Instrument Procedures Handbook

Last year the FAA sent me a copy of a new IFR textbook. The
construction of the book was such that while reading and underlining
over one-third of the pages came loose. I found many editing mistakes,
conflicting explanations and such a mixture of alphabetic
acronyms that I was constantly making reference to the glossary.

The book of some 200+ pages was obviously written by several authors of
widely different backgrounds and experience. The book is "...designed as a
technical reference for professional pilots...". As such it leaves clarity
behind. The creation of 'new' terminology for old teminology seems to be a
primary purpose of the publication.

On my web site I have extruded as much sense as I could from the
writings and put it chapter by chapter on my web site in about 1/5
the verbage. www.whittsflying.com
The pages on my site by chapters a
Page 7.311 Chapter 1---IFR Operations in the National Aairspace System.
Page 7.312 Chapter 2--Takeoffs and Departures
Page 7.313 Chapter 3---Enroute Operations
Page 7.314 Chapter 4---Arrivals
Page 7.315 Chapter 5---Approaches
Page 7.316 Chapter 6---System Improvement Plans

I feel very critical toward the ability of the FAA's ability to make the
massive changes in the National Airspace System needed. The book seems
dedicated to retain all of the old while overlaying it with
the new. The old do not have the knowledge or skills to appreciate
the eliminations required to make the new work as it should.

Read and weep....
Gene Whitt

Gene Whitt wrote:

Last year the FAA sent me a copy of a new IFR textbook. The
construction of the book was such that while reading and underlining
over one-third of the pages came loose. I found many editing mistakes,
conflicting explanations and such a mixture of alphabetic
acronyms that I was constantly making reference to the glossary.

The book of some 200+ pages was obviously written by several authors of
widely different backgrounds and experience. The book is "...designed as a
technical reference for professional pilots...". As such it leaves clarity
behind. The creation of 'new' terminology for old teminology seems to be a
primary purpose of the publication.

On my web site I have extruded as much sense as I could from the
writings and put it chapter by chapter on my web site in about 1/5
the verbage. www.whittsflying.com
The pages on my site by chapters a
Page 7.311 Chapter 1---IFR Operations in the National Aairspace System.
Page 7.312 Chapter 2--Takeoffs and Departures
Page 7.313 Chapter 3---Enroute Operations
Page 7.314 Chapter 4---Arrivals
Page 7.315 Chapter 5---Approaches
Page 7.316 Chapter 6---System Improvement Plans

I feel very critical toward the ability of the FAA's ability to make the
massive changes in the National Airspace System needed. The book seems
dedicated to retain all of the old while overlaying it with
the new. The old do not have the knowledge or skills to appreciate
the eliminations required to make the new work as it should.

Read and weep....


And, you have a reactionary Air Traffic Service that is very, very resistant to
any change, especially if they believe it will adversely affect staffing
levels, pay, or working conditions. That comes ahead of any need to serve the
aviation community.

wrote in message ...

And, you have a reactionary Air Traffic Service that is very, very
resistant to
any change, especially if they believe it will adversely affect staffing
levels, pay, or working conditions. That comes ahead of any need to serve
the
aviation community.

It's a government bureaucracy; what the hell did you expect?

Here! http://www.mises.org/etexts/mises/bureaucracy.asp

Matt Barrow wrote:

wrote in message ...

And, you have a reactionary Air Traffic Service that is very, very
resistant to
any change, especially if they believe it will adversely affect staffing
levels, pay, or working conditions. That comes ahead of any need to serve
the
aviation community.

It's a government bureaucracy; what the hell did you expect?

Here! http://www.mises.org/etexts/mises/bureaucracy.asp

I think I expressed my expectations quite well. Did I indicate otherwise?

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

wrote in message ...

And, you have a reactionary Air Traffic Service that is very, very
resistant to
any change, especially if they believe it will adversely affect staffing
levels, pay, or working conditions. That comes ahead of any need to
serve
the
aviation community.

It's a government bureaucracy; what the hell did you expect?

Here! http://www.mises.org/etexts/mises/bureaucracy.asp


A more interesting question might be, "what is in our (light GA's)
interests?"

I'm generally of the Hayekian school on things but I have no reason to
believe that privatizing ATC services would be beneficial to us.
Specifically, while user fees might come of their own accord, they are IMHO
a certainty if we have Boeing or LockMar running the show. Given that it
probably costs about as much to handle a C-172 on an IFR flight plan as it
does to handle a G-V, I don't see any reason to expect this to work out in
our favor.

Flying VFR? Don't worry, filing a flight plan may someday become necessary
(as it is in Canada), perhaps "for security purposes." Oh yeah, and to pay
to file the flight plan. Pure coincidence. Nothing to see here, move
along...

The way I figure it, pilots as a group are probably in the high end of the
income distribution, so the nickels and dimes we mooch off the federal ATC
system are more than made up for by the quarters and dollars we contribute
to everything else they shouldn't be doing.

Also, so long as ATC is a 100% government entity, it is easier to pressure
it to make decisions politically, which is to say un-economically.
Personally I think this works out in our favor more often than not.

I don't doubt that privatized ATC could in time become more economically
efficient, though the benefits are probably overstated by many. But I do
wonder whether the airspace that results from this would be more or less
accessible to us. I think all of us can agree that the skies belong to all
of us and should be kept as open as possible. Most of the time, freedom and
economic efficiency overlap. But when they don't, I will favor freedom.

-cwk.

wrote in message ...


Matt Barrow wrote:

wrote in message
...

And, you have a reactionary Air Traffic Service that is very, very
resistant to
any change, especially if they believe it will adversely affect
staffing
levels, pay, or working conditions. That comes ahead of any need to
serve
the
aviation community.

It's a government bureaucracy; what the hell did you expect?

Here! http://www.mises.org/etexts/mises/bureaucracy.asp

I think I expressed my expectations quite well. Did I indicate otherwise?

"...you have a reactionary Air Traffic Service that is..."

And I said..."It's a government bureaucracy; what the hell did you expect?"

Coulda been much more succinct.

"Colin W Kingsbury" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

And, you have a reactionary Air Traffic Service that is very, very
resistant to
any change, especially if they believe it will adversely affect
staffing
levels, pay, or working conditions. That comes ahead of any need to
serve
the
aviation community.

It's a government bureaucracy; what the hell did you expect?

Here! http://www.mises.org/etexts/mises/bureaucracy.asp


A more interesting question might be, "what is in our (light GA's)
interests?"

I'm generally of the Hayekian school on things but I have no reason to
believe that privatizing ATC services would be beneficial to us.

Then keep the bureaucracy and quit bitchin' when it behaves like, well, like
a bureaucracy.


Specifically, while user fees might come of their own accord, they are
IMHO
a certainty if we have Boeing or LockMar running the show. Given that it
probably costs about as much to handle a C-172 on an IFR flight plan as it
does to handle a G-V, I don't see any reason to expect this to work out in
our favor.

Flying VFR? Don't worry, filing a flight plan may someday become necessary
(as it is in Canada), perhaps "for security purposes." Oh yeah, and to pay
to file the flight plan. Pure coincidence. Nothing to see here, move
along...

The way I figure it, pilots as a group are probably in the high end of the
income distribution, so the nickels and dimes we mooch off the federal ATC
system are more than made up for by the quarters and dollars we contribute
to everything else they shouldn't be doing.

Also, so long as ATC is a 100% government entity, it is easier to pressure
it to make decisions politically, which is to say un-economically.

It's easier to pressure then to behave in the default fashion? Wowza!!!

Personally I think this works out in our favor more often than not.

Except when we expect them to adapt or change...oh, every 20 or 30 years.


I don't doubt that privatized ATC could in time become more economically
efficient, though the benefits are probably overstated by many. But I do
wonder whether the airspace that results from this would be more or less
accessible to us.

Think how well Wal-Mart is doing compared to someone like Macy's. Or how
well the early Ford company did compared to all their competitors.

I think all of us can agree that the skies belong to all
of us and should be kept as open as possible. Most of the time, freedom
and
economic efficiency overlap. But when they don't, I will favor freedom.

They always do. Even when it doesn't there's a big contextual gap (WW2).

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...


Also, so long as ATC is a 100% government entity, it is easier to
pressure
it to make decisions politically, which is to say un-economically.

It's easier to pressure then to behave in the default fashion? Wowza!!!

Personally I think this works out in our favor more often than not.

Except when we expect them to adapt or change...oh, every 20 or 30 years.

What specific types of change are we talking about here? OK, I think it's a
little nutty that getting a GPS certified for IFR use costs as much as it
does, when one can slap an ADF in that does hardly more than give you the
baseball scores and have it be approach legal. But in the grand scheme of
things this is small beer.


I don't doubt that privatized ATC could in time become more economically
efficient, though the benefits are probably overstated by many. But I do
wonder whether the airspace that results from this would be more or less
accessible to us.

Think how well Wal-Mart is doing compared to someone like Macy's. Or how
well the early Ford company did compared to all their competitors.

Those are red herrings- mass market retail is quite a different market.

Here's a more intereting example: Perhaps you've heard of the "fire your
worst customers" trend (if not just google it for background) The basic idea
is, that in many cases 20% of your customers account for 80% of your cost of
service but only 10-20% of your revenue. A number of large retail stores
have started implementing policies designed to reduce their appeal to these
customers.

Personally, I think there's good reason to believe that as far as ATC is
concerned, piston GA is its "worst customer." Like I said, it costs roughly
as much to push a 172 through the system as it does a Gulfstream, but the
Gulfstream sure buys a lot more fuel (and thus contributes more tax).
Perhaps the 172 does ultimately pay its share, but it's sure a lot lower
margin.

I think all of us can agree that the skies belong to all
of us and should be kept as open as possible. Most of the time, freedom
and
economic efficiency overlap. But when they don't, I will favor freedom.

They always do. Even when it doesn't there's a big contextual gap (WW2).

Perhaps you'd care to give a little more detail? "More economically
efficient" encompasses the whole market, in other words, better ATC services
could simply make things more efficient for the airlines. Better routing,
fewer delays, less fuel burned, lower ticket prices, more people getting on
737s to visit grandma. There's a lot of potential economic benefit in there.
None of it has anything to do with *our* freedom of access. If push comes to
shove, they will win.

-cwk.

"Colin W Kingsbury" wrote in message
news

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...


Also, so long as ATC is a 100% government entity, it is easier to
pressure
it to make decisions politically, which is to say un-economically.

It's easier to pressure then to behave in the default fashion? Wowza!!!

Personally I think this works out in our favor more often than not.

Except when we expect them to adapt or change...oh, every 20 or 30
years.

What specific types of change are we talking about here? OK, I think it's
a
little nutty that getting a GPS certified for IFR use costs as much as it
does, when one can slap an ADF in that does hardly more than give you the
baseball scores and have it be approach legal. But in the grand scheme of
things this is small beer.

I think you just made my point quite nicely.

Think of what motives a market based profit seeking enterprise and contrast
that with what motivates a bureaucracy/bureaucrat.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Colin W Kingsbury" wrote in message
news

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

Personally I think this works out in our favor more often than not.

Except when we expect them to adapt or change...oh, every 20 or 30
years.

What specific types of change are we talking about here? OK, I think
it's
little nutty that getting a GPS certified for IFR use costs as much as
it
does, when one can slap an ADF in that does hardly more than give you
the
baseball scores and have it be approach legal. But in the grand scheme
of
things this is small beer.

I think you just made my point quite nicely.

What makes you think privatizing ATC will have any impact at all on this?
It's not like Flight Standards and the whole process of deciding what
constitutes "airworthy" is being changed. Besides, to the extent anything
does change, it will only become more dominated by the airlines, where all
the money resides. This would be very efficient economically speaking.
Needless to say, our interests and theirs could not be less aligned if we
tried.

Think of what motives a market based profit seeking enterprise and
contrast
that with what motivates a bureaucracy/bureaucrat.


Should the government put ATC out for bid, let's be honest here. At best
you'll have Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and one or two dark horses bidding on
it. Behind the scenes, in Boeing's bid 35% of the services will de delivered
by Lockmar, and in Lockmar's bid, 35% of the services will be delivered by
Boeing, and so on. Look at most of the really big defense contracts and you
see this sort of thing. I'm all for free markets. This is a free market like
a twinkie is a vegetable.

-cwk.