Yet another home wrecked

Kingfish wrote:

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.

No comment on this Lune?

by "Kingfish" Jun 22, 2006 at 11:29 AM


Kingfish wrote:

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.

No comment on this Lune?



Yes. Dont feed the trolls! LOL

Just kidding. I just hate to (repeatedly) repeat myself (are you from
California??). GA IS heavily subsidized by taxpayers and commercial
airline passengers. This is a documented FACT. Period. There is no
debate, just rhetoric from the likes of the Destroyer. He can't debate it
honestly (i.e. show contributions from GA taxes vs. outlays for GA
airports), so he uses stupid, idiotic, rhetorical arguments, worthy of a
TV executive who made his prior career in the world of make-believe.

On why I don't "write letters" to people that matter.... This is yet
another erroneous assumption by you, King.

Here is the key graph from the BTS (again...sigh). You can parse the
entire report, but you will see that your precious AV gas taxes contribute
less than 2% to the total annual revenues of the trust fund. Far less than
is SPENT on GA airport operating (usually the $150k/annum grant) and
capital grants, which generally cover 95% of the cost of FAA approved
projects.

http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_...figure_06.html

Skylune wrote:

Yes. Dont feed the trolls! LOL

Ack! Hoisted by my own petard...


On why I don't "write letters" to people that matter.... This is yet
another erroneous assumption by you, King.

I never assumed you *didn't* write letters to politicos, just wondered
why you continue to use this newsgroup as a forum for your rants. Not
exactly a "friendly" audience in here (so to speak)

My original question still stands. Why do you froth at the mouth over
these subsidies then? Or are you writing letters to politicians about
the huuuge tax subsidies given to Big Oil, which more *directly*
affects your wallet?

Hooray: U accept the FACT that GA is subsidized.

I'll answer your other question: In order to more effectively fight your
opponents, it is good practice to understand their mindset.

Now I'm done. See ya.

"Skylune" wrote in
lkaboutaviation.com:

Snipola
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.

Then you weren't riding the motorcycle properly.

I've been riding for 19 years, all but one of them in the
LA and Orange County area. I used to have lots of problems,
lot's of close calls. Even had one minor accident. Then
I learned to ride. Now I don't have problems anymore.

What I mean by 'riding properly' is your attitude towards
the traffic on the road. As I've said over and over, I do
what I have to do to stay alive. Laws be damned. Take charge
of your driving situation and MAKE IT into one that is safe.
If you have to break a few rules to create a safe riding
environment because of bad drivers, then do it.

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?

Oh look!, despite what you said, the FAA is taking action against someone
who flew too low to a high school graduation.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/new..._in_troub le/
So all your whining is for naught.


"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
by "Robert M. Gary" N7093v@[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jun 20, 2006 at 05:06 PM


Dave Stadt wrote:
Not only that they are noisy, the drivers don't need a medical exam,
the
test to drive one is simple and there is no re-testing required.

In California you need a medical exam for a commercial driver's license
over a certain weight.

-Robert



In Mass too. CDL requires drug test, etc. Many trucking companies also
randomly test their drivers. How about flight schools??

Plus, the trucks have mufflers, and there are police that will pull over a
truck that is speeding, or disobeying other traffic laws if they are
spotted. How about small planes?

I saw one idiot last weekend in a Cessna that was no more that 300 feet
up, just cruising around the area. Clear violation of FARs. But, no
there is no agency resposible for enforcement, or even a place to complain
to.

Skylune wrote:
Hooray: U accept the FACT that GA is subsidized.

I'll answer your other question: In order to more effectively fight your
opponents, it is good practice to understand their mindset.

Now I'm done. See ya.

Exit Don Quixote to battle another windmill...

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:24:34 -0400, Skylune wrote:

Try reading the license plate number off
a moving car.

Well, there goes your theory about ground traffic law enforcement.

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

Factually incorrect again. In the case with which I'm familiar, at least,
the ground observer was presumed to be able to judge the distance at hand
(I don't recall why, but I do recall that the reasoning seemed specious).

Have you actually discussed this with a FSDO, or are you merely
guessing? I asked before, but I noticed a lack of answer. Is everything
you write just a guess?

- Andrew

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 23:14:20 +0000, soxinbox wrote:

Oh look!, despite what you said, the FAA is taking action against someone
who flew too low to a high school graduation.

At least as far as this article is concerned, that's an undecided
question. There's the claim that the student was far higher than the
report to the police, and the tapes involved have yet to be reviewed.

Still, it does show that enforcement is possible when a pilot flies too
low. Is this Skylune fellow always this accurate? Is he or she just a
troll, or another "forever september" holdover?

- Andrew

"soxinbox" wrote in message
...
Oh look!, despite what you said, the FAA is taking action against someone
who flew too low to a high school graduation.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/new..._in_troub le/
So all your whining is for naught.

(His whining is never for naught; it's the only _rise_ he gets in life.)

"Meanwhile, the student's father claims his son was flying at 1,000 feet and
was given clearance to do so. He said air-traffic control tapes from the FAA
tower in Manchester would prove it."

Most "civilians" could not judge distance (or speed) to save their asses.
Ever see someone waiting to enter traffic when the nearest car is a quarter
mile away or more? And waiting....and waiting...and waiting....


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)


"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...