<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Roll the equipment . . .</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.aopa.org/blog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=575" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.aopa.org/blog/?p=575</link>
	<description>Online perspective from the editors of "AOPA Pilot".</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 00:22:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Halbrook</title>
		<link>http://blog.aopa.org/blog/?p=575&#038;cpage=1#comment-18826</link>
		<dc:creator>John Halbrook</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:38:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.aopa.org/blog/?p=575#comment-18826</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tom,

Where I agree that GA does not need the same ARFF response as the heavies, the idea of Just a 100,000 fire truck is almost a footnote in history.  True Airfield apparatus are generally specked with 4x4 capabilities,  foam inductors, pump and roll response. 

In the past four years my fire department has purchased two pieces of equipment, neither of which have these capabilities.  Our ladder truck went for 750,000.  Today it would cost well over a million dollars, and our new rescue truck is costing over half a million.  

The true cost of a fire response budget is manpower.  In this regard the aircraft industry actually gets a deal.  Where structural fire companies generally staff between three and five fire fighters the Aircraft industry Only staff&#039;s one or two.  

I agree with your argument that user fee&#039;s should not be placed upon GA, your crash rescue analogy is a little light.  

Thanks

John]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tom,</p>
<p>Where I agree that GA does not need the same ARFF response as the heavies, the idea of Just a 100,000 fire truck is almost a footnote in history.  True Airfield apparatus are generally specked with 4&#215;4 capabilities,  foam inductors, pump and roll response. </p>
<p>In the past four years my fire department has purchased two pieces of equipment, neither of which have these capabilities.  Our ladder truck went for 750,000.  Today it would cost well over a million dollars, and our new rescue truck is costing over half a million.  </p>
<p>The true cost of a fire response budget is manpower.  In this regard the aircraft industry actually gets a deal.  Where structural fire companies generally staff between three and five fire fighters the Aircraft industry Only staff&#8217;s one or two.  </p>
<p>I agree with your argument that user fee&#8217;s should not be placed upon GA, your crash rescue analogy is a little light.  </p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p>John</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rod Rakic</title>
		<link>http://blog.aopa.org/blog/?p=575&#038;cpage=1#comment-16057</link>
		<dc:creator>Rod Rakic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2008 19:35:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.aopa.org/blog/?p=575#comment-16057</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tom,

That was the most succinct counter to the &quot;a blip is a blip&quot; argument that commercial aviation has been using that I have come across.

You can bet I&#039;ll be sharing.

Thanks!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tom,</p>
<p>That was the most succinct counter to the &#8220;a blip is a blip&#8221; argument that commercial aviation has been using that I have come across.</p>
<p>You can bet I&#8217;ll be sharing.</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
