Yet another home wrecked

Skylune wrote:

Even better than the Wild Wild West (where the good guys could shoot back)
because of the subsidies!

Clearly, this whole subsidy issue has you foaming at the mouth. Why
don't you try writing letters to people that matter, instead of posting
your rants on an aviation newsgroup frequented by pilots? (who don't
care) I still haven't figured out your point in continuing to do this.

If government subsidies are such a hot issue for you, start with the
huge tax subsidies given to Big Oil - the same folks who are making
record profits while we all pay $3/gal for autogas. Here's something
that affects you directly, unlike the AIP funds given to airports to
maintain infrastructure. BTW, AIP funding is for all airports large &
small so it's not accurate to call it a subsidy for GA.

by "Steve Foley" Jun 21, 2006 at 05:07 PM



Maybe these truck accidents are begin caused by all of these laws



;-)

That was funny, Steve. Maybe you are right....
They should establish a TODA (Truck owners and Drivers Association).
Maybe they can find a retiring TV executive to be president.

by Orval Fairbairn Jun 21, 2006 at 05:52 PM




Glad to hear that you finally graduated!


Touche, Orval. ;-)

by Andrew Gideon Jun 21, 2006 at 01:15 PM


On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:52:21 -0400, Skylune wrote:

That would be the FAA type response. There is no enforcement...

There have been cases of people reporting low-flying aircraft to the FAA,
and at least one with which I'm familiar resulted in an enforcement
action. Therefore, your statement is factually incorrect.

But perhaps some local FSDO staffer provided you with bad information
when
you called. You did call the FSDO, right? Or are you just guessing?

I was in a field, attending a high school commencement. The
plane was
flying low. I can judge distances.

What model plane? After all, a 210 might look like 152 but appear closer
than reality.

Or were you judging distance against visual cues like sidewalk or street
distance or buildings in the background (ie. appearing behind the
aircraft)?

Or can you judge 300' (vs., for example, 500') through pure stereopsis?

Or are you just guessing?

- Andrew



OK. "No enforcement" is an overstatement. There is rare enforcement,
usually a high profile event like the idiot who buzzed the beach in Calif
last year.

As you know, when you call the FAA they need an N#. Difficult to see on
the ground. Aha, goes the argument, therefore the plane must have been
above 1000 feet. Wrong. Very difficult to catch a small N number on a
low flying, fast moving object. Try reading the license plate number off
a moving car.

And even if you get the N# (and I have), the FAA will want proof, to their
standards. Virtually impossible.

All the (honest) pilots out there know there are some who routinely bust
minimums.

"Skylune" wrote in message

That was funny, Steve. Maybe you are right....
They should establish a TODA (Truck owners and Drivers Association).
Maybe they can find a retiring TV executive to be president.

I think they call themselves Teamsters

Steve Foley wrote:
"Skylune" wrote in message

That was funny, Steve. Maybe you are right....
They should establish a TODA (Truck owners and Drivers Association).
Maybe they can find a retiring TV executive to be president.


I think they call themselves Teamsters

Funny, I was thinking the same thing G

Skylune took the bait - hook, line, and sinker.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

"Skylune" wrote in
lkaboutaviation.com:

Snipola
Obviously not. Just imagine the situation (truckers' behaviours) if there
were no traffic laws, or no enforcement of traffic laws. It would resemble
the current state of GA.

What are you talking about? There's no enforcement of traffic
laws as it is. Hell, I've even seen people do really bad driving
right in front of "law enforcement" and nothing happened. Worse
yet, I've seen "law enforcement" do some really bad driving.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

by Skywise Jun 21, 2006 at 07:26 PM


"Skylune" wrote in
lkaboutaviation.com:

Snipola
Obviously not. Just imagine the situation (truckers' behaviours) if
there
were no traffic laws, or no enforcement of traffic laws. It would
resemble
the current state of GA.

What are you talking about? There's no enforcement of traffic
laws as it is. Hell, I've even seen people do really bad driving
right in front of "law enforcement" and nothing happened. Worse
yet, I've seen "law enforcement" do some really bad driving.

Brian



?

We've all seen examples of bad drivers. We've all also seen police with
flashing lights pulling people over.

One of the reasons I no longer ride a motorcycle is because of bad car and
truck drivers: it just became too dangerous. I'll say it again: if there
were no traffic laws, it would be worse.

by Skywise Jun 21, 2006 at 07:22 PM


Skylune took the bait - hook, line, and sinker.




Glad you "feel" that way. (Not "think" being you are from Calif. ;-) )