If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Instrument Procedures Handbook
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. On my web site I have extruded as much sense as I could from the writings and put it chapter by chapter on my web site in about 1/5 the verbage. www.whittsflying.com The pages on my site by chapters a Page 7.311 Chapter 1---IFR Operations in the National Aairspace System. Page 7.312 Chapter 2--Takeoffs and Departures Page 7.313 Chapter 3---Enroute Operations Page 7.314 Chapter 4---Arrivals Page 7.315 Chapter 5---Approaches Page 7.316 Chapter 6---System Improvement Plans I feel very critical toward the ability of the FAA's ability to make the massive changes in the National Airspace System needed. The book seems dedicated to retain all of the old while overlaying it with the new. The old do not have the knowledge or skills to appreciate the eliminations required to make the new work as it should. Read and weep.... Gene Whitt |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Gene Whitt wrote: 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. On my web site I have extruded as much sense as I could from the writings and put it chapter by chapter on my web site in about 1/5 the verbage. www.whittsflying.com The pages on my site by chapters a Page 7.311 Chapter 1---IFR Operations in the National Aairspace System. Page 7.312 Chapter 2--Takeoffs and Departures Page 7.313 Chapter 3---Enroute Operations Page 7.314 Chapter 4---Arrivals Page 7.315 Chapter 5---Approaches Page 7.316 Chapter 6---System Improvement Plans I feel very critical toward the ability of the FAA's ability to make the massive changes in the National Airspace System needed. The book seems dedicated to retain all of the old while overlaying it with the new. The old do not have the knowledge or skills to appreciate the eliminations required to make the new work as it should. Read and weep.... 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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message ... 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 A more interesting question might be, "what is in our (light GA's) interests?" I'm generally of the Hayekian school on things but I have no reason to believe that privatizing ATC services would be beneficial to us. Specifically, while user fees might come of their own accord, they are IMHO a certainty if we have Boeing or LockMar running the show. Given that it probably costs about as much to handle a C-172 on an IFR flight plan as it does to handle a G-V, I don't see any reason to expect this to work out in our favor. Flying VFR? Don't worry, filing a flight plan may someday become necessary (as it is in Canada), perhaps "for security purposes." Oh yeah, and to pay to file the flight plan. Pure coincidence. Nothing to see here, move along... The way I figure it, pilots as a group are probably in the high end of the income distribution, so the nickels and dimes we mooch off the federal ATC system are more than made up for by the quarters and dollars we contribute to everything else they shouldn't be doing. Also, so long as ATC is a 100% government entity, it is easier to pressure it to make decisions politically, which is to say un-economically. Personally I think this works out in our favor more often than not. I don't doubt that privatized ATC could in time become more economically efficient, though the benefits are probably overstated by many. But I do wonder whether the airspace that results from this would be more or less accessible to us. I think all of us can agree that the skies belong to all of us and should be kept as open as possible. Most of the time, freedom and economic efficiency overlap. But when they don't, I will favor freedom. -cwk. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Colin W Kingsbury" wrote in message nk.net... "Matt Barrow" wrote in message ... 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 A more interesting question might be, "what is in our (light GA's) interests?" I'm generally of the Hayekian school on things but I have no reason to believe that privatizing ATC services would be beneficial to us. Then keep the bureaucracy and quit bitchin' when it behaves like, well, like a bureaucracy. Specifically, while user fees might come of their own accord, they are IMHO a certainty if we have Boeing or LockMar running the show. Given that it probably costs about as much to handle a C-172 on an IFR flight plan as it does to handle a G-V, I don't see any reason to expect this to work out in our favor. Flying VFR? Don't worry, filing a flight plan may someday become necessary (as it is in Canada), perhaps "for security purposes." Oh yeah, and to pay to file the flight plan. Pure coincidence. Nothing to see here, move along... The way I figure it, pilots as a group are probably in the high end of the income distribution, so the nickels and dimes we mooch off the federal ATC system are more than made up for by the quarters and dollars we contribute to everything else they shouldn't be doing. Also, so long as ATC is a 100% government entity, it is easier to pressure it to make decisions politically, which is to say un-economically. It's easier to pressure then to behave in the default fashion? Wowza!!! Personally I think this works out in our favor more often than not. Except when we expect them to adapt or change...oh, every 20 or 30 years. I don't doubt that privatized ATC could in time become more economically efficient, though the benefits are probably overstated by many. But I do wonder whether the airspace that results from this would be more or less accessible to us. Think how well Wal-Mart is doing compared to someone like Macy's. Or how well the early Ford company did compared to all their competitors. I think all of us can agree that the skies belong to all of us and should be kept as open as possible. Most of the time, freedom and economic efficiency overlap. But when they don't, I will favor freedom. They always do. Even when it doesn't there's a big contextual gap (WW2). |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message ... Also, so long as ATC is a 100% government entity, it is easier to pressure it to make decisions politically, which is to say un-economically. It's easier to pressure then to behave in the default fashion? Wowza!!! Personally I think this works out in our favor more often than not. Except when we expect them to adapt or change...oh, every 20 or 30 years. What specific types of change are we talking about here? OK, I think it's a little nutty that getting a GPS certified for IFR use costs as much as it does, when one can slap an ADF in that does hardly more than give you the baseball scores and have it be approach legal. But in the grand scheme of things this is small beer. I don't doubt that privatized ATC could in time become more economically efficient, though the benefits are probably overstated by many. But I do wonder whether the airspace that results from this would be more or less accessible to us. Think how well Wal-Mart is doing compared to someone like Macy's. Or how well the early Ford company did compared to all their competitors. Those are red herrings- mass market retail is quite a different market. Here's a more intereting example: Perhaps you've heard of the "fire your worst customers" trend (if not just google it for background) The basic idea is, that in many cases 20% of your customers account for 80% of your cost of service but only 10-20% of your revenue. A number of large retail stores have started implementing policies designed to reduce their appeal to these customers. Personally, I think there's good reason to believe that as far as ATC is concerned, piston GA is its "worst customer." Like I said, it costs roughly as much to push a 172 through the system as it does a Gulfstream, but the Gulfstream sure buys a lot more fuel (and thus contributes more tax). Perhaps the 172 does ultimately pay its share, but it's sure a lot lower margin. I think all of us can agree that the skies belong to all of us and should be kept as open as possible. Most of the time, freedom and economic efficiency overlap. But when they don't, I will favor freedom. They always do. Even when it doesn't there's a big contextual gap (WW2). Perhaps you'd care to give a little more detail? "More economically efficient" encompasses the whole market, in other words, better ATC services could simply make things more efficient for the airlines. Better routing, fewer delays, less fuel burned, lower ticket prices, more people getting on 737s to visit grandma. There's a lot of potential economic benefit in there. None of it has anything to do with *our* freedom of access. If push comes to shove, they will win. -cwk. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Colin W Kingsbury" wrote in message news "Matt Barrow" wrote in message ... Also, so long as ATC is a 100% government entity, it is easier to pressure it to make decisions politically, which is to say un-economically. It's easier to pressure then to behave in the default fashion? Wowza!!! Personally I think this works out in our favor more often than not. Except when we expect them to adapt or change...oh, every 20 or 30 years. What specific types of change are we talking about here? OK, I think it's a little nutty that getting a GPS certified for IFR use costs as much as it does, when one can slap an ADF in that does hardly more than give you the baseball scores and have it be approach legal. But in the grand scheme of things this is small beer. I think you just made my point quite nicely. Think of what motives a market based profit seeking enterprise and contrast that with what motivates a bureaucracy/bureaucrat. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message ... "Colin W Kingsbury" wrote in message news "Matt Barrow" wrote in message ... Personally I think this works out in our favor more often than not. Except when we expect them to adapt or change...oh, every 20 or 30 years. What specific types of change are we talking about here? OK, I think it's little nutty that getting a GPS certified for IFR use costs as much as it does, when one can slap an ADF in that does hardly more than give you the baseball scores and have it be approach legal. But in the grand scheme of things this is small beer. I think you just made my point quite nicely. 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. This would be very efficient economically speaking. Needless to say, our interests and theirs could not be less aligned if we tried. 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. Look at most of the really big defense contracts and you see this sort of thing. I'm all for free markets. This is a free market like a twinkie is a vegetable. -cwk. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2004 Instrument Procedures Handbook | Gene Whitt | Instrument Flight Rules | 4 | August 23rd 04 10:23 PM |
FAA's Instrument Procedures Handbook | Barry | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | June 5th 04 07:31 PM |
Logging approaches | Ron Garrison | Instrument Flight Rules | 109 | March 2nd 04 05:54 PM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
PC flight simulators | Bjørnar Bolsøy | Military Aviation | 178 | December 14th 03 12:14 PM |