FAA Goes after Chicago on Meigs

Emily writes:

I don't know....$1.6 million isn't anything to the city, and Daley would
do it again in a heartbeat, even knowing he'd be fined.

He knows he has popular support. Most people would be more interested
in a park than in an airport.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Emily writes:

I don't know....$1.6 million isn't anything to the city, and Daley would
do it again in a heartbeat, even knowing he'd be fined.

He knows he has popular support. Most people would be more interested
in a park than in an airport.

Wasn't Meigs prominently featured in that Microsoft flight game?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Fred wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:

Emily writes:

I don't know....$1.6 million isn't anything to the city, and Daley would
do it again in a heartbeat, even knowing he'd be fined.

He knows he has popular support. Most people would be more interested
in a park than in an airport.

Wasn't Meigs prominently featured in that Microsoft flight game?

Up to and including MS Flight Simulator 2002, yes. It was the
default starting location for all flights. It was changed to KSEA in
FS2004.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFF2gByBkZmuMZ8L8RAuo9AKDYLIek9aVumg2iIyEqQp vAknunqwCfcSfY
VoOpB0P0+SVZMJuXHUIoZQU=
=o1lh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Fred writes:

Wasn't Meigs prominently featured in that Microsoft flight game?

Yes, but only a tiny minority of the population uses that flight game.
Even so, they probably outnumber pilots by ten or a hundred to one.
And overall, both groups together don't even make a dent in the
demographics of the overall population.

In other words, most people would say yes to a park, and no to an
airport.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:20:11 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote in :

In other words, most people would say yes to a park, and no to an
airport.

Unfortunately, it requires statesmanship, insight, and leadership to
encourage the populace to acknowledge the necessity for a vital
component in this nation's transportation infrastructure. The
impossibility of acquiring replacement real estate for a municipal
airport gateway to the aerospace transportation system of the future
is the crucial issue in the airport closure debate. I have yet to see
any arguments opposing that fact.

Larry Dighera writes:

Unfortunately, it requires statesmanship, insight, and leadership to
encourage the populace to acknowledge the necessity for a vital
component in this nation's transportation infrastructure.

Maybe. But are you sure your interest in aviation hasn't biased your
viewpoint? People who see aircraft as just a means of getting from
place to place, and will never set foot in anything other than a
commercial airliner, are going to have a really hard time seeing the
utility in a little airport like Meigs. The vast majority of the
population never comes anywhere near general aviation; in fact, most
people don't know that it exists.

The impossibility of acquiring replacement real estate for a municipal
airport gateway to the aerospace transportation system of the future
is the crucial issue in the airport closure debate. I have yet to see
any arguments opposing that fact.

How do you know that general aviation is the wave of the future?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Larry Dighera writes:

The impossibility of acquiring replacement real estate for a
municipal airport gateway to the aerospace transportation system of
the future is the crucial issue in the airport closure debate. I
have yet to see any arguments opposing that fact.

How do you know that general aviation is the wave of the future?

Have you done any travelling lately? There are a lot of companies, from
Honda to Eclipse to Cessna and others who are betting that, given a
reasonable alternative, people won't put up with the time and hassle of
using hubs that are 180° away from where they ultimately want to go.

Neil

Neil Gould writes:

Have you done any travelling lately? There are a lot of companies, from
Honda to Eclipse to Cessna and others who are betting that, given a
reasonable alternative, people won't put up with the time and hassle of
using hubs that are 180° away from where they ultimately want to go.

Which means what? I don't see the connection.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 23:20:55 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote in :

Larry Dighera writes:

Unfortunately, it requires statesmanship, insight, and leadership to
encourage the populace to acknowledge the necessity for a vital
component in this nation's transportation infrastructure.

Maybe. But are you sure your interest in aviation hasn't biased your
viewpoint?

My viewpoint is based on the future path NASA and the FAA have
outlined he

http://ncam-sats.org/NCAMNews/SATSFS-2004-07-1.pdf

The SATS concept offers an on-demand, point-to-point,
widely distributed transportation system. It relies on
advanced four to ten passenger aircraft using new
operating capabilities. Such a system promises improved
safety, efficiency, reliability and affordability for small
aircraft operating within the nation's 5,400 public-use landing
facilities. Nearly all of the U.S. population lives
within a 30-minute drive of at least one of these airports.

Unfortunately, if municipal airports are closed (currently occurring
at the rate of two per month), it will doom those municipalities to
exclusion from the future air transportation system unless they are
able to build new airports, but where will the find the necessary
vacant land?


http://sats.nasa.gov/

NASA's SATS Program
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), in
partnership with the Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and state & local aviation and airport
authorities, leads a new research & development program for
developing and demonstrating technologies needed for a Small
Aircraft Transportation System (SATS). The project's initial
mission is to prove that four new operating capabilities will
enable safe and affordable access to virtually any runway in the
nation in most weather conditions. These new operating
capabilities rely on on-board computing, advanced flight controls,
Highway in the Sky displays, and automated air traffic separation
and sequencing technologies.


http://ncam-sats.org/
Resolution of the Aerospace States Association
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE PROPOSED
SAFE SMALL AIRCRAFT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (SATS)
• WHEREAS a variety of forces are converging to reduce the
effectiveness of the nation's existing highway and hub-spoke air
transport system to meet the growing needs of short distance,
inter and intra-state travel; and
• WHEREAS these forces include the maturing of the hub-spoke air
transport system, the increasing gridlock on the nation's
highways, and the increasing value of human time; and
• WHEREAS the nation has an existing infrastructure of 17,000
airports for small, General Aviation Aircraft, of which at least
5,000 could be modified to meet the nation's emerging short
distance transportation needs; and
• WHEREAS the Federal Government, acting through NASA, has
undertaken cooperative technology development efforts with the
nation's General Aviation industry to develop a new era of
aircraft capable of effectively using these 5,000 airports; and
• WHEREAS the investment in, and control of ground infrastructure
associated with such airports is under the jurisdiction of the
nation's State and local authorities; and
• WHEREAS the Federal Government has offered to develop, with
State governments, the means to upgrade those 5,000 airports with
new capabilities, such as Global Positioning Systems (GPS), and
link them together into a system to be known as the Small Aircraft
Transportation System (SATS); and
• WHEREAS the development of a SATS has the potential to generate
transportation-driven economic development benefits; and
• WHEREAS the coordinated development of a SATS would be of
substantial benefit to the State governments in meeting the
transportation needs of their citizens; and
• WHEREAS it is the purpose of the Aerospace States Associations
to identify, support, and assist in the implementation of
aerospace policies which involve coordination between the Federal
and State governments,
• NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Aerospace States
Association endorses and supports efforts by the Federal
Government to undertake the planning and implementation associated
with the creation of a Small Aircraft Transportation System
(SATS).
Resolved this 19th day of July, 1999 by a unanimous vote of the
members voting.
The Honorable Joseph E. Kernan (Lt. Governor, Indiana)
Chair


People who see aircraft as just a means of getting from
place to place, and will never set foot in anything other than a
commercial airliner, are going to have a really hard time seeing the
utility in a little airport like Meigs.

Lack of insight and greed are the cause of the closures of so many
municipal airports.

The vast majority of the population never comes anywhere near general
aviation; in fact, most people don't know that it exists.

That is destined to change. Of curse it requires creative insight to
appreciate a new transportation system, but it will happen despite
those with their heads in the sand.

The impossibility of acquiring replacement real estate for a municipal
airport gateway to the aerospace transportation system of the future
is the crucial issue in the airport closure debate. I have yet to see
any arguments opposing that fact.

How do you know that general aviation is the wave of the future?

Read the SATS information available at the links above.

Surely you don't believe that the air transportation system is
destined to remain static, do you?

Larry Dighera writes:

My viewpoint is based on the future path NASA and the FAA have
outlined he

NASA and the FAA don't make policy, they follow it. Without a public
interest in what they propose, it won't happen.

A policy that enhances GA alone is unlikely to get any public or
political support. A policy that usurps certain aspects of GA for
commercial air transport is likely to crowd GA out of the picture
entirely, in time.

Lack of insight and greed are the cause of the closures of so many
municipal airports.

Is there no greed in wanting to dedicate large amounts of land to use
by a very tiny minority of the population?

That is destined to change. Of curse it requires creative insight to
appreciate a new transportation system, but it will happen despite
those with their heads in the sand.

If it changes, the change will eliminate GA and replace it with purely
commercial air transport, essentially another tier of the existing
commercial system.

Read the SATS information available at the links above.

I don't see how that information indicates that GA is any way of the
future for anyone.

Surely you don't believe that the air transportation system is
destined to remain static, do you?

I think general aviation is in serious danger, so no, I don't believe
that it will remain static. Just as there are no significant private
railroads or trains, there may eventually be no private planes.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.