Re: If user fees go into effect I'm done

[Larry Dighera]

On 9 Feb 2007 08:46:30 -0800, wrote in
. com>:

>All I have to say about user fees is that if they are implemented

The ATC user fee issue is a corporate boondoggle like Boeing's recent
infamous proposal to lease a hundred B-757(?) tankers to the USAF.
Fortunately there was enough 'stink' raised to expose, not only the
attempt to extort federal funds to keep Boeing's assembly line
operational, but the underlying criminal conduct of several Boeing
executives and DOD personnel.

Educate yourself about the proposed removal of congressional FAA
budget oversight and other aspects of the ATC privatization proposal.
Then write your federal representatives and lobby hard and long
against the ATC privatization boondoggle. Don't neglect to emphasize
the potential hazard to the public such a move will impose on airline
passengers, the enormous cost to tax payers at a time of record
federal expenditures, and the already brain-dead security and
logistics of airline travel.

ATC privatization is just another move supported by large corporate
interests and the current administration to raid the federal treasury
and further restrict our citizens' constitutional rights. The day of
reckoning is nigh; look at the public exposure of the misuse of
federal funds by contractors in Iraq (Halliburton/Blackwater,
contractors charging the government ten times the legitimate cost to
perform and taking kickbacks....). Look for a groundswell movement to
reform federal spending and corruption.

Ours is a government of the PEOPLE, by the People, and for the PEOPLE,
and corporations are not PEOPLE; expose their greedy exploits at every
opportunity, or resign yourself to enslavement through inaction.

[rec.aviation.ifr, rec.aviation.student added]

--

"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be
ruled by evil men." -- Plato


A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981


"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can
only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves
money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority
always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the
public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses
over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two
hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following
sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to
great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance,
from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from
complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back
to bondage."
-- Alexander Tyler - Circa 1780 - discussing the fall of the
Athenian Democracy.


"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the
government." -- Patrick Henry

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> The ATC user fee issue is a corporate boondoggle like Boeing's recent
> infamous proposal to lease a hundred B-757(?) tankers to the USAF.

fyi - 767

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

[Sam Spade]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> Ours is a government of the PEOPLE, by the People, and for the PEOPLE,
> and corporations are not PEOPLE; expose their greedy exploits at every
> opportunity, or resign yourself to enslavement through inaction.
>

The airlines want to control U.S. ATC. They also want everyone else to
pay for it.

Having said that, privatization of ATC and users fees are really
different issues.

[Chris]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On 9 Feb 2007 08:46:30 -0800, wrote in

> Ours is a government of the PEOPLE, by the People, and for the PEOPLE,

> the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the
> government." -- Patrick Henry
>
If you believe that you believe anything.

[Ken Finney]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> The ATC user fee issue is a corporate boondoggle like Boeing's recent
>> infamous proposal to lease a hundred B-757(?) tankers to the USAF.
>
> fyi - 767
>

And, Boeing didn't initially propose it. The AF wanted them, didn't have
the money, and asked "How would a private sector company do something like
this?".

[mike regish]

Now this is weird.

I just found that exact quote yesterday looking for something else.

mike

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can
> only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves
> money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority
> always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the
> public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses
> over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
>
> The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two
> hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following
> sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to
> great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance,
> from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from
> complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back
> to bondage."
> -- Alexander Tyler - Circa 1780 - discussing the fall of the
> Athenian Democracy.
>

[Sam Spade]

mike regish wrote:
..
>>
>>The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two
>>hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following
>>sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to
>>great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance,
>>from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from
>>complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back
>>to bondage."
>> -- Alexander Tyler - Circa 1780 - discussing the fall of the
>>Athenian Democracy.
>>
>
>
>
Sounds like we are about on schedule.

[Roger[_4_]]

I can not find the initial post on this thread, but...
That said, I would expect if user fees go into effect we will se a lot
of flying outside the system, be it VFR or even IFR and that is not a
good or safe idea.

I'd certainly be tempted to fly VFR outside the system by going
between small airports and staying away from the larger ones unless it
was absolutely necessary. Oh... Wait, I already prefer to fly that
way. <:-)) I'd also fly in legally marginal conditions when I'd
otherwise go IFR. I'd not fly IFR outside the system, but I'd bet
there would be many who would. Weather briefings? I'd bet the
weather channel would become real popular if they charge for weather
briefings. VFR flight plans when they charge for them? Yah gotta be
kidding.

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

[Roger[_4_]]

Something on the order of 80 quoted levels and over 3300 lines of
text. That's a bit more than I'm willing to read. It may be factual,
but it's too much of a good thing.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[scott moore]

The government appears to want to place US aviation in line with
that of other countries, such as in the EU. In the short run they may
not be able to do much, but in the long run they certainly can,
especially with a declining pilot population, which this will
accelerate.

I'll make a suggestion that I'm sure nobody here will like. If we are
able to tie any user fees that come about to actual services, the next
step is to STOP the creation of any new control towers on small
airports, then follow that up with getting RID of as many control
towers, and FAA personnel, as possible. With modern technology such
as ADS-B, there is less need for them, and getting rid of FAA personnel
is the natural answer to the whole user fee question.

The FAA themselves have floated the idea that even IFR might someday
be uncontrolled. Uncontrolled = no controller. Its both a "solution"
to the FAA's (imaginary) "controller private aircraft workload", and
a THREAT, to the FAA. Ie., if you want to move to a model of charging
us to use a controller, we will want to move to a model without
controllers.

Scott Moore

Roger wrote:
> I can not find the initial post on this thread, but...
> That said, I would expect if user fees go into effect we will se a lot
> of flying outside the system, be it VFR or even IFR and that is not a
> good or safe idea.
>
> I'd certainly be tempted to fly VFR outside the system by going
> between small airports and staying away from the larger ones unless it
> was absolutely necessary. Oh... Wait, I already prefer to fly that
> way. <:-)) I'd also fly in legally marginal conditions when I'd
> otherwise go IFR. I'd not fly IFR outside the system, but I'd bet
> there would be many who would. Weather briefings? I'd bet the
> weather channel would become real popular if they charge for weather
> briefings. VFR flight plans when they charge for them? Yah gotta be
> kidding.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

[scott moore]

Ps. While I am offending everyone, if user fees begin, a good
start would be to close down the FSS system COMPLETELY, and fire all
of the employees.

The system is useless, redundant with more modern methods, and would
remove an entire line item from the FAA budget, leaving them less
to bitch about. Not to mention letting the FAA know we are serious
about reducing the size of the FAA.

The FSS system should never have been privatized. It should have been
shut down completely.

Scott Moore

scott moore wrote:
> The government appears to want to place US aviation in line with
> that of other countries, such as in the EU. In the short run they may
> not be able to do much, but in the long run they certainly can,
> especially with a declining pilot population, which this will
> accelerate.
>
> I'll make a suggestion that I'm sure nobody here will like. If we are
> able to tie any user fees that come about to actual services, the next
> step is to STOP the creation of any new control towers on small
> airports, then follow that up with getting RID of as many control
> towers, and FAA personnel, as possible. With modern technology such
> as ADS-B, there is less need for them, and getting rid of FAA personnel
> is the natural answer to the whole user fee question.
>
> The FAA themselves have floated the idea that even IFR might someday
> be uncontrolled. Uncontrolled = no controller. Its both a "solution"
> to the FAA's (imaginary) "controller private aircraft workload", and
> a THREAT, to the FAA. Ie., if you want to move to a model of charging
> us to use a controller, we will want to move to a model without
> controllers.
>
> Scott Moore

[Chris]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> The ATC user fee issue is a corporate boondoggle like Boeing's recent
>> infamous proposal to lease a hundred B-757(?) tankers to the USAF.
>
Have a look at the future for some of us it is the present.

http://www.eurocontrol.int/crco/public/standard_page/rso_distance_tool.html

[Roy Smith]

scott moore > wrote:
> Ps. While I am offending everyone, if user fees begin, a good
> start would be to close down the FSS system COMPLETELY, and fire all
> of the employees.
>
> The system is useless, redundant with more modern methods, and would
> remove an entire line item from the FAA budget, leaving them less
> to bitch about. Not to mention letting the FAA know we are serious
> about reducing the size of the FAA.

For the most part, I agree.

About the only function of FSS that I use on a regular basis is flight
watch. I don't see any way to automate that. But, it certainly could be
centralized. I'm already talking to a person 100s of miles away; what
difference does it make where he's sitting? And what difference does it
make if he's sitting at a radio console in a building that says "FSS" on
the door or one that says "ATC" on the door?

Routine dissemination of weather information is better done by automated
methods. Likewise with filing of flight plans (VFR or IFR). Obtaining
clearances at uncontrolled airports via FSS is equally silly; they just act
as a telephone relay to ATT. The phone call could just as easily have been
switched to ATC directly.

Once in a while, I'll call FSS and ask for a phone briefing. Most commonly
these days, I'll do that on my cell phone in the car driving to the airport
because I was to busy to get a DUATS briefing before I left. While I'll
miss that convenience, I can't see any way I can justify the cost to the
federal government of having a person read me stuff on the phone that I
could have just as easily read myself on DUATS had I been a little more
organized or a little less lazy.

[Jose]

> While I'll
> miss that convenience, I can't see any way I can justify the cost to the
> federal government of having a person read me stuff on the phone that I
> could have just as easily read myself on DUATS had I been a little more
> organized or a little less lazy.

Actually, I find an advantage to it. If you get NOTAMS, you will (by
yourself) be presented with reams of irrelevant stuff, but you don't
know what's irrelevant until you read through it. Ditto text weather at
fifteen stations near you, near your destination, enroute, etc. A
briefer who has seen all this stuff all day can sift through junk and
pick out the important pieces. That is valuable.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > While I'll
> > miss that convenience, I can't see any way I can justify the cost to the
> > federal government of having a person read me stuff on the phone that I
> > could have just as easily read myself on DUATS had I been a little more
> > organized or a little less lazy.
>
> Actually, I find an advantage to it. If you get NOTAMS, you will (by
> yourself) be presented with reams of irrelevant stuff, but you don't
> know what's irrelevant until you read through it. Ditto text weather at
> fifteen stations near you, near your destination, enroute, etc. A
> briefer who has seen all this stuff all day can sift through junk and
> pick out the important pieces. That is valuable.
>
> Jose

I've also had briefers filter out stuff that was important to me. I'd
rather look at it all and decide what's important and what's not.

A classic example happened to me about a year ago. I got a duats briefing
and saw that R-5206 was hot by notam. This is a small restricted area near
West Point, NY. It's maybe 15 miles from HPN.

I was flying with a student and asked him to brief me. He gave me a good
rundown on the weather, but omitted to tell me about R-5206. I asked him
how he got his information, and he said he called FSS. I made him do it
again. He came back and said I was wrong, R-5206 was not hot. So, we
called FSS a third time and put it on speaker. My student asked for a
briefing for a 25 mile radius of HPN, and sure enough, the briefer said
nothing about R-5206. I then explicitly asked him about it, and he said
that it was indeed hot. So, what's going on here?

It turns out that R-5206 gets it's notams filed under IGN, which itself is
more than 25 miles from HPN. So, it didn't come up in the briefers 25 mile
filter. I just routinely ask duats for a 50 mile radius, so it comes up.

With DUATS, I know how to ask for exactly what I want, and how to filter
it. With a human briefer, I have to rely on the judgement of somebody I've
never met to pick and choose, and sometimes I have to play 20 questions
with him. I'll take the computer any day.

Why briefers think I care about an unlit crane 240 feet AGL 4 miles from
the runway, on a day VFR flight, I have no idea.

[Judah]

"Chris" > wrote in news:535rlaF1qs7rdU1
@mid.individual.net:

> Have a look at the future for some of us it is the present.
>
> http://www.eurocontrol.int/crco/public/standard_page/rso_distance_tool.html

It looks like aircraft weighing less than 2 tons are exempt. I believe that
would pretty much cover all single engine pistons.

Hopefully that will be the same approach that they come up with here...

[Stan Prevost]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> About the only function of FSS that I use on a regular basis is flight
> watch. I don't see any way to automate that.

I haven't used Flight Watch in 3-4 years, since I got XM Wx in my airplane.
So it is automated that way. However, if that equipment breaks.....

[Jose]

>>http://www.eurocontrol.int/crco/public/standard_page/rso_distance_tool.html
> It looks like aircraft weighing less than 2 tons are exempt. I believe that
> would pretty much cover all single engine pistons.
>
> Hopefully that will be the same approach that they come up with here...

Behind that nose is a very large camel.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Judah]

Roy Smith > wrote in
:

> With DUATS, I know how to ask for exactly what I want, and how to filter
> it. With a human briefer, I have to rely on the judgement of somebody
> I've never met to pick and choose, and sometimes I have to play 20
> questions with him. I'll take the computer any day.
>
> Why briefers think I care about an unlit crane 240 feet AGL 4 miles from
> the runway, on a day VFR flight, I have no idea.

In today's world, an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system could replace
the briefers, and you could still call for weather from your car. Instead
of talking to a briefer, you could dial or talk to the voice response
system and get appropriate responses. A small amount of additional
categorization of things like NOTAMS would also improve this issue and
wouldn't really take much.

For example, if they know my aircraft type is a BE35/R and I'm planned for
7000', why do they give me NOTAMS about STARs and DPs that are only
authorized for Jets or for flights planned for FL180 or higher? The answer,
obviously, is that these criteria are listed as "notes" printed on the
page, instead of in fields in the system. If they were fields in the
system, NOTAMs could be filtered better automatically, and the human factor
in weather briefing would be less critical...

But if they password protect it, I won't do it.
"Big Boy." "BIG BOY!"

[Jay Honeck]

> Ps. While I am offending everyone, if user fees begin, a good
> start would be to close down the FSS system COMPLETELY, and fire all
> of the employees.

Whoo-wee, Scott -- and I thought *I* was the "King of Anti-Government
Rants" here.

You've really stepped in it now.

;-)

(And you are right on, BTW. Between my home PC, my office PC, and my
Garmin 496, I've got 500-times more -- and better -- weather at my
fingertips than any FSS briefer had until just a few years ago.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mxsmanic]

Chris writes:

> Have a look at the future for some of us it is the present.
>
> http://www.eurocontrol.int/crco/public/standard_page/rso_distance_tool.html

Europe has always been a leader in bureaucracy and overregulation, aided by a
complacent population that has never known greater freedoms and is unaware of
their existence.

I wonder why weight enters into the calculation. Do controllers carry the
aircraft on their backs from waypoint to waypoint? And since air traffic
control is already (or should be) a service of the state, why is tax added to
the final amount?

And why should people download an unverified application and run it on their
own computers? How do they know that this executable can be trusted? What's
wrong with a Web page that does the same calculation?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

scott moore writes:

> Ie., if you want to move to a model of charging
> us to use a controller, we will want to move to a model without
> controllers.

Unfortunately, just because you don't have controllers doesn't mean that you
cannot be charged fees.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> About the only function of FSS that I use on a regular basis is flight
> watch. I don't see any way to automate that. But, it certainly could be
> centralized. I'm already talking to a person 100s of miles away; what
> difference does it make where he's sitting? And what difference does it
> make if he's sitting at a radio console in a building that says "FSS" on
> the door or one that says "ATC" on the door?
>

Even in-flight weather is now available from sources other than FSS.

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> Actually, I find an advantage to it. If you get NOTAMS, you will (by
> yourself) be presented with reams of irrelevant stuff, but you don't
> know what's irrelevant until you read through it. Ditto text weather at
> fifteen stations near you, near your destination, enroute, etc. A
> briefer who has seen all this stuff all day can sift through junk and
> pick out the important pieces. That is valuable.

Unfortunately, if he does it wrong, you cannot prove that he made a mistake
later.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Blueskies]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
:
: "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
: ...
: >
: > About the only function of FSS that I use on a regular basis is flight
: > watch. I don't see any way to automate that. But, it certainly could be
: > centralized. I'm already talking to a person 100s of miles away; what
: > difference does it make where he's sitting? And what difference does it
: > make if he's sitting at a radio console in a building that says "FSS" on
: > the door or one that says "ATC" on the door?
: >
:
: Even in-flight weather is now available from sources other than FSS.
:
:

Yea, sure, for a FEE!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> Yea, sure, for a FEE!
>

Yes. Is that a problem?

[Sam Spade]

Roy Smith wrote:
> scott moore > wrote:

>
>
> For the most part, I agree.
>
> About the only function of FSS that I use on a regular basis is flight
> watch. I don't see any way to automate that. But, it certainly could be
> centralized. I'm already talking to a person 100s of miles away; what
> difference does it make where he's sitting? And what difference does it
> make if he's sitting at a radio console in a building that says "FSS" on
> the door or one that says "ATC" on the door?
>

The airlines don't use flight watch, nor do the high-end biz jet
operators. So, if the airlines gain control of the system, flight watch
will be really expensive for light aircraft drivers.

[Sam Spade]

scott moore wrote:

> Ps. While I am offending everyone, if user fees begin, a good
> start would be to close down the FSS system COMPLETELY, and fire all
> of the employees.
>
> The system is useless, redundant with more modern methods, and would
> remove an entire line item from the FAA budget, leaving them less
> to bitch about. Not to mention letting the FAA know we are serious
> about reducing the size of the FAA.
>
> The FSS system should never have been privatized. It should have been
> shut down completely.

No doubt about it.

Asd to towers and ATC in general, do you suppose the FAA, or even
Congress, can take on the controllers' union at this point? It is like
the Governator here in California trying to take on the prison guards'
union.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:21:01 -0000, "Chris" >
wrote in >:

>
>"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>>> The ATC user fee issue is a corporate boondoggle like Boeing's recent
>>> infamous proposal to lease a hundred B-757(?) tankers to the USAF.
>>
>Have a look at the future for some of us it is the present.
>
>http://www.eurocontrol.int/crco/public/standard_page/rso_distance_tool.html
>
RSO Distance Tool

This application, once installed, will allow users to calculate
the EUROCONTROL route charges in order to obtain an estimation of
the charges they will likely incur when operating flights within
the EUROCONTROL charging area. Additional information about the
RSO Distance Tool you may find in the CRCO Customer Guide To
Charges (paragraph 10).

Why did your populous accept the imposition of a privatized ATC
system? What did you do to resist it?

[Sam Spade]

Blueskies wrote:

> :
>
> Yea, sure, for a FEE!
>
>
Yes, exactly.

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> Why did your populous accept the imposition of a privatized ATC
> system? What did you do to resist it?

Europeans are already accustomed to having their lives run for them by
bureaucrats (now in several layers both domestic and international). It does
not occur to them to _resist_ things. The ones who were willing to resist
injustices and incompetence crossed the Atlantic and Pacific centuries ago.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> Asd to towers and ATC in general, do you suppose the FAA, or even
> Congress, can take on the controllers' union at this point?

Yes, easily. It has been done before.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> Asd to towers and ATC in general, do you suppose the FAA, or even
> Congress, can take on the controllers' union at this point?

It's already been done.

[Blueskies]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
:
: "Blueskies" > wrote in message
: . net...
: >
: > Yea, sure, for a FEE!
: >
:
: Yes. Is that a problem?
:
:


So, you are saying let Flight Watch die, which for now is a free service, and replace it with a privatized service for a
fee. Yes, that is the problem...

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> The EU is not exactly a democratic organisation. Even though it was
> originally implemented by democratically elected politicians, the
> influx of the voter's opinion on politician's actions is limited in
> representative democracies anyway. Once the damage has been done (and
> noticed), very little can be done about it.

Why? Because God forbids Europeans from participating in their own
government?

This type of fatalism is also typically European.

> Privatisation of government tasks is part of neoliberal ideology, which
> is the current trend among the political class ...

The notion of a "political class" is also typically European.

> Please limit your comments to subjects you know about.

I knew you'd be the first to reply. Soon you'll be darkly adumbrating all
sorts of European interdictions on free speech in an attempt to silence me.

Europeans are their own worst enemies. Harper Valley is gradually rotting
from the inside.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> So, you are saying let Flight Watch die, which for now is a free service,
> and replace it with > a privatized service for a fee. Yes, that is the
> problem...
>

Flight Watch is not a free service, there are no free services. You
consider Flight Watch to be a "free service" only because you don't pay for
it directly, it's paid with taxes. I would much rather let Flight Watch die
and replace it with private sector service providers that charge fees and
compete for my patronage than pay a direct user fee to the FAA for each use
of Flight Watch.

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> What I say above true for the US as well.

Not unless the U.S. has changed very dramatically indeed. Last time I was
there, mediocrity, social stratification, and complacency/apathy were not the
watchwords that they are in Europe.

> "Political class" means there's a bunch of people who do politics as a
> way of earning money. That bunch of people exists in the the US too.

In the U.S., politicians are people who do politics for a living. They are
not part of a separate class. Anyone can undertake politics in the U.S., and
anyone can leave it. You don't have to be born into a certain family or
anything like that.

> Shut up

Freedom of speech is so irritating sometimes, eh?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Blueskies]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
:
: "Blueskies" > wrote in message
: . net...
: >
: > So, you are saying let Flight Watch die, which for now is a free service,
: > and replace it with > a privatized service for a fee. Yes, that is the
: > problem...
: >
:
: Flight Watch is not a free service, there are no free services. You
: consider Flight Watch to be a "free service" only because you don't pay for
: it directly, it's paid with taxes. I would much rather let Flight Watch die
: and replace it with private sector service providers that charge fees and
: compete for my patronage than pay a direct user fee to the FAA for each use
: of Flight Watch.
:
:

Sure, I should have said govment provided service, rather than 'free', but that is the same as saying that you would
rather only ride on toll roads, rather than the freeways we have today. Some things are best as a govment service
because private providers will only do things that satisfy the profit motive.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sure, I should have said govment provided service, rather than 'free', but
> that is the
> same as saying that you would rather only ride on toll roads, rather than
> the freeways
> we have today. Some things are best as a govment service because private
> providers
> will only do things that satisfy the profit motive.
>

What things provided as government services are superior to things provided
by private providers motivated by the potential for profit?

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> The US is a direct democracy? The US government cannot ignore what the
> people want?

The U.S. is an _effective_ democracy. The people have a strong influence on
how the government is run, in part because the people running the government
are largely the same as the people being governed. Statutory class
distinctions are nonexistent in the U.S. for the most part, and de facto
distinctions are rare compared to the European norm.

> That makes them a class by definition.

No, it makes them a profession.

> I think it helps if your name is Kennedy, Clinton or Bush, but that was
> not what I was talking about anyway.

None of these familes inherited their prominence. There are no royals in the
United States, and no nobles. That's the way the country's founders wanted
it, and that's one of the things that sharply distinguishes the U.S. from
Europe.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Wolfgang Schwanke" > wrote in message
...
>
> The US is a direct democracy?
>

No, it is a representative democracy, unfortunately.


>
> The US government cannot ignore what the people want?
>

The US government does so regularly.

[Mxsmanic]

Blueskies writes:

> Sure, I should have said govment provided service, rather than 'free', but that is the same as saying that you would
> rather only ride on toll roads, rather than the freeways we have today. Some things are best as a govment service
> because private providers will only do things that satisfy the profit motive.

Monopolies should always be under government control for this reason.

The different between a Flight Watch with fees and one without is that the
former is paid for exclusively by the people who use it, whereas the latter is
paid for by everyone, whether they use it or not. The former is bad for
pilots, the latter is bad for taxpayers generally.

It's often difficult to find a balance between the population that pays for a
service and the population that uses it. The biggest problems arise when the
two populations are mutually exclusive (cf. Welfare).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> I didn't know the United States had 300 million ministers.

It doesn't.

> Shut up :). Oh really this is silly, you are using a very creative mix
> of constantly shifting standards and equivocations to defend your
> nationalist prejudices, without ever substantiating any of them. I
> suggest you give up, it doesn't work.

If it didn't work, you wouldn't be so upset. The truth hurts.

If I had "nationalist prejudices," I wouldn't be living abroad. I just call
them as I see them. And some of what I see isn't the least bit flattering to
Europeans, I'm afraid.

> A class means: A set of people who have a different perspective and
> different interests than others sets of people.

A class is a group of people with different privileges, obligations, rights,
and status. Classes are thick on the ground in Europe, where everyone knows
his station and dares not stray outside of his social circle. But they are
rare in the U.S.

> No it doesn't. There are few countries in Europe who have nobles or
> royals at all; someone who claims to know so much about the continent
> ought to know such an important fact.

Andorra, Belgium, Denmark, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monacco, the
Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the Vatican all
have monarchies and royals, and some have nobles as well.

> And the few countries who do have them do so mostly for fun, not
> for political functions.

They have them because they cannot bear the thought of all people being
treated equitably as individuals. That's where Europe and the U.S. part ways.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Steven P. McNicoll writes:

> What things provided as government services are superior to things provided
> by private providers motivated by the potential for profit?

Just about every monopoly service is superior in quality when provided by the
government.

A profit motive can work to improve quality and efficiency and lower costs
when there is competition at work and these things are necessary to retain
business. But when there is no competition, the profit motive works in
exactly the opposite way, destroying quality and efficiency and raising costs
through the roof.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bob Noel]

In article . net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> I would much rather let Flight Watch die
> and replace it with private sector service providers that charge fees and
> compete for my patronage than pay a direct user fee to the FAA for each use
> of Flight Watch.

How should the charges be structured for a service providing data the government
produces?

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>
> How should the charges be structured for a service providing data the
> government
> produces?
>

How are they structured now?

[Morgans]

"Wolfgang Schwanke" > wrote

> Shut up :). Oh really this is silly, you are using a very creative mix
> of constantly shifting standards and equivocations to defend your
> nationalist prejudices, without ever substantiating any of them. I
> suggest you give up, it doesn't work.
>
But it is working, right to a tee, for a troll's plans.

It has your replying; how many times now? That is the goal.

He has openly admitted that he is a troll, and here to stir up trouble.

Why not be part of the solution? Don't respond, no matter how much his post
needs to be rebutted.

That goes for everyone, but there are two many here that have no self
control, or have diarrhea of the mouth, or keyboard.
--
Jim in NC

[scott moore]

Blueskies wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> :
> : "Blueskies" > wrote in message
> : . net...
> : >
> : > Yea, sure, for a FEE!
> : >
> :
> : Yes. Is that a problem?
> :
> :
>
>
> So, you are saying let Flight Watch die, which for now is a free service, and replace it with a privatized service for a
> fee. Yes, that is the problem...
>
>

First, you can get your briefing for free on the ground. Second,
the inflight wx is provided by commercial services that compete
with each other, not by a monolithic FAA service. This is a far
better deal than we will ever get from the government, even if
they privatize it (which just creates yet another monopoly).

Scott

[scott moore]

Blueskies wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> :
> : "Blueskies" > wrote in message
> : . net...
> : >
> : > So, you are saying let Flight Watch die, which for now is a free service,
> : > and replace it with > a privatized service for a fee. Yes, that is the
> : > problem...
> : >
> :
> : Flight Watch is not a free service, there are no free services. You
> : consider Flight Watch to be a "free service" only because you don't pay for
> : it directly, it's paid with taxes. I would much rather let Flight Watch die
> : and replace it with private sector service providers that charge fees and
> : compete for my patronage than pay a direct user fee to the FAA for each use
> : of Flight Watch.
> :
> :
>
> Sure, I should have said govment provided service, rather than 'free', but that is the same as saying that you would
> rather only ride on toll roads, rather than the freeways we have today. Some things are best as a govment service
> because private providers will only do things that satisfy the profit motive.
>
>

And the "profit motive" has given us wx delivered by geosyncronous
satellite, including graphics. The FAA has given us an operator who
reads web pages to you.

The government would have got round to giving you satellite delivered
weather and graphics, certainly by 2040 at the latest.

By the way, all of that graphical weather comes from Nexrad radar, an
expensive and advanced system YOU paid to build. How much progress has
the FAA or NOAA made in getting that information to you in the cockpit?
(without commercial help)

Scott

[scott moore]

Judah wrote:
> "Chris" > wrote in news:535rlaF1qs7rdU1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
>> Have a look at the future for some of us it is the present.
>>
>> http://www.eurocontrol.int/crco/public/standard_page/rso_distance_tool.html
>
> It looks like aircraft weighing less than 2 tons are exempt. I believe that
> would pretty much cover all single engine pistons.
>
> Hopefully that will be the same approach that they come up with here...

2 tons = 4000 pounds. Walk over to all the pilots on your home
field with aircraft in this range, and tell them you have no problem at
all with the government balancing the budget on their backs to save
your own skin. Then tell us who is going to be on YOUR side when they
reduce the weight requirement to 3,000 lbs.

Then 2,000 lbs.

Then 1,000 lbs.

Then pass a bill declaring that private "hobby" aircraft are to be
restricted to unpopulated areas only.

Scott

[Matt Barrow]

"Wolfgang Schwanke" > wrote in message
...
>
> The EU is not exactly a democratic organisation. Even though it was
> originally implemented by democratically elected politicians, the
> influx of the voter's opinion on politician's actions is limited in
> representative democracies anyway. Once the damage has been done (and
> noticed), very little can be done about it.
>
> Privatisation of government tasks is part of neoliberal ideology,

What does the EU see as the proper function of government?

In _classical liberal_ thought, the role of government was police on the
local level, courts of law, and a military.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Steven P. McNicoll > posted:

> "Wolfgang Schwanke" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> The US is a direct democracy?
>>
>
> No, it is a representative democracy, unfortunately.
>
>
>>
>> The US government cannot ignore what the people want?
>>
>
> The US government does so regularly.
>
Woflgang understands these points. The one to whom the questions are
posed, not surprisingly at all, does not.

Neil

[Judah]

Jose > wrote in
t:

> Behind that nose is a very large camel.

The nose came in 1919. Head and neck - 1926. Front legs - 1940.

We're getting pretty close to the hind quarter's here, and I think there's
already too much momentum to stop the camel completely.

As a pragmatic, the best that I can hope for is that us little guys can still
afford to fly. Quite frankly, I have less sympathy for corporate Gulfstreams
who use the system more than I do, weigh enough to make a difference on the
runways, and probably are a more legitimate subject of the airline's
complaint.

In general, I don't think it would be a terrible idea to more clearly define
GA as two classes - light single engines / twin aircraft and corporate /
charter Jets.

Most of the complaints of the public and airlines regarding security threats
and tax advantages hold a different set of arguments with respect to the
larger aircraft.

One way to save yourself from the camel is to collect all your crap, move out
and find a new tent before you wake up outside with nothing.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:09:16 -0500, "Blueskies"
> wrote in
>:

>I should have said govment provided service, rather than 'free', but that is the same as saying that you would
>rather only ride on toll roads, rather than the freeways we have today. Some things are best as a govment service
>because private providers will only do things that satisfy the profit motive.
>

http://www.landlinemag.com/Special_Reports/2007/Feb07/SR%2002-09-07%20coalition%20by%20JJ.htm
OOIDA has been very vocal in its opposition to auctioning off the
interstate system. For example, the Association took a strong stance
against the 75-year lease of the Indiana Toll Road. The Association is
also lobbying hard in other states where privatization is being
considered, including New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/01/highwaymen.html
The deal to privatize the Toll Road had been almost a year in the
making. Proponents celebrated it as a no-pain, all-gain way to
off-load maintenance expenses and mobilize new highway-building funds
without raising taxes. Opponents lambasted it as a major turn toward
handing the nation's common property over to private firms, and at
fire-sale prices to boot.

The one thing everyone agreed on was that the Indiana deal was just a
prelude to a host of such efforts to come. Across the nation, there is
now talk of privatizing everything from the New York Thruway to the
Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey turnpikes, as well as of inviting
the private sector to build and operate highways and bridges from
Alabama to Alaska. More than 20 states have enacted legislation
allowing public-private partnerships, or P3s, to run highways. Robert
Poole, the founder of the libertarian Reason Foundation and a longtime
privatization advocate, estimates that some $25 billion in
public-private highway deals are in the works—a remarkable figure
given that as of 1991, the total cost of the interstate highway system
was estimated at $128.9 billion.

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Blueskies" > wrote in message
> . net...
>
>>So, you are saying let Flight Watch die, which for now is a free service,
>>and replace it with > a privatized service for a fee. Yes, that is the
>>problem...
>>
>
>
> Flight Watch is not a free service, there are no free services. You
> consider Flight Watch to be a "free service" only because you don't pay for
> it directly, it's paid with taxes. I would much rather let Flight Watch die
> and replace it with private sector service providers that charge fees and
> compete for my patronage than pay a direct user fee to the FAA for each use
> of Flight Watch.

Personally, I'd give up all government services if they would completely
stop taxing me.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Blueskies" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Sure, I should have said govment provided service, rather than 'free', but
>>that is the
>>same as saying that you would rather only ride on toll roads, rather than
>>the freeways
>>we have today. Some things are best as a govment service because private
>>providers
>>will only do things that satisfy the profit motive.
>>
>
>
> What things provided as government services are superior to things provided
> by private providers motivated by the potential for profit?

Defense. There is little profit motive here and I don't think you could
support a national defense without a government.

Matt

[Judah]

scott moore > wrote in
:

> 2 tons = 4000 pounds. Walk over to all the pilots on your home
> field with aircraft in this range, and tell them you have no problem at
> all with the government balancing the budget on their backs to save
> your own skin. Then tell us who is going to be on YOUR side when they
> reduce the weight requirement to 3,000 lbs.
>
> Then 2,000 lbs.
>
> Then 1,000 lbs.
>
> Then pass a bill declaring that private "hobby" aircraft are to be
> restricted to unpopulated areas only.

Cessna 172s, Beech Bonanzas, and even Beech Barons pose a different threat
and a different cost than King Airs, Pilati, Citations and Gulfstreams.

Personal flying poses a different threat and cost than Corporate and
Charter.

Already there is differentiation - look at landing fees. They are based on
class, engine count, and weight. Quite frankly, if someone is personally
flying a Pilatus or King Air, he may find himself with a bit of the short
end of the stick here, but he also is flying a King Air or a Pilatus, and
probably can handle the difference.

I would love to believe that can win this 'war' and avert user fees
altogether. But my pragmatism or cynicism or whatever has led me to the
conclusion that even if we divert this attack, the enemy will keep on
coming. Seeing that it's a reality in Europe certainly dispells any
illusions I may have had.

In my opinion, the best we can hope for is that the public is smart enough
to recognize that we little folk are not worth the effort and leave us
alone.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure we'll get that much.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-02-10, Judah > wrote:
> It looks like aircraft weighing less than 2 tons are exempt. I believe that
> would pretty much cover all single engine pistons.

This is the case. I've never paid a single user fee (aside from landing
fees, but the airports I generally visit are privately owned, and the
landing fee is charged by the owner of the airfield, not the
government).

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

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-02-10, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Europeans are already accustomed to having their lives run for them by
> bureaucrats (now in several layers both domestic and international). It does
> not occur to them to _resist_ things. The ones who were willing to resist
> injustices and incompetence crossed the Atlantic and Pacific centuries ago.

Europeans do actually resist - as evidenced by the massive response to
the CAA's Mode S transponder proposals. However, the GA population is so
small it is effectively disenfranchised - the CAA basically responded
'well we're going to do it anyway so there'. When you are 50,000 voters
out of an electorate of 40 million, your opinion counts for nothing -
especially when the CAA is leaned on heavily by moneyed corporate
interests like the airlines - the executives of which can remove their
donations to political parties if the CAA doesn't do what they want.

In the end your only option if you don't like the CAA is to move
somewhere else (typically the US). However, most pilots like enough
_other_ things about their own country that they aren't prepared to move
over just a single issue.

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

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-02-10, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Wolfgang Schwanke writes:
>
>> What I say above true for the US as well.
>
> Not unless the U.S. has changed very dramatically indeed. Last time I was
> there, mediocrity, social stratification, and complacency/apathy were not the
> watchwords that they are in Europe.

I've lived in both Europe and the US for a significant time. I would beg
to differ - the average European and American have more in common on
this count than not. Social stratification is rife in the US - mainly
caused by apathy! Just visit any trailer park.

I would say though amongst the 'professional' class in the US, there is
a much better 'can do' attitude though.

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

[Mxsmanic]

scott moore writes:

> 2 tons = 4000 pounds. Walk over to all the pilots on your home
> field with aircraft in this range, and tell them you have no problem at
> all with the government balancing the budget on their backs to save
> your own skin. Then tell us who is going to be on YOUR side when they
> reduce the weight requirement to 3,000 lbs.
>
> Then 2,000 lbs.
>
> Then 1,000 lbs.
>
> Then pass a bill declaring that private "hobby" aircraft are to be
> restricted to unpopulated areas only.

At least someone understands how it works. But most people won't.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Cessna 172s, Beech Bonanzas, and even Beech Barons pose a different threat
> and a different cost than King Airs, Pilati, Citations and Gulfstreams.

In what ways?

> Personal flying poses a different threat and cost than Corporate and
> Charter.

Maybe. Why do you keep mentioning "threats"? Are pilots dangerous people?
Does the population have to be protected from aviation?

> Already there is differentiation - look at landing fees. They are based on
> class, engine count, and weight. Quite frankly, if someone is personally
> flying a Pilatus or King Air, he may find himself with a bit of the short
> end of the stick here, but he also is flying a King Air or a Pilatus, and
> probably can handle the difference.

That same argument can be used against any pilot of any aircraft.

> I would love to believe that can win this 'war' and avert user fees
> altogether. But my pragmatism or cynicism or whatever has led me to the
> conclusion that even if we divert this attack, the enemy will keep on
> coming. Seeing that it's a reality in Europe certainly dispells any
> illusions I may have had.

The United States doesn't necessarily ape Europe in every respect, but it is
true that anything that leads towards increased costs is difficult to avoid.

> In my opinion, the best we can hope for is that the public is smart enough
> to recognize that we little folk are not worth the effort and leave us
> alone.

That's why, in many matters concerning general aviation, it's better to play
down publicity rather than seek it out. You never know which way the opinion
of the general public might go, and you can't afford to have it go against
you.

> Quite frankly, I'm not sure we'll get that much.

Pilots are outsiders in the eyes of the average Joe. Which means that if
someone proposes taxing them but not "normal Americans," he'll almost
certainly get his way.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> p
>
> Freedom of speech is so irritating sometimes, eh?
>

When someone confuses it with freedom of incoherent blathering, it can
be, yes.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

scott moore writes:

> And the "profit motive" has given us wx delivered by geosyncronous
> satellite, including graphics. The FAA has given us an operator who
> reads web pages to you.

The government has also given you GPS, LORAN, VORs, and ILS, along with
thousands of free or dirt-cheap sources of data.

Don't confuse the individual failings of organizations (private or public)
with the general advisability of public or private ownership or operation.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Matt Whiting]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> On 2007-02-10, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>>Wolfgang Schwanke writes:
>>
>>
>>>What I say above true for the US as well.
>>
>>Not unless the U.S. has changed very dramatically indeed. Last time I was
>>there, mediocrity, social stratification, and complacency/apathy were not the
>>watchwords that they are in Europe.
>
>
> I've lived in both Europe and the US for a significant time. I would beg
> to differ - the average European and American have more in common on
> this count than not. Social stratification is rife in the US - mainly
> caused by apathy! Just visit any trailer park.

Man you are clueless.

Matt

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> When someone confuses it with freedom of incoherent blathering, it can
> be, yes.

There is no confusion. Freedom of speech presumes that no one will pass
judgement on the intelligence, coherence, wisdom, etc., of any speech.

But the concept is difficult enough to get across to Americans. People in
countries with a history of far less freedom of speech find it all the more
difficult to understand.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Grumman-581[_2_]]

Judah wrote:
> In today's world, an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system could replace
> the briefers, and you could still call for weather from your car. Instead
> of talking to a briefer, you could dial or talk to the voice response
> system and get appropriate responses.

Having dealt with quite a few of the various voice response systems over
the years, I would have to say that such a system would pretty much
ensure that I never called for a briefing again... When you have the
repeat the same damn think 10 times and the ****in' system *still*
doesn't recognize what you're trying to say, they're basically ****in'
useless... The menu systems that require touchtone responses are quite a
bit better since they are working with fairly discrete responses that
all phones need to be able to generate in order to even dial a number...

[Sam Spade]

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
..
>
>
> The US is a direct democracy? The US government cannot ignore what the
> people want?

No, it is not.

[Sam Spade]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Mxsmanic,
>
>
>>p
>>
>>Freedom of speech is so irritating sometimes, eh?
>>
>
>
> When someone confuses it with freedom of incoherent blathering, it can
> be, yes.
>

Freedom of speach is misunderstood my most Americans, just like most
misunderstand the presumption of innocence for a defendant in a criminal
proceeding.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>
>>When someone confuses it with freedom of incoherent blathering, it can
>>be, yes.
>
>
> There is no confusion. Freedom of speech presumes that no one will pass
> judgement on the intelligence, coherence, wisdom, etc., of any speech.
>
> But the concept is difficult enough to get across to Americans. People in
> countries with a history of far less freedom of speech find it all the more
> difficult to understand.
>

Most Americans do not understand that Freedom of Speech (1st Amendment)
provides protected speech only from the government. It does not apply
between citizens, corporations (or similar entities), or between
citizens and corporations (or similar entities.

[Blueskies]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
: On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:09:16 -0500, "Blueskies"
: > wrote in
: >:
:
: >I should have said govment provided service, rather than 'free', but that is the same as saying that you would
: >rather only ride on toll roads, rather than the freeways we have today. Some things are best as a govment service
: >because private providers will only do things that satisfy the profit motive.
: >
:
...snip..
:
: The one thing everyone agreed on was that the Indiana deal was just a
: prelude to a host of such efforts to come. Across the nation, there is
: now talk of privatizing everything from the New York Thruway to the
: Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey turnpikes, as well as of inviting
: the private sector to build and operate highways and bridges from
: Alabama to Alaska. More than 20 states have enacted legislation
: allowing public-private partnerships, or P3s, to run highways. Robert
: Poole, the founder of the libertarian Reason Foundation and a longtime
: privatization advocate, estimates that some $25 billion in
: public-private highway deals are in the works-a remarkable figure
: given that as of 1991, the total cost of the interstate highway system
: was estimated at $128.9 billion.
:

Thanks Larry...

Now, if you don't live on or very near these privatized roads, what will your roads look like? The govment don't do it
anymore. Remember the troll under the bridge? What about the old cattle toll roads?

What keeps the mail delivered to someone way out in the sticks? The USPS. FedEx and UPS don't deliver everywhere, simply
because they could not make a profit at it.

Should that prevent the emergency services for responding? I'm sorry sir, you are outside our area of service. Please
move your house and family back within 25 miles and we will send the ambulance right away...

[Blueskies]

"scott moore" > wrote in message ...
:: >
:
: And the "profit motive" has given us wx delivered by geosyncronous
: satellite, including graphics. The FAA has given us an operator who
: reads web pages to you.
:
: The government would have got round to giving you satellite delivered
: weather and graphics, certainly by 2040 at the latest.
:
: By the way, all of that graphical weather comes from Nexrad radar, an
: expensive and advanced system YOU paid to build. How much progress has
: the FAA or NOAA made in getting that information to you in the cockpit?
: (without commercial help)
:
: Scott

Exactly my point, we (the US govment) have captured and disseminated the data using tax payer dollars. That data is
given to a private company and then sold back us (the US tax payer) in a different form. That is not right. The
non-responsiveness of the govment is not right either, but just because they are slow to the 'market' does not mean we
should throw out the baby with the bathwater...

[Blueskies]

"scott moore" > wrote in message : >
: > So, you are saying let Flight Watch die, which for now is a free service, and replace it with a privatized service
for a
: > fee. Yes, that is the problem...
: >
: >
:
: First, you can get your briefing for free on the ground. Second,
: the inflight wx is provided by commercial services that compete
: with each other, not by a monolithic FAA service. This is a far
: better deal than we will ever get from the government, even if
: they privatize it (which just creates yet another monopoly).
:
: Scott



Where does the data for this 'free' ground based briefing come from?

[Matt Whiting]

Sam Spade wrote:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Thomas Borchert writes:
>>
>>
>>> When someone confuses it with freedom of incoherent blathering, it
>>> can be, yes.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is no confusion. Freedom of speech presumes that no one will pass
>> judgement on the intelligence, coherence, wisdom, etc., of any speech.
>>
>> But the concept is difficult enough to get across to Americans.
>> People in
>> countries with a history of far less freedom of speech find it all the
>> more
>> difficult to understand.
>>
>
> Most Americans do not understand that Freedom of Speech (1st Amendment)
> provides protected speech only from the government. It does not apply
> between citizens, corporations (or similar entities), or between
> citizens and corporations (or similar entities.

And you are like most Americans and don't understand either.

Matt

[Sam Spade]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>> Thomas Borchert writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> When someone confuses it with freedom of incoherent blathering, it
>>>> can be, yes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no confusion. Freedom of speech presumes that no one will pass
>>> judgement on the intelligence, coherence, wisdom, etc., of any speech.
>>>
>>> But the concept is difficult enough to get across to Americans.
>>> People in
>>> countries with a history of far less freedom of speech find it all
>>> the more
>>> difficult to understand.
>>>
>>
>> Most Americans do not understand that Freedom of Speech (1st
>> Amendment) provides protected speech only from the government. It
>> does not apply between citizens, corporations (or similar entities),
>> or between citizens and corporations (or similar entities.
>
>
> And you are like most Americans and don't understand either.
>
> Matt
Ok, help me.

[Bob Crawford]

On Feb 10, 5:41 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Thomas Borchert writes:
> > When someone confuses it with freedom of incoherent blathering, it can
> > be, yes.
>
> There is no confusion. Freedom of speech presumes that no one will pass
> judgement on the intelligence, coherence, wisdom, etc., of any speech.

Actually freedom of speech presumes that everyone does pass judgement
on the intelligence, coherence, wisdom, etc., of any speech they
encounter - otherwise one my believe everything they heard or read,
for example on the internet.

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> Most Americans do not understand that Freedom of Speech (1st Amendment)
> provides protected speech only from the government. It does not apply
> between citizens, corporations (or similar entities), or between
> citizens and corporations (or similar entities.

That's because only the government has enforcement power. Corporations and
individuals cannot enforce prior restraint; the government can. Therefore
freedom of speech restricts the ability of the government to do these things.
Other entities have only tort to resort to, or sometimes they can file
criminal complaints, but the government remains the agent of enforcement in
both cases.

It doesn't matter whether or not a corporation approves of what you say,
because the corporation does not control the whole of society. You can still
say what you want independently of the corporation. But government censorship
is different, because there are no alternative venues. Therefore freedom of
speech acts mainly to restrain governments.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Crawford writes:

> Actually freedom of speech presumes that everyone does pass judgement
> on the intelligence, coherence, wisdom, etc., of any speech they
> encounter - otherwise one my believe everything they heard or read,
> for example on the internet.

Freedom of speech doesn't care what people think of what they hear or read, it
only requires that they not attempt to prevent others from writing or
speaking.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>Most Americans do not understand that Freedom of Speech (1st Amendment)
>>provides protected speech only from the government. It does not apply
>>between citizens, corporations (or similar entities), or between
>>citizens and corporations (or similar entities.
>
>
> That's because only the government has enforcement power. Corporations and
> individuals cannot enforce prior restraint; the government can. Therefore
> freedom of speech restricts the ability of the government to do these things.
> Other entities have only tort to resort to, or sometimes they can file
> criminal complaints, but the government remains the agent of enforcement in
> both cases.
>
> It doesn't matter whether or not a corporation approves of what you say,
> because the corporation does not control the whole of society. You can still
> say what you want independently of the corporation. But government censorship
> is different, because there are no alternative venues. Therefore freedom of
> speech acts mainly to restrain governments.
>

I think we are saying essentially the same thing.

[Judah]

Grumman-581 > wrote in
:

> Having dealt with quite a few of the various voice response systems over
> the years, I would have to say that such a system would pretty much
> ensure that I never called for a briefing again... When you have the
> repeat the same damn think 10 times and the ****in' system *still*
> doesn't recognize what you're trying to say, they're basically ****in'
> useless... The menu systems that require touchtone responses are quite a
> bit better since they are working with fairly discrete responses that
> all phones need to be able to generate in order to even dial a number...

I agree with you - the system should use touch-tone dialing for selection.
IVR as a category predates the voice recognition capability that exists
today. It implies responses by callers to voice prompts, not necessarily
voice responses, though.

My biggest problem with the ones that try to do voice recognition is that
they only seem to work if there is absolutely no background noise, which is
unrealistic to happen in a car or plane (or even at home with the kids)...

That being said, our FSS currently offers callers the ability to hear any
of about 2 dozen weather reports for popular routes and areas. It also
allows callers to file a flight plan as a recording.

I believe the evolution of the system is to voice prompts that allow you to
easily get you the information you need, along with a small group of
national customer support reps who help people who are having trouble from
a single location.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-02-10, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Man you are clueless.

Touched a nerve there. Sounds like you're in denial.

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

[Jose]

> I agree with you - the system should use touch-tone dialing for selection.

That's the least of it. I find the robots way too chatty.

"Thank you for calling the New England Flight Service Station, one of
twelve FAA superstations covering the country. We hope you are having a
good day, and are eagerly waiting to help you file your flight plan,
plan your flight, get weather briefings, and find out about TFRs and
other flight restrictions. Lets get going! To begin with, I'll have to
ask you a few questions. Are you calling from your home phone number as
registered with the FAA? You can say yes, no, or I don't know. Or, you
can use the touch tone keypad. For yes, press nine, or "y". For no,
press six, or "n". If you don't know whether this number is registesred
with the FAA as your primary phone number, press 4, or "i".

(tweep)

Thank you for your response. You have indicated that this is your home
phone. Remember, to go back, at any time, you can say "go back", or you
can press the two key, or "b". (wakawakawaka) I've located your
record. I see you usually fly a cessna cardinal, November three four
seven Lima Charlie. Is this the aircraft you will be using today? You
can You can say yes, or no. Or, you can use the touch tone keypad. For
yes, press nine, or "y". For no, press six, or "n".

(tweep)

Thank you for your response. I'm so happy to help you. Now, would you
like a weather briefing? If so, press the nine key (or "w"). IF you
would just like to hear about TFRs, press the eight key, or "t". If
you would.......

(click)

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Don Tuite]

Have I missed the wisecracks about outsourcing briefings to Bangalore?

Don

[Everett M. Greene[_2_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:
> "Blueskies" > wrote
> >
> > So, you are saying let Flight Watch die, which for now is a free service,
> > and replace it with a privatized service for a fee. Yes, that is the
> > problem...
>
> Flight Watch is not a free service, there are no free services. You
> consider Flight Watch to be a "free service" only because you don't pay for
> it directly, it's paid with taxes. I would much rather let Flight Watch die
> and replace it with private sector service providers that charge fees and
> compete for my patronage than pay a direct user fee to the FAA for each use
> of Flight Watch.

Just how much competition do you expect there would be to
provide Flight Watch service? Would there be even be one
company willing to provide it?

The incremental cost to the government to provide Flight
Watch is minimal -- the facilities and personnel are
already in place. The cost to replicate the facilities
and staff the operation for a private company would be
quite high as would be the fees necessary for the provider
to make a profit.

[Chris]

"Everett M. Greene" > wrote in message
...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:
>> "Blueskies" > wrote
>> >
>> > So, you are saying let Flight Watch die, which for now is a free
>> > service,
>> > and replace it with a privatized service for a fee. Yes, that is the
>> > problem...
>>
>> Flight Watch is not a free service, there are no free services. You
>> consider Flight Watch to be a "free service" only because you don't pay
>> for
>> it directly, it's paid with taxes. I would much rather let Flight Watch
>> die
>> and replace it with private sector service providers that charge fees and
>> compete for my patronage than pay a direct user fee to the FAA for each
>> use
>> of Flight Watch.
>
> Just how much competition do you expect there would be to
> provide Flight Watch service? Would there be even be one
> company willing to provide it?
>
> The incremental cost to the government to provide Flight
> Watch is minimal -- the facilities and personnel are
> already in place. The cost to replicate the facilities
> and staff the operation for a private company would be
> quite high as would be the fees necessary for the provider
> to make a profit.

What is the size of the contract the FAA has with Lockheed? I thought the
Flight Watch service had already been let out for a profit. I cannot
imagine Lockheed doing the job to breakeven.

[Judah]

Jose > wrote in
t:

> That's the least of it. I find the robots way too chatty.

What, you never get a chatty briefer?

[Jon Woellhaf]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...

[hilarious automated FSS transcript deleted]

Jose,

I can't tell if that's an actual transcript or if you just made it up. It
seems much too realistic to be fictional.

Still laughing!

Jon

[Jose]

>>I find the robots way too chatty.
> What, you never get a chatty briefer?

Thems I can silence. Robots are far more potent.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:17:30 +0100, Wolfgang Schwanke >
wrote in >:

>> Larry Dighera writes:
>>
>>> Why did your populous accept the imposition of a privatized ATC
>>> system? What did you do to resist it?
>

[snip]

>There is some resistance against privatisation in
>matters that are important to the general public, but aviation is not a
>prime interest of 95% of the population.
>

Did you personally contact the international arm of the Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association regarding ATC privatization? Did you
submit a protest letter to the appropriate authorities requesting them
to not privatize European ATC? Did you organize any of your fellow
airman to protest also? What exactly did YOU do to fight European ATC
privatization?

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > I agree with you - the system should use touch-tone dialing for selection.
>
> That's the least of it. I find the robots way too chatty.
>
> "Thank you for calling the New England Flight Service Station, one of
> twelve FAA superstations covering the country. We hope you are having a
> good day, and are eagerly waiting to help you file your flight plan,
> plan your flight, get weather briefings, and find out about TFRs and
> other flight restrictions. Lets get going! To begin with, I'll have to
> ask you a few questions. Are you calling from your home phone number as
> registered with the FAA? You can say yes, no, or I don't know. Or, you
> can use the touch tone keypad. For yes, press nine, or "y". For no,
> press six, or "n". If you don't know whether this number is registesred
> with the FAA as your primary phone number, press 4, or "i".
>
> (tweep)
>
> Thank you for your response. You have indicated that this is your home
> phone. Remember, to go back, at any time, you can say "go back", or you
> can press the two key, or "b". (wakawakawaka) I've located your
> record. I see you usually fly a cessna cardinal, November three four
> seven Lima Charlie. Is this the aircraft you will be using today? You
> can You can say yes, or no. Or, you can use the touch tone keypad. For
> yes, press nine, or "y". For no, press six, or "n".
>
> (tweep)
>
> Thank you for your response. I'm so happy to help you. Now, would you
> like a weather briefing? If so, press the nine key (or "w"). IF you
> would just like to hear about TFRs, press the eight key, or "t". If
> you would.......
>
> (click)
>
> Jose

Sounds reasonable, except it should be "For yes, press niner".

[Aluckyguess]

"Wolfgang Schwanke" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Wolfgang Schwanke writes:
>>
>>> The US is a direct democracy? The US government cannot ignore what
>>> the people want?
>>
>> The U.S. is an _effective_ democracy. The people have a strong
>> influence on how the government is run, in part because the people
>> running the government are largely the same as the people being
>> governed.
>
> I didn't know the United States had 300 million ministers.
>
>> Statutory class distinctions are nonexistent in the U.S.
>> for the most part, and de facto distinctions are rare compared to the
>> European norm.
>
> Shut up :). Oh really this is silly, you are using a very creative mix
> of constantly shifting standards and equivocations to defend your
> nationalist prejudices, without ever substantiating any of them. I
> suggest you give up, it doesn't work.
>
No he isn't. He won this debate. You should probably stop before he
embarrass you even more.
>>> That makes them a class by definition.
>>
>> No, it makes them a profession.
>
> A class means: A set of people who have a different perspective and
> different interests than others sets of people. That makes them
> socially different: a class. You are using a different definition of
> the word "class" (or you shift it according to the prejudice you wish
> to defend).
>
>>> I think it helps if your name is Kennedy, Clinton or Bush, but that
>>> was not what I was talking about anyway.
>>
>> None of these familes inherited their prominence. There are no royals
>> in the United States, and no nobles. That's the way the country's
>> founders wanted it, and that's one of the things that sharply
>> distinguishes the U.S. from Europe.
>
> No it doesn't. There are few countries in Europe who have nobles or
> royals at all; someone who claims to know so much about the continent
> ought to know such an important fact. And the few countries who do have
> them do so mostly for fun, not for political functions.
>
> --
> Da wo alle dasselbe denken, wird nicht viel gedacht.
>
> http://www.wschwanke.de/ usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Freedom of speech presumes that no one will pass
> judgement on the intelligence, coherence, wisdom, etc., of any speech.
>

Not at all. The way freedom of speech works (apart from the fact that
the concept doesn't apply to discussions between people anyway) is this:
You may say whatever you want and you will not be prohibited from saying
anything - but you can fully expect to be judged on it and to be held
accountable for it. Freedom of speech comes with freedom of judgement -
like it or not.

That's exactly what happens here with each and every of your posts. I
can understand you don't like the results...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> it
> only requires that they not attempt to prevent others from writing or
> speaking.
>

Ah, you're getting back on track. And you have been prevented here
exactly how? Or even could be? Again, you have no clue what you are
talking about.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Not at all. The way freedom of speech works (apart from the fact that
> the concept doesn't apply to discussions between people anyway) is this:
> You may say whatever you want and you will not be prohibited from saying
> anything - but you can fully expect to be judged on it and to be held
> accountable for it.

Not quite. Some types of "being held accountable" amount to little more than
censorship, and the only reason they do not act through prior restraint is
that the technical means of physically preventing people from uttering the
forbidden words in advance are lacking. If everyone who utters the word
"tree" is sent to prison, that's censorship; the fact that people are not
prevented from uttering it doesn't make it any less so.

Thus, banning books or burning them is censorship, even though the books have
been printed.

Of course, if you live in a place with a long and sorry distinction of
infringements upon freedom of speech continuing up to the present day, you may
not have learned of this distinction.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[ktbr]

Judah wrote:

> In general, I don't think it would be a terrible idea to more clearly define
> GA as two classes - light single engines / twin aircraft and corporate /
> charter Jets.
>
> Most of the complaints of the public and airlines regarding security threats
> and tax advantages hold a different set of arguments with respect to the
> larger aircraft.
>
> One way to save yourself from the camel is to collect all your crap, move out
> and find a new tent before you wake up outside with nothing.

That attitude remonds me of this:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

[ktbr]

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
>
>>This type of fatalism is also typically European.
>
>
> What I say above true for the US as well. It's not true for
> Switzerland, which is in Europe.
>
>

Unfortunatetly I find myself agreeing with this statement.

I personally believe it is a result of a combination of the
dumbing-down an overall femininization of the US public in general.
This breeds people who are more concerned with "security" (hehe..
more of a false sense of one!) than real freedom and more concerned
about being "politically correct" or not offending someone than
standing firm for what you believe in.

[ktbr]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> There is no confusion. Freedom of speech presumes that no one will pass
> judgement on the intelligence, coherence, wisdom, etc., of any speech.
>

WRONG. Freedom of speech presumes no such thing... on the other hand,
tru socialism does.

[Sam Spade]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Mxsmanic,
>
>
>>Freedom of speech presumes that no one will pass
>>judgement on the intelligence, coherence, wisdom, etc., of any speech.
>>
>
>
> Not at all. The way freedom of speech works (apart from the fact that
> the concept doesn't apply to discussions between people anyway) is this:
> You may say whatever you want and you will not be prohibited from saying
> anything - but you can fully expect to be judged on it and to be held
> accountable for it. Freedom of speech comes with freedom of judgement -
> like it or not.
>
> That's exactly what happens here with each and every of your posts. I
> can understand you don't like the results...
>
;-)

[Judah]

ktbr > wrote in
:

>> One way to save yourself from the camel is to collect all your crap,
>> move out and find a new tent before you wake up outside with nothing.
>
> That attitude remonds me of this:
>
> When the Nazis came for the communists,
> I remained silent;
> I was not a communist.
>
> When they locked up the social democrats,
> I remained silent;
> I was not a social democrat.
>
> When they came for the trade unionists,
> I did not speak out;
> I was not a trade unionist.
>
> When they came for me,
> there was no one left to speak out.

Interesting comparison.

Do you equate charging a fee for service to genocidal murder?

If the government were intent upon enslaving and/or murdering all pilots,
my feelings would be different. But the reality is that they want to recoup
some of the costs associated with providing weather and traffic services by
charging a fee for said provided service. It's not as outrageous as you
make it - most people in the US pay tolls to drive on certain roads, pay
for tickets to ride public transportation, and pay a 911 surcharge to the
phone company for the privilege of not having to remember quite as many
numbers to dial if they are in danger.

While I wish that these services might still be given away, the reality is
that the best that I can hope for is that the fee is equitable and fair,
and that they don't try to gouge me just because they listen to people like
Manix and think that anyone who flies must be extraordinarily wealthy.

[Jon]

On Feb 11, 5:28 pm, "Chris" > wrote:
> "Everett M. Greene" > wrote in g-pacwest.com...
>
>
>
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:
> >> "Blueskies" > wrote
>
> >> > So, you are saying let Flight Watch die, which for now is a free
> >> > service,
> >> > and replace it with a privatized service for a fee. Yes, that is the
> >> > problem...
>
> >> Flight Watch is not a free service, there are no free services. You
> >> consider Flight Watch to be a "free service" only because you don't pay
> >> for
> >> it directly, it's paid with taxes. I would much rather let Flight Watch
> >> die
> >> and replace it with private sector service providers that charge fees and
> >> compete for my patronage than pay a direct user fee to the FAA for each
> >> use
> >> of Flight Watch.
>
> > Just how much competition do you expect there would be to
> > provide Flight Watch service? Would there be even be one
> > company willing to provide it?
>
> > The incremental cost to the government to provide Flight
> > Watch is minimal -- the facilities and personnel are
> > already in place. The cost to replicate the facilities
> > and staff the operation for a private company would be
> > quite high as would be the fees necessary for the provider
> > to make a profit.
>
> What is the size of the contract the FAA has with Lockheed? I thought the
> Flight Watch service had already been let out for a profit. I cannot
> imagine Lockheed doing the job to breakeven.

>From <http://www.faa.gov/aca/perf_decision/Dennis%20DeGaetano.pdf> I
found:

"... The total evaluated cosyt of the 5-year contrac, with 5
additional optiuonb years, awarded baed on best value, is $1.9
billion. ..."

Some more references to AFSS and A-76 in general:

<http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/aca/afss/
transition/realigned_discontinued/media/Detailed%20Realigned%20and
%20Discontinued%20Activities.pdf>

<http://www.faa.gov/library/office_publications/a76/view/
a76_brochure.cfm>

<http://www.faa.gov/about/plans_reports/business_plan2006/media/
ATOFY06BPFINAL.pdf>


HTH.

Regards,
Jon

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Do you equate charging a fee for service to genocidal murder?

In terms of how governments are allowed to slip towards dictatorships, yes.
The Nazis came to power in large part through complacency, and the willingness
of the people to trade freedom for a (false) sense of "security."

> If the government were intent upon enslaving and/or murdering all pilots,
> my feelings would be different. But the reality is that they want to recoup
> some of the costs associated with providing weather and traffic services by
> charging a fee for said provided service.

They are already doing that, else the services would not exist. It's only a
question of who is charged for the costs.

It's important to find a balance between charging all people for a service,
including those who never use it, and charging only the people who actually
use it. The former is unfair to some extent (although the per capita cost may
be very small), and the latter can be unfair if the charges per capita turn
out to be extremely high.

Suppose you have a service X that is used only by GA pilots. Should GA pilots
alone pay for the service, at $1000 per GA pilot (and zero for everyone else),
or should all entities operating aircraft pay for it, at $10 per GA pilot (and
$10 for all airline passengers), or should all taxpayers pay for it, at $0.01
per pilot (and $0.01 for everyone else)? Where do you draw the line?

> While I wish that these services might still be given away, the reality is
> that the best that I can hope for is that the fee is equitable and fair,
> and that they don't try to gouge me just because they listen to people like
> Manix and think that anyone who flies must be extraordinarily wealthy.

Not extraordinarily wealthy, but much more wealthy than average, especially if
they fly more than a few hours per year.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
>
> Not extraordinarily wealthy, but much more wealthy than average, especially if
> they fly more than a few hours per year.
>

Why should people who are much more wealthy than average expect their
elisted hobby to be funded by the taxes of the struggling masses?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Sam Spade wrote:
>
> Why should people who are much more wealthy than average expect their
> elisted hobby to be funded by the taxes of the struggling masses?

The "hobby" flying that people, including the wealthy, do adds so little to
the cost of maintaining the national airspace system that it is hardly worth
mentioning. The things that get money spent on them like airports are
helping the struggling masses by supporting businesses that create jobs.

[Matt Barrow]

"Wolfgang Schwanke" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in news:22pzh.2865$Ys.1640
> @newsfe10.phx:
>>>
>>> Privatisation of government tasks is part of neoliberal ideology,
>>
>> What does the EU see as the proper function of government?
>>
>> In _classical liberal_ thought, the role of government was police on
>> the local level, courts of law, and a military.
>
> Misunderstanding. "Neoliberal" is a swear word for Thaterite
> monetarism, mostly used by its opponents such as myself; probably
> European usage. It has little in common with classical liberalism
> anyway.
>
> The EU is basically a contract between the then-EC governments made in
> 1992, in which they agreed to remove all trade barriers between each
> other, to replace all national currencies with a common one and several
> other measures. This created a unified market for goods, workforce,
> money.
>
> I describe this policy as "neoliberal" because they failed to create a
> unified welfare system and common tax system at the same time, which
> they could have easily done. This failure creates a pressure on the
> member nations to outcompete each other by reducing taxes and cutting
> the welfare systems down. This tends to weaken the position ov national
> governments and leaves the majority of the population out in the cold.
> Of course those are exactly the goals of neoliberalism, but they are
> disastrous.
>
> Disclaimer: I'm all in favour of the nations of Europe cooperating, of
> extending the community to new member states especially from the east,
> of helping them build up their economies to western levels, for free
> travel and all that. But this is not the way to do it.

You didn't expend one word answering my question.

I did, though, get a good view of why Europe is sinking.

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> Why should people who are much more wealthy than average expect their
> elisted hobby to be funded by the taxes of the struggling masses?

I don't know; why?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> The "hobby" flying that people, including the wealthy, do adds so little to
> the cost of maintaining the national airspace system that it is hardly worth
> mentioning. The things that get money spent on them like airports are
> helping the struggling masses by supporting businesses that create jobs.

I strongly suspect that GA is more of a burden than an asset for the
population and society at large. Commercial air travel is a necessity;
general aviation is not.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[ktbr]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> I strongly suspect that GA is more of a burden than an asset for the
> population and society at large. Commercial air travel is a necessity;
> general aviation is not.
>
Well, if you are going to make a statement like that then you can
also say that commercial air travel isn't really "necessary".

The only "necessary" things in life are food air and water and a
dry place to sleep. If you want more than that, and/or things
at a lower cost then lots of other things are necessary... including
general aviation.

Of course we are really only talking about free societies that
encourage business and priviate property rights. Anything else is
the old Soviet Union, in one form or another.

[Mxsmanic]

ktbr writes:

> Well, if you are going to make a statement like that then you can
> also say that commercial air travel isn't really "necessary".

Not really. Commercial air travel is a necessary part of the country's
infrastructure. General aviation is not. If GA disappeared tomorrow,
virtually nothing would perceptibly change in the U.S. If commercial air
travel disappeared, the country would nearly grind to a halt.

> Of course we are really only talking about free societies that
> encourage business and priviate property rights. Anything else is
> the old Soviet Union, in one form or another.

People who are not interested in GA don't see it that way. To them, GA is a
hobby for the rich, and they are justifiably curious as to why they should
subsidize GA in any way, since they receive nothing in return.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[BDS[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> People who are not interested in GA don't see it that way. To them, GA is
a
> hobby for the rich, and they are justifiably curious as to why they should
> subsidize GA in any way, since they receive nothing in return.

What is your definition of GA?

BDS

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> The "hobby" flying that people, including the wealthy, do adds so
>> little to the cost of maintaining the national airspace system that
>> it is hardly worth mentioning. The things that get money spent on
>> them like airports are helping the struggling masses by supporting
>> businesses that create jobs.
>
> I strongly suspect that GA is more of a burden than an asset for the
> population and society at large. Commercial air travel is a
> necessity; general aviation is not.

I can think of 3 major companies that together employee ~2500 people in my
town of ~20,000 that would not be here if it weren't for the availability of
GA flight. In fact, the town would probably dry up and blow away if any one
of these left and would certainly do so if any two of them did.

And since one of these companies just decided to pay for the college
education of every single person that graduates from our school system I'd
say that means pretty much everybody here benefits from GA.

[ktbr]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> People who are not interested in GA don't see it that way. To them, GA is a
> hobby for the rich, and they are justifiably curious as to why they should
> subsidize GA in any way, since they receive nothing in return.
>

They are ignorant. Every day in this country GA is used by businesses
large to small. We have two UPS contract flights in and out of our GA
airport daily and two check hauling flights daily. Business jets come in
and out of here several times a week on business purposes with any of
dozens of business located in this town or nearby. All this is GA, not
Commercial.

Most people have no clue that much of the products that get shipped to
their homes come via GA.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

ktbr wrote:
>
> They are ignorant. Every day in this country GA is used by businesses
> large to small. We have two UPS contract flights in and out of our GA
> airport daily and two check hauling flights daily. Business jets come in
> and out of here several times a week on business purposes with any of
> dozens of business located in this town or nearby. All this is GA, not
> Commercial.

Not quite. Most of it _is_ commercial, but it's not scheduled airline
service, so it's GA. LOTS of GA is commercial in nature. <G>


> Most people have no clue that much of the products that get shipped to
> their homes come via GA.

I agree, if you mean products that actually traveled by air.

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> What is your definition of GA?

Anything that's not a commercial transportation service for pay.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jim Logajan]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> BDS writes:
>
>> What is your definition of GA?
>
> Anything that's not a commercial transportation service for pay.

That conflicts with the FAA definition.

[Mxsmanic]

ktbr writes:

> They are ignorant. Every day in this country GA is used by businesses
> large to small.

Forget it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> I can think of 3 major companies that together employee ~2500 people in my
> town of ~20,000 that would not be here if it weren't for the availability of
> GA flight. In fact, the town would probably dry up and blow away if any one
> of these left and would certainly do so if any two of them did.

What type of business are these companies in?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Sam Spade]

ktbr wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>>
>> People who are not interested in GA don't see it that way. To them,
>> GA is a
>> hobby for the rich, and they are justifiably curious as to why they
>> should
>> subsidize GA in any way, since they receive nothing in return.
>>
>
> They are ignorant. Every day in this country GA is used by businesses
> large to small. We have two UPS contract flights in and out of our GA
> airport daily and two check hauling flights daily. Business jets come in
> and out of here several times a week on business purposes with any of
> dozens of business located in this town or nearby. All this is GA, not
> Commercial.
>
> Most people have no clue that much of the products that get shipped to
> their homes come via GA.

"elitist hobby" clearly does not include FedEx, et al feeder flights,
medical flights, or serious business aviation. It does include "$100
hamburger" flights, personal transportation flight, personal sightseeing
flights, and warbird activities.

Smart non-flying folks I know clearly know the difference.

I bring this aspect up, because it will become part of the debate about
user fees. To ignore the argument does not make it go away.

[Peter Dohm]

> >> The "hobby" flying that people, including the wealthy, do adds so
> >> little to the cost of maintaining the national airspace system that
> >> it is hardly worth mentioning. The things that get money spent on
> >> them like airports are helping the struggling masses by supporting
> >> businesses that create jobs.
> >
> > I strongly suspect that GA is more of a burden than an asset for the
> > population and society at large. Commercial air travel is a
> > necessity; general aviation is not.
>
> I can think of 3 major companies that together employee ~2500 people in my
> town of ~20,000 that would not be here if it weren't for the availability
of
> GA flight. In fact, the town would probably dry up and blow away if any
one
> of these left and would certainly do so if any two of them did.
>
> And since one of these companies just decided to pay for the college
> education of every single person that graduates from our school system I'd
> say that means pretty much everybody here benefits from GA.
>
I might go so far as to say that GA, Freight, and Military are necessary and
that Air Taxi is usefull.

OTOH, the east usefull, to the healthy functioning of our economy is
scheduled pasenger service.

Peter
Just my $0.02
(Wearing Nomex, of course)

[ktbr]

Sam Spade wrote:
>
> "elitist hobby" clearly does not include FedEx, et al feeder flights,
> medical flights, or serious business aviation. It does include "$100
> hamburger" flights, personal transportation flight, personal sightseeing
> flights, and warbird activities.

Well the so called "hamburger" flying you talk about is probably 30%
or less of the traffic that takes place at this airport. 75% of the fuel
we sell is for business general aviation activities.

Of course when you force out 20% of these useless "hamburger" pilots
then the rest of GA will pay more for parts and maintenance in the
long run... if they can find a place that is still in business to do it.

Besides... Jimmy Carter already tried something like this by raising
taxes on so called "luxury" boats and ended up putting lots of folks
out of work as a result. That industry didn't rebound until that tax
was repealed.

[ktbr]

B A R R Y wrote:
> Not quite. Most of it _is_ commercial, but it's not scheduled airline
> service, so it's GA. LOTS of GA is commercial in nature. <G>

Exactly. Thanks for making my point.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> I can think of 3 major companies that together employee ~2500 people
>> in my town of ~20,000 that would not be here if it weren't for the
>> availability of GA flight. In fact, the town would probably dry up
>> and blow away if any one of these left and would certainly do so if
>> any two of them did.
>
> What type of business are these companies in?

Oil, Chemical and Timber.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Sam Spade wrote:

>
> "elitist hobby" clearly does not include FedEx, et al feeder flights,
> medical flights, or serious business aviation. It does include "$100
> hamburger" flights, personal transportation flight, personal
> sightseeing flights, and warbird activities.
>
> Smart non-flying folks I know clearly know the difference.
>
> I bring this aspect up, because it will become part of the debate
> about user fees. To ignore the argument does not make it go away.

Well then driving in my car to a restaurant or a trip accross town to the
supermarket is an elitist hobby supported by public funding.

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> That conflicts with the FAA definition.

I don't work for the FAA.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Well then driving in my car to a restaurant or a trip accross town to the
> supermarket is an elitist hobby supported by public funding.

But it is something that just about everyone does, so it's unlikely that any
general public opposition to the practice will arise.

The same cannot be said for $100 hamburgers.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Sam Spade]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>
>>"elitist hobby" clearly does not include FedEx, et al feeder flights,
>>medical flights, or serious business aviation. It does include "$100
>>hamburger" flights, personal transportation flight, personal
>>sightseeing flights, and warbird activities.
>>
>>Smart non-flying folks I know clearly know the difference.
>>
>>I bring this aspect up, because it will become part of the debate
>>about user fees. To ignore the argument does not make it go away.
>
>
> Well then driving in my car to a restaurant or a trip accross town to the
> supermarket is an elitist hobby supported by public funding.
>
>
Your view is not shared by the automotive public.

[Matt Whiting]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>>Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>>
>>
>>>The "hobby" flying that people, including the wealthy, do adds so
>>>little to the cost of maintaining the national airspace system that
>>>it is hardly worth mentioning. The things that get money spent on
>>>them like airports are helping the struggling masses by supporting
>>>businesses that create jobs.
>>
>>I strongly suspect that GA is more of a burden than an asset for the
>>population and society at large. Commercial air travel is a
>>necessity; general aviation is not.
>
>
> I can think of 3 major companies that together employee ~2500 people in my
> town of ~20,000 that would not be here if it weren't for the availability of
> GA flight. In fact, the town would probably dry up and blow away if any one
> of these left and would certainly do so if any two of them did.
>
> And since one of these companies just decided to pay for the college
> education of every single person that graduates from our school system I'd
> say that means pretty much everybody here benefits from GA.
>
>

Sadly, most of them probably don't know that.

Matt

[Bryan]

On Feb 12, 11:01 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> If GA disappeared tomorrow,
> virtually nothing would perceptibly change in the U.S. If commercial air
> travel disappeared, the country would nearly grind to a halt.

If GA disappeared tomorrow, commercial air travel would eventually
suffer as well. Remember that many of those airline pilots flying
around those big planes learned how to fly in little GA aircraft.

-- Bryan

[Mxsmanic]

Bryan writes:

> If GA disappeared tomorrow, commercial air travel would eventually
> suffer as well. Remember that many of those airline pilots flying
> around those big planes learned how to fly in little GA aircraft.

But that is no longer necessary. Pilots can be trained from zero in
simulators and then turned loose on the actual aircraft for a quick checkride,
or perhaps for a revenue flight. This is what the Third World is considering
in order to train enough pilots quickly enough to meet demand. The FAA is
more conservative and probably won't allow this for some time to come,
although everyone is moving in that direction. GA aircraft are so far from
airliners now that training in them is of dubious value, and airliners
themselves are too expensive and risky to fly for training.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Sam Spade]

Bryan wrote:
> On Feb 12, 11:01 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>>If GA disappeared tomorrow,
>>virtually nothing would perceptibly change in the U.S. If commercial air
>>travel disappeared, the country would nearly grind to a halt.
>
>
> If GA disappeared tomorrow, commercial air travel would eventually
> suffer as well. Remember that many of those airline pilots flying
> around those big planes learned how to fly in little GA aircraft.
>
> -- Bryan
>

GA will not disappear. The folks who buy new $500,000 piston singles
will not disappear.

The airlines will eventually, perhaps, use these advanced piston birds
to train their pilots from scratch, if necessary.

No one is proposing to abolish light aircraft from most of the airspace.

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:

>
> The airlines will eventually, perhaps, use these advanced piston birds
> to train their pilots from scratch, if necessary.

They've been doing that for a long time. Lufthansa uses Bonanza's in
Arizona, some of them have over 14,000 hours on them. When I was at GFK
in the early 90's UND had a program where airlines would send over zero
time students and they would leave UND in less thyan a year as first
officers on Airbuses and 747's. We had students from Gulf Air, China
Airlines and a third one that I can't recall right now. They started
their private pilot training in Piper Arrows and then moved into
Seminoles, King Airs and then finally Citations and Beechjets.

[Morgans]

"Newps" > wrote

> They've been doing that for a long time. Lufthansa uses Bonanza's in
> Arizona, some of them have over 14,000 hours on them. When I was at GFK
> in the early 90's UND had a program where airlines would send over zero
> time students and they would leave UND in less thyan a year as first
> officers on Airbuses and 747's. We had students from Gulf Air, China
> Airlines and a third one that I can't recall right now. They started
> their private pilot training in Piper Arrows and then moved into
> Seminoles, King Airs and then finally Citations and Beechjets.

The biggest shame about the whole thing, is that this whole thing threatens
to break a system that is essentially not broken.

All to better serve the big money at the airlines.

It makes me sick to think that I, at the time, supported their bail-out of
the post 9-11 period.

One can hope that this blows over until after the next presidential
election. It would be nice to think that our representatives can think for
themselves, and not allow the package to go through.
--
Jim in NC

[scott moore]

Blueskies wrote:
> "scott moore" > wrote in message ...
> :: >
> :
> : And the "profit motive" has given us wx delivered by geosyncronous
> : satellite, including graphics. The FAA has given us an operator who
> : reads web pages to you.
> :
> : The government would have got round to giving you satellite delivered
> : weather and graphics, certainly by 2040 at the latest.
> :
> : By the way, all of that graphical weather comes from Nexrad radar, an
> : expensive and advanced system YOU paid to build. How much progress has
> : the FAA or NOAA made in getting that information to you in the cockpit?
> : (without commercial help)
> :
> : Scott
>
> Exactly my point, we (the US govment) have captured and disseminated the data using tax payer dollars. That data is
> given to a private company and then sold back us (the US tax payer) in a different form. That is not right. The
> non-responsiveness of the govment is not right either, but just because they are slow to the 'market' does not mean we
> should throw out the baby with the bathwater...
>
>

The US government invented and deployed Nexrad, the most advanced
weather radar system on the planet, so that ma and pa could find
out if it is going to rain on the monday morning commute.

The Nexrad data gets beamed up to a satellite, bounced to NOAA
for interpretation, beamed to the networks, bounced off a distribution
satellite, and presented on a digital television.

For ma and pa.

For pilots, the government has managed to distribute it to briefers
who give you an interpretation by voice radio, via AM (aptitude
modulation), a technology that was invented by an Italian in the late
1800s, more than a century ago.

Now, you can, for a fee, to a private company, get your nexrad pictures,
within 5-10 minutes old, off a satellite, direct to your airplane. Why?
Because ma and pa wanted to listen to Howard Stern asking some stripper
if he can put his hand down her pants. Live. Via digital radio.

Now tell me about how the government is doing a good job for pilots.

Scott

[scott moore]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> The "hobby" flying that people, including the wealthy, do adds so little to
>> the cost of maintaining the national airspace system that it is hardly worth
>> mentioning. The things that get money spent on them like airports are
>> helping the struggling masses by supporting businesses that create jobs.
>
> I strongly suspect that GA is more of a burden than an asset for the
> population and society at large. Commercial air travel is a necessity;
> general aviation is not.
>

GA is a gnat on the publics rear end. We use a resource nobody else
cares about or wants, that is, the airspace between 1000 and 18000 feet
AGL. The only part of that anyone else cares about is the circle around
large airports that big metal uses to climb up and down to their
accustomed flight altitudes. We use 3000 feet of pavement when the
general public uses countless miles of it. We use fields out of town
and give them up when the town grows out to the "useless" land the
airports were built on and want it "back". We use a tiny fraction of
the fuel, have virtually no environmental impact compared to cars
and ATVs. Our accident rate, for whatever the danger to pilots per
hour is, is to the general public a fraction of carnage done yearly
by portable power saws, much less anything more dangerous like a
car or truck. We are accused of noise pollution even though our
total impact is less than a years production of Harley Davidson.
We are accused of air pollution even though our total output is likely
less than the lawn mowers in LA.

And despite the fact that we use a resource that is virtually free and
has unlimited capacity (airspace) there is always someone who thinks
that we shouldn't have it, because they can't have it.

Don't worry, I'm sure you'll get your way someday.

Scott

[Mxsmanic]

scott moore writes:

> And despite the fact that we use a resource that is virtually free and
> has unlimited capacity (airspace) there is always someone who thinks
> that we shouldn't have it, because they can't have it.

In the case of GA, it's more a matter of people who think you shouldn't have
it because they don't see any reason for it--they don't want it. If the loss
of GA is nothing to them, they figure it's nothing to you, and if they
outnumber you, you lose.

If you cannot understand the viewpoint of the public at large, you can only
damage your own interests by making a fuss.

> Don't worry, I'm sure you'll get your way someday.

To whom are you addressing this?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
scott moore > wrote:

> GA is a gnat on the publics rear end.

except in part of the US, like Alaska.

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

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

ktbr wrote:
> B A R R Y wrote:
>> Not quite. Most of it _is_ commercial, but it's not scheduled
>> airline service, so it's GA. LOTS of GA is commercial in nature. <G>
>
> Exactly. Thanks for making my point.

Glad I could help!

Heck, even flight training is commercial in nature, yet is still GA.

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>
>> The airlines will eventually, perhaps, use these advanced piston birds
>> to train their pilots from scratch, if necessary.
>
>
> They've been doing that for a long time. Lufthansa uses Bonanza's in
> Arizona, some of them have over 14,000 hours on them. When I was at GFK
> in the early 90's UND had a program where airlines would send over zero
> time students and they would leave UND in less thyan a year as first
> officers on Airbuses and 747's. We had students from Gulf Air, China
> Airlines and a third one that I can't recall right now. They started
> their private pilot training in Piper Arrows and then moved into
> Seminoles, King Airs and then finally Citations and Beechjets.
>
>
As has JAL in Napa, California. I was thinking in terms of U.S. carriers.

[Sam Spade]

Morgans wrote:

>
> "Newps" > wrote
>
>> They've been doing that for a long time. Lufthansa uses Bonanza's in
>> Arizona, some of them have over 14,000 hours on them. When I was at
>> GFK in the early 90's UND had a program where airlines would send over
>> zero time students and they would leave UND in less thyan a year as
>> first officers on Airbuses and 747's. We had students from Gulf Air,
>> China Airlines and a third one that I can't recall right now. They
>> started their private pilot training in Piper Arrows and then moved
>> into Seminoles, King Airs and then finally Citations and Beechjets.
>
>
> The biggest shame about the whole thing, is that this whole thing
> threatens to break a system that is essentially not broken.
>
> All to better serve the big money at the airlines.
>
> It makes me sick to think that I, at the time, supported their bail-out
> of the post 9-11 period.
>
> One can hope that this blows over until after the next presidential
> election. It would be nice to think that our representatives can think
> for themselves, and not allow the package to go through.

The way the Democrats in Congress who now control this stuff are
talking, user fees may die. The airline stooge group, the Air Transport
Association, is now focusing on big increases in fuel taxes.

[Peter Dohm]

> >>"elitist hobby" clearly does not include FedEx, et al feeder flights,
> >>medical flights, or serious business aviation. It does include "$100
> >>hamburger" flights, personal transportation flight, personal
> >>sightseeing flights, and warbird activities.
> >>
> >>Smart non-flying folks I know clearly know the difference.
> >>
> >>I bring this aspect up, because it will become part of the debate
> >>about user fees. To ignore the argument does not make it go away.
> >
> >
> > Well then driving in my car to a restaurant or a trip accross town to
the
> > supermarket is an elitist hobby supported by public funding.
> >
> >
> Your view is not shared by the automotive public.

It is however, precisely as correct as making the same claim about GA for
personal transportation.

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

>
> The biggest shame about the whole thing, is that this whole thing
threatens
> to break a system that is essentially not broken.
>
> All to better serve the big money at the airlines.
>
> It makes me sick to think that I, at the time, supported their bail-out of
> the post 9-11 period.
>
You are not alone. :-(

> One can hope that this blows over until after the next presidential
> election. It would be nice to think that our representatives can think
for
> themselves, and not allow the package to go through.
> --
We can only hope.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 21:41:19 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote in
>:

>On 2007-02-10, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Europeans are already accustomed to having their lives run for them by
>> bureaucrats (now in several layers both domestic and international). It does
>> not occur to them to _resist_ things. The ones who were willing to resist
>> injustices and incompetence crossed the Atlantic and Pacific centuries ago.
>
>Europeans do actually resist - as evidenced by the massive response to
>the CAA's Mode S transponder proposals. However, the GA population is so
>small it is effectively disenfranchised - the CAA basically responded
>'well we're going to do it anyway so there'. When you are 50,000 voters
>out of an electorate of 40 million, your opinion counts for nothing -
>especially when the CAA is leaned on heavily by moneyed corporate
>interests like the airlines - the executives of which can remove their
>donations to political parties if the CAA doesn't do what they want.
>
>In the end your only option if you don't like the CAA is to move
>somewhere else (typically the US). However, most pilots like enough
>_other_ things about their own country that they aren't prepared to move
>over just a single issue.


It would seem there is another option, garner support from other
like-minded groups of voters:

ELECTORS GROUP OPPOSES USER FEES
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/805-full.html#194438)
Well you never know who your friends are, and the aviation
alphabet groups can add the League of Rural Voters to the growing
list of organizations opposed to the Bush administration's plans
for reorganizing the FAA. In a statement issued last week, League
President Neil Ritchie described GA as the "lifeline to rural
communities" and says the mix of user fees and tax increases
contained in the package will force many operators to ground their
light aircraft, reminding the government of just how useful that
fleet can be in times of trouble. "General aviation played a
crucial role in efforts to evacuate Hurricane Katrina survivors
and continues to play an important role in our preparedness for
future disasters," Ritchie noted. The group is even more irritated
about what the plans might do to airline service in the
hinterlands.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/805-full.html#194438

[Chris]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 21:41:19 -0000, Dylan Smith
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>On 2007-02-10, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> Europeans are already accustomed to having their lives run for them by
>>> bureaucrats (now in several layers both domestic and international). It
>>> does
>>> not occur to them to _resist_ things. The ones who were willing to
>>> resist
>>> injustices and incompetence crossed the Atlantic and Pacific centuries
>>> ago.
>>
>>Europeans do actually resist - as evidenced by the massive response to
>>the CAA's Mode S transponder proposals. However, the GA population is so
>>small it is effectively disenfranchised - the CAA basically responded
>>'well we're going to do it anyway so there'. When you are 50,000 voters
>>out of an electorate of 40 million, your opinion counts for nothing -
>>especially when the CAA is leaned on heavily by moneyed corporate
>>interests like the airlines - the executives of which can remove their
>>donations to political parties if the CAA doesn't do what they want.
>>
>>In the end your only option if you don't like the CAA is to move
>>somewhere else (typically the US). However, most pilots like enough
>>_other_ things about their own country that they aren't prepared to move
>>over just a single issue.

A couple of years ago the Eurocrat politicians tried to bring in a
constitution to harmonise Europe. The people voted it out thankfully.Well in
this case the Dutch and the French.
The politicians got a real bloody nose. It has not stopped them trying to
bring it in again, but they are in a state od shambles.

People power.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-02-13, Chris > wrote:
> A couple of years ago the Eurocrat politicians tried to bring in a
> constitution to harmonise Europe. The people voted it out thankfully.Well in
> this case the Dutch and the French.
> The politicians got a real bloody nose. It has not stopped them trying to
> bring it in again, but they are in a state od shambles.

The US constitution begins: "We the people..."

The proposed EU constitution begins: "HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE
BELGIANS..."

I think that tells you all you need to know about why it was
resoundingly rejected by 'we the people', despite the good bits (yes,
the EU constitution actually has some good bits).

In principle, I think that the EU is a good idea.
I like the idea of free movement of *PEOPLE* and goods. I like the fact
that I can move to, say, the Czech republic and work there with no
restrictions. However, the other political baggage of the EU is not so
welcome. While I would in principle like to see European countries be in
a close alliance, I strongly object to the way the EU is run now - it's
an undemocratic, unaccountable bureaucrat's gravy train. The
constitution starting with "His Majesty the King of the Belgians" just
goes on to rub this in - the EU is not being run by the people for the
people, it's just a bureaucrat's charter.

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

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-02-12, Sam Spade > wrote:
>> Well then driving in my car to a restaurant or a trip accross town to the
>> supermarket is an elitist hobby supported by public funding.
>>
> Your view is not shared by the automotive public.

Of course it isn't because it affects *them*. People are quite willing
to tell other people how to behave and telling other people to pay extra
money, but they aren't so keen when it happens to *them*.

For instance, witness the flap about commercial air travel and global
warming in Britain. The British government and press are banging on
almost non-stop about how terrible commercial air travel is on the
environment - and the government indeed increased taxes on commercial
air travel as a "green tax". It's nothing of the sort though.

Commercial air travel is responsible for something like 8% of the UK's
CO2 emissions. Domestic use is responsible for 30% of the UK's CO2
emissions. Completely *banning* commercial air travel will have less of
an effect (especially considering the travel will still have to happen
somehow, and will just move to some other form of transport) than simply
reducing domestic use of energy by half.

So why is the government targeting commercial air travel with such
vigour, but not going after domestic use, when even a complete ban on
commercial air travel will have less than half of the CO2 reduction of
reducing domestic energy use by half?

Because that way, people don't have to do anything. They feel good
because big, evil airline are being attacked - yet they aren't prepared
to do their own bit which would have demonstrably a far larger effect.
When it comes to the reduction of energy usage, everyone wants *other*
people to reduce their energy usage.

So in effect, the new 'green tax' imposed on airlines recently is
nothing of the sort - it's just more revenue for the government pot
(because it won't reduce air travel, and even if it did, the effect
would be too small to measure).

As far as the FAA et al. - they exist solely for the benefit of
airlines. GA would continue just fine (probably better, in fact) if the
FAA and all its services disappeared tomorrow. The airlines would be
paralyzed. Since the FAA exists solely for the benefit of airlines, then
the airlines can pay for the FAA.

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

[Sam Spade]

Dylan Smith wrote:

>
> As far as the FAA et al. - they exist solely for the benefit of
> airlines. GA would continue just fine (probably better, in fact) if the
> FAA and all its services disappeared tomorrow. The airlines would be
> paralyzed. Since the FAA exists solely for the benefit of airlines, then
> the airlines can pay for the FAA.
>

A bit over the top. Nonetheless, you are about 90% on target!

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:13:54 -0000, "Chris" >
wrote in >:

>
>A couple of years ago the Eurocrat politicians tried to bring in a
>constitution to harmonise Europe. The people voted it out thankfully.Well in
>this case the Dutch and the French.
>The politicians got a real bloody nose. It has not stopped them trying to
>bring it in again, but they are in a state od shambles.
>
>People power.


It would appear that US Airmen have an opportunity to address their
questions and recommendations on the subject of the proposed Next
Generation Air Transportation System:


NEXT-GENERATION ATC SYMPOSIUM SET
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/bizav/809-full.html#194461)
The RTCA will host a two-day symposium on the Next Generation Air
Transportation System and how its evolution will be integrated
into everyday flight operations next month in Washington, D.C. The
symposium -- "Operational Evolution Partnership (OEP): The Bridge
to NextGen," -- is scheduled for March 13 and 14 in the Ronald
Reagan Building and International Trade Center in downtown D.C.
The event is designed to bring together officials from the FAA,
DOD, private industry, airlines, the European Air Traffic Alliance
and other members of the aviation community to examine the
restructured Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) and the
OEP's inter-relationship with the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NextGen). The symposium will focus on
operational concepts, requirements, policies and procedures, not
on labor and cost issues. The RTCA, formerly the Radio Technical
Commission for Aeronautics, is a private, not-for-profit
corporation functioning as a Federal Advisory Committee for the
FAA.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/bizav/809-full.html#194461


The symposium schedule is available here:
http://www.rtca.org/symposium/symposium2007.asp

Cost of registration is ~$500.00.

To enhance the value of the Symposium, each attendee is asked to
identify THE most important question or issue on which he or she
would like community senior executives to comment. The question
form is included as part of your registration. These questions
will provide the basis for the March 14th senior executive panel
discussion.

It seems that AOPA president Phil Boyer will be moderator of that hour
and a half session. Perhaps we could submit our questions to him for
consideration by the panelists.

Personally, I'd like to know:

1. what measures are being planned to insure solar disturbances
will not render the proposed satellite based system inoperable?

2. How will Mode S spoofing be prevented?

3. What new equipment will likely be imposed on GA airspace users
as a result of NextGen implementation?

4. Will the 'broken' Military Training Route policy be addressed.

5. What personnel will be employed to man the NextGen system
while it is running in parallel with the currently understaffed
ATC system?

6. Why must congressional oversight of FAA expenditures be
relinquished for NextGen to be implemented?

7. What is the current strategy for integrating UAV technology
into the NextGen plan?

8. What will be the plight of Certified NORDO aircraft in the
NextGen system?

....

The answers may be contained in these documents:
http://www.rtca.org/downloads/ListofAvailableDocs_WEB_dec2006.htm
but who can afford the cost to purchase the documents in order to do
the research?



http://www.rtca.org/
RTCA, Inc.

RTCA, Inc. is a private, not-for-profit corporation that develops
consensus-based recommendations regarding communications,
navigation, surveillance, and air traffic management (CNS/ATM)
system issues. RTCA functions as a Federal Advisory Committee. Its
recommendations are used by the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) as the basis for policy, program, and regulatory decisions
and by the private sector as the basis for development, investment
and other business decisions.

Organized in 1935 as the Radio Technical Commission for
Aeronautics, RTCA today includes roughly 335 government, industry
and academic organizations from the United States and around the
world. Member organizations represent all facets of the aviation
community, including government organizations, airlines, airspace
users and airport associations, labor unions, plus aviation
service and equipment suppliers. A sampling of our domestic
membership includes the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Line
Pilots Association, Air Transport Association of America, Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association, ARINC Incorporated, Avwrite, The
Boeing Company, Department of Defense, GARMIN International,
Rockwell International, Stanford University, Lockheed Martin, MIT
Lincoln Laboratory, MITRE/CAASD, Harris Corporation, NASA,
National Business Aviation Association, and Raytheon.

Because RTCA interests are international in scope, many non-U.S.
government and business organizations also belong to RTCA. We
currently are supported by over 100 International Associates such
as Airservices Australia, Airways Corporation of New Zealand,
Airbus, the Chinese Aeronautical Radio Electronics Research
Institute (CARERI), EUROCONTROL, NAV Canada, Bombardier Aerospace,
Society of Japanese Aerospace Companies, Thales Avionics Limited,
Centre for Airborne Systems-Bangalore, the United Kingdom Civil
Aviation Authority and many more.

RTCA has proven to be an excellent means for developing government
/ industry consensus on contemporary CNS/ATM issues.


Task Forces
Occasionally, RTCA is asked by the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration to develop industry consensus on a broad
gauged strategic issue. Examples of completed Task Force issues
include Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Transition and
Implementation Strategy, Transition to Digital Communications,
Free Flight Implementation and Certification.


Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee
The Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee's (ATMAC) purpose is
to provide the Federal Aviation Administration with
consensus-based, recommended investment priorities that will
improve the safety, capacity and/or efficiency of the United
States air transportation system.

Public and private sector operational requirements, coupled with
the current and expected availability of public and private sector
funding, are the fundamental criteria upon which ATMAC
deliberations and recommendations are based. International
interoperability is also a major consideration. System life cycle
costs development, acquisition, facility and equipment
modification, training, operation and maintenance and removal from
service serve as the basis for the economic aspects of the
committee's deliberations.

The timing and inter-relationship of government and industry
actions are considered while developing recommendations.


Program Management Committee
Our most frequent requests are for RTCA to establish a new,
special committee to recommend Minimum Operational Performance
Standards (MOPS) or appropriate technical guidance documents. MOPS
are developed by RTCA and become the basis for certification. When
these requests are received, RTCA's Program Management Committee
(PMC) discusses the topic and, based on consensus, initiates
Special Committee action.


Special Committees
Essentially all RTCA products are developed by issue-oriented
Special Committees staffed by volunteers. As with all Federal
Advisory Committee activities, Special Committee meetings are
publicly announced and open to participation by anyone with an
interest in the topic under consideration. During Special
Committee meetings, volunteers from government and industry
explore the operational and technical ramifications of the
selected topic and develop consensus-based recommendations. These
recommendations are then presented to the RTCA Program Management
Committee, which either approves the Special Committee report or
directs additional Special Committee work. Approved
recommendations are published and made available for sale to
members and to the public.

Easy access to updates on committee activities and related
subjects is available on the RTCA web site and in the Digest,
which is published every two months.

Through the years, RTCA has received several awards for its
service to the aviation community. The organization was awarded
the 1949 Collier Trophy for "A guide plan for the development of a
system of air navigation and traffic control for safe and
unlimited aircraft operations under all weather conditions."
Additionally, in 1994, the FAA named RTCA, Inc. as the U.S.
recipient of the ICAO 50th anniversary Medal of Honour. This
unique recognition identified RTCA as the single most important
U.S. contributor organization to the advancement and support of
civil aviation since the creation of ICAO by the Chicago
Convention in 1944.

RTCA, Inc.
1828 L Street, NW
Suite 805
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: 202-833-9339
Fax: 202-833-9434

[Ron Lee]

In todays AvWebFlash they state that the FAA proposal recommends
increasing the av gas tax from around 19-21 cents to 70 cents (US).
If their goal is to kill GA this is a step in the right direction.

Ron Lee

[Viperdoc]

You have to remember that tankers are an essential and valuable asset, and
the current ones are based on 707's. They are getting long in the tooth,
considering the hours and hard use they have endured.

Even refurbishment in a depot can not always resurrect an old and tired
airframe. Simply put, the Air Force needs newer tanker assets, and it would
be simpler to modify an existing airframe rather than go through a clean
sheet design.

[Blueskies]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message . net...
: You have to remember that tankers are an essential and valuable asset, and
: the current ones are based on 707's. They are getting long in the tooth,
: considering the hours and hard use they have endured.
:
: Even refurbishment in a depot can not always resurrect an old and tired
: airframe. Simply put, the Air Force needs newer tanker assets, and it would
: be simpler to modify an existing airframe rather than go through a clean
: sheet design.
:
:

The 777 is being considered now...

[Sam Spade]

Blueskies wrote:
> "Viperdoc" > wrote in message . net...
> : You have to remember that tankers are an essential and valuable asset, and
> : the current ones are based on 707's. They are getting long in the tooth,
> : considering the hours and hard use they have endured.
> :
> : Even refurbishment in a depot can not always resurrect an old and tired
> : airframe. Simply put, the Air Force needs newer tanker assets, and it would
> : be simpler to modify an existing airframe rather than go through a clean
> : sheet design.
> :
> :
>
> The 777 is being considered now...
>
>
Which is a much, much better airframe and systems platform than the 767.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:33:33 GMT, "Viperdoc"
> wrote in
>:

>You have to remember that tankers are an essential and valuable asset, and
>the current ones are based on 707's. They are getting long in the tooth,
>considering the hours and hard use they have endured.
>
>Even refurbishment in a depot can not always resurrect an old and tired
>airframe. Simply put, the Air Force needs newer tanker assets, and it would
>be simpler to modify an existing airframe rather than go through a clean
>sheet design.
>

While that may be true, it overlooks the point, that Boeing has a
history of criminal behavior in dealing with government contracts, and
now it is proposing to install its automation system to control all
air traffic in the NAS via satellite. Those facts set off my
boondoggle detector.

While the concept is enormously attractive in its ability to nearly
completely automate air traffic control, there will be several new
vulnerabilities introduced unless they are addressed and resolved
BEFORE implementations of NextGen commences.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Viperdoc wrote:
> You have to remember that tankers are an essential and valuable asset, and
> the current ones are based on 707's.

I thought they had a bunch of KC-10's?

[Viperdoc]

The KC-10's are almost as old as the KC-135's. How many 707's and KC-10's
are still active in commercial service? I think Fedex dumped all of their
10's a few years ago.

Still, flying in a 135 is a nice quiet ride. However, the airframes are
aging, and it is becoming more and more expensive to maintain them, to the
point where it may no longer be cost effective.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Viperdoc wrote:
> The KC-10's are almost as old as the KC-135's. How many 707's and KC-10's
> are still active in commercial service? I think Fedex dumped all of their
> 10's a few years ago.

Thanks.

I didn't know the KC-10's were that old, have recently seen one flying
t&g's @ McGuire. My father worked on 135's in the 60's, and we saw one
out of Pease at a recent airshow @ BAF.

FWIW, I know somebody who flies DC-10's for Gemini Air Cargo, so at
least _one_ is still flying.

[John Clear]

In article >,
Viperdoc > wrote:
>The KC-10's are almost as old as the KC-135's. How many 707's and KC-10's
>are still active in commercial service? I think Fedex dumped all of their
>10's a few years ago.

FedEx is working on converting their DC-10s to MD-10s, and currently
lists 86 DC-10/MD-10s in their fleet, as well as 58 MD-11s. An
MD-10 is a DC-10 retrofitted with an MD-11 two man cockpit, as well
as some other changes.

http://fedex.com/us/about/today/companies/express/facts.html

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[scott moore]

Ron Lee wrote:
> In todays AvWebFlash they state that the FAA proposal recommends
> increasing the av gas tax from around 19-21 cents to 70 cents (US).
> If their goal is to kill GA this is a step in the right direction.
>
> Ron Lee

Most likely we'll be lining up for autogas conversions.

Which will increase the pressure for user fees.

And on and on and on.

Scott

[Ray Andraka]

scott moore wrote:


>
> Most likely we'll be lining up for autogas conversions.
>
>

Those of you who can. Some 70% of the piston flying is done with high
performance engines that can't use mogas, my Six included.

[Newps]

scott moore wrote:
> Ron Lee wrote:
>> In todays AvWebFlash they state that the FAA proposal recommends
>> increasing the av gas tax from around 19-21 cents to 70 cents (US).
>> If their goal is to kill GA this is a step in the right direction.
>>
>> Ron Lee
>
> Most likely we'll be lining up for autogas conversions.
>
> Which will increase the pressure for user fees.
>


User fees are dead. They don't stand a chance.

[Newps]

Ray Andraka wrote:
> scott moore wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Most likely we'll be lining up for autogas conversions.
>>
>>
>
> Those of you who can. Some 70% of the piston flying is done with high
> performance engines that can't use mogas, my Six included.

All but a very few engines could run on mogas. Those that can't now
would need an electronic ignition. The few that never will are the high
HP turbo models, such as in the Navajo Chieftain.

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:

>
> User fees are dead. They don't stand a chance.
>
>

I would agree that is the case for a few years.

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>> User fees are dead. They don't stand a chance.
>>
>>
>
> I would agree that is the case for a few years.



It goes in 10 year increments.

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>> Newps wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> User fees are dead. They don't stand a chance.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I would agree that is the case for a few years.
>
>
>
>
> It goes in 10 year increments.

I didn't know that. How can they lock any appropriation method for 10
years?

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
B A R R Y > wrote:

> Viperdoc wrote:
> > You have to remember that tankers are an essential and valuable asset, and
> > the current ones are based on 707's.
>
> I thought they had a bunch of KC-10's?

Yes, but not a lot. There are over 500 KC-135's (which, btw, are NOT based on
the 707 - they share bloodlines, but the 135 preceded the 707).

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

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Sam Spade wrote:
>>
>>> Newps wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> User fees are dead. They don't stand a chance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I would agree that is the case for a few years.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It goes in 10 year increments.
>
>
> I didn't know that. How can they lock any appropriation method for 10
> years?

The last time we had this fight was 10 years ago, the current system has
to be decided no later than Sept 30 because there is a sunset provision
in what we are doing now. They will, in the end, reauthorize the
current system pretty much as is. Taxes on airline tickets and per
passenger fees may get adjusted slightly.

[John R. Copeland]

"Newps" > wrote in message . ..
>
> Ray Andraka wrote:
>> scott moore wrote:
>>
>>> Most likely we'll be lining up for autogas conversions.
>>
>> Those of you who can. Some 70% of the piston flying is done with high
>> performance engines that can't use mogas, my Six included.
>
> All but a very few engines could run on mogas. Those that can't now
> would need an electronic ignition. The few that never will are the high
> HP turbo models, such as in the Navajo Chieftain.

I won't argue percentages, but I keep hoping technology will rescue us
before I need to replace my matched pair of TSIO520NBRs again.
I doubt that turbodiesels are in my future, but it's hard to know for sure.

[Matt Barrow[_3_]]

"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
...
> scott moore wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Most likely we'll be lining up for autogas conversions.
>>
>>
>
> Those of you who can. Some 70% of the piston flying is done with high
> performance engines that can't use mogas, my Six included.

Rather like the old 80/20 syndrome - 80% of the flying is done by 20% of the
aircraft, which is the high performance stock that needs 100LL.

Whatever happened to GAMI's PRISM ignition STC? The simple (relatively)
conversion would ostensibly allow even rotgut gas in the most touchy turbo
piston engines.

[Sam Spade]

Bob Noel wrote:

>
>
> Yes, but not a lot. There are over 500 KC-135's (which, btw, are NOT based on
> the 707 - they share bloodlines, but the 135 preceded the 707).
>

You're right as to the timing. But, the 707 was a direct direvative of
the 135 development program. And, as I recall, the development program
was for the C-135. The tanker came later.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> The KC-10's are almost as old as the KC-135's. How many 707's and KC-10's
> are still active in commercial service?

I don't believe the KC-10 was ever in commercial service.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In rec.aviation.piloting Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
> "Viperdoc" > wrote in message
> . net...
>>
>> The KC-10's are almost as old as the KC-135's. How many 707's and KC-10's
>> are still active in commercial service?
>
> I don't believe the KC-10 was ever in commercial service.

I believe you're correct, as they were the military variant of
the DC-10. Speaking of, aren't the KC-10s still in active service as
refuel tankers?

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFF1quSyBkZmuMZ8L8RAsvJAKCtt1x1330ow4B/wCDp7OOgenr4QgCgsheF
wXF/a3QrNjsB8JA531hOvks=
=m9Yf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
A Guy Called Tyketto > wrote:

> I believe you're correct, as they were the military variant of
> the DC-10.

correct.

> Speaking of, aren't the KC-10s still in active service as
> refuel tankers?

yes.

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

[mike regish]

Except that there are no present conversions that deal with ethanol.

mike

"scott moore" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
> Most likely we'll be lining up for autogas conversions.
>
> Which will increase the pressure for user fees.
>
> And on and on and on.
>
> Scott

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> You're right as to the timing. But, the 707 was a direct direvative of
> the 135 development program. And, as I recall, the development program
> was for the C-135. The tanker came later.
>

The KC-135A preceded the C-135A by four years.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> I strongly suspect that GA is more of a burden than an asset for the
> population and society at large. Commercial air travel is a necessity;
> general aviation is not.
>

Your statement is equivalent to saying that commercial land vehicles (cars
& trucks) are a necessity, but private ones are not. The only difference is
that fewer pilots fly privately than drivers who drive privately.

But what you don't recognize is that GA is necessary to maintain the
infastructure of the commercial airlines. For example, FBOs in many small
airports would not be able to support themselves or their employees without
the income produced from servicing and storing these private aircraft. At
my airport, the GA ramp has hundreds of planes each paying several hundred
dollars a month just for a tie down. They also provide fuel for these
aircraft, and have a crew that lays out the

They also handle service for a small number of GA fractional jet share
clients, and do overnight service and storing of a small number of Airline
jets. However, I doubt they could support their current structure just on
the fees associated with fueling up some NetJets and towing Dash-8's for
United to a hangar.

More importantly, though, without the GA system, there would be limited
opportunities for people to build the required experience to become a safe
commercial aviator. There would probably also be a reduced lack of
interest.

So perhaps you have not observed the full extent of the picture, and have
made a judgement based on incomplete or innacurate theories...

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Your statement is equivalent to saying that commercial land vehicles (cars
> & trucks) are a necessity, but private ones are not.

No, it's not even remotely close to that.

> The only difference is that fewer pilots fly privately than drivers
> who drive privately.

That difference is huge: there are about 400 licensed drivers for every
licensed pilot, and while licensed drivers tend to drive fairly regularly,
licensed pilots do not (it's just too expensive, usually). In fact, private
pilots spend more time in a car driving to and from the airfield than they
spend in the air, in many cases.

Many people drive cars because they have to. They can't hold a job without a
car. It's hard to find any situations in which this is true for general
aviation and private pilots.

> But what you don't recognize is that GA is necessary to maintain the
> infastructure of the commercial airlines. For example, FBOs in many small
> airports would not be able to support themselves or their employees without
> the income produced from servicing and storing these private aircraft. At
> my airport, the GA ramp has hundreds of planes each paying several hundred
> dollars a month just for a tie down. They also provide fuel for these
> aircraft, and have a crew that lays out the
>
> They also handle service for a small number of GA fractional jet share
> clients, and do overnight service and storing of a small number of Airline
> jets. However, I doubt they could support their current structure just on
> the fees associated with fueling up some NetJets and towing Dash-8's for
> United to a hangar.

A lot of airports would simply disappear without GA, as they would no longer
serve any purpose. The airlines don't need them.

> More importantly, though, without the GA system, there would be limited
> opportunities for people to build the required experience to become a safe
> commercial aviator. There would probably also be a reduced lack of
> interest.

Commercial aviators can be trained from scratch in simulators; small aircraft
are only used because current regulations require it, but regulations can be
changed.

> So perhaps you have not observed the full extent of the picture, and have
> made a judgement based on incomplete or innacurate theories...

No, I've seen the picture objectively, and not through the rose-colored
goggles worn by many pilots. The fact is, general aviation by private pilots
could disappear in a puff of smoke tomorrow, and it would have no effect at
all on society at large.

It's important to keep this in mind when trying to influence or shape public
policy with respect to GA. The vast majority of the population cares nothing
about your flying, and would not miss it if it were gone; so if you want to
persuade that population, you need a method that doesn't depend on the
subjective appeal of flying an aircraft (which doesn't exist for most people).
Indeed, if you concentrate too much on this aspect, you may alienate the
majority, and you definitely don't want to do that.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> Your statement is equivalent to saying that commercial land vehicles
>> (cars & trucks) are a necessity, but private ones are not.
>
> No, it's not even remotely close to that.

I think it is exactly the same, except replace the word "land" with "air".

> A lot of airports would simply disappear without GA, as they would no
> longer serve any purpose. The airlines don't need them.

Your definition of GA is inconsistent. Here you say GA is anything but
airlines. Before you said GA is anything that is not commercial.

> Commercial aviators can be trained from scratch in simulators; small
> aircraft are only used because current regulations require it, but
> regulations can be changed.

I don't think that is practical. How many hours of training are required to
learn to fly safely in a simulator? The pilot wouldn't even understand the
behavior or proper use of Trim without any actual flight time. This is
safe?

> No, I've seen the picture objectively, and not through the rose-colored
> goggles worn by many pilots. The fact is, general aviation by private
> pilots could disappear in a puff of smoke tomorrow, and it would have no
> effect at all on society at large.

Your goggles are equally as colored as mine, if not moreso.

> It's important to keep this in mind when trying to influence or shape
> public policy with respect to GA. The vast majority of the population
> cares nothing about your flying, and would not miss it if it were gone;
> so if you want to persuade that population, you need a method that
> doesn't depend on the subjective appeal of flying an aircraft (which
> doesn't exist for most people). Indeed, if you concentrate too much on
> this aspect, you may alienate the majority, and you definitely don't
> want to do that.

I'm not shaping public policy.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Your definition of GA is inconsistent. Here you say GA is anything but
> airlines. Before you said GA is anything that is not commercial.

Call it commercial and non-commercial, then.

> I don't think that is practical. How many hours of training are required to
> learn to fly safely in a simulator?

Fewer than the number required in a real aircraft, mainly because a simulator
can simulate all sorts of things that are impractical, expensive, or truly
dangerous in a real aircraft.

> The pilot wouldn't even understand the behavior or proper use of Trim
> without any actual flight time.

Sure he would. The simulator works just like the real aircraft.

> This is safe?

Absolutely. And much cheaper than using real aircraft. That's why it is so
attractive for training. Only regulatory barriers prevent it from being done
in the U.S.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Chris]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> The last time we had this fight was 10 years ago, the current system has
> to be decided no later than Sept 30 because there is a sunset provision in
> what we are doing now. They will, in the end, reauthorize the current
> system pretty much as is. Taxes on airline tickets and per passenger fees
> may get adjusted slightly.

The best way to tax is per ticket or passenger not on the value of the
ticket. That way the tax is not revenue dependent but movement dependent.
The Low costs airlines put less into the taxes whilst having more activity
which does not make sense.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

>> The pilot wouldn't even understand the behavior or proper use of Trim
>> without any actual flight time.
>
> Sure he would. The simulator works just like the real aircraft.

You yourself expressed a lack of understanding of trim.

Simulator time alone is not sufficient for safe flight.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> You yourself expressed a lack of understanding of trim.

What did I misunderstand about trim?

> Simulator time alone is not sufficient for safe flight.

Actually it is. And in the future you will see airline pilots even in the
U.S. who have trained exclusively on simulators prior to their first revenue
flight with passengers. As technology evolves, training in a tin can for
flying an airliner is becoming as irrelevant as training in a rowboat for
piloting a supertanker.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Alan Gerber]

In rec.aviation.student Chris > wrote:
> The best way to tax is per ticket or passenger not on the value of the
> ticket. That way the tax is not revenue dependent but movement dependent.

Or maybe per passenger-mile?

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Judah writes:
>
>
>>You yourself expressed a lack of understanding of trim.
>
>
> What did I misunderstand about trim?
>
>
>>Simulator time alone is not sufficient for safe flight.
>
>
> Actually it is. And in the future you will see airline pilots even in the
> U.S. who have trained exclusively on simulators prior to their first revenue
> flight with passengers. As technology evolves, training in a tin can for
> flying an airliner is becoming as irrelevant as training in a rowboat for
> piloting a supertanker.
>

No one in any country is even near doing it that way.

[Sam Spade]

Chris wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The last time we had this fight was 10 years ago, the current system has
>>to be decided no later than Sept 30 because there is a sunset provision in
>>what we are doing now. They will, in the end, reauthorize the current
>>system pretty much as is. Taxes on airline tickets and per passenger fees
>>may get adjusted slightly.
>
>
> The best way to tax is per ticket or passenger not on the value of the
> ticket. That way the tax is not revenue dependent but movement dependent.
> The Low costs airlines put less into the taxes whilst having more activity
> which does not make sense.
>
>
Ah, the heart of the user fee battle. How do the common carriers
properly allocate the costs amongst themselves when, push comes to
shove, they cannot agree on much of anything?

[Larry Dighera]

WATCHDOG WORRIES ABOUT NGATS
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/811-full.html#194481)
The FAA's Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) is making
progress toward the lofty goal of reinventing the National Airspace
System, but there's a minefield of coordination, budget and
implementation issues ahead, according to a report
(http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/av2007031.pdf)
from the Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General.
OIG said the creation of the Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NGATS) is "an extraordinarily complex and high-risk effort given the
potential multibillion-dollar investments by FAA and airspace users."
While there seems to be an overall plan to coordinate a bunch of
agencies toward the goal of accommodating three times the air traffic
of today by 2025, the OIG worries that there's a lack of specific
direction within those agencies to make sure the work actually gets
done. The OIG is naturally interested in just how the FAA is going to
invest all those billions of dollars in NGATS equipment and
facilities, but it's also concerned about the financial impact on
those who will use the system.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/811-full.html#194481

[Tony]

Haven't you by now learned to never let reality interfere with
simulation? :-)

On Feb 18, 9:13 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Judah writes:
>
> >>You yourself expressed a lack of understanding of trim.
>
> > What did I misunderstand about trim?
>
> >>Simulator time alone is not sufficient for safe flight.
>
> > Actually it is. And in the future you will see airline pilots even in the
> > U.S. who have trained exclusively on simulators prior to their first revenue
> > flight with passengers. As technology evolves, training in a tin can for
> > flying an airliner is becoming as irrelevant as training in a rowboat for
> > piloting a supertanker.
>
> No one in any country is even near doing it that way.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -