NATCA Going Down in Flames

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
om...
Grumman-581 wrote:

Obviously, they have determined that how a controller is dressed directly
effects whether aircraft depart from the correct runway...


The tie points in the direction of the runway!

What if he's got a Dilbert tie?

Emily wrote:

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Emily" wrote in message
...
DFW. You honestly think I'm going to get more specific that that?


No. You probably realize if you got more specific than that you'd receive
an explanation of how you can fly VFR near your home without talking to ATC,
and you don't want that.


No. I realize that I've had stalkers on Usenet before, and it's no
one's business where I live. I live in the surface area of a Class B
airport. Check out a chart and you'll see how far it is from any Class
B airport in this area to airports and airspace where I don't have to
talk to ATC.

Now if I could get a female stalker, 5'7" or less, trim, brunette or
blonde, active, adventurous, no kids. Stalking must be innocuous and
not symptomatic of any psychoses (sp). Need not be a pilot but that
is a plus.

Ron Lee

On 2006-09-04, Jay Honeck wrote:
An employer not only has the right to impose a dress code on employees
-- he has a DUTY to do so.

In our college town, we've visited restaurants where you couldn't tell
the employees from the customers. College girls wearing peasant shirts
that showed their tatooed butts, no name badge, and no "we're here to
serve you" attitude translated into a single-visit, never to return.

In a customer facing, customer service job what you wear drastically
affects your performance because it alters customer perception.

In a job where you're never ever seen by a customer, what you wear
simply doesn't matter. The employer merely has a duty to insist that
employees don't dress in a way offensive to other employees.

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

On 2006-09-05, Emily wrote:
Second, how the hell can you find 300 hours a year of VMC in Colorado?
We get that where I live now, but I wouldn't have been able to do that
in Indiana. Unless I was into scud running, which I'm not.

You can't practically do much IFR flying in a non-turboed/oxygened plane
in Colorado anyway - have you seen what the MEAs are like? If it's IMC
and you're in a non-turboed, non de-iced aircraft it's probably a no-go
due to the MEAs exceeding the altitude you can fly at and icing.

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

On 2006-09-06, Jose wrote:
This will be used as a reason to require positive control. Likely the
floor of the A could be brought down to Great Britan levels.

The floor of class A in Great Britain (most of the British Isles is
class G airspace up to FL245) is only low in a few places. In a light
plane (anythign under 2 metric tonnes) you aren't charged any ATC fees.

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

On 2006-09-05, Jay Honeck wrote:
If the FAA can't even dictate a ban on flip flops in the workplace
without generating a union uproar (and open insubordination), the FAA
is irretrievably broken and *should* be privatized. What a shame it's
come to this.

How would privatizing ATC solve the union problems? The new private ATC
would still have to deal with NATCA, who undoubtedly would still want
their members to be able to wear flip flops.

Privatizing ATC in Britain has not made the unions go away. All it's
done is made ATC cost the air traveller more (both airline users and GA
pilots). A privatized monopoly is seldom any better than a government
run monopoly.

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

In a job where you're never ever seen by a customer, what you wear
simply doesn't matter. The employer merely has a duty to insist that
employees don't dress in a way offensive to other employees.

I believe it's been established that ATC faciliities are subject to
visits by tours, VIPs, Senators, etc., without notice.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

It wouldn't be a problem for some pilots, but it might be a problem for
Jay. It would mean he can no longer fly in to AirVenture.

I could always remove the radios, and fly NORDO.

"We don't need no steenkin' tower!"

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

And no, the airports on the outskirts don't count, as they are at least
a two hour drive from work/home.

So, it's difficult do fly VFR where you live. It's not where *I* live.

Mary and I have flown coast to coast, for 12 years and 1500+ hours, all
VFR. It's easy, it's fun, and it's never a problem, as long as you're
flexible.

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.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:41:11 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote in
:

How would privatizing ATC solve the union problems?

In the US, it would presumably remove the automatic congressional
ratification of FAA proposed labor contracts as apparently occurred in
this case. Having a contract shoved down your throat has got to be a
problem for the union.

Or wasn't that the problem to which you were referring? :-)