Instrument Procedures Handbook

Matt Barrow wrote:

wrote in message ...


Matt Barrow wrote:

wrote in message
...

And, you have a reactionary Air Traffic Service that is very, very
resistant to
any change, especially if they believe it will adversely affect
staffing
levels, pay, or working conditions. That comes ahead of any need to
serve
the
aviation community.

It's a government bureaucracy; what the hell did you expect?

Here! http://www.mises.org/etexts/mises/bureaucracy.asp

I think I expressed my expectations quite well. Did I indicate otherwise?

"...you have a reactionary Air Traffic Service that is..."

And I said..."It's a government bureaucracy; what the hell did you expect?"

Coulda been much more succinct.

I live with editors all the time.

"Colin W Kingsbury" wrote in message
ink.net...

What makes you think privatizing ATC will have any impact at all on this?
It's not like Flight Standards and the whole process of deciding what
constitutes "airworthy" is being changed. Besides, to the extent anything
does change, it will only become more dominated by the airlines, where all
the money resides.

Is retailing or any other business dominated by companies catering to the
big wheels?

This would be very efficient economically speaking.

On the contrary...

Needless to say, our interests and theirs could not be less aligned if we
tried.

They are quite well aligned...but the ATC systems has been politicized.


Think of what motives a market based profit seeking enterprise and
contrast
that with what motivates a bureaucracy/bureaucrat.


Should the government put ATC out for bid, let's be honest here. At best
you'll have Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and one or two dark horses bidding on
it. Behind the scenes, in Boeing's bid 35% of the services will de
delivered
by Lockmar, and in Lockmar's bid, 35% of the services will be delivered by
Boeing, and so on.

And if they can't hack it, they'll fail and someone else will take it over.

Look at most of the really big defense contracts and you
see this sort of thing.

Totally different scenario entailing highly specialized products. Almost 180
degreess reversed.

I'm all for free markets. This is a free market like
a twinkie is a vegetable.

Then your understanding of free markets is evidently very limited to text
book scenarios.


..

wrote in message ...


Matt Barrow wrote:

wrote in message
...


Matt Barrow wrote:

wrote in message
...

And, you have a reactionary Air Traffic Service that is very, very
resistant to
any change, especially if they believe it will adversely affect
staffing
levels, pay, or working conditions. That comes ahead of any need
to
serve
the
aviation community.

It's a government bureaucracy; what the hell did you expect?

Here! http://www.mises.org/etexts/mises/bureaucracy.asp

I think I expressed my expectations quite well. Did I indicate
otherwise?

"...you have a reactionary Air Traffic Service that is..."

And I said..."It's a government bureaucracy; what the hell did you
expect?"

Coulda been much more succinct.

I live with editors all the time.

Like Dan Rather does, huh?

Matt Barrow wrote:

I live with editors all the time.

Like Dan Rather does, huh?

I don't believe editors were Rather's undoing.

Y'All,
Glad no one read my three week effort that I tried to put up on my
web site. For reason known only to the internet GODS, noe of my links work.

Considering your attitudes as expressed it is just as well. Fixing it by
tomorrow night. Other wise just send me an email with your snail mail
address and I will send you a CD
Gene Whitt

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Colin W Kingsbury" wrote in message
ink.net...

What makes you think privatizing ATC will have any impact at all on
this?
It's not like Flight Standards and the whole process of deciding what
constitutes "airworthy" is being changed. Besides, to the extent
anything
does change, it will only become more dominated by the airlines, where
all
the money resides.

Is retailing or any other business dominated by companies catering to the
big wheels?

Markets evolve in the direction of whichever segment can provide the most
revenue. In retail, that's the high-volume, low-margin Wal-Mart approach. In
aviation, the money and volume are with the airlines. When the big decisions
get made, AOPA and EAA will be in the room, but they'll be sitting at the
kids' table.

This would be very efficient economically speaking.

On the contrary...

Needless to say, our interests and theirs could not be less aligned if
we
tried.

They are quite well aligned...but the ATC systems has been politicized.

You're kidding me, right? GA is nothing but competition for the airlines:
competition for passengers, competition for airspace, competition for pork.
IIRC a lot of the big airlines were lobbying against WAAS because they
wanted all the money to go into LAAS first, which would have been of much
lower value to GA.

I'm all for free markets. This is a free market like
a twinkie is a vegetable.

Then your understanding of free markets is evidently very limited to text
book scenarios.

And yours is perhaps limited by not reading enough of them. "The free
market" is something of a chimera in reality- most markets have shortcomings
that cause them to act in less-than-ideal ways. Different industries have
different behaviors as well. For instance, while US Gypsum dominates the
market for plasterboard, ready-mix concrete is still provided by mostly
small local firms, because there's no way to achieve useful economies of
scale in a product that has to be manufactured locally. Economics isn't
women's studies--there's much more validation of theory against what happens
in the real world. In any case, I've had the opportunity to apply what I
learned quite widely since I graduated and moved off into the real world,
including starting and running my own company. In that time I've often seen
in practice what I read about all those years ago in my textbooks in between
gulps of beer.

Best,
-cwk.

"Colin W Kingsbury" wrote in message
nk.net...


Markets evolve in the direction of whichever segment can provide the most
revenue.

Nope, they "evolve" in the direction that can provide the best profitability
and return on investment .

In retail, that's the high-volume, low-margin Wal-Mart approach.

Only if one can be dominant in the market.

In
aviation, the money and volume are with the airlines.

What percentage of flights under ATC are airlines vs. GA?

When the big decisions
get made, AOPA and EAA will be in the room, but they'll be sitting at the
kids' table.

Your still thinking of the bureaucratic mindset. Have you ever run even a
small company? Your take on markets and commerce seem right our of
Hollyweird and academia.


This would be very efficient economically speaking.

On the contrary...

Needless to say, our interests and theirs could not be less aligned if
we
tried.

They are quite well aligned...but the ATC systems has been politicized.

You're kidding me, right? GA is nothing but competition for the airlines:

Well DUH! Who allocates slots and an WHAT BASIS?

competition for passengers, competition for airspace, competition for
pork.
IIRC a lot of the big airlines were lobbying against WAAS because they

Funny you should use that term "lobbying", huh?

wanted all the money to go into LAAS first, which would have been of much
lower value to GA.

I'm all for free markets. This is a free market like
a twinkie is a vegetable.

Then your understanding of free markets is evidently very limited to
text
book scenarios.

And yours is perhaps limited by not reading enough of them. "The free
market" is something of a chimera in reality- most markets have
shortcomings
that cause them to act in less-than-ideal ways. Different industries have
different behaviors as well. For instance, while US Gypsum dominates the
market for plasterboard, ready-mix concrete is still provided by mostly
small local firms, because there's no way to achieve useful economies of
scale in a product that has to be manufactured locally. Economics isn't
women's studies--there's much more validation of theory against what
happens
in the real world. In any case, I've had the opportunity to apply what I
learned quite widely since I graduated and moved off into the real world,
including starting and running my own company. In that time I've often
seen
in practice what I read about all those years ago in my textbooks in
between
gulps of beer.

Yeah, sure! Like I said above...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Colin W Kingsbury" wrote in message
nk.net...


When the big decisions
get made, AOPA and EAA will be in the room, but they'll be sitting at
the
kids' table.

Your still thinking of the bureaucratic mindset. Have you ever run even a
small company? Your take on markets and commerce seem right our of
Hollyweird and academia.

I'm currently running one now and was previously director of prof. services
at a company and oversaw many contracts for both the federal government and
many of the larger vendors including Lockheed, UTC, and GE to name a few.

You want Hollyweird? Google the name "Darleen Druyun" and see what comes up.
She was a procurement officer for the USAF for many years. Then she retired
from public service and headed off to Boeing.

Here's Boeing's press release when they hired her:
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...r_030103m.html

Of course, this little employment negotiation was going on while Boeing was
trying to close an 18 billion dollar air tanker contract that Druyun was in
charge of. Gambling, at Rick's Cafe? I'm shocked!

Here's a good story about how this resulted in her getting a 16-month
federal prison sentence
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in664652.shtml

Actually, this woman was more unlucky than anything else. This kind of thing
happens all the time, she just got pinched because the tanker deal was so
rotten in the first place and it drew a lot of attention. Actually, that
tanker deal is also a great study in how government and private industry can
work together and result in public pickpocketing every bit as bad as any
government program.

IIRC a lot of the big airlines were lobbying against WAAS because they

Funny you should use that term "lobbying", huh?

Well, if the feds auctioned the airspace system off to Lockheed, then AOPA,
NBAA, and ATA would all lobby Lockheed to influence their modernization
plans. It's not like there's going to be competition between the company
running the airspace in the Northeast and the other running it out West to
see who can

including starting and running my own company. In that time I've often
seen
in practice what I read about all those years ago in my textbooks in
between
gulps of beer.

Yeah, sure! Like I said above...


You're the one who seems obsessed about credentials. My arguments are
written clearly in plain English for everyone to see. Hey, I've always liked
Bill Buckley's line about how he'd rather be governed by the first two
thousand names in the Cambridge phonebook than by the faculty of Harvard,
all the more so because I live across the river from the place. Hey, I voted
for W., twice to be precise, and am all for privatizing social security.
Hell, I'd vote to eliminate the departments of commerce, education, and HUD
effective Tuesday morning if I could. So if you want to write me off as some
kind of left-coast liberal sociology professor type, feel free, but you
couldn't be farther from the truth.

Best,
-cwk.

This "new" textbook can be downloaded from
http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/IPH.htm


"Gene Whitt" wrote in message
nk.net...
Last year the FAA sent me a copy of a new IFR textbook. The
construction of the book was such that while reading and underlining
over one-third of the pages came loose. I found many editing mistakes,
conflicting explanations and such a mixture of alphabetic
acronyms that I was constantly making reference to the glossary.

The book of some 200+ pages was obviously written by several authors of
widely different backgrounds and experience. The book is "...designed as
a technical reference for professional pilots...". As such it leaves
clarity behind. The creation of 'new' terminology for old teminology
seems to be a primary purpose of the publication.