No SID in clearance, fly it anyway?

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Snowbird) wrote:

Um...VFR tower guys (the subject of this subthread
is non-radar towers) don't give vectors.

Is there an official definition of a "VFR tower" or a "non-radar tower"?


Well, you could ask the DOT Inspector General or the Federal Aviation
Administrator for an official definition of a VFR tower. Or then again,
scratch that- they clearly don't know either....maybe Serco or Midwest ATC
could give you an answer. :-)

I thought the presentation of unicom as VFR tower during the debate was
classic.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Snowbird) wrote:

Um...VFR tower guys (the subject of this subthread
is non-radar towers) don't give vectors.

Is there an official definition of a "VFR tower" or a "non-radar
tower"?


Well, you could ask the DOT Inspector General or the Federal Aviation
Administrator for an official definition of a VFR tower. Or then again,
scratch that- they clearly don't know either....maybe Serco or Midwest
ATC
could give you an answer. :-)

I thought the presentation of unicom as VFR tower during the debate was
classic.


Or "VHF" towers, or "VHS" towers...all of which came up in aviation media
reports about the hearings and debates.

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
k.net...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Snowbird) wrote:

Um...VFR tower guys (the subject of this subthread
is non-radar towers) don't give vectors.

Is there an official definition of a "VFR tower" or a "non-radar
tower"?


Well, you could ask the DOT Inspector General or the Federal Aviation
Administrator for an official definition of a VFR tower. Or then
again,
scratch that- they clearly don't know either....maybe Serco or Midwest
ATC
could give you an answer. :-)

I thought the presentation of unicom as VFR tower during the debate was
classic.


Or "VHF" towers, or "VHS" towers...all of which came up in aviation media
reports about the hearings and debates.

It all left me with a warm fuzzy feeling, thinking these were going to put a
finger in the works.

"Chip Jones" wrote in message k.net...

Or "VHF" towers, or "VHS" towers...all of which came up in aviation media
reports about the hearings and debates.

Or the slightly less popular beta towers.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
k.net...

Or "VHF" towers, or "VHS" towers...all of which came up in aviation
media
reports about the hearings and debates.

Or the slightly less popular beta towers.


LOL. If only that damn union would get out of the way, we could outsource
for some 8-track capability.

Chip, ZTL

Hey, we're getting a new tower built here, I think it's a DVD.

Chip Jones wrote:

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..

"Chip Jones" wrote in message

k.net...

Or "VHF" towers, or "VHS" towers...all of which came up in aviation

media

reports about the hearings and debates.

Or the slightly less popular beta towers.



LOL. If only that damn union would get out of the way, we could outsource
for some 8-track capability.

Chip, ZTL

"Newps" wrote in message
news:kjPpb.76419$275.204991@attbi_s53...
Hey, we're getting a new tower built here, I think it's a DVD.

Lemme guess; it's got 60 slots in it, right?



Chip Jones wrote:
LOL. If only that damn union would get out of the way, we could
outsource
for some 8-track capability.

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
k.net...

Or "VHF" towers, or "VHS" towers...all of which came up in aviation
media
reports about the hearings and debates.

Or the slightly less popular beta towers.


LOL. If only that damn union would get out of the way, we could outsource
for some 8-track capability.

I favor privatization for just that reason, but these "experts" didn't even
bother to develop a model of the system they want to modify immediately.
Boeing spent a fortune developing a model to implement DCAC and take
advantage of manufacturing automation, but there was still a nose wheel
collapse on the the first DCAC 747-4xx.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

[snipped]

LOL. If only that damn union would get out of the way, we could
outsource
for some 8-track capability.

I favor privatization for just that reason, but these "experts" didn't
even
bother to develop a model of the system they want to modify immediately.

You favor privatization of the public National Airspace System simply so
that you can bust up a tiny labor union? You must be a Republican. That's
the best reason they could come up with to justify ATC privatization too,
since the facts don't lend themselves to any higher motive.

Who cares about a system model for what comes next? American government
works best when we run it like a business, just like Enron, MCI, or any
major airline (say Eastern, Pan Am, TWA etc). Thanks to the political
lobbying efforts of persons such as the Federal Aviation Administrator
herself, we have defeated the evil force of collective bargaining for
employees. Now we can rest assured that any Republican-owned private
business monopoly winning the low bid on American ATC can turn a profit, and
profit is what business is all about.

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote:
Who cares about a system model for what comes next? American government
works best when we run it like a business, just like Enron, MCI, or any
major airline (say Eastern, Pan Am, TWA etc).

And management better watch out if the stockholders get too ****ed off.
The last time the stockholders got really ****ed, King George got a
black eye. Might happen again some day :-)