Pilot's Political Orientation

Pete wrote:

In article k.net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:



"Judah" wrote in message
. ..


What, exactly, then, do conservatives want?



Freedom.



You're an idiot. they want freedom to dictate to others, who don't share
their views, what they'll do with their bodies, their relationships and
their lives.

People like you should be killed.

Somehow I _don't_ find it reassuring that a**holes exist on both sides
of the political
spectrum.

Rich Lemert

In article , wrote:

airport. And, it certainly isn't true for instrument approach
procedures
established for airports that have no commercial traffic (which is
many,
many
more instrument approach procedures than those established for
airports
with
mostly, or some, commercial operations.

How many? have you counted them?

All you have to do is flip through the NACO books and it becomes quite
apparent. The facts are self-evident. If you want a precise count, I'll
let
you do that.

yeah, it's quite evident that the airports that serve 135, 121,
and commercial traffic have more approaches than the airports that
don't. All you have to do is look. try it. How many approaches
at KBOS, KLGA, KLWM, KBED, KBUF, etc etc vs those airports that
used to have identifiers like 5B6?



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.

you might want to check those figures.

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

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.