NATCA Going Down in Flames

Grumman-581 wrote:
"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
Was a slam at both of you, but mostly Grumman.

Thanks... One must do what one is good at...


Well, yes, you know....

Monopolies don't require a feedback loop for profitability.

Well, uh... yes. That was half the point. The other half was that the
FAA isn't even out for profitability.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Big airplanes don't have to be vectored out of the way of little airplanes
due to unverified altitudes and such.

Ok, at least it makes things easier on controllers if they are talking
to the spam cans, no? And that makes things safer for the other aircraft?

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
m...

Ok, at least it makes things easier on controllers if they are talking to
the spam cans, no?


Could go either way. If the controller is talking to the spam can and has a
verified altitude that makes the traffic a non-factor then traffic doesn't
have to be issued. If the controller is talking to the spam can and has a
verified altitude that makes the traffic a factor then traffic has to be
issued to both parties.



And that makes things safer for the other aircraft?


Yup.

On 2006-09-05, Jay Honeck wrote:
I sure wish you guys would learn that lesson, and keep quiet about this
silly dress code issue. Privatization is NOT going to be good for GA.

Privatization won't make the union go away nor union/employer issues -
unless the private firm that replaces the FAA can make peace with the
union.

Unions are not the sole preserve of government jobs.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On 2006-09-04, Paul Tomblin wrote:
In a previous article, Larry Dighera said:
If US auto makers are to remain in business, they must cut costs, and
those fat labor contracts are a prime source of cost. So, the reason

They've also got to stop designing crap cars. My Toyota Corolla was built
in Cambridge Ontario by Canadian Auto Worker union members, and it's so
well built that they export them back to Japan. Meanwhile your average
Ford, GM or Chrysler is a gas guzzling maintenance nightmare because Ford,
GM, and Chrysler care more about keeping shareholders happy than investing
money in research and design.

You want to see unmaintainable?
Try a Jaguar XJ12 some time. Dragging things back towards an aviation
related theme, we're building a new winch for the glider club. Our old
one is a bit long in the tooth, and uses the (excellent) Jaguar XJ6 4.2
litre straight 6. A great engine that's virtually indestructable. But we
want to get a bit more power, so when an XJ12 showed up for scrap (a
garage had collapsed on it crushing the roof) we decided to go for a new
engine.

The V12 in the XJ12 is also a great engine. But in the process of
extracting it from the donor car, I had to wonder how routine services
were done. We'll have no problem maintaining it because we've got rid of
all the cruft (i.e. the car!) that surrounded the engine. But to get the
front two spark plugs out (a routine maintenance job), you have to take
the air conditioning compressor off! To get that off, in turn you have
to take off parts of the cruise control system. To get the AC compressor
off you would also have to discharge the AC system since the pipework
would all have to be disconnected - not flexible hoses. Changing the
spark plugs must have been an all day job - something on most other cars
would take fifteen minutes tops.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...

You want to see unmaintainable?
Try a Jaguar XJ12 some time. Dragging things back towards an aviation
related theme, we're building a new winch for the glider club. Our old
one is a bit long in the tooth, and uses the (excellent) Jaguar XJ6 4.2
litre straight 6. A great engine that's virtually indestructable. But we
want to get a bit more power, so when an XJ12 showed up for scrap (a
garage had collapsed on it crushing the roof) we decided to go for a new
engine.

The V12 in the XJ12 is also a great engine. But in the process of
extracting it from the donor car, I had to wonder how routine services
were done. We'll have no problem maintaining it because we've got rid of
all the cruft (i.e. the car!) that surrounded the engine. But to get the
front two spark plugs out (a routine maintenance job), you have to take
the air conditioning compressor off! To get that off, in turn you have
to take off parts of the cruise control system. To get the AC compressor
off you would also have to discharge the AC system since the pipework
would all have to be disconnected - not flexible hoses. Changing the
spark plugs must have been an all day job - something on most other cars
would take fifteen minutes tops.


Why should routine maintenance require access to the spark plugs? The
maintenance schedule for my Toyota Corolla doesn't call for the spark plugs
to be changed until the 120,000 mile/96 month point. I don't know how long
it will take to change them, but even if it takes all day, one day every
eight years doesn't seem too bad to me.

randall g wrote:

Now, of course, would I *prefer* to use ATC? Sure! We use VFR flight
following on virtually every flight, and we enjoy visiting big-city
airports. But if the FAA imposes user fees based on ATC use, it would
be child's play to stop talking to them -- especially now that we have
XM weather on-board.

How would you feel about an annual charge for all the ATC you can eat?
Here in Canada it is $71 per year (us$64) for aircraft 2000 kg.

I don't have a problem with that.

I may not..in theory. But only if they eliminate the federal fuel tax
on 100LL. I estimate that I paid in about $320 USD last year from
fuel taxes.

So for me it may be a fair deal. For someone who rarely flies it is
not. Seems to me that the aviation fuel tax is about as equitable as
you can get. You fly more you pay more. Fly less, pay less.

Ron Lee

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Big airplanes don't have to be vectored out of the way of little airplanes
due to unverified altitudes and such. They have to be given traffic
advisories of the little airplanes and they may request vectors out of the
way, but that's all.

So if I am circling over my airport (00V) at about the same altitude
as a 737 coming into COS, my altitude is unverifed by COS approach,
and the 737 path will intersect mine within a mile or closer, the COS
approach controller will leave it to the pilot to avoid a midair?

Look up 00V, KCOS and the BRK VOR.

Ron Lee

And that makes things safer for the other aircraft?
Yup.

So, maybe we should charge for aiding the controllers and the other
aircraft, rather than being charged for the assistance we are being
provided.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.