It is real nice when someone links your post in their reply, however redacts the
pertinent information replacing it instead with, "blah blah blah" then proceeds to
slanderously quote statements and implications nowhere to be found in the
redacted posts link? It is further absurd when others implicitly refer to slanderous
ilk in their own posts?
Have you ever wondered why the FAA never conducts studies or collects data
following implementation of these scandalous and fraudulent pursuits of safety?
There were three separate studies and findings between the NTSB and FAA from
1969 to 1972. Most notably and ironically, the largest and strongest justification
for the (then) extremely expensive "TCAS Tech" was not sought until after the first
DC9/Piper mash-up over Indianapolis. It was tabled and not successfully lobbied
until AFTER DEREGULATION and a nearly identical collision over Cerritos 15 years
later.
NATA Conducted a Study that wasn't real well known and scuttled by the FAA in
2003 when EGPWS was proposed to curb CFIT. NATA based their data collection
and justification AGAINST EGPWS for turboprops and larger aircraft because of the
expense and lack of performance in other safety "enhancing" measures such as
TCAS deployed by the FAA where they have never proven with a single official and
all encompassing study that MAC accidents and NMAC incidents had been reduced
per 100,000 flight hours FOLLOWING TCAS REQUIRED DEPLOYMENT?
Sure you may "Feel" safety has been ENHANCED, however, as has been said your
exterior windows are the most effective tool in detecting and avoiding traffic. Not
a day passes in the air where I hear a GA Aircraft near a high volume commercial
airport where a discrepancy exists between what that GA Aircraft Xponder is replying
to ATC and what altitude they are actually flying. Your TCAS is going to give false
"feelings" of safety if that Mode C is sending an altitude is outside of YOUR 6,000 feet
of conflict resolution. Vigilance and Diligence PEERING OUT THE WINDOW is 75%
of our business. NOTHING INSIDE the cockpit will ever kill you. EVERYTHING
OUTSIDE the window will.
I challenge you to find one study conducted by the FAA following ANY
MAJOR INITIATIVE where they justify a change/reduction in fatalities as the direct result
of a policy implementation. You will not find one, because the FAA ARROGANTLY
determines the regulatory vehicle they operate like Ted Kennedy in Chappaquiddick
need not be scrutinized because the FAA NEVER makes mistakes and CERTAINLY
will NEVER RETRACT ANY INSTITUTED POLICY regardless of the harm or detriment
such policy may foster from its future and over reliance when it comes to ADM
(Aeronautical Decision Making-for the ERAU Grads).
Cheers, DoinTime! You seem an a55bucket and fond of the regulatorily destructive
pursuit of our government and the 4th Branch of Agencies that can trace no real
purpose to create anything that positively contributes to the edification of our society
and the people in it. Their purposes are self-serving, self-loathing and enforce their
mediocre existence and threaten anyone who would challenge, contradict or confront
their designs.
100-1/2
