver to help with their traffic flow? Sorry.

Talk to COS to minimize impacts to commercial aircraft that fly over
my airport? I would like to BUT.

Flight following? I will take the chance and use my 406 beacon if
needed.

Pre flight briefing? Internet

In some cases that may have negative safety implications.

Ron Lee

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> What if he's got a Dilbert tie?
>

That means "cleared for takeoff"! <G>

[Jose[_1_]]

> The employer merely has a duty to insist that
> employees don't dress in a way offensive to other employees.

.... or that other employees don't get offended at how employees dress.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> I believe it's been established that ATC faciliities are subject to
> visits by tours, VIPs, Senators, etc., without notice.

So? If some senators have heart attacks because they see flip flops or
shorts, that can only be a plus for the country.

<g> Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> I believe it's been established that ATC faciliities are subject to
> visits by tours, VIPs, Senators, etc., without notice.
>

I believe your inn is also subject to visits by like people without notice,
yet you allow your employees to dress like bums. Why is that?

[Mike Isaksen]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
>
> Talk to Denver to help with their traffic flow? Sorry.
>

This is my biggest worry about the "post user fee response issue" by pvt
aircraft. Here in the greater NYC area ATC welcomes flight following
requests. It allows them to verify target aircraft alt and intensions, and
improves the mixed traffic flow along the various inbound and outbound
corridors. I can envision many VFR targets remaining silent under any user
fee system, resulting in many "traffic unverified" callouts. I've also
noticed a few aircraft outside the mode C vale not showing up on TIS, and I
can only assume they are running xpdr off. This will get worse under user
fees. The resulting FAA backlash will be onerous, no doubt.

[John T[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
>> "Inequitable" and "unjust" don't equate to "abuse" in any thesaurus
>> I know, so I'm still wondering how requiring professional attire
>> equates to "employee abuse".
>
> Don't you agree, that denying an employee his right to bargain may
> constitute abuse?

Nothing in the original post suggests to me anybody has denied any "right"
to bargain (if any such "right" exists).

The employer wants to implement a "professional attire" policy. How does
that equate to "employee abuse"?

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[Emily[_1_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> And no, the airports on the outskirts don't count, as they are at least
>> a two hour drive from work/home.
>
> So, it's difficult do fly VFR where you live. It's not where *I* live.

Oh, it's very easy to fly VFR (cloud? what's a cloud?). It's NOT easy
to not talk to ATC.

[Emily[_1_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 23:52:23 -0400, "John T" > wrote in
> >:
>
>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>>
>>>> Requiring professional attire equates to "employee abuse"?
>>> If it is a change in the working agreement, that hasn't been agreed to
>>> by both parties, I would see it as inequitable and unjust. If changes
>>> are desired, they should be openly negotiated by all concerned.
>> You didn't answer my question. :)
>>
>> "Inequitable" and "unjust" don't equate to "abuse" in any thesaurus I know,
>> so I'm still wondering how requiring professional attire equates to
>> "employee abuse".
>
>
> Don't you agree, that denying an employee his right to bargain may
> constitute abuse?
No.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Oh, it's very easy to fly VFR (cloud? what's a cloud?). It's NOT easy to
> not talk to ATC.
>

Yes it is.

[Emily[_1_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Oh, it's very easy to fly VFR (cloud? what's a cloud?). It's NOT easy to
>> not talk to ATC.
>>
>
> Yes it is.
>
>
Are you illiterate?

Or do I need to rephrase?

It's NOT easy to not talk to ATC where I live.

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Emily wrote:
>
> It's NOT easy to not talk to ATC where I live.
>

My co-owner absolutely loves DFW ATC. He's been impressed every time he
goes there. They zip him right in to his destination on a simple VFR
flight following, from his typical overnight stop in Memphis.

We're used to NYC & BOS, who are also easy to deal with, as long as
you're brief, clear, and professional.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
...
>
> Are you illiterate?
>

No.


>
> Or do I need to rephrase?
>

No.


>
> It's NOT easy to not talk to ATC where I live.
>

I'm sure you find it hard, it would be easy for me.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:21:17 -0500, Emily wrote:

> And driving two hours to an airport outside of town doesn't count - that
> makes it difficult.

Two hours to an uncontrolled field? That's sad. I thought that it was
bad around here, with the KEWR class B. But even someone in the center of
EWR/JFK/LGA is - at most - an hour from some uncontrolled fields (ie. N07
on the NJ side).

Then there's KLDJ, which is an uncontrolled field five miles south of
KEWR. What makes this little uncontrolled field even more interesting is
that the GPS-A approach can be followed (in VMC, of course) w/o talking to
approach; one never bumps the class B.

I guess the grass is definitely greener over here. Thanks.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 01:52:56 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> "A. Sinan Unur" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> The competition is in the bidding stage.
>>
>>
> That's not good enough. The user doesn't get to bid.

It's problematic for [at least] a second reason: the current holder of the
contract will always be at advantage (as there are no [further] start-up
costs).

- Andrew

[Private]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> om...
>>
>> "Private" > wrote in message
>> news:n76Lg.516413$IK3.107547@pd7tw1no...
>>>
>>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>>>
>>>> In the end, the point isn't what I like, or what you like -- it's what
>>>> the employer likes. If the FAA decides that it wants you to wear polka
>>>> dot clown suits every day, so be it.
>>>
>>> I will wear whatever my employer wishes, provided they also provide it.
>>
>> In that case you quite likely would find yourself pursuing other
>> opportunities.
>>
> I require my project managers to wear slacks and at least a "golf" type
> shirt when meeting clients/contractors in their offices. When entertaining
> them in a restaurant, for example, a suit/sport coat and tie are
> mandatory.
>
> I haven't had to buy anyone a suit yet, and I doubt I ever will.
>

There are laws that determine minimum acceptable dress in public places.
For many and varied purposes many employers choose to exceed these minimum
requirements. Military, police and other organizations have many obvious
needs for identification and public image. Many other workplaces have
demands for specialized dress due to health and safety reasons. The costs
for this special dress are properly those of the enterprise that requires
them and because of this IMHE most employers are required to provide safety
equipment like high vis coveralls and hard hats and gloves. Because these
expenses are deductible they represent a LOWER cost to the employer than
requiring the employee to provide these items and pay for them in after tax
dollars. The employer usually sees this an opportunity to improve their
public image by putting their company name and image on these safety items.
Many employers provide allowances to cover the cost of personal safety
footwear that is not returned to the employer at the end of a job. Many
employers discover that their net costs go down due to lowered injury rates
and costs and the increased quality of their image is easy to justify as
perhaps the cheapest advertising they will ever buy.

The case can and is usually made that flip flops are a safety issue.
Similarly, cut offs or clothing that has wear holes or tears is also either
a health or safety issue due to flammability or sun exposure or that it may
cause damage to the employers equipment. What you wear under the company
coveralls is seldom a concern of the employer. Similarly rings and jewelry
can usually be considered safety issues.

The bottom line is that this is a matter that can normally be resolved by
reference to legislation or cooperation in good faith between employer and
employee. Most employees recognize that what is good for the employer is
usually also in their own best interest.

The real problem arises when the clothing has religious significance and
this is a real minefield where the employee may have RIGHTS.that make the
employers wishes unlawful or discriminatory. We have not even mentioned the
possibility of free speech issues created by t shirts with inappropriate
messages. Most employers are REQUIRED to provide and require the use of
needed safety and health items. An employer has great latitude and can
probably justify and require the use of supplied uniforms and safety
equipment on safety or health grounds and they usually find that the cost of
company coveralls or a company golf shirt to be a much smaller cost than
trying to demand employees purchase approved clothing.

IMHO disputes that arise from appearance issues are more likely due to a
breakdown in relations in some other area and that the inappropriate
clothing is more of a symptom than a problem issue to be treated in
isolation. The smart employer avoids a HR ****ing contest as they are
seldom productive or helpful in the long term.

Just my .02

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 11:46:27 -0400, "John T" > wrote in
>:

>
>Nothing in the original post suggests to me anybody has denied any "right"
>to bargain (if any such "right" exists).

Normally (not federal employees apparently), if an employer changes
job requirements, it opens the contract for renegotiation. To demand
the employee meet the new requirements without voicing acceptance
seems like abuse to me.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> No. I realize that I've had stalkers on Usenet before, and it's no one's
> business where I live. I live in the surface area of a Class B airport.
> Check out a chart and you'll see how far it is from any Class B airport in
> this area to airports and airspace where I don't have to talk to ATC.
>

Looks like Grand Prairie is about four miles from where you live, Arlington
is about six miles, Hicks is about twelve, Lakeview is about six, Mesquite
is about eleven, Lancaster is about eight, etc., etc., etc.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> No, there are no airports around me that are not B or D.
>

Yes there are.

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> Now if I could get a female stalker, 5'7" or less, trim, brunette or
> blonde, active, adventurous, no kids. Stalking must be innocuous and
> not symptomatic of any psychoses (sp). Need not be a pilot but that
> is a plus.

And looking for someone to fill her hangar? <dirty-old-man-grin>

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I could always remove the radios, and fly NORDO.
>

The AirVenture no-radio arrival procedure is provided for use only by
Vintage aircraft. Does your airplane qualify?

[Allen[_1_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> No. I realize that I've had stalkers on Usenet before, and it's no one's
>> business where I live. I live in the surface area of a Class B airport.
>> Check out a chart and you'll see how far it is from any Class B airport
>> in
>> this area to airports and airspace where I don't have to talk to ATC.
>>
>
> Looks like Grand Prairie is about four miles from where you live,
> Arlington is about six miles, Hicks is about twelve, Lakeview is about
> six, Mesquite is about eleven, Lancaster is about eight, etc., etc., etc.

Grand Prairie, and Arlington are towered, although non-federal.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Allen" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Grand Prairie, and Arlington are towered, although non-federal.

I used an online D sectional, it's rather hard to tell blue from magenta. I
see now that Grand Prairie has a control tower frequency shown, but
Arlington does not, and neither has Class D airspace depicted.

Even if those two do have control towers, any competent pilot can still fly
a lot of hours VFR in the area without having to call ATC.

[Emily[_1_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Are you illiterate?
>>
>
> No.
>
>
>> Or do I need to rephrase?
>>
>
> No.
>
>
>> It's NOT easy to not talk to ATC where I live.
>>
>
> I'm sure you find it hard, it would be easy for me.
>
>
Ok. I am closest to DFW, DAL, and ADS. Tell me how you would fly,
easy, legally, without talking to ATC.

[Emily[_1_]]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:21:17 -0500, Emily wrote:
>
>> And driving two hours to an airport outside of town doesn't count - that
>> makes it difficult.
>
> Two hours to an uncontrolled field? That's sad.

Most of it is traffic. I'd be willing to be the nearest uncontrolled
field is 30 miles or so away, but actually getting there is the trick.
I'm from Chicago, and the traffic there doesn't compare the snarls here.
The population exploded, and the infrastructure just didn't explode
with it.

[Emily[_1_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> No. I realize that I've had stalkers on Usenet before, and it's no one's
>> business where I live. I live in the surface area of a Class B airport.
>> Check out a chart and you'll see how far it is from any Class B airport in
>> this area to airports and airspace where I don't have to talk to ATC.
>>
>
> Looks like Grand Prairie is about four miles from where you live, Arlington
> is about six miles, Hicks is about twelve, Lakeview is about six, Mesquite
> is about eleven, Lancaster is about eight, etc., etc., etc.

Grand Prairie is a 45 minute drive for me. Arlington can be an hour on
bad days. Mesquite, easily and hour and a half (plus, you'll get shot
on the way), and Lancaster? Over two hours to get to Lancaster.

[Emily[_1_]]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Now if I could get a female stalker, 5'7" or less, trim, brunette or
>> blonde, active, adventurous, no kids. Stalking must be innocuous and
>> not symptomatic of any psychoses (sp). Need not be a pilot but that
>> is a plus.
>
> And looking for someone to fill her hangar? <dirty-old-man-grin>
>
>
Pervs.

Unfortunately, I fit his description. Maybe that could be a new hobby.

[Emily[_1_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Allen" > wrote in message
> m...
>> Grand Prairie, and Arlington are towered, although non-federal.
>
> I used an online D sectional, it's rather hard to tell blue from magenta. I
> see now that Grand Prairie has a control tower frequency shown, but
> Arlington does not, and neither has Class D airspace depicted.
>
> Even if those two do have control towers, any competent pilot can still fly
> a lot of hours VFR in the area without having to call ATC.
>
>
Out of what airport, easily? You've yet to name an easy airport to get to.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Ok. I am closest to DFW, DAL, and ADS. Tell me how you would fly, easy,
> legally, without talking to ATC.
>

VFR from uncontrolled fields avoiding Class B, C, and D airspace. If you
find that hard, you're no pilot.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Grand Prairie is a 45 minute drive for me. Arlington can be an hour on
> bad days. Mesquite, easily and hour and a half (plus, you'll get shot on
> the way), and Lancaster? Over two hours to get to Lancaster.
>

45 minutes to go four miles? Drive faster.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Out of what airport, easily? You've yet to name an easy airport to get
> to.
>

First you found flying too hard, now driving is too hard as well?

[Emily[_1_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Ok. I am closest to DFW, DAL, and ADS. Tell me how you would fly, easy,
>> legally, without talking to ATC.
>>
>
> VFR from uncontrolled fields avoiding Class B, C, and D airspace. If you
> find that hard, you're no pilot.
>
>
No, I don't like driving.

You've yet to show me an uncontrolled field that is convenient for me.

[Emily[_1_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Grand Prairie is a 45 minute drive for me. Arlington can be an hour on
>> bad days. Mesquite, easily and hour and a half (plus, you'll get shot on
>> the way), and Lancaster? Over two hours to get to Lancaster.
>>
>
> 45 minutes to go four miles? Drive faster.
>
>
Have you ever been to DFW? Don't comment on something that you know
nothing about.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> You've yet to show me an uncontrolled field that is convenient for me.
>

I'm sure I have. You're going to say it's inconvenient even if it's across
the street.

[Emily[_1_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Out of what airport, easily? You've yet to name an easy airport to get
>> to.
>>
>
> First you found flying too hard, now driving is too hard as well?
>
>
I never said it was hard, I said I don't like it. Illiterate asshole.

[Emily[_1_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> You've yet to show me an uncontrolled field that is convenient for me.
>>
>
> I'm sure I have. You're going to say it's inconvenient even if it's across
> the street.
>
>
Across the street is DFW, which, if you didn't know, requires
communication with ATC.

But whatever. I might have to talk to you on the radio, but thankfully
I don't have to talk to you here. Plonk.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Have you ever been to DFW?
>

Yup.


>
> Don't comment on something that you know nothing about.
>

That's good advice. You should have heeded it yourself.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> I never said it was hard, I said I don't like it.
>

Never? Just yesterday you posted:

Jim Burns wrote:
> I just got off the phone with a VFR only pilot that will probably flew
> over
> 1000 hours this SUMMER and never enters B, C, or D. It's not
> impossible...
> hell it isn't even hard. Just ask the ag pilots.
> Jim

I'm still trying to figure out how that's not hard. At least where I
fly, it's very difficult to not enter controlled airspace.

And where I used to fly? Very difficult to log 1000 hours VFR at any
time of year.


And:

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Not on Usenet, sorry.
>>
>
> Then I can't help you.
>
I wasn't asking for help. I know full well what kind of flying I can
and can't do based on my location. VFR in uncontrolled airspace is very
difficult.


And:

Jim Burns wrote:
> Avoid class A, B, C, D, & E.... 1 mile clear of clouds
> Jim

I'm well aware of when radio contact with ATC and an IFR flight plan is
is necessary, thank you. I simply fail to see how all of the above is
not difficult.


>
> Illiterate asshole.
>

Potty mouth!

[Jose[_1_]]

> Grand Prairie is a 45 minute drive for me.
> Arlington can be an hour on bad days.
> Mesquite, easily and hour and a half (plus, you'll get shot on the way), and
> Lancaster? Over two hours to get to Lancaster.

45 minutes is not bad at all. I drove an hour each way to TEB and CDW
when I was flying out of New York. Plus I had to cross the Washington
Bridge (though I had the advantage of buying cheap gas in NJ)

Do you actually fly out of DFW? In a spam can? How long is it from
engine start to takeoff? From touchdown to engine stop? The hobbs
meter is running all that time; at the outlying airports I bet taxi time
is much less, and the hobbs meter doesn't run while you're driving to
the airport.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> But whatever. I might have to talk to you on the radio, but thankfully I
> don't have to talk to you here. Plonk.
>

I'm an air traffic controller. I don't think you'll ever be in a position
to talk to me on the radio.

[Emily[_1_]]

Jose wrote:
>> Grand Prairie is a 45 minute drive for me.
>> Arlington can be an hour on bad days. Mesquite, easily and hour and a
>> half (plus, you'll get shot on the way), and
>> Lancaster? Over two hours to get to Lancaster.
>
> 45 minutes is not bad at all.

No, it's not terrible if you're driving 50 miles. If you're driving 10,
which is about the distance to Grand Prairie, it's pretty bad.

> Do you actually fly out of DFW?

Nope, but I work there. Was just using it as a point of reference, it's
the closest airport to me.

[Jose[_1_]]

>> Do you actually fly out of DFW?
>
>
> Nope, but I work there.

So, where do you fly out of now? How long does it take to get there?
To taxi?

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Emily[_1_]]

Jose wrote:
>>> Do you actually fly out of DFW?
>>
>>
>> Nope, but I work there.
>
> So, where do you fly out of now? How long does it take to get there? To
> taxi?
>
> Jose

Fly out of ADS. Drive is about twenty minutes. Taxi...well, with one
runway and mostly jet traffic, taxi is really quick.

[Dave Stadt]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 11:46:27 -0400, "John T" > wrote in
> >:
>
>>
>>Nothing in the original post suggests to me anybody has denied any "right"
>>to bargain (if any such "right" exists).
>
> Normally (not federal employees apparently), if an employer changes
> job requirements, it opens the contract for renegotiation. To demand
> the employee meet the new requirements without voicing acceptance
> seems like abuse to me.

Sems to me you know little to nothing about employment laws.

[Margy Natalie]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>The only thing that is ridiculous in that story is that people are not
>>free to dress as they wish. So much for the land of the free.
>
>
> That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read here -- and I've read a
> LOT of goofy stuff over the years.
>
> An employer not only has the right to impose a dress code on employees
> -- he has a DUTY to do so.
>
> In our college town, we've visited restaurants where you couldn't tell
> the employees from the customers. College girls wearing peasant shirts
> that showed their tatooed butts, no name badge, and no "we're here to
> serve you" attitude translated into a single-visit, never to return.
>
> In our hotel, our employee dress code is relatively liberal -- but it's
> strictly adhered to. Our employees are required to wear either our
> green "Alexis Park Inn & Suites" shirts, or a (supplied) aviation
> themed Hawaiian shirt with a collar. In summer, khaki shorts are
> allowed, but never cut-offs or blue jeans, and no t-shirts. A name
> badge must be worn at all times.
>
> Does it matter, since much of their work is on the phone? Hell, yes.
> When a guest comes onto our property, we want them to be able to tell
> the guards from the inmates, and we expect our employees to act
> professional at all times.
>
> If we expect this from hotel clerks, housekeepers, and waitresses, I
> don't think it's too much to ask from our "professional" air traffic
> controllers.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
Ok, Jay,

Your employees know, when hired, what the dress code is. How do you
think they would feel if today you went to work and informed them that
from now on they would wear black-tie to work everyday. I bet you would
have a few very unhappy folks. If for years I could wear pants to
school and jeans on Friday (fairly standard for teachers around here)
and a new principal came in and mandated dresses (some school districts
still require women to wear dresses) I'd be VERY UNHAPPY.

Margy

[Jose[_1_]]

> Fly out of ADS. Drive is about twenty minutes. Taxi...well, with one runway and mostly jet traffic, taxi is really quick.

Just north of ADS is F69. It's a nontowered airport in the ADS class D.
I bet there's some sort of agreement that lets poeple fly out of F69
without bothering the tower. It might be worth looking into. If you
can get out of F69 without talking to ADS tower, you are under the 3000
foot ring of the class B. Say under 3000 feet and you can toss the
radio out the window.

I bet you save a lot of hobbs time too.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Emily[_1_]]

Jose wrote:
>> Fly out of ADS. Drive is about twenty minutes. Taxi...well, with one
>> runway and mostly jet traffic, taxi is really quick.
>
> Just north of ADS is F69.

Dallas Air Park is a private neighborhood, they do not have planes for rent.

[Private]

"John T" > wrote in message
m...
snip
>
> Nothing in the original post suggests to me anybody has denied any "right"
> to bargain (if any such "right" exists).
>

I believe it is called 'freedom of association'.

ICBW

[Bruce Riggs]

Emily wrote:
> Jose wrote:
>>> Fly out of ADS. Drive is about twenty minutes. Taxi...well, with
>>> one runway and mostly jet traffic, taxi is really quick.
>>
>> Just north of ADS is F69.
>
> Dallas Air Park is a private neighborhood, they do not have planes for
> rent.

Can someone remind me of what issue we are trying to solve in this
thread? Emily, are you actually looking for a non-controlled field in
the Dallas/Ft. Worth area that has rentals? And that is within your
restrictive criteria of driving times from near KDFW? And what are the
other criteria? And are you really looking for a solution or just trying
to make some type of point?

[Ron Lee]

Emily > wrote:

>Grumman-581 wrote:
>> "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Now if I could get a female stalker, 5'7" or less, trim, brunette or
>>> blonde, active, adventurous, no kids. Stalking must be innocuous and
>>> not symptomatic of any psychoses (sp). Need not be a pilot but that
>>> is a plus.
>>
>> And looking for someone to fill her hangar? <dirty-old-man-grin>
>>
>>
>Pervs.
>
>Unfortunately, I fit his description. Maybe that could be a new hobby.

I think that was a slam at me Emily. :)

Or are you calling yourself a perv? I can't tell which post you are
replying to.

Ron Lee

[Emily[_1_]]

Bruce Riggs wrote:
> Emily wrote:
>> Jose wrote:
>>>> Fly out of ADS. Drive is about twenty minutes. Taxi...well, with
>>>> one runway and mostly jet traffic, taxi is really quick.
>>>
>>> Just north of ADS is F69.
>>
>> Dallas Air Park is a private neighborhood, they do not have planes for
>> rent.
>
> Can someone remind me of what issue we are trying to solve in this
> thread? Emily, are you actually looking for a non-controlled field in
> the Dallas/Ft. Worth area that has rentals? And that is within your
> restrictive criteria of driving times from near KDFW? And what are the
> other criteria? And are you really looking for a solution or just trying
> to make some type of point?

I made my point long ago. I'm perfectly happy flying out of ADS.

[Emily[_1_]]

Ron Lee wrote:
> Emily > wrote:
>
>> Grumman-581 wrote:
>>> "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Now if I could get a female stalker, 5'7" or less, trim, brunette or
>>>> blonde, active, adventurous, no kids. Stalking must be innocuous and
>>>> not symptomatic of any psychoses (sp). Need not be a pilot but that
>>>> is a plus.
>>> And looking for someone to fill her hangar? <dirty-old-man-grin>
>>>
>>>
>> Pervs.
>>
>> Unfortunately, I fit his description. Maybe that could be a new hobby.
>
> I think that was a slam at me Emily. :)
>
> Or are you calling yourself a perv? I can't tell which post you are
> replying to.
>
> Ron Lee

lol

Was a slam at both of you, but mostly Grumman.

[BTIZ]

> Kind of seems like a profession where there is only one employer... Does
> your run of the mill controller really have any other job opportunities?
> I
> suspect that senior management would have other opportunities in that they
> can shuffle papers just about anywhere, but what about the guys who are
> actually doing the work?
>

There are non federal control towers. There are also other professions, ever
heard of cross training?

BT

[Margy Natalie]

Emily wrote:
> Ron Lee wrote:
>
>> This is ridiculous that a union is opposed to casual attire (slack &
>> collard shirts). I did not read suits.
>>
>> Sounds like NATCA needs to be Reaganed.
>>
>> Ron Lee
>>
>>
> As a woman, I think the collared shirt thing is ridiculous. So many
> people feel to comprehend that women can be business casual without a
> collar.
>
> But I agree that the union needs to find something else to oppose. A
> huge reason why I'm so glad we don't have unions here.
Think skirts instead of collared shirts for the female version.

Margy

[Jose[_1_]]

> I made my point long ago. I'm perfectly happy flying out of ADS.

Her point is that it's "too much trouble" to fly out of the DFW area
NORDO. I suppose the threshhold of "too much trouble" varies from pilot
to pilot; the thread has gone to how much trouble is "too much". (Even
Jay would find some amount of trouble to be "too much").

IIRC, the thread's divergance started with the suggestion that ATC would
charge for services, and pilots would simply, and easily, avoid ATC.

Well, yes and no.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 23:57:46 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote in >:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 11:46:27 -0400, "John T" > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>>
>>>Nothing in the original post suggests to me anybody has denied any "right"
>>>to bargain (if any such "right" exists).
>>
>> Normally (not federal employees apparently), if an employer changes
>> job requirements, it opens the contract for renegotiation. To demand
>> the employee meet the new requirements without voicing acceptance
>> seems like abuse to me.
>
>Sems to me you know little to nothing about employment laws.
>

Does that mean you want to cite one?

[Ron Lee]

Jose > wrote:

>IIRC, the thread's divergance started with the suggestion that ATC would
>charge for services, and pilots would simply, and easily, avoid ATC.
>
>Well, yes and no.

Yes for some like me; no for some like Emily.

Ron Lee

[Jay Honeck]

> Your employees know, when hired, what the dress code is. How do you
> think they would feel if today you went to work and informed them that
> from now on they would wear black-tie to work everyday. I bet you would
> have a few very unhappy folks.

Sure. So what?

As owner, I have a duty to run our business in the way I see best. If
it looks to me like our current dress code isn't working, and the new
government-built Marriott down the road is kicking our butt by dressing
their desk staff in bib overalls, well, I'll probably institute a
mandatory bib-overalls-dress code.

And, if the FAA thinks their operations are more professional by
requiring a minimum dress code from their employees, so be it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose[_1_]]

>>Well, yes and no.
> Yes for some like me; no for some like Emily.

Well, it's a bit more than that. Flying in the DC area without talking
to anyone is hard. (at least doing it more than once is hard!). Flying
in weather without talking to ATC can be hard in many areas of the
country where it would be easy VFR, and when that area doesn't have much
VFR, that "adds value" to ATC services. (Many areas like that don't
have much spam can IFR either). And although you may be able to "fly"
without talking to anyone, this doesn't help if you can't get where
you're going without them.

It's not just Emily (although I will say she paints a bleaker picture
than I think is warranted).

And if a privatized ATC starts charging for services, and finds that
they are not making enough money because spam cans demure, then it is
not out of the question that the FAA will require, somehow, that spam
cans procure more ATC services.

All speculation, but intertwined. We are lucky to have the system we
have, but we need to be vigliant that it doesn't get sold, piece by
piece, like the DC area did, as each of us who is not directly affected,
poo poohs the idea that it could come to reach us.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> And, if the FAA thinks their operations are more professional by
> requiring a minimum dress code from their employees, so be it.

There is a difference between your hotel (a privately run enterprise for
which there is lots of competition) and the FAA, a government lawmaking
entity, for which there is no alternative but sneakers. If =you= decide
that your operation works better with a dress code, you find out whether
this is true or not in your monthly profit reports. You then have a
motivation to change things if you are wrong. This ultimately leads to
better service to your clients, which is why you are in business.

However, if the =FAA= decides that their operation works better with a
dress code, then they won't find out from any kind of "profit" report,
because their customers can't go anywhere else but away, and there is
nothing useful to compare it with. If the FAA's customers go "away",
and the FAA's "profit" decreases, I doubt the FAA would be motivated to
change.

Assuming that the purpose of the FAA is safety, then to the extent that
the dress code =actually= improves safety, it will be apparant in the
NASA reports. But since there is no equivalent to the profit motive,
this is unlikely to be a useful feedback loop.

That's the difference.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> And, if the FAA thinks their operations are more professional by
> requiring a minimum dress code from their employees, so be it.
>

And who can argue with the FAA's historically impeccable judgment?

[Dave Stadt]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
>> And, if the FAA thinks their operations are more professional by
>> requiring a minimum dress code from their employees, so be it.
>
> There is a difference between your hotel (a privately run enterprise for
> which there is lots of competition) and the FAA, a government lawmaking
> entity, for which there is no alternative but sneakers. If =you= decide
> that your operation works better with a dress code, you find out whether
> this is true or not in your monthly profit reports. You then have a
> motivation to change things if you are wrong. This ultimately leads to
> better service to your clients, which is why you are in business.
>
> However, if the =FAA= decides that their operation works better with a
> dress code, then they won't find out from any kind of "profit" report,
> because their customers can't go anywhere else but away, and there is
> nothing useful to compare it with. If the FAA's customers go "away", and
> the FAA's "profit" decreases, I doubt the FAA would be motivated to
> change.
>
> Assuming that the purpose of the FAA is safety, then to the extent that
> the dress code =actually= improves safety, it will be apparant in the NASA
> reports. But since there is no equivalent to the profit motive, this is
> unlikely to be a useful feedback loop.
>
> That's the difference.

That's not the difference. Management determines the rules within the
limits of the law and employees either follow, leave or face possible
termination. Management does not have a requirement to provide reasons.

> Jose
> --
> There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[randall g]

On 6 Sep 2006 06:52:41 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>Now, of course, would I *prefer* to use ATC? Sure! We use VFR flight
>following on virtually every flight, and we enjoy visiting big-city
>airports. But if the FAA imposes user fees based on ATC use, it would
>be child's play to stop talking to them -- especially now that we have
>XM weather on-board.

How would you feel about an annual charge for all the ATC you can eat?
Here in Canada it is $71 per year (us$64) for aircraft < 2000 kg.

I don't have a problem with that.



randall g =%^)> PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RG
http://www.telemark.net/randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
Vancouver's famous Kat Kam: http://www.katkam.ca

[Jose[_1_]]

> That's not the difference. Management determines the rules within the
> limits of the law and employees either follow, leave or face possible
> termination. Management does not have a requirement to provide reasons.

I didn't mention any need for management to "give reasons". My point is
that in one case, the reasons form a feedback loop that tends to make
the business healthy. In the other case, the reasons do not form such a
feedback loop. In no case does this depend on reasons being =provided=
to anybody.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> How would you feel about an annual charge for all the ATC you can eat?
> Here in Canada it is $71 per year (us$64) for aircraft < 2000 kg.

How about little airplanes =get paid= to interact with ATC, making
themselves available for transponder codes and vectors, so that the big
airplanes don't have to be vectored out of our way due to unverified
altitudes and such?

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Maybe that could be a new hobby.

What? Finding someone to fill your hangar? <dirty-old-man-grin>

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> You've yet to show me an uncontrolled field that is convenient for me.

Are you one of those people who actually live close to where they work?
THAT'S your problem... Move over towards Plano and fight the LBJ traffic
every day like everyone else... At least the weekends will allow you to fly
from an uncontrolled field... Or switch to helicopters and just get yourself
a larger backyard...

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"LWG" > wrote in message
. ..
> When I was 16, I mowed an enormous hammer and sickle in the grass in the
> back yard. It was some of my finest work. My father saw it and mowed the
> entire back yard at 6:30 the next morning, before he went to work.

I would have made you cut the entire yard with a pair of sissors...

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
> Just north of ADS is F69. It's a nontowered airport in the ADS class D.
> I bet there's some sort of agreement that lets poeple fly out of F69
> without bothering the tower. It might be worth looking into. If you
> can get out of F69 without talking to ADS tower, you are under the 3000
> foot ring of the class B. Say under 3000 feet and you can toss the
> radio out the window.
>
> I bet you save a lot of hobbs time too.

I got my PPL out of ADS (or at least I took my *second* checkride from a
flight school there)... I don't remember there being a lot of delay added to
the flight because of there being a tower there... You didn't have to talk
to DFW approach, only give the ADS tower a call a few miles out... Best I
remember, the reply was always something like, "Report downwind Rwy xxx"...
Then again, that was probably somewhere around 1993 or 1994, so things might
have changed a bit since then...

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Was a slam at both of you, but mostly Grumman.

Thanks... One must do what one is good at...

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:13LLg.2729$8J2.1480@fed1read11...
> There are also other professions, ever
> heard of cross training?

Of course that is a *possibility*, but if someone has spent a considerable
amount of time getting good at some particular profession, it's not exactly
reasonable to assume that they will want to just switch and go to the bottom
of the ladder again...

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 04:35:17 GMT, randall g >
wrote in >:

>How would you feel about an annual charge for all the ATC you can eat?
>Here in Canada it is $71 per year (us$64) for aircraft < 2000 kg.

It is my understanding, that such aircraft are not charged for ATC
services by Eurocontrol. How do you feel about that?

>I don't have a problem with that.

Is NavCanada turning a profit yet? How much do you think do you think
it will cost you for ATC services to make NavCanada profitable?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>
> How about little airplanes =get paid= to interact with ATC, making
> themselves available for transponder codes and vectors, so that the big
> airplanes don't have to be vectored out of our way due to unverified
> altitudes and such?
>

Big airplanes don't have to be vectored out of the way of little airplanes
due to unverified altitudes and such. They have to be given traffic
advisories of the little airplanes and they may request vectors out of the
way, but that's all.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 04:48:17 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>My point is
>that in one case, the reasons form a feedback loop that tends to make
>the business healthy. In the other case, the reasons do not form such a
>feedback loop.

Monopolies don't require a feedback loop for profitability.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >How would you feel about an annual charge for all the ATC you can eat?
> >Here in Canada it is $71 per year (us$64) for aircraft < 2000 kg.
>
> It is my understanding, that such aircraft are not charged for ATC
> services by Eurocontrol.

not charged...yet....

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[John T[_2_]]

Private wrote:
>
>> Nothing in the original post suggests to me anybody has denied any
>> "right" to bargain (if any such "right" exists).
>
> I believe it is called 'freedom of association'.

Nothing in this scenario is preventing the employees from associating with
whomever they wish - even a different employer.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[John T[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> Normally (not federal employees apparently), if an employer changes
> job requirements, it opens the contract for renegotiation. To demand
> the employee meet the new requirements without voicing acceptance
> seems like abuse to me.

We're going to have to part company here, then. I can understand resistance
to formal or even professional attire, but that in no way negates an
employer's privilege of setting the dress code - even after the fact, as it
were. It also does not infringe on the employee's ability to simply change
employers if they do not like the new rules. I've certainly done it.

Personally, I'm more concerned with a controller's diction than his physical
appearance, but I also don't see the big deal about Dockers and golf shirts.
I think there are far bigger fish for the union to fry - like a shortage of
controllers.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[Emily[_1_]]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> You've yet to show me an uncontrolled field that is convenient for me.
>
> Are you one of those people who actually live close to where they work?
> THAT'S your problem... Move over towards Plano and fight the LBJ traffic
> every day like everyone else... At least the weekends will allow you to fly
> from an uncontrolled field... Or switch to helicopters and just get yourself
> a larger backyard...
>
>
Plano? Please. I'm single with no kids. You really think I'd live in
Plano or Frisco or such? No way.

[Emily[_1_]]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Was a slam at both of you, but mostly Grumman.
>
> Thanks... One must do what one is good at...
>
>
Well, yes, you know....

[Jose[_1_]]

> Monopolies don't require a feedback loop for profitability.

Well, uh... yes. That was half the point. The other half was that the
FAA isn't even out for profitability.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Big airplanes don't have to be vectored out of the way of little airplanes
> due to unverified altitudes and such.

Ok, at least it makes things easier on controllers if they are talking
to the spam cans, no? And that makes things safer for the other aircraft?

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Ok, at least it makes things easier on controllers if they are talking to
> the spam cans, no?
>

Could go either way. If the controller is talking to the spam can and has a
verified altitude that makes the traffic a non-factor then traffic doesn't
have to be issued. If the controller is talking to the spam can and has a
verified altitude that makes the traffic a factor then traffic has to be
issued to both parties.


>
> And that makes things safer for the other aircraft?
>

Yup.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-09-05, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> I sure wish you guys would learn that lesson, and keep quiet about this
> silly dress code issue. Privatization is NOT going to be good for GA.

Privatization won't make the union go away nor union/employer issues -
unless the private firm that replaces the FAA can make peace with the
union.

Unions are not the sole preserve of government jobs.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-09-04, Paul Tomblin > wrote:
> In a previous article, Larry Dighera > said:
>>If US auto makers are to remain in business, they must cut costs, and
>>those fat labor contracts are a prime source of cost. So, the reason
>
> They've also got to stop designing crap cars. My Toyota Corolla was built
> in Cambridge Ontario by Canadian Auto Worker union members, and it's so
> well built that they export them back to Japan. Meanwhile your average
> Ford, GM or Chrysler is a gas guzzling maintenance nightmare because Ford,
> GM, and Chrysler care more about keeping shareholders happy than investing
> money in research and design.

You want to see unmaintainable?
Try a Jaguar XJ12 some time. Dragging things back towards an aviation
related theme, we're building a new winch for the glider club. Our old
one is a bit long in the tooth, and uses the (excellent) Jaguar XJ6 4.2
litre straight 6. A great engine that's virtually indestructable. But we
want to get a bit more power, so when an XJ12 showed up for scrap (a
garage had collapsed on it crushing the roof) we decided to go for a new
engine.

The V12 in the XJ12 is also a great engine. But in the process of
extracting it from the donor car, I had to wonder how routine services
were done. We'll have no problem maintaining it because we've got rid of
all the cruft (i.e. the car!) that surrounded the engine. But to get the
front two spark plugs out (a routine maintenance job), you have to take
the air conditioning compressor off! To get that off, in turn you have
to take off parts of the cruise control system. To get the AC compressor
off you would also have to discharge the AC system since the pipework
would all have to be disconnected - not flexible hoses. Changing the
spark plugs must have been an all day job - something on most other cars
would take fifteen minutes tops.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> You want to see unmaintainable?
> Try a Jaguar XJ12 some time. Dragging things back towards an aviation
> related theme, we're building a new winch for the glider club. Our old
> one is a bit long in the tooth, and uses the (excellent) Jaguar XJ6 4.2
> litre straight 6. A great engine that's virtually indestructable. But we
> want to get a bit more power, so when an XJ12 showed up for scrap (a
> garage had collapsed on it crushing the roof) we decided to go for a new
> engine.
>
> The V12 in the XJ12 is also a great engine. But in the process of
> extracting it from the donor car, I had to wonder how routine services
> were done. We'll have no problem maintaining it because we've got rid of
> all the cruft (i.e. the car!) that surrounded the engine. But to get the
> front two spark plugs out (a routine maintenance job), you have to take
> the air conditioning compressor off! To get that off, in turn you have
> to take off parts of the cruise control system. To get the AC compressor
> off you would also have to discharge the AC system since the pipework
> would all have to be disconnected - not flexible hoses. Changing the
> spark plugs must have been an all day job - something on most other cars
> would take fifteen minutes tops.
>

Why should routine maintenance require access to the spark plugs? The
maintenance schedule for my Toyota Corolla doesn't call for the spark plugs
to be changed until the 120,000 mile/96 month point. I don't know how long
it will take to change them, but even if it takes all day, one day every
eight years doesn't seem too bad to me.

[Ron Lee]

randall g > wrote:

>>Now, of course, would I *prefer* to use ATC? Sure! We use VFR flight
>>following on virtually every flight, and we enjoy visiting big-city
>>airports. But if the FAA imposes user fees based on ATC use, it would
>>be child's play to stop talking to them -- especially now that we have
>>XM weather on-board.
>
>How would you feel about an annual charge for all the ATC you can eat?
>Here in Canada it is $71 per year (us$64) for aircraft < 2000 kg.
>
>I don't have a problem with that.

I may not..in theory. But only if they eliminate the federal fuel tax
on 100LL. I estimate that I paid in about $320 USD last year from
fuel taxes.

So for me it may be a fair deal. For someone who rarely flies it is
not. Seems to me that the aviation fuel tax is about as equitable as
you can get. You fly more you pay more. Fly less, pay less.

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>Big airplanes don't have to be vectored out of the way of little airplanes
>due to unverified altitudes and such. They have to be given traffic
>advisories of the little airplanes and they may request vectors out of the
>way, but that's all.

So if I am circling over my airport (00V) at about the same altitude
as a 737 coming into COS, my altitude is unverifed by COS approach,
and the 737 path will intersect mine within a mile or closer, the COS
approach controller will leave it to the pilot to avoid a midair?

Look up 00V, KCOS and the BRK VOR.

Ron Lee

[Jose[_1_]]

>>And that makes things safer for the other aircraft?
> Yup.

So, maybe we should charge for aiding the controllers and the other
aircraft, rather than being charged for the assistance we are being
provided.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> This is the same argument that we all tried to use against privatizing
> Flight Service.
>
> Surprise! After the dust settled, it turned out that the "most
> experienced" briefers -- the ones who retired -- were actually the
> deadwood in the organization, and (in the short term, until they start
> charging per-call) we're better off with Lockheed-Martins' version of
> FSS. Call performance is better, briefers are better trained, with
> better equipment, and getting a weather briefing is a more positive
> experience for pilots.
>
> There are almost 300 million people in this country. No one is
> irreplaceable. No one.
>

I wasn't aware there had been any changes in equipment or training to date.
What's your source for that?

I don't think FSS "privatization" is a valid comparison. There have been
superior alternatives available to a weather briefing from FSS for years, I
can't even remember the last time I called for one.


>
> I sure wish you guys would learn that lesson, and keep quiet about this
> silly dress code issue.
>

I don't understand why you view this is just a "silly dress code issue".
The dress code is just a small part of the newly imposed work rules, yet all
you've chosen to focus on is the controllers no longer being able to wear
cut-offs and flip-flops to work, something so prevalent that I'd never seen
or heard of it in 23 years of FAA service.

One of the other changes was the elimination of CIC pay. When a controller
was functioning in a supervisory capacity, Controller in Charge, an
additional 10% of base pay was earned. Over the past 18 pay periods I
averaged $99.87 in CIC pay, so I just took an effective pay cut of almost
$2600 per year. Would you be happy about that if you were in my place?
Would your employees be happy about it if you imposed it on them? Why do
you choose to ignore that change and focus on the dress code?


>
> Privatization is NOT going to be good for GA.
>

Why not? Aren't private sector employees superior to government employees?
If it improved FSS why wouldn't it improve ATC?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"John T" > wrote in message
m...
>
> We're going to have to part company here, then. I can understand
> resistance to formal or even professional attire, but that in no way
> negates an employer's privilege of setting the dress code - even after the
> fact, as it were. It also does not infringe on the employee's ability to
> simply change employers if they do not like the new rules. I've certainly
> done it.
>
> Personally, I'm more concerned with a controller's diction than his
> physical appearance, but I also don't see the big deal about Dockers and
> golf shirts. I think there are far bigger fish for the union to fry - like
> a shortage of controllers.
>

The FAA has addressed the projected controller shortage with a reduced pay
scale for new hires.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>
> So if I am circling over my airport (00V) at about the same altitude
> as a 737 coming into COS, my altitude is unverifed by COS approach,
> and the 737 path will intersect mine within a mile or closer, the COS
> approach controller will leave it to the pilot to avoid a midair?
>

Strictly the pilot's responsibility under those conditions. The controller
should issue a traffic advisory, and may suggest a course of action to avoid
the traffic. But that's it.

[John Theune]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2006-09-04, Paul Tomblin > wrote:
>> In a previous article, Larry Dighera > said:
>>> If US auto makers are to remain in business, they must cut costs, and
>>> those fat labor contracts are a prime source of cost. So, the reason
>> They've also got to stop designing crap cars. My Toyota Corolla was built
>> in Cambridge Ontario by Canadian Auto Worker union members, and it's so
>> well built that they export them back to Japan. Meanwhile your average
>> Ford, GM or Chrysler is a gas guzzling maintenance nightmare because Ford,
>> GM, and Chrysler care more about keeping shareholders happy than investing
>> money in research and design.
>
> You want to see unmaintainable?
> Try a Jaguar XJ12 some time. Dragging things back towards an aviation
> related theme, we're building a new winch for the glider club. Our old
> one is a bit long in the tooth, and uses the (excellent) Jaguar XJ6 4.2
> litre straight 6. A great engine that's virtually indestructable. But we
> want to get a bit more power, so when an XJ12 showed up for scrap (a
> garage had collapsed on it crushing the roof) we decided to go for a new
> engine.
>
> The V12 in the XJ12 is also a great engine. But in the process of
> extracting it from the donor car, I had to wonder how routine services
> were done. We'll have no problem maintaining it because we've got rid of
> all the cruft (i.e. the car!) that surrounded the engine. But to get the
> front two spark plugs out (a routine maintenance job), you have to take
> the air conditioning compressor off! To get that off, in turn you have
> to take off parts of the cruise control system. To get the AC compressor
> off you would also have to discharge the AC system since the pipework
> would all have to be disconnected - not flexible hoses. Changing the
> spark plugs must have been an all day job - something on most other cars
> would take fifteen minutes tops.
>
And with 100,000 mile spark plugs you should be doing this job every 5
or 6 years or less. In the mean time, the engineers were able to meet
other design constraints such as fitting the engine and it's accessories
into a limit space in the engine compartment. Sounds like a reasonable
trade-off to me.

John

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>
> So, maybe we should charge for aiding the controllers and the other
> aircraft, rather than being charged for the assistance we are being
> provided.
>

Makes sense to me. The ATC system is structured as it is to serve the
airlines primarily, for them to complain that GA is not paying it's fair
share is absurd.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jose wrote:
>>>> Well, someone has yet to give me a way that I can fly IN MY LOCAL AREA
>>>> without talking to ATC.
>>>
>>> Sounds like a case of "if it's not in my back yard, it's not a problem".
>>> It reminds me of the DC ADIZ.
>>>
>>> Jose
>> I'm not saying anything's not a problem. If you can fly without talking
>> to ATC, more power to you. I can't.
>
> What, the airplane will fall out of the air if you aren't talking to
> someone?
>

Remember Emily thinks it is unprofessional to not file a flight plan for all
flights.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, said:
>You want to see unmaintainable?
>Try a Jaguar XJ12 some time. Dragging things back towards an aviation

Way better than an E-type. I know a guy who had three E-types so he'd
have a better than even chance of keeping one of them on the road.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Microsoft is a cross between the Borg and the Ferengi. Unfortunately,
they use Borg to do their marketing and Ferengi to do their programming."
-- Simon Slavin in asr

[Peter R.]

Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:

> Remember Emily thinks it is unprofessional to not file a flight plan for all
> flights.

I think you have a case of mistaken identity. Wasn't that one of the
Michelles who stated that?

--
Peter

[Andrew Gideon]

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:27:44 -0500, Emily wrote:

> Most of it is traffic.

We've that here too.

> I'd be willing to be the nearest uncontrolled
> field is 30 miles or so away

That's at least part of the difference. Airports lie N07 and LDJ are
closer than 30 miles to Manhattan.

BTW, one thing to consider is "off hours" flying. One of the members of
the club to which I belonged used to love to fly such that he'd be getting
back home at something like 6 or 7am.

[Road] traffic? Not at that hour (though it is starting to build around
then).

Of course, I know this isn't a serious problem as (at least for now)
you're not in serious need to avoid speaking to ATC.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:05:26 +0000, Ron Lee wrote:

> I may not..in theory. But only if they eliminate the federal fuel tax on
> 100LL. I estimate that I paid in about $320 USD last year from fuel
> taxes.

My town just created a "Sewer Authority" and we started receiving bills
from it. Up until now, this charge was paid through our property taxes.

I hope I don't have to point out that property taxes didn't go down (in
fact, they went up 5%).

- Andrew

[Emily[_1_]]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> You've yet to show me an uncontrolled field that is convenient for me.
>
> Are you one of those people who actually live close to where they work?

Ok, this was bugging me all day. I actually bought far away from work -
I hate living near work, and actually never have. Then I got a new job
which just happened to be with a prestigious company and I couldn't turn
them down. Only problem was, it was only five miles up the road.
Sucks, but what are you going to do?

[Emily[_1_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> m...
>> "Emily" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Jose wrote:
>>>>> Well, someone has yet to give me a way that I can fly IN MY LOCAL AREA
>>>>> without talking to ATC.
>>>> Sounds like a case of "if it's not in my back yard, it's not a problem".
>>>> It reminds me of the DC ADIZ.
>>>>
>>>> Jose
>>> I'm not saying anything's not a problem. If you can fly without talking
>>> to ATC, more power to you. I can't.
>> What, the airplane will fall out of the air if you aren't talking to
>> someone?
>>
>
> Remember Emily thinks it is unprofessional to not file a flight plan for all
> flights.
>
>
Uh, that was someone else.

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"John T" > wrote in message
m...
> Personally, I'm more concerned with a controller's diction than his
physical
> appearance, but I also don't see the big deal about Dockers and golf
shirts.

Luckily, they haven't decided to outsource ATC to India or some other such
place that *technically* speaks English... The worst that happens at present
is that if you're in the NY area, you have to be able to understand NYers...
But then again, that's just one of the expected evils that one must endure
if one travels up there...

Jeans, t-shirts, and sneakers seem acceptable to me... If the room in which
they are working is too warm, either fix the air-conditioning or don't
complain when they wear shorts...

One might argue that it is possible to still look professional in shorts in
that even the Navy has a tropical white uniform that is authorized for
certain commands that consists of short pants... Of course, they required
socks that nearly go up to the knee, so one could definitely argue whether
those were any more comfortable than normal pants with lower socks...

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Plano? Please. I'm single with no kids. You really think I'd live in
> Plano or Frisco or such? No way.

Nawh, I'm just razzing you for living so close to work and being able to
avoid the fulfillment that spending hours in traffic on the LBJ provides to
so many of the Dallas area inhabitants... <evil-grin>

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> The FAA has addressed the projected controller shortage with a reduced pay
> scale for new hires.

Thus they can afford to hire more of them... Uhhh... Wait a minute...
Something doesn't quite sound right about that... <grin>

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> Way better than an E-type. I know a guy who had three E-types so he'd
> have a better than even chance of keeping one of them on the road.

You didn't *own* the car, you just had visitation rights on the weekend...

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
...
> Ok, this was bugging me all day. I actually bought far away from work -
> I hate living near work, and actually never have. Then I got a new job
> which just happened to be with a prestigious company and I couldn't turn
> them down. Only problem was, it was only five miles up the road.
> Sucks, but what are you going to do?

Obviously, you need to move to Corsicana...

[Emily[_1_]]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ok, this was bugging me all day. I actually bought far away from work -
>> I hate living near work, and actually never have. Then I got a new job
>> which just happened to be with a prestigious company and I couldn't turn
>> them down. Only problem was, it was only five miles up the road.
>> Sucks, but what are you going to do?
>
> Obviously, you need to move to Corsicana...
>
>
Hey, at least they have good fruitcake!

[randall g]

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 10:47:51 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 04:35:17 GMT, randall g >
>wrote in >:
>
>>How would you feel about an annual charge for all the ATC you can eat?
>>Here in Canada it is $71 per year (us$64) for aircraft < 2000 kg.
>
>It is my understanding, that such aircraft are not charged for ATC
>services by Eurocontrol. How do you feel about that?

They pay a lot more tax on avgas. All things considered, I'd still
rather live in Canada.


>>I don't have a problem with that.
>
>Is NavCanada turning a profit yet? How much do you think do you think
>it will cost you for ATC services to make NavCanada profitable?

Does the FAA turn a profit? I don't follow NavCanada's finances. I'm
confident they will continue to get the vast majority of their income
from the airlines, or gov't subsidies. Even in a relatively busy
airspace such as around Vancouver, there isn't nearly as much GA as in
many parts of the US.




randall g =%^)> PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RG
http://www.telemark.net/randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
Vancouver's famous Kat Kam: http://www.katkam.ca

[Matt Whiting]

Emily wrote:
> Grumman-581 wrote:
>
>> "Emily" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Ok, this was bugging me all day. I actually bought far away from work -
>>> I hate living near work, and actually never have. Then I got a new job
>>> which just happened to be with a prestigious company and I couldn't turn
>>> them down. Only problem was, it was only five miles up the road.
>>> Sucks, but what are you going to do?
>>
>>
>> Obviously, you need to move to Corsicana...
>>
>>
> Hey, at least they have good fruitcake!

good fruitcake is an oxymoron.

Matt

[Emily[_1_]]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Emily wrote:
>> Grumman-581 wrote:
>>
>>> "Emily" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Ok, this was bugging me all day. I actually bought far away from
>>>> work -
>>>> I hate living near work, and actually never have. Then I got a new job
>>>> which just happened to be with a prestigious company and I couldn't
>>>> turn
>>>> them down. Only problem was, it was only five miles up the road.
>>>> Sucks, but what are you going to do?
>>>
>>>
>>> Obviously, you need to move to Corsicana...
>>>
>>>
>> Hey, at least they have good fruitcake!
>
> good fruitcake is an oxymoron.
>
> Matt
Oh, you've never had Corsicana fruitcake!!!!

Collins Street Bakery, google it.

[Jay Honeck]

> > Monopolies don't require a feedback loop for profitability.
>
> Well, uh... yes. That was half the point. The other half was that the
> FAA isn't even out for profitability.

Apparently you don't understand the employer-employee relationship.
What you fail to understand is that profitability is irrelevant. If
management *believes* that a dress code is best for the overall health
of the organization, then requiring workers to dress professionally is
well within their prerogitive.

Could I *measure* any direct improvement in our profits when I decided
to provide aviation-themed Hawaiian shirts (quite expensive ones, by
the way) to our desk staff employees, and required that they wear them?
Nope. But *I* thought they looked cool -- and that's all that
matters.

The FAA can require its employees to wear bullet-proof vests and Reebok
tennis shoes every day, if that's what they think is in their best
interest. You can continue to deny that this is part of the
employer-employee relationship -- but your denial won't change
anything.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> One of the other changes was the elimination of CIC pay. When a controller
> was functioning in a supervisory capacity, Controller in Charge, an
> additional 10% of base pay was earned. Over the past 18 pay periods I
> averaged $99.87 in CIC pay, so I just took an effective pay cut of almost
> $2600 per year. Would you be happy about that if you were in my place?
> Would your employees be happy about it if you imposed it on them? Why do
> you choose to ignore that change and focus on the dress code?

NOW you're talking about something substantive. Of course what you've
described is an issue -- so get your collective heads out of your
collective butts about having to dress professionally, and start
discussing the *real* issues.

> > Privatization is NOT going to be good for GA.
>
> Why not? Aren't private sector employees superior to government employees?
> If it improved FSS why wouldn't it improve ATC?

I firmly believe that privatization WOULD make ATC better. But that is
certainly NOT going to help GA.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose[_1_]]

> Then I got a new job which just happened to be with a prestigious company and I couldn't turn them down. Only problem was, it was only five miles up the road. Sucks, but what are you going to do?

Buy a house near an uncontrolled airport, silly!

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mike Adams[_2_]]

Emily > wrote:

>>> Hey, at least they have good fruitcake!
>>
>> good fruitcake is an oxymoron.
>>
>> Matt
> Oh, you've never had Corsicana fruitcake!!!!
>
> Collins Street Bakery, google it.
>

And I thought this thread had become totally irrelevant. Now you're actually talking about something
important. Absolutely no fruitcake better than Corsicana fruitcake!

Mike

[Jose[_1_]]

> Apparently you don't understand the employer-employee relationship.
> What you fail to understand is that profitability is irrelevant. If
> management *believes* that a dress code is best for the overall health
> of the organization, then requiring workers to dress professionally is
> well within their prerogitive.

.... and if Management is wrong, then the overall health of the
organization suffers. For a profit making company, that eventually
invokes Darwin. Even if you think it's cool.

The FAA is immune from Darwin.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Emily[_1_]]

Mike Adams wrote:
> Emily > wrote:
>
>>>> Hey, at least they have good fruitcake!
>>> good fruitcake is an oxymoron.
>>>
>>> Matt
>> Oh, you've never had Corsicana fruitcake!!!!
>>
>> Collins Street Bakery, google it.
>>
>
> And I thought this thread had become totally irrelevant. Now you're actually talking about something
> important. Absolutely no fruitcake better than Corsicana fruitcake!
>
> Mike
THANK you. At least someone has some sense.

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Hey, at least they have good fruitcake!

You're talking about Collins Street Bakery, right? Haven't tried their
fruitcake, but their cheesecake is definitely good...

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-09-07, John Theune > wrote:
> And with 100,000 mile spark plugs you should be doing this job every 5
> or 6 years or less.

When the donor car was made, gapping the spark plugs was an annual job.
It's only relatively recently that you've been able to do that with
spark plugs.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-09-07, Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
> Why should routine maintenance require access to the spark plugs?

Routine maintenance on OLDER cars (which the XJ12 donor car is),
removing the spark plugs and gapping them was an annual job.

Comparing your Corolla to an old XJ12 is like comparing night and day.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>> One of the other changes was the elimination of CIC pay. When a
>> controller
>> was functioning in a supervisory capacity, Controller in Charge, an
>> additional 10% of base pay was earned. Over the past 18 pay periods I
>> averaged $99.87 in CIC pay, so I just took an effective pay cut of almost
>> $2600 per year. Would you be happy about that if you were in my place?
>> Would your employees be happy about it if you imposed it on them? Why do
>> you choose to ignore that change and focus on the dress code?
>>
>
> NOW you're talking about something substantive. Of course what you've
> described is an issue -- so get your collective heads out of your
> collective butts about having to dress professionally, and start
> discussing the *real* issues.
>

Why don't you answer my questions?


>>
>> Why not? Aren't private sector employees superior to government
>> employees?
>> If it improved FSS why wouldn't it improve ATC?
>>
>
> I firmly believe that privatization WOULD make ATC better.
>

Why?


>
> But that is certainly NOT going to help GA.
>

Why not? How could an improved ATC not benefit all users?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> NOW you're talking about something substantive. Of course what you've
> described is an issue -- so get your collective heads out of your
> collective butts about having to dress professionally, and start
> discussing the *real* issues.
>

YOU started this thread. YOU are the one that focused on the dress code and
ignored the rest of the newly imposed work rules.

[Jay Honeck]

> The FAA is immune from Darwin.

Sadly, you keep making better and better arguments in favor of ATC
privatization.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Sadly, you keep making better and better arguments in favor of ATC
> privatization.
>

Why aren't you an advocate of ATC privatization? Why the inconsistency?

[Jose[_1_]]

> Sadly, you keep making better and better arguments in favor of ATC
> privatization.

A privatized ATC is also immune from Darwin. For essentially the same
reasons.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Emily" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>> "Emily" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Jose wrote:
>>>>>> Well, someone has yet to give me a way that I can fly IN MY LOCAL
>>>>>> AREA without talking to ATC.
>>>>> Sounds like a case of "if it's not in my back yard, it's not a
>>>>> problem". It reminds me of the DC ADIZ.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jose
>>>> I'm not saying anything's not a problem. If you can fly without
>>>> talking to ATC, more power to you. I can't.
>>> What, the airplane will fall out of the air if you aren't talking to
>>> someone?
>>>
>>
>> Remember Emily thinks it is unprofessional to not file a flight plan for
>> all flights.
> Uh, that was someone else.

You're right it was. Sorry Emily.

[Skylune[_1_]]

Many federal, unionized employees have an entitlement mentality. You know,
like GA pilots who want tax subsidies to support their hobby.

[Ron Lee]

"Skylune" > wrote:

>Many federal, unionized employees have an entitlement mentality. You know,
>like GA pilots who want tax subsidies to support their hobby.

What don't you understand about fuel taxes? Are you working on your
assignment showing costs and fees/taxes paid among the various
aviation groups? If not then you really should stop the GA tax
subsidy rant.

Ron Lee
>

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "Skylune" > wrote:
>
>>Many federal, unionized employees have an entitlement mentality. You
>>know,
>>like GA pilots who want tax subsidies to support their hobby.
>
> What don't you understand about fuel taxes? Are you working on your
> assignment showing costs and fees/taxes paid among the various
> aviation groups? If not then you really should stop the GA tax
> subsidy rant.
>

Skylune is an anti-aviation troll. He may even be aware that what he writes
is false, but that won't stop him from writing it.

[Jay Honeck]

> > NOW you're talking about something substantive. Of course what you've
> > described is an issue -- so get your collective heads out of your
> > collective butts about having to dress professionally, and start
> > discussing the *real* issues.
> >
>
> YOU started this thread. YOU are the one that focused on the dress code and
> ignored the rest of the newly imposed work rules.

NATCA throwing a fit about a minor dress code change was newsworthy
enough for AvWeb to pick up; thus, the thread.

My statement stands. If controllers want issues to be taken seriously,
tell your union to stop worrying about the window dressing, stop
whining about having to dress like businesspeople, and focus on the
substantive issues. Starting a dispute over this kind of stuff isn't
doing anything but make NATCA look unprofessional.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose[_1_]]

> If controllers want issues to be taken seriously,
> tell your union to stop worrying about the window dressing, stop
> whining about having to dress like businesspeople, and focus on the
> substantive issues.

If the FAA wants issues to be taken seriously, tell them to stop
dressing the window, stop treating controllers like children whose mind
stops once they are in casual clothing, and focus on the substantive
issues. Lord knows, the FAA has plenty of them.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> Why don't you answer my questions?

Because after several years of on-line sparring with you, Steven, I've
learned that your method of debate is to simply keep asking questions
until the original point is lost. It's counter-productive and results
in uncontrolled thread-drift.

> >> If it improved FSS why wouldn't it improve ATC?
> >
> > I firmly believe that privatization WOULD make ATC better.
>
> Why?

Because competitition always improves performance. If you (as an
employee) know that you can be replaced tomorrow by someone younger,
stronger, smarter, and cheaper, you will work just *that* much harder
to be a great controller. If, on the other hand, you think you're
invulnerable to discipline by management because of work rules, union
contracts, etc., a major incentive to "go the extra mile" is gone.

It's the primary reason communism fails as an economic system. Thus,
privatizing ATC would inevitably improve it.

> > But that is certainly NOT going to help GA.
> >
>
> Why not? How could an improved ATC not benefit all users?

I don't care about *all* users. GA doesn't *need* improved ATC, and
therefore shouldn't be made to pay for it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 17:48:53 GMT, (Ron Lee)
wrote in >:

>What don't you understand about fuel taxes? Are you working on your
>assignment showing costs and fees/taxes paid among the various
>aviation groups? If not then you really should stop the GA tax
>subsidy rant.


That's okay. Let him rant. It adds to his (lack of) readability.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 20:48:42 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in >:

readability = credibility

[Emily[_1_]]

Skylune wrote:
> Many federal, unionized employees have an entitlement mentality. You know,
> like GA pilots who want tax subsidies to support their hobby.
>
Oh, you'd rather tax money go to welfare mothers with 10 kids. I see.
NOW your mentality makes sense. How about you quit the crack, go to
college, and stop making babies?

[Jose[_1_]]

>>>I firmly believe that privatization WOULD make ATC better.
>> Why?
> Because competitition always improves performance.

Privatization does not mean competition.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> > Because competitition always improves performance.
>
> Privatization does not mean competition.

You think there's no one waiting in the wings to bid against
Lockheed-Martin?

I'll bet there's at least half a dozen companies, all willing to bid on
the ATC contract, all promising to do it "cheaper-faster-better"...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[john smith]

In article m>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> I'll bet there's at least half a dozen companies, all willing to bid on
> the ATC contract, all promising to do it "cheaper-faster-better"...

I believe it was one of the Mercury astronauts that made a comment about
being bothered by the fact that the construction of the capsules and
rockets went to the lowest bidder. And there were many more companies
around then doing the business than there are today.

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>Because competitition always improves performance.
>>
>>Privatization does not mean competition.
>
>
> You think there's no one waiting in the wings to bid against
> Lockheed-Martin?
>
> I'll bet there's at least half a dozen companies, all willing to bid on
> the ATC contract, all promising to do it "cheaper-faster-better"...

That isn't quite the same as what we traditionally think of as free
market competition. In a normal free market, several companies are
providing roughly the same product or service at the same time. So you
can compare the performance of multiple companies simultaneously. That
is a whole lot different than serially switching from one low bidder to
the next and HOPING that the next company really can do what they say.

Matt

[TxSrv]

Ron Lee wrote:
>> You know, like GA pilots who want tax subsidies to
>> support their hobby.
>
> What don't you understand about fuel taxes? Are you working on
> your assignment showing costs and fees/taxes paid among the various
> aviation groups? If not then you really should stop the GA tax
> subsidy rant.

The subsidy from the AIP fund for GA is small. To help out in
this "assignment," I analyzed AIP grants for a recent year. Let's
take Florida, where there's many "hobby pilots." Exactly 3% of
Florida's grant money went to GA airports, and the projects were
mostly concrete. Recreational pilots are not helped much if at
all by: lengthening a 4,000' rwy, another taxiway, fancy approach
light systems, or an ILS. None of the projects involved
resurfacing a rwy, which we'll say is beneficial to all users if
in bad shape. Also, 8 GA airports rec'd grants, meaning 103 didn't.

Fred F.

[Jose[_1_]]

> You think there's no one waiting in the wings to bid against
> Lockheed-Martin?

OF course - this is the same kind of competition we had in the cable TV
industry in the early days. The only reason there's any competition in
Cable is that the internet came, and even so, there are many political
barriers between the telephone and the cable.

Once they get the contract and have done it for a while, the startup
costs for new entrants will be just as high, but Lockheed won't have
those startup costs any more. It will be harder to bid against them.
They will also be politically entrenched.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Roger[_4_]]

On 4 Sep 2006 05:04:28 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>As of today, the FAA has imposed a dress code on their employees,
>requiring that they (*gasp!*) NOT where flip-flops and cut-offs to
>work! Amazingly, believe it or not, these employees are now actually
>going to be required to wear (*Oh-mi-God*) DRESS PANTS and a DRESS
>SHIRT to work!
>
>In the face of this terrible affront, the controller's union, NATCA,
>has decided to do the following, quoted from AvWeb:
>************************************************** ***********************************************
>What's A Union To Do?
> While the battle inside the towers and centers may (to outsiders) have
>its whimsical side, the practical impact of the new regime could be
>significant. NATCA appears determined to fight each and every violation
>of the new rules cited by management. In a memo to controllers at a
>major center (we do know which one), union leaders are urging members
>to exercise their rights to the letter. "If a supervisor tries to talk
>with you regarding the way your are dressed, it constitutes a formal
>meeting," the memo reads. "Stop the conversation immediately and ask
>for a union representative. The same approach should be used on any
>other changes in your working conditions, ask for a rep immediately.
>The Agency has a legal obligation to comply." But the memo also says
>the overall battle won't be won by individual members discussing their
>fashion challenges. "One person alone can not change the course the
>agency has decided to take," the memo says. "However, collectively we
>can unpave their course and start a new road. I and the rest of your
>elected leaders will need your help now more than ever."
>************************************************** ***********************************************
>Unbelievable! They're actually going to fight against their employer
>for dictating what they must wear to work... Apparently their right to
>look like bums in a professional setting has been violated, and the
>union is going on the offensive!

I was a computer jock. You know the ones who wore "casual" clothes
all the time. Every one else wore suites to oficial meetings. Our
group would come in wearing sweats, t-shirts, and even ... well...
never mind. Come in to work at 10:00 when every one else comes in at
7:00. However, I like most of the others in the group would go home
early to make up for coming in late.

I say, good for them! I don't trust any orginization that gives the
workers a dress code.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 07:10:29 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
om...
>>
>> "Private" > wrote in message
>> news:n76Lg.516413$IK3.107547@pd7tw1no...
>>>
>>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>>>
>>>> In the end, the point isn't what I like, or what you like -- it's what
>>>> the employer likes. If the FAA decides that it wants you to wear polka
>>>> dot clown suits every day, so be it.
>>>
>>> I will wear whatever my employer wishes, provided they also provide it.
>>
>> In that case you quite likely would find yourself pursuing other
>> opportunities.
>>
>I require my project managers to wear slacks and at least a "golf" type
>shirt when meeting clients/contractors in their offices. When entertaining
>them in a restaurant, for example, a suit/sport coat and tie are mandatory.
>
>I haven't had to buy anyone a suit yet, and I doubt I ever will.

I was a project manager in the CS department for a large multinational
corporation. The only time I ever wore a suit was at my interview.
After that I wore what I do now; slacks and a good shirt albeit I
could wear fitted shirts then. I guess I could now too, but they'd
have to let the middle out instead of taking it in.<:-))
When they had a business lunch I wore the same thing and I had
one rule. I either did business or ate lunch but never both at the
same time. It's not good for the digestion.
As long as the person takes proper care of their personal sanitation
(you don't have to open the windows when they walk in a room of turn
away when they smile) I don't care what they ware. The co-ops that
were sent home for *almost* wearing a skirt too short should have been
in our departments instead of the office areas. They probably would
have still been sent home but it would have been because the guys
weren't getting any work done.

OTOH I view restaurants and hotels as a different world than computer
geeks and Air Traffic Controllers. Even then you are only talking
about neat, clean, and wearing the company logo. As far as name tags,
since I was 21 I've never worked any where that didn't require a
security badge.

I also had a job where I did wear a work uniform if you want to call
it that. I worked in industrial instrumentation for 26 years before
going back to college and I was glad they not only provided the slacks
and monogrammed shirts, coats, jackets, and even coveralls, but did
the laundry. It was not exactly an environment that was friendly to
what you wore. We all gladly put our personal clothes in our lockers.


>
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 09:09:05 GMT, "Grumman-581"
> wrote:

>"BTIZ" > wrote in message
>news:13LLg.2729$8J2.1480@fed1read11...
>> There are also other professions, ever
>> heard of cross training?
>
>Of course that is a *possibility*, but if someone has spent a considerable
>amount of time getting good at some particular profession, it's not exactly
>reasonable to assume that they will want to just switch and go to the bottom
>of the ladder again...
>
Oh..You mean like pilots.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Jose[_1_]]

> The co-ops that
> were sent home for *almost* wearing a skirt too short should have been
> in our departments instead of the office areas.

If they "almost" wore a skirt, what =did= they wear? (or should we not
go there? :)

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Barrow]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On 4 Sep 2006 05:04:28 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>
> I say, good for them! I don't trust any orginization that gives the
> workers a dress code.

Small wonder the IT field is now over in Asia.

>

Next time you get waited on by some scraggy guy with tattoos, body piercing
and spiked hair, don't complain.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Next time you get waited on by

Serving food is different from giving vectors or writing code.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Barrow]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
> OTOH I view restaurants and hotels as a different world than computer
> geeks and Air Traffic Controllers.

True. One group meets the public and another doesn't...normally.

I do notice, in my thirty some years in the business/engineering something
of a relationship from dress (call it comportment) to attitude, to

I laugh when I hear the term "Software Engineer". Slop shop is what I've
seen.

There's casual, as appropriate, and there grunge...especially when adults
are acting like spoiled brats. (See remarks about IT in Asia; those who
thought IT was a company provided playground).

[Jose[_1_]]

> I laugh when I hear the term "Software Engineer". Slop shop is what I've
> seen.

There is sloppy code and sloppy dress. Can you demonstrate a positive
correlation between them?

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> You think there's no one waiting in the wings to bid against
> Lockheed-Martin?
>
> I'll bet there's at least half a dozen companies, all willing to bid on
> the ATC contract, all promising to do it "cheaper-faster-better"...

Who will just hire the LM workers as contractors and all you've done is
change the upper management...

[Emily[_1_]]

john smith wrote:
> In article m>,
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>> I'll bet there's at least half a dozen companies, all willing to bid on
>> the ATC contract, all promising to do it "cheaper-faster-better"...
>
> I believe it was one of the Mercury astronauts that made a comment about
> being bothered by the fact that the construction of the capsules and
> rockets went to the lowest bidder.

You might be thinking about Gus Grissom's problems with the Apollo
capsule...he hung a lemon in the simulator.

[Jose[_1_]]

> and all you've done is
> change the upper management...

Which, to be fair, sometimes makes a difference.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Travis Marlatte]

When I read it, I took it a different way. I took it as a sign of how
off-track the FAA could be in requiring such a superficial thing in the face
of other, as you have said, more important issues. The other rule changes
can be debated. Instituting a dress code and then debating it, is a waste of
time.

And another thing, no controller should report to work without having used
mouthwash...

Appearance is a funny thing. It is difficult to determine if someone just
doesn't care about their appearance or their job - or that they feel so
confident in what they do that they believe that appearance doesn't matter.
Rather than institute a dress code, find out which of these two is the
cause. For the first, fire. For the second, educate.

The guy that always dresses nicely among shorts and tee-shirts is probably
the one that is afraid someone will discover his incompetence.

I'm not a real big supporter of unions. I'm sure that there are good
examples out there but my exposure has been with people taking advantage of
union representation so that they could do the least that they could do with
maximum pay and benefits.

It would seem to me that, if the union was doing it's job, that it would be
asking union members to do their best and look their best.

-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> > NOW you're talking about something substantive. Of course what you've
>> > described is an issue -- so get your collective heads out of your
>> > collective butts about having to dress professionally, and start
>> > discussing the *real* issues.
>> >
>>
>> YOU started this thread. YOU are the one that focused on the dress code
>> and
>> ignored the rest of the newly imposed work rules.
>
> NATCA throwing a fit about a minor dress code change was newsworthy
> enough for AvWeb to pick up; thus, the thread.
>
> My statement stands. If controllers want issues to be taken seriously,
> tell your union to stop worrying about the window dressing, stop
> whining about having to dress like businesspeople, and focus on the
> substantive issues. Starting a dispute over this kind of stuff isn't
> doing anything but make NATCA look unprofessional.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
> Small wonder the IT field is now over in Asia.

No, it's going over there because the upper level managers who make these
sorts of decisions have no technical knowledge whatsoever... They think
entirely of headcount and if they can get two or three foreign heads for the
cost of one domestic head, they'll do it... They don't understand that you
are basically getting heads who can do little more than answer the ****in'
phone (and not all that well, even at that)...

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 01:40:46 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> The co-ops that
>> were sent home for *almost* wearing a skirt too short should have been
>> in our departments instead of the office areas.
>
>If they "almost" wore a skirt, what =did= they wear? (or should we not
>go there? :)
>
So you really are an attentive reader<:-))
Havent your seen one of those skirts that are low on top and high on
the bottom?


>Jose
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[[email protected]]

Yup.. These are the same people who wrote software that have us
clicking on "start" to turn off our computers,,, They comment how they
make as much if not more the ATC workers. Money doesn't seem to weed
out the bizarre so it must be the clothes they wear.....

Ducking and running.

Ben.
Jose wrote:
> > I laugh when I hear the term "Software Engineer". Slop shop is what I've
> > seen.
>
> There is sloppy code and sloppy dress. Can you demonstrate a positive
> correlation between them?
>
> Jose
> --
> There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 19:50:26 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>> On 4 Sep 2006 05:04:28 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>>
>>
>> I say, good for them! I don't trust any orginization that gives the
>> workers a dress code.
>
>Small wonder the IT field is now over in Asia.

It aint the way they dress, they work a *lot* cheaper than we did.
And the company I worked for still has their own IT forces. I use
plural as there is both the corporate of which I was part, and then
all but the smallest sites have their own.

Unfortunately when we went with a large contract for pre loaded PCs
(Thousands of PCs) from a company notorious for requiring every one to
wear suits we really got screwed.

>
>>
>
>Next time you get waited on by some scraggy guy with tattoos, body piercing
>and spiked hair, don't complain.

I did differentiate between computer geeks, ATC and restaurants.

However, I typically eat at ye ol' greasy spoon. Oriental restaurants,
the occasional curry house and the mom and pop restaurants with home
cooking. OK so I do go to Hooters and the local sports bar once in a
while. I do like their uniforms.



>
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 05:20:43 GMT, "Grumman-581"
> wrote:

>"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>> Small wonder the IT field is now over in Asia.
>
>No, it's going over there because the upper level managers who make these
>sorts of decisions have no technical knowledge whatsoever... They think
>entirely of headcount and if they can get two or three foreign heads for the
>cost of one domestic head, they'll do it... They don't understand that you
>are basically getting heads who can do little more than answer the ****in'
>phone (and not all that well, even at that)...

To be fair there are a lot of good programmers in India. They come
over here to get their degrees and then go back home to work for
peanuts compared to what we were paid. OTOH that is a fortune compared
to others in the same country. And these programmers aren't the ones
answering the phone. Like here, the help departments are the newest
hires at the bottom of the totem pole. I sometimes think they are on
the help line to practice their English because I know I've gotten
some who had no idea as to what I'd been saying.

I don't know how many times I had to explain the one problem, but
finally the woman on the other end gave me step-by-step instructions
as to what I should do. She finally understood (I think) when I
explained I'd been trying to tell here I'd already done that.
Unfortunately I'd reached a point which was beyond her and I was
passed on to another person.

OTOH some of the worst companies to deal with are state side and will
happily... er... never mind. just read Gripe Line on Verizon.


>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Matt Barrow]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>> You think there's no one waiting in the wings to bid against
>> Lockheed-Martin?
>>
>> I'll bet there's at least half a dozen companies, all willing to bid on
>> the ATC contract, all promising to do it "cheaper-faster-better"...
>
> Who will just hire the LM workers as contractors and all you've done is
> change the upper management...
>
Kinda like the Yankee's and Billy (I didn't punch that doggie)Martin...

[Matt Barrow]

> Jose wrote:
>> > I laugh when I hear the term "Software Engineer". Slop shop is what
>> > I've
>> > seen.
>>
>> There is sloppy code and sloppy dress. Can you demonstrate a positive
>> correlation between them?

Yes.

Hint: Ghetto.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Havent your seen one of those skirts that are low on top and high on
> the bottom?

With the coin slot? Yeah, I saw one in Pasadena. I guess that counts
as "almost wearing" it.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

>> There is sloppy code and sloppy dress. Can you demonstrate a positive
>> correlation between them?
> Yup.. These are the same people who wrote software that have us
> clicking on "start" to turn off our computers,,, They comment how they
> make as much if not more the ATC workers. Money doesn't seem to weed
> out the bizarre so it must be the clothes they wear.....
>
> Ducking and running.

I wonder what windows would be like if programmers were nude.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 06:22:50 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>> Jose wrote:
>>> > I laugh when I hear the term "Software Engineer". Slop shop is what
>>> > I've
>>> > seen.
>>>
>>> There is sloppy code and sloppy dress. Can you demonstrate a positive
>>> correlation between them?
>
>Yes.

We had one programmer who was always neatly dressed. I had to rewrite
a lot of his code as it was difficult to read and he didn't know what
internal documentation meant. Neat dresser, sloppy programmer albeit
the stuff worked.

So like many other things I'd have to say...some times yes and
sometimes no.


>
>Hint: Ghetto.

Ghetto = subdivision, group, or as in Brooklyn (borough)


>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[john smith]

In article >,
"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:

> We had one programmer who was always neatly dressed. I had to rewrite
> a lot of his code as it was difficult to read and he didn't know what
> internal documentation meant. Neat dresser, sloppy programmer albeit
> the stuff worked.

Wait a minute... you re-wrote his code and you are giving him credit for
it working?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> NATCA throwing a fit about a minor dress code change was newsworthy
> enough for AvWeb to pick up; thus, the thread.
>

NATCA isn't throwing a fit about a minor dress code change. What made you
think it was? The AvWeb piece you quoted refers to "the new rules cited by
management", the dress code is just one of them. It is the whole body of
newly imposed rules that is the issue. Nor did AvWeb mention cutoffs or
flip-flops, but you zeroed right in on them. It's true that shorts are
banned in the dress code, but AvWeb didn't say they were. What was your
source for that? You must have had additional information before you
started this thread. Why didn't you cite any of them?


>
> My statement stands. If controllers want issues to be taken seriously,
> tell your union to stop worrying about the window dressing, stop
> whining about having to dress like businesspeople, and focus on the
> substantive issues. Starting a dispute over this kind of stuff isn't
> doing anything but make NATCA look unprofessional.
>

NATCA doesn't listen to me. It appears to me that NATCA is focused on the
entire body of newly imposed work rules, and it is just you that is focused
on the dress code.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Because after several years of on-line sparring with you, Steven, I've
> learned that your method of debate is to simply keep asking questions
> until the original point is lost. It's counter-productive and results
> in uncontrolled thread-drift.
>

What question did I ask that doesn't address the original point you raised?

I expect you will ignore that question.


>
> Because competitition always improves performance.
>

Privatization would not bring competition. Whether provided directly by the
government or through a contractor ATC must be a monopoly.


>
> If you (as an
> employee) know that you can be replaced tomorrow by someone younger,
> stronger, smarter, and cheaper, you will work just *that* much harder
> to be a great controller. If, on the other hand, you think you're
> invulnerable to discipline by management because of work rules, union
> contracts, etc., a major incentive to "go the extra mile" is gone.
>
> It's the primary reason communism fails as an economic system. Thus,
> privatizing ATC would inevitably improve it.
>

I know I can be replaced tomorrow by someone younger, stronger, and cheaper,
but I cannot be replaced by anyone smarter.


>
> I don't care about *all* users. GA doesn't *need* improved ATC, and
> therefore shouldn't be made to pay for it.
>

Privatization doesn't require any changes in how ATC is paid for.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> You think there's no one waiting in the wings to bid against
> Lockheed-Martin?
>
> I'll bet there's at least half a dozen companies, all willing to bid on
> the ATC contract, all promising to do it "cheaper-faster-better"...
>

That may be, but that's not competition. Competition will come to ATC when
the user has his choice of providers. Of course, when that happens, ATC
will no longer be able to ensure separation.

[Ron Lee]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>>
>> You think there's no one waiting in the wings to bid against
>> Lockheed-Martin?
>>
>> I'll bet there's at least half a dozen companies, all willing to bid on
>> the ATC contract, all promising to do it "cheaper-faster-better"...
>>
>That may be, but that's not competition. Competition will come to ATC when
>the user has his choice of providers. Of course, when that happens, ATC
>will no longer be able to ensure separation.
>

That comment raises an interesting question. Let's imagine that ATC
services are bid by some logical boundary (center?). Would different
companies manning different sectors really mean a loss of separation?

My initial thought is NO. What professional ATC person will
"sabotage" any element of the system to make another company look bad?
I do see where a company will do their best to look good thus
enhancing their prospect of picking up additional sectors.

The one nagging concern is the law of unintended consequences.

Ron Lee

[Newps]

Ron Lee wrote:

>
> That comment raises an interesting question. Let's imagine that ATC
> services are bid by some logical boundary (center?). Would different
> companies manning different sectors really mean a loss of separation?
>

Of course not, that's an assinine assertion.



> My initial thought is NO. What professional ATC person will
> "sabotage" any element of the system to make another company look bad?


They all work under the same rule book.

[[email protected]]

Newps wrote:
> Ron Lee wrote:
>
> >
> > That comment raises an interesting question. Let's imagine that ATC
> > services are bid by some logical boundary (center?). Would different
> > companies manning different sectors really mean a loss of separation?
> >
>
> Of course not, that's an assinine assertion.
>
>
>
> > My initial thought is NO. What professional ATC person will
> > "sabotage" any element of the system to make another company look bad?
>
>
> They all work under the same rule book.

[[email protected]]

Hmmmmmm. Thats the beef in this whole topic. They don't want to follow
the "rule" book.......
Newps wrote:
> Ron Lee wrote:
>
> >
> > That comment raises an interesting question. Let's imagine that ATC
> > services are bid by some logical boundary (center?). Would different
> > companies manning different sectors really mean a loss of separation?
> >
>
> Of course not, that's an assinine assertion.
>
>
>
> > My initial thought is NO. What professional ATC person will
> > "sabotage" any element of the system to make another company look bad?
>
>
> They all work under the same rule book.

[Jay Honeck]

> What question did I ask that doesn't address the original point you raised?
>
> I expect you will ignore that question.

Right you are! :-)

> I know I can be replaced tomorrow by someone younger, stronger, and cheaper,
> but I cannot be replaced by anyone smarter.

<Viper>: "That's pretty arrogant, considering the company you're in.
I *like* that in a pilot."

;-)

> Privatization doesn't require any changes in how ATC is paid for.

Now that is an interesting point. Most promoters of privatizing ATC
are also in favor of additional user fees. Although you are correct in
stating that ATC could be privatized without changing the funding
structure, I haven't seen much discussion of it being done that way.

What do you think of this as a possibility?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

wrote:
> Hmmmmmm. Thats the beef in this whole topic. They don't want to follow
> the "rule" book.......


Different rule book.

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Newps" wrote)
>> That comment raises an interesting question. Let's imagine that ATC
>> services are bid by some logical boundary (center?). Would different
>> companies manning different sectors really mean a loss of separation?

> Of course not, that's an assinine assertion.

>> My initial thought is NO. What professional ATC person will
>> "sabotage" any element of the system to make another company look bad?

> They all work under the same rule book.


So did AT&T ...at one time ...not so long ago. <g>


Montblack
Wait, I'm getting a call ...drat, "dropped," again, right in the middle of
our conversation. Oh well.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Right you are! :-)
>

That's okay, we both know the answer.


>
> Now that is an interesting point. Most promoters of privatizing ATC
> are also in favor of additional user fees. Although you are correct in
> stating that ATC could be privatized without changing the funding
> structure, I haven't seen much discussion of it being done that way.
>
> What do you think of this as a possibility?
>

I think privatization is a bad idea. I think air traffic control is an
inherently government function and it should be performed by the federal
government. But I don't think runway traffic control is. I think control
towers should be operated by whatever entity owns the airport and the
federal government should limit itself to airspace and federally owned
airfields.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>>>
>>> You think there's no one waiting in the wings to bid against
>>> Lockheed-Martin?
>>>
>>> I'll bet there's at least half a dozen companies, all willing to bid on
>>> the ATC contract, all promising to do it "cheaper-faster-better"...
>>>
>>That may be, but that's not competition. Competition will come to ATC
>>when
>>the user has his choice of providers. Of course, when that happens, ATC
>>will no longer be able to ensure separation.
>>
>
> That comment raises an interesting question. Let's imagine that ATC
> services are bid by some logical boundary (center?). Would different
> companies manning different sectors really mean a loss of separation?
>

No, but different companies manning the same sectors would.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Hmmmmmm. Thats the beef in this whole topic. They don't want to follow
> the "rule" book.......
>

The "rule book" he's referring to is FAA Order 7110.65 Air Traffic Control.
The "rules" you're referring to are the new work rules imposed in lieu of a
contract.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 02:15:34 +0000, john smith wrote:

> Wait a minute... you re-wrote his code and you are giving him credit for
> it working?

It can be true. But it also shows that "working" is necessary but
insufficient for "good" (or even "decent"). Sadly, those looking in from
outside the industry cannot discern the difference. That is one reason
why so many have been burned by bad programming of one sort of another.

For example, something can work but be so fragile that it cannot withstand
any evolution of requirements (and therefore enhancement of the software).

This is why God invented Code Reviews.

- Andrew

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote

> I think privatization is a bad idea. I think air traffic control is an
> inherently government function and it should be performed by the federal
> government. But I don't think runway traffic control is. I think control
> towers should be operated by whatever entity owns the airport and the
> federal government should limit itself to airspace and federally owned
> airfields.

You know, it could be that you make more sense on this, than anything you
have ever written, here. ;-)

That it makes sense, means it will never happen, unfortunately.

Is such a split even being considered as a possibility?
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Honeck]

> > I think privatization is a bad idea. I think air traffic control is an
> > inherently government function and it should be performed by the federal
> > government. But I don't think runway traffic control is. I think control
> > towers should be operated by whatever entity owns the airport and the
> > federal government should limit itself to airspace and federally owned
> > airfields.
>
> You know, it could be that you make more sense on this, than anything you
> have ever written, here. ;-)

I agree -- that is an idea that makes a lot of sense. And it's
certainly one I've never seen proposed.

So, Steven, is this something that has been seriously discussed? Or is
this an entirely new idea that you just spawned?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose[_1_]]

> I agree -- that is an idea that makes a lot of sense. And it's
> certainly one I've never seen proposed.

Isn't that what NFCTs are?

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 02:15:34 GMT, john smith > wrote:

>In article >,
> "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
>
>> We had one programmer who was always neatly dressed. I had to rewrite
>> a lot of his code as it was difficult to read and he didn't know what
>> internal documentation meant. Neat dresser, sloppy programmer albeit
>> the stuff worked.
>
>Wait a minute... you re-wrote his code and you are giving him credit for
>it working?

That is because they did work.

He wrote working programs. They did what they were supposed to do. I
reorganized them into logical order using what is called "pretty
printing" which makes the source code easy to read for those who come
along behind. I then added internal documentation.

Both of the above are things unknown to management. They only care if
the code works for the original job.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 13:25:42 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
. net>:

>
>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>> Now that is an interesting point. Most promoters of privatizing ATC
>> are also in favor of additional user fees. Although you are correct in
>> stating that ATC could be privatized without changing the funding
>> structure, I haven't seen much discussion of it being done that way.
>>
>> What do you think of this as a possibility?
>>
>
>I think privatization is a bad idea. I think air traffic control is an
>inherently government function and it should be performed by the federal
>government. But I don't think runway traffic control is. I think control
>towers should be operated by whatever entity owns the airport and the
>federal government should limit itself to airspace and federally owned
>airfields.
>

I agree, that ATC is inherently a governmental function, but judging
from the FAA's past sluggish performance in implementing ATC upgrades,
it's going to take privatization to achieve state-of-the-art
technology required for the NAS of the 21st century. And
state-of-the-art technology (required by the airlines) is going to
cost a lot more than the current funding provides.

Of course, the need for state-of-the-art technology is based upon
projections from past growth rates. If that growth should fail to
materialize, there won't be an adequate number of users over which to
amortize the costs. In that case, the government and the users both
will be filling Boeing's or LocMart's bank accounts.

[bdl]

Jay Honeck wrote:
************************************************** *****************
> Unbelievable! They're actually going to fight against their employer
> for dictating what they must wear to work... Apparently their right to
> look like bums in a professional setting has been violated, and the
> union is going on the offensive!

I thought it was strange as well Jay, that a profession that considers
itself a very "professional" occupation (and is paid commensurately
with other professionals) dressed so shabbily. I know when I took a
tour of the STL TRACON I was surprised at how unprofessional some of
the controllers looked. It certainly didn't look like I was visiting a
place of business.

It was strange too, in that I was touring as part of an OPERATION
RAINCHECK event. Which for those who may not know is sort of an open
house for ATC.

Speaking of Operation Raincheck. At Oshkosh I asked at the NATCA tent
why we don't see more of these types of events. The answer came back
as with everything else in the aviation world, "funding". Then later
when I got home, I got to thinking about it, why is funding an issue?
On the event I went to, there were around 5 or 6 controllers there for
questions, and leading whatever discussion topic was being discussed.
There was some refreshments, but nothing of any real cost (probably
less than $1 a head),the building and equipment is already running,
obviously, so its not like they had to turn the lights on for the day
for us. Then I realized where the costs were. It was because the
controllers were getting PAID to be there with us (anybody that knows
different please correct my conclusion!)

I don't know why they would require that. I would think you would be
able to get enough volunteers to put such an event on at least once a
quarter, or probably once a month. Especially considering that by
having the dialouge with us the consumer, they could "educate" us
further in how things would be best run in our area.

For example, I was able to learn by talking with them (at least with
the approach controllers I talked to), that they HATE the "full" callup
for practice approaches, and prefer a "VFR request" followed by
position, etc.

I can't imagine this wasn't worth some amount of time on their part. I
know if I got a chance to educate my customers about things that they
could do that would improve my working experience, I would be happy to
volunteer that time.

I'm sure its a union rule that they can't volunteer their time like
that.

The dress code issue isn't about dress code. It's about a power
struggle between the union and the FAA. Each side wants to demonstrate
the power they have.

As the consumer, I'd like to be able to assume that the person on the
other end of the radio presents themselves professionally.

As an aside, it may have been in the same article, but I read recently
that the other rule the FAA put in place that has the union up in arms
is "no naps" while on breaks... Oh, and they have to stay at the
facility.....

[Jose[_1_]]

> The dress code issue isn't about dress code. It's about a power
> struggle between the union and the FAA. Each side wants to demonstrate
> the power they have.

Bingo. And I think that is the reason "little things" get so much air.

> As the consumer, I'd like to be able to assume that the person on the
> other end of the radio presents themselves professionally.

Why? The only thing they have to present is on the radio. It makes as
much sense as requring an auto mechanic to have a "dulcent telephone voice".

> As an aside, it may have been in the same article, but I read recently
> that the other rule the FAA put in place that has the union up in arms
> is "no naps" while on breaks... Oh, and they have to stay at the
> facility.....

This improves safety how? Oh yeah, what I said up top.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> Is such a split even being considered as a possibility?
>

I doubt it, but that is the way it was prior to 1942.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> I agree -- that is an idea that makes a lot of sense. And it's
> certainly one I've never seen proposed.
>
> So, Steven, is this something that has been seriously discussed? Or is
> this an entirely new idea that you just spawned?
>

It's not being discussed to my knowledge but it's not a new idea. It's the
way things were prior to Pearl Harbor.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> I agree, that ATC is inherently a governmental function, but judging
> from the FAA's past sluggish performance in implementing ATC upgrades,
> it's going to take privatization to achieve state-of-the-art
> technology required for the NAS of the 21st century. And
> state-of-the-art technology (required by the airlines) is going to
> cost a lot more than the current funding provides.
>

I see no reason to believe that privatization will improve on that.

[Don Tuite]

On 12 Sep 2006 11:50:26 -0700, "bdl" > wrote:

>Jay Honeck wrote:
>************************************************** *****************
>> Unbelievable! They're actually going to fight against their employer
>> for dictating what they must wear to work... Apparently their right to
>> look like bums in a professional setting has been violated, and the
>> union is going on the offensive!
>
>I thought it was strange as well Jay, that a profession that considers
>itself a very "professional" occupation (and is paid commensurately
>with other professionals) dressed so shabbily. I know when I took a
>tour of the STL TRACON I was surprised at how unprofessional some of
>the controllers looked. It certainly didn't look like I was visiting a
>place of business.
>
I'm not sniping at you, Brian, but your post gives me a junp-off point
for a rant:

Speaking as someone who was required to wear a jacket and tie from the
thrid grade through gradschool (well, except for 2 years in
highschool), I have to say I found it refreshing when the boomers
right behind me trashed a tradition that was clearly designed to
perpetuate stereotypes of "professionals" and "tradesmen."

They/we were, of course, almost immediately co-opted by the makers of
"designer" dungarees and so forth, but it was nice while tie-dying and
such was still a cottage industry.

At this point, it's all been taken over by big business -- to the
point where it's all part of a continuum, with even the most vulgarly
offensive crap being fronted in mass quantities in malls coast to
coast by outfits like Spencer Gifts.

So it's now just a different manifestation of what my father called
"regimented robots" when the nuns first proposed jackets and ties in
1952. But make no mistake -- outside the military, clothing has no
relationship to professionalism.

>As an aside, it may have been in the same article, but I read recently
>that the other rule the FAA put in place that has the union up in arms
>is "no naps" while on breaks... Oh, and they have to stay at the
>facility.....

Demonstrating precisely how "professional" they consider their workers
to be.

Don

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:38:59 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I agree, that ATC is inherently a governmental function, but judging
>> from the FAA's past sluggish performance in implementing ATC upgrades,
>> it's going to take privatization to achieve state-of-the-art
>> technology required for the NAS of the 21st century. And
>> state-of-the-art technology (required by the airlines) is going to
>> cost a lot more than the current funding provides.
>>
>
>I see no reason to believe that privatization will improve on that.
>

On what, swift modernization, or the increased cost of the future of
ATC?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> On what, swift modernization, or the increased cost of the future of
> ATC?
>

Both.

[bdl]

> I'm not sniping at you, Brian, but your post gives me a junp-off point
> for a rant:

Hey, its usenet, feel free :-)

> Speaking as someone who was required to wear a jacket and tie from the
> thrid grade through gradschool (well, except for 2 years in
> highschool), I have to say I found it refreshing when the boomers
> right behind me trashed a tradition that was clearly designed to
> perpetuate stereotypes of "professionals" and "tradesmen."

I've been in both types of dress code jobs. Wearing a suit and tie as
a consultant when part of my job required going behind dusty computers
and ruining the tie for that day. I've also worked from home, where
sometimes I'd still be in my bathrobe at the end of the day.

I found that I didn't work as effectively in the bathrobe. I may be
more comfortable, but not necessarily towards my work.

If controllers worked in a windowsless room all by themselves I think
it would matter less to me. But they don't. They work in a facility
with other controllers. Right next to them. Peer professionals. By
dressing to a minimum standard they are showing that they are
professional. One of the reasons the military wears uniforms is to
instill that sense of unity and esprit de corps. There is no esprit de
corps with flip flops... well there was that summer as a lifeguard but
that was the uniform... and I digress.

So while dockers and a collared shirt may not be as regimented as a
uniform its still better in my opinion than a cavalier, anything goes
attitude.

> >As an aside, it may have been in the same article, but I read recently
> >that the other rule the FAA put in place that has the union up in arms
> >is "no naps" while on breaks... Oh, and they have to stay at the
> >facility.....
>
> Demonstrating precisely how "professional" they consider their workers
> to be.

Or demonstrating how professional the workers actually are BEING, in
that they were taking naps in the facility at a time they could be
called to duty at any moment. If they were too tired to stay awake,
they should have called in sick.

Maybe making them dress up a bit will stop the "we're just lounging
around" attitude. I know its easier to take naps in my shorts and flip
flops than it would be in a suit and tie.

[bdl]

Jose wrote:
> > As the consumer, I'd like to be able to assume that the person on the
> > other end of the radio presents themselves professionally.
>
> Why? The only thing they have to present is on the radio. It makes as
> much sense as requring an auto mechanic to have a "dulcent telephone voice".

Not sure what you mean by dulcent. I do require my auto mechanics to
have a "decent" telephone voice though, since thats the primary
mechanism with which I communicate with them.

I would argue that more professional dress inspires more professional
behavior. As an example, I'd point to the NYC "graffitti" cleanup
under Guiliani, and the corresponding crime rate drops. Cleaning up
the environment promotes a more professional working environment.

> > As an aside, it may have been in the same article, but I read recently
> > that the other rule the FAA put in place that has the union up in arms
> > is "no naps" while on breaks... Oh, and they have to stay at the
> > facility.....
>
> This improves safety how? Oh yeah, what I said up top.

Um. by not having controllers sleeping? If they want to sleep they
should go home. Its more conducive to sleep anyway.

Turn it around, how does it impact safety by not letting them take naps?

[Jose[_1_]]

> I found that I didn't work as effectively in the bathrobe. I may be
> more comfortable, but not necessarily towards my work.

Was it because of the bathrobe, or because of the close proximity of the
refrigerator, TV, internet, and three kids?

> One of the reasons the military wears uniforms is to
> instill that sense of unity and esprit de corps. There is no esprit de
> corps with flip flops.

What kind of espirit de corps would improve ATC?

> Or demonstrating how professional the workers actually are BEING, in
> that they were taking naps in the facility at a time they could be
> called to duty at any moment.

Airplane pilots take naps on duty too. They are fresher when called to
duty.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> I would argue that more professional dress inspires more professional
> behavior. As an example, I'd point to the NYC "graffitti" cleanup
> under Guiliani, and the corresponding crime rate drops.

I think this is oranges and grapefruit, and an example of selective
data. Guiliani did many other things at the same time, and it may well
be that it was those other things that reduced crime. What crime in ATC
are you aiming to reduce?

> Turn it around, how does it impact safety by not letting them take naps?

Studies have shown that napping improves performance after the nap. (In
some political jobs, it arguably improves performance during the nap. :)
It is my understanding that air traffic control is a stressful job,
and that's one of the reasons scope time is limited. Anything that
would improve alertness while at the scope would be good. Naps do that
with no down side.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[bdl]

Jose wrote:
> Was it because of the bathrobe, or because of the close proximity of the
> refrigerator, TV, internet, and three kids?

I've been doing the telecommuting thing since around '95 so I've got a
lot of experience with it. Getting dressed in the morning (just like I
would with any commute) improves my performance during the day. I get
more things done. With or without the fridge, Tv, internet, and 1
kid.

I don't turn on the TV when working form home. I have the internet,
but then I have the internet at an office to. Same with the fridge.
As to the kid.. thats why I have a dedicated room in my house that is
my office. She's not allowed in when I'm working. Just like if I was
at the office she wouldn't get past the badge readers or the guards.

> What kind of espirit de corps would improve ATC?

Any kind. Workers who feel part of the same team should work better
than workers who don't. I would maintain that everybody operating to a
minimum standard would enhance that team. A person who cares about
their appearance will help with that sense of team.

Are you saying that ATC as an organization has no room for any
improvement?

> Airplane pilots take naps on duty too. They are fresher when called to
> duty.

But if the airline said they shouldn't as part of their operating
procedures you would agree that that would be ok right? Or do you
think the pilots should be able to set their own operating procedures
for their particular flight? To hell what their employers decide?

The FAA sets the standards in my opinion. And I don't think anything
outlined so far is excessive.

[bdl]

Jose wrote:
> I think this is oranges and grapefruit, and an example of selective
> data. Guiliani did many other things at the same time, and it may well
> be that it was those other things that reduced crime. What crime in ATC
> are you aiming to reduce?

Ok an example that was probably too far afield. Are you suggesting
that the beautifcation projects had no impact for the better on the
city?

> Studies have shown that napping improves performance after the nap. (In
> some political jobs, it arguably improves performance during the nap. :)
> It is my understanding that air traffic control is a stressful job,
> and that's one of the reasons scope time is limited. Anything that
> would improve alertness while at the scope would be good. Naps do that
> with no down side.

What sort of nap? Length of nap? Location of nap? How much napping
per time on shift? Whas the study specific to the ATC function?
Please provide the data. If its true that napping will help our
controllers, then the FAA should enforce naps during break times.
Provide cots and blankies and teddy bears.

[bdl]

> Studies have shown that napping improves performance after the nap.

In the article that I read, the FAA said that the napping had a
detrimental affect on performance. It meant the controllers were
groggy when returning to the scope.

So maybe the FAA has their own study.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"bdl" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Um. by not having controllers sleeping? If they want to sleep they
> should go home. Its more conducive to sleep anyway.
>
> Turn it around, how does it impact safety by not letting them take naps?
>

Letting them nap while on break makes it less likely they'll be drowsy while
on position. Is being drowsy while on position more safe or less safe?

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 20:02:30 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> On what, swift modernization, or the increased cost of the future of
>> ATC?
>>
>
>Both.
>

Well, I believe Boeing and LocMart have already developed (and
deployed) modern ATC systems (probably superior to the existing FAA
stuff), so modernization could be much more rapid than if the FAA
developed and implemented something similar.

You may be correct about the ultimate cost, but initially the
contractor would have to propose something reasonably priced to win
the bidding competition.