Govt Plates

[Mike Granby]

I see the latest batch of government approach plates are printed on
nice white paper, rather like the stuff Jepp uses. Much better! The
nasty old paper they used to use was very hard to read in low light
conditions as the contrast was rather lacking. They are always one step
behind Jepp, but at least they're trying to keep up...

[Jose[_1_]]

> I see the latest batch of government approach plates are printed on
> nice white paper,

That sure is a reason to cheer! Maybe they are also trying to compete
with free downloadable charts you can print on 8x11 paper.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Stan Prevost[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> That sure is a reason to cheer! Maybe they are also trying to compete
> with free downloadable charts you can print on 8x11 paper.
>

That would be competing with themselves.

[Jose[_1_]]

> That would be competing with themselves.

Well, yes, but that wouldn't be unheard of, would it?

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Roy Smith]

Say what you want about the FAA in general, but it's hard to say anything
bad about the charting folks. The product they produce is excellent, and
they're constantly looking for ways to improve it. You can download the
data for free on the net, or get it in printed form for fire-sale prices.

If you want to compete with them by reselling either the raw data or the
printed material for a profit, they're cool with that too.

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Mike Granby wrote:
> I see the latest batch of government approach plates are printed on
> nice white paper, rather like the stuff Jepp uses. Much better! The
> nasty old paper they used to use was very hard to read in low light
> conditions as the contrast was rather lacking. They are always one step
> behind Jepp, but at least they're trying to keep up...

I mostly use those charts as backups to my own printed or electronic
charts, so I am more than willing to sacrifice quality for lower price
and weight. A higher grade paper will weigh more and may take up more
space. I hope that doesn't mean the price is going up.

[Mike Granby]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

> A higher grade paper will weigh
> more and may take up more space.

That doesn't appear to be true. The NE4 pack, at least, is actually
takes up less space than it did when it was printed on the old paper.
The new stuff is therefore presumably thinner, even though it's more
opaque and whiter in color.

> I hope that doesn't mean
> the price is going up.

I paid the same for this lot as the last lot, but who knows?

[Sam Spade]

Roy Smith wrote:
> Say what you want about the FAA in general, but it's hard to say anything
> bad about the charting folks. The product they produce is excellent, and
> they're constantly looking for ways to improve it. You can download the
> data for free on the net, or get it in printed form for fire-sale prices.
>
And, if/when users fees take root, those NACO charts will no longer be free.

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Sam Spade wrote:
> Roy Smith wrote:
> > Say what you want about the FAA in general, but it's hard to say anything
> > bad about the charting folks. The product they produce is excellent, and
> > they're constantly looking for ways to improve it. You can download the
> > data for free on the net, or get it in printed form for fire-sale prices.
> >
> And, if/when users fees take root, those NACO charts will no longer be free.

That's a good point I never thought about. The biggest difference
between the Canadian user fee-based system and the U.S. is the free
availablility of charts. This has made possible a number of aviation
technologies, such as laptop/PDA based charts and moving maps, Airnav
etc and a huge number of online services. As far as I know, such things
don't exist in Canada. Charts are very expensive and not readily
available. A U.S. pilot who is used to online products will find it
very difficult to fly in Canada (I did).

[Matt Barrow]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> Roy Smith wrote:
>> Say what you want about the FAA in general, but it's hard to say anything
>> bad about the charting folks. The product they produce is excellent, and
>> they're constantly looking for ways to improve it. You can download the
>> data for free on the net, or get it in printed form for fire-sale prices.
>>
> And, if/when users fees take root, those NACO charts will no longer be
> free.

Just you wait until health care is free!!!

[Sam Spade]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Roy Smith wrote:
>>
>>>Say what you want about the FAA in general, but it's hard to say anything
>>>bad about the charting folks. The product they produce is excellent, and
>>>they're constantly looking for ways to improve it. You can download the
>>>data for free on the net, or get it in printed form for fire-sale prices.
>>>
>>
>>And, if/when users fees take root, those NACO charts will no longer be
>>free.
>
>
> Just you wait until health care is free!!!
>
>
So, what does health care have to do with government approach charts?
And, why would I want to "just wait?"

[Matt Barrow]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Roy Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>>Say what you want about the FAA in general, but it's hard to say
>>>>anything bad about the charting folks. The product they produce is
>>>>excellent, and they're constantly looking for ways to improve it. You
>>>>can download the data for free on the net, or get it in printed form for
>>>>fire-sale prices.
>>>>
>>>
>>>And, if/when users fees take root, those NACO charts will no longer be
>>>free.
>>
>>
>> Just you wait until health care is free!!!
> So, what does health care have to do with government approach charts? And,
> why would I want to "just wait?"

If you're lame-brained (as you've amply demonstrated), there's nothing I can
do to help.

Go back and play ****house lawyer.

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Roy Smith wrote:
> >> Say what you want about the FAA in general, but it's hard to say anything
> >> bad about the charting folks. The product they produce is excellent, and
> >> they're constantly looking for ways to improve it. You can download the
> >> data for free on the net, or get it in printed form for fire-sale prices.
> >>
> > And, if/when users fees take root, those NACO charts will no longer be
> > free.
>
> Just you wait until health care is free!!!

I am assuming your trying to say that health care will get worse if it
becomes free. Well, in that case you are arguing against your own
point.

NACO charts are free. It is like free medical care. It is a great
system and works wonderfully. It has inspired many products and
services that don't exist in countries that have user fees. User fees
will wipe all of them except the big ones (like Jepp) and service will
deteriorate.

[Sam Spade]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>>"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Roy Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>>Say what you want about the FAA in general, but it's hard to say anything
>>>>bad about the charting folks. The product they produce is excellent, and
>>>>they're constantly looking for ways to improve it. You can download the
>>>>data for free on the net, or get it in printed form for fire-sale prices.
>>>>
>>>
>>>And, if/when users fees take root, those NACO charts will no longer be
>>>free.
>>
>>Just you wait until health care is free!!!
>
>
> I am assuming your trying to say that health care will get worse if it
> becomes free. Well, in that case you are arguing against your own
> point.
>
> NACO charts are free. It is like free medical care. It is a great
> system and works wonderfully. It has inspired many products and
> services that don't exist in countries that have user fees. User fees
> will wipe all of them except the big ones (like Jepp) and service will
> deteriorate.
>

You are trying to reason with another Usenet arrogant ass.

[Sam Spade]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>>"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Roy Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Say what you want about the FAA in general, but it's hard to say
>>>>>anything bad about the charting folks. The product they produce is
>>>>>excellent, and they're constantly looking for ways to improve it. You
>>>>>can download the data for free on the net, or get it in printed form for
>>>>>fire-sale prices.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And, if/when users fees take root, those NACO charts will no longer be
>>>>free.
>>>
>>>
>>>Just you wait until health care is free!!!
>>
>>So, what does health care have to do with government approach charts? And,
>>why would I want to "just wait?"
>
>
> If you're lame-brained (as you've amply demonstrated), there's nothing I can
> do to help.
>
> Go back and play ****house lawyer.
>
>
Why do people have to be such assholes.

Now, go back to your gunrack pickup and your high-school drop-out pals.

[Sam Spade]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

>
> NACO charts are free. It is like free medical care. It is a great
> system and works wonderfully. It has inspired many products and
> services that don't exist in countries that have user fees. User fees
> will wipe all of them except the big ones (like Jepp) and service will
> deteriorate.
>

For those who don't remember, NACO used to be NOAA, which was not part
of the FAA. Several years ago, the department (Commerce I believe) that
owned NOAA wanted to do away with the charting entity; i.e., no more
government charts except for those charts the direct beneficaries wanted
to pony up to save.

A lot of folks thought at the time that the FAA would pick up Sectionals
and perhaps WACs because no one else charts aeronautical topo/nav
charts. The FAA was flush enough at the time to pick up the entire
charting unit.

Next phase will likely be to equate NACO IFR products with Sectionals;
i.e., Sectionals cost quite a bit in paper format.

Once user fees take hold the NACO IFR products will be priced out of
existence.

The airlines have always driven the aviation agenda in this country.
And, they are now broke for the most part and the prime mover behind
user fees.

[Mitty]

You know, the thread was about plates. Maybe you could consider moving to
someplace like alt.peoplewithoutlives or rec.politicalcrap with your postings?
It would really improve the atmosphere around here.

On 11/19/2006 9:19 PM, Matt Barrow wrote the following:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Roy Smith wrote:
>>> Say what you want about the FAA in general, but it's hard to say anything
>>> bad about the charting folks. The product they produce is excellent, and
>>> they're constantly looking for ways to improve it. You can download the
>>> data for free on the net, or get it in printed form for fire-sale prices.
>>>
>> And, if/when users fees take root, those NACO charts will no longer be
>> free.
>
> Just you wait until health care is free!!!
>
>

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Andrew Sarangan" > said:
>> And, if/when users fees take root, those NACO charts will no longer be free.
>
>That's a good point I never thought about. The biggest difference
>between the Canadian user fee-based system and the U.S. is the free
>availablility of charts. This has made possible a number of aviation
>technologies, such as laptop/PDA based charts and moving maps, Airnav
>etc and a huge number of online services. As far as I know, such things

At one time, you could order Canadian digital data from Energy Mines and
Resources Canada much like you can from the FAA. That went away when
NavCanada took over.

>don't exist in Canada. Charts are very expensive and not readily
>available. A U.S. pilot who is used to online products will find it
>very difficult to fly in Canada (I did).

On the other hand, when I forgot to bring my low altitude en-route chart
on a trip to Ottawa, I just walked into a map store in downtown Ottawa and
bought a new one. Try doing *that* in most US cities.

I fly to Canada often enough that I subscribe to the charts from
NavCanada. A year's worth of Canada Flight Supplements costs about as
much as two would cost you in Canada, or about what one would cost you
from Sporties.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical reasons* why it is
necessary to sacrifice a young goat to your SCSI chain now and then.

[Matt Whiting]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

> NACO charts are free. It is like free medical care. It is a great
> system and works wonderfully. It has inspired many products and
> services that don't exist in countries that have user fees. User fees
> will wipe all of them except the big ones (like Jepp) and service will
> deteriorate.

Nothing is free. NACO charts are simply paid for from general revenue
from taxes rather than a separate fee. Same with healthcare in
countries where it isn't a fee-based system. Just look at their tax
structures...

Matt

[Travis Marlatte]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>
>> NACO charts are free. It is like free medical care. It is a great
>> system and works wonderfully. It has inspired many products and
>> services that don't exist in countries that have user fees. User fees
>> will wipe all of them except the big ones (like Jepp) and service will
>> deteriorate.
>
> Nothing is free. NACO charts are simply paid for from general revenue
> from taxes rather than a separate fee. Same with healthcare in countries
> where it isn't a fee-based system. Just look at their tax structures...
>
> Matt

I see many pieces that can be separated out. 1) One is the collection and
dissemination of the data. 2) Another is making electronic versions of the
charts available. This seems like a fairly small by-product of managing the
data in the first place. 3) Another is printing and distributing the bound
chart books.

There are already private companies doing 3) either with their own
proprietary versions like Jepp or simply printing and distributing the
government version (electronically or on paper).

Is there any way to determine what the financial burden on the government is
from 2) and 3) separately?
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

[Matt Barrow]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>>
>> Just you wait until health care is free!!!
>
> I am assuming your trying to say that health care will get worse if it
> becomes free. Well, in that case you are arguing against your own
> point.
>
> NACO charts are free. It is like free medical care. It is a great
> system and works wonderfully. It has inspired many products and
> services that don't exist in countries that have user fees. User fees
> will wipe all of them except the big ones (like Jepp) and service will
> deteriorate.

An example would be...?

[Matt Barrow]

"Mitty" > wrote in message
...
> You know, the thread was about plates. Maybe you could consider moving to
> someplace like alt.peoplewithoutlives or rec.politicalcrap with your
> postings? It would really improve the atmosphere around here.

The best way to improve the atmosphere is for you to commit suicide, you
clueless puke.

[Sam Spade]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>
>> NACO charts are free. It is like free medical care. It is a great
>> system and works wonderfully. It has inspired many products and
>> services that don't exist in countries that have user fees. User fees
>> will wipe all of them except the big ones (like Jepp) and service will
>> deteriorate.
>
>
> Nothing is free. NACO charts are simply paid for from general revenue
> from taxes rather than a separate fee. Same with healthcare in
> countries where it isn't a fee-based system. Just look at their tax
> structures...
>
> Matt

Nonetheless, a lot of people in this country think such things are free.
In some sense the charts are "free," because the pilot flies his
airplane (which probably cost more than most folks cars) using charts
paid for mostly by taxpayers who don't pilot aircraft.

[Matt Whiting]

Sam Spade wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>>
>>> NACO charts are free. It is like free medical care. It is a great
>>> system and works wonderfully. It has inspired many products and
>>> services that don't exist in countries that have user fees. User fees
>>> will wipe all of them except the big ones (like Jepp) and service will
>>> deteriorate.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nothing is free. NACO charts are simply paid for from general revenue
>> from taxes rather than a separate fee. Same with healthcare in
>> countries where it isn't a fee-based system. Just look at their tax
>> structures...
>>
>> Matt
>
>
> Nonetheless, a lot of people in this country think such things are free.
> In some sense the charts are "free," because the pilot flies his
> airplane (which probably cost more than most folks cars) using charts
> paid for mostly by taxpayers who don't pilot aircraft.

I have no idea if that is true or not. I believe that AOPA has made
some credible arguments in the past that GA pays its way pretty well
with the fuel taxes we pay, but I can't find anything at the moment one
way or the other on this front.

Matt

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> In a previous article, "Andrew Sarangan" > said:
> >> And, if/when users fees take root, those NACO charts will no longer be free.
> >
> >That's a good point I never thought about. The biggest difference
> >between the Canadian user fee-based system and the U.S. is the free
> >availablility of charts. This has made possible a number of aviation
> >technologies, such as laptop/PDA based charts and moving maps, Airnav
> >etc and a huge number of online services. As far as I know, such things
>
> At one time, you could order Canadian digital data from Energy Mines and
> Resources Canada much like you can from the FAA. That went away when
> NavCanada took over.
>
> >don't exist in Canada. Charts are very expensive and not readily
> >available. A U.S. pilot who is used to online products will find it
> >very difficult to fly in Canada (I did).
>
> On the other hand, when I forgot to bring my low altitude en-route chart
> on a trip to Ottawa, I just walked into a map store in downtown Ottawa and
> bought a new one. Try doing *that* in most US cities.
>
> I fly to Canada often enough that I subscribe to the charts from
> NavCanada. A year's worth of Canada Flight Supplements costs about as
> much as two would cost you in Canada, or about what one would cost you
> from Sporties.
>

I don't fly to Canada enough to justify a subscription. Heck, I don't
even have a U.S subscription. I normally don't think about the flight
until a couple of days before, and in many cases the night before. As a
result I had to fly many times in Canada with expired charts. If I
don't have the U.S. charts, all I need is an internet access, even if
it is 1am on a Sunday morning. Try that in downtown Ottawa. I know
because I lived in Ottawa for several years as a graduate student.

[Sam Spade]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>>>
>>>> NACO charts are free. It is like free medical care. It is a great
>>>> system and works wonderfully. It has inspired many products and
>>>> services that don't exist in countries that have user fees. User fees
>>>> will wipe all of them except the big ones (like Jepp) and service will
>>>> deteriorate.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nothing is free. NACO charts are simply paid for from general
>>> revenue from taxes rather than a separate fee. Same with healthcare
>>> in countries where it isn't a fee-based system. Just look at their
>>> tax structures...
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>>
>>
>> Nonetheless, a lot of people in this country think such things are
>> free. In some sense the charts are "free," because the pilot flies
>> his airplane (which probably cost more than most folks cars) using
>> charts paid for mostly by taxpayers who don't pilot aircraft.
>
>
> I have no idea if that is true or not. I believe that AOPA has made
> some credible arguments in the past that GA pays its way pretty well
> with the fuel taxes we pay, but I can't find anything at the moment one
> way or the other on this front.
>
> Matt

When Phil Boyer makes those statements he is speaking in terms of ATC
and FSS services. I doubt AOPA's bean counters have even considered
NACO chart services.

My cursory view is that no one in aviation is paying the full costs of
the FAA, including ATC and all the other activities of the FAA. The
place is really, really burdened with lots of high salaries, lots of
bloated, inefficent contracts, and not very good productivity.

[[email protected]]

Sam Spade wrote:
>
> When Phil Boyer makes those statements he is speaking in terms of ATC
> and FSS services. I doubt AOPA's bean counters have even considered
> NACO chart services.
>

Aren't the DOD charts damn similar to the NACO ones? Doesn't that mean
that there is some sharing of money and manpower between FAA and DOD?

[Sam Spade]

wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>When Phil Boyer makes those statements he is speaking in terms of ATC
>>and FSS services. I doubt AOPA's bean counters have even considered
>>NACO chart services.
>>
>
>
> Aren't the DOD charts damn similar to the NACO ones? Doesn't that mean
> that there is some sharing of money and manpower between FAA and DOD?
>

No, they are similar because both NACO and the DOD are bound by very
formal interagency charting specifications, which go to the detail of
font size and type, method of portraying graphics, what is to be in the
plan and profile views, and so forth.

Also, the military does its own procedures design so it is all a
standalone operation and quite seperate from both the FAA procedures
design function and the subsequent design of charts.

The last I knew the DOD charting function was in St. Louis. NACO is in
Maryland.

The FAA does get involved with a very small number of military
procedures, typically at joint use airports.

[Jim Macklin]

The FAA and ATC exist to serve the military. The airlines
are a justification on the budget. GA is forced to use ATC
because in the past 50-60 years the FAA expanded the scope
of controlled airspace to be everywhere. 25 years ago there
were large areas that were uncontrolled below 14.500 feet.


> wrote in message
ps.com...
|
| Sam Spade wrote:
| >
| > When Phil Boyer makes those statements he is speaking in
terms of ATC
| > and FSS services. I doubt AOPA's bean counters have
even considered
| > NACO chart services.
| >
|
| Aren't the DOD charts damn similar to the NACO ones?
Doesn't that mean
| that there is some sharing of money and manpower between
FAA and DOD?
|

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Jim Macklin" > wrote:

> The FAA and ATC exist to serve the military. The airlines
> are a justification on the budget. GA is forced to use ATC
> because in the past 50-60 years the FAA expanded the scope
> of controlled airspace to be everywhere. 25 years ago there
> were large areas that were uncontrolled below 14.500 feet.

where do you come up with this?

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

[Mike Granby]

Sam Spade wrote:

> I doubt AOPA's bean counters have
> even considered NACO chart services.

Remember that any product of the federal government is free of
copyright by law, and is therefore in the public domain. They'd have to
spin the NACO service into a private agency if they wanted to stop
other people distributing the charting data.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Sam Spade > said:
>Also, the military does its own procedures design so it is all a
>standalone operation and quite seperate from both the FAA procedures
>design function and the subsequent design of charts.
>
>The last I knew the DOD charting function was in St. Louis. NACO is in
>Maryland.
>
>The FAA does get involved with a very small number of military
>procedures, typically at joint use airports.

As an example, a few years ago I was flying my wife to "parents weekend"
at Mt. Holyoke College. I was looking at the instrument approaches in CEF
(Westover MA) and saw a step down fix that I couldn't see how to identify.
I asked here, and somebody alerted the FAA, and they alerted the military
(and I got CC'ed in the conversation which was fascinating) and it turns
out you could only identify it with TACAN. The chart was modified, and
the military got a separate chart for a TACAN approach.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Surely the 98% of DNA we share with monkeys must be enough to stop
people from sinking this low.
-- Frossie

[Jim Macklin]

All ATC facilities were moved to remote locations [as much
as possible] including airport towers. All ATC personnel
have military security clearance. In the event of attack,
ATC is expected to provide service to the military. If it
wasn't for the airline and GA user, the services ATC
provides the military would still be needed and the budget
would come solely from the military budget.

As far as controlled airspace, I still have my old charts
that show a few 10 mile wide airways isolated in most
western states. Today, the same places are all controlled
above 1200 feet. But traffic did not increase, it was just
the FAA budget.

Why do you think the FAA was designed to do what it does?



"Bob Noel" > wrote in
message
...
| In article >,
| "Jim Macklin" >
wrote:
|
| > The FAA and ATC exist to serve the military. The
airlines
| > are a justification on the budget. GA is forced to use
ATC
| > because in the past 50-60 years the FAA expanded the
scope
| > of controlled airspace to be everywhere. 25 years ago
there
| > were large areas that were uncontrolled below 14.500
feet.
|
| where do you come up with this?
|
| --
| Bob Noel
| Looking for a sig the
| lawyers will hate
|

[Newps]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> The FAA and ATC exist to serve the military.



That's funny. The military couldn't care less about the FAA.

[Newps]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> All ATC facilities were moved to remote locations [as much
> as possible] including airport towers.

No such thing happened.



All ATC personnel
> have military security clearance.


I have an FBI security clearance, not military. Huge difference.





In the event of attack,
> ATC is expected to provide service to the military.


There are no such standing orders. 9/11 proved that beyond a shadow of
a doubt.




If it
> wasn't for the airline and GA user, the services ATC
> provides the military would still be needed and the budget
> would come solely from the military budget.

If it wasn't for the airlines and GA 99% of ATC wouldn't be needed at all.



>
> As far as controlled airspace, I still have my old charts
> that show a few 10 mile wide airways isolated in most
> western states. Today, the same places are all controlled
> above 1200 feet. But traffic did not increase, it was just
> the FAA budget.


Better take a look at your charts of the western US again. We have
tremendous amounts of class G, within 35 miles of my class C airport the
class E doesn't start until 10,000. And there's a hell of a lot more
traffic out here now than 50 years ago.


>
> Why do you think the FAA was designed to do what it does?

Airlines.

[Jim Macklin]

So? The FAA has specific duties to provide services to the
military in time of war. If it was only ATC for the civil
market, the government would leave the area to the airlines,
as it was prior to WWII and GA didn't fly IFR under control,
just using the big sky principle.



"Newps" > wrote in message
...
|
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > The FAA and ATC exist to serve the military.
|
|
|
| That's funny. The military couldn't care less about the
FAA.

[Jim Macklin]

Ask for the FOIA on Congressional hearings and budget.



"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
|
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > All ATC facilities were moved to remote locations [as
much
| > as possible] including airport towers.
|
| No such thing happened.
|
|
|
| All ATC personnel
| > have military security clearance.
|
|
| I have an FBI security clearance, not military. Huge
difference.
|
|
|
|
|
| In the event of attack,
| > ATC is expected to provide service to the military.
|
|
| There are no such standing orders. 9/11 proved that
beyond a shadow of
| a doubt.
|
|
|
|
| If it
| > wasn't for the airline and GA user, the services ATC
| > provides the military would still be needed and the
budget
| > would come solely from the military budget.
|
| If it wasn't for the airlines and GA 99% of ATC wouldn't
be needed at all.
|
|
|
| >
| > As far as controlled airspace, I still have my old
charts
| > that show a few 10 mile wide airways isolated in most
| > western states. Today, the same places are all
controlled
| > above 1200 feet. But traffic did not increase, it was
just
| > the FAA budget.
|
|
| Better take a look at your charts of the western US again.
We have
| tremendous amounts of class G, within 35 miles of my class
C airport the
| class E doesn't start until 10,000. And there's a hell of
a lot more
| traffic out here now than 50 years ago.
|
|
| >
| > Why do you think the FAA was designed to do what it
does?
|
| Airlines.

[Newps]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> So? The FAA has specific duties to provide services to the
> military in time of war.

The FAA's duties don't change in times of war. They would have told me.


If it was only ATC for the civil
> market, the government would leave the area to the airlines,

The feds did that to start with and the airlines had a midair. And here
we are.

[Newps]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Ask for the FOIA on Congressional hearings and budget.

I don't need to, it's a ridiculous argument.

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> All ATC facilities were moved to remote locations [as much
> as possible] including airport towers.


OK, I'll bite. Name ONE remote tower.


Karl

[Sam Spade]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> The FAA and ATC exist to serve the military. The airlines
> are a justification on the budget. GA is forced to use ATC
> because in the past 50-60 years the FAA expanded the scope
> of controlled airspace to be everywhere. 25 years ago there
> were large areas that were uncontrolled below 14.500 feet.
>

Your not the only one to make the argument that the FAA exists to serve
the military. The last time that was factually correct was during World
War II.

It is all about the airlines.

As to controlled airspace, what adverse impact does lowering Class E
airspace below 14,500 (known at one time as the Continental Control
Area) have on GA? What imposition does Class E impose upon the VFR
pilot, other than to have the transponder turned on?

As to IFR operations, light aircraft would be precluded from using the
system without Class E airspace below 14,500.

I started flying IFR in 1956. We didn't even have to have a radio to go
into most towered airports then. But, the folks I flew for in the early
days didn't think that was very smart so we had radios.

Airways were far more limited then and direct routing off airways was
usually impossible because of the lack of controlled airspace beyond the
limits of the airways. We have a lot more flexible system today for IFR
operations because of large areas of Class E airspace.

Class B and C airspace comprises a very small percentage of the total
airspace in the country. Those classes were not established to enhance
IFR operations; rather, they were enacted to mitigate collision risk.
Most of the world had some type of restrictive terminal control areas
before the FAA went there.

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Jim Macklin wrote:
>
>> The FAA and ATC exist to serve the military.
>
>
>
>
> That's funny. The military couldn't care less about the FAA.

Since you enjoy funny stories about the FAA ;-) here is one for you:

A few years ago when El Toro Marine Air Station closed, John Wayne
(Orange, County, CA KSNA) lost the eastern half of its Class C airspace.
The airspace was bifurcated like that because of a giant screw up
years ago. Some regional FAA grunt thought El Toro would be there
forever, so they did it that way. The entire area was needed for John
Wayne Airport; not so for El Toro.

So, in the rucus that ensued to get the Class C back the way it was
meant to be there were more than a couple of conference calls. The
airspace lady in the Western Pacific Region made the following
outrageous statement on a phone call with union reps, airline managers,
ATC managers, and ATA folks, "The FAA is subserviant to the military.
The FAA does not own any airspace. All airspace in the United States is
owned by the military."

[Sam Spade]

Mike Granby wrote:

> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>
>>I doubt AOPA's bean counters have
>>even considered NACO chart services.
>
>
> Remember that any product of the federal government is free of
> copyright by law, and is therefore in the public domain. They'd have to
> spin the NACO service into a private agency if they wanted to stop
> other people distributing the charting data.
>
And, you think NACO would not go private in the event ATC goes there?

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:
"The FAA is subserviant to the military.
> The FAA does not own any airspace. All airspace in the United States is
> owned by the military."


That's not true either. That flies in the face of civilian control of
the military. The military doesn't demand anything in a national
emergency. They do what they're told, as it should be.

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Sam Spade wrote:
> "The FAA is subserviant to the military.
>
>> The FAA does not own any airspace. All airspace in the United States
>> is owned by the military."
>
>
>
> That's not true either. That flies in the face of civilian control of
> the military. The military doesn't demand anything in a national
> emergency. They do what they're told, as it should be.

I was passing it on to you because it is absurb; as in you will find
this humorous.

Gee wiz, I guess you didn't find it funndy.

[Jim Macklin]

Wichita, Kansas tower was removed from terminal building and
located in a secure building with no place to hide a bomb.

Topeka, Kansas, the tower was moved into the center of the
airport behind the fences.

All over the country, towers are being relocated, still on
the airport, but in a secure new building.



"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| > All ATC facilities were moved to remote locations [as
much
| > as possible] including airport towers.
|
|
| OK, I'll bite. Name ONE remote tower.
|
|
| Karl
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

You can fly under IFR rules in uncontrolled airspace Class
G.


"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > The FAA and ATC exist to serve the military. The
airlines
| > are a justification on the budget. GA is forced to use
ATC
| > because in the past 50-60 years the FAA expanded the
scope
| > of controlled airspace to be everywhere. 25 years ago
there
| > were large areas that were uncontrolled below 14.500
feet.
| >
|
| Your not the only one to make the argument that the FAA
exists to serve
| the military. The last time that was factually correct
was during World
| War II.
|
| It is all about the airlines.
|
| As to controlled airspace, what adverse impact does
lowering Class E
| airspace below 14,500 (known at one time as the
Continental Control
| Area) have on GA? What imposition does Class E impose
upon the VFR
| pilot, other than to have the transponder turned on?
|
| As to IFR operations, light aircraft would be precluded
from using the
| system without Class E airspace below 14,500.
|
| I started flying IFR in 1956. We didn't even have to have
a radio to go
| into most towered airports then. But, the folks I flew
for in the early
| days didn't think that was very smart so we had radios.
|
| Airways were far more limited then and direct routing off
airways was
| usually impossible because of the lack of controlled
airspace beyond the
| limits of the airways. We have a lot more flexible system
today for IFR
| operations because of large areas of Class E airspace.
|
| Class B and C airspace comprises a very small percentage
of the total
| airspace in the country. Those classes were not
established to enhance
| IFR operations; rather, they were enacted to mitigate
collision risk.
| Most of the world had some type of restrictive terminal
control areas
| before the FAA went there.

[Doug[_1_]]

>All over the country, towers are being relocated, still on
>the airport, but in a secure new building.

Federal construction money. PORK!!!

[Newps]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> You can fly under IFR rules in uncontrolled airspace Class
> G.


Sure, but nobody does because it is too impractical.

[Newps]

Towers are being built on a pretty standard schedule. We just went thru
this process here. No tower is being built simply for security reasons.

Doug wrote:

>>All over the country, towers are being relocated, still on
>>the airport, but in a secure new building.
>
>
> Federal construction money. PORK!!!
>

[Jim Macklin]

Only because the areas left above 1200 feet are too small
and isolated.


"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
|
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > You can fly under IFR rules in uncontrolled airspace
Class
| > G.
|
|
| Sure, but nobody does because it is too impractical.

[Jim Macklin]

security, the new federal buildings have no shrubbery close
to the buildings where a bomb could be hidden. They do not
have passengers and baggage.

It is a change to increase security.



"Doug" > wrote in message
ups.com...
| >All over the country, towers are being relocated, still
on
| >the airport, but in a secure new building.
|
| Federal construction money. PORK!!!
|

[Jim Macklin]

simply?



"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
| Towers are being built on a pretty standard schedule. We
just went thru
| this process here. No tower is being built simply for
security reasons.
|
| Doug wrote:
|
| >>All over the country, towers are being relocated, still
on
| >>the airport, but in a secure new building.
| >
| >
| > Federal construction money. PORK!!!
| >

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Jim Macklin" > wrote:

> Wichita, Kansas tower was removed from terminal building and
> located in a secure building with no place to hide a bomb.
>
> Topeka, Kansas, the tower was moved into the center of the
> airport behind the fences.
>
> All over the country, towers are being relocated, still on
> the airport, but in a secure new building.

None are "remote" towers.

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

[Ron Natalie]

karl gruber wrote:
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> ...
>> All ATC facilities were moved to remote locations [as much
>> as possible] including airport towers.
>
>
> OK, I'll bite. Name ONE remote tower.
>
Not the local control, but a lot of the TRACONs which were
in the tower radar rooms have been moved. For example,
BWI's approach controllers are over 50 miles away in the
consolidated Potomac TRACON (which is located in Vint
Hill Farm, an old Army property). It provides control
from Richmond on up to halfway to Philly.

[Ron Natalie]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Jim Macklin wrote:
>> You can fly under IFR rules in uncontrolled airspace Class G.
>
>
> Sure, but nobody does because it is too impractical.

People do it all the time. You could never get off a
field without a control zone (er um, surface area of
controlled airspace designated for an airport) with out it.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Ron Natalie > wrote:

> > OK, I'll bite. Name ONE remote tower.
> >
> Not the local control, but a lot of the TRACONs which were
> in the tower radar rooms have been moved. For example,
> BWI's approach controllers are over 50 miles away in the
> consolidated Potomac TRACON (which is located in Vint
> Hill Farm, an old Army property). It provides control
> from Richmond on up to halfway to Philly.

"remote TRACONS" have been in the works for years, waaaay
before 911. The FAA was looking to consoladate facilities in order
to save money. The military has nothing nada zippo to do with it.

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

[Newps]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Only because the areas left above 1200 feet are too small
> and isolated.

Not west of the Mississippi.

[Newps]

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article >,
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote:
>
>
>>Wichita, Kansas tower was removed from terminal building and
>>located in a secure building with no place to hide a bomb.
>>
>>Topeka, Kansas, the tower was moved into the center of the
>>airport behind the fences.
>>
>>All over the country, towers are being relocated, still on
>>the airport, but in a secure new building.
>
>
> None are "remote" towers.
>

And all were scheduled long ago for replacement.

[Newps]

Ron Natalie wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Jim Macklin wrote:
>>
>>> You can fly under IFR rules in uncontrolled airspace Class G.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sure, but nobody does because it is too impractical.
>
>
> People do it all the time. You could never get off a
> field without a control zone (er um, surface area of
> controlled airspace designated for an airport) with out it.

That's not what he meant.

[Sam Spade]

Bob Noel wrote:

>
>
> "remote TRACONS" have been in the works for years, waaaay
> before 911. The FAA was looking to consoladate facilities in order
> to save money. The military has nothing nada zippo to do with it.
>

SoCal has been around for at least 10 years.

These combined super tracons work a whole lot better than the old way.

[karl gruber[_1_]]

But not "remote."

Towers have been being replaced for decades.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG



"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> Wichita, Kansas tower was removed from terminal building and
> located in a secure building with no place to hide a bomb.
>
> Topeka, Kansas, the tower was moved into the center of the
> airport behind the fences.
>
> All over the country, towers are being relocated, still on
> the airport, but in a secure new building.
>
>
>
> "karl gruber" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | "Jim Macklin" > wrote
> in message
> | ...
> | > All ATC facilities were moved to remote locations [as
> much
> | > as possible] including airport towers.
> |
> |
> | OK, I'll bite. Name ONE remote tower.
> |
> |
> | Karl
> |
> |
>
>

[Sam Spade]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> You can fly under IFR rules in uncontrolled airspace Class
> G.
>
Well, yes, technically you can but what do you do for an instrument
approach when you cannot leave the en route altitude under 91.177?

And, in any case, the airlines cannot fly IFR in Class G airspace except
when conducting weather avoidance. And, since most of them are above
14,500 these days that provision is mostly moot.

[Sam Spade]

Ron Natalie wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Jim Macklin wrote:
>>
>>> You can fly under IFR rules in uncontrolled airspace Class G.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sure, but nobody does because it is too impractical.
>
>
> People do it all the time. You could never get off a
> field without a control zone (er um, surface area of
> controlled airspace designated for an airport) with out it.

That is for a very short period of time, just like descending below 700
feet on many IAPs takes you into Class G airspace.

[karl gruber[_1_]]

I do it all the time. Try coming out of the Sand Canyon airport on a crummy
day.

Karl
Curator" N185KG




"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Jim Macklin wrote:
>> You can fly under IFR rules in uncontrolled airspace Class G.
>
>
> Sure, but nobody does because it is too impractical.

[karl gruber[_1_]]

Ron,

You know well that they've been moving the centers for DECADES. Nice to see
your name on Avsig.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG



"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> karl gruber wrote:
>> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> All ATC facilities were moved to remote locations [as much
>>> as possible] including airport towers.
>>
>>
>> OK, I'll bite. Name ONE remote tower.
>>
> Not the local control, but a lot of the TRACONs which were
> in the tower radar rooms have been moved. For example,
> BWI's approach controllers are over 50 miles away in the
> consolidated Potomac TRACON (which is located in Vint
> Hill Farm, an old Army property). It provides control
> from Richmond on up to halfway to Philly.

[Sam Spade]

karl gruber wrote:

> Ron,
>
> You know well that they've been moving the centers for DECADES. Nice to see
> your name on Avsig.
>
> Karl
> "Curator" N185KG
>
The centers were moved in the early 1960s to get them away from possible
nuclear attacks on major cities.

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:


>
> And, in any case, the airlines cannot fly IFR in Class G airspace except
> when conducting weather avoidance. And, since most of them are above
> 14,500 these days that provision is mostly moot.

We have lots of uncontrolled airspace out here. Most of the smaller
airlines and air taxis have approval to fly in uncontrolled airspace.

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>
>>
>> And, in any case, the airlines cannot fly IFR in Class G airspace
>> except when conducting weather avoidance. And, since most of them are
>> above 14,500 these days that provision is mostly moot.
>
>
> We have lots of uncontrolled airspace out here. Most of the smaller
> airlines and air taxis have approval to fly in uncontrolled airspace.

I was speaking of the safe airlines. The FAA just doesn't learn from
its own history to let those jump jet airlines do that.

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Sam Spade wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> And, in any case, the airlines cannot fly IFR in Class G airspace
>>> except when conducting weather avoidance. And, since most of them
>>> are above 14,500 these days that provision is mostly moot.
>>
>>
>>
>> We have lots of uncontrolled airspace out here. Most of the smaller
>> airlines and air taxis have approval to fly in uncontrolled airspace.
>
>
> I was speaking of the safe airlines.

You didn't know what you were talking about, that much is clear.


The FAA just doesn't learn from
> its own history to let those jump jet airlines do that.

Don't know what a jump jet airline is. The size of an airline doesn't
affect safety. Most airlines now are under part 121.

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>> Newps wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sam Spade wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And, in any case, the airlines cannot fly IFR in Class G airspace
>>>> except when conducting weather avoidance. And, since most of them
>>>> are above 14,500 these days that provision is mostly moot.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We have lots of uncontrolled airspace out here. Most of the smaller
>>> airlines and air taxis have approval to fly in uncontrolled airspace.
>>
>>
>>
>> I was speaking of the safe airlines.
>
>
> You didn't know what you were talking about, that much is clear.
>
>
> The FAA just doesn't learn from
>
>> its own history to let those jump jet airlines do that.
>
>
> Don't know what a jump jet airline is. The size of an airline doesn't
> affect safety. Most airlines now are under part 121.

If you think conducting operations under Part 121 assures a safe
operation I've got some great bridge property in New York I'd like to
sell you.

[Judah]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in news:kD89h.31
:

> Wichita, Kansas tower was removed from terminal building and
> located in a secure building with no place to hide a bomb.
>
> Topeka, Kansas, the tower was moved into the center of the
> airport behind the fences.
>
> All over the country, towers are being relocated, still on
> the airport, but in a secure new building.

This doesn't sound like all over the country. This sounds like all over
Kansas.

I've seen The Wizard of Oz, and maybe some terrorists have too, but I gotta
tell you that I don't think Kansas is all that high on the International
Terrorist Target list...

I can't speak for Militiamen in or near Oklahoma, tho.

[Jim Macklin]

Springfield, IL too.

I haven't been everywhere.

At least a 1/4 century ago, during the Cold War, the FAA
began to build new, secure buildings for all their offices
and towers, moving them into buildings the feds controlled,
rather than being in terminal buildings controlled by local
airport boards. All these new buildings have the same sort
of security in the landscaping, access and structure.


"Judah" > wrote in message
.. .
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in news:kD89h.31
| :
|
| > Wichita, Kansas tower was removed from terminal building
and
| > located in a secure building with no place to hide a
bomb.
| >
| > Topeka, Kansas, the tower was moved into the center of
the
| > airport behind the fences.
| >
| > All over the country, towers are being relocated, still
on
| > the airport, but in a secure new building.
|
| This doesn't sound like all over the country. This sounds
like all over
| Kansas.
|
| I've seen The Wizard of Oz, and maybe some terrorists have
too, but I gotta
| tell you that I don't think Kansas is all that high on the
International
| Terrorist Target list...
|
| I can't speak for Militiamen in or near Oklahoma, tho.

[Newps]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Springfield, IL too.
>
> I haven't been everywhere.
>
> At least a 1/4 century ago, during the Cold War, the FAA
> began to build new, secure buildings for all their offices
> and towers, moving them into buildings the feds controlled,
> rather than being in terminal buildings controlled by local
> airport boards. All these new buildings have the same sort
> of security in the landscaping, access and structure.



See Denver. The controllers have to go thru the same TSA screening that
passengers do to get to work.

[Jim Macklin]

That will change with the new tower, when is it scheduled to
begin construction?



"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
|
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > Springfield, IL too.
| >
| > I haven't been everywhere.
| >
| > At least a 1/4 century ago, during the Cold War, the FAA
| > began to build new, secure buildings for all their
offices
| > and towers, moving them into buildings the feds
controlled,
| > rather than being in terminal buildings controlled by
local
| > airport boards. All these new buildings have the same
sort
| > of security in the landscaping, access and structure.
|
|
|
| See Denver. The controllers have to go thru the same TSA
screening that
| passengers do to get to work.

[Jim Macklin]

CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER


DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION


NOTICE OF INVITATION FOR BIDS


CONTRACT NO. CE 64023


Parking Structure Mod 4 West





Denver, Colorado
January 30, 2006





Sealed bids for Contract No. CE 64023, Parking Structure Mod
4 West will be received no later than 2:00 PM, March 23,
2006 (ADDENDUM #5) Local Time at the Elrey Jeppesen Terminal
Building, Denver International Airport, 8400 Peña Blvd.,
Denver, Colorado 80249-6235, Level 6, northwest corner of
the inner core and south of the Denver Health Medical Center
in the room marked PRESS INTERVIEW ROOM. Bids must be time
stamped no later than 2:00 PM, March 23, 2006 (ADDENDUM #5),
immediately after which a public bid opening will commence.
Any bids to be submitted more than one hour prior to Bid
Opening shall be submitted at the office of Technical
Services, attention Nathan Jones, Room 8810, Airport Office
Building (AOB), Denver International Airport, 8500 Peña
Blvd., Denver, CO 80249-6340.





GENERAL STATEMENT OF WORK: This project will construct a
parking structure for approximately 1667 cars in five
floors. The precast structure will be located on the west
side of the terminal, south of the existing parking
structures and terminal. The structure will be precast
concrete with field applied concrete deck topping. The
project will also involve the construction of a retaining
wall to support the level 4 roadway. The Level 2 access
roadway will be realigned to expand the building site. The
surface parking lots will be reconfigured for the Level 2
access road work. The T-1 roadway north of the porject site
will be lower to accommodate bus and truck trafffic. The
existing parking module 3 west will be modified for the
attachment of vehicle/pedestrian bridges between the
existing parking modules and the module 4 west.





DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE: Contract documents, including
specifications, in the form of CDs, will be available for
purchase at the Technical Services Office, Department of
Aviation, Room 8810 Airport Office Building, 8500 Peña
Boulevard, Denver, Colorado 80249, at a cost of $1,250.00
per set (no refund) beginning January 31, 2006. You will be
receiving two CDs with two separate checks necessary and
payable to Airport Revenue Fund in the amounts of $250.00
and $1000.00. The $1000 check is refundable as specified in
the Sensitive Security Information section below.





SENSITIVE SECURITY INFORMATION (SSI): The Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 49 Part 1520 describes the handling and
protection of SSI and, among other things, the release of
information that the Transportation Secuirty
Administration(TSA) has determined may reveal a systemic
vulnerability of the aviation system or a vulnerability of
aviation facilities to attack. A protion if this project has
been designated as containing Sensitive Security
Information(SSI). Therefore with the SSI designation,
special documentation release, control and tracking
procedures will be in effect.





1) Documents Available: Contract documents, including
specifications, will be available at the Technical Services
Office, Department of Aviation, Room 8810 Airport Office
Building, 8500 Peña Boulevard, Denver, Colorado 80249 on
January 31, 2006.


2) A Security Deposit for each serialized compact disc
containing the SSI information in the amount of One Thousand
Dollars and no cents ($1,000.00) (refundable) is required.
Payment will be accepted in the form of a check made payable
to: Airport Revenue Fund.


3) A person of responsibility within the Bidder's
organization must pick up the documents and be prepared to
sign, in the presence of a Denver International Airport
representative, a confidentiality and non-disclosure
Agreement. A copy of this agreement can be obtained from the
following website:
http://www.flydenver.com/biz/bizops/biz_forms.asp. Documents
will not be released to courier services, company delivery
drivers, messengers, etc. Documents will only be released to
a person having the designation of Project Manager,
Superintendent or higher in the Bidder's organization. The
Project Manager, Superintendent, President, Owner or etc
must have a business card with the organizational position
title clearly indicated. Documents will not be released
unless these conditions are met.


4) The Bidder must be prepared to control and track the
release of the bid documents to subcontractors, suppliers,
material men, etc according to the guidelines outlined in
the Department of Aviation Standard Policies and Procedures
No. 6003. A copy of the Department of Aviation Standard
Policies and Procedures No. 6003 can be obtained from the
following website:
http://www.flydenver.com/biz/bizops/biz_forms.asp.


5) The Security Deposit will be refunded to the Bidder
upon return of the serialized compact disc along with the
SSI RETURN OR DESTRUCTION COMPLIANCE FORM contained in the
Department of Aviation Standard Policies and Procedures No.
6003.





PREQUALIFICATION: Each bidder must be pre-qualified in the
category of CE-5, Structural Contractor, and must request
special permission to be prequalified on a
project-by-project basis for contracts over Twenty-five
Million Dollars ($25,000,000.00) in accordance with the
City's Rules and Regulations Governing Prequalification of
Contractors. Each bidder must have submitted a
prequalification application and request special permission
a minimum of seven (7) calendar days prior to the bid
opening date. Applications must be returned to the
Department of Public Works, Wastewater Management Division,
Prequalification Section, 2000 West 3rd Avenue, Denver, CO
80223. To view the Rules and Regulations and to obtain a
prequalification application, please visit our website at
www.denvergov.org/admin/template3/forms/prequalification2.pdf,
or call 303.446.3466 for prequalification information ONLY.





PRE-BID CONFERENCE AND INSPECTION: All bidders are invited
to a pre-bid conference at 10:00 AM, February 7, 2006, at
the Elrey Jeppesen Terminal Building, Denver International
Airport, 8400 Peña Blvd., Denver, CO 80249-6235, Level 6,
northwest corner of the inner core and south of the Denver
Health Medical Clinic in the room marked PRESS INTERVIEW
ROOM. A site visit will be conducted immediately following
the Pre-Bid Conference.





SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PARTICIPATION: Construction,
reconstruction and remodeling contracts made and entered
into by the City and County of Denver are subject to Article
VII, Division 1 of Chapter 28 of the Denver Revised
Municipal Code, (D.R.M.C.) and all Small Business Enterprise
Utilization and Equal Employment Opportunity Rules and
Regulations adopted by the Director of the Small Business
Opportunity Division (formerly known as the Mayor's Office
of Contract Compliance).





Article VII, Division 1 of Chapter 28 of the D.R.M.C.
directs the Director of the Small Business Opportunity
Division to establish a project goal for expenditures on
construction, reconstruction and remodeling work contracted
by the City and County of Denver. The specific goal for
this project is 12% Small Business Enterprise (SBE)
Participation.





Project goals must be met with certified participants as set
forth in Section 28-206, D.R.M.C. or through the
demonstration of sufficient good faith effort under Section
28-208, D.R.M.C. For compliance with good faith effort
requirements under Section 28-208 (b) (2) (a) the SBE
percentage solicitation level required for this project is
50%.





The Director of the Small Business Opportunity Division
urges all participants in City construction, reconstruction
and remodeling projects to assist in achieving these goals.





NON DISCRIMINATION IN THE AWARD OF CITY CONTRACTS: It is the
policy of the City and County of Denver to prohibit
discrimination in the award of construction contracts and
subcontracts for public improvements. Further, the City and
County of Denver encourages contractors to utilize minority
and women owned businesses and to divide the construction
work into economically feasible units or segments to allow
the most opportunity for subcontracting.





MISCELLANEOUS: As its best interests may appear, the City
and County of Denver reserves the right to reject any or all
bids and to waive informalities in bids.





The work under the Contract is subject to minimum wage rates
established by the City and County of Denver Career Service
Board.





Vicki Braunagel & Turner West


Co-Managers of Aviation





Publication Dates: January 30, 2006, January 31, 2006,
February 1, 2006




"Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message ...
| That will change with the new tower, when is it scheduled
to
| begin construction?
|
|
|
| "Newps" > wrote in message
| . ..
||
||
|| Jim Macklin wrote:
||
|| > Springfield, IL too.
|| >
|| > I haven't been everywhere.
|| >
|| > At least a 1/4 century ago, during the Cold War, the
FAA
|| > began to build new, secure buildings for all their
| offices
|| > and towers, moving them into buildings the feds
| controlled,
|| > rather than being in terminal buildings controlled by
| local
|| > airport boards. All these new buildings have the same
| sort
|| > of security in the landscaping, access and structure.
||
||
||
|| See Denver. The controllers have to go thru the same TSA
| screening that
|| passengers do to get to work.
|
|

[Newps]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> That will change with the new tower, when is it scheduled to
> begin construction?

That is the new tower.

[Newps]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER
>
>
> DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION
>
>
> NOTICE OF INVITATION FOR BIDS

If you knew anything about Denver you would know what's going on. The
tower controllers have to park in a remote parking lot and take a bus
and a tram to the terminal. Walk thru the terminal and go thru security
to get to the entrance to the tower. It literally takes a half hour to
get to work once you've parked your car at the airport.

[Jim Macklin]

Then when do they build the new terminal?



"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
|
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > That will change with the new tower, when is it
scheduled to
| > begin construction?
|
| That is the new tower.

[Jim Macklin]

I guess they don't want the controllers bringing their car
bombs.



"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
|
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER
| >
| >
| > DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION
| >
| >
| > NOTICE OF INVITATION FOR BIDS
|
| If you knew anything about Denver you would know what's
going on. The
| tower controllers have to park in a remote parking lot and
take a bus
| and a tram to the terminal. Walk thru the terminal and go
thru security
| to get to the entrance to the tower. It literally takes a
half hour to
| get to work once you've parked your car at the airport.
|

[Judah]

Newps > wrote in
:

> See Denver. The controllers have to go thru the same TSA screening that
> passengers do to get to work.

Yeah, but Denver could be a terrorist target. If you don't believe me, just
watch Jericho.

[Newps]

Judah wrote:

> Newps > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>See Denver. The controllers have to go thru the same TSA screening that
>>passengers do to get to work.
>
>
> Yeah, but Denver could be a terrorist target. If you don't believe me, just
> watch Jericho.



But the point is not only is the tower not way off on it's own, it
springs from the middle of the terminal.

[Judah]

Newps > wrote in
:

> But the point is not only is the tower not way off on it's own, it
> springs from the middle of the terminal.

There was a point to this thread?


Oh, sorry.

[Ron Natalie]

Newps wrote:

>>
>> Yeah, but Denver could be a terrorist target. If you don't believe me,
>> just watch Jericho.
>
>
>
> But the point is not only is the tower not way off on it's own, it
> springs from the middle of the terminal.

The National Tower (which has the most breathtaking views of the
Nations Capital from the controller's bathroom) and the old
Dulles tower spring from the terminal. National's comes up
from the pre-security side. Dulles's from past security.
The new Dulles Tower springs up out of the middle of nowhere
I'm not sure how you get to it without a vehicle. The Hazy
Center tower has a pretty good view (and is taller than the
old Dulles Tower... it is rumored that the new tower was built
because of "tower envy").

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Jim Macklin" > wrote:

> Springfield, IL too.
>
> I haven't been everywhere.
>
> At least a 1/4 century ago, during the Cold War, the FAA
> began to build new, secure buildings for all their offices
> and towers, moving them into buildings the feds controlled,
> rather than being in terminal buildings controlled by local
> airport boards. All these new buildings have the same sort
> of security in the landscaping, access and structure.

That would explain why the FAA moved offices out of the civil air
terminal at KBED into commercial space with zero security.

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

[Jim Macklin]

Many years ago, Illinois Bell had a connection box located
at the intersection of Koke Mill Road and Washington Street.
Vandals were always shooting it full of holes and cars that
missed the turn kept smashing it.

So they built a heavy concrete mounting pad about as high as
the hood of a pickup truck topped with a heavy steel vault
that looked like it belonged on a armored vehicle. It was
as big as a walk-in cooler and was covered with Illinois
Bell logos and warnings about vandalizing the property.
After a year or two of no phone service interruptions, a
State Police car chasing some speeders at about 100 mph,
missed the turn and punched a hole through the box.

It was an empty shell, the real connection was about 25 feet
from the intersection and well hidden.

Who really knows where the FAA towers are located?



"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
| Newps wrote:
|
| >>
| >> Yeah, but Denver could be a terrorist target. If you
don't believe me,
| >> just watch Jericho.
| >
| >
| >
| > But the point is not only is the tower not way off on
it's own, it
| > springs from the middle of the terminal.
|
| The National Tower (which has the most breathtaking views
of the
| Nations Capital from the controller's bathroom) and the
old
| Dulles tower spring from the terminal. National's comes
up
| from the pre-security side. Dulles's from past security.
| The new Dulles Tower springs up out of the middle of
nowhere
| I'm not sure how you get to it without a vehicle. The
Hazy
| Center tower has a pretty good view (and is taller than
the
| old Dulles Tower... it is rumored that the new tower was
built
| because of "tower envy").

[Jim Macklin]

Senator Kennedy probably has ownership in the office space.



"Bob Noel" > wrote in
message
...
| In article >,
| "Jim Macklin" >
wrote:
|
| > Springfield, IL too.
| >
| > I haven't been everywhere.
| >
| > At least a 1/4 century ago, during the Cold War, the FAA
| > began to build new, secure buildings for all their
offices
| > and towers, moving them into buildings the feds
controlled,
| > rather than being in terminal buildings controlled by
local
| > airport boards. All these new buildings have the same
sort
| > of security in the landscaping, access and structure.
|
| That would explain why the FAA moved offices out of the
civil air
| terminal at KBED into commercial space with zero security.
|
| --
| Bob Noel
| Looking for a sig the
| lawyers will hate
|

[Blanche]

"Documents will only be released to
a person having the designation of Project Manager,
Superintendent or higher in the Bidder's organization. The
Project Manager, Superintendent, President, Owner or etc
must have a business card with the organizational position
title clearly indicated. "

Dumb requirement. Can you say "Laser Printer"?

[Blanche]

But the Tracon is nowhere near the terminal (altho on airport grounds)
and Enroute is notwhere near Denver (up in Longmont)

[Jim Macklin]

We all saw Bruce Willis in that documentary "Die Hard " and
can see how easy it is to have rogue soldiers working for a
non-Muslim dictator change the airport elevation, make the
planes on-board radar altimeter stop working [stealth
ground] and prevent all those airliners from switching
frequencies and talking to their company dispatcher and the
other traffic on the frequencies. And all airline pilots
will just circle until they're out of fuel.

Really stupid movie.


"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
| But the Tracon is nowhere near the terminal (altho on
airport grounds)
| and Enroute is notwhere near Denver (up in Longmont)
|

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"Jim Macklin" > wrote:

> Many years ago, Illinois Bell had a connection box located
> at the intersection of Koke Mill Road and Washington Street.
> Vandals were always shooting it full of holes and cars that
> missed the turn kept smashing it.
>
> So they built a heavy concrete mounting pad about as high as
> the hood of a pickup truck topped with a heavy steel vault
> that looked like it belonged on a armored vehicle. It was
> as big as a walk-in cooler and was covered with Illinois
> Bell logos and warnings about vandalizing the property.
> After a year or two of no phone service interruptions, a
> State Police car chasing some speeders at about 100 mph,
> missed the turn and punched a hole through the box.
>
> It was an empty shell, the real connection was about 25 feet
> from the intersection and well hidden.
>
> Who really knows where the FAA towers are located?

NY Tracon is a non-descript windowless building in an industrial area on
Long Island. One might mistake it for a warehouse, if it weren't for the
fact that it's got an antenna farm on the roof :-)

It's kind of like walking around Georgetown. Most of the embassies pretty
much blend in with the rest of the nice townhouses in the neighborhood.
Except that some people must really be paranoid about getting good TV
reception because they've got all those funny antennae on the roof.

[Judah]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in news:0yM9h.2132
:

> We all saw Bruce Willis in that documentary "Die Hard " and
> can see how easy it is to have rogue soldiers working for a
> non-Muslim dictator change the airport elevation, make the
> planes on-board radar altimeter stop working [stealth
> ground] and prevent all those airliners from switching
> frequencies and talking to their company dispatcher and the
> other traffic on the frequencies. And all airline pilots
> will just circle until they're out of fuel.
>
> Really stupid movie.

I think Manic uses that movie as basis for most of his aviation knowledge!

[Sam Spade]

Roy Smith wrote:

>
> It's kind of like walking around Georgetown. Most of the embassies pretty
> much blend in with the rest of the nice townhouses in the neighborhood.
> Except that some people must really be paranoid about getting good TV
> reception because they've got all those funny antennae on the roof.

Since this thread is shot, and since I spend a lot of time in DC, please
tell me where the embassies are in Georgetown?

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Sam Spade > wrote:

> Roy Smith wrote:
>
> >
> > It's kind of like walking around Georgetown. Most of the embassies pretty
> > much blend in with the rest of the nice townhouses in the neighborhood.
> > Except that some people must really be paranoid about getting good TV
> > reception because they've got all those funny antennae on the roof.
>
> Since this thread is shot, and since I spend a lot of time in DC, please
> tell me where the embassies are in Georgetown?

Ambassadors residences? Whatever. Townhouses with lots of radio antennae
on the roofs.

[Sam Spade]

Blanche wrote:

> But the Tracon is nowhere near the terminal (altho on airport grounds)
> and Enroute is notwhere near Denver (up in Longmont)
>
The center was moved to Longmont to avoid a Ruskie nuke hitting Denver,
just like Los Angeles center and New York Center.

It was crazy, expensive stuff, ala Doc Strangelove.

[Jim Macklin]

I understand that all FAA facilities are being surrounded by
marsh and bogs and populated by swine to keep all Muslim
extremists away. There is some question about the swine,
are they FAA lawyers, unionized or just plain old pigs?



"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
| Blanche wrote:
|
| > But the Tracon is nowhere near the terminal (altho on
airport grounds)
| > and Enroute is notwhere near Denver (up in Longmont)
| >
| The center was moved to Longmont to avoid a Ruskie nuke
hitting Denver,
| just like Los Angeles center and New York Center.
|
| It was crazy, expensive stuff, ala Doc Strangelove.

[Sam Spade]

Roy Smith wrote:

> In article >,
> Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>
>>Roy Smith wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's kind of like walking around Georgetown. Most of the embassies pretty
>>>much blend in with the rest of the nice townhouses in the neighborhood.
>>>Except that some people must really be paranoid about getting good TV
>>>reception because they've got all those funny antennae on the roof.
>>
>>Since this thread is shot, and since I spend a lot of time in DC, please
>>tell me where the embassies are in Georgetown?
>
>
> Ambassadors residences? Whatever. Townhouses with lots of radio antennae
> on the roofs.

You've got me there. I think some, if not a lot, of the ambassadors
live in their embassy.

Gerogetown is full of private sector employees who live off us
taxpayters. I suppose there is a smattering of GS-99s there as well.

Could be some amassadore as well, although I think it wouldn't be their
style.

[Sam Spade]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> I understand that all FAA facilities are being surrounded by
> marsh and bogs and populated by swine to keep all Muslim
> extremists away. There is some question about the swine,
> are they FAA lawyers, unionized or just plain old pigs?
>
>

Since we are, for the most part, pilots we love to hate the FAA.

Having said that, many federal agencies aware contracts to make
Congressjerks happy.

[Jim Macklin]

I bet you meant award. I've got several good friends who
work for the FAA, none of them are lawyers. I've got some
good friends who are lawyers who don't work for the FAA.
Actually I don't hate the FAA, 99% do a very good job, the
1% are lawyers.


"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > I understand that all FAA facilities are being
surrounded by
| > marsh and bogs and populated by swine to keep all Muslim
| > extremists away. There is some question about the
swine,
| > are they FAA lawyers, unionized or just plain old pigs?
| >
| >
|
| Since we are, for the most part, pilots we love to hate
the FAA.
|
| Having said that, many federal agencies aware contracts to
make
| Congressjerks happy.

[Sam Spade]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> I bet you meant award. I've got several good friends who
> work for the FAA, none of them are lawyers. I've got some
> good friends who are lawyers who don't work for the FAA.
> Actually I don't hate the FAA, 99% do a very good job, the
> 1% are lawyers.
>

Yes...awards.

I work with technical FAA folks on a regular basis on the national
level. My experience is similar to your's, at least for those the
bosses field into the work we do. But, there are some on the sidelines
that don't do quite as well. So, my percentage of those who do a very
good job would be high, but not at 99%.

A few of the headquarters attornies I have dealt with on technical
airspace matters have often been very good. These folks are the kind
who prosecute hapless pilots.

[Sam Spade]

Sam Spade wrote:

>
> A few of the headquarters attornies I have dealt with on technical
> airspace matters have often been very good. These folks are the kind
> who prosecute hapless pilots.

I meant to say these folks are the kind who do not prosecute hapless pilots.

[[email protected]]

Newps wrote:
> Judah wrote:
>
> > Newps > wrote in
> > :
> >
> >
> >>See Denver. The controllers have to go thru the same TSA screening that
> >>passengers do to get to work.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, but Denver could be a terrorist target. If you don't believe me, just
> > watch Jericho.
>
>
>
> But the point is not only is the tower not way off on it's own, it
> springs from the middle of the terminal.

Actually it doesn't. The control tower is at the base of the center
module of Concourse C, the farthest out from the terminal -- a little
under a mile north of the terminal. Concourse C is in the center of the
fully built out apron area, as the master plan calls for Concourses D
and E to be built to the north when needed.

[[email protected]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> That will change with the new tower, when is it scheduled to
> begin construction?

There is no new tower contemplated at DEN, to my knowledge.

[Blanche]

Jim Macklin > wrote:
>I understand that all FAA facilities are being surrounded by
>marsh and bogs and populated by swine to keep all Muslim
>extremists away. There is some question about the swine,
>are they FAA lawyers, unionized or just plain old pigs?
>
>"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
>| Blanche wrote:
>|
>| > But the Tracon is nowhere near the terminal (altho on
>airport grounds)
>| > and Enroute is notwhere near Denver (up in Longmont)
>| >
>| The center was moved to Longmont to avoid a Ruskie nuke
>hitting Denver,
>| just like Los Angeles center and New York Center.
>|
>| It was crazy, expensive stuff, ala Doc Strangelove.

Oddly enough, the Denver Enroute (ARTCC) isn't far from the
pig farms.

I used to do some consulting up there during the days of
Sector Suite (for those of you familiar with the $9B debacle)