More proof the FemiNazi's are taking over Washinton

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Hansen ]
Posted At: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 4:07 PM
Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
Conversation: More proof the FemiNazi's are taking over Washinton
Subject: More proof the FemiNazi's are taking over Washinton

On 09/06/06 13:51, Newps wrote:

....

I'm not assuming anything of the sort. What I assumed what that the
tail
number was part of the flight crew's paperwork and that they looked at
that.

Actually, all they usually have to look at is the nose gear door. The
a/c number is usually marked in conspicuous places.

-----Original Message-----
From: Newps ]
Posted At: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 1:52 PM
Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
Conversation: More proof the FemiNazi's are taking over Washinton
Subject: More proof the FemiNazi's are taking over Washinton

....

It was not the Air Traffic managers responsibility. That is another
department completely and not under his control. If overtime were
required it wouldn't come out of his budget. Somebody got their facts
wrong on that.

And Jim wrote (tongue in cheek): Really? Are you sure that Fox News
would get something wrong? Certainly A1A wouldn't skew the facts to make
them fit his version of reality, would he?

The FAA said that they chose to operate with just one controller vs.
closing the tower. I'm sure it would have been much safer with the
tower closed vs. one guy in the tower.

-Robert

Robert Chambers wrote:
Was the local controller taxiing and performing the takeoff via remote
control from the cab? No I didn't think so.

And if this was a non-towered field or the tower was closed, who would
you blame then? the Mayor? The guy that owned the property beyond the
runway that the jet crashed into?

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..


Jim Carter wrote:

The aircrew wasn't having a good day to start with: they started
pre-flighting the wrong aircraft and the maintenance crew had to point
them to the one they were to fly.

When there are two identical aircraft sitting on the ramp next to each
other how do you know which one your supposed to take?

Nose art?

Mark Hansen wrote:

On 09/06/06 12:11, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...

Don't they still have tail numbers?


Certainly. Are flight crews assigned by flight number or by tail number?




I assumed their paperwork would include the tail number. After all, how
else would they know which airplane to take ;-)

Most, if not all, air carrier aircraft have a company aircraft number,
in addition to the FAA N number. They are usually similar, but not the
same. Often, the company number is painted on both sides of the nose,
as well as on a plaque inside the cockpit.~

The dispatch release has to contain the aicraft's number.

To preflight the wrong aircraft you have to have your head up your butt.

Robert M. Gary wrote:

The FAA said that they chose to operate with just one controller vs.
closing the tower. I'm sure it would have been much safer with the
tower closed vs. one guy in the tower.

It *might* have been safer if the commuter air carrier industry paid as
well as FAA pays controllers. Most commuter co-pilots qualify for food
stamps.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in news:%
t:


"A1A" wrote in message
news

Those who say the FAA is not at fault at LEX are idiots


I say the FAA is not at fault at LEX. Explain why I'm an idiot.

Because you continue to feed this troll, even after it has clearly stopped
being fun.

Sam Spade wrote:

It *might* have been safer if the commuter air carrier industry paid as
well as FAA pays controllers. Most commuter co-pilots qualify for food
stamps.

You're saying more qualified first officers (you said co-pilot, not
sure what that term means but I'm guessing you meant "first officer")
are working in non-aviation careers because of the pay? That is totally
in contrast to what I see. Young commuter first officers are trying to
build up hours to move up, the guys with more hours are going after the
bigger jobs.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:


It *might* have been safer if the commuter air carrier industry paid as
well as FAA pays controllers. Most commuter co-pilots qualify for food
stamps.


You're saying more qualified first officers (you said co-pilot, not
sure what that term means but I'm guessing you meant "first officer")
are working in non-aviation careers because of the pay? That is totally
in contrast to what I see. Young commuter first officers are trying to
build up hours to move up, the guys with more hours are going after the
bigger jobs.

-Robert

First officer and co-pilot are interchangable terms.

Your observation of the commuter industry is valid some of the time, but
often it is not. Have you read the transcript of the CJ that crashed in
Missouri when it had the dual flame-out on a ferry flight? It sounded
like Beavis and Butthead.

Sam Spade wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:
First officer and co-pilot are interchangable terms.

Really, can you find any professional references to the term
"co-pilot"? The only place I've heard the term "co-pilot" is in places
like USA Today. I've never heard the term used by anyone in the airline
or aviation industry before.

-Robert