X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 08:59:57 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from n10.bullet.re3.yahoo.com ([68.142.237.123] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.3) with SMTP id 2977411 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 20:50:06 -0400 Received: from [68.142.230.29] by n10.bullet.re3.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 21 Jun 2008 00:50:07 -0000 Received: from [66.196.97.155] by t2.bullet.re2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 21 Jun 2008 00:50:07 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp208.mail.re3.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 21 Jun 2008 00:50:07 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 90069.89642.bm@omp208.mail.re3.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 37386 invoked by uid 60001); 21 Jun 2008 00:50:07 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=EJWUm+TzqFDaHsJmFwoQaB+KWovx0vsdVS+ZAYgLYIXlJqq/oBiIK5moSlZvLvIVRLOPqqKTjyARVheCoMN9PXlhkE/3OumaCz47XhB3JokFleut2ehe8cxHtG7M1v4tnIk5EfuxUbxQ3Ax0xyFqcWoW/Q8OOjDdJB2ICg4V0GI=; Received: from [75.33.110.78] by web55701.mail.re3.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:50:06 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/975.45 YahooMailWebService/0.7.199 X-Original-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:50:06 -0700 (PDT) From: J H Webb Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Traffic Systems X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1758192780-1214009406=:36797" X-Original-Message-ID: <944608.36797.qm@web55701.mail.re3.yahoo.com> --0-1758192780-1214009406=:36797 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Colyn,=0A=A0=0A=A0=A0=A0 I have talked to the FAA (both Mgmt and ATC) at OS= H about the request to turn off the transponder approaching OSH and they th= ink? it improves safety as it reduces the number of transponder returns and= eliminates ringaround. Isn't this hilarious? Our benevolent government del= iberately reducing safety.=0A=A0=0AJack Webb=0AL360, LIV=0A=0A=0A=0A----- O= riginal Message ----=0AFrom: Colyn Case at earthlink =0ATo: lml@lancaironline.net=0ASent: Friday, June 20, 2008 4:42:24 PM=0A= Subject: [LML] Re: Traffic Systems=0A=0Aanyone want to write your friends a= t EAA and tell them it really is worth it =0Ato require a transponder, and = that it is on?=0A=0A=0A--=0AFor archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironlin= e.net:81/lists/lml/List.html=0A=0A=0A=0A --0-1758192780-1214009406=:36797 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Colyn,

I have talked to the FAA (both Mgmt and ATC) at OSH about the request to turn off the transponder approaching OSH and they think? it improves safety as it reduces the number of transponder returns and eliminates ringaround. Isn't this hilarious? Our benevolent government deliberately reducing safety.

Jack Webb

L360, LIV

----- Original Message ----
From: Colyn Case at earthlink <colyncase@earthlink.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 4:42:24 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: Traffic Systems

anyone want to write your friends at EAA and tell them it really is worth it
to require a transponder, and that it is on?

--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html

--0-1758192780-1214009406=:36797--