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 |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote in message ink.net... "Ron Natalie" wrote in message . .. "Chip Jones" wrote in message k.net... Or "VHF" towers, or "VHS" towers...all of which came up in aviation media reports about the hearings and debates. Or the slightly less popular beta towers. LOL. If only that damn union would get out of the way, we could outsource for some 8-track capability. I favor privatization for just that reason, but these "experts" didn't even bother to develop a model of the system they want to modify immediately. Boeing spent a fortune developing a model to implement DCAC and take advantage of manufacturing automation, but there was still a nose wheel collapse on the the first DCAC 747-4xx. |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
|
#143
|
|||
|
|||
Newps wrote: wrote: Assuming it's an IFR airport. If not, then the airspace has not been evaluated for takeoff minimums and 40:1 surfaces. So are you saying that Center is giving you headings to fly just like a tower would? I have never seen this. That's never happened to me. But, my experience with center clearances at non-tower airport has been limited to mountainous area airports. They simply clear me via airways and say report over XYZ VOR or ACMEE intersection/waypoint. It's up to me to know I should fly the OPD. I've never had a problem with that but folks like the USAF crew at KJAC did. Having said all that, I've read here and on other aviation forums of pilots getting heading assignments out of non-tower airports in the flatlands. Isn't there some provision in the 7110.65 that permits that "open entering controlled airspace..." or something to that effect? |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... [snipped] LOL. If only that damn union would get out of the way, we could outsource for some 8-track capability. I favor privatization for just that reason, but these "experts" didn't even bother to develop a model of the system they want to modify immediately. You favor privatization of the public National Airspace System simply so that you can bust up a tiny labor union? You must be a Republican. That's the best reason they could come up with to justify ATC privatization too, since the facts don't lend themselves to any higher motive. Who cares about a system model for what comes next? American government works best when we run it like a business, just like Enron, MCI, or any major airline (say Eastern, Pan Am, TWA etc). Thanks to the political lobbying efforts of persons such as the Federal Aviation Administrator herself, we have defeated the evil force of collective bargaining for employees. Now we can rest assured that any Republican-owned private business monopoly winning the low bid on American ATC can turn a profit, and profit is what business is all about. Chip, ZTL |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote:
Who cares about a system model for what comes next? American government works best when we run it like a business, just like Enron, MCI, or any major airline (say Eastern, Pan Am, TWA etc). And management better watch out if the stockholders get too ****ed off. The last time the stockholders got really ****ed, King George got a black eye. Might happen again some day :-) |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
|
#147
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote:
Who cares about a system model for what comes next? American government works best when we run it like a business, Sounds nice, but it's a myth. One can't run a government like a business because the rules are the inverse of one another (bureaucracy vs. flexibility of decision making). just like Enron, MCI, or any major airline (say Eastern, Pan Am, TWA etc). And those companies tired to run the business like a government. |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote in message link.net... "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... [snipped] LOL. If only that damn union would get out of the way, we could outsource for some 8-track capability. I favor privatization for just that reason, but these "experts" didn't even bother to develop a model of the system they want to modify immediately. You favor privatization of the public National Airspace System simply so that you can bust up a tiny labor union? I want automation that the Federal system has been incapable of delivering. You must be a Republican. The reform of FAA, such that retrofits cease to kill was a Republican initiative. It is only a few hundred lives a year, but eliminating them put ATC in the cat bird seat. That's the best reason they could come up with to justify ATC privatization too, since the facts don't lend themselves to any higher motive. ATC becomming the number two killer in common carrier events after terrorism helps move the issue forward. Who cares about a system model for what comes next? American government works best when we run it like a business, just like Enron, MCI, or any major airline (say Eastern, Pan Am, TWA etc). Thanks to the political lobbying efforts of persons such as the Federal Aviation Administrator herself, we have defeated the evil force of collective bargaining for employees. All aviation is politics. Now we can rest assured that any Republican-owned private business monopoly winning the low bid on American ATC can turn a profit, and profit is what business is all about. Many profit from FAA. |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Rosenfeld wrote: On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:02:30 -0800, wrote: If you fly an ODP, you will have terrain separation. It doesn't matter what field you are departing from. On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:02:30 -0800, wrote: Assuming it's an IFR airport. If not, then the airspace has not been evaluated for takeoff minimums and 40:1 surfaces. Nor would there be an ODP to fly! True enough. But, Murphey's Law being what it is, some might conclude that the lack of an ODP at a VFR airport means diverse departures are approved. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GPS approaches with Center | Dan Luke | Instrument Flight Rules | 104 | October 22nd 03 09:42 PM |
IFR Routing Toronto to Windsor (CYTZ - CYQG) | Rob Pesan | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | October 7th 03 01:50 PM |
required readback on clearance | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 15 | September 17th 03 04:33 PM |
Picking up a Clearance Airborne | Brad Z | Instrument Flight Rules | 30 | August 29th 03 01:31 AM |
Big John Bites Dicks (Security Clearance) | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 27 | August 21st 03 12:40 AM |