FAA Goes after Chicago on Meigs

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.

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

Regional jets and the smaller light jets such as the above companies
are introducing can use the shorter runways of GA airports, and
therefore become more efficient ways to travel. While it's early in
that curve, the idea is based on the already successful corporate
jet enterprises (that also use GA airports). So, it directly answers
your original question about the viability of GA.

A great deal of additional infrastructure would be required at many GA
airports in order to make them suitable for ordinary commercial
airline services, irrespective of the type of planes used. Just
flying planes that can accept a shorter runway would only cover the
tip of the iceberg.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? The GA airports that I fly out of
have "commercial airline services" of the type that I've described, above.
They are _charter services_, corporate and coop services, all of which are
flying under Part 135. It is precisely their difference from the
necessities of large carriers that make them viable, and part of that
viability is the far greater number of airports that can accommodate them.

Neil

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 19:49:49 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote in :

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.

Show me a member of the flying "public" that is not interested in
avoiding the tiring drive on congested highways to the international
airport. What makes you think there is no public support for SATS?

A policy that enhances GA alone is unlikely to get any public or
political support.

Fortunately, that is not the case for SATS.

SATS removes the necessity for airline passengers to drive by
automobile to and from a distant airport to engage in airline travel.
It also enables airline hub airports to be relocated in sparsely
populated areas, thus removing airliner noise and surface traffic
congestion from metropolitan areas. Show me a member of the "public"
who relishes noise and traffic congestion. The motivation for public
support of SATS is already latent, and through education it will be
brought to the fore.

It would appear, that you have failed to appreciate (or read and
comprehend in the 21 minutes that transpired between the posting of my
article and your follow up) the information in the links I provided.
All you offer are arguments solely supported by your opinion; you
provide no independent, credible evidence that supports your
subjective opinions. That is disappointing.

A policy that usurps certain aspects of GA for
commercial air transport is likely to crowd GA out of the picture
entirely, in time.

Please provide a citation for credible evidence that supports your
notion that SATS "usurps certain aspects of GA." Which aspects of GA
do you feel would be usurped?

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?

The real estate upon which rests this nation's airports has become
valuable as burgeoning population growth ever encroaches, and the
nature of the property turns from rural to suburban and urban. The
cities are greedy for a larger tax base, and see selling the, now
valuable, real estate to developers as a double win: revenue from the
sale, and property tax revenue from the new owners, not to mention
sales taxes that may be collected on any commercial enterprises that
may be established. It's something like Jack selling his cow for
beans.

These politicians fail to see the inestimable harm to the future of
transportation they commit when they close an airport, and you seem to
be guilty of the same lack of foresight. Once the cow is gone, there
won't be any more milk.

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.

Please provide a citation that supports your subjective opinion , that
"the change will eliminate GA." SATS is GA based!

If you're not going to make the effort to educate yourself, so that
you can make relivant comments and accurately contribute to the
discussion, you will lose my participation.

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.

That comment reveals that you haven't invested the time and effort to
comprehend the SATS information.

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.

Just as sailors will always ply the seas, airmen will always navigate
the skies. To suggest otherwise is to fail to understand the human
spirit.

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

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.

And, how many centuries do expect we should wait to find out whether
you're right about that?

Your notion of "private planes" is pretty narrow if you think they'll be
eliminated by closing airports. Around here, there are a significant
number of _private airports_ on large parcels of _private land_ with
pilots that share these resources so that other _private planes_ have a
place to come and go at will. Unless someone starts confiscating property
en masse, I can't see your vision coming true. And, should someone decide
to start confiscating property en masse, I'd point out that pilots are the
single most heavily armed group of citizens that I know of short of those
that belong to a militia as a hobby.

Neil

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 19:49:49 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote in :

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.

Show me a member of the flying "public" that is not interested in
avoiding the tiring drive on congested highways to the international
airport.

Well, me, for one. I live closer and a shorter trip to one of those
international airports than any other airport.

Now, if I could get on another plane at a longer airport without being
searched and harassed, we might talk. But it would have to justify the
hour drive.

"Emily" wrote in message
...

Show me a member of the flying "public" that is not interested in
avoiding the tiring drive on congested highways to the international
airport.

Well, me, for one. I live closer and a shorter trip to one of those
international airports than any other airport.

Now, if I could get on another plane at a longer airport without being
searched and harassed, we might talk. But it would have to justify the
hour drive.


Because it's a tiring drive on congested highways?

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:22:25 -0500, Emily
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 19:49:49 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote in :

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.

Show me a member of the flying "public" that is not interested in
avoiding the tiring drive on congested highways to the international
airport.

Well, me, for one. I live closer and a shorter trip to one of those
international airports than any other airport.

Now, if I could get on another plane at a longer airport without being
searched and harassed, we might talk. But it would have to justify the
hour drive.


But, if the nearby large airport you currently use were to pose too
large an environmental issue at some time in the (distant?) future
(due to scramjet operations, or noise, or other concerns), it might be
replaced with an airport located on isolated land out in the rural
wilderness away from the complaints of nearby residents. Then SATS
would provide you with transport to and from the new international
airport.

In the case of the municipality with a smaller GA airport, SATS would
immediately provide access to the a more distant international
airport, saving the passengers from the tiring drive on congested
highways. SATS makes the airline hub-and-spoke system more workable.
At least, that's the way I understand it.

Neil Gould writes:

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

From the fact that this is how it works now.

The GA airports that I fly out of
have "commercial airline services" of the type that I've described, above.
They are _charter services_, corporate and coop services, all of which are
flying under Part 135.

That's not quite the same as an American Airlines, though. The market
is different, the volumes are smaller, etc.

It is precisely their difference from the
necessities of large carriers that make them viable, and part of that
viability is the far greater number of airports that can accommodate them.

So it's not clear that a change would be for the better.

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

Larry Dighera writes:

Show me a member of the flying "public" that is not interested in
avoiding the tiring drive on congested highways to the international
airport.

What do you mean by the "flying public"?

What makes you think there is no public support for SATS?

The absence of that support.

SATS removes the necessity for airline passengers to drive by
automobile to and from a distant airport to engage in airline travel.
It also enables airline hub airports to be relocated in sparsely
populated areas, thus removing airliner noise and surface traffic
congestion from metropolitan areas. Show me a member of the "public"
who relishes noise and traffic congestion. The motivation for public
support of SATS is already latent, and through education it will be
brought to the fore.

How do you ensure security? Do you sterilize every airstrip in the
country and staff it with two dozen TSA screeners and
multimillion-dollar scanners?

Do you upgrade every airstrip so that it allows landings in all
conditions, so that regular air service won't be hindered by weather?
Are you prepared to see private pilots crowded out by corporations?

Just be careful what you wish for. Private pilots have a view of
aviation that the rest of the world does not share, and attracting
attention to their little corner of aviation can backfire, as I have
already explained.

Please provide a citation for credible evidence that supports your
notion that SATS "usurps certain aspects of GA." Which aspects of GA
do you feel would be usurped?

Anything that doesn't make money for large corporations providing air
travel.

The real estate upon which rests this nation's airports has become
valuable as burgeoning population growth ever encroaches, and the
nature of the property turns from rural to suburban and urban. The
cities are greedy for a larger tax base, and see selling the, now
valuable, real estate to developers as a double win: revenue from the
sale, and property tax revenue from the new owners, not to mention
sales taxes that may be collected on any commercial enterprises that
may be established.

Yes, so?

These politicians fail to see the inestimable harm to the future of
transportation they commit when they close an airport, and you seem to
be guilty of the same lack of foresight. Once the cow is gone, there
won't be any more milk.

I don't see any "inestimable harm" in closing a small GA airport. I
might not favor such a closure myself, but I can't really substantiate
any claims that it would harm society at large, and neither can you.

Please provide a citation that supports your subjective opinion, that
"the change will eliminate GA." SATS is GA based!

Why do I need cites to support my opinions, if you don't?

If you're not going to make the effort to educate yourself, so that
you can make relivant comments and accurately contribute to the
discussion, you will lose my participation.

See above. Except that I'm willing to discuss things without "cites,"
because I know better than to depend on that tired old technique.

That comment reveals that you haven't invested the time and effort to
comprehend the SATS information.

The absence of an answer implies that you don't have one.

Just as sailors will always ply the seas, airmen will always navigate
the skies. To suggest otherwise is to fail to understand the human
spirit.

Sailors don't ply the seas as they used to.

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

Neil Gould writes:

And, how many centuries do expect we should wait to find out whether
you're right about that?

It could happen tomorrow.

Your notion of "private planes" is pretty narrow if you think they'll be
eliminated by closing airports.

That's not what I think. But it would take very little to see all
PPLs suspended indefinitely in the U.S. One nutcase crashing into a
city with a load of anthrax aboard in his private plane, and you could
all say goodbye to your "right" to be private pilots. Things can
happen fast when hysteria rules, and hysteria is increasingly the norm
in society.

Right now, private pilots are protected by the fact that most of the
public doesn't know anything about private pilots, and so they don't
object to them. But put this type of aviation into the spotlight, and
people will start to worry about it (with help from the media and
politicians), until there is an outcry for "protection" from the
"dangers" of letting "anyone" fly.

Using GA airports for anything with a broad consumer base, such as
conventional commercial airlines, would risk drawing too much
attention to them and their users. Since most people don't care about
any type of aviation except the type that takes them where they want
to do, they'd rather close and airport and prevent non-commercial
pilots from flying than take the "risk" of "terrorists" threatening
the country with their little planes. Is that what you want?

Around here, there are a significant
number of _private airports_ on large parcels of _private land_ with
pilots that share these resources so that other _private planes_ have a
place to come and go at will.

That could change overnight.

Unless someone starts confiscating property en masse, I can't see
your vision coming true.

Private aviation could be prohibited with a stroke of the pen.
Private pilots are not numerous enough in society to prevent this from
happening, or to reverse it once it occurs. They are a tiny minority,
protected from the majority by near-invisibility. If they make
themselves too visible, they become targets of opportunity.

And, should someone decide
to start confiscating property en masse, I'd point out that pilots are the
single most heavily armed group of citizens that I know of short of those
that belong to a militia as a hobby.

Unless they intend to overthrow the government, that doesn't matter.
And if they do intend to overthrow the government, then perhaps there
might be some justification to the concerns that the rest of society
might have.

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