12 dead this weekend from GA crashes

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...


What would be wrong with mandating better security at GA airports?

For what purpose?

Last weekend three radios were stolen out of planes at my field. Best
estimate for a fence to completely surround the 2000 foot runway is $ 1/2
million. I can't see spending $1/2 million to safeguard $6000 worth of
radios.

I know of no realistic security threats posed by GA aircraft. The kid in
Florida proved that a Cessna can do just as much damage to a skyscraper as a
baseball. He broke the windows.

What would be wrong with enforcing noise abatement?

Flew out of Duchess County airport last week. A sign on the taxiway said to
obey noise abatement procedures. Problem is the noise abatement procedures
aren't published.

What would be wrong with charging people for the services they use?

Flip side of the coin. I pay $0.19 per gallon federal tax, yet my airport
received NO federal funding.

BTW, I am breaking the news on the FAA budget ahead of the AOPA (see "Bush
Budget"). Just trust me, I know about these things..

What... you think nobody knows about the FAA's alleged funding crisis?
The OMB says there's no problem and that they're fully funded, but the
FAA says the system is broke and we're almost outta money. Who to
believe? The feds have been careful not to use the term "user fees"
rather "fee-for-service" (you say tomato, I say tomahto)

by Orval Fairbairn o_r_fairbairn@[EMAIL PROTECTED] Feb 7, 2006 at 07:48
PM

Yes -- that is tragic. Problem is -- "Skylune", you have a rep for
waving red flags at bulls who are tired of harassment; so, guess who
gets the flak (and the horns)?

I'm not much of a bull fighting fan, but usually in the end, the bull gets
the sword from the guy in the funny outfit. If there's any risk to the
matador, they have the clowns for distraction purposes. GA's version of
the clowns:

http://www.airportbusiness.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=2282

by " Feb 7, 2006 at 01:12 PM

What... you think nobody knows about the FAA's alleged funding crisis?
The OMB says there's no problem and that they're fully funded, but the
FAA says the system is broke and we're almost outta money. Who to
believe? The feds have been careful not to use the term "user fees"
rather "fee-for-service" (you say tomato, I say tomahto)

King: You gotta be careful when you believe the AOPA stuff -- very very
slanted. OMB has NOT said there is no funding shortfall. NEVER. Not
once. Show me a single quote directly from OMB (not as "interpreted" by
AOPA spinners) that makes that claim.

AOPA is typically slippery on this point. They only talk about trust
fund
revenue forecasts, which show increased levels of available funds. This
is
what AOPA seizes upon, and then, as diningenously as usual, claims this
proves there is no shortfall. This is, how shall we say, bull****. The
FAA has been very clear that the so-called crisis is due to commitments
which greatly exceed projected growth in the trust fund.

Your question, "Who to believe?" is pretty easy. Listen only to me.

"Flyingmonk" wrote\

Hmmmmmm. Wonder why uphill skiiing never caught on. Enquiry minds
want to know. :^)
\
Oh, but it has. People that enjoy downhill skiing so much, the do it one
time, for every downhill trip.

It is called the chairlift, or at the larger places, the cable car or
helicopter! g
--
Jim in NC

Ron Lee wrote:

This should provide hours of reading:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/month.asp

I suspect your suggestion is not really sincere. In response, here is
another useless suggestion: If you don't like the accident posts, use your
newsreader's "Ignore Thread" feature. Or better still, create a filter to
do it for you.

In any event, while I will periodically scan the NTSB reports, I prefer the
analysis-style articles found in /NTSB Reporter/ and /Aviation Safety/.


--
Peter

Flyingmonk wrote:

Hmmmmmm. Wonder why uphill skiiing never caught on. Enquiry minds
want to know. :^)

Cross country skiing and telemarking, although since they both require much
more physical exertion, you are correct that they are not nearly as popular
as their downhill relative.

--
Peter

Rolf Blom G (AS/EAB) wrote:
On 2006-02-07 15:02, darthpup wrote:

Can any vehicle really be made idiot proof?


Yes, but then nature will evolve a dumber idiot, to match.

I know you were being tongue-in-cheek, but this reminded me of a news
report I saw several years ago regarding airbags in cars. A study
had shown that people were driving MORE recklessly, due to more and
more new cars being equipped with airbags. A safety expert said
something to the effect of, "people take more chances when they know
that if they crash, a big pillow will pop out of their steering wheel.
If you want people to slow down, then instead of an airbag, they should
put a big metal spike in the steering wheel."

He was joking, but I found an ironic grain of truth in his comment.

Kevin.

"Peter R." wrote:

Ron Lee wrote:

This should provide hours of reading:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/month.asp

I suspect your suggestion is not really sincere. In response, here is
another useless suggestion: If you don't like the accident posts, use your
newsreader's "Ignore Thread" feature. Or better still, create a filter to
do it for you.

In any event, while I will periodically scan the NTSB reports, I prefer the
analysis-style articles found in /NTSB Reporter/ and /Aviation Safety/.


--
Peter

And you are able to judge sincerity how?

Ron Lee

Ron Lee wrote:

And you are able to judge sincerity how?

Did you honestly think you were enlightening me with your suggestion and
that I had never heard of the accident report database before?

--
Peter