Turboprops exempt...oh boy!!!

Andrew Gideon wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:27:52 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

The point is, if the staff has been authorized to speak for her they
speak for her.

Of course. That's why they're picked for that particular skill.

- Andrew

Which was my original point when someone upstream tried to make an excuse
that the Senator shouldn't be blamed for things said in her name when she
authorized those who said them.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:
"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:42:27 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

I prefer the proposed
method of removing ATC out from under the tutalage of Congress and
making it self-supporting.


Why? Neither the airlines nor the FAA have shown great skill in
running...anything.

Since neither the FAA or the airlines are going to/should run ATO,
that's a pretty lame.

Admittedly, neither has Congress. But at least we've
some input with Congress. We're nothing but noise to the FAA and
we're the enemy to the airlines.

And neither of them are the one's who will run it.


Well, Matt who do you think would run it then?

Not necessarily this arrangement, but something similar:

http://www.reason.org/ps358.pdf

Now, the biggest hurdle is not operational, but political. Yet, there are
three major impediments to creating an ATO that can handle growth and
changes in the flying demographics:

1) Governance (of the ATO, not Congress, though it is Congress that is a
major factor in screwing things up with their on/off funding, their turf
protection ploys (http://www.reason.org/atcreform46.shtml - remarks about
Alcee Hastings in the middle of the page),

2) A bondable stream of funding front-loadable. Can't be done with the
present system of funding. Also, as I pointed out without a few people
grasping it, the earlier estimates by GAO (?) of future revenue streams are
worthless due to the rapidly changing face of the airlines (shifting from
hub carriers to regionals).

NTL, given American penchant for the status quo, I can expect that we'll
**** away a few more $$billions in tax based FAA funds and lost productivity
in the next few years.

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:10:07 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

Well, Matt who do you think would run it then?

Take a look at the composition of the Air Traffic Procedures Advisory
Committee. AOPA has a representative. NBAA has a representative. ALPA
has a representative. Continental has a representative. United has a
representative. Airline Dispatchers have a representative. Southwest
Pilots' has a representative. The FAA has a representative (and we've
seen exactly where the FAA stands on relevant issues).

But this wouldn't be biased in favor of airlines at the expense of GA.

And what does GA bring to a procedures committee?

Here again the spamcan drivers want a spot at the trough, but don't even
want to pay for FSS services for which they provide about 10% of the
funding.

On 2007-08-11, S Green wrote:

What kills here is the licensing. For example in 2005 in the UK only 65
private pilots got an IR in 2006 it went down to 23.

10 exam papers, a certified course of study costing about $5000 and a
checkride costing $1300 plus the cost of the specially modified aircraft -
no hoods or foggles allowed. Screens must be used and you can see why we
stay VFR. IR is really for the professional pilots.

The solution is to move here to the Isle of Man, put your aircraft on
the Manx register (M-xxxx). Converting your license is just a paperwork
exercise with no exams - so your full FAA private pilot with instrument
rating is valid with your M-reg aircraft all over the world, including
the UK and Europe.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:49:59 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

Here again the spamcan drivers want a spot at the trough, but don't even
want to pay for FSS services for which they provide about 10% of the
funding.

Which would be different from the tax-break-loving and
pension-breaking aviation industry how, exactly?

What GA brings is an understanding of how aviation works absent the
dishonesty being demonstrated by the airlines and their sycophants (ie.
the main issue being airspace congestion vs. runway congestion).

[Note: I'm not against improving airspace utilization, but the way it is
being sold and bundled is dishonest. Worse, I expect the dishonesty to
continue with more blame for GA (and who knows what else) when the
"expected" delay reductions don't occur.]

- Andrew

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:49:59 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

And what does GA bring to a procedures committee?

A second answer: a lack of history of failing in our own businesses.

Who would you hire as a consultant to your business: someone that failed
in theirs or someone that succeeded in theirs?

- Andrew

("Dylan Smith" wrote)
The solution is to move here to the Isle of Man, put your aircraft on the
Manx register (M-xxxx). Converting your license is just a paperwork
exercise with no exams - so your full FAA private pilot with instrument
rating is valid with your M-reg aircraft all over the world, including the
UK and Europe.


"...put your aircraft on the Manx register (M-xxxx)."

Manx register...Huh?

Cool.
http://gov.im/lib/news/dti/1stmay2007isleof.xml
"1st May 2007 - ISLE OF MAN LAUNCHES AIRCRAFT REGISTER"


Paul-Mont
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJbU0ssrvm4
Theme from Mannix (1967-1975) ...speaking of cool cats. g

On 2007-08-15, Montblack Y4_NOT! wrote:
"...put your aircraft on the Manx register (M-xxxx)."

Manx register...Huh?

Yes, and we had the people who run it come to the flying club to discuss
what it meant for us at the bottom end of the aviation food chain.

I had to pinch myself several times during the meeting to make sure I
wasn't dreaming it. I've never known an aviation authority prepared to
be so willing to help. The guy in charge and his airworthiness bod came
down, and both of them exuded enthusiasm for our kind of flying from
every pore - both extremely knowledgable not just about the high end
bizjets they are trying to attract, but also those of us who stooge
along at 2000 feet in 60 year old aircraft. Such a breath of fresh air.

As a consequence, most of the people with US registered aircraft here
are likely to move to the M-reg as well as those with G-reg aircraft.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de