Aren’t you happy that the procedure for a rapid decompression at altitude is diligently practiced nearly every year by commercial airline pilots during recurrent check rides? In Captain Jim’s experience with United Airlines, he guesses he either practiced or was examined on such a procedure–getting immediately down from rarefied air to a breathable altitude–some 100 times, plus, in a 35-year period. It’s something you must do immediately and is so designated an “emergency procedure” in every flight manual of every jet airplane (and a few pressurized “recip machines,” as well.

The rapid decent involves immediate steps that a crew must perform–several such steps are done “all at once,” such as “dumping the nose with power off and speed brake engaged, at the same time getting a quick-don oxygen mask on. All of that can easily be accomplished in less than 10 seconds. Getting down to under about 16,000 feet is paramount, so that passengers who do not get their masks on do not pass out or even experience serious oxygen deprivation, which can, if at any sustained time at higher altitude, could actually result in brain damage. A 45-degree bank may also help get the machine down faster, as well. All of these sudden actions can be “more than disconcerting” to the average passenger–even pandemonium, but so many things happen so fast, that often stories differ wildly as to what is/was felt at the time. In this case, even a flight attendant was reported to have fainted when the (controlled) rapid decent was performed.

In approximately 1983, while Jim was a fairly new B-737 captain, there were two noted such “pop top” (fuselage rupture in the ceiling) incidents–one of which, with Aloha Airlines, resulted in loss of life–a flight attendant being sucked out of the plane at altitude. Jim recalls going to a maintenance hangar to see for himself what new inspections were being ordered by the FAA, as well as if the airplanes he were flying at the time were safe in that regard. He recalls the discussion with a mechanic supervisor that they did, indeed, inspect the “hull” of every aircraft for structural integrity at mandatory periodical inspections. He explained that, most likely, newer, more stringent inspections for metal fatigue would be ordered, but that he was satisfied that at least “our airline” was doing it properly. Pilots like being more assured that, since they are “much more involved” with such an incident–a definite possible disaster–that their machines are safe in that regard.

The traveling airline passenger can be assured that new inspection procedures will be reviewed for relevancy as soon as possible, though these procedures are hardly ever done soon enough for their (or their pilots’) very next flight experiences. It can often take months before such “directives” to become disseminated and performed, though ongoing, past-required inspections may be more diligently performed in the meanwhile.

Come back here in the next few days for more information regarding this subject, as the latest incident information is more fully disseminated and reviewed. Meanwhile, here is a URL of one such explanation of the incident: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/01/national/main20049916.shtml. [contact-form]

That smoke is from the 1,700 pounds of water injection the J 57s used for take off. (Perhaps you can note where the airplane is–to the runway overrun, where you suck the gear out from under it.)

(Picture coming here very soon. Sorry)

The Good Old Days

Those were the good ole days. Pilots back then were men that
didn’t want to be women or girly-men. Pilots all knew who
Jimmy Doolittle was. Pilots drank coffee, whiskey, smoked
cigars and didn’t wear digital watches.

They carried their own suitcases and brain bags like the
real men that they were. Pilots didn’t bend over into the
crash position multiple times each day in front of the
passengers at security so that some Gov’t agent could
probe for tweezers or fingernail clippers or too much
toothpaste.

Pilots did not go through the terminal impersonating a
caddy pulling a bunch of golf clubs, computers, guitars, and feed
bags full of tofu and granola on a sissy-trailer with no hat
and granny glasses hanging on a pink string around their
pencil neck while talking to their personal trainer on the
cell phone!!!

Being an Airline Captain was as good as being the King in a
Mel Brooks movie. All the Stewardesses (aka: Flight Attendants) were young, attractive, single women that were proud to be combatants in the sexual revolution. They didn’t have to turn sideways, grease up and suck it in to get through the cockpit door. They would blush and say thank you when told that they looked good, instead of filing a sexual harassment claim. Junior Stewardesses shared a room and talked about men…. with no thoughts of substitution.

Passengers wore nice clothes and were polite; they could
speak AND understand English. They didn’t speak gibberish or
listen to loud gangsta rap on their IPods. They bathed
and didn’t smell like a rotting pile of garbage in a jogging
suit and flip-flops. Children didn’t travel alone, commuting
between trailer parks. There were no Mongol hordes asking for
a seatbelt extension or a Scotch and grapefruit juice
cocktail with a twist.

If the Captain wanted to throw some offensive, ranting jerk
off the airplane, it was done without any worries of a
lawsuit or getting fired.

Axial flow engines crackled with the sound of freedom and
left an impressive black smoke trail like a locomotive
burning soft coal. Jet fuel was cheap and once the
throttles were pushed up they were left there, after all it was the
jet age and the idea was to go fast (run like a lizard on a
hardwood floor).

Economy cruise was something in the
performance book, but no one knew why or where it was. When
the clacker went off no one got all tight and scared because
Boeing built it out of iron, nothing was going to fall off and
that sound had the same effect on real pilots then as
Viagra does now for those new age guys.

There was very little plastic and no composites on
the airplanes or the Stewardesses’ pectoral regions. Airplanes
and women had eye pleasing symmetrical curves, not a bunch
of ugly vortex generators, ventral fins, winglets, flow
diverters, tattoos, rings in their nose, tongues and eyebrows.
Airlines were run by men like C.R. Smith and Juan Tripp
who had built their companies virtually from scratch, knew most
of their employees by name and were lifetime airline
employees themselves…not pseudo financiers and bean
counters who flit from one occupation to another for a
few bucks, a better parachute or a fancier title, while
fervently believing that they are a class of beings unto
themselves.

And so it was back then….and unfortunately never will be again!

BLOG NOTE:

Kudos to the unidentified writer.

I believe all that, but then I’m a unabashed, macho, non-apologizing realist too. (Riigghhtt, I wish!).

I actually flew the military version of the B-707. SAC called it KC-135, the refueling version, but I was in MATS (Might Arrive Tomorrow Sometime–actually Military Air Transport Service; later changed to MAC–Military Airlift Command). We used to believe in “SLAAGAPIBE.” (Stay Loose As A Goose And Play It By Ear).

One other thing (and one of the few loved pioneers this author missed in the write-up above, was the missing addition of Pat Patterson (CEO and co-founder of the true and sacred, non-bean-counter, United Airlines), who was still alive when I was hired. He was revered by virtually every employee I ever discussed him with. He truly remembered (or consulted his notes) before he visited any office or flight line, so he could call each employee by name (if he had ever met them before or ever wrote them a note). Employees loved him for more than just that, but were always amazed with that trait. We all treated his wife with the utmost respect after his death. (She flew a lot and was on my airplane many times in the 60′s and 70′s). She never refused a stiff drink which kept a super smile on her face for all those years. She waved to the pilots and told the “stews” thank you. She and Pat never had to worry that a flight attendant might spit on their food like one particularly un-liked CEO we had, who would never eat or drink in first class, other than an unopened can of coke on any flight.

BTW, the reason this machine was “smoking so badly,” as the green “prologue” mentions, was that model’s initially-installed engines which used “water injection” for cooling on takeoff. Fan engines, installed on virtually all later model jets and retrofitted on the older ones, precluded the effect the older “water wagons” exhibited so spectacularly. We used to pay particular attention to V1 (safety speed to be able to stop on any remaining runway length), because often we used every inch (it seemed) of available runway to get off. With the more powerful engines, we still certainly read out V1 speed, but it was usually a moot point as there were lots of room left to stop, should we need to. I can recall only three aborted takeoffs in my 40 years. One was on a DC-7 (non-jet which overheated and actually caught on fire), one DC-8, which was a false warning and one 727 takeoff (related in my BLOG at jimgiveslots.wordpress.com)–a max performance abort for a taxiing aircraft crossing our runway at O’Hare during the winter of ’76 (I believe).

I’ve been asked a lot lately about the several airline controversies in the news lately.

The question is usually, “What do you think about airline pilots flying drunk and not paying attention on duty?”

My personal opinion is that airline pilots are no different from any other busy professional. There are often so many “distractions” that unless you are darned disciplined (like most) with situational awareness, it’s very easy to relax a bit too much in what are usually familiar situations.

I’m not saying Irwin Washington, the UAL pilot who was over the alcohol limit in Britain (.04, by the way–1/2 of a beer will do it there), is in any way to be given an ounce of sympathy, but I have no doubt someone was likely either out to make a personal point or hoping to become a “hero.” There is precedent that this same kind of “vigilante action” has occurred at Heathrow before.

A “reporter” may get on TV, perhaps believe they’ll be promoted and questionable kudos from some–for sure the media (for the story), but is not only often considered with raised eyebrows by peers, but occasionally fired from the airline for “one reason or another.” The airline will almost always find a reason to get their point across that “going outside the airline’s disciplinary controls” is not a good idea. In this case, it may not have been an airline employee who reported. We’ll know soon.

Most rational folks know that a half a beer isn’t going to keep anyone from driving home unsafely. Neither is a whole beer (.08 or less in the U.S.). No one will make excuses for this pilot, breaking the regulations, but I seriously doubt this pilot was drunk.

I flew for 23,000 hours, plus and never flew with a drunk pilot. Nor do I know of any other pilot who did–or would. Ninety-nine percent, plus, of airline pilots, at least, would never take the chance–the career is simply too valuable to take it. We would never do it on principle either–for the safety of our passengers, not to mention ourselves. Makes sense. Believe it.

Don’t get me wrong. Most flying regulations are reasonable and necessary and First Officer Washington knows full well that he was jeopardizing his career by violating the “bottle to throttle” reg. In fact, I flew for UAL for nearly 35 years and for over 20 of those, we had a “company” 24-hour rule of no drinking. We occasionally broke that company rule, though not the FAA rule–usually when called out earlier than scheduled normal layover time–for “equipment substitution” or to cover another flight for some irregularity. Truth is, though the company would never admit or sanction it, I recall times when a captain might level with a flight manager that he and/or his crew “might be” within 15 or so hours from takeoff, having had a beer or two. He “might have” cited the FAA rule and look the other way when we flew out earlier than our regular layover time. The manager would probably casually ask if anyone could be under any alcohol influence by the time we went on duty. Nah…and away we’d go.

The FAA rule was always eight hours, but most airlines had their own company regulation of at least 10-12 hours. United relented when we merged with Pan American after UAL took over their routes, bought their airplanes and merged our seniority list with many of their senior pilots.

PAA pilots never had a 24-hour rule before and weren’t about to adopt “Marvin Mainliner’s” rules. They felt being under a more restrictive rule was condescending and simply kept to their old rule. Rather than considering to fire hundreds of pilots, UAL adopted a new, less restrictive rule.

The old joke was to mix up rules: no smoking within 24 hours of flying and no drinking within 50 feet of an airplane. Many Mainliners were suddenly more happy about the merger. I never knew a pilot who abused the new reg. I’m sure it’s possible to test .02 even after 8-10 hours after drinking, depending on the amount consumed, but that’s part of being responsible. Most pilots are.

Time to put it all in perspective. Tens of millions of hours of flying per week are done responsibly by tens of thousands of pilots world-wide. An isolated incident makes great news and so does saving an airplane by landing in the Hudson.

If you thought about it, there are many other professions that compromise public safety that are and are not reported. Those are simply not as spectacular, “news-worthy” and thought-provoking as a pilot’s indiscretion, but much more pervasive than you’d likely ever imagine.

The recent Minneapolis overfly by “distracted” pilots, unaware of their “situational awareness” and resulting media coverage illustrates both media hype and the newsworthiness. Keep in mind that there were regulations, reporting and scrutiny well in place to cubbyhole these “no-loss-of-life incidences.” No doubt future ones will be well covered, as well–all part of life in this modern world.

Naturally, I’d like to see reported all the positive pilot articles more, like the fairly recent ditching that saved lives, as well as other interesting stories you might find here at http:tinyurl.com/jimgives (see the categories and recent posts).

Here is something that may make you feel better: Occasionally a pilot who has a schedule to fly, say, in two days, might be called and asked to “volunteer” to take an earlier trip, to cover an unexpected illness or reason a reserve pilot may not be available. There was never one word said if a pilot simply said he was “unavailable.” That may mean he’d had a social drink or two during his time off. He could even mention exactly that with no fear of reprisal. Schedulers would simply find someone else–even cancel a flight if need be.

(Anyone may copy and disseminate anything said above, with or without this author’s recognition or permission, however a mention is appreciated. Please comment with whatever you do. Thanks for your consideration).

–Capt. Jim

I attended Shine last week–a 3-day seminar event on how to best market a business and brand yourself.

ALI BROWN AND AND MCKEVITT

At the cost of (her professed hundreds of thousands of dollars) payment to, and help from, a billionaire mentor to Ali Brown, Anne McKevitt, Ali now shines more than ever. (More about Anne below–another amazing woman, to be sure).

Just to see what it was about, check out (andget a good look at Ali and her style):
http://www.shineevent.com.

She’ll be changing that URL soon, I imagine, as it still advertises an “upcoming” Shine Event which is now just over, but the URL gives a good synopsis of what did take place. It’s appropriate for next year too. I’m going to go again then, as many of her previous attendees did again this year.

Ali is a very smart babe. I know some will say that’s sexist and crass of me, but I am sorry, she truly is a babe alright. I actually believe with all my heart that Ali would not be offended, as her beauty and brains are/is the brand she’s going for and it’s all very appropriate for her and her image.

You simply can’t stop watching her as she mesmerizes and mentors you hour after hour. She’s super-mensch, mentor and much, much more.

The lady has been educated wih the best possible education–experience and schooling and she knows extremely well how to execute the branding process (the best I’ve ever seen, for certain but don’t just take my word–it comes from many other attendees I discussed it with).

A QUICK HISTORY OF MY EXPERIENCE

So, three weeks ago, I see this ad on the internet by Ali, the guru (and of many other such tabs, all complimentary)–she is very well liked and very well watched. Oh, just places like her personal magazine, ali, and most recently on several TV interview shows before her Shine Event extravaganza (as of now–just this past week).

What an event it was! (personal opinion, of course, but I was there for three very full days of enlightenment (Nov. 5-7 and I didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn). I heard someone guess that she’s made over four million (profit, not gross) in the last couple of years marketing herself by the very branding she teaches and she’ll teach that if you can only brand yourself like that, you’ll make millions yourself. I’m now a believer.

I do hope she gets a few more folks to her Shine Event next year from what I say here (let me know if you are influenced, in your comment(s) below. She did, after all, bestow upon me a “scholarship” for as little as my making a four or five minute video. About a thousand others paid a full $1487 to attend.

I must say, until I checked her out a bit more (not a hard thing to do for a guy), that is before I accepted and made plans to go, I had merely seen her name in ads. Though I never used to spend any time on ads, I ended up learning about scrutinizing good ads from her too.

Oh yeah, lots of seminar-folks will give you a $1497 bonus if you write (or video) something nice about their event, but I guarantee they don’t actually bring in $1.5 million for their events as Ali did.

I watched as over 950 exited women could hardly contain themselves when we would all get these “aha” moments. There was also a fair amount of allowed “sh**s, past a-holes” and such color from the emotional-aratti. We even had daily sheets to record all those aha moments–scads of those abounded, you can be sure.

I was only one of about 35 guy-attendees and only two of “us guys” out of about 100 videos submitted got the freebie. The ratio was about 1,000 to 35 or so–gals to guys.

Back to Shine and Ali, intersperced with her tips on how to brand yourself and soon be a billionaire like her mentor, Ann. So the lady damn sure knows how to market–not only herself but she continues to teach tens of thousands of others the same, as well.

So she selected me for the scholarship, cool. The contest was to send a video to her Facebook page sand she’d select that dozen or so to come to her 3-day Shine event.

It was delightfully mandatory to stay (and pay–it ain’t a cheap place) at the Venetian-Palazzo on the Vegas Strip. Nice touch, Ali. She knew we all deserved an autumn vacation. She was correct again.

Ali Brown then did it up brown. The event started off with an acrobatic theme–some very talented performers did their things. It was glitsy and entertaining, as it should be in Vegas. Not a problem. It got us all in a good mood to watch more and (who knows?), maybe learn something. I did; we all did.

Just imagine thousands of great looking people cavorting around the Venetian–most of which dutifully paid their 1500 buckeroos, plus room and board and gambling and shows–easily all that, for probably a minimum $4K tab total, including transportation and other “extras.”

I escaped the $4K tab, of course. I’m a poor retiree on fixed income, but I did gamble successfully (a $465 winner), got the freebie and my airfare was essentially free. as well (passes as an airline retiree). I would never complain as I did very well, financially and educationally.

Everyone stays in suites; that’s all they have on the Palazzo side. Neat. Google it, there are some great shots and videos of the hotel. I, of course, did that before I accepted my scholarship. Need I say “I was hooked–accommodation-wise.

Let’s see: including tax, the room was just short of $240/night, not including wifi, local phone or even a coffee machine, but lots of “concierging” at every turn. Staff service was fine, except for the “queues”–only a few of those, though.

I’m Knowing Ali got a nice cut for the mandatory nights there–probably got the ballroom, plus, but hey, way to go, Ali.

Hmm. $240x3days+1500×1000, plus booths in the lobby of the room where we were politely asked not to tarry and bond with attendees, so as not to disturb commerce. Fair enough, there was much to see upstairs at the Venetian side anyway, plus lots of places to have a scone and coffee for about 15 buckaroos. I was not deterred in spending in that atmosphere and it helped to have won that $465 at blackjack and Texas Hold’em in the casino.

(Then I managed to forget to cash in a hundred dollar and a twenty-five dollar chip that was in a back pocket when I got home.

Anyone going to Vegas soon? I’ll send those chips to you for a paypal “donation”–auction starts at $130. (Details at the end, below. Damn paragraphs are getting longer. I gotta watch that, Ali says).

Suffice it to say, the Venetian rivals the best of the best–joints like the MGM, Bellagio, Wynn and such have nothing on this place.

At this time, I am going to hit you with a few of the highlights that I will expand on for the next week or so.

Ali? Watch me shine, babe. (May as well write her a personal note right here):

Hey: I managed to raise my hand a few times for various “call upons” during Shine and saw my ugly mug up there on the big screen a couple of times, usually talking with someone other attendees at the time, as we all did (that was mandatory like the accommodation, as you pointed out).

Many of us Sat at a different tables in morning session and again after lunch as suggested, but every time I would have a chance to talk to you on-screen, you had just selected what I thought was your “one token guy” ahead of me. Then, occasionally two token guys were called upon.

But, because I was snubbed so often (he said, tongue-in-cheek), I’ll simply ask here and now for a VIP section seat next year right here and now. (OK, I’ll ask again next year, but does that mean I’ll have to fork over the $18K to be a “Platinum mamber?” (most likely).

On the other hand, you have prompted me to be audacious and, since I know I’ll make plenty in 2010 with your methods, I’ll be buying my own ticket that time.

So, can I help your image any more than you’ve already done for yourself to date?.

Look for more videos from me, I guess. You go, girl. I heard a few of those from those much younger than me, to be sure.

Y’know, Ali?: You CAN teach an old dog new tricks.

All of Ali’s speakers were impressive. I was most impressed with Anne McKevitt, a self-made billionaire. I used to fly a lot to Sydney, myself and I know the area where she lives. There are four billionaires on a six-house street that frames the famous opera house under the Sidney Harbor bridge. Her home is one of the four, of course.

Marlee Matlin “spoke” in her way of lip-forming words and sineage with a clever sining interpreter. Her expressions and exuberance were electrifying and had the audience spellbound for nearly two hours with stories of her emmy-winning movie and family adventures.

More editing here in the week(s) to come. C’mon back, ya heah? (faking an accent like born-in-Scotland, Ann McKevitt and folks from So. Cleveland, like me).

HERE IS THE LATEST (AS OF VETERAN’S DAY — I’m one of those in case anyone cares. Go vets!

You shine people: Remember Adam Haroun? (How could you forget! He was a fellow scholarship guy (with me–the only two guys to make it to Shine as a freebie that way. I’m sure there were others other than scholarship recipients. Who are you? Answer up below in the comments).

Here are some of Adam’s tweets. I’m sure he doesn’t mind the coverage. We may even do something together, so if you tweet him, mention I told you to–that’s part of all this–getting traffic and friends).

Adam Tweeted (latest to earliest back to 11-5 or so). You can feel his excitement–I know he got most of it from “Shine.” Get him to do your squeeze page or something (while he’s still reasonably priced. That won’t be for long, I’m guessing.

ADAM’S TWEETS:

Awesome follow-up calls this morning; off to run a few quick errands & grab lunch before coming home to map out new services and packages!!42 minutes ago from web

woke up on my OWN schedule today and hopping right into work I *LOVE* – making the transition to entrepreneurship and NEVER looking back!about 5 hours ago from web

2day I submitted my letter of resignation, 1of the biggest & scariest moves Ive ever made but itll propel me 2wards my dream @alibrownlaabout 23 hours ago from web

(Note from Jim: Remember when Ann McKevitt told him to quit his part-time jobs now? You da man, Adam. I see that you did it already).

ADAM CONTINUES…

leaving to head back home to Montreal; yet the REAL journey is just beginning…9:54 PM Nov 8th from web

RT @jenniferbourn “Control your destiny or somebody else will.” Jack Welsh9:49 PM Nov 8th from web

After the most amazing 3 days of my life, moving from LEARNING Into ACTION and MAKING IT HAPPEN! (Can I Get an AMEN?!) #SHINE @alibrownla10:56 AM Nov 8th from web

after a LIFE CHANGING 3 days @ #SHINE…taking the nite off b4 followup & connecting w/ every1 AMAZING who I met & made it unforgettable…12:03 AM Nov 8th from web

My life changed 4ever 2nite & I will never b the same. Thank u @alibrownla & @jameswroche for the most humbling experience of my LIFE #SHINE3:01 AM Nov 7th from web

2night was by far the most amazing and humbling night of my life thank you to everyone who was present for it – will get back to all soon 2:17 AM Nov 7th from web

HEADING TO THE VENETIAN FOR #SHINE IN JUST A FEW HOURS !!!!!!!8:51 AM Nov 5th from web.

NOTE FOR ADAM

You do it all, guy. Way to chuck! BTW, do you go to McGill University? It is arguably the best school in your country. I know. My daughter, a psychologist and actress, graduated from McGill a few years ago. She’s doing great now. (Need an actress or someone to promote your product up there–anywhere, really? She can do voice-overs and you might film her touting your product–very reasonably. Ask me how to get in touch with her. She lives in Montreal. See her, here, on an episode of LOST: http://www.youtube.com/jmcgiv#p/a/u/1/g55cf3ozRaw.
Nuts, she was in a better scene, but I can’t seem to find it. If you’ve just “got to see it,” I’ll hunt it up. She’ll sings your jingle and play guitar too. I have a video of her as Maria in Sound of Music. You wouldn’t be sorry you hired her, Adam. Ali? You there? You could use her too!
My daughter Molly, recently lived in Kona, Hawaii for a few years–now living in Montreal:

Leave me comments, questions here, below. I’ll answer them ASAP.

–Cap’n Seamus (I’m searching for my brand here. Like the name?)

The poor pilots, who un-artfully performed the recent Minneapolis fly-over, are under investigation as we speak. (I call them poor, because at the very least they will not be logging flying time, hence no paycheck (new news): now forever with Northwest, as they have recently been fired.

Northwest has a very definite company regulation which directly prohibits using personal computers in-flight. Absent those company regulations (and much less media coverage), they might have survived firing, though they would definitely be given additional training, and/or a comprehensive flight check before flying “solo” again.

Supposedly, they were discussing airline policies and looking at a new scheduling procedure with their personal computers. They do deny arguing (that was originally reported) and they were not asleep, as it was first surmised (also reported), but you could say: “they were certainly asleep at the switch,” at least. Sleeping and arguing has happened before. [Ask me when, below in "comments"]

Here is an ABC video of the latest. It’s worth watching (has a pic of the pilot taking his “brain bag” back to his house out of the trunk of his car). Interesting.

http://tinyurl.com/ykmpenf

I actually feel for these two guys, because most pilots have a little twinge that, “under certain, random circumstances,” it could have happened to them. We’d like to think not and it’s something we don’t usually admit, though this incident seems like a real “duh job.”  But somewhere in the subconscious, we all fully understand and have seen the application of Murphy’s law too often.  Murphy notwithstanding, another truism: nearly anything is possible in air traffic, air transportation and/or any pilot or aircraft.  Yet another: If it’s possible to do it with an airplane, someone has either done it, is doing it, or will eventually do it.

Truth is, I believe someone will find a way to put some blame on air traffic, as well. They are claiming that there was a period of 80 minutes before the pilots finally got in touch with ATC.  And it is true that ATC did, indeed, try contacting them often and through other aircraft.  A flight attendant called on the intercom ostensibly with: “When are we starting down?”  The pilots deny that this was their first clue, but it was close.

It is possible that even a passenger or two may have wondered about passing Minneapolis, which was visible below as they passed it by at 37,000 feet. It’s been reported that ATC tried cellphone contact–I believe they were using a Northwest company frequency that prints out in the cockpit (like sort of a printable “tweet”). That makes more sense than a cellphone call. The media never gets it 100% correct anyway–66 and 2/3% is more like it.

Most pilots have experienced hundreds of ATC attempts to get the attention of a flight when they get no answer to a transmission. One of the first things ATC tries is relaying through aircraft on the same center frequency of the last acknowledged transmission when a call is made and unanswered. They will ask to “please relay a frequency change” to the flight ID and because the relaying airplane is definitely in “line of sight” of other airplanes (but ATC is out of range of that one frequency, because of the curvature of the earth), it’s usually very easy to make a contact- aircraft to aircraft.  It is now reported that ATC did, indeed, try that, as well. Why they were so preoccupied that they did not hear repeated calls is a mystery to every pilot I have discussed this with.

If the eighty minute radio silence between ATC and Northwest would have been no more than five to ten minutes, they would have had time to start a descent and “the boys” would have been back in the loop again. They blew the ETA timing for top of descent that most pilots are very aware of, as the very next important thing after cruise regime.

You may find that there are other circumstances–things that led up to this non-situational awareness.  The media often misses little pertinent things that an offending crew may have told investigators.  Additional details like that are rarely reported by the media. It’s much more sensational without details, like those other (often technical) things that lead to an aviation incident.

Most incidents like this are the result of a double or triple fault–hardly ever 100% the fault of just one reason alone. We may well get to see what else, as the investigation is usually ongoing for quite a long time. Very often we will later see things in the NTSB report that the media may have known but never reported.

Pilots usually well-remember the “biggee screw ups,” of which this incident is definitely one. For example, a crew from my own airline once landed about 20 miles east of Portland in the ’60s. It was a beautiful day. The crew had landed at PDX on that exact runway heading several times before. In this case, approaching from the east, they had obtained an actual clearance from Portland approach control–even the tower’s landing clearance, but, instead, landed 20 miles short at the wrong field. This was previous to the current computer technology, when and where they would have seen redundant mileage readouts. Occasionally, DME (distance measuring equipment) was often inoperative in the old days, as well–either on the aircraft itself or the transmitter on the ground.

Landing at the wrong airport has happened more often than you might imagine, to several other airlines in other parts of the country. Indeed, there was a nasty accident with loss of life when an aircraft landed on a closed runway (at the correct airport). The runway had a big “X” painted on it, but they landed on it anyway–certainly not on purpose.

I personally witnessed Continental Airlines land–on a taxiway no less–in Denver with their CEO on-board. (Ouch!). History shows more airport overflies than you might believe, as well. Also, as you might imagine, that Denver incident was fairly well hushed up, so (and I don’t mean to infer this happened to this particular crew), if it could stay out of the news a crew may get no more than a slap on the wrist, go back to their training center for “additional training” and even keep their jobs. A lot depends on the notoriety a screw-up gets.

I will also relate a little about a not so well-known FAA trial: “Take a nap in the seat” program (not its real name, of course–it never really had a well-known name). The FAA “sort of” proposed and “seemed to allow it” for a while.  They may still. This will likely “come to light” with the media, as well:

Basically, the program “allowed” a pilot to snooze in their seat at cruise only, under several mandatory parameters, such as announcing the exact time they wished to be awaken–most important. Other parameters included “only on flights of certain duration; the other pilot on the headset (not an overhead speaker) and constantly alert (of course); autopilot on and at least 30 minutes before decent time–to allow time for approach briefings.” Capt. Jim volunteered to be part of the study as I was flying San Francisco to Sydney and other very long flights, often at oh-dark-thirty. Flight times could surpass 17 hours, depending on the winds, but the program more applied to other eastern airports like Seoul, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo and Osaka, as shorter flight times (still 7 to 9 hours quite often) meant less pilot crew members. We also had full bunks on longer flights, so the “nap” wasn’t usually necessary with at least three pilots on-board, as on the Sydney trip. Pilots generally stay well rested on those longer flights when a bunk schedule is made and followed. Many thought it a good idea to institute the practice “trial,” as pilots would generally be more alert (certainly more wide-awake) after a snooze.

I believe the FAA thought about possible bad public acceptance (re: pilots sleeping in their seats), so it was never officially sanctioned, but there is no doubt it is still practiced at times. It is also likely the practice will become “unsanctioned” now that this Northwest incident occured. There are still several good jokes about the program. Looks like Northwest is due for a few “overfly” jokes now too. Jay Leno just did one on his program, mentioning sleeping pilots (thought it’s been accepted that they were not sleeping at all).

Want to know more? We have stories upon stories. (Just ask here, below).  An example: Check this BLOG for the reason Capt. Jim dislikes Airbuses. Tell me if I’m wrong and you object to what I write here. I’ll acknowledge and publish it. Check on the right, search for tags or postings re: Airbus.

Then there’s my confession:

Back in the early sixties, I got my commercial pilot’s license while I flew for the U.S. Air Force. I was trained as a navigator at first, which makes this all the more embarrassing. I was flying my family home in my old Bellanca 14-13 (a ’46 model, with the plywood wings and the crank up gear)–from Cleveland to New Jersey, when I suddenly realized I was crossing the Hudson River–about an eight mile overfly. (At least I didn’t have to land in the Hudson. There’s a fairly comprehensive report here about that fiasco. Now there’s a couple of pilots who had situational awareness, huh?).

Hmmph! How could I have done that (?), I asked myself. My wife really wondered, too and forever-after teased me about it. But I simply “fleebed” situational awareness myself, that time. Stuff happens in airplanes.

Of course I did a 180 and was soon on the ground at my local airport, but I never told my peers at that time–all Viet Nam era Air Force flyboys and later, airline pilots. Talk about being teased. I flew with many airline crews who wouldn’t forget that one either (when they saw you, they’d have a wisecrack, for sure), so I kept perfectly quiet about that while working. Now it can be told, of course.

Capt. JimGives

Interested in the UAL pilot who was detained in England fro drinking?
See Drunk/Drinking Pilots on the right here (LATEST POSTS====>)

REASOURCES:
You may disseminate this report anywhere, anytime, Use: http://tinyurl.com/FlyoverAtMSP

(Anyone who cares, after the hubbub is out of the news, can simply check here later, as I will follow pertinent reports. If you search here in a month or so, you will undoubtedly get future info.  It’s always a good idea to bookmark or make this site a favorite now.  Make a comment, below, with your e-mail address and you will be informed automatically).

Hmm, re the name, “JimGives.” How so?: If you are interested in more reports like this–info and interesting stories from categories: Student Pilot to Airline Pilot (or no pilot at all), check out just what “JimGives”:

Leave your e-mail address in the comments below or simply put: “OK” in the subject line at skymarshalone@yahoo.com. Opt out at any time with a one click “unsubscribe here,” an e-mail jimgives@gmail.com or comment below–everything you send is confidential, of course unless you OK publishing. We never use your information for others’ e-mail lists.

Leave your e-mail address in the comments below or simply put: “OK” in the subject line at skymarshalone@yahoo.com. Opt out at any time with a one click “unsubscribe here, e-mail or comment below. We never use your information for multiple e-mail lists. Otherwise, you get two or three e-mails/month, maybe less as Capt J. travels a lot.

Or are they?   Perhaps not 100% accurate,  but usually very close,  as many are told by retired pilots and no one can be positive about everything–”hangar flying” being what it is.  Never outright lies, but perhaps an occasional, unaccounted for embellishment or slightly exaggerated insertion.  For example, a pilot or navigator might never admit to being lost, but, perhaps, temporarily disoriented.

There are many tales of the infamous Seamus J. McIver,  also a retired airline pilot.   How and why he ever got the job in the first place (and how he he managed to keep it–for 35 years!) has been the subject of much past conjecture.

If you’re thinking this may be the alter ego of the author here, think again.   (I only had 34 and a half years of airline flying,  plus four other unforgettable years earlier,  after training and active duty in the Air Force during Viet Nam) .

Hi.  I’m retired Captain Jim McGivern and I have lots of pilot friends.    Many, though certainly not all,  are retired airline pilots,  like me.

We all have huge egos.    I guess it comes with the job.    I have a bunch of airplane and airline stories, but I know that no one wants to hear a bunch of lies from just one guy.

It’s a lot more interesting to hear, first hand, from a gamut of pilot personalities, their goals, their personal aspirations.  Ah, B.S.–actually, their hairy stories and the troubles they’ve gotten into.    There’s an old axiom:  “A good pilot has no scary stories.” (There aren’t too many of those around–the truth be told.  That is, of course, pilots with NO scary stories.).

Yet another axiom:  There are old pilots and there are bold pilots.  But there are no old, bold pilots.  Scary, old and bold stories abound here.   Read on.

For the upcoming,  “Tell All” blog,  we’ll be asking questions like:

1. How and why did you ever get into flying?

2. What can you tell anyone who might think flying is the way to go–for a career?

3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of a pilot career?

Possible advantages: Fun, good salary, time off, adventure, interesting people, fulfillment, sense of accomplishment, helping people get from A to B.    Yeah, right.   How about:  Meeting lots of great looking honeys?   Seeing the world, your own way (perhaps read:  without wife and kids.   God, how irreverent and, perhaps sexist, especially if you are female yourself!.   Rephrasing:  “great looking honeys or hunks” and “without spouse”).

Disadvantages: Being away from home; long hours; flying red-eyes–back of the clock–and getting in big trouble with management and your family.  (I know that happened to many guys–maybe gals, too, but never, never to me. Riigghhtt).

4. What are your best airplane stories?   If I were going to make a flying movie, what incident or story would make a good one?

5. When people learn you are (or were),  an airline pilot, what are the first questions they ask you and how do you answer them?

6. Who was the most unforgettable pilot you’ve known or flown with?  Be careful here, because I may interview another pilot who might name you.

7. Who else should I call?   What gregarious character-pilot do you know who might contribute?

8. Why don’t your kids fly (if they don’t) or why do they,  if they actually do?

Personal note. Skip, if you wish:  My kids?–five of them.  Oldest might have gone that route, but he’s color-blind.   Second kid might have also, but he fell in love at 18–too early–got married.  Third boy is dedicated to music and surfing.    Fourth might have also, but I took him to the Air Force Academy when he had a shot at it  and he heard some bad stories about the “corps”–one from an actual cadet who wished he’d never joined himself.   I might have scared him in the air, as well  (doing loops and spins) when I got him his student’s license.   I’ll have to ask him his take on it back then.   Daughter, Molly, had the requisite personality, brains, ability and would most certainly be game for it, but she decided on more of a “artsy-type career” (acting, music, psychology major, etc.   That might seem boring at first, but not the way she does it!).

Continuing on…

8. What’s your favorite pilot/aviation joke?

9. Who have you influenced the most about an aviation career, if anyone?    I know of at least three kids who have trained and become airline pilots–mostly because of my stories and nudging.

10. Now, I don’t limit these questions to only other pilots.    Some of the best aviation stories I’ve heard were from “the laity.”   But we’ll try to keep this blog’s theme “on theme” and relate all stories, mostly true only–unless it’s a joke or you’re not sure.   If so, we’ll term them as such.   So let’s keep those tales coming in.

So I’ll be calling my friends with my cheap camera and tape recorder.   (Flight attendants will tell you that all pilots are cheap.    (What’s new?)  I’ll send my buds this series of questions and talking points and ask them to send me an old and/or recent picture.    Maybe like this one (Geez, maybe we should stick to airplanes!):

PICTURE *** (OK, maybe later)…

I might do a special on the most interesting FA’s you ever knew:   Many of us knew and loved, “Rachael.”    There will undoubtedly be stories about her. (and F A doesn’t stand for “Fat Ass”–though it ‘could).   Ever know a flight attendant gold digger?–I have a name in mind.   She finally married a pilot (it could have been me when I was a single pilot and was once (very briefly) smitten;  Thank you, Lord, didn’t happen.   I came to my senses).   I believe her marriage to a certain “chief pilot” ended in divorce.

Anyway, I’m thinking:  most beautiful FA;  funniest;  smartest;  dumbest;  the most adventurous–(just thought of another) and, perhaps I’ll write about the three FAs, who travelled to Guatemala with me as passengers  (not all at once;  one got the worst case of Montezuma’s Revenge I’ve ever seen (or heard), though I’ve had some pretty bad cases of food poisoning myself.   Ask about our Aruba Honeymoon or a particular trip to New Delhi, when the whole crew  visited Agra and the Taj Mahal).

Pilots can’t help it.    Before the bean counters got a foothold in the airline business,  we were more carefree, relaxed and even, er…”swashbuckling”  (if there ever is a legitimate general pilot description at all).   Well, certainly not all of us, but perhaps we were more carefree and relaxed about our job–once.    There was a time and,  I suppose,  there’s still some of this “thinking” around by management,  excluding the bean counters, when a pilot could say,   “I’m not taking that piece of crap aircraft in this weather with those logbook write-ups and that generator out.  Forget it.”   At one time, no one would never blame him for his actions and he’d never have to answer for his decision either.

Most commercial pilots have heard stories about pilot job intimidation,  i.e.:  “You take that machine to Boise or forget about your job.”   At certain airlines,  guys played “you bet your job” all the time.   Some of those airlines didn’t survive, but there seems to be some of that same management thinking creeping back these days.   Hopefully, there is a watchdog or two out there.   One is supposed to be the FAA, certainly a necessary agency and, for the most part, they regulate fairly efficiently,  in my  view.  I know many who are skeptical about certain policies, however.

Put it this way:   The industry definitely needed regulation, but economic pressures of the time prompted opting out of route regulation many years ago.   Too bad it didn’t stay that way;  perhaps the airlines wouldn’t be in such bad shape today.   I admit, I thought “dereg” was a great idea at the time,  but I was wrong.   One thing for sure, the managers and the government definitely got its intent wrong since deregulation.

I have a ton of other great “air ideas” to put in interview format or otherwise, on DVDs, on YouTube, Free IQ, advertise on Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, etc.    What do you think?   Am I “in?”    Will you work with me?    I’ll be asking you more about all this, often and soon.

These days, however, are much tougher times for “airline types.”   Things are a lot different from those old days, when the pilots unions had a voice about how they felt the business and safety of “flying people around” should be conducted.

I live in a gated community of some pretty staunch (to say the least)  Republicans.    Say the word, “union” to them and they come off the wall, but I always give them a paragraph or two about how the airlines wouldn’t be near as safe as they are now without pilot unions and they say, “hmm.”    At least they feel differently about them, or so they pretend.   On the other hand, many retired pilotsdon’t trust them (the unions or the Republicans) with your pension, either.   The “active guys” might sell you out.   Pilots unions these days have lost their balls.   Don’t get me started.   Or, perhaps better yet, do so.   Reply now!

Capt. Jim (“Gives”)
jimgives@gmail.com   (Please send stories here.  C’mon, fish out those old aviation stories and experiences.  Share them with us.  You don’t have to be a pilot to participate.  If you’ve ever flown, you have one or more–guaranteed.  At least leave your phone number and I’ll call you).

So what happens if the top marginal tax rate on people making over $357,700 goes up from its current 35% to, for example, the Eisenhower-era 91%?.  Read on (believe it or not, I suppose).

For over 120 million American workers who don’t earn over $357,700/year, it won’t mean a thing. But for the tiny handful of millionaires and billionaires who have promoted The Great Tax Con, it will bite hard. And that’s why they spend millions to make average working people freak out about increases in the top tax rates.

Rates on the very rich went back up into the 70-90% range from the 1930s to the 1980s.  As a result, the economy grew steadily;  for the first time in the history of our nation we went 50 years without a crash or major bank failure and working people’s wages increased enough to produce the strongest middle class this nation has ever seen.

Then came Reaganomics.   And “deficits don’t matter” remember?

July 21, 2009

The Great Tax Con Job

By Thom Hartmann

Republicans are using the T-word – taxes – to attack the Obama healthcare program.  It’s a strategy based in a lie.

A very small niche of America’s uber-wealthy have pulled off what may well be the biggest con job in the history of our republic, and they did it in a startlingly brief 30 or so years. True, they spent over three billion dollars to make it happen, but the reward to them was in the hundreds of billions – and will continue to be.

As my friend and colleague Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks pointed out in a Daily Kos blog recently [1], billionaire Rupert Murdoch loses $50 million a year on the NY Post, billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife loses $2 to $3 million a year on the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, billionaire Philip Anschutz loses around $5 million a year on The Weekly Standard, and billionaire Sun Myung Moon has lost $2 to $3 billion on The Washington Times.

Why are these guys willing to lose so much money funding “conservative” media? Why do they bulk-buy every right-wing book that comes out to throw it to the top of the NY Times Bestseller list and then give away the copies to “subscribers” to their websites and publications? Why do they fund to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year money-hole “think tanks” like Heritage and Cato?

The answer is pretty straightforward. They do it because it buys them respectability, and gets their con job out there. Even though William Kristol’s publication is a money-losing joke (with only 85,000 subscribers!), his association with the Standard was enough to get him on TV talk shows whenever he wants, and a column with The New York Times. The Washington Times catapulted Tony Blankley to stardom.

“Fellowships” and other forms of indirect sponsorship of right-wing talk show hosts have made otherwise-marginal shows and their hosts ubiquitous, and such sponsorships of groups like Norquist’s anti-tax “Americans for Tax Reform” regularly get people like him front-and-center in any debate on taxation in the United States.

All so they could run a tax con on the American people, thus keeping Moon and Murdoch and Scaife and Anschutz (and others) richer than you or I could ever even imagine.

All of this money was spent – invested, really, since it’s been more than saved back in low income tax rates on millionaires and billionaires – to convince Americans that up is down and black is white when it comes to income taxes. Here’s how it works:

Rich Person’s Tax Effect

If a person earns so much money that he doesn’t or can’t spend it all each year, then when his taxes go down your income after taxes goes up. This is largely because there’s little to no relationship between what he “needs to live on” and what he’s “earning.”

Somebody living on a million dollars a year but earning five million after taxes, can sock away four million in a Swiss bank. If his taxes go up enough to drop his after-tax income to only three million a year, he’s still living on a million a year, and only socks away two million in the Swiss bank. His “disposable” income goes down when his taxes go up, and vice-versa. (Technically, the word is “discretionary” income for after-tax, after-living-expenses income, but “disposable” income has become so widely used as a phrase to describe discretionary income I’ll use it here.)

The Rich Person’s Tax Effect is the one that virtually all Americans understand – and, oddly, most working class people think applies to them, too (this is the truly amazing part of the con job referred to earlier).

But it doesn’t.

Working Person’s Tax Effect – version one

Most working people spend pretty much all of what they earn – their “disposable/discretionary” income is close to zero. Savings rates in the US among working people typically are small – one to five percent – and during the last few years of the W. Bush administration actually went negative. So the take-home pay that people have after taxes – regardless of what the taxes may be – is pretty much what they live on.

As economist David Ricardo pointed out in 1817 in the “On Wages” chapter of his book “On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation,” take home pay is also generally “what a person will work for.” Employers know this: Ricardo’s “Iron Law of Wages” is rooted in the notion that there is a “market” for labor, driven in part by supply and demand. So if a worker is earning, for example, a gross salary of $75,000, his 2008 federal income tax would be about $15,000 ($802.50 on
first $8,025 of income; $3,687.75 on income from $8,025 to $32,550; $10,612.50 on income from $32,550 to $75,000), leaving him a take-home pay of $60,000.

Both he and his employer know that he’ll do the job he’s doing for around $60,000 a year in take-home pay.

So what happens if his taxes go up, cutting his take-home pay to $55,000 a year (even though his gross is still $75,000)? Over time (typically one to three years) his wages will rise enough to compensate for the lost income.

Alan Greenspan used to be hysterical about this effect – he called it “wage inflation” – and The Wall Street Journal and other publications would often reference it, although the average working person has no idea that if his taxes go up, his wages will eventually go up. Similarly, when working-class people’s taxes go down, their gross wages will, over time, go down so their inflation-adjusted take-home pay remains the same. We’ve seen both happen over the past eighty years, over and over again.

When I was in Denmark last year doing my radio show from the Danish Radio offices for a week and interviewing many of that nation’s leading politicians, economists, energy experts, and newspaper publishers, one of my guests made a comment that dropped the scales from my own eyes.

We’d been discussing taxes on the air, what the Danes get for their average 52% tax rate (free college education, free health care, 4 weeks of vacation, being the world’s “happiest” country according to research reported on CBS’s “60 Minutes” TV show, etc.). I asked him why people didn’t revolt at such high tax rates, and he smiled and just pointed out to me that the average Dane is very well paid with a minimum wage that equals about $18 US (depending on the exchange rate from day to day).

Off the air, he made the comment to me that was so enlightening. “You Americans are such suckers,” he said, as I recall. “You think that the rules for taxes that apply to rich people also apply to working people. But they don’t. When working peoples’ taxes go up, their pay goes up. When their taxes go down, their pay goes down. It may take a year or two or three to all even out, but it always works this way – look at any country in Europe. And it’s the opposite of how it works for rich people!”

Working Person’s Tax Effect – Version Two

The other point about taxes – which Obama leveraged with his “no tax increases on people earning under $250,000 a year” pledge – has to do with the fact that our tax structure in the US is progressive.

Here’s how it breaks out for a single person from the 2008 federal tax tables [2]:

10% on income between $0 and $8,02515% on the income between $8,025 and $32,550;25% on the income between $32,550 and $78,850;28% on the income between $78,850 and $164,550;33% on the income between $164,550 and $357,700;35% on the income over $357,700.

Note that our $75,000/year worker has two full tax brackets above him, which, if they go up, will not affect him at all. (This is also true, of course, for the median-wage and average-wage American workers who earn in the low to mid-$40,000/year range.)

The top tax rate that a person pays is referred to as their “marginal tax rate” (in our worker’s case 28%). So what happens if the top marginal tax rate on people making over $357,700 goes up from its current 35% to, for example, the Eisenhower-era 91%?

For over 120 million American workers who don’t earn over $357,700/year, it won’t mean a thing. But for the tiny handful of millionaires and billionaires who have promoted The Great Tax Con, it will bite hard. And that’s why they spend millions to make average working people freak out about increases in the top tax rates.

Income taxes as the “Great Stabilizer”

Beyond fairness and holding back the Landed Gentry the Founders worried about (America had no billionaires in today’s money until after the Civil War, with John D. Rockefeller being our first), there’s an important reason to increase to top marginal tax rate, and to do so now.

Novelist Larry Beinhart was the first to bring this to my attention. He looked over the history of tax cuts and economic bubbles, and found a clear relationship between the two. High top marginal tax rates (generally well above 60%) on rich people actually stabilize the economy, prevent economic bubbles from forming, prevent economic crashes, and lead to steady and sustained economic growth (and steady and sustained wage growth for working people).

On the other hand, when top marginal rates drop below 50 percent, the opposite happens. As Beinhart noted in a November 17, 2008 post [3] on the Huffington Post, the massive Republican tax cuts of the 1920s (from 73% to 25%) led directly to the Roaring ’20s stock market bubble, temporary boom, and then the crash and Republican Great Depression of 1929.

Rates on the very rich went back up into the 70-90% range from the 1930s to the 1980s. As a result, the economy grew steadily; for the first time in the history of our nation we went 50 years without a crash or major bank failure; and working people’s wages increased enough to produce the strongest middle class this nation has ever seen.

Then came Reaganomics.

Reagan cut top marginal rates on millionaires and billionaires from 74% down to 38% and there was an immediate surge in the markets – followed by the worst crash since the Great Depression and the failure of virtually the entire nation’s savings and loan banking system.

Bush I cut taxes, and the nation fell into a severe recession while debt soared and wages for working people fell.

Things stabilized somewhat when Clinton slightly raised taxes on the very rich, but W. Bush dropped them again – including taking taxes on unearned income (interest and dividends – the “income” that people like W. born with a trust fund “earn” as they sit around the pool waiting for the dividend check to arrive in the mail) down to a top rate of 15%. (That’s right – trust fund babies like Bush and Scaife pay a MAXIMUM 15% federal income tax on their dividend and interest income, thanks to the second Bush tax cut.) The result of this surge in easy money for the wealthy, combined with deregulation in the financial markets, was the “froth” Greenspan worried about and led us straight into the Second Republican Great Depression, ongoing today.

The math is really pretty simple. When the uber-rich are heavily taxed, economies prosper and wages for working people steadily rise. When taxes are cut for the rich, working people suffer and economies turn into casinos.

Roll Back The Reagan Tax Cuts

While there’s much discussion about letting the Bush tax cuts expire, if we really want our country to recover its financial footing we must do something altogether different. We need to roll back the Reagan tax cuts that took the top marginal rate from above 70% down into the 30% range.

First, though, we have to help Americans realize that “no new taxes” is a mantra that is meaningful to the very rich, but largely irrelevant to average working people.

Only when the current generation re-learns the economic and tax lessons well known by the generation (now dying off) that came of age in the 30s through the 60s, will this become politically possible. Americans need to learn what Europeans know about taxes – they only matter to the rich.

Thus today the uber-rich are spending hundreds of millions to make sure words like “burden” are always associated with the word “tax,” and to convince average working people that they should throw out of office any politicians who are willing to raise taxes on the rich.

We have a lot of education to do…and as long as the Right Wing Machine of the uber-rich continues to “lose” (e.g. “invest”) millions of dollars a year in their ongoing disinformation campaign, it’s going to require all of us reciting the mantra, “Roll back the Reagan tax cuts!”

I, on the other hand, am free to wander the venue as a paying “gawker.”   She already has Ochoa’s red autograph on her white volunteer’s hat,  so “she’s cool”–is anyway, of course.

Remember last year when Annika sunk her eagle approach to the 18th?

Here it is again, in case you’d like a quick rememberance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml9WT7hLq0g&feature=channel_page

Leave me a comment below if there is anything I can tell you about the open in real time–here or at Twitter:

www.twitter.com/JimGives