Runway Red Lights to cut down on incursions.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

I think this is a pretty good idea. They work most of the time on the
street why shouldn't they work at the airport?




AVFLASH NEWS
February 27, 2008

Runway Red Lights -- Solution Or Stopgap?
By Mary Grady, Contributing editor

It might seem like a sensible solution, especially at big airports with
a complex array of taxiways and runways -- embed red lights into the
runway pavement at the intersections. It's been tried at Dallas-Fort
Worth and in San Diego, and reports are positive. But the technology is
simply a "a stopgap measure," according to FAA Acting Administrator
Bobby Sturgell. "Runway status lights are one way to drive down
incursions, but they’re not the best way," he said this week, while
visiting Los Angeles International Airport to announce that the lights
will be installed there. At LAX, he says, the runways are simply too
close together, and that layout needs to be addressed. A recent report
by the Office of Inspector General for the Transportation Department
found that the status-light systems are effective and should be deployed
at airports across the country.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
:

>
> I think this is a pretty good idea. They work most of the time on the
> street why shouldn't they work at the airport?
>
>
>
>
> AVFLASH NEWS
> February 27, 2008
>
> Runway Red Lights -- Solution Or Stopgap?
> By Mary Grady, Contributing editor
>
> It might seem like a sensible solution, especially at big airports
with
> a complex array of taxiways and runways -- embed red lights into the
> runway pavement at the intersections. It's been tried at Dallas-Fort
> Worth and in San Diego, and reports are positive. But the technology
is
> simply a "a stopgap measure," according to FAA Acting Administrator
> Bobby Sturgell. "Runway status lights are one way to drive down
> incursions, but they’re not the best way," he said this week, while
> visiting Los Angeles International Airport to announce that the lights
> will be installed there. At LAX, he says, the runways are simply too
> close together, and that layout needs to be addressed. A recent report
> by the Office of Inspector General for the Transportation Department
> found that the status-light systems are effective and should be
deployed
> at airports across the country.
>
>



It's pretty much standard in Europe, has been for years. It's a very
good idea, especially for low vis ops.


Bertie

[Bob Gardner]

This is pretty old news, really. They have a lot of this stuff at
Seattle-Tacoma. I think that those airports with low-visibility problems are
first on the priority list. The above-ground status lights can be installed
fairly inexpensively, but when it comes to the in-runway lead-in lights, etc
it gets costly in a hurry and shuts down the runway while the work is done).

Bob Gardner

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
...
>
> I think this is a pretty good idea. They work most of the time on the
> street why shouldn't they work at the airport?
>
>
>
>
> AVFLASH NEWS
> February 27, 2008
>
> Runway Red Lights -- Solution Or Stopgap?
> By Mary Grady, Contributing editor
>
> It might seem like a sensible solution, especially at big airports with a
> complex array of taxiways and runways -- embed red lights into the runway
> pavement at the intersections. It's been tried at Dallas-Fort Worth and in
> San Diego, and reports are positive. But the technology is simply a "a
> stopgap measure," according to FAA Acting Administrator Bobby Sturgell.
> "Runway status lights are one way to drive down incursions, but they’re
> not the best way," he said this week, while visiting Los Angeles
> International Airport to announce that the lights will be installed there.
> At LAX, he says, the runways are simply too close together, and that
> layout needs to be addressed. A recent report by the Office of Inspector
> General for the Transportation Department found that the status-light
> systems are effective and should be deployed at airports across the
> country.
>

[B A R R Y]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:19:21 -0800, "Bob Gardner" >
wrote:

>This is pretty old news, really. They have a lot of this stuff at
>Seattle-Tacoma. I think that those airports with low-visibility problems are
>first on the priority list. The above-ground status lights can be installed
>fairly inexpensively, but when it comes to the in-runway lead-in lights, etc

Are they actually talking about "Stop Bars?"

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

B A R R Y wrote:

>
>Are they actually talking about "Stop Bars?"

Do Not Backup
Severe tire damage will result.

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:51:02 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
> wrote in
>:

>embed red lights into the
>runway pavement at the intersections. It's been tried at Dallas-Fort
>Worth and in San Diego, and reports are positive. But the technology is
>simply a "a stopgap measure," according to FAA Acting Administrator
>Bobby Sturgell. "Runway status lights are one way to drive down
>incursions, but they’re not the best way," he said this week, ...


Right. Why equip a few runways with imbed lights on the AIP dime,
when you can mandate all operators of the entire 200,000 plus fleet
install ADS-B at their own expense. Makes sound financial sense to
me. :-(

[BT]

they've already got flashing yellows on both sides and across the taxiway at
the hold short lines..
changing them to a steady red is going to make a difference?

doubt it..

BT

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
...
>
> I think this is a pretty good idea. They work most of the time on the
> street why shouldn't they work at the airport?
>
>
>
>
> AVFLASH NEWS
> February 27, 2008
>
> Runway Red Lights -- Solution Or Stopgap?
> By Mary Grady, Contributing editor
>
> It might seem like a sensible solution, especially at big airports with a
> complex array of taxiways and runways -- embed red lights into the runway
> pavement at the intersections. It's been tried at Dallas-Fort Worth and in
> San Diego, and reports are positive. But the technology is simply a "a
> stopgap measure," according to FAA Acting Administrator Bobby Sturgell.
> "Runway status lights are one way to drive down incursions, but they’re
> not the best way," he said this week, while visiting Los Angeles
> International Airport to announce that the lights will be installed there.
> At LAX, he says, the runways are simply too close together, and that
> layout needs to be addressed. A recent report by the Office of Inspector
> General for the Transportation Department found that the status-light
> systems are effective and should be deployed at airports across the
> country.
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:50:11 -0500, B A R R Y
> wrote in
>:

>
>Are they actually talking about "Stop Bars?"

Somewhere there is a whole bunch of information on this with diagrams
and photos, but this is all I could find:



http://www.faa.gov/news/speeches/news_story.cfm?newsId=10177
Speech
"Red Means Stop"
Robert A. Sturgell, Los Angeles, CA
February 26, 2008

LAX Runway Status Lights Press Event
Gina Marie, thank you. I appreciate that warm L.A. welcome. Hello
everybody, and thanks for coming out this afternoon.

Today I’m announcing a preliminary agreement between the FAA and the
city to bring a life-saving technology to LAX. It will significantly
boost runway safety without reducing capacity or adding to controller
workload.

It’s an alert system with red lights embedded in the runway pavement
to warn pilots to hold right where they are. The reasoning is simple.
Drivers have stop lights to guide them. Why not pilots? Well now they
will.

We call them runway status lights, and we’re bringing this technology
here because LAX needs it. LAX has had the most runway incursions of
any airport in the country since 2001. There were eight of them last
year, just as there were in ’06 and ’05. That may not sound like a lot
when you consider that LAX had more than 680,000 takeoffs and landings
last year. But let me tell you, that’s eight incursions too many.

Still, the FAA and the city have done a lot over the years to try and
whittle incursions down, but that number has remained fairly constant.

These new runway lights will be one more layer of defense, but it
won’t be the first line of defense.

What L.A. needs to do, first and foremost, to stem runway incursions
is improve the airport layout. The city needs to do on the north
airfield what it’s doing on the south side. That’s how you drive down
incursions.

Until a more comprehensive solution comes along, the FAA and LAX are
continuing to look at stop-gap measures such as runway status lights
to improve safety.

The proof is there that they work. There was an incident recently at
Dallas Fort Worth that illustrates just what I mean.

A few weeks ago, a commercial flight was taxing into position, about
to take off. At that very moment, another plane was about to cross the
runway that it was on.

But instead of taking off, the first plane stayed right where it was,
thanks to the red runway status lights — the same lights that we’ll be
installing at LAX.

We’re looking into that incident at DFW to find out exactly what
happened, but we know for sure that the planes never got close to one
another. Tragedy avoided. The technology worked.

We’re also hearing good things about it out of San Diego, which has a
similar runway light system.

What’s unique about what we’re doing at LAX is that for the first
time, we’re installing the lights on high-speed exit taxiways, which
is fertile ground for incursions.

Here’s something else we know. Pilot error is mostly to blame. It’s
frustrating, because as a pilot myself, I have a hard time
understanding why that’s so.

Runways lights will help where human judgment fails, but — and I’ll
say it again if you didn’t hear me the first time — the ultimate aim
for LAX is to reconfigure the north runways. They’re too close
together. That doesn’t leave much room for error if someone makes a
mistake.

The southern end of the airport doesn’t have that problem, not since
the runways were spaced farther apart.

I appreciate and respect the voices of dissent who feel otherwise
about the situation, but let’s not let politics get in the way of
safety. Any incursion is one too many. And there have been a number of
close calls over the years, including a very serious one here last
summer.

Runway status lights are one way to drive down incursions, but they’re
not the best way. I urge city leaders to do what is best for their
airport and their city and change the layout of the north airfield. I
ask you to do this in the name of safety.

Thank you. And a special thanks to Los Angeles World Airports for the
leadership it’s shown. They’ve been tremendous in smoothing out the
creases to finance the runway light system so it can be deployed
sooner.

I can’t forget to mention one more name who was so instrumental in
getting this project off the ground. Congresswoman Jane Harman. I wish
she were here in person to see this day, but she had to be in
Washington on official business.

Thanks to her and to LAWA, LAX is one step closer to a new era in
safety. The contracts for the runway lights have already gone out.
Construction starts this summer. And we expect LAX to be totally “red”
and ready to go by early next year.

There’s just a couple of things left to do to make it all official,
and one of them is getting the preliminary agreement signed. Before we
do that, we’re going to take your questions. And then I’m going to ask
Gina Marie to join me at the table to and let’s get things moving.

###



http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=10166

The FAA is also testing new technologies that will alert pilots to
potential runway incursions. One of these, called Runway Status
Lights, is just as it sounds: a series of runway lights, not unlike
traffic lights, that tell pilots whether or not runways are clear.
Surface and terminal surveillance systems, such as ASDE-X and AMASS,
detect the presence and motion of aircraft and vehicles on or near the
runways. The Runway Status Light safety logic then assesses any
possible conflicts with other surface traffic. Red entrance lights
embedded in the pavement are illuminated if the runway is unsafe for
entry or crossing, and red takeoff hold lights are illuminated if the
runway is unsafe for departure. The operational evaluation of the
runway entrance lights using ASDE-X surface surveillance was completed
in June 2005 at Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport, and the system
showed promising results. The lights were found to be compatible with
the tempo and style of operations at a busy airport with no increase
in controller workload. An enhanced lighting configuration is being
installed on a second runway at Dallas-Ft. Worth this year. Runway
Status Lights with AMASS are currently being tested at San Diego, with
promising results. Based on these tests, the FAA will determine which
airports will receive the alert system.
Other new technologies include an experimental system called the Final
Approach Runway Occupancy Signal (FAROS), which is being tested at the
Long Beach/Daugherty Field Airport in California. FAROS is designed to
prevent accidents on airport runways by activating a flashing light
visible to landing pilots to warn them that the runway is occupied and
hazardous.


http://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/safety/ipled.asp
In-Pavement Light Emitting Diode (LED) Evaluation

Painted markings on runway, taxiway, and apron surfaces are often
obliterated when covered by even a thin layer of water, there is a
need to provide a more effective method of marking or delineating
critical areas and/or locations on the non-movement and possibly
movement areas on an airport. Conventional in-pavement
(semi-flush/inset) lights can be used; however, they are expensive and
costly to install and maintain.

The commercial lighting industry has recently developed a light strip
system that utilizes a series of encapsulated light emitting diodes
(LED) to provide a continuous line of closely spaced lights. The
string of diode lights can be easily embedded within the pavement
surface so as not to hinder snowplowing operations and, being sealed
or encapsulated, require only a minimum of maintenance. LED devices
are noted for requiring comparatively low level of power for operation
and have demonstrated minimal failure rates.

AAR-411 will evaluate the effectiveness of, and determine the
performance characteristics of these LED light strips for airport use.
Strips will be installed and evaluated at the William J. Hughes
Technical Center.

Link to the FAA Technical Note titled "In-Pavement Light Emitting
Diode (LED) Light Strip Evaluation" for non-movement areas on the
airport. This is an Adobe Acrobat Version 5.0 file (format: PDF, size:
8.1MB).

Project Lead: Donald W. Gallagher , AAR-411

[es330td]

On Feb 27, 7:44*pm, "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote:
> B A R R Y wrote:
>
>
>
> >Are they actually talking about "Stop Bars?"
>
> Do Not Backup
> Severe tire damage will result.
>
> --
> Message posted viahttp://www.aviationkb.com

If my plane is backing up I think some damage has already been done.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"BT" > wrote in
:

> they've already got flashing yellows on both sides and across the
> taxiway at the hold short lines..
> changing them to a steady red is going to make a difference?
>
> doubt it..
>

They are very handy in low vis ops, in fact, particularly if you aren;t
that familiar with the airport. It's real easy to get disoriented on the
ground and runway incursions are nasty nasty things! There are a lot of
lights on airports and even the amber flashers can get lost more easily
than you might think.


Bertie

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:50:11 -0500, B A R R Y
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>
>>Are they actually talking about "Stop Bars?"
>
> Somewhere there is a whole bunch of information on this with diagrams
> and photos, but this is all I could find:
>
>
>
> http://www.faa.gov/news/speeches/news_story.cfm?newsId=10177
> Speech
> "Red Means Stop"
> Robert A. Sturgell, Los Angeles, CA
> February 26, 2008

Do they allow a "Right turn on red"?

;-)

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[the warlock society]

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:50:11 -0500, B A R R Y
> > > wrote in
> > >:
> >
> >>
> >>Are they actually talking about "Stop Bars?"
> >
> > Somewhere there is a whole bunch of information on this with diagrams
> > and photos, but this is all I could find:
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.faa.gov/news/speeches/news_story.cfm?newsId=10177
> > Speech
> > "Red Means Stop"
> > Robert A. Sturgell, Los Angeles, CA
> > February 26, 2008
>
> Do they allow a "Right turn on red"?

Only in Maine, Hawaii, California, New Hampshire, Florida and North
Dakota.

[John J. Tormey III, Esq.]

On Feb 27, 4:51 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
> I think this is a pretty good idea. They work most of the time on the
> street why shouldn't they work at the airport?
>
> AVFLASH NEWS
> February 27, 2008
>
> Runway Red Lights -- Solution Or Stopgap?
> By Mary Grady, Contributing editor
>
> It might seem like a sensible solution, especially at big airports with
> a complex array of taxiways and runways -- embed red lights into the
> runway pavement at the intersections. It's been tried at Dallas-Fort
> Worth and in San Diego, and reports are positive. But the technology is
> simply a "a stopgap measure," according to FAA Acting Administrator
> Bobby Sturgell. "Runway status lights are one way to drive down
> incursions, but they're not the best way," he said this week, while
> visiting Los Angeles International Airport to announce that the lights
> will be installed there. At LAX, he says, the runways are simply too
> close together, and that layout needs to be addressed. A recent report
> by the Office of Inspector General for the Transportation Department
> found that the status-light systems are effective and should be deployed
> at airports across the country.

It is an outrageous abomination that Bobby Sturgell and his FAA cannot
even bother to coordinate with other federal agencies like the TSA and
the USDOT so as to ensure: (A) that those that would harm our country
do not even enter, much less be trained at and matriculate from, FAA-
certified flight schools; (B) that those that would harm our country
cannot in any way gain entry to, much less work for, FAA-certified
aircraft repair facilities worldwide which may work on fuel-laden,
passenger-filled aircraft bound for the USA, as discussed at the
February 29, 2008 Senate Commerce Committee hearing at which Sturgell
and USDOT head Mary Peters testified, now available on the Internet;
(C) that those that would harm our country be required to spend at
least more time than the perfunctory 18 seconds through the TSA cordon
at Newark Liberty International Airport as passengers have recently
experienced at EWR, as reported by the press this week.

Bobby Sturgell is a harmful and dangerous individual whose malice and
incompetence must be summarily rejected by the further outcry of the
American people. Bobby Sturgell must be ousted from office as current
Acting Head of the FAA. It is abundantly clear that he is ONLY acting
- and for that matter, he is a bad actor.

Moreover, Bobby Sturgell is a liar who has already perjured himself
repeatedly to save his own proverbial reptilian skin, and to protect
solely the interests of the monied aeromercantile complex for which
Sturgell regularly shills.
John J. Tormey III, Esq.
"Quiet Rockland"

[[email protected]]

On Mar 2, 5:53*pm, "John J. Tormey III, Esq." >
wrote:
> On Feb 27, 4:51 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I think this is a pretty good idea. They work most of the time on the
> > street why shouldn't they work at the airport?
>
> > AVFLASH NEWS
> > February 27, 2008
>
> > Runway Red Lights -- Solution Or Stopgap?
> > By Mary Grady, Contributing editor
>
> > It might seem like a sensible solution, especially at big airports with
> > a complex array of taxiways and runways -- embed red lights into the
> > runway pavement at the intersections. It's been tried at Dallas-Fort
> > Worth and in San Diego, and reports are positive. But the technology is
> > simply a "a stopgap measure," according to FAA Acting Administrator
> > Bobby Sturgell. "Runway status lights are one way to drive down
> > incursions, but they're not the best way," he said this week, while
> > visiting Los Angeles International Airport to announce that the lights
> > will be installed there. At LAX, he says, the runways are simply too
> > close together, and that layout needs to be addressed. A recent report
> > by the Office of Inspector General for the Transportation Department
> > found that the status-light systems are effective and should be deployed
> > at airports across the country.
>
> It is an outrageous abomination that Bobby Sturgell and his FAA cannot
> even bother to coordinate with other federal agencies like the TSA and
> the USDOT so as to ensure: (A) that those that would harm our country
> do not even enter, much less be trained at and matriculate from, FAA-
> certified flight schools; (B) that those that would harm our country
> cannot in any way gain entry to, much less work for, FAA-certified
> aircraft repair facilities worldwide which may work on fuel-laden,
> passenger-filled aircraft bound for the USA, as discussed at the
> February 29, 2008 Senate Commerce Committee hearing at which Sturgell
> and USDOT head Mary Peters testified, now available on the Internet;
> (C) that those that would harm our country be required to spend at
> least more time than the perfunctory 18 seconds through the TSA cordon
> at Newark Liberty International Airport as passengers have recently
> experienced at EWR, as reported by the press this week.
>
> Bobby Sturgell is a harmful and dangerous individual whose malice and
> incompetence must be summarily rejected by the further outcry of the
> American people. Bobby Sturgell must be ousted from office as current
> Acting Head of the FAA. It is abundantly clear that he is ONLY acting
> - and for that matter, he is a bad actor.
>
> Moreover, Bobby Sturgell is a liar who has already perjured himself
> repeatedly to save his own proverbial reptilian skin, and to protect
> solely the interests of the monied aeromercantile complex for which
> Sturgell regularly shills.
> John J. Tormey III, Esq.
> "Quiet Rockland"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Aw, come on. Tell us how you really feel. ! Jus kiddin. I agree,
the current state of affairs is troubling at best and downright deadly
at worst..

B.H.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 16:53:38 -0800 (PST), "John J. Tormey III, Esq."
> wrote in
>:

>Moreover, Bobby Sturgell is a liar who has already perjured himself
>repeatedly to save his own proverbial reptilian skin, and to protect
>solely the interests of the monied aeromercantile complex for which
>Sturgell regularly shills.

Oh, you mean Sturgell is the same sort of Bush appointee as Michael B.
Mukasey, the Attorney General who fails to pronounce water-boarding is
torture and those who engage in it as criminals?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/washington/30justice.html

[news.chi.sbcglobal.net]

"Oh, you mean Sturgell is the same sort of Bush appointee as Michael B.
Mukasey, the Attorney General who fails to pronounce water-boarding is
torture and those who engage in it as criminals? "

It doesn't matter what Mukasey says, I have pronounced it not torture.

And I have exactly the same right to decree it not tortue as does Mukasey.

Perhaps if you got your head out of the liberal media and bothered to read
the Constitution you would know that it is the judiciary branch that decides
what is and is not a crime, based on the laws passed by the legislative
branch.

But don't let the facts get in your way...





"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 16:53:38 -0800 (PST), "John J. Tormey III, Esq."
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>Moreover, Bobby Sturgell is a liar who has already perjured himself
>>repeatedly to save his own proverbial reptilian skin, and to protect
>>solely the interests of the monied aeromercantile complex for which
>>Sturgell regularly shills.
>
> Oh, you mean Sturgell is the same sort of Bush appointee as Michael B.
> Mukasey, the Attorney General who fails to pronounce water-boarding is
> torture and those who engage in it as criminals?
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/washington/30justice.html

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:29:36 -0600, "news.chi.sbcglobal.net"
> wrote in
>:

>Perhaps if you got your head out of the liberal media and bothered to read
>the Constitution you would know that it is the judiciary branch that decides
>what is and is not a crime, based on the laws passed by the legislative
>branch.

If the Attorney General's opinion is meaningless, why is he being
asked?

[news.chi.sbcglobal.net]

It is nothing more than a variation on the old "When did you stop beating
your wife" question...

The attorney general could give a personal opinion as to whether or not it
was against the law, but that would be meaningless.

He could give a legal opinion if it is cut and dried settled law, or if
his/her examination of the facts led him her/to believe it was against the
law in that particular case.

But in the end, if the attorney general believed some act was illegal, he
could bring charges against someone, but it would be the judicial system, in
the person of a judge or jury, who would decide if a crime was committed.
And again, that would depend upon the specific facts of the case.

There is a lot of Bush hate out there, with much of it coming from liberals
and/or Democrats who count on the fact that so many Americans are totally
clueless about the Constitution...




"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:29:36 -0600, "news.chi.sbcglobal.net"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>Perhaps if you got your head out of the liberal media and bothered to read
>>the Constitution you would know that it is the judiciary branch that
>>decides
>>what is and is not a crime, based on the laws passed by the legislative
>>branch.
>
> If the Attorney General's opinion is meaningless, why is he being
> asked?
>

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:29:36 -0600, "news.chi.sbcglobal.net"
> > wrote in
> >:

> >Perhaps if you got your head out of the liberal media and bothered to read
> >the Constitution you would know that it is the judiciary branch that decides
> >what is and is not a crime, based on the laws passed by the legislative
> >branch.

> If the Attorney General's opinion is meaningless, why is he being
> asked?

The Attorney General provides an opinion, which if everyone agrees with
ends a discussion, otherwise you go to the Supreme Court which provides
a ruling.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:23:15 -0600, "news.chi.sbcglobal.net"
> wrote in
>:

>But in the end, if the attorney general believed some act was illegal, he
>could bring charges against someone, but it would be the judicial system, in
>the person of a judge or jury, who would decide if a crime was committed.

So Bush nominated an Attorney General who he was reasonably certain
would not indite him or the CIA.

[news.chi.sbcglobal.net]

Do you have anything factual to contribute to the discussion?

If you don't stay out of it...

But if you really want to play in this sandbox, go look up "writ of
mandamus" before you come back...



"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:23:15 -0600, "news.chi.sbcglobal.net"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>But in the end, if the attorney general believed some act was illegal, he
>>could bring charges against someone, but it would be the judicial system,
>>in
>>the person of a judge or jury, who would decide if a crime was committed.
>
> So Bush nominated an Attorney General who he was reasonably certain
> would not indite him or the CIA.
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 18:49:39 GMT, "news.chi.sbcglobal.net"
> wrote in
>:

>go look up "writ of mandamus"

Why would I do that? I'm familiar with the term.

You're not suggesting that I attempt to command the government to
cease waderboarding "detainees" are you?

[news.chi.sbcglobal.net]

You implied that Bush et al had committed indictable offenses, but had "put
in" an attorney general who would not indict them.

If you believe indictable offenses have occurred, go down to the nearest
federal courthouse and get a writ of mandamus to force him to indict.



"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 18:49:39 GMT, "news.chi.sbcglobal.net"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>go look up "writ of mandamus"
>
> Why would I do that? I'm familiar with the term.
>
> You're not suggesting that I attempt to command the government to
> cease waderboarding "detainees" are you?

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:51:34 GMT, "news.chi.sbcglobal.net"
> wrote in
>:

>If you believe indictable offenses have occurred, go down to the nearest
>federal courthouse and get a writ of mandamus to force him to indict.

Gail, I believe that acting FAA Administrator Robert A. Sturgell is a
typical pro-big business Bush appointee stooge who could care less
about general aviation, the segment that owns and operates 89% of the
aircraft in the US, and who will attempt to wrest Congressional
budgetary oversight of the FAA out of the hands of the lawmakers to
facilitate privatization of US Air Traffic Control, so that large
corporate pro-air-carrier interests can wrangle billions of dollars
out of the government in their mendacious attempt to put the
proverbial "fox" in charge of the "henhouse" without regard for the
consequences to all NAS stakeholders. I believe that, because it
would be consistent with Bush's past behavior, like overturning
Clinton's pronouncement of ATC as an Inherently Governmental Function.

Do you know anything about Sturgell?