Someone left a mess at CGX !

by "Jay Honeck" jjhoneck@[EMAIL PROTECTED] Dec 4, 2005 at 02:43 AM


Worst case: Aviation gets another black
eye, and the FAA ends up being liable for "contamination" at every
airport
in America.

I wouldn't think that a likely scenario since the FAA doesn't
run/operate/own
any airports.

I hope you're right, but.... The FAA is the over-arching, controlling
agency here.

EPA doesn't own any old, abandoned gas stations (with leaky underground
tanks), but they're responsible for cleaning them up, right?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


Actually EPA is NOT responsible. They (like the FAA) only set
regulations. In a superfund cleanup, Potentially Responsible Parties
(PRPs) are identified, and then sued for the cleanup costs. Litigation
usually goes on for years.

In this case, I would expect the owners (city of Chicago) and businesses
responsible for causing the pollution (e.g. FBOs) to be sued.

Its not an anti-GA thing at all. Other highly polluting industries have
been named as PRPs in many Superfund suits.

As usual, I can count on the AOPA to set matters straight!

Here, on the GA Serving America website, is the straight dope. You see,
the planes are responsible for PROTECTING "Mother Earth" against pollution
from ships, for example. We need to put many more small planes in the air
to restore a pristeen environment!



http://www.gaservingamerica.com/also...ironmental.htm

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
As usual, I can count on the AOPA to set matters straight!

Here, on the GA Serving America website, is the straight dope. You see,
the planes are responsible for PROTECTING "Mother Earth" against pollution
from ships, for example. We need to put many more small planes in the air
to restore a pristeen environment!



http://www.gaservingamerica.com/also...ironmental.htm


The funny thing about many of the AOPA examples used as an example of the
"benefit" of GA is that the examples are useless in so far as justifying GA
as a benefit for the average person. Rather, the examples merely point out
that it might be worthwhile for a government entity to have one or two
aircraft for occasional use. Why we continue to shoot ouselves in the foot
is beyond me.

Tom wrote:
by "Tom Conner" Dec 5, 2005 at 05:34 PM




The funny thing about many of the AOPA examples used as an example of the
"benefit" of GA is that the examples are useless in so far as justifying
GA
as a benefit for the average person. Rather, the examples merely point
out
that it might be worthwhile for a government entity to have one or two
aircraft for occasional use. Why we continue to shoot ouselves in the
foot
is beyond me.

I can't understand it either, but I find AOPA "reasoning" to be highly
entertaining! Some of their arguments go beyond the absurd. Any fan of
"Monty Python's Flying Circus" owes Phil Boyer a huge debt of gratitude
for stepping into fill the void left by this famous comedy troupe.

Unfortunately for pilots, he apparently believes his own propaganda (e.g.
"I fly a C-150, fear me!") and seems utterly oblivious to actual reality.
He comes across as a clown to anyone not brainwashed with the nonsense that
comes from the various AOPA organizations, including "GA Serving Amerika."


He will lose his fight against user fees, just like he lost Megis after
"taking on" Daly. He might lose on the ADIZ issue also. I really love it
when he adopts the combative stance, and "takes on" US attorneys, anti
noise groups, governors, etc.

But, what can you expect from a TV executive who made a career out of the
superficial and artificial world of broadcast television.