Time Magazine Article "What's causing ATC delays"

[james]

Hey all - I'm mostly a lurker but felt compelled to comment on this.

Time Magazine recently had an incredibly asinine piece on "What's
causing flight delays." In it the writer blames the old ATC system,
but barely gives word to busy hub airports, overscheduled/canceled
flights, and a host of other LOCAL AIRPORT and AIRLINE problems that
are really to blame. And of course adding a one line jab about GA.

Plus - the animation showing a plane being bounced around the sky like
a pinball is hilarious, and just plane incorrect.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1653304,00.html

I wrote a rebuttal on my blog: Would love any comments/corrections or
opinions

http://www.futuregringo.com/index.php/2007/08/29/time-magazine-studies-air-travel-delays/

Summary: Instead of whining about zig zag patterns in the sky we
should invest the money in people, resources (such as ground radar,)
and improvements in the LOCAL airport environments at our largest
hubs. The TOWER is where air traffic controllers are overworked,
overtaxed, and because of this have increased chances of errors. Why
are people being told, or sold, a false worry about the LEAST
problematic and least dangerous part of our ATC system?

[muzzy]

Just another example of why the news media have lost the
respect of the American people. Will they ever wake up?






On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:48:11 -0700, james > wrote:

>Hey all - I'm mostly a lurker but felt compelled to comment on this.
>
>Time Magazine recently had an incredibly asinine piece on "What's
>causing flight delays." In it the writer blames the old ATC system,
>but barely gives word to busy hub airports, overscheduled/canceled
>flights, and a host of other LOCAL AIRPORT and AIRLINE problems that
>are really to blame. And of course adding a one line jab about GA.
>
>

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"muzzy" > wrote in message
...
> Just another example of why the news media have lost the
> respect of the American people. Will they ever wake up?
>

Not likely, but remember that in their world, truth is relative and
subjective -- they see nothing wrong.

The word is: insolence.

[james]

On Aug 30, 10:48 am, james > wrote:
> Hey all - I'm mostly a lurker but felt compelled to comment on this.
>
> Time Magazine recently had an incredibly asinine piece on "What's
> causing flight delays." In it the writer blames the old ATC system,
> but barely gives word to busy hub airports, overscheduled/canceled
> flights, and a host of other LOCAL AIRPORT and AIRLINE problems that
> are really to blame. And of course adding a one line jab about GA.
>
> Plus - the animation showing a plane being bounced around the sky like
> a pinball is hilarious, and just plane incorrect.
>
> http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1653304,00.html
>
> I wrote a rebuttal on my blog: Would love any comments/corrections or
> opinions
>
> http://www.futuregringo.com/index.php/2007/08/29/time-magazine-studie...
>
> Summary: Instead of whining about zig zag patterns in the sky we
> should invest the money in people, resources (such as ground radar,)
> and improvements in the LOCAL airport environments at our largest
> hubs. The TOWER is where air traffic controllers are overworked,
> overtaxed, and because of this have increased chances of errors. Why
> are people being told, or sold, a false worry about the LEAST
> problematic and least dangerous part of our ATC system?


"and just plane incorrect."

Oh and that was a typo not an intended pun.

[Gattman[_2_]]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "muzzy" > wrote in message
>> Just another example of why the news media have lost the
>> respect of the American people. Will they ever wake up?

At the risk of going totally off-topic, at what point has the news media had
the respect of the American people?

Having said that, I expect a much greater degree of accuracy and research
from the weekly news magazines than I would the average daily newspaper.
Daily reporters face pretty fierce deadlines for which it's often impossible
to check every fact and detail, but when you're a major international news
magazine, that excuse isn't valid.

-c

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gattman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "muzzy" > wrote in message
>>> Just another example of why the news media have lost the
>>> respect of the American people. Will they ever wake up?
>
> At the risk of going totally off-topic, at what point has the news media
> had the respect of the American people?

Up until the 80's when alternative media came into being and the blatent
dishonesty, hypocrisy and slovenlyness became known.

>
> Having said that, I expect a much greater degree of accuracy and research
> from the weekly news magazines than I would the average daily newspaper.

Like Newsweek or Time? False expectation, I'm afraid.

> Daily reporters face pretty fierce deadlines for which it's often
> impossible to check every fact and detail, but when you're a major
> international news magazine, that excuse isn't valid.

The issue isn't accuracy/fact checking, but deliberate distortion. For so
long the MSM had no competition and thus virtually no one to answer to.

An America with short attention spans, poor memory, and a dearth of critical
thinking skills hasn't helped to keep them on their toes, either.

[Gattman[_2_]]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...

>> At the risk of going totally off-topic, at what point has the news media
>> had the respect of the American people?
>
> Up until the 80's when alternative media came into being and the blatent
> dishonesty, hypocrisy and slovenlyness became known.

Well, I have to disagree somewhat because public issues with the media go
back at least to the coverage of Vietnam. Can't remember how it faired
during World War II, but previous to that the respect factor would have more
to do with the cluefullness (lack thereof) of the public than the accuracy
of the media (lack thereof.) My point is that if you study the history of
mass media in the United States you won't find a period in which they were
particularly respected except by their own readers. Exceptions going back
to the 19th century include The Oregonian, The Chigaco Tribune and the New
York Times, but they weren't without sin either.

Recall Abraham Lincoln's marginally-constitutional imprisonment of several
critical publishers.

> An America with short attention spans, poor memory, and a dearth of
> critical thinking skills hasn't helped to keep them on their toes,
> either.

Unfortunately, I can't disagree. I studied Journalism at OSU under an
two-time Pulizer prize winner who required all J students to have a science
minor because he was tired of hearing about bigfoot, killer bees, Alar and
other cyclical and nonsensical media phenomena. (My senior thesis was to
interpret scientific data on the dietary benefits of oat fiber versus wheat
bran, back when everybody was reporting that one or the other prevented hear
disease. Turns out there's not a signifcant difference.)

We live and will always live in a world where some amount of people believe
whatever they read. The only variable is what they choose to read, whether
it's USA Today, the Wall Street Journal or Moron.org

-c

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gattman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> At the risk of going totally off-topic, at what point has the news media
>>> had the respect of the American people?
>>
>> Up until the 80's when alternative media came into being and the blatent
>> dishonesty, hypocrisy and slovenlyness became known.
>
> Well, I have to disagree somewhat because public issues with the media go
> back at least to the coverage of Vietnam.

Probably, and even further, but were the issues about Vietnam coverage known
THEN, or was it something that came later. The first real damning coverage
came IIRC, after Giap's book was published.

> Can't remember how it faired during World War II, but previous to that
> the respect factor would have more to do with the cluefullness (lack
> thereof) of the public than the accuracy of the media (lack thereof.) My
> point is that if you study the history of mass media in the United States
> you won't find a period in which they were particularly respected except
> by their own readers. Exceptions going back to the 19th century include
> The Oregonian, The Chigaco Tribune and the New York Times, but they
> weren't without sin either.

Funny you mention the Chicago Tribune, because (it they're the paper I'm
thinking of) they published confidential information during WWII.

I recall reading about some of the hysteria directed at Thomas Jefferson.

>
> Recall Abraham Lincoln's marginally-constitutional imprisonment of several
> critical publishers.

Yes, and John Adams "Sedition Act".

>
>> An America with short attention spans, poor memory, and a dearth of
>> critical thinking skills hasn't helped to keep them on their toes,
>> either.
>
> Unfortunately, I can't disagree. I studied Journalism at OSU under an
> two-time Pulizer prize winner who required all J students to have a
> science minor because he was tired of hearing about bigfoot, killer bees,
> Alar and other cyclical and nonsensical media phenomena. (My senior
> thesis was to interpret scientific data on the dietary benefits of oat
> fiber versus wheat bran, back when everybody was reporting that one or the
> other prevented hear disease. Turns out there's not a signifcant
> difference.)

Hell, see what they did with the "Nutrition Pyramid" even as little as a
couple years ago, or the "Eight glasses of water a day" tripe :~)
>
> We live and will always live in a world where some amount of people
> believe whatever they read.

"I only know what I read in the newspapers" -- Will Rogers.

or

(Insert strong scottish accent here) "Do ya dare to disbelieve it if it's in
PRINNNT" -- Jock Hutchison

> The only variable is what they choose to read, whether it's USA Today,
> the Wall Street Journal or Moron.org

Yes, the "single-sourcers", never cross-checking...

First, they said newspapers would open the world to us and make us smarter,
then they said TV would open the world to us and make us smarter.

Right, Dude!!!

I think the MSM hit the skids when they had to compete with TV for the short
American attention span. It then became the dog chasing its tail. It only
got worse when, like anyone in power, they started believing their own BS in
the manner that other elites believe their own PR pronouncements.

What we see now is desperation on a precarious stage.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gattman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> We live and will always live in a world where some amount of people
> believe whatever they read. The only variable is what they choose to
> read, whether it's USA Today, the Wall Street Journal or Moron.org
>

Addendum to previous post coming down the wire:

I do, though, trust the MSM and even the newspapers when it comes to the
baseball box scores.


--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

[Really-Old-Fart]

In rec.aviation.piloting, on Thu 30 Aug 2007 06:55:29p, "Gattman"
> wrote:

> Unfortunately, I can't disagree. I studied Journalism at OSU under an
> two-time Pulizer prize winner who required all J students to have a
> science minor because he was tired of hearing about bigfoot, killer
> bees, Alar and other cyclical and nonsensical media phenomena. (My
> senior thesis was to interpret scientific data on the dietary benefits
> of oat fiber versus wheat bran, back when everybody was reporting that
> one or the other prevented hear disease. Turns out there's not a
> signifcant difference.)

So, does Big Foot prefer oat or wheat bran and does he like killer bee
honey on it?

[Jon]

On Aug 30, 12:48 pm, james > wrote:
> [...]
> http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1653304,00.html
>
> I wrote a rebuttal on my blog: Would love any comments/corrections or
> opinions
>
> http://www.futuregringo.com/index.php/2007/08/29/time-magazine-studie...
> [...]

"Adaptive Compression," new component of ETMS, helps somewhat by
scanning for slots that are freed due to delays or cancellations. It
was deployed operationally in March. The Airspace Flow Program is
designed to deal with FCAs.

Regards,
Jon

[Gattman[_2_]]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...

>>
>> Unfortunately, I can't disagree. I studied Journalism at OSU under an
>> two-time Pulizer prize winner who required all J students to have a
>> science minor because he was tired of hearing about bigfoot, killer bees,
>> Alar and other cyclical and nonsensical media phenomena. (My senior
>> thesis was to interpret scientific data on the dietary benefits of oat
>> fiber versus wheat bran, back when everybody was reporting that one or
>> the other prevented hear disease. Turns out there's not a signifcant
>> difference.)
>
> Hell, see what they did with the "Nutrition Pyramid" even as little as a
> couple years ago, or the "Eight glasses of water a day" tripe :~)

Exactly. It takes just one newspaper, and then somebody can say "according
to..." It only took one newspaper to report a "UFO crash" at Roswell, New
Mexico to launch a conspiracy theory that continues even now. The problem
is, journalist pay is right there with flight instructors. You can barely
make a living doing it, so they get the young and unworldly doing much of
the gruntwork. The only reason I'm not a newspaper reporter or editor is
because the pay is terrible.

What's unfortunate in this case is that now the Time article can be used as
an information source.
-c

[Jim Logajan]

A famous newspaperman on newspapers:

"If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the
newspaper, you are misinformed."
- Mark Twain

"It has become a sarcastic proverb that a thing must be true if you saw it
in a newspaper. That is the opinion intelligent people have of that lying
vehicle in a nutshell. But the trouble is that the stupid people - who
constitute the grand overwhelming majority of this and all other nations -
do believe and are moulded and convinced by what they get out of a
newspaper, and there is where the harm lies."
- Mark Twain in his "License of the Press" speech.

"The old saw says, 'Let a sleeping dog lie.' Right. Still, when there is
much at stake it is better to get a newspaper to do it."
- Mark Twain

"I am personally acquainted with hundreds of journalists, and the opinion
of the majority of them would not be worth tuppence in private, but when
they speak in print it is the newspaper that is talking (the pygmy scribe
is not visible) and then their utterances shake the community like the
thunders of prophecy."
- Mark Twain speech, Feb. 1873

"Our papers have one peculiarity - it is American - their irreverence ...
They are irreverent toward pretty much everything, but where they laugh one
good king to death, they laugh a thousand cruel and infamous shams and
superstitions into the grave, and the account is squared. Irreverence is
the champion of liberty and its only sure defense."
- Mark Twain's Notebook

"Unassailable certainty is the thing that gives a newspaper the firmest and
most valuable reputation."
- Mark Twain's "Roughing It"

"The devil's aversion to holy water is a light matter compared with a
despot's dread of a newspaper that laughs."
- "The American Press," first printed in Mark Twain: Press Critic,
University of California, 2003.

And the source for all those quotes (and more) came from:
http://www.twainquotes.com/Newspaper.html

[Gattman[_2_]]

Quick top-post just to say thanks for the great reading material, Jim!


"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
>A famous newspaperman on newspapers:
>
> "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the
> newspaper, you are misinformed."
> - Mark Twain
>
> "It has become a sarcastic proverb that a thing must be true if you saw it
> in a newspaper. That is the opinion intelligent people have of that lying
> vehicle in a nutshell. But the trouble is that the stupid people - who
> constitute the grand overwhelming majority of this and all other nations -
> do believe and are moulded and convinced by what they get out of a
> newspaper, and there is where the harm lies."
> - Mark Twain in his "License of the Press" speech.
>
> "The old saw says, 'Let a sleeping dog lie.' Right. Still, when there is
> much at stake it is better to get a newspaper to do it."
> - Mark Twain
>
> "I am personally acquainted with hundreds of journalists, and the opinion
> of the majority of them would not be worth tuppence in private, but when
> they speak in print it is the newspaper that is talking (the pygmy scribe
> is not visible) and then their utterances shake the community like the
> thunders of prophecy."
> - Mark Twain speech, Feb. 1873
>
> "Our papers have one peculiarity - it is American - their irreverence ...
> They are irreverent toward pretty much everything, but where they laugh
> one
> good king to death, they laugh a thousand cruel and infamous shams and
> superstitions into the grave, and the account is squared. Irreverence is
> the champion of liberty and its only sure defense."
> - Mark Twain's Notebook
>
> "Unassailable certainty is the thing that gives a newspaper the firmest
> and
> most valuable reputation."
> - Mark Twain's "Roughing It"
>
> "The devil's aversion to holy water is a light matter compared with a
> despot's dread of a newspaper that laughs."
> - "The American Press," first printed in Mark Twain: Press Critic,
> University of California, 2003.
>
> And the source for all those quotes (and more) came from:
> http://www.twainquotes.com/Newspaper.html

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gattman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, I can't disagree. I studied Journalism at OSU under an
>>> two-time Pulizer prize winner who required all J students to have a
>>> science minor because he was tired of hearing about bigfoot, killer
>>> bees, Alar and other cyclical and nonsensical media phenomena. (My
>>> senior thesis was to interpret scientific data on the dietary benefits
>>> of oat fiber versus wheat bran, back when everybody was reporting that
>>> one or the other prevented hear disease. Turns out there's not a
>>> signifcant difference.)
>>
>> Hell, see what they did with the "Nutrition Pyramid" even as little as a
>> couple years ago, or the "Eight glasses of water a day" tripe :~)
>
> Exactly. It takes just one newspaper, and then somebody can say
> "according to..." It only took one newspaper to report a "UFO crash" at
> Roswell, New Mexico to launch a conspiracy theory that continues even now.
> The problem is, journalist pay is right there with flight instructors.
> You can barely make a living doing it, so they get the young and unworldly
> doing much of the gruntwork. The only reason I'm not a newspaper
> reporter or editor is because the pay is terrible.
>
> What's unfortunate in this case is that now the Time article can be used
> as an information source.

Just a thought: if the pay is so bad, why do so many flock to the
profession?

Now, granted, for many, loving your work is another form of compensation. In
the case of CFI's, there's a love of flying and the lure of flying the "big
iron". But if CFI's applied the same measure of diligence that reporters
seem to, every plane ever built would be a smoldering hulk long ago.

A profession such as reporters, that had repeatedly and vehemently denied
the idea of "objectivity" in reporting (and everything else) is akin to
electricians denying the existence of electricity, or physicists denying the
laws of physics.

As for your OSU professor, did he ever teach rules for objective reporting?
His requirements for study of science was a great start, just as study of
economics and commerce would be for other specialties (forget that clueless
fraud Paul Krugman, who is a prime example of NON-objective reporting). I
take it from your earlier post, he was adamant about honesty and integrity,
but those are, to me, ancillary and secondary.

[Gattman[_2_]]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...

>But if CFI's applied the same measure of diligence that reporters seem to,
>every plane ever built would be a smoldering hulk long ago.

Conversely, if CFIs were expected to fly a new type of aircraft with very
little training time or instruction every day, the result would be the same.
It's definately hard to talk transporation one day, medicine the next,
crime/politics/science, etc.

> As for your OSU professor, did he ever teach rules for objective
> reporting?

They all did, some more effectively than others. In terms of accuracy,
they'd fail you for misspelling a name (for example) regarldess of how well
the article was written otherwise.

However, it's important to note that publishers aren't necessarily former
journalists or journalism graduates, and they basically get to decide what
to publish and if/whether there will be any particular spin. It's quite a
bit like the music industry, where the artists is working for the company
and gets told what to write, with whom to record, etc. (I know of a
Portland musician who got a major L.A. contract and was told she needed to
get braces and breast implants, so she's back to the coffee shop circuit.)

It's up to the journalist's own ethical standards to determine whether to
write for such a publication. At a job interview for a news editor position
in 1995 I told the interviewer that I would expect truth, accuracy and
objectivity and was told by the manager "Well, we're a left-leaning
publication" so I said a few polite words and then got up and left.

-c

[Jim Logajan]

john smith > wrote:
> In article >,
> "Gattman" > wrote:
>
>> I studied Journalism at OSU
>
> a. The Ohio State University
> b. Oklahoma State University
> c. Oregon State University
> d. (some-other) State University

e. Odaho State University
f. Ondiana State University
g. Orizona State University
h. Olaska State University
i. Otah State University
j. Oowa State University
k. Orkansas State University
l. Ollinois State University
m. Olabama State University

O K, enough o that!

(Sorry about not having any oviation content.)

[Morgans[_2_]]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Gattman" > wrote:
>
>> I studied Journalism at OSU
>
> a. The Ohio State University
> b. Oklahoma State University
> c. Oregon State University
> d. (some-other) State University

We can safely rule out choice "a" above, because as you have written the
name correctly, no graduate of "The Ohio State University" would refer to
that fine institution as simply "OSU" ! ! ! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Blueskies]

"Morgans" > wrote in message ...
>
> "john smith" > wrote in message ...
>> In article >,
>> "Gattman" > wrote:
>>
>>> I studied Journalism at OSU
>>
>> a. The Ohio State University
>> b. Oklahoma State University
>> c. Oregon State University
>> d. (some-other) State University
>
> We can safely rule out choice "a" above, because as you have written the name correctly, no graduate of "The Ohio
> State University" would refer to that fine institution as simply "OSU" ! ! ! <g>
> --
> Jim in NC
>

Go Bucks!
An institution of higher learning...

;-)

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Blueskies" > wrote

> Go Bucks!
> An institution of higher learning...

You got that right, or at least it was in the 70's, when I was there! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gattman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>But if CFI's applied the same measure of diligence that reporters seem to,
>>every plane ever built would be a smoldering hulk long ago.
>
> Conversely, if CFIs were expected to fly a new type of aircraft with very
> little training time or instruction every day, the result would be the
> same.

Amazing that they can come out of college so poory stood in the world in
general. The CFI analogy would be if every day they flew one of several
172's, 152's, and a handful of 182s.

> It's definately hard to talk transporation one day, medicine the next,
> crime/politics/science, etc.

Yet they do. And they attempt to come off as experts. If a crime happens,
you get your crime reporter; if it's a disaster, you get someone who has
been to a few.

Using your analogy, CFI's would have 15 hours total time.
>
>> As for your OSU professor, did he ever teach rules for objective
>> reporting?
>
> They all did, some more effectively than others. In terms of accuracy,
> they'd fail you for misspelling a name (for example) regarldess of how
> well the article was written otherwise.

Slight innaccuracies are not a facet of being objective. Maybe that's the
problem, they were too worried about writing style, and not about how well
they observed something going on and were able to tell the story without
getting their ass into it. This observe/note/report sequence is basic
training in a lot of other fields; why can't reporters do it?

>

> However, it's important to note that publishers aren't necessarily former
> journalists or journalism graduates, and they basically get to decide what
> to publish and if/whether there will be any particular spin.

Agreed. As for publishers, not always, but mostly they are journalists, are
they not?

It's to wonder when they transitioned from "reporter" to "propagandist". To
do so is, to me, worse than prostituting oneself.



> It's quite a bit like the music industry, where the artists is working for
> the company and gets told what to write, with whom to record, etc. (I
> know of a Portland musician who got a major L.A. contract and was told she
> needed to get braces and breast implants, so she's back to the coffee shop
> circuit.)

Not Faith Hill? Please tell me it wasn't her!!


>
> It's up to the journalist's own ethical standards to determine whether to
> write for such a publication. At a job interview for a news editor
> position in 1995 I told the interviewer that I would expect truth,
> accuracy and objectivity and was told by the manager "Well, we're a
> left-leaning publication" so I said a few polite words and then got up and
> left.

So sad; the press was supposed to be the bulwark between liberty and
tyranny. Now they come off like the highpriests of ancient times.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Gattman" > wrote:
>
>> I studied Journalism at OSU
>
> a. The Ohio State University
> b. Oklahoma State University
> c. Oregon State University
> d. (some-other) State University

My alma mater- Oh! S#*t University.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "john smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >,
>>> "Gattman" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I studied Journalism at OSU
>>>
>>> a. The Ohio State University
>>> b. Oklahoma State University
>>> c. Oregon State University
>>> d. (some-other) State University
>>
>> We can safely rule out choice "a" above, because as you have written the
>> name correctly, no graduate of "The Ohio State University" would refer
>> to that fine institution as simply "OSU" ! ! ! <g>
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>>
>
> Go Bucks!
> An institution of higher learning...

Ummm, no! That's, higher lernin' !

[Phil]

james wrote:
> Hey all - I'm mostly a lurker but felt compelled to comment on this.
>
> Time Magazine recently had an incredibly asinine piece on "What's
> causing flight delays." In it the writer blames the old ATC system,
> but barely gives word to busy hub airports, overscheduled/canceled
> flights, and a host of other LOCAL AIRPORT and AIRLINE problems that
> are really to blame. And of course adding a one line jab about GA.
>
> Plus - the animation showing a plane being bounced around the sky like
> a pinball is hilarious, and just plane incorrect.
>
> http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1653304,00.html
>
> I wrote a rebuttal on my blog: Would love any comments/corrections or
> opinions
>
> http://www.futuregringo.com/index.php/2007/08/29/time-magazine-studies-air-travel-delays/
>
> Summary: Instead of whining about zig zag patterns in the sky we
> should invest the money in people, resources (such as ground radar,)
> and improvements in the LOCAL airport environments at our largest
> hubs. The TOWER is where air traffic controllers are overworked,
> overtaxed, and because of this have increased chances of errors. Why
> are people being told, or sold, a false worry about the LEAST
> problematic and least dangerous part of our ATC system?
>
Let's see, about 233,000 active pilots out of a population now over
300,000,000. Maybe lots less registered GA aircraft.

The flying public couldn't give a flying f**k about GA unless GA holds
up their flight and then GA should disappear.

Face it, we are a dying breed and there's nothing that can be done about
it at this late stage. Expect to see our free-wheeling flying to be gone
within the next 20-30 years, if not sooner.

--
"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool."
—- Voltaire