Someone left a mess at CGX !

"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.

Bob Noel wrote in
:

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

I believe they operate Washington National (Reagan) and Dulles.

The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority is an independent body
created by the Commonwealth of Virginia and the District of Columbia. It
has been approved by the U.S. Congress to operate and maintain Ronald
Reagan Washington National Airport and Washington Dulles International
Airport. The Authority is a public body, corporate and politic and is
independent of all other bodies. It is not an agency of the Commonwealth
of Virginia or the District of Columbia, nor is it a federal agency.

http://www.mwaa.com/index.htm

"John Godwin" wrote in message
...
Bob Noel wrote in
:

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

I believe they operate Washington National (Reagan) and Dulles.

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

Daley's wife is one of those eco-wackos. The Meigs park was her pet
project.

Why bother with cleanup? All of those dope-smoking rock fans going to
concerts there will ingest far more contaminants than is in the ground,
anyhow.

The arena is on the northern end of xxCGX, in the old "crash zone".
Looking forward to the 2006 season, JG

Morgans wrote:
"sfb" wrote

Let's be honest. There was a time in the not too distant past where we
were not that careful about spills at airports, railroad yards, truck
depots, service stations, tank farms, etc. etc.

Shoot, I've seen grading equipment leaking hydraulic fluid by the gallons,
and still keep on working. It could be some of that, too.

Thats the ticket, it was hydralic fluid from the dozers craving all the
XXX's.

--
Jim in NC

Rachel wrote:
wrote:
snip

Yeah, because what's underneath CGX is any worse than what's underneath
ORD, LAX, MIA, etc. Get off our case. If Daley hadn't ripped the
airport up, no one would have cared.

But those airports don't sit in the water supply for 7 million people.


Personally, I hope if GA gets a bad name over this, that Daley loses his
dream of a park and gets stuck with the cleanup fees, plus whatever the
FAA decides to stick him with. I lived in Chicago until this year, and
still consider myself fortunate to have landed at CGX multiple times.

wrote:
Rachel wrote:

wrote:

snip

Yeah, because what's underneath CGX is any worse than what's underneath
ORD, LAX, MIA, etc. Get off our case. If Daley hadn't ripped the
airport up, no one would have cared.


But those airports don't sit in the water supply for 7 million people.

Oh, I wasn't aware that I was landing in water at CGX.

yawn I can't believe some people find GA-bashing to be exciting.

Jay Honeck wrote:

Sounds like this Subra woman is a nut job. Even though I'm glad King
Daley is going to be the target of her wrath, I don't want the good
name of General Aviation -- already challenged on so many fronts -- to
be associated with these environmental wackos in any way.

I don't know anything about Subra and the specifics of what she said,
but an airport apron is essentially the same as a gas station -- lots
of fuel spills, oil spills, etc -- and former gas station sites can be
very expensive to clean up and redevelop. We're also the last ones
still using leaded gas, and lead levels can be a bit high even off away
from the apron as a result.

I think it's fair to acknowledge that redeveloping an airport is going
to be an expensive job.


All the best,


David

wrote:

But those airports don't sit in the water supply for 7 million people.

Chicago used to pull its water from the river and dump its sewage in the lake.
This has changed?

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.