On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 19:49:49 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote in :

Larry Dighera writes:

My viewpoint is based on the future path NASA and the FAA have
outlined he

NASA and the FAA don't make policy, they follow it. Without a public
interest in what they propose, it won't happen.

Show me a member of the flying "public" that is not interested in
avoiding the tiring drive on congested highways to the international
airport. What makes you think there is no public support for SATS?

A policy that enhances GA alone is unlikely to get any public or
political support.

Fortunately, that is not the case for SATS.

SATS removes the necessity for airline passengers to drive by
automobile to and from a distant airport to engage in airline travel.
It also enables airline hub airports to be relocated in sparsely
populated areas, thus removing airliner noise and surface traffic
congestion from metropolitan areas. Show me a member of the "public"
who relishes noise and traffic congestion. The motivation for public
support of SATS is already latent, and through education it will be
brought to the fore.

It would appear, that you have failed to appreciate (or read and
comprehend in the 21 minutes that transpired between the posting of my
article and your follow up) the information in the links I provided.
All you offer are arguments solely supported by your opinion; you
provide no independent, credible evidence that supports your
subjective opinions. That is disappointing.

A policy that usurps certain aspects of GA for
commercial air transport is likely to crowd GA out of the picture
entirely, in time.

Please provide a citation for credible evidence that supports your
notion that SATS "usurps certain aspects of GA." Which aspects of GA
do you feel would be usurped?

Lack of insight and greed are the cause of the closures of so many
municipal airports.

Is there no greed in wanting to dedicate large amounts of land to use
by a very tiny minority of the population?

The real estate upon which rests this nation's airports has become
valuable as burgeoning population growth ever encroaches, and the
nature of the property turns from rural to suburban and urban. The
cities are greedy for a larger tax base, and see selling the, now
valuable, real estate to developers as a double win: revenue from the
sale, and property tax revenue from the new owners, not to mention
sales taxes that may be collected on any commercial enterprises that
may be established. It's something like Jack selling his cow for
beans.

These politicians fail to see the inestimable harm to the future of
transportation they commit when they close an airport, and you seem to
be guilty of the same lack of foresight. Once the cow is gone, there
won't be any more milk.

That is destined to change. Of curse it requires creative insight to
appreciate a new transportation system, but it will happen despite
those with their heads in the sand.

If it changes, the change will eliminate GA and replace it with purely
commercial air transport, essentially another tier of the existing
commercial system.

Please provide a citation that supports your subjective opinion , that
"the change will eliminate GA." SATS is GA based!

If you're not going to make the effort to educate yourself, so that
you can make relivant comments and accurately contribute to the
discussion, you will lose my participation.

Read the SATS information available at the links above.

I don't see how that information indicates that GA is any way of the
future for anyone.

That comment reveals that you haven't invested the time and effort to
comprehend the SATS information.

Surely you don't believe that the air transportation system is
destined to remain static, do you?

I think general aviation is in serious danger, so no, I don't believe
that it will remain static. Just as there are no significant private
railroads or trains, there may eventually be no private planes.

Just as sailors will always ply the seas, airmen will always navigate
the skies. To suggest otherwise is to fail to understand the human
spirit.