Scared of mid-airs

wrote:

Nobody denies that the military services require blocks of airspace for
training purposes. That their needs always over-ride the needs of all
other airspace users is questionable.

More than questionable.


My point is that we shouldn't cede control of airspace to military
and purely commercial interests. By far the largest number of
aircraft in the U.S. belong to the general aviation fleet....
...The system is for everybody.

Agreed. The main antagonist in this thread seems to think otherwise.
Perhaps you would attempt to explain the concept to LD yourself.


Jack

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:27:25 GMT, 588 wrote in
:

wrote:

Nobody denies that the military services require blocks of airspace for
training purposes. That their needs always over-ride the needs of all
other airspace users is questionable.

More than questionable.


My point is that we shouldn't cede control of airspace to military
and purely commercial interests. By far the largest number of
aircraft in the U.S. belong to the general aviation fleet....
...The system is for everybody.

Agreed. The main antagonist in this thread seems to think otherwise.
Perhaps you would attempt to explain the concept to LD yourself.


Jack,

Please provide a quote of my words in which I espouse ceding control
of airspace to the military and commercial interests.

Larry Dighera wrote:

Please provide a quote of my words in which I espouse ceding control
of airspace to the military and commercial interests.

You have in multiple instances advocated making the military totally
responsible for traffic conflicts/separation on MTR's. That
certainly requires control of the airspace.

In the spirit of cooperation, I have suggested that MTR's be made
Restricted airspace in order to facilitate such a scheme. You find
that an unsatisfactory solution, apparently. Feel free to restate
your position.


Jack