Pilot's Political Orientation

In article , wrote:

I believe I said that. Let me change that to: the average G/A guy who
flys a small IFR-equipped
(with IFR GPS) a 100 hours a year and often utilizies GPS instrument
approach procedures at small
airports (of which there are hundreds now, if not thousands) doesn't
begin to pay for the system.

how much does that guy cost?

--
Bob Noel

Tarver Engineering wrote:

With the left forcing the teaching of Darwin's "Origin of Species" in
public

schools, while knowing full well that it is scientifically false, makes your
comments projection, Dan.

Please point out those parts of "Origin of Species" that are false.
Chances are
you'll either find out that scientists have already recognized the
error, or that
you have mis-understood the material. If you really have found an
unrecognized
error, science will thank you for allowing it to improve our
understanding of the world.
If you are in error, you'll thank us for helping you become a
better-informed citizen.

Rich Lemert

"Judah" wrote in message
...
Put it in perspective.

At MOST, the 100-hour per year pilot uses 100 hours of ATC time per year.

The Airline pilot, who flies back and forth across the country twice a
day, uses 100 hours of ATC time in about a week.

Considering an airline pilot flies 80 hours a month, this is a pretty neat
trick.

"L Smith" wrote in message
link.net...
Tarver Engineering wrote:

With the left forcing the teaching of Darwin's "Origin of Species" in
public

schools, while knowing full well that it is scientifically false, makes
your
comments projection, Dan.

Please point out those parts of "Origin of Species" that are false.
Chances are you'll either find out that scientists have already recognized
the
error,

Yes, nearly all of science knows Darwin's "Origin of species" is completely
false. That is why I provided you with two other brances of science:
Physics demonstrating a theory with repeatable and demonstrable resilts
applied to Cosmology, Geology falses Darwin's "Origin of Species" with hard
physical evidence and then from within the church of Darwin itself, Jay
Gould replaces Darwin's work with a thirteen hundred page treatise trying to
reconcile the obvious undisputable falshoods within Darwin's "Origin of
species". All of the scientific community knows what is being taught in
school is a lie.

Stop teaching Darwin's religion as science in public schools.

Newps wrote:



Considering an airline pilot flies 80 hours a month, this is a pretty neat
trick.

If that much. ;-)

Bob Noel wrote:

In article , wrote:

I believe I said that. Let me change that to: the average G/A guy who
flys a small IFR-equipped
(with IFR GPS) a 100 hours a year and often utilizies GPS instrument
approach procedures at small
airports (of which there are hundreds now, if not thousands) doesn't
begin to pay for the system.

how much does that guy cost?

--
Bob Noel

Say what?

Doug Carter wrote:

wrote:

The last I recall, in the now-five-year-old program for 500 GPS approaches a
year, some 70-80% of those were established (and are being established) for
airports that have no commercial operations except perhaps for a very
infrequent Part 135 arrival.

It does not follow that an airport without Part 121 and
infrequent Part 135 operations has no economic value.

No doubt about it, and I did not imply that. Nonetheless, a 3,000' runway at
Podunk, Iowa, with two GPS approaches, represents a signifgicant federal subsidy
to the users of that airport. Those users who use it in conjunction with their
business or perhaps for an Angel flight, etc, indeed contriubute to the economy.
The guy who uses it to fly for $100 hamburgers (or, are they $200 hamburgers these
days?) is getting subsidized without his flight contributing very much to the
economy. I'm not suggesting it's right or wrong. I certainly have used the
system like that a lot over the years.

Bob Noel wrote:

Also, you might be interested most of the GPS approaches were overlays

(meaning all the obstruction clearance work was already done). Very
few GPS approaches were defined for airports that didn't previously
have any approach, and nothing close to that 70-80% you claim.

--
Bob Noel

Baloney. At this stage of the program many, many airports that did not
previously have an IAP now have at least one RNAV (GPS) IAP. And, there are
many more that had perhaps one ground-based IAP and now have at least one
additional RNAV (GPS) IAP.

As to the BOS, LAX, JFKs, etc, how many IAPs do those airports represent? Last
time I checked there were over 10,000 IAPs in the U.S. No doubt those major
Part 139 airports take a huge amount of resources; then again the airline
passenger pays through the nose to support those facilities.

Judah wrote:
Labor is not nothing, but I would contend that it also does not create wealth.
If it did, the manual laborers would be the wealthy ones.

Labor is not limited to *manual* labor. Try thinking of
labor as action by people. These actions includes
invention and organization as well as digging ditches.

Invention is what increases productivity and efficiency.
Without these increases we would still be dragging deer we
killed with rocks back to the cave by hand, digging
ditches with a stick and waiting for the invention of fire.

...the only way to create wealth in either of these two endeavors is to redistribute
these assets...

Increases in productivity and efficiency are what increase
wealth. If this were not true then we would have five
billion people trying to live in the same cave eating the
same deer.

Redistribution has nothing, by definition, with the
creation anything. No food, no shelter, nothing is made
by redistribution. It should only be used to provide for
those who are actually unable to provide for themselves.
It is a form of charity, not production.

Judah wrote:
I made no mention of stealing. The Free Market in the US requires that
people redistribute assets in order to get rich. Most people don't get
rich based solely on their hourly rate. They get rich by buying low and
selling high - real estate, stocks, antiques on a road show, or whatever.

In the free market economy, someone wins, and someone loses.

You seem to be mired in the assumption that there is some
magical collection of assets that can only be
redistributed. This is patently false; it ignores the
reality that new and valuable assets are driven principaly
by invovation.

Take a recent very simple example: the asset value of the
computer industry world wide today is hundreds of billions
of dollars. These assets simply *did not exist* before
the invention of the computer, neither did the millions of
jobs in this sector.

Market speculation is one way to get rich, however even
here you may get confused. The speculators are the ones
who get rich or poor, not the companies that the stocks
represent.