Govt Plates

Sam Spade wrote:

When Phil Boyer makes those statements he is speaking in terms of ATC
and FSS services. I doubt AOPA's bean counters have even considered
NACO chart services.


Aren't the DOD charts damn similar to the NACO ones? Doesn't that mean
that there is some sharing of money and manpower between FAA and DOD?

wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:

When Phil Boyer makes those statements he is speaking in terms of ATC
and FSS services. I doubt AOPA's bean counters have even considered
NACO chart services.



Aren't the DOD charts damn similar to the NACO ones? Doesn't that mean
that there is some sharing of money and manpower between FAA and DOD?


No, they are similar because both NACO and the DOD are bound by very
formal interagency charting specifications, which go to the detail of
font size and type, method of portraying graphics, what is to be in the
plan and profile views, and so forth.

Also, the military does its own procedures design so it is all a
standalone operation and quite seperate from both the FAA procedures
design function and the subsequent design of charts.

The last I knew the DOD charting function was in St. Louis. NACO is in
Maryland.

The FAA does get involved with a very small number of military
procedures, typically at joint use airports.

In a previous article, Sam Spade said:
Also, the military does its own procedures design so it is all a
standalone operation and quite seperate from both the FAA procedures
design function and the subsequent design of charts.

The last I knew the DOD charting function was in St. Louis. NACO is in
Maryland.

The FAA does get involved with a very small number of military
procedures, typically at joint use airports.

As an example, a few years ago I was flying my wife to "parents weekend"
at Mt. Holyoke College. I was looking at the instrument approaches in CEF
(Westover MA) and saw a step down fix that I couldn't see how to identify.
I asked here, and somebody alerted the FAA, and they alerted the military
(and I got CC'ed in the conversation which was fascinating) and it turns
out you could only identify it with TACAN. The chart was modified, and
the military got a separate chart for a TACAN approach.

--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
Surely the 98% of DNA we share with monkeys must be enough to stop
people from sinking this low.
-- Frossie

The FAA and ATC exist to serve the military. The airlines
are a justification on the budget. GA is forced to use ATC
because in the past 50-60 years the FAA expanded the scope
of controlled airspace to be everywhere. 25 years ago there
were large areas that were uncontrolled below 14.500 feet.


wrote in message
ps.com...
|
| Sam Spade wrote:
|
| When Phil Boyer makes those statements he is speaking in
terms of ATC
| and FSS services. I doubt AOPA's bean counters have
even considered
| NACO chart services.
|
|
| Aren't the DOD charts damn similar to the NACO ones?
Doesn't that mean
| that there is some sharing of money and manpower between
FAA and DOD?
|

In article ,
"Jim Macklin" wrote:

The FAA and ATC exist to serve the military. The airlines
are a justification on the budget. GA is forced to use ATC
because in the past 50-60 years the FAA expanded the scope
of controlled airspace to be everywhere. 25 years ago there
were large areas that were uncontrolled below 14.500 feet.

where do you come up with this?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

All ATC facilities were moved to remote locations [as much
as possible] including airport towers. All ATC personnel
have military security clearance. In the event of attack,
ATC is expected to provide service to the military. If it
wasn't for the airline and GA user, the services ATC
provides the military would still be needed and the budget
would come solely from the military budget.

As far as controlled airspace, I still have my old charts
that show a few 10 mile wide airways isolated in most
western states. Today, the same places are all controlled
above 1200 feet. But traffic did not increase, it was just
the FAA budget.

Why do you think the FAA was designed to do what it does?



"Bob Noel" wrote in
message
...
| In article ,
| "Jim Macklin"
wrote:
|
| The FAA and ATC exist to serve the military. The
airlines
| are a justification on the budget. GA is forced to use
ATC
| because in the past 50-60 years the FAA expanded the
scope
| of controlled airspace to be everywhere. 25 years ago
there
| were large areas that were uncontrolled below 14.500
feet.
|
| where do you come up with this?
|
| --
| Bob Noel
| Looking for a sig the
| lawyers will hate
|

Jim Macklin wrote:

All ATC facilities were moved to remote locations [as much
as possible] including airport towers.

No such thing happened.



All ATC personnel
have military security clearance.


I have an FBI security clearance, not military. Huge difference.





In the event of attack,
ATC is expected to provide service to the military.


There are no such standing orders. 9/11 proved that beyond a shadow of
a doubt.




If it
wasn't for the airline and GA user, the services ATC
provides the military would still be needed and the budget
would come solely from the military budget.

If it wasn't for the airlines and GA 99% of ATC wouldn't be needed at all.




As far as controlled airspace, I still have my old charts
that show a few 10 mile wide airways isolated in most
western states. Today, the same places are all controlled
above 1200 feet. But traffic did not increase, it was just
the FAA budget.


Better take a look at your charts of the western US again. We have
tremendous amounts of class G, within 35 miles of my class C airport the
class E doesn't start until 10,000. And there's a hell of a lot more
traffic out here now than 50 years ago.



Why do you think the FAA was designed to do what it does?

Airlines.

Ask for the FOIA on Congressional hearings and budget.



"Newps" wrote in message
. ..
|
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| All ATC facilities were moved to remote locations [as
much
| as possible] including airport towers.
|
| No such thing happened.
|
|
|
| All ATC personnel
| have military security clearance.
|
|
| I have an FBI security clearance, not military. Huge
difference.
|
|
|
|
|
| In the event of attack,
| ATC is expected to provide service to the military.
|
|
| There are no such standing orders. 9/11 proved that
beyond a shadow of
| a doubt.
|
|
|
|
| If it
| wasn't for the airline and GA user, the services ATC
| provides the military would still be needed and the
budget
| would come solely from the military budget.
|
| If it wasn't for the airlines and GA 99% of ATC wouldn't
be needed at all.
|
|
|
|
| As far as controlled airspace, I still have my old
charts
| that show a few 10 mile wide airways isolated in most
| western states. Today, the same places are all
controlled
| above 1200 feet. But traffic did not increase, it was
just
| the FAA budget.
|
|
| Better take a look at your charts of the western US again.
We have
| tremendous amounts of class G, within 35 miles of my class
C airport the
| class E doesn't start until 10,000. And there's a hell of
a lot more
| traffic out here now than 50 years ago.
|
|
|
| Why do you think the FAA was designed to do what it
does?
|
| Airlines.

Jim Macklin wrote:

Ask for the FOIA on Congressional hearings and budget.

I don't need to, it's a ridiculous argument.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...
All ATC facilities were moved to remote locations [as much
as possible] including airport towers.


OK, I'll bite. Name ONE remote tower.


Karl