Air Carriers and Biz-jets Target GA Recreational Fliers

On Fri, 23 May 2008 10:20:02 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

Stealth Pilot wrote:

you really only need C, D and G.

c - full time atc above 10,000ft with mandatory radio
d - part time atc with mandatory radio even when the d is shut
down(ctaf)
g - free airspace to 10,000ft


So no full-time ATC below 10,000 MSL? Why?


of course there is C around the major airports.

On May 23, 6:19*am, Stealth Pilot
wrote:

you really only need C, D and G.

Actually you need A & B. The A for RVSM and to keep the transition
level consistent with other countries and B to expidite traffic at
busy terminal areas (Think WX and separation mins).
Frank

On May 22, 9:14*am, Larry Dighera wrote:

This is the way I see it. *Opposing views are welcome.

WOW, thats some pretty one sided stuff. I get a chukle when you ask
posters (On other threads) to provide the results of their research to
support their opinoin. Why dont you provide some reseach for your
baseless assumptions ? Dont take any of this personally, but you kinda
remind me of Phil Boyer or Bower (Sorry, dont recall the name), over
at AOPA when he gave his testimony to congress that was fraught with
(baseless) assumptions and factual errors. In this posters opinion he
made GA look bad.
Have you any idea what airlines actually pay in fees taxes and
leases ?

On Fri, 23 May 2008 09:13:59 -0700 (PDT), "F. Baum"
wrote in
:

On May 22, 9:14*am, Larry Dighera wrote:


The airline industry is terrified. They've got more aircraft than
they know what to do with, and even more on order. Passengers are
unhappy with the airline travel experience, and their numbers threaten
to dwindle as a result. High revenue travelers are increasingly
turning to part 135 biz-jet transport to escape the moronic security
measures imposed on airline travelers. Competition among air carriers
is fierce as market consolidation threatens to swallow them whole. Air
Traffic Control contractors are lobbying franticly to wrest FAA fiscal
oversight from Congress, so thy can sell their marginally engineered
products to our government. And anyone naive enough to believes light
GA won't be affected by the clash of these titanic combatants is not
paying attention.

This is the way I see it. *Opposing views are welcome.

WOW, thats some pretty one sided stuff. I get a chukle when you ask
posters (On other threads) to provide the results of their research to
support their opinoin.

I'm happy to attempt to support my views with as objective research as
I'm able to find if you are able to provide specific views I have
stated above with which you disagree.

Why dont you provide some reseach for your baseless assumptions ?

To which particular alleged "baseless assumptions" are you referring?

Dont take any of this personally,

I won't as long as you don't attempt to make it personal, and address
the subject and not me. I realize it's difficult to do that with an
opinion piece like this, but we can try.

but you kinda remind me of Phil Boyer or Bower (Sorry, dont recall the name), over
at AOPA when he gave his testimony to congress that was fraught with
(baseless) assumptions and factual errors.

Perhaps you would be good enough to quote the utterances of AOPA
president, Boyer that you believe were baseless assumptions. Here's
the transcript:

http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/hea...106s/80849.pdf
NOMINATIONS TO THE FEDERAL AVIATION MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL
HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND
TRANSPORTATION

UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
MAY 4, 2000
JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Chairman


In this posters opinion he made GA look bad.

I hope you are incorrect, and welcome being enlightened in this
matter.

Have you any idea what airlines actually pay in fees taxes and
leases ?


In my opinion, the airlines have caused to be created this wonderful
ATC system by virtue of their need to safely serve the public with
their business ventures. An ATC system as fine as that which operates
the NAS would surely not have been created by the US government solely
for the use of single-engine recips, and we both know it.

For that reason, I see no reason that air carriers should not fund
that which they mandated. GA clearly benefits from the ATC system,
but it is not so dependent on it, that it would cease to exist without
it as are the air carriers.

On May 24, 10:33*am, Larry Dighera wrote:

In my opinion, the airlines have caused to be created this wonderful
ATC system by virtue of their need to safely serve the public with
their business ventures. *An ATC system as fine as that which operates
the NAS would surely not have been created by the US government solely
for the use of single-engine recips, and we both know it.

My point exactly. GA would not exist if it werent for the airlines.
Set aside the us against them mentality for a minute and think about
where the money to fund all of this comes from. Unfortunatly, the FAA
has to go to congress and fight for a budget every year. User fees
(Which originated within the Bush administration ) were just one
funding alternative . The airlines , contrary to AOPA and Avnet, are
not anti GA . I think they would like to see other users pay their
share.
Take a look at airports for a minute. Airlines pay to lease gates,
landing fees, per pax handling fees, and in many metripolitan areas,
like LAX, a dispraportionate amount of the budget goes to fund
releiver or satalite airports that the airlines dont use.
I am not a big fan of user fees but many if not most GA airports do
not make money, also the sooner the better for things like Next Gen
NAS and other tech advances. I think this will save way more $$$$ than
it will cost in the short term.

On May 24, 1:49 pm, "F. Baum" wrote:
On May 24, 10:33 am, Larry Dighera wrote:



In my opinion, the airlines have caused to be created this wonderful
ATC system by virtue of their need to safely serve the public with
their business ventures. An ATC system as fine as that which operates
the NAS would surely not have been created by the US government solely
for the use of single-engine recips, and we both know it.

My point exactly. GA would not exist if it werent for the airlines.
Set aside the us against them mentality for a minute and think about
where the money to fund all of this comes from. Unfortunatly, the FAA
has to go to congress and fight for a budget every year. User fees
(Which originated within the Bush administration ) were just one
funding alternative . The airlines , contrary to AOPA and Avnet, are
not anti GA . I think they would like to see other users pay their
share.
Take a look at airports for a minute. Airlines pay to lease gates,
landing fees, per pax handling fees, and in many metripolitan areas,
like LAX, a dispraportionate amount of the budget goes to fund
releiver or satalite airports that the airlines dont use.
I am not a big fan of user fees but many if not most GA airports do
not make money, also the sooner the better for things like Next Gen
NAS and other tech advances. I think this will save way more $$$$ than
it will cost in the short term.

The terms "reliever" and "satellite" begs the question what are they
relieving, and what are they satellites of?

I must confess, that I am a bit disappointed by your response. I saw
in the articles you authored, a reasonable person, employed in the
airline industry, with the potential to bring a fresh point of view to
this argument. I was hoping to be made more deeply aware of the air
carriers' point of view, so that I could better understand the basis
upon which it rests. I'm still hopeful, but ...

On Sat, 24 May 2008 10:49:24 -0700 (PDT), "F. Baum"
wrote in
:

On May 24, 10:33*am, Larry Dighera wrote:


As you failed to mention the assertion you made on Fri, 23 May 2008
09:13:59 -0700 (PDT) in Message-ID:
,
that Phil Boyer made GA look bad during the Congressional MAC hearings
presided over by McCain, I'll assume you have reversed your opinion on
that matter.

In my opinion, the airlines have caused to be created this wonderful
ATC system by virtue of their need to safely serve the public with
their business ventures. *An ATC system as fine as that which operates
the NAS would surely not have been created by the US government solely
for the use of single-engine recips, and we both know it.

My point exactly. GA would not exist if it werent for the airlines.

That's an interesting, if outrageous, assumption. Are you able to
cite any credible source that supports the notion that GA would not
exist without ATC or the airlines?

Because I can go out to an uncontrolled field, and depart, fly to
another such airport, and never avail myself of _ANY_ ATC facilities,
I believe that if ATC (and/or the airlines) were to disappear
tomorrow, GA would do fine, and air carriers would be out of business.
Air carriers demand ATC, or they would be falling out of the sky like
hail in Arkansas; GA does not.

It appears that we are at opposite ends of the spectrum on this
subject.

Set aside the us against them mentality for a minute and think about
where the money to fund all of this comes from.

The money to fund private aviation comes out of the owners' pockets,
or wasn't that the 'this' to which you were referring?

Unfortunatly, the FAA has to go to congress and fight for a budget every year.

What makes the FAA having to justify their budget to Congress
unfortunate in your opinion?

User fees (Which originated within the Bush administration ) were just one
funding alternative . The airlines , contrary to AOPA and Avnet, are
not anti GA . I think they would like to see other users pay their
share.

If you believe the air carriers aren't anti-GA, you haven't been
listening to the anti-GA diatribe emanating from Northwest Airlines
former CEO, Richard Anderson, now Delta's CEO. Here's some
information about one instance.

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite..._editorial.pdf
... Private aircraft operators also do not pay ticket taxes to
fund the FAA. Last year the FAA spent $6 billion operating the
Air Traffic Control system in the U.S. This service is free of
charge for private aircraft operators. Why? Because the
commercial airlines pay taxes collected from you to pay for the
operation of a system that all air travelers use.

Private aviation operators do pay fuel excise tax, as do all
commercial airlines--but that is about the extent of private
aviation's funding for airports. At NWA, We believe an airport's
operating costs should be borne by all who use them, including
those who travel by private aircraft.



http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...04-2-025x.html
Apr. 15, 2004 — AOPA on Thursday defended general aviation against
a USA Today editorial that claims airline passengers "subsidize"
general aviation. In an opposing view piece published alongside
the paper's editorial, AOPA President Phil Boyer explained to USA
Today readers that the current system is a single structure,
designed for the airlines.

"Our elected representatives in Congress wisely created a national
air transportation system," Boyer wrote. And just as trucks —
which place a greater strain on the national highway system — pay
higher taxes and fees than family cars, the airlines must carry a
greater portion of the financial burden for the nation's air
traffic control system.

The USA Today editorial was prompted by and uses much of the same
rhetoric as an editorial that Northwest Airlines CEO Richard
Anderson wrote for his airline's in-flight magazine.

Virtually all of the problems with the air traffic control system
cited in the USA Today editorial are problems of the airlines' own
making. The delays that the FAA and the airlines are already
forecasting for this summer are largely due to the hub-and-spoke
system that the major airlines rely on. The hub-and-spoke system
creates unrealistic arrival and departure schedules at the major
hub airports. Summertime storms only compound the problem.

The USA Today editorial claims incorrectly that most GA flights
use air traffic control separation services. In fact, the vast
majority of GA flights are conducted under visual flight rules,
requiring only minimal contact with controllers and placing almost
no direct burden on the system.

"The air traffic control system is designed to serve the
airlines," wrote Boyer in USA Today. "Most small planes use few,
if any, of these services.

"The airlines pay a modest federal fuel tax of four cents a
gallon. Conversely, general aviation flights fund their use of the
system through a fuel tax five times what the airlines pay."


http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite.../04-1-140.html
... "Mr. Anderson's editorial contains numerous misleading or
seriously flawed statements about GA's financial contributions to
the national air transportation system," said Boyer. "It has
angered GA pilots and aviation enthusiasts. But AOPA has
deliberately withheld its rebuttal to the editorial, working
instead for constructive discussions with Northwest."

Since first learning of the editorial, AOPA has focused on setting
up a meeting between Boyer and Anderson in order to clear the air.
AOPA refrained from calling for a public letter-writing campaign
while efforts to set up the meeting were under way. Pilots and
aviation enthusiasts wrote anyway. They spontaneously began
besieging Northwest Airlines with letters and e-mails protesting
the tone and the misstatements in the editorial.

Anderson has now agreed to a meeting on April 2 to explain his
concerns.

"That's fine," replied Boyer, "I plan to discuss our concerns and
find some common ground in our respective views."

This all stems from a dispute between Northwest and the airport
authority at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP). The
Metropolitan Airport Commission also runs six reliever airports
that improve efficiency for Northwest at MSP by moving most GA
traffic elsewhere, and uses some of the funds collected at MSP for
improvements at the relievers.

"Mr. Anderson's attack on general aviation is unfair, unwarranted,
and, for the most part, untrue," said Boyer. "And by publishing
his attack in so public a forum, he has raised what should have
remained a regional skirmish into a nationwide battle. ...


Do you still believe the air carriers aren't anti-GA?

Perhaps the real problem in this airline v. GA argument stems from the
ambiguity of the term GA. Airlines see GA as Part 135 operations. But
the vast majority of GA operations are private reciprocating-engine
aircraft. The airlines continue to fail to differentiate Part 135
operations from Part 91 operations. Part 135 operations are a small
subset of GA operations, and the air carriers' failure to use the
correct terminology is causing them to meet significant resistance to
their proposals. Somebody needs to tell the Air Transport Association
to substitute 'air-taxi' for GA in their press releases and lobbying.


Take a look at airports for a minute. Airlines pay to lease gates,
landing fees, per pax handling fees, and in many metripolitan areas,
like LAX, a dispraportionate amount of the budget goes to fund
releiver or satalite airports that the airlines dont use.

The air carrier costs you mention seem equitable to me.

With regard to "reliever or satellite airports," what do you believe
they are designed to relieve? Has it occurred to you, that they are
necessary because of air carrier operations?

I am not a big fan of user fees but many if not most GA airports do
not make money,

That is poised to change. Metropolitan/GA airports are about to
become a much more vital part of our nation's air travel
infrastructure, just ask Cirrus co-founder, COB, and CEO Alan
Klapmeier. His company is the parent of air-taxi startup SATSair.*
They and DayJet are serving what amounts to a new air-travel market in
the SE. A vital part of serving that market are metropolitan
airports. The anticipated increased use of metropolitan airports
should provide additional revenue generation opportunities for airport
operators as well as local businesses in those cities.

also the sooner the better for things like Next Gen NAS and other tech
advances.

NextGen is predicated on satellite communications. That is a
potentially fatal flaw. In any event, GA doesn't need NextGen, and
shouldn't have to pay for it.

I think this will save way more $$$$ than it will cost in the short term.

Please provide the reasoning behind that statement. Have you any idea
of the cost to fund NextGen development, implementation, and
operation?

Now I'm a forward-thinking person who embraces new technology long
before (some might argue prematurely) the general public, and I see
NextGen, as I currently understand it from FAA information, to be a
boondoggle imposed on our government, and hyped by the airline
industry and their lobbyists.





*
http://www.aero-news.net/news/commbu...d2a4&Dynamic=1
Cirrus Acquires SATSair Air Taxi

Sat, 05 Nov '05
Greenville, SC Firm Operates SR-22s Under Part 135

One of the most innovative air charter operators of the new
century, SATSair Air Taxi of Greenville, SC, is going forward under a
new banner.

It's been acquired by one of the most innovative airframe
manufacturers of the new century, Cirrus Design Corporation. SATSAir
was a Cirrus customer beforehand, but now that it's reforming as a
Cirrus subsidiary, it will be adding an additional 100 Cirrus SR22s.

"SATSair" stands for Smart Air Travel Solutions Air, while at the
same time making a nod towards NASA's SATS -- Small Aircraft
Transportation System, the well-publicized research program into the
future of light aircraft transportation.

Cirrus President and CEO Alan Klapmeier said, "This acquisition
follows Cirrus philosophy to engage in pursuits that ultimately grow
the industry." Klapmeier has spoken passionately to us before about
the need to bring the benefits of general aviation to new markets and
new people -- people who aren't yet thinking of what GA can bring to
their lives. An example of his attitude is the evident pride that
Klapmeier takes in that subset of Cirrus customers who bought a Cirrus
and learned to fly in it, with no prior aviation experience.

"[W]e will focus on the continued expansion of the air taxi
operation and development of a personal transportation network -- to
include air-taxi service, leased aircraft and other areas in
development," Klapmeier said. The other areas, Klapmeier hinted, may
include expanding the SATSAir model with non-Cirrus aircraft, more
likely as a complement to than a replacement for the SR-22. ...




http://www.airportjournals.com/Displ...?varID=0701026
Alan founded Cirrus with his brother, Dale, company vice chairman.
After building a Glasair kit aircraft in the early 1980s, the brothers
built a kit aircraft of their own design, the VK-30, in their parents'
barn. In 1984, they formed their company. Today, the siblings
manufacture FAA-certified, composite, four-place, single-engine piston
and turbo-powered aircraft.

When Cirrus Design's first FAA-certified SR20 airplane appeared on
the scene in 1998, it was described as futuristic—a sleek-looking
design that had a parachute. No one knew what to make of the aircraft.
From the start, Cirrus had designed its aircraft around technology
that didn't yet exist within the general aviation industry. Behind the
scenes, for the most part, Cirrus funded the R&D for a glass cockpit,
working closely with avionics manufacturer Avidyne. In July 2002,
Cirrus announced its all-glass cockpit, which first became available
in its second model, the SR22. In 2003, the all-glass cockpit became
standard on all its airplanes.

The GA industry has largely adopted the Klapmeiers' all-glass
cockpit design, which captures buyers from around the world. Other
manufacturers today are starting to contemplate the idea of installing
life-saving parachute recovery systems.

TIME Magazine credited the Klapmeiers with "giving lift to the
small-plane industry with an easy-to-fly design." Forbes Magazine has
said Cirrus sells "meaning."

Today, as one of the world's largest manufacturers of aircraft in
its class, Cirrus is one of the great success stories of modern
aviation. What the company has been able to pull off since its first
aircraft delivery eight years ago is an incredible feat.

Before the SR20 became certified, few in the industry believed the
brothers could design, certify and produce technically advanced
aircraft. In fact, many scoffed at their ideas.

For their intense spirit of exploration and sheer devotion to
making the GA industry safer and a more interesting and thrilling
place for all of us, Airport Journals is proud to honor Alan and Dale
Klapmeier as our 2006 Michael A. Chowdry Aviation Entrepreneur of the
Year Award recipients. ...



http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage...1177126&page=2
...

On May 24, 3:12*pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
*I saw
in the articles you authored, a reasonable person, employed in the
airline industry, with the potential to bring a fresh point of view to
this argument. *I was hoping to be made more deeply aware of the air
carriers' point of view, so that I could better understand the basis
upon which it rests. *I'm still hopeful, but ...

Dont get your hopes up G. My main point was that the airlines would
like to see the operators who use the system help fund it. You can
take this as anti GA if you like .

Because I can go out to an uncontrolled field, and depart, fly to
another such airport, and never avail myself of _ANY_ ATC facilities,
I believe that if ATC (and/or the airlines) were to disappear
tomorrow, GA would do fine, and air carriers would be out of business.
Air carriers demand ATC, or they would be falling out of the sky like
hail in Arkansas; GA does not.

Are you kidding ? Every airport in the LA basin, including all but one
of the privately owned airports has benefited from federal funding. If
ATC were to vanish, how would anyone fly IFR without major delays ?
Considering the fact that modernizing NAS will result in less ATC your
last statement is kinda ironic .

The money to fund private aviation comes out of the owners' pockets,
or wasn't that the 'this' to which you were referring? *

Virtually all of GA is subsidized . This is what I was refering to.


* *http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite..._editorial.pdf
* * ... Private aircraft operators also do not pay ticket taxes to
* * fund the FAA. * Last year the FAA spent $6 billion operating the
* * Air Traffic Control system in the U.S. *This service is free of
* * charge for private aircraft operators. *Why? *Because the
* * commercial airlines pay taxes collected from you to pay for the
* * operation of a system that all air travelers use.

Now honestly Lar, what is it about RA's statement here that is
ditribe ? Are you going MX on me ?

* * Private aviation operators do pay fuel excise tax, as do all
* * commercial airlines--but that is about the extent of private
* * aviation's funding for airports. *At NWA, We believe an airport's
* * operating costs should be borne by all who use them, including
* * those who travel by private aircraft. *

Here again, you are supporting my side. This is something that Boyer
chooses to ignore. I dont think RA wants to mess with the guy who is
flying his Cub out of a rural airport under VFR. We can argue till the
cows come home but if you look at it from a per use standpoint, Biz Av
is getting a free ride in this country.

* *http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...04-2-025x.html
* * Apr. 15, 2004 — AOPA on Thursday defended general aviation against
* * a USA Today editorial that claims airline passengers "subsidize"
* * general aviation. In an opposing view piece published alongside
* * the paper's editorial, AOPA President Phil Boyer explained to USA
* * Today readers that the current system is a single structure,
* * designed for the airlines.

Phil is a bit off here. I guess he wants to ignore how much of the
system has been put in place to suport GA. Also, I wouldnt put much
stock in Useless Today.

* * "Our elected representatives in Congress wisely created a national
* * air transportation system," Boyer wrote. And just as trucks —
* * which place a greater strain on the national highway system — pay
* * higher taxes and fees than family cars, the airlines must carry a
* * greater portion of the financial burden for the nation's air
* * traffic control system.

This is a good point but it fails to address the main argument. This
is where Phil just makes himself look silly IMHO.

* * The USA Today editorial was prompted by and uses much of the same
* * rhetoric as an editorial that Northwest Airlines CEO Richard
* * Anderson wrote for his airline's in-flight magazine.

Blurring a serious distinction here.

* * The USA Today editorial claims incorrectly that most GA flights
* * use air traffic control separation services. In fact, the vast
* * majority of GA flights are conducted under visual flight rules,
* * requiring only minimal contact with controllers and placing almost
* * no direct burden on the system.

Doing it again.

* * "The air traffic control system is designed to serve the
* * airlines," wrote Boyer in USA Today. "Most small planes use few,
* * if any, of these services.

And some more.

* * "The airlines pay a modest federal fuel tax of four cents a
* * gallon. Conversely, general aviation flights fund their use of the
* * system through a fuel tax five times what the airlines pay."

Simply untrue.

* * This all stems from a dispute between Northwest and the airport
* * authority at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP). The
* * Metropolitan Airport Commission also runs six reliever airports
* * that improve efficiency for Northwest at MSP by moving most GA
* * traffic elsewhere, and uses some of the funds collected at MSP for
* * improvements at the relievers.

Exactly what I was pointing out with LAX.

* * "Mr. Anderson's attack on general aviation is unfair, unwarranted,
* * and, for the most part, untrue," said Boyer. "And by publishing
* * his attack in so public a forum, he has raised what should have
* * remained a regional skirmish into a nationwide battle. ...

Bla Bla Bla. The aviation trust fund is used nationwide. Biz Av
operates nationwide. What region is Boyer refering to ?



Perhaps the real problem in this airline v. GA argument stems from the
ambiguity of the term GA. *Airlines see GA as Part 135 operations. But
the vast majority of GA operations are private reciprocating-engine
aircraft. *The airlines continue to fail to differentiate Part 135
operations from Part 91 operations. *Part 135 operations are a small
subset of GA operations, and the air carriers' failure to use the
correct terminology is causing them to meet significant resistance to
their proposals. *Somebody needs to tell the Air Transport Association
to substitute 'air-taxi' for GA in their press releases and lobbying.

Totally baseless. You can operate a biz jet 91 right along with 135
operators and 121 operators into the same airports. What does this
have to do with carrying the ATC burden?


The air carrier costs you mention seem equitable to me.

Dont miss the point. These costs go to subsidize GA airports.


With regard to "reliever or satellite airports," what do you believe
they are designed to relieve? *Has it occurred to you, that they are
necessary because of air carrier operations?

Now there is an MX style argument. Would you like to pay the landing
fee at LAX ?


That is poised to change. *Metropolitan/GA airports are about to
become a much more vital part of our nation's air travel
infrastructure, just ask Cirrus co-founder, COB, and CEO Alan
Klapmeier. *His company is the parent of air-taxi startup SATSair.*
They and DayJet are serving what amounts to a new air-travel market in
the SE. *A vital part of serving that market are metropolitan
airports. *The anticipated increased use of metropolitan airports
should provide additional revenue generation opportunities for airport
operators as well as local businesses in those cities.

Have you seen how dayJet is doing ?


Please provide the reasoning behind that statement. *Have you any idea
of the cost to fund NextGen development, implementation, and
operation?
You are missing the point. If it works as advertized NEXGEN is
supposed to be safer and more efficent. It is too bad that with all
the other spending that is going on, the FAA has to compete for the $$
$ to get advances for aviation in this country.
Frank

F. Baum wrote:

My point exactly. GA would not exist if it werent for the airlines.


Why not?



Set aside the us against them mentality for a minute and think about
where the money to fund all of this comes from. Unfortunatly, the FAA
has to go to congress and fight for a budget every year. User fees
(Which originated within the Bush administration ) were just one
funding alternative . The airlines , contrary to AOPA and Avnet, are
not anti GA . I think they would like to see other users pay their
share.


What is GA's fair share?

F. Baum wrote:

WOW, thats some pretty one sided stuff. I get a chukle when you ask
posters (On other threads) to provide the results of their research to
support their opinoin. Why dont you provide some reseach for your
baseless assumptions ? Dont take any of this personally, but you kinda
remind me of Phil Boyer or Bower (Sorry, dont recall the name), over
at AOPA when he gave his testimony to congress that was fraught with
(baseless) assumptions and factual errors. In this posters opinion he
made GA look bad.


What did Boyer say that you believe was in error?