GA headed for regulatory trouble

But, the truth is coming out. About the total disregard many of you have
for noise, safety, etc. as well as the huge taxpayer subsidies that GA
airports receive.

*yawn*

Can't you find a worthy cause to pursue?

Go save some baby seals, or maybe some endangered tree frogs... Or perhaps
even help some kid learn to read...?

Just about anything you could do would be a more useful endeavor than trying
to stop aviation -- possibly mankind's highest achievement.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Marco Leon mmleonyahoo.com wrote:

If it was for weather, it would seem kind of odd for him to
do that. Usually an aircraft with weather issues is left in the IFR system.

Assuming the conditions allow, the pilot(s) can have much greater
flexibility to deviate around thunderstorms when VFR.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Who wants to "stop aviation?" Why would anyone want to do this?

All we want is better regulation of GA, eliminate taxpayer subsidies for
GA airports, upgrade pilot training so that these be a pilot in a month
schools won't exist, change the FARs so that a turboprop cant legally
circle over people's house all day long, expose the FAA corrupt,
ineffective regulation of GA, etc.

Every single day, some GA pilots prove that the industry is running amuck.
I feel badly for the responsible majority of GA pilots, but a small
minority is ruining it for all of you, especially those with calalier
attitudes (protect baby seals - please). And Phil Boyer panders to the
lowest common denominator.

Obviously shooting these a couple of these planes down is impractical. (but
I firmly believe you wouldn't have to kill many before no one would wander
there again)

I daresay no one would fly anywhere near there again, wander or not.

We need to "take care of our own".

No, we need to "take care of the ^(*& regulation". If we turn against
each other we will have played right into our government's hands, which
is in the process of playing into the terrorists hands.

I was at a meeting at DXR Tuesday given by someone whose name escapes me
but is a head of the National Air Transportation Association, who has
been in congress, and who himself is a pilot (along with his wife). He
indicated that the TSA believes that the regulations on little airplanes
are dumb, that those regulations come from the Secret Service, not the
TSA, and that he believes that they will be eventually removed, piece by
piece. Well, I'll believe it when I see it, but it is heartening to
hear it from somebody who should know first hand what is happening.

We as pilots would have to support ["it" - which I presume to
mean more consequences for violators].

I do not feel I would have to support it.

Less incursions is safer for us
(the aviation community)

Less of something you measure. Fewer of something you count.



--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:10:26 -0500, "PittsS1C"
wrote in ::

Obviously shooting these a couple of these planes down is impractical. (but
I firmly believe you wouldn't have to kill many before no one would wander
there again)
Are there any other reasonable consequences that would major deterrent? Part
of the problem is that it is not a big enough inconvenience for violators.
I would rather that the aviation community help find a solution before an
irrational governmental body imposes useless painful legislation upon all
the rest of us. We need to "take care of our own".
Is "Federal pound me in the ass" prison enough? (with huge bail, so they
would be massively inconvenienced)

We as pilots would have to support it. Less incursions is safer for us
(the aviation community)

I couldn't agree with you less. I see very little reason for the ADIZ
at all. And our government shooting down innocent citizens for no
crime is tyranny if the first degree. The Department of Homeland
Security needs to rethink this faulted policy that provides no
additional security at all.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:24:18 -0400, "Icebound"
wrote in
::

In democracies, legislators should be defending themselves from aviator's
questions, rather than aviators cowering before the legislator's
impositions.

Thank you. It's refreshing to hear a reasonable voice among the din
of bleating sheep.

wrote:
The recent spate of private pilots violating restricted airspace over
Washington raises the thought that some lawmaker is going to decide
that general aviation is a threat to national security. It's only a
matter of time.

I've taken some comfort in the fact that this latest incident dropped
off the news almost as quickly as it arrived.

My feeling is that we underestimate the difficulty of regulating GA and
overestimate the public's desire to do so. Here we've just had a really
bad month with drunk kids stealing planes, the usual summer uptick in
crashes, etc. and a slow news cycle and still one senses no urgency on
anyone's part.

While people will get fired up about local issues like noise abatement,
there really is no constituency for DC-style restriction across the
land. Daley has charged the barricades on this a few times since 9/11
and been dismissed with prejudice every time. History shows that when a
small but very dedicated lobby goes up against a largely disinterested
public, the lobby usually wins, for better or worse.

Also, it's worth pointing out that GA happens to have a pretty
bipartisan constituency, and an unusually well-monied one. While many
of us fly old 150s etc etc, the class of people that are buying new
SR-22s, Lancairs, and Eclipses are part of the "monied interests" that
have back-channel connections in high places. Put together I feel
pretty confident that serious top-down restrictions will not happen in
the absence of a major incident, and even in the case of 9/11, nearly
all turned out to be temporary.

The real risk to us is at the local level, namely the disappearance of
airports and the gradual shrinking of the GA base of services, driving
up costs. The recent Kelo decision scares me a lot. I've heard legal
experts take both sides, but my gut instinct is that this will
encourage municipalities to stage a lot more eminent domain raids on
unpopular properties like small airports, whose local supporters are
too easily overrun by real estate developers and neighbors happy to be
rid of the noise.

My hope is that the Sport Pilot/LSA segment will stimulate a lot of new
demand which will increase the constituency for GA on all levels.
Numbers are the ultimate defense, as the gun lobby, which has far more
dedicated enemies, has repeatedly proven.

-cwk.

Icebound wrote:

Have a pleasant life.

Ignore that troll. He lives for no other purpose than to get a rise out of
the group.


--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
Yeah, I agree that its only a matter of time. That huge AOPA staff that
you guys pay for can only protect you for so long. There have been a
number of close calls for innocents on the ground (the trailer park homes
that were destroyed, highway crashes in Calif, the home that was destroyed
in texas, etc.), but eventually some GA pilot is going to cause alot of
innocents to die (Of course people will post the usual drivel he
"condolences to the pilot -- he was really good -- we'll miss him, yada
yada yada). When that happens, there will really generate alot of
headlines.

But, the truth is coming out. About the total disregard many of you have
for noise, safety, etc. as well as the huge taxpayer subsidies that GA
airports receive.

There is a nationwide meeting of anti aviation activists coming up next
weekend. With all the news you guys are generating (high profile crashes
all over the country, kids stealing planes, constant intrusions into the
DC ADIZ, the truth about who pays to subsidize your fun (taxpayers), etc.
we have plenty of ammunition to put some sanity into this business.

SKYLUNE is always watching.


You can get your reality check he

http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

You might want to work on that "accidental exposure to cold" . That's just
about the same number of people as die in GA airplane accidents. Or maybe
work on cancelling swimming pools, also about the same number of deaths.

Forget the trivial stuff like the 15,000 car occupants, or 15,000 drug
overdoses, many of them in hospitals, or 12,000 gun deaths. Obviously those
are already well regulated.

While you are looking up at the next GA airplane flying by, your odds of
dying from falling on the sidewalk are just about 6 times as great.

Better shut down walking, too, then, just to be safe.

Have a pleasant life.

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Icebound wrote:

Have a pleasant life.

Ignore that troll. He lives for no other purpose than to get a rise out
of
the group.



Oh, of course.... but I get this perverse satisfaction from recalling that
page, just to review all the different possibilities by which that may
cease..... :-)