<?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: The simulator</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.aopa.org/flighttraining/?feed=rss2&#038;p=548" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.aopa.org/flighttraining/?p=548</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:23:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Harry L. Weatherford</title>
		<link>http://blog.aopa.org/flighttraining/?p=548&#038;cpage=1#comment-1825</link>
		<dc:creator>Harry L. Weatherford</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2011 21:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.aopa.org/flighttraining/?p=548#comment-1825</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sim is a powerful word, and most of us will never see much less fly a sim.  Aviation Training Devices are another matter, and I advocate an expanion of their use.  The letters of authorization accompanying each FAA approved device seem to have it about right.  But low and behold someone has added to the FARs requirements that are not included in the Letters of Authorization ( a clear case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing).

It sounds like a power struggle within the FAA, with it&#039;s customers being the untimate losers.  If the FAA has some sort of documentation demonstrating that the original Letters of Authorization have caused problems, lets hear it.  On the other hand should those advocating the new FARs have a legitimate point (that I fail to see), recind the Letters of Authorization and watch the owners of these pieces of equipment reclaim their investment.

The FAA does a lot of good work, but when they blow it, they really blow it.  I need a favorable resolution to this crisis, so I can get on with my business.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sim is a powerful word, and most of us will never see much less fly a sim.  Aviation Training Devices are another matter, and I advocate an expanion of their use.  The letters of authorization accompanying each FAA approved device seem to have it about right.  But low and behold someone has added to the FARs requirements that are not included in the Letters of Authorization ( a clear case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing).</p>
<p>It sounds like a power struggle within the FAA, with it&#8217;s customers being the untimate losers.  If the FAA has some sort of documentation demonstrating that the original Letters of Authorization have caused problems, lets hear it.  On the other hand should those advocating the new FARs have a legitimate point (that I fail to see), recind the Letters of Authorization and watch the owners of these pieces of equipment reclaim their investment.</p>
<p>The FAA does a lot of good work, but when they blow it, they really blow it.  I need a favorable resolution to this crisis, so I can get on with my business.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
