Earlier this evening I was watching the program "Discoveries
This Week" on the Science Channel. The first segment was about
the visual laser warning system being put in the ADIZ. All the
reported errors about the lasers I'm addressing in alt.lasers.

However, I wanted to mention here that some official involved in
the deomonstration flights to the media said that ADIZ incursions
are an almost daily occurence, saying that he thinks the actual
number is about a thousand per yer.

The blame is put on uneducated and uninformed pilots, which is
probably true.

But my point is, if there's a thousand incursions a year, what
does that say about the effectiveness and usefulness of the
ADIZ? My opinion is that it proves it's uselessness.

BTW, this program is repeated multiple times over the weekend
so if you get the channel you might be able to catch the show
yourself.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

The problem now is there are some Feds trying to use that data to
justify either expansion of the ADIZ AND FRZ, or banning GA altogether
from the NCR.

Now that some Congressmen have been inconvenienced by the "Godzilla
Attack" alert condition, there are talks of draconian fines.

Once again, no one has demonstrated the ADIZ is any more rational than
the 30-minute pee-in-your-pants rule that SECDHS (NOT TSA) requested
suspended...

In article >,
Skywise > wrote:

> But my point is, if there's a thousand incursions a year, what
> does that say about the effectiveness and usefulness of the
> ADIZ? My opinion is that it proves it's uselessness.

It would be interesting to know how many incurions occur in
each ADIZ that we have, as well as the total number of
flights operating in and around each ADIZ, including the
DC ADIZ. And for additional comparison, it would be useful
to know the same kind of info for other large restricted or
prohibited airspace. Then we could see whether incursions
are a particular problem with the DC ADIZ.

But the number of incursions with the DC ADIZ really doesn't
say much about the usefulness of the ADIZ. The whole point of
having the ADIZ is so that our Air Defense folks in the NCR can
distinquish friend from foe. From an Air Defense point of view
it would be easiest just to make the DC ADIZ one big prohibited
airspace without any aircraft allowed at all. This would allow them
to shoot at anything that flies.

I suspect your question is more about the actual need of the DC ADIZ.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

> But my point is, if there's a thousand incursions a year, what
> does that say about the effectiveness and usefulness of the
> ADIZ? My opinion is that it proves it's uselessness.

I find it hard to imagine that there are really 1000 incursions every year.

But if there really are that many, I'm afraid this says volumes more about
the caliber of our pilots than it does about the utility of an ADIZ.

I'm really starting to grow uncomfortable with this topic, as it is wearing
away at the patina of competence we, as pilots, have always worn. Maybe we
really aren't as good as we think?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> But if there really are that many, I'm afraid this says volumes more about
> the caliber of our pilots than it does about the utility of an ADIZ.

Controller error leads to incursions too - I've witnessed them. And
it's also useful to know what exactly is defined as an "incursion". A
wrong transponder code? (that nearly got a congressman shot down)

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 07:32:24 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>::

>But the number of incursions with the DC ADIZ really doesn't
>say much about the usefulness of the ADIZ.

Actually, it says volumes about the lack of necessity for the ADIZ.

>The whole point of
>having the ADIZ is so that our Air Defense folks in the NCR can
>distinquish friend from foe.

How can you be so sure that the ADIZ isn't a typically poorly thought
out, airline industry inspired, TSA pseudo-security measure to provide
the public with tangible evidence that the TSA are earning their pay,
and the military with additional stateside operational duty?

>From an Air Defense point of view it would be easiest just to make the
>DC ADIZ one big prohibited airspace without any aircraft allowed at all.

So the DC ADIZ is not a sensible measure. But the airlines, airline
passengers, such as DC bureaucrats and congresspeople, have sufficient
political influence to impose this useless affront to private flyers.
And the news media are milking the public hysteria cash-cow at every
opportunity.

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> So the DC ADIZ is not a sensible measure. But the airlines, airline
> passengers, such as DC bureaucrats and congresspeople, have sufficient
> political influence to impose this useless affront to private flyers.

I'm largely with you but I just don't see this having to do anything
with the airlines. DCA was shut down for a long time after 9/11 which
damn near killed US Airways, among other things. This looks to me like
nothing more than a stupid internal bureaucracy at work.

-cwk.

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> How can you be so sure that the ADIZ isn't a typically poorly thought
> out, airline industry inspired, TSA pseudo-security measure to provide
> the public with tangible evidence that the TSA are earning their pay,
> and the military with additional stateside operational duty?

1) the DC ADIZ isn't new is it? It isn't the only ADIZ, is it?

2) Given that I've worked on USAF Air Defense systems, including
stuff in the NCR, I better know the purpose of the DC ADIZ.

And note that I've never ever said having an ADIZ over/around
DC is necessary.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>> So the DC ADIZ is not a sensible measure. But the airlines, airline
>> passengers, such as DC bureaucrats and congresspeople, have sufficient
>> political influence to impose this useless affront to private flyers.
>
> I'm largely with you but I just don't see this having to do anything
> with the airlines. DCA was shut down for a long time after 9/11 which
> damn near killed US Airways, among other things.

Who then partook in a major boondoggle of a free money grant, plus matching
easy loans from the US government. Compared to the shutdowns and
restrictions non-airlines have suffered, even the DCA closure was
inconsequential, and the affected airlines were compensated, far beyond what
was necessary IMHO.

> This looks to me like
> nothing more than a stupid internal bureaucracy at work.

IMHO, it's clear that the airlines have wielded considerable political clout
to ensure their unfettered access to the airspace around DC, and quite
possibly could have used that clout to as well suppress non-airline flight.
They probably were aiming primarily at business jet traffic (since that's
their main competition), not caring (or possibly not even thinking about)
that even smaller aircraft are affected as much or more.

Of course, like practically everyone else, the airlines are incredibly
short-sighted, believing that suppression of all other aviation in favor of
themselves will be good for them. But in the long run, a healthy aviation
industry requires a broad spectrum of uses. An industry made of only
airlines is unlikely to prosper at all, and any significant disruption could
eliminate it all together. Diversity is the best way to protect the
industry, and right now that diversity is severely threatened.

Pete

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:_b8Ce.156431$x96.114510@attbi_s72...
> [...] Maybe we really aren't as good as we think?

I have always questioned the attitude that pilots are somehow better than
the rest of the world. There are some differences, to be sure...the
certification process eliminates people who are not fully committed. But it
does nothing to eliminate the idiots. It just lets through the fully
committed idiots, just as it lets through the fully committed competents.

Personally, I think that in practically every endeavor, aviation included,
there are more idiots than competents. That's why we need rules. Of
course, the idiots find lots of ways to break the rules too, but without any
rules things would be even worse.

The real problem is when the rule-makers are acting as idiotically as the
idiots the rules are supposed to protect. Then you get something like the
DC ADIZ.

This has been a service of the Public Cynicism Broadcast Corporation.

Pete

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> 1) the DC ADIZ isn't new is it? It isn't the only ADIZ, is it?

It's not actually an ADIZ. It has the same name, using the same acronym,
but the rules are substantially different from the true ADIZ airspace.

> 2) Given that I've worked on USAF Air Defense systems, including
> stuff in the NCR, I better know the purpose of the DC ADIZ.

Okay. So, do you? Know the purpose of the DC ADIZ, that is.

> And note that I've never ever said having an ADIZ over/around
> DC is necessary.

That's a relief. :)

Pete

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:45:30 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in
<_b8Ce.156431$x96.114510@attbi_s72>::

>
>But if there really are that many, I'm afraid this says volumes more about
>the caliber of our pilots than it does about the utility of an ADIZ.

Admittedly, there is adequate human incompetence in any group you care
to name to assure that some errors will occur. But restricting 2,000
square miles of some of the busiest airspace in the entire world is
guaranteed to trap even competent airmen. To expect an invisible 100
mile (?) perimeter boundary to preclude accidental incursions is
absurd. Add to that the lack of surface landmarks to mark the
boundary, the obscuration of weather, night time operations, and the
inevitable ATC errors, and the volume of inadvertent DC ADIZ
incursions isn't so unreasonable.

Airing disparaging sentiment toward our ranks, while perhaps lending a
bit of public credibility to your arguments, does a disservice to our
fellows at a time when solidarity is crucial.

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:29:41 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>do you? Know the purpose of the DC ADIZ

My guess at the ostensible purpose of the DC ADIZ would be, to provide
uncluttered buffer space from the ground based missile batteries
(located at its center within the FRZ) in which to determine if the
aircraft in violation of the ADIZ regulations is friend or foe before
needlessly shooting down innocent citizens.

Anyone who knows anything about security, knows that only completely
locked (and thus unusable) systems are even remotely invulnerable.
While possibly attempted with the best of intentions, the security
measures implemented since September 11, 2001 only serve to confound
those with no criminal intent, and bear piteous testament to the
impossibility of securing a free populace.

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> > [...] Maybe we really aren't as good as we think?
>
> I have always questioned the attitude that pilots are somehow better than
> the rest of the world. There are some differences, to be sure...the
> certification process eliminates people who are not fully committed. But it
> does nothing to eliminate the idiots.

There are some drivers I know that are downright scary. I hope the
certification process would eliminate some of those from actually getting
a certificate. I mean, come on, there are folks I know that could
hide their own easter eggs, and these people are driving!

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> > 2) Given that I've worked on USAF Air Defense systems, including
> > stuff in the NCR, I better know the purpose of the DC ADIZ.
>
> Okay. So, do you? Know the purpose of the DC ADIZ, that is.

yep. Already said it a couple of posts ago. That's not to say there
aren't side effects or that it is properly set up for its purpose.
But it's there to help the air defense folks responsible for the NCR
separate friend from foe.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

I forgot to mention in my original post that in this program
was plenty of video demonstrating the laser warning system.

In the night footage the waring flashes were very clear.

However, in the daylight footage it was hard to spot. It
just didn't appear to stand out all that much. I would venture
to say that if someone was looking 90 degrees away from
the laser they wouldn't even notice it in the daytime.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote:
>
>> > 2) Given that I've worked on USAF Air Defense systems, including
>> > stuff in the NCR, I better know the purpose of the DC ADIZ.
>>
>> Okay. So, do you? Know the purpose of the DC ADIZ, that is.
>
> yep. Already said it a couple of posts ago. That's not to say there
> aren't side effects or that it is properly set up for its purpose.
> But it's there to help the air defense folks responsible for the NCR
> separate friend from foe.
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> no one likes an educated mule
>

How are the friendly trucks separated from the foes?

"Skywise" > wrote in message ...
>I forgot to mention in my original post that in this program
> was plenty of video demonstrating the laser warning system.
>
> In the night footage the waring flashes were very clear.
>
> However, in the daylight footage it was hard to spot. It
> just didn't appear to stand out all that much. I would venture
> to say that if someone was looking 90 degrees away from
> the laser they wouldn't even notice it in the daytime.
>
> Brian
> --


All this is based on the assumption that the ADIZ is a valid premise anyway

In article >,
" Blueskies" > wrote:

> How are the friendly trucks separated from the foes?

good question (but making that determination is not the
responsibility of the Air Defense folks in the NCR).

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> How can you be so sure that the ADIZ isn't a typically poorly thought
> out, airline industry inspired, TSA pseudo-security measure to provide
> the public with tangible evidence that the TSA are earning their pay,
> and the military with additional stateside operational duty?

You can't; however, NPR broadcast a discussion of security measures back when
the results of the 9/11 commission were made public. One of the officials
interviewed stated that "they" had been agitating for the equivalent of this
ADIZ for many years and that one of the "good things" about the terrorist
situation is that "no-one can seriously argue any more that the ADIZ isn't
necessary."

I'm afraid I no longer remember who made that comment, but I believe it was a
military officer.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

" Blueskies" > wrote in
m:

>
> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I forgot to mention in my original post that in this program
>> was plenty of video demonstrating the laser warning system.
>>
>> In the night footage the waring flashes were very clear.
>>
>> However, in the daylight footage it was hard to spot. It
>> just didn't appear to stand out all that much. I would venture
>> to say that if someone was looking 90 degrees away from
>> the laser they wouldn't even notice it in the daytime.
>>
>> Brian
>> --
>
>
> All this is based on the assumption that the ADIZ is a valid premise
> anyway

Quite. But I am left wondering how useful this laser warning
system will be during the day. There's sure to be pilots who
say, "I didn't see no flashing red red green light."

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> There are some drivers I know that are downright scary. I hope the
> certification process would eliminate some of those from actually getting
> a certificate.

Even restricting the survey to experiences described in this very newsgroup,
there is ample evidence of identically scary pilots. Many of us (most or
all of us, more likely) have personal knowledge of identically scary pilots.

The certification process does eliminate SOME of those drivers you know who
are downright scary. But not because they are scary; mostly it's just
because they aren't committed enough to finish.

Pete

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:

>> But my point is, if there's a thousand incursions a year, what
>> does that say about the effectiveness and usefulness of the
>> ADIZ? My opinion is that it proves it's uselessness.
>
> I find it hard to imagine that there are really 1000 incursions every
> year.
>
> But if there really are that many, I'm afraid this says volumes more
> about the caliber of our pilots than it does about the utility of an
> ADIZ.
>
My thought is that it says more about making rules that are so difficult
to follow. Keep in mind that these incursions are from all kinds of pilots
flying all kinds of aircraft. They aren't just from GA. I would think that
it would be reason to reflect on the value of a rule that results in so
many infractions and has proven time and again that it is incapable of
providing the intended "protection". That such reconsideration has so far
eluded them speaks volumes about the caliber of our rule makers.

Neil

The Interagency Airspace Working Group does not include the airline
industry. It appears the principals in this matter is the USSS and DoD,
TSA lacks any technically competant management - has from day one
(don't ask me how I know...)

Since GA represents such a small minority, it is just plain
'low-hanging fruit' that provides the appearance of positive action on
aviation security. That is it, plain and simple. There are no, zero,
nada REAL quantitative studies or Operations Research concerning the
optimum method to secure DC airspace without restricting freedom of
movement. This was a simple, knee-jerk action that there has been
little reason to go back and re-examine, unlike the 30-minute
'pee-in-your-pants' rule (which REALLY made no sense from a tactical
perspective.)

The only way at this point any progress will be made is if a big GOP
donor (perhaps one of the beloved 'Rangers') is shot down by mistake.

> unlike the 30-minute
> 'pee-in-your-pants' rule (which REALLY made no sense from a tactical
> perspective.)

What rule is this?

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > unlike the 30-minute
> > 'pee-in-your-pants' rule (which REALLY made no sense from a tactical
> > perspective.)
>
> What rule is this?

On flights to DCA, all passengers remain in their seats for the last
30 minutes of the flight.

On flights departing DCA, all passengers remain in their seats for the
first 30 minutes of the flight.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 02:32:10 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote in <KqjCe.1930$Im3.1442@trndny07>::

>I'm afraid I no longer remember who made that comment, but I believe it was a
>military officer.

Well, it's "their" job, just the way a junkyard dog's job is to bite
fence jumpers at night. You want a vicious dog that will
enthusiastically deter the larcenous, but you want to keep him chained
firmly under control during the day when cash customers are around.
This ADIZ is beginning to look like the dog has slipped its leash.


While I don't deny the vulnerability of DC to certain potential aerial
and other modes of terrorist attack, I believe the cost in restriction
of freedom is far greater than the actual good the DC ADIZ
accomplishes toward security. If those who govern us fear for their
well being in the traditional seats of government, they should retreat
to their bunkers to convene Congress, not revoke the peoples' rights
out of convenience.

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 03:52:00 -0000, Skywise
> wrote in
>::

>But I am left wondering how useful this laser warning
>system will be during the day. There's sure to be pilots who
>say, "I didn't see no flashing red red green light."

Right. But the visual laser warning does provide an additional medium
for contacting ADIZ violators.

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message ...
> Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:
>
>>> But my point is, if there's a thousand incursions a year, what
>>> does that say about the effectiveness and usefulness of the
>>> ADIZ? My opinion is that it proves it's uselessness.
>>
>> I find it hard to imagine that there are really 1000 incursions every
>> year.
>>
>> But if there really are that many, I'm afraid this says volumes more
>> about the caliber of our pilots than it does about the utility of an
>> ADIZ.
>>
> My thought is that it says more about making rules that are so difficult
> to follow. Keep in mind that these incursions are from all kinds of pilots
> flying all kinds of aircraft. They aren't just from GA. I would think that
> it would be reason to reflect on the value of a rule that results in so
> many infractions and has proven time and again that it is incapable of
> providing the intended "protection". That such reconsideration has so far
> eluded them speaks volumes about the caliber of our rule makers.
>
> Neil
>
>

IMHO, the biggest problem we have is the proliferation of 'laws' that are issued as a knee jerk reaction to some
singular event. Forget that there are already laws in place that would cover the event; the new 'law' appeases the media
and is meant to show that the politicians are doing their job. There are all kinds of these 'laws' that are selectively
enforced. How may times have you (not you specifically Neil ;-) seen an idiot driver doing some stupid human trick while
driving that was obviously illegal, but no-one did anything about it. This selective enforcement dilutes any enforcement
of laws that should really count.

Some say that freedom is not free; well I think that should be edited to say that freedom is not safe. We routinely risk
our lives driving down the road at 60 mph with opposing traffic doing the same, but we are free to do so. Maybe all
roads should have a vehicle proof divider to be sure we are not going to have a collision with that other car; the way
our society is going we are all going to be locked into a little room (airliner cockpits?) so nobody will be hurt. Will
we be free then?

Dan d.

> Maybe all
> roads should have a vehicle proof divider to be sure we are not going to have a collision with that other car;

Have you ever driven in New Jersey?

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Blueskies wrote:
>
> Maybe all
> roads should have a vehicle proof divider to be sure we are not going to have a collision with that other car;

That's called a "Jersey Barrier."

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 08:48:39 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:

>> What rule is this?
>
>On flights to DCA, all passengers remain in their seats for the last
>30 minutes of the flight.
>
>On flights departing DCA, all passengers remain in their seats for the
>first 30 minutes of the flight.

is this the DCA in the "land of the free an the brave"? or is there another
DCA somewhere on this wonderful planet?

scnr,

#m

--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

Martin Hotze wrote:
>
> is this the DCA in the "land of the free an the brave"?

Used to be. The media and politicians are trying their best to turn us all into
a bunch of cowards, living what passes for lives in cocoons of safety and security.

Seen the new Star Wars flick yet? Palatine announces the abolition of the
council and says "I will keep you safe. I will bring you security." And the
princess says "So this is how freedom dies."

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

" Blueskies" > wrote in
:

<Snipola>
> IMHO, the biggest problem we have is the proliferation of 'laws' that
> are issued as a knee jerk reaction to some singular event. Forget that
> there are already laws in place that would cover the event; the new
> 'law' appeases the media and is meant to show that the politicians are
> doing their job. There are all kinds of these 'laws' that are
> selectively enforced. How may times have you (not you specifically Neil
> ;-) seen an idiot driver doing some stupid human trick while driving
> that was obviously illegal, but no-one did anything about it. This
> selective enforcement dilutes any enforcement of laws that should really
> count.
<Snipola>

Going off on a tangent....

I have seen people break laws right in front of police officers.
I can only surmise the officer was busy looking elsewhere.

Then again, I have seen police officers break quite a few laws
themsleves. I have been nearly run off the road by officers
breaking traffic laws without use of sirens or lights. I have
seen officers speeding at speeds in excess of 80 in a 45 to
meet friends at an eatery. I've even seen a police car flip on
it's lights to run a red light only turn into a donut shop. No
joke!!

When I have the chance I've started reporting them or even
appraoching them personally on the topic.

Most recently I saw a sheriff car park in the fire lane in front
of my grocery store only to walk inside and go to the deli. I
politely walked up and asked, "If I were to park in a red zone
to come into get a sandwich, would I get a ticket?" He replied,
"yes." I thanked him and walked away. I made my point.

Some have said, and some may continue to say I'm effing nuts. But
the point is, law enforcement is NOT above the law.

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

End tangent.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:YLyCe.3802$xe3.29@trndny09...
> Martin Hotze wrote:
> >
> > is this the DCA in the "land of the free an the brave"?
>
> Used to be. The media and politicians are trying their best to turn us all
into
> a bunch of cowards, living what passes for lives in cocoons of safety and
security.
>
> Seen the new Star Wars flick yet? Palatine announces the abolition of the
> council and says "I will keep you safe. I will bring you security." And
the
> princess says "So this is how freedom dies."
>

"Not with a bang but a whimper."

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 21:03:41 +0200, Martin Hotze
> wrote in
>::

>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 08:48:39 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:
>
>>> What rule is this?
>>
>>On flights to DCA, all passengers remain in their seats for the last
>>30 minutes of the flight.
>>
>>On flights departing DCA, all passengers remain in their seats for the
>>first 30 minutes of the flight.
>
>is this the DCA in the "land of the free an the brave"? or is there another
>DCA somewhere on this wonderful planet?


Thank you.

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:23:26 -0000, Skywise
> wrote in
>::

>I have seen police officers break quite a few laws
>themsleves.

You must have hung out with the LA Rampart Street LEOs:
http://www.lapdonline.org/releases/1999/99_09/ocop2.htm

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:23:26 -0000, Skywise
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>I have seen police officers break quite a few laws
>>themsleves.
>
> You must have hung out with the LA Rampart Street LEOs:
> http://www.lapdonline.org/releases/1999/99_09/ocop2.htm

Naw...just what I have observed while driving.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Bob Noel wrote:

> 1) the DC ADIZ isn't new is it? It isn't the only ADIZ, is it?

New is a relative term. It's post 9-11.

It's not the only ADIZ, however, it bears NO RESEMBLANCE either
in operating rule, regulatory status, or any thing other than NAME
to the off-shore ADIZ or the one between the US and MEXICO.

>
> 2) Given that I've worked on USAF Air Defense systems, including
> stuff in the NCR, I better know the purpose of the DC ADIZ.

Really, how so?

>

In article >,
Ron Natalie > wrote:

> > 2) Given that I've worked on USAF Air Defense systems, including
> > stuff in the NCR, I better know the purpose of the DC ADIZ.
>
> Really, how so?

Because it was part of my job to know the purpose.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Ron Natalie > wrote:
>
> > > 2) Given that I've worked on USAF Air Defense systems, including
> > > stuff in the NCR, I better know the purpose of the DC ADIZ.
> >
> > Really, how so?
>
> Because it was part of my job to know the purpose.
>
You were a bureaucrat -- it was your purpose to enhance and perpetuate the
bureaucracy!! :~)

>> > 2) Given that I've worked on USAF Air Defense systems, including
>> > stuff in the NCR, I better know the purpose of the DC ADIZ.
>>
>> Really, how so?
>
> Because it was part of my job to know the purpose.

Bob could tell you, Ron, but then he'd have to kill you.

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Well, I was one of those incursions about 6 months ago. I was following
the procedure for Kentmorr which requires a specific code, no contact,
but an entry and exit directly to the east. On the my way out, I
started my turn onto the borderng airway to soon. That is I cut the
corner on the 90degree turn. I talked to ATC once I got home per their
instruction. We agreed on what happened. I was humble and he was doing
his job. No violation or followup.

I suspect *many* incursions are of this type. It was clear what I was
doing, why and how. No threat even implied. But it made clear to me
that there is zero tolerance.

In retrospect, a damn good way to run an ADIZ, assuming one should be there.

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>But my point is, if there's a thousand incursions a year, what
>>does that say about the effectiveness and usefulness of the
>>ADIZ? My opinion is that it proves it's uselessness.
>
>
> I find it hard to imagine that there are really 1000 incursions every year.
>
> But if there really are that many, I'm afraid this says volumes more about
> the caliber of our pilots than it does about the utility of an ADIZ.
>
> I'm really starting to grow uncomfortable with this topic, as it is wearing
> away at the patina of competence we, as pilots, have always worn. Maybe we
> really aren't as good as we think?

Only a white guy would do that.

(no offense intended)

> When I have the chance I've started reporting them or even
> appraoching them personally on the topic.
>
> Most recently I saw a sheriff car park in the fire lane in front
> of my grocery store only to walk inside and go to the deli. I
> politely walked up and asked, "If I were to park in a red zone
> to come into get a sandwich, would I get a ticket?" He replied,
> "yes." I thanked him and walked away. I made my point.
>
> Some have said, and some may continue to say I'm effing nuts. But
> the point is, law enforcement is NOT above the law.
>
> Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
>
> End tangent.

Maule Driver > wrote:

> Only a white guy would do that.
>
> (no offense intended)

LOL!

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> Ron Natalie > wrote:
>
>
>>>2) Given that I've worked on USAF Air Defense systems, including
>>>stuff in the NCR, I better know the purpose of the DC ADIZ.
>>
>>Really, how so?
>
>
> Because it was part of my job to know the purpose.
>
Given that the uSAF AIr Defense system, and the real
ADIZ's have nothing whatsoever to do with who the DC
ADIZ, this is relevant how?

Maule Driver > wrote in news:Tk8De.18583$3j2.529960
@twister.southeast.rr.com:

> Only a white guy would do that.
>
> (no offense intended)
<Snipola>

I have to admit it took a me a minute get the joke.

BTW, I'm the minority in the area.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

In article >,
Ron Natalie > wrote:

> Given that the uSAF AIr Defense system, and the real
> ADIZ's have nothing whatsoever to do with who the DC
> ADIZ [snip]

The NORAD mission includes air supremacy/superiority for all
CONUS airspace, including the NCR. Other agencies have, ahem,
some claims, but the NCR is in fact part of the NEADS airspace.

Part of the confusion may be a result of the fact that prior
to 9/11 NORAD was not looking at the interior. However,
following the 9/11 attacks, the US Air Defense System was
modified to take in all available radar feeds, including FAA
radars.

So, once again, the purpose of the DC ADIZ is to help the
USAF distinquish between friend and foe. (and again, I'm
not commenting on the need for or the effeciency of the
DC ADIZ).

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

"Skywise" > wrote in message ...
> Maule Driver > wrote in news:Tk8De.18583$3j2.529960
> @twister.southeast.rr.com:
>
>> Only a white guy would do that.
>>
>> (no offense intended)
> <Snipola>
>
> I have to admit it took a me a minute get the joke.
>
> BTW, I'm the minority in the area.
>
> Brian
> --
>

Actually, no joke...it is pretty sad...

Yeah, me too.

Skywise wrote:
> Maule Driver > wrote in news:Tk8De.18583$3j2.529960
> @twister.southeast.rr.com:
>
>
>>Only a white guy would do that.
>>
>>(no offense intended)
>
> <Snipola>
>
> I have to admit it took a me a minute get the joke.
>
> BTW, I'm the minority in the area.
>
> Brian

Some more incursion info heard on CNN today...

Unless I radically misunderstood, something about interceptor
jets being scrambled over 2000 times since 9/11.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?