FAA grants AOPA demand for investigation into Meigs closure

Larry

Ban him from flying on any aircraft for 10 years. Let him ride the
bus.

Big John

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:58:28 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:


What do airmen feel the appropriate penalty might be?



http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...04-1-087x.html
FAA grants AOPA demand for investigation into Meigs closure

Feb. 11 — AOPA's claim that the city of Chicago violated federal law
and aviation regulations when it shut down Meigs Field last March has
merit, says the FAA, and will be investigated. AOPA filed a formal
complaint following the destruction of Meigs's runway on Mayor Richard
M. Daley's order, claiming the city failed to provide adequate notice,
as required by the FARs. The complaint will not result in the
airport's reopening but can lead to the mayor and the city being
punished for their actions.

"AOPA intends to push for the appropriate penalty to be imposed on the
city," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "Mayor Daley and any other
state or local official who may want to follow Daley's lead must be
made to understand they cannot unilaterally change the National
Airspace System."

The manager of the FAA's Enforcement Division sent a letter of
response to AOPA's complaint against both the mayor and the city,
saying "reasonable grounds exist" to begin an informal investigation
into the allegations.

AOPA maintains that Daley and the city of Chicago violated both the
U.S. Code and Federal Aviation Regulations. The U.S. Code states that
an airport or landing area not involving the expenditure of federal
money may be altered substantially "only if the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration is given reasonable prior notice, so
that the Administrator may provide advice on the effects" of the
alteration. In order for the administrator to carry out that
obligation, Federal Aviation Regulations state that anyone intending
to alter a runway, deactivate a runway or airport, or change the
status of an airport must submit notice of that intent at least 90
days prior to taking such action.

The FARs do provide for immediate emergency action, such as in the
case of national security, which was Daley's original claim. However,
even in the case of an emergency, if the airport has a charted
instrument approach, which Meigs Field did, a minimum of 30 days'
notice must be given.

...

Big John wrote in message
Ban him from flying on any aircraft for 10 years. Let him ride the
bus.

that could already be arranged with a bit of self discipline
among pilots...

--Sylvain

Sylvain wrote:

Big John wrote in message
Ban him from flying on any aircraft for 10 years. Let him ride the
bus.

that could already be arranged with a bit of self discipline
among pilots...

I think it unlikely that any airline pilot will kiss his job goodbye by refusing
to fly Daley.

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

G.R. Patterson III wrote:


I think it unlikely that any airline pilot will kiss his job goodbye by
refusing to fly Daley.

Given his attitude towards aircraft and airports, he's unsafe around them.
Would you want him in the same airplane as you?

Who knows into what he'd carve his little 'X's.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
G.R. Patterson III wrote:


I think it unlikely that any airline pilot will kiss his job goodbye by
refusing to fly Daley.

Given his attitude towards aircraft and airports, he's unsafe around them.
Would you want him in the same airplane as you?

He is actually extremely pro avaition. It's only general aviation he
doesn't care for.


Who knows into what he'd carve his little 'X's.

- Andrew

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
...

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
G.R. Patterson III wrote:


I think it unlikely that any airline pilot will kiss his job goodbye by
refusing to fly Daley.

Given his attitude towards aircraft and airports, he's unsafe around them.
Would you want him in the same airplane as you?

He is actually extremely pro avaition. It's only general aviation he
doesn't care for.


No- he's pro Daley, that's it. He's for the O'Hare expansion because it means
more private bid city contrats for his cronies, more land for the city to annex,
and more money in his pocket. GA can't give him anything, and he can't extort
any money from them, so **** 'em, we don't want 'em in my city, and I'll use 'em
to make myself more of a populist.

"Mike O'Malley" wrote in message
...
"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
...

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
G.R. Patterson III wrote:


I think it unlikely that any airline pilot will kiss his job goodbye
by
refusing to fly Daley.

Given his attitude towards aircraft and airports, he's unsafe around
them.
Would you want him in the same airplane as you?

He is actually extremely pro avaition. It's only general aviation he
doesn't care for.


No- he's pro Daley, that's it. He's for the O'Hare expansion because it
means
more private bid city contrats for his cronies, more land for the city to
annex,
and more money in his pocket. GA can't give him anything, and he can't
extort
any money from them, so **** 'em, we don't want 'em in my city, and I'll
use 'em
to make myself more of a populist.


Like I said..............

George

No, No, No

You missunderstand.

FAA ground Daley from flying any time or any way or any place.

Jock wouldn't have anything to do with the rule making except to not
accept Daley as a passenger per FAA fiat.

Put him on a bus (and make him sit in the back).

Big John

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:55:25 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote:



Sylvain wrote:

Big John wrote in message
Ban him from flying on any aircraft for 10 years. Let him ride the
bus.

that could already be arranged with a bit of self discipline
among pilots...

I think it unlikely that any airline pilot will kiss his job goodbye by refusing
to fly Daley.

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.