Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - N>Y. Cirruss Accident question

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

N>Y. Cirruss Accident question

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

bertrv6(at)highstream.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:42 am Post subject: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question

Hi:



No to add more on this, but would like to hear other comments, as to

why  two people make such mistake...Pilot error...



A lot of the comments are that the plane is too fast, what a riduculous

statement....so we have to fly only Piper J cubs?/



Many years ago, I flue, on my cherokee  140, the same route, over

the river, and back to my Maryland base...I was a new pilot, with maybe

80 hours after getting my license.....I was no problem... of course

we did not have all the stupid rules etc. as of today...



All this about low time pilot, what is that means...he has to spent 200

hours on his home air port doing touch and go...?You get experience by

flying cross country trips...what about when we have to do our first

solo cross country....( I had to do 2 long ones,  as a matter of fact

one was to Newakr N>Y> back to Baltimore..and I did not have my license

yet....people I understand by pilots making such commnents...



But I digress,, why they didn't turn right or request climb..



Cirrus can fly very well at 100 MPH no?



It is a shames this things happen....but if the Big boys  make mistakes...

with same consequences..



just my thoughts.



Bert



rv6a

do not archive

Bob Collins

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 470
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:17 am Post subject: Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question

 	  bertrv6(at)highstream.net wrote: 	
		  Hi:



A lot of the comments are that the plane is too fast, what a riduculous

statement....so we have to fly only Piper J cubs?/

	


First, I never said we should only fly Piper J Cubs so that's a non starter that you've thrown in there for reasons I don't know and don't really care about since it has nothing to do with the issue.



But let me give you my reasoning why I brought up the speed issue.



First, I was bringing it up *for me.*  As a low-time pilot, I'm aware of the pace at which things occur even at low speed. I'm aware of Rod Machado's old axiom that the two most important things about flying an airplane are the next two you have to do.



A plane travelling faster, it seems to me has those two things happening closer together.



And I said *I*  have gotten behind a slower plane and it is logical to me that if I got behind a slower machine, there's a greater risk -- although I can't tell you how much greater -- of falling behind a faster machine.



I don't think that's ridiculous. In fact I know it's not ridiculous *to me.*



I think it's the sort of thing that leads a smart pilot to recognize his limitations (or her limitations) and get the appropriate amount of training.



Saying one needs the appropriate amount of training to fly a high perforance airplane is not the same as saying one *can't*  or even *shouldn't* fly a high performance airplane.  Although it wouldn't surprise me a bit if a few folks don't see the difference .



Be aware that when I post a message with a perspective, it's only *my* perspective. It doesn't have to be anyone else's.



Last point: My kid, who got his driver's license last year, recently bought a motorcycle.  I found out the other day he was zipping down the road at 85.  The fact that the machine will go 85 and provide absolutely no protection isn't an indictment of the machine. The fact some bonehead will go 85 down the road with no protection -- and break the law in the process --  speaks volumes about the bonehead doing so.

_________________
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/

Larry Bowen

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 802
Location: NC, USA

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:16 pm Post subject: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question

I think the wx was intermittently quite low at the time of the accident. 

VFR flight into IMC is my initial thought...



-- 

Larry Bowen

Larry(at)BowenAero.com

http://BowenAero.com



bertrv6(at)highstream.net wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 Hi:



 No to add more on this, but would like to hear other comments, as to

 why  two people make such mistake...Pilot error...



 A lot of the comments are that the plane is too fast, what a riduculous

 statement....so we have to fly only Piper J cubs?/



 Many years ago, I flue, on my cherokee  140, the same route, over

 the river, and back to my Maryland base...I was a new pilot, with maybe

 80 hours after getting my license.....I was no problem... of course

 we did not have all the stupid rules etc. as of today...



 All this about low time pilot, what is that means...he has to spent 200

 hours on his home air port doing touch and go...?You get experience by

 flying cross country trips...what about when we have to do our first

 solo cross country....( I had to do 2 long ones,  as a matter of fact

 one was to Newakr N>Y> back to Baltimore..and I did not have my license

 yet....people I understand by pilots making such commnents...



 But I digress,, why they didn't turn right or request climb..



 Cirrus can fly very well at 100 MPH no?



 It is a shames this things happen....but if the Big boys  make mistakes...

 with same consequences..



 just my thoughts.



 Bert



 rv6a

 do not archive

_________________
Larry Bowen
RV-8 SOLD,
RV-7QB in progress...

Bruce(at)glasair.org
Guest

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:38 pm Post subject: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question

It's my understanding that he was attempting a 180 to reverse course. The

river is narrow at that point and he had about 2,000 feet of room. His turn

wasn't tight enough, perhaps because he wasn't familiar with the higher

speed of the Cirrus and the resultant larger turning radius.



Bruce

www.glasair.org

 



--

FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:02 pm Post subject: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question

In a message dated 10/13/06 1:47:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 

bertrv6(at)highstream.net writes:



 	  Quote: 	
		   ( I had to do 2 long ones,  as a matter of fact

  one was to Newakr N>Y> back to Baltimore..and I did not have my license

  yet....people I understand by pilots making such commnents...


	


[Barry] Do I understand you correctly ... You flew your Student Pilot 

Cross-country to Newark AP?  The three APs EWR, JFK and LGA are in Class B with a NO 

SVFR and a NO STUDENT restriction and NO WAVERS.



 	  Quote: 	
		    But I digress,, why they didn't turn right or request climb..

  

  Cirrus can fly very well at 100 MPH no?

[Barry] YES, it can do 100 Kts or 100 MPH most acceptably.
	


BUT!  Here is my Hanger Flying synopses of the story:

1 - It was a MARGINAL VFR (MVFR) day.

2 - The instructor just wanted to build time.

3 - The instructor probably had minimal time in type.

4 - MONEY TALKS so they went flying

5 - I have flown the corridor at least 50 times and once even up the EAST 

RIVER.  They did their flight up the Right Hand side of the river as required - 

BUT - they forgot one thing ... You need clearance from ATC to go beyond what 

is know as the second bridge.  The instructor realized this at the last moment.

6 - How do you make a tight turn?  A: Increase the bank and Decrease the 

power.

7 - There are some VERY strong winds that come between the buildings, sort of 

a venturi effect.  So strong on a 9900 day I was jolted so hard that my head 

hit the ceiling of the plane and NOT lightly.  I would have to call the 

winds/gust almost to a point of loss of control.  The forward motion of the plane 

took it past the venturi between the buildings.

8 - So, I believe they got hit with this venturi wind/gust at the same time 

they were in a steep bank at low airspeed.  

9 - There is an eye witness (BUNK TO THAT) account that said: it looked like 

they were doing aerobatics (DOUBLE BUNK)!



JUST REMEMBER YOU READ IT HERE FIRST!



O! I don't believe anything the media says and I have a VERY hard time 

believing what the NTSB says.  Remember the flight the Boeing lost its vertical 

stabilizer on?  



Barry

"Chop'd Liver"

Bob Collins

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 470
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:12 pm Post subject: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question

Everyone should read Phillip Greenspun's theory at:

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/



Phillip is a Harvard prof, an MIT grad, an SR-20 owner, and a CFI... In a

cirrus.



In fact his well-noted article on the qualities of the SR-20 is one of the

finest ever written:



http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20



//O! I don't believe anything the media says and I have a VERY hard time

believing what the NTSB says.  Remember the flight the Boeing lost its

vertical stabilizer on?  



Well, since I'm in the media, this means that Phillip really isn't an SR-20

owner, a CFI, the writer of the article above or the blog listed. (g)



Bob

_________________
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/

billshook2000(at)yahoo.co
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:04 am Post subject: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question

 	  Quote: 	
		   Last point: My kid, who got his driver's license last year, recently bought a

 motorcycle.  I found out the other day he was zipping down the road at 85.  The fact

 that the machine will go 85 and provide absolutely no protection isn't an indictment

 of the machine. The fact some bonehead will go 85 down the road with no protection --

 and break the law in the process --  speaks volumes about the bonehead doing so.


	




But you son does have protection on his motorcycle.  Judgement.  I bought my first

street bike at 17.  A 750 interceptor.  Odds are a bike like that kills a new rider as

fast as he can get it into gear, but judgement is what has taken me through that and

several other much faster road rockets without an incident in the 20 years that

followed.  200k miles and counting..skin all in tact.  Judgement is what will get your

son by.  That same judgement is what makes or breaks a pilot.  It is not that your son

can or does do 85 mph..it is where and under what circumstances he does so. 

Judgement...and that comes with experience.  Trust in how you raised him, pray for a

little luck along the way and let the boy live....50 years from now the experiences of

which is all he will have.



Bill



__________________________________________________

Bob Collins

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 470
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:16 am Post subject: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question

 	  Quote: 	
		   But you son does have protection on his motorcycle.  

 Judgement. 


	


That's precisely my point, of course and underscores my point regarding

training.  One of the reasons kids do what kids do is because kids don't

know any better. The highest accident rate in the county is among teenage

drivers. Very little judgment, of course, and judgment comes from

experience. But BOY, have you ever been in a car driven by a 15 year old kid

for the first time? Man, they drive slow and they're careful. They're not

partiuclarly good. But they're careful. 



It's theauto version of time in type, imho.



Judgement comes from experience.  Once he realizes how stupid driving at 85

is, I presume he'll slow down. I hope so, anyway.



Do not archive

_________________
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/

pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:28 pm Post subject: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question

bertrv6(at)highstream.net wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  

Hi:



No to add more on this, but would like to hear other comments, as to

why  two people make such mistake...Pilot error...



snip
	




 	  Quote: 	
		  But I digress,, why they didn't turn right or request climb..



My thoughts exactly.  It appears that there was no attempt to avoid the 
	


building (from what I'm hearing).  I'm of the opinion they didn't know 

the building was there .... because they both had their heads in the 

cockpit fiddling with something, such as the GPS or something.  This 

whole accident just doesn't make sense, but not many of them do.  It's a 

real shame because the rest of us will bear the brunt of regulations 

(already they've raised the floor of the VFR corridor, squeezing more 

aircraft into a tighter space) as a result of public outcry.



 	  Quote: 	
		  Cirrus can fly very well at 100 MPH no?



I'm not sure, but any airplane has a speed range and doesn't have to be 
	


flown at full throttle.  WE can operate the airplane according to our 

skills.



 	  Quote: 	
		  It is a shames this things happen....but if the Big boys  make mistakes...

with same consequences..



just my thoughts.



Good ones, too.
	


Linn

do not archive



 	  Quote: 	
		  

Bert

Bob Collins

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 470
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:50 pm Post subject: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question

The URL I posted yesterday from the Cirrus driver/cfi showed a wind blowing

from the East at a fairly good clip. And he says they made their turn

downwind which would've made a turn in a 2,000 foot corridor more difficult

-- he says. The NTSB says they lost 200 feet in the turn. Was that in

recognition that the stall speed was increasing as the turn tightened?  Tune

in in about 2 years.



Do not archive

--

_________________
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/

ronlee(at)pcisys.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:53 pm Post subject: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question

 	  Quote: 	
		     It's a real shame because the rest of us will bear the brunt of 

 regulations (already they've raised the floor of the VFR corridor, 

 squeezing more aircraft into a tighter space) as a result of public outcry.


	


My reading of the message/NOTAM on this is that you have to talk to ATC 

(Laguardia) beyond a certain

point in that area.  Hardly a big deal.



Ron Lee

cjensen(at)dts9000.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 2:48 pm Post subject: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question

We are often critical of the FAA for being a political organization that

attempts to address technical issues.  In this case, that may well be

what they did...they acted like a political animal by throwing a bone to

the public while technically doing next to nothing (that being the

requirement to talk to ATC--not that big a deal).  Given the hue and

cry, perhaps the FAA did just enough to salve the angry hordes while

minimizing the actual harm and restrictions to GA.



Yes, yes, it's understood that it won't do anything to prevent future

stupid pilot tricks (may they rest in peace), but the public doesn't

know that, however, as long as they are satisfied, we're should be

satisfied.  Now, if da Mayor (Daly) and other political blowhards start

trying to erect TFRs over all the major cities...then 'Houston, we have

a problem.'



Chuck Jensen

Do Not Archive

 

[quote] --

morgjj

Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 24

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 2:49 pm Post subject: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question

The problem itself, isn't the actual result of the NOTAM, but rather the

way it came to be.  The whole thing is not a result of any reasonable

cause. It is strictly because of the public outcry.  This is exactly

what we as pilots and aviation professionals need to stop.



It is a slippery slope that we are straddling here. If you look at the

notams in effect over Disney properties for example and ask yourself

what purpose/role they fill, what do you see?  Clearly the limits of

distance and height are not enough to stop anyone that is bent on

breaking the rules, but enough to satisfy the public that something was

done.  Same applies for the Stadium TFR's that come up. 



In the end, all it did was allow those entities to control the

advertising  above their properties.  Nothing else was accomplished by

them, nor is there any justification for them. Technical violations will

be plenty, but safety and reason are no where in the picture.



So, if we as a group agree that this isn't a big deal, then we are

agreeing that is it okay to let others take away our freedoms one piece

at a time for reasons that aren't justifiable. If there is a reason,

beyond public outcry, and it will enhance safety, then I am willing to

agree.  However, when it is not based on something that is tangible or

reasonable, then I have to not just go along, even if it isn't a big

deal.



I personally have been appalled at what folks are willing to give up in

the USA. Since the 9/11 attacks, slowly all rights that for hundreds of

years people have fought and died over, we are willing to slowly give up

and agree it is okay to do that "in the name of security". Though the

intent is to be benevolent in nature, it is ripe for abuse of power. I

think that there have been specific things taking place that show how it

can be taken away.  It is simple enough to say that the government has

the right to spy on terrorists, but not on us citizens.  However we have

seen that all comes down to a definition by someone other than us and

what they decide goes. 



Remember the pilot insecurity rule?  The TSA has the right to revoke

your license, without disclosing why (under the guise of national

security) for any person and/or reason. They don't need to disclose what

evidence they had, nor was there an appeal process.  Again it was

suggested that normal folks need not worry, but what if you ended up on

the wrong side of that because of a misspelling, glitch in system, or

common name,  you have no recourse! Folks agreed to it when it was for

terrorists, but never though it would apply to them.  When it did, they

had no recourse!  As much as it is easy to say it doesn't apply to me,

it will eventually.  The idea that is it not a big deal is what will

erode away the capacity we have as pilots.  Once they do away with us,

the public will turn on the next easy group. I would suggest that we

need to not be so easy going about it, and fight and demand an

reasonable explanation about it all. It is time to stop being the

scapegoat for folks irrational understanding of our world. Bob Collins

is right on the money when he suggests that we educate folks about what

it is we do. Now more than ever or my children will likely not be able

to enjoy the world of aviation as we do today and less that of my

grandparents...



--

dmaib@me.com

Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 454
Location: New Smyrna Beach, Florida

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 3:19 pm Post subject: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question

Jeff,

I will vote for you if you ever decide to run for office! 



David Maib



do not archive

On Oct 14, 2006, at 5:48 PM, Jeffery J. Morgan wrote:




<jmorgan(at)compnetconcepts.com>



The problem itself, isn't the actual result of the NOTAM, but rather the

way it came to be.  The whole thing is not a result of any reasonable

cause. It is strictly because of the public outcry.  This is exactly

what we as pilots and aviation professionals need to stop.



It is a slippery slope that we are straddling here. If you look at the

notams in effect over Disney properties for example and ask yourself

what purpose/role they fill, what do you see?  Clearly the limits of

distance and height are not enough to stop anyone that is bent on

breaking the rules, but enough to satisfy the public that something was

done.  Same applies for the Stadium TFR's that come up.



In the end, all it did was allow those entities to control the

advertising  above their properties.  Nothing else was accomplished by

them, nor is there any justification for them. Technical violations will

be plenty, but safety and reason are no where in the picture.



So, if we as a group agree that this isn't a big deal, then we are

agreeing that is it okay to let others take away our freedoms one piece

at a time for reasons that aren't justifiable. If there is a reason,

beyond public outcry, and it will enhance safety, then I am willing to

agree.  However, when it is not based on something that is tangible or

reasonable, then I have to not just go along, even if it isn't a big

deal.



I personally have been appalled at what folks are willing to give up in

the USA. Since the 9/11 attacks, slowly all rights that for hundreds of

years people have fought and died over, we are willing to slowly give up

and agree it is okay to do that "in the name of security". Though the

intent is to be benevolent in nature, it is ripe for abuse of power. I

think that there have been specific things taking place that show how it

can be taken away.  It is simple enough to say that the government has

the right to spy on terrorists, but not on us citizens.  However we have

seen that all comes down to a definition by someone other than us and

what they decide goes.



Remember the pilot insecurity rule?  The TSA has the right to revoke

your license, without disclosing why (under the guise of national

security) for any person and/or reason. They don't need to disclose what

evidence they had, nor was there an appeal process.  Again it was

suggested that normal folks need not worry, but what if you ended up on

the wrong side of that because of a misspelling, glitch in system, or

common name,  you have no recourse! Folks agreed to it when it was for

terrorists, but never though it would apply to them.  When it did, they

had no recourse!  As much as it is easy to say it doesn't apply to me,

it will eventually.  The idea that is it not a big deal is what will

erode away the capacity we have as pilots.  Once they do away with us,

the public will turn on the next easy group. I would suggest that we

need to not be so easy going about it, and fight and demand an

reasonable explanation about it all. It is time to stop being the

scapegoat for folks irrational understanding of our world. Bob Collins

is right on the money when he suggests that we educate folks about what

it is we do. Now more than ever or my children will likely not be able

to enjoy the world of aviation as we do today and less that of my

grandparents...



--

_________________
David Maib
RV-10 #40559
New Smyrna Beach, FL

cjensen(at)dts9000.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 3:36 pm Post subject: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question

Jeffery,

I share your concern about the erosion of rights, but what terrifies me

is the concept of unfettered rights and freedom.  What makes a society

work is compromise, something that has been notably scarce in the

political arena in the last 10-15 years.  It is compromise that allows

an overlaps of conflicting rights to be resolved.  The push and shove of

compromise allows stakeholders to each win a little but no one to lose

everything.  In the immediate instance, if I ever decide to fly the East

River, which I doubt, I would rather have to contact ATC and be able to

fly it then to be prohibited from doing so under all circumstances.  The

restriction may do little for safety, but it does much to salve the

public outcry--is this too great a compromise to enter into to retain

the right to fly the river?  A purest would feel its too great a price,

a realist would say it is the price to pay.



Finally, lest we confuse rights with privilege, we should remind

ourselves that flying is a privilege granted by the majority since it

has been determined, when controlled by rules and regulations, to be of

minimal harm to the commonweal.  We live in a great country because (for

the most part) most activities are permitted unless they are shown to be

harmful and detrimental to individuals, groups or society as a whole.

In many other countries, the starting point is everything is prohibited

unless by birth or gun, one gains the power to do it.



So, with good fortune and elections, may the exercise of our rights and

privileges not be encumbered any more than absolutely necessary to not

infringe on the peace and tranquility of others. Self-restraint in

exercising our rights and privileges as well as education and lively

support for the preservation of the same is our best defense against

creeping rights, privilege and liberty erosion.



Chuck Jensen

Do Not Archive 

[quote] --

morgjj

Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 24

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 9:26 pm Post subject: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question

Chuck,



While I agree with the idea of compromise, and don't want to sound

against it, I have to ask, where was the compromise in what Daley asks

for in Chicago, Walt got for Disney, and many others like them?  If

there was a discussion and consensus, which I stated earlier, and the

decision was that it was for the good of all, I am okay with it.

However, too often, there is a closed door discussion and decision that

has no consensus.  ADIZ is the largest in my mind. Can you factor that

into your argument?  What was the consensus there?



I truly would like to understand, and have tried, but reason and logic

have escaped those places, which is too often becoming the norm.  I

don't try to come off as a one sided person, and am truly open, as I

tried to express by stating if it was good for the common good, I can

understand the sacrifice.  After all, that is what we ask the military

to do.  However if there is no reasonable explanation, how can you agree

to say it is better than nothing?  If the folks ahead of me did that, we

wouldn't be flying, driving, learning, etc... Where do you draw the

acceptable line?

Jeff 



--

cjensen(at)dts9000.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:42 am Post subject: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question

Jeff,

In many ways, the instances you cite are evidence that the system

works--to a degree.  Yes, da Mayor dug up Meigs, but did have to pay a

fine (even though the taxpayers foot the bill) and suffered endless

legal, verbal and public opinion assault. Granted, this did little to

discourage da Mayor, but the next one in line to do the same thing (with

fines now increased by a factor of 10) will give pause and consider

whether they wish to go through the same wringer that da Mayor was put

through.



The ADIZ?  Well, I admit it's still there, but the politicos that

attempted to make it permanent for a few minutes of self-congratulatory

air time ran for cover in the face of the pushback from the aviation

community.  Which side will prevail?  Depends on who wants it more.

Personally, when it comes up, I crank out letters and emails to FAA,

NTSB, and Congressmen.  Does it do any good?  Who knows---its still

there, but it's not permanent (yet).



There's other instances where pushback to a compromise has worked.  We

are all familiar with the Presidential TFRs.  A year or two ago, every

self-important politico down to the Secretary level was asking for TFRs.

Even when they were just spending a day at a resort being wined-n-dined

by their owners (aka lobbyists).  They wanted their own TFR...not

because of safety, but because it made them feel more important.  As

best I can tell, personal-TFR thing has been damped due to backpush and

criticism.  So, this is an example of a compromise that sort of

worked--we complain and the politico crawls back in his hole.  Though

like the groundhog, to perennially reappear, so vigilance is a necessary

cost of doing the business of rights and privilege protection.



Chuck Jensen

Do Not Archive

[quote] --

billshook2000(at)yahoo.co
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 7:53 am Post subject: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question

 	  Quote: 	
		   Jeff,

 I will vote for you if you ever decide to run for office! 


	




Ditto



Bill



__________________________________________________

tedd(at)vansairforce.org
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:21 am Post subject: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question

Chuck:



I generally agree with what you've said, but there's something very important

to keep in mind about compromise, with respect to the political process.



Many politicians and government administrators see their role as enabling

compromise between competing factions.  One group wants This, another group

wants That, and success lies in finding a combination of This and That that

both groups can live with.



There are two situations where this doesn't work very well.  One is when you

have an ongoing campaing to completey curtail something (e.g., a campaign to

shut down an airport).  The other is when something is under constant attack

from many directions (e.g., aviation in general).  In those kinds of

situations, each "compromise" is another blow in the steady chiseling-away of

liberty.



So, when discussing these things with politicians and administrators, it's very

important to know the history and to stress the "compromises" that have already

been made.  It gives them a justification for not asking you to make further

compromises.  (Of course, if the politician or administrator has their own

agenda, this won't work, and you're probably talking to the wrong person.

Fortunately, that's not always the case.)



Tedd McHenry

Surrey, BC, Canada

DO NOT ARCHIVE

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum