Runway Red Lights to cut down on incursions.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:50:11 -0500, B A R R Y
wrote in
:


Are they actually talking about "Stop Bars?"

Somewhere there is a whole bunch of information on this with diagrams
and photos, but this is all I could find:



http://www.faa.gov/news/speeches/new...m?newsId=10177
Speech
"Red Means Stop"
Robert A. Sturgell, Los Angeles, CA
February 26, 2008

Do they allow a "Right turn on red"?

;-)

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:50:11 -0500, B A R R Y
wrote in
:


Are they actually talking about "Stop Bars?"

Somewhere there is a whole bunch of information on this with diagrams
and photos, but this is all I could find:



http://www.faa.gov/news/speeches/new...m?newsId=10177
Speech
"Red Means Stop"
Robert A. Sturgell, Los Angeles, CA
February 26, 2008

Do they allow a "Right turn on red"?

Only in Maine, Hawaii, California, New Hampshire, Florida and North
Dakota.

On Feb 27, 4:51 pm, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:
I think this is a pretty good idea. They work most of the time on the
street why shouldn't they work at the airport?

AVFLASH NEWS
February 27, 2008

Runway Red Lights -- Solution Or Stopgap?
By Mary Grady, Contributing editor

It might seem like a sensible solution, especially at big airports with
a complex array of taxiways and runways -- embed red lights into the
runway pavement at the intersections. It's been tried at Dallas-Fort
Worth and in San Diego, and reports are positive. But the technology is
simply a "a stopgap measure," according to FAA Acting Administrator
Bobby Sturgell. "Runway status lights are one way to drive down
incursions, but they're not the best way," he said this week, while
visiting Los Angeles International Airport to announce that the lights
will be installed there. At LAX, he says, the runways are simply too
close together, and that layout needs to be addressed. A recent report
by the Office of Inspector General for the Transportation Department
found that the status-light systems are effective and should be deployed
at airports across the country.

It is an outrageous abomination that Bobby Sturgell and his FAA cannot
even bother to coordinate with other federal agencies like the TSA and
the USDOT so as to ensu (A) that those that would harm our country
do not even enter, much less be trained at and matriculate from, FAA-
certified flight schools; (B) that those that would harm our country
cannot in any way gain entry to, much less work for, FAA-certified
aircraft repair facilities worldwide which may work on fuel-laden,
passenger-filled aircraft bound for the USA, as discussed at the
February 29, 2008 Senate Commerce Committee hearing at which Sturgell
and USDOT head Mary Peters testified, now available on the Internet;
(C) that those that would harm our country be required to spend at
least more time than the perfunctory 18 seconds through the TSA cordon
at Newark Liberty International Airport as passengers have recently
experienced at EWR, as reported by the press this week.

Bobby Sturgell is a harmful and dangerous individual whose malice and
incompetence must be summarily rejected by the further outcry of the
American people. Bobby Sturgell must be ousted from office as current
Acting Head of the FAA. It is abundantly clear that he is ONLY acting
- and for that matter, he is a bad actor.

Moreover, Bobby Sturgell is a liar who has already perjured himself
repeatedly to save his own proverbial reptilian skin, and to protect
solely the interests of the monied aeromercantile complex for which
Sturgell regularly shills.
John J. Tormey III, Esq.
"Quiet Rockland"

On Mar 2, 5:53*pm, "John J. Tormey III, Esq."
wrote:
On Feb 27, 4:51 pm, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:





I think this is a pretty good idea. They work most of the time on the
street why shouldn't they work at the airport?

AVFLASH NEWS
February 27, 2008

Runway Red Lights -- Solution Or Stopgap?
By Mary Grady, Contributing editor

It might seem like a sensible solution, especially at big airports with
a complex array of taxiways and runways -- embed red lights into the
runway pavement at the intersections. It's been tried at Dallas-Fort
Worth and in San Diego, and reports are positive. But the technology is
simply a "a stopgap measure," according to FAA Acting Administrator
Bobby Sturgell. "Runway status lights are one way to drive down
incursions, but they're not the best way," he said this week, while
visiting Los Angeles International Airport to announce that the lights
will be installed there. At LAX, he says, the runways are simply too
close together, and that layout needs to be addressed. A recent report
by the Office of Inspector General for the Transportation Department
found that the status-light systems are effective and should be deployed
at airports across the country.

It is an outrageous abomination that Bobby Sturgell and his FAA cannot
even bother to coordinate with other federal agencies like the TSA and
the USDOT so as to ensu (A) that those that would harm our country
do not even enter, much less be trained at and matriculate from, FAA-
certified flight schools; (B) that those that would harm our country
cannot in any way gain entry to, much less work for, FAA-certified
aircraft repair facilities worldwide which may work on fuel-laden,
passenger-filled aircraft bound for the USA, as discussed at the
February 29, 2008 Senate Commerce Committee hearing at which Sturgell
and USDOT head Mary Peters testified, now available on the Internet;
(C) that those that would harm our country be required to spend at
least more time than the perfunctory 18 seconds through the TSA cordon
at Newark Liberty International Airport as passengers have recently
experienced at EWR, as reported by the press this week.

Bobby Sturgell is a harmful and dangerous individual whose malice and
incompetence must be summarily rejected by the further outcry of the
American people. Bobby Sturgell must be ousted from office as current
Acting Head of the FAA. It is abundantly clear that he is ONLY acting
- and for that matter, he is a bad actor.

Moreover, Bobby Sturgell is a liar who has already perjured himself
repeatedly to save his own proverbial reptilian skin, and to protect
solely the interests of the monied aeromercantile complex for which
Sturgell regularly shills.
John J. Tormey III, Esq.
"Quiet Rockland"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Aw, come on. Tell us how you really feel. ! Jus kiddin. I agree,
the current state of affairs is troubling at best and downright deadly
at worst..

B.H.

On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 16:53:38 -0800 (PST), "John J. Tormey III, Esq."
wrote in
:

Moreover, Bobby Sturgell is a liar who has already perjured himself
repeatedly to save his own proverbial reptilian skin, and to protect
solely the interests of the monied aeromercantile complex for which
Sturgell regularly shills.

Oh, you mean Sturgell is the same sort of Bush appointee as Michael B.
Mukasey, the Attorney General who fails to pronounce water-boarding is
torture and those who engage in it as criminals?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/wa...30justice.html

"Oh, you mean Sturgell is the same sort of Bush appointee as Michael B.
Mukasey, the Attorney General who fails to pronounce water-boarding is
torture and those who engage in it as criminals? "

It doesn't matter what Mukasey says, I have pronounced it not torture.

And I have exactly the same right to decree it not tortue as does Mukasey.

Perhaps if you got your head out of the liberal media and bothered to read
the Constitution you would know that it is the judiciary branch that decides
what is and is not a crime, based on the laws passed by the legislative
branch.

But don't let the facts get in your way...





"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 16:53:38 -0800 (PST), "John J. Tormey III, Esq."
wrote in
:

Moreover, Bobby Sturgell is a liar who has already perjured himself
repeatedly to save his own proverbial reptilian skin, and to protect
solely the interests of the monied aeromercantile complex for which
Sturgell regularly shills.

Oh, you mean Sturgell is the same sort of Bush appointee as Michael B.
Mukasey, the Attorney General who fails to pronounce water-boarding is
torture and those who engage in it as criminals?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/wa...30justice.html

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:29:36 -0600, "news.chi.sbcglobal.net"
wrote in
:

Perhaps if you got your head out of the liberal media and bothered to read
the Constitution you would know that it is the judiciary branch that decides
what is and is not a crime, based on the laws passed by the legislative
branch.

If the Attorney General's opinion is meaningless, why is he being
asked?

It is nothing more than a variation on the old "When did you stop beating
your wife" question...

The attorney general could give a personal opinion as to whether or not it
was against the law, but that would be meaningless.

He could give a legal opinion if it is cut and dried settled law, or if
his/her examination of the facts led him her/to believe it was against the
law in that particular case.

But in the end, if the attorney general believed some act was illegal, he
could bring charges against someone, but it would be the judicial system, in
the person of a judge or jury, who would decide if a crime was committed.
And again, that would depend upon the specific facts of the case.

There is a lot of Bush hate out there, with much of it coming from liberals
and/or Democrats who count on the fact that so many Americans are totally
clueless about the Constitution...




"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:29:36 -0600, "news.chi.sbcglobal.net"
wrote in
:

Perhaps if you got your head out of the liberal media and bothered to read
the Constitution you would know that it is the judiciary branch that
decides
what is and is not a crime, based on the laws passed by the legislative
branch.

If the Attorney General's opinion is meaningless, why is he being
asked?

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:29:36 -0600, "news.chi.sbcglobal.net"
wrote in
:

Perhaps if you got your head out of the liberal media and bothered to read
the Constitution you would know that it is the judiciary branch that decides
what is and is not a crime, based on the laws passed by the legislative
branch.

If the Attorney General's opinion is meaningless, why is he being
asked?

The Attorney General provides an opinion, which if everyone agrees with
ends a discussion, otherwise you go to the Supreme Court which provides
a ruling.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:23:15 -0600, "news.chi.sbcglobal.net"
wrote in
:

But in the end, if the attorney general believed some act was illegal, he
could bring charges against someone, but it would be the judicial system, in
the person of a judge or jury, who would decide if a crime was committed.

So Bush nominated an Attorney General who he was reasonably certain
would not indite him or the CIA.