Pilot's Political Orientation

wrote in message ...

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.


The average G/A guy who flies a small IFR-equipped (with IFR GPS) airplane
100 hours a year and often utilizes GPS instrument approach procedures at
small airports doesn't begin to put a burden on the system.

wrote in message ...

Not since the advent of GPS approaches. Thousands have been
issued for small airports, and those cost just as much as a GPS
approach for Green Bay Interuniversal Skyport.


Well, if you can confidently make that statement, you must know the cost to
create a GPS approach. What is that cost?

wrote:

The guy who uses it [the small airport] to fly for $100 hamburgers (or, are they $200 hamburgers these
days?) is getting subsidized without his flight contributing very much to the
economy.

You may be right; on the other hand that $100 (or $200)
got spent. An airplane was built and bought, it was
maintained somewhere (likely on another small airport),
gas was bought and so forth.

Cities more often than not conclude that airports are an
economic add to the community. That's why they fund them.
So does the FAA.

Having said that, governmental decisions are often suspect
and I would like to see a study that addresses the
economic benefit of small airplanes.

"Otis Winslow" wrote in message
...

I would hardly call Libertarians very conservative. While the
free market position could lead one to think that ... the general
approach of us being able to do our own thing as long as we
don't interfere with others exercising that same freedom is a
long way away from the ultra conservative approach. They want
to control our every action and make our moral judgements for
us.


It is liberals that wish to control other people.

"Judah" wrote in message
...

Actually, CJ, you should go back and follow the thread a little more
closely, and maybe read it without your blinders on.

The conservative view presented was that liberals want to take other
people's assets and redistribute them. I responded that conservatives
want to take other people's assets and keep them for themselves. The
response was that conservatives don't want other people's assets, and I
disagree with that completely.


Your disagreement does not make it a false statement.

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?

Say what?

How much does it cost "the system" for the "average G/A guy"?

Do you have any actual facts wrt to have much money would be saved
if the "average G/A guy" didn't use the system? I trust you have
facts, otherwise you wouldn't continually claim that the
"average G/A guy" doesn't begin to pay for the system.

--
Bob Noel

Hey come on, now. Cut me a break. You know what I meant!

I was just feeding a troll, anyway!


"Newps" wrote in
:


"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.

Doug Carter wrote:
Judah wrote:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
link.net:


How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other
people's assets?


By creating wealth.

Ex Nihilo?


Perhaps you mean 'Creatio Ex Nihilo', create something out of nothing.

If so, you claim that the value of labor = zero.

Marx would not approve.

What did Groucho know about economics anyway? :-)

Matt

L Smith wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:

darwin smith wrote:


If you've waited until little Debbie is pregnant, you've lost your
chance to prevent an
abortion, period. All you can do now is stop it, but don't call it
prevention.



Abstinence is strongly supported by all pro-life groups that I'm aware
of and it is the only 100% means to prevent Debbie from getting pregnant.


Abstinence is 100% effective ONLY when one is 100% abstinent. While
this might be
an admirable goal to strive for, it is also completely unattainable. The
sex drive is very
powerful, and our modern culture doesn't make the task any easier. Given
this, I would
prefer to give everyone as much information and as many tools as possible.

True, that as a society we've completely lost self-control and, worse
yet, we've even lost admiration for self-control as a virtue.
Promiscuous sex is just one result of that. Drugs, crime, etc., are a
few others. There's an old saying among quality control people that
"you get what you accept." This applies to human behavior just as much
as it does manufacturing. People like Deming, Crosby, etc., just
refused to accept that defects had to be a part of manufacturing.
Companies that followed their recommendations (most of which were in
Japan, unfortunately for the USA), increased their product quality well
above what others thought was even attainable, let alone economic.
Holding our kids and ourselves to high standards will greatly decrease
many of the bad behaviors tha are so rampant today. However, the
liberals have driven society towards a "if it feels good do
it/situational ethics" point of view and, as I wrote earlier, "you get
what you accept." Since we now accept almost any form of vile speech or
behavior, that is what we increasing get.


Matt

John Harlow wrote:
The prisons are full of parentless children. I am not about to
support anything that is likely to make the situation even worse.


This makes no sense. Are you afraid gays will produce more "parentless
children" (as if there were such a thing) if they were permitted to marry?

You seem to have warped a connection to gays wishing to be legally married
and irresponsible heterosexuals. They have nothing to do with each other.

What exactly is it about gay people that scares you, CJ?

Why would he be afraid of happy people? Oh, you meant homosexuals, why
didn't you say so?

Matt