The recent spate of private pilots violating restricted airspace over
Washington raises the thought that some lawmaker is going to decide
that general aviation is a threat to national security. It's only a
matter of time.

Just something else for our lobbyists to be prepared for.

AJ Harris

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> The recent spate of private pilots violating restricted airspace over
> Washington raises the thought that some lawmaker is going to decide
> that general aviation is a threat to national security. It's only a
> matter of time.
>
> Just something else for our lobbyists to be prepared for.
>
> AJ Harris
>

Then Its a matter of time that some lawmaker will be losing their jobs!!!

Obviously shooting these a couple of these planes down is impractical. (but
I firmly believe you wouldn't have to kill many before no one would wander
there again)
Are there any other reasonable consequences that would major deterrent? Part
of the problem is that it is not a big enough inconvenience for violators.
I would rather that the aviation community help find a solution before an
irrational governmental body imposes useless painful legislation upon all
the rest of us. We need to "take care of our own".
Is "Federal pound me in the ass" prison enough? (with huge bail, so they
would be massively inconvenienced)

We as pilots would have to support it. Less incursions is safer for us
(the aviation community)


> wrote in message
ups.com...
> The recent spate of private pilots violating restricted airspace over
> Washington raises the thought that some lawmaker is going to decide
> that general aviation is a threat to national security. It's only a
> matter of time.
>
> Just something else for our lobbyists to be prepared for.
>
> AJ Harris
>

> We as pilots would have to support it. Less incursions is safer for us
> (the aviation community)

Why do I find it hard to believe that a King Air 300 "accidentally"
penetrated the ADIZ? I just flew in that ADIZ a couple of weeks ago, and
it's hard to imagine "accidentally" entering this incredibly well-marked,
highly defended piece of territory.

Personally, I'll bet when all the evidence is examined we will find that the
pilot diverted for weather (as stated), that the local controller knew this,
and that somehow that information didn't get passed around to the
appropriate controllers.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Yeah, I agree that its only a matter of time. That huge AOPA staff that
you guys pay for can only protect you for so long. There have been a
number of close calls for innocents on the ground (the trailer park homes
that were destroyed, highway crashes in Calif, the home that was destroyed
in texas, etc.), but eventually some GA pilot is going to cause alot of
innocents to die (Of course people will post the usual drivel here:
"condolences to the pilot -- he was really good -- we'll miss him, yada
yada yada). When that happens, there will really generate alot of
headlines.

But, the truth is coming out. About the total disregard many of you have
for noise, safety, etc. as well as the huge taxpayer subsidies that GA
airports receive.

There is a nationwide meeting of anti aviation activists coming up next
weekend. With all the news you guys are generating (high profile crashes
all over the country, kids stealing planes, constant intrusions into the
DC ADIZ, the truth about who pays to subsidize your fun (taxpayers), etc.
we have plenty of ammunition to put some sanity into this business.

SKYLUNE is always watching.

Acording to the news reports, he cancelled IFR and/or squawked VFR before
this happened. If it was for weather, it would seem kind of odd for him to
do that. Usually an aircraft with weather issues is left in the IFR system.
However, I suppose an unavoidable separation conflict could have required an
IFR cancellation to avoid a violation of the separation kind. Anyone out
there ever experience a similar situation (non-ADIZ, T-storm, traffic
problem)?

Marco Leon

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:DiUwe.104671$_o.40806@attbi_s71...
> > We as pilots would have to support it. Less incursions is safer for
us
> > (the aviation community)
>
> Why do I find it hard to believe that a King Air 300 "accidentally"
> penetrated the ADIZ? I just flew in that ADIZ a couple of weeks ago,
and
> it's hard to imagine "accidentally" entering this incredibly well-marked,
> highly defended piece of territory.
>
> Personally, I'll bet when all the evidence is examined we will find that
the
> pilot diverted for weather (as stated), that the local controller knew
this,
> and that somehow that information didn't get passed around to the
> appropriate controllers.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

wrote:
> The recent spate of private pilots violating restricted airspace over
> Washington raises the thought that some lawmaker is going to decide
> that general aviation is a threat to national security. It's only a
> matter of time.

You have to expect some of this when you start restricting people's freedoms.
Then beacuse of theses "violations" ever more restrictions seem to come along
and soon there are few left. Maybe that's the real goal.

Of course, the reality that far more people are exposed to death
and dismemberment in automobile crashes every single day won't
cross anyone's mind.

Phil Boyer will need to get a new bumper sticker. Instead of "I fly a
Cessna 150 , 26 gallons of gas, 90 knots of screaming terror, etc." he'll
have to upgrade it to include the other GA planes, like turboprops like the
King Air.

That guy isn't doing your cause any good. Check out the smirking picture
in Letters section of the USA today that appeared about a week ago. Of
course, right after his most recent appearance, there has been another
intrusion, kids stealing planes, highway landings, etc.

What an arrogant jerk. That's who represents you.

"PittsS1C" > wrote in message
...
> Obviously shooting these a couple of these planes down is impractical.
> (but I firmly believe you wouldn't have to kill many before no one would
> wander there again)
> Are there any other reasonable consequences that would major deterrent?
> Part of the problem is that it is not a big enough inconvenience for
> violators.
> I would rather that the aviation community help find a solution before an
> irrational governmental body imposes useless painful legislation upon all
> the rest of us. We need to "take care of our own".
> Is "Federal pound me in the ass" prison enough? (with huge bail, so they
> would be massively inconvenienced)
>
> We as pilots would have to support it. Less incursions is safer for us
> (the aviation community)
>

In democracies, legislators should be defending themselves from aviator's
questions, rather than aviators cowering before the legislator's
impositions.

Before we go shooting these guys down, or incarcerating them for life,
consider their intent and the relative consequence of their actions.
Restrictions in any walk of life should be constantly questioned as to
purpose and effectiveness. Where imposed by the law of the land they must
be followed, of course, but they should continue to be questioned.


"Taking care of our own" should mean aggressively defending pilots whose
technical violation of a rule, has resulted in no significant consequence.


Why do we think there will be no violations, no matter what the penalty? In
all walks of life there are laws (prohibitions), and they all have
violations. The law says it is dangerous to drive too fast, some of us do
and get caught. Don't steal, burglaries do happen; don't cheat, Enron
happens; don't kill, murders do happen, etc. The law says don't fly here,
some do.

So the *regulations* hold *violations* down to a manageable level, that's
all.

If someone violates the don't-kill rule, somebody dies. When Enron happens,
ten of thousands of individual investors suffer for a very long time.

When an ADIZ violation happens, the usual consequence of the perpetrator's
action is.... uh... ???

> But, the truth is coming out. About the total disregard many of you have
> for noise, safety, etc. as well as the huge taxpayer subsidies that GA
> airports receive.

*yawn*

Can't you find a worthy cause to pursue?

Go save some baby seals, or maybe some endangered tree frogs... Or perhaps
even help some kid learn to read...?

Just about anything you could do would be a more useful endeavor than trying
to stop aviation -- possibly mankind's highest achievement.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Marco Leon <mmleonyahoo.com> wrote:

> If it was for weather, it would seem kind of odd for him to
> do that. Usually an aircraft with weather issues is left in the IFR system.

Assuming the conditions allow, the pilot(s) can have much greater
flexibility to deviate around thunderstorms when VFR.

--
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 =----

Who wants to "stop aviation?" Why would anyone want to do this?

All we want is better regulation of GA, eliminate taxpayer subsidies for
GA airports, upgrade pilot training so that these be a pilot in a month
schools won't exist, change the FARs so that a turboprop cant legally
circle over people's house all day long, expose the FAA corrupt,
ineffective regulation of GA, etc.

Every single day, some GA pilots prove that the industry is running amuck.
I feel badly for the responsible majority of GA pilots, but a small
minority is ruining it for all of you, especially those with calalier
attitudes (protect baby seals - please). And Phil Boyer panders to the
lowest common denominator.

> Obviously shooting these a couple of these planes down is impractical. (but
> I firmly believe you wouldn't have to kill many before no one would wander
> there again)

I daresay no one would fly anywhere near there again, wander or not.

> We need to "take care of our own".

No, we need to "take care of the ^(*& regulation". If we turn against
each other we will have played right into our government's hands, which
is in the process of playing into the terrorists hands.

I was at a meeting at DXR Tuesday given by someone whose name escapes me
but is a head of the National Air Transportation Association, who has
been in congress, and who himself is a pilot (along with his wife). He
indicated that the TSA believes that the regulations on little airplanes
are dumb, that those regulations come from the Secret Service, not the
TSA, and that he believes that they will be eventually removed, piece by
piece. Well, I'll believe it when I see it, but it is heartening to
hear it from somebody who should know first hand what is happening.

> We as pilots would have to support ["it" - which I presume to
> mean more consequences for violators].

I do not feel I would have to support it.

> Less incursions is safer for us
> (the aviation community)

Less of something you measure. Fewer of something you count. :)



--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:10:26 -0500, "PittsS1C" >
wrote in >::

>Obviously shooting these a couple of these planes down is impractical. (but
>I firmly believe you wouldn't have to kill many before no one would wander
>there again)
>Are there any other reasonable consequences that would major deterrent? Part
>of the problem is that it is not a big enough inconvenience for violators.
>I would rather that the aviation community help find a solution before an
>irrational governmental body imposes useless painful legislation upon all
>the rest of us. We need to "take care of our own".
>Is "Federal pound me in the ass" prison enough? (with huge bail, so they
>would be massively inconvenienced)
>
>We as pilots would have to support it. Less incursions is safer for us
>(the aviation community)

I couldn't agree with you less. I see very little reason for the ADIZ
at all. And our government shooting down innocent citizens for no
crime is tyranny if the first degree. The Department of Homeland
Security needs to rethink this faulted policy that provides no
additional security at all.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:24:18 -0400, "Icebound"
> wrote in
>::

>In democracies, legislators should be defending themselves from aviator's
>questions, rather than aviators cowering before the legislator's
>impositions.

Thank you. It's refreshing to hear a reasonable voice among the din
of bleating sheep.

wrote:
> The recent spate of private pilots violating restricted airspace over
> Washington raises the thought that some lawmaker is going to decide
> that general aviation is a threat to national security. It's only a
> matter of time.

I've taken some comfort in the fact that this latest incident dropped
off the news almost as quickly as it arrived.

My feeling is that we underestimate the difficulty of regulating GA and
overestimate the public's desire to do so. Here we've just had a really
bad month with drunk kids stealing planes, the usual summer uptick in
crashes, etc. and a slow news cycle and still one senses no urgency on
anyone's part.

While people will get fired up about local issues like noise abatement,
there really is no constituency for DC-style restriction across the
land. Daley has charged the barricades on this a few times since 9/11
and been dismissed with prejudice every time. History shows that when a
small but very dedicated lobby goes up against a largely disinterested
public, the lobby usually wins, for better or worse.

Also, it's worth pointing out that GA happens to have a pretty
bipartisan constituency, and an unusually well-monied one. While many
of us fly old 150s etc etc, the class of people that are buying new
SR-22s, Lancairs, and Eclipses are part of the "monied interests" that
have back-channel connections in high places. Put together I feel
pretty confident that serious top-down restrictions will not happen in
the absence of a major incident, and even in the case of 9/11, nearly
all turned out to be temporary.

The real risk to us is at the local level, namely the disappearance of
airports and the gradual shrinking of the GA base of services, driving
up costs. The recent Kelo decision scares me a lot. I've heard legal
experts take both sides, but my gut instinct is that this will
encourage municipalities to stage a lot more eminent domain raids on
unpopular properties like small airports, whose local supporters are
too easily overrun by real estate developers and neighbors happy to be
rid of the noise.

My hope is that the Sport Pilot/LSA segment will stimulate a lot of new
demand which will increase the constituency for GA on all levels.
Numbers are the ultimate defense, as the gun lobby, which has far more
dedicated enemies, has repeatedly proven.

-cwk.

Icebound > wrote:

> Have a pleasant life.

Ignore that troll. He lives for no other purpose than to get a rise out of
the group.


--
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 =----

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Yeah, I agree that its only a matter of time. That huge AOPA staff that
> you guys pay for can only protect you for so long. There have been a
> number of close calls for innocents on the ground (the trailer park homes
> that were destroyed, highway crashes in Calif, the home that was destroyed
> in texas, etc.), but eventually some GA pilot is going to cause alot of
> innocents to die (Of course people will post the usual drivel here:
> "condolences to the pilot -- he was really good -- we'll miss him, yada
> yada yada). When that happens, there will really generate alot of
> headlines.
>
> But, the truth is coming out. About the total disregard many of you have
> for noise, safety, etc. as well as the huge taxpayer subsidies that GA
> airports receive.
>
> There is a nationwide meeting of anti aviation activists coming up next
> weekend. With all the news you guys are generating (high profile crashes
> all over the country, kids stealing planes, constant intrusions into the
> DC ADIZ, the truth about who pays to subsidize your fun (taxpayers), etc.
> we have plenty of ammunition to put some sanity into this business.
>
> SKYLUNE is always watching.


You can get your reality check here:

http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

You might want to work on that "accidental exposure to cold" . That's just
about the same number of people as die in GA airplane accidents. Or maybe
work on cancelling swimming pools, also about the same number of deaths.

Forget the trivial stuff like the 15,000 car occupants, or 15,000 drug
overdoses, many of them in hospitals, or 12,000 gun deaths. Obviously those
are already well regulated.

While you are looking up at the next GA airplane flying by, your odds of
dying from falling on the sidewalk are just about 6 times as great.

Better shut down walking, too, then, just to be safe.

Have a pleasant life.

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Icebound > wrote:
>
>> Have a pleasant life.
>
> Ignore that troll. He lives for no other purpose than to get a rise out
> of
> the group.
>
>

Oh, of course.... but I get this perverse satisfaction from recalling that
page, just to review all the different possibilities by which that may
cease..... :-)

"Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote:

> Acording to the news reports, he cancelled IFR and/or squawked VFR before
> this happened.

Where have you seen this? I looked around this morning, and didn't find
anything at that level of detail.

- Andrew

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> The recent spate of private pilots violating restricted airspace over
>> Washington raises the thought that some lawmaker is going to decide
>> that general aviation is a threat to national security. It's only a
>> matter of time.
>
> I've taken some comfort in the fact that this latest incident dropped
> off the news almost as quickly as it arrived.
>


After the incursion in May, posters were predicting all sorts of dire
consequences for the next one.... and I predicted:

"Icebound" > wrote in message
... (on May 17, 2005 )
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> With all the reports now coming out about how close that Cessna came to
>> getting smoked over Washington, it got me thinking. When the governor
>> of Kentucky flew into D.C. in his King Air with a dead transponder, it
>> caused all kinds of panic. Then the Cessna incident happened. If
>> something like that occurred again, what are the chances that the next
>> aircraft would be fired upon?
>
> The more often these occur without anybody seriously hurt, the less likely
> there will be a shoot-down because the previous experiences will suggest
> "low danger probability". ... and also the more likely that the media
> will
> go away because they want to be chasing real blood, not another ho-hum
> ADIZ
> penetration.
>
>

--
*** A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981

Peter R. > wrote:
> Marco Leon <mmleonyahoo.com> wrote:
>> If it was for weather, it would seem kind of odd for him to
>> do that. Usually an aircraft with weather issues is left in the IFR system.
>
> Assuming the conditions allow, the pilot(s) can have much greater
> flexibility to deviate around thunderstorms when VFR.

There was definitely a line of severe storms oriented east-west and moving
south through the ADIZ at around the time he busted it. I suspect he got
caught between the storm and the ADIZ boundary and clipped the edge while
avoiding the storm.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

Larry Dighera wrote:

> AndÂ*ourÂ*governmentÂ*shootingÂ*downÂ*innocentÂ*ci tizensÂ*forÂ*no
> crime is tyranny if the first degree.

As awful as that would be, it might wake up the sheep.

- Andrew

Excellent post. I generally agree that monied lobbies (such as the AOPA)
generally win out over loosely (or non-) organized citizens.

However, the internet is enabling groups that are seeking to change the
FAA culture and limit GA to come together.

You are absolutely right to fear the Kelo decision. This will be another
quiver in the anti-GA arsenal, especially for publicly owned GA airports
that pay no taxes. The strings on the FAA grants will make it a
difficult, but interesting battle. I expect local groups to begin eminent
domain proceedings against private and public GA airports.

I will be the judge of whom I choose for representation. You, sir,
impress me as an arrogant troll.

You can get YOUR reality check by looking at the OSHA statistics of the
most dangerous occupations. Pilots and flight engineers came in third,
behind loggers and commercial fishermen. And we know that the amateur
pilots crash more often. As they say, you can look it up...

Hey, if not for the noise and taxpayer subsidies, I could really care
less. And I'm not worried about a small plane crashing into my house or
business. No more than I won't swim in the ocean for fear of sharks. But
do you really think that if a family gets killed, or a school or business
gets hit, that won't generate calls for better regulation??

Cavalier attitudes (and simple name-calling) such as yours are our allies.
So thank you.

Skylune wrote:
> You can get YOUR reality check by looking at the OSHA statistics of the
> most dangerous occupations. Pilots and flight engineers came in third,
> behind loggers and commercial fishermen. And we know that the amateur
> pilots crash more often. As they say, you can look it up...

Crashes actually have little to do with it. According to USA Today, the high
casualty rate in professional pilots is due to diseases associated with the high
level of stress that comes with the job. Amateur pilots are not exposed to this.

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.

Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
>>And our government shooting down innocent citizens for no
>>crime is tyranny if the first degree.
>
> As awful as that would be, it might wake up the sheep.

Did Waco or Ruby Ridge "wake the sheep?"

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.

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:2XXwe.5724$Bn6.2402@trndny08...
> Skylune wrote:
>> You can get YOUR reality check by looking at the OSHA statistics of the
>> most dangerous occupations. Pilots and flight engineers came in third,
>> behind loggers and commercial fishermen. And we know that the amateur
>> pilots crash more often. As they say, you can look it up...
>
> Crashes actually have little to do with it. According to USA Today, the
> high casualty rate in professional pilots is due to diseases associated
> with the high level of stress that comes with the job.

Huh? The BLS Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries lists "aircraft pilots
and flight engineers" as having the third-highest rate of "fatal WORK INJURY
rates" (http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.nr0.htm). (The BLS tracks
occupational *illnesses* in a separate set of statistics.) So if USA Today
claimed otherwise (do you have a reference, please?) then they must not have
read the most basic information available on the subject.

--Gary

Exactly correct. The prior poster was misrepresting the statistics.

He must be a troll.

Icebound wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > I've taken some comfort in the fact that this latest incident dropped
> > off the news almost as quickly as it arrived.
>
> After the incursion in May, posters were predicting all sorts of dire
> consequences for the next one.... and I predicted:
>
> > The more often these occur without anybody seriously hurt, the less likely
> > there will be a shoot-down because the previous experiences will suggest
> > "low danger probability". ... and also the more likely that the media

Indeed. The more these happen, the more people in DC will think, "Oh
great, another damn cessna scare," the less photogenic mayhem will
ensue, the less the media will cover it, the less anyone will likely
give a damn.

Personally, I think this might be a great opportunity for a bit of
hard-core pork-barreling to get the gummint to subsidize ADS-B rigs for
everyone. Double it in with a new ATC system and who cares about ten
billion here or there? Might as well make lemons from lemonade...

-cwk.

(removing tongue from cheek)

Gary Drescher wrote:
> So if USA Today
> claimed otherwise (do you have a reference, please?) then they must not have
> read the most basic information available on the subject.

The article I read predated 2002. I have been unable to locate it on their web site.

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.

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:AJZwe.29381$cz6.16779@trndny07...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>> So if USA Today claimed otherwise (do you have a reference, please?) then
>> they must not have read the most basic information available on the
>> subject.
>
> The article I read predated 2002. I have been unable to locate it on their
> web site.

Ok, thanks for checking though.

--Gary

Skylune wrote:
> Who wants to "stop aviation?" Why would anyone want to do this?
>
> All we want is better regulation of GA, eliminate taxpayer subsidies for
> GA airports, upgrade pilot training so that these be a pilot in a month
> schools won't exist, change the FARs so that a turboprop cant legally
> circle over people's house all day long, expose the FAA corrupt,
> ineffective regulation of GA, etc.
>
> Every single day, some GA pilots prove that the industry is running amuck.
> I feel badly for the responsible majority of GA pilots, but a small
> minority is ruining it for all of you, especially those with calalier
> attitudes (protect baby seals - please). And Phil Boyer panders to the
> lowest common denominator.
>

GA is pretty heavily regulated right now, in case you haven't noticed.
I really don't think we need a whole lot more. GA did not cause 9-11
and now that there are 200 times as many TFR's as there were pre-911
you've got to expect a few more occasional violations.

This USED to be more of a free country than it is today, in case you've forgotten.

Larry Dighera wrote:
> I couldn't agree with you less. I see very little reason for the ADIZ
> at all. And our government shooting down innocent citizens for no
> crime is tyranny if the first degree. The Department of Homeland
> Security needs to rethink this faulted policy that provides no
> additional security at all.

Well stated Sir. Government's answer (it seems) to all of it's various
problems is to implement more restrictions... create more new laws, etc.
These laws really only have an effect on the law abiding citizens of
the country. Criminals, AKA terroists, do not obey laws and could care
less.

Actually they are probably laughing at how much of the freedoms have
been taken away from American citizens because of their actions. Its a joke.

"Icebound" > wrote in
:

>
> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
>> Icebound > wrote:
>>
>>> Have a pleasant life.
>>
>> Ignore that troll. He lives for no other purpose than to get a rise
>> out of
>> the group.
>>
>>
>
> Oh, of course.... but I get this perverse satisfaction from recalling
> that page, just to review all the different possibilities by which
> that may cease..... :-)
>
>
>

Actually, I very much appreciated the post. I will be quoting that site
often! :)

On 30 Jun 2005 10:36:36 -0700, wrote in
om>::

>The recent Kelo decision scares me a lot. I've heard legal
>experts take both sides, but my gut instinct is that this will
>encourage municipalities to stage a lot more eminent domain raids on
>unpopular properties like small airports

If the municipalities are willing to pay back the AIP money they
received, I suppose there may be some danger of eminent domain raids
on airports. What needs to be driven home to the leaders in those
municipalities, is the reliance on outlying municipal airports of the
coming SATS technological revolution in air transportation. Once the
little airport is converted into a strip mall, the municipality will
have to use eminent domain to reestablish it, or get left out of the
future change in aviation.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 19:43:47 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote in <TXXwe.5725$Bn6.4399@trndny08>::

>Andrew Gideon wrote:
>>
>>>And our government shooting down innocent citizens for no
>>>crime is tyranny if the first degree.
>>
>> As awful as that would be, it might wake up the sheep.
>
>Did Waco or Ruby Ridge "wake the sheep?"

Isn't sex with the 12 year old daughter of your parishioner illegal?

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:57:55 GMT, kontiki >
wrote in >::

>
>Actually they are probably laughing at how much of the freedoms have
>been taken away from American citizens because of their actions. Its a joke.

When the entire Senate and House of Representatives, the First Lady
and the President of the world's only superpower are forced to flee
_imagined_ danger, it is not really funny; it's pathetic. It makes
our noble nation look like it is lead by a bunch of undignified,
scared little fools. Hmmm... :-)

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Marco Leon <mmleonyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> If it was for weather, it would seem kind of odd for him to
>> do that. Usually an aircraft with weather issues is left in the IFR
>> system.
>
> Assuming the conditions allow, the pilot(s) can have much greater
> flexibility to deviate around thunderstorms when VFR.
>
> --
> Peter

Really? I thought the procedure was to tell the controller: "N12345 is
deviating north around convective activity" and let the controller sort it
out. In the end, it is the pilot's responsibility to manage the safety of
his craft, not the controller's...

>>Did Waco or Ruby Ridge "wake the sheep?"
>
> Isn't sex with the 12 year old daughter of your parishioner illegal?

Thank you.

The moment GA starts to associate itself with the nutcases at Waco and Ruby
Ridge is the moment we lose the few shreds of credibility we have left with
the general public.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Y11xe.118251$xm3.23216@attbi_s21...
> >>Did Waco or Ruby Ridge "wake the sheep?"
> >
> > Isn't sex with the 12 year old daughter of your parishioner illegal?

Disproved. Thanks for being a good little menchen for der fuhrer.

>
> Thank you.
>
> The moment GA starts to associate itself with the nutcases at Waco and
Ruby
> Ridge is the moment we lose the few shreds of credibility we have left
with
> the general public.

Jay, the only nutcases at Waco and Ruby Ridge were the BATF and FBI.

Thank you for demonstrating that so many are gullible enough to swallow the
statist line.


Matt B.
--
"At a time when our entire country
is banding together and facing down
individualism, the Patriots set a wonderful
example, showing us all what is possible
when we work together, believe
in each other, and sacrifice for the
greater good." -
SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY, D-MASS., in a statement read
onto the Congressional Record, praising the New
England Patriots and declaring us all to be in
an American war against individualism. --
Quoted in America's 1st Freedom magazine, April, 2002

-----------
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the
name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program
until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it
happened." -- Norman Thomas, six-time Socialist Party presidential candidate
and one of the founders of the ACLU.

Kyle Boatright > wrote:

> Really? I thought the procedure was to tell the controller: "N12345 is
> deviating north around convective activity" and let the controller sort it
> out. In the end, it is the pilot's responsibility to manage the safety of
> his craft, not the controller's...

That certainly is true. However, just today, while listening to the
Detroit LiveATC.net feed when a severe thunderstorm line moved over the
airport (about 12:00 Eastern Time), I overheard the following exchange:

"Detroit Approach, Northwest XXX needs to deviate right off the approach
for weather. We're about to fly into heavy precipitation."

"Negative, Northwest XXX, I need you on that heading. There are numerous
aircraft off to your right."

"Roger, Northwest XXX."

I was surprised to hear the pilot agree to remain on the heading, but
perhaps he surmised that the turbulence of level 3-4 weather was safer than
turning into a swarm of aircraft?

To your point, though, there are numerous strategies for avoiding t-storms
and one viable strategy is to cancel IFR and fly under the greater freedom
of VFR, especially in very congested airspace.

--
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 =----

Skylune wrote:
> Phil Boyer will need to get a new bumper sticker. Instead of "I fly a
> Cessna 150 , 26 gallons of gas, 90 knots of screaming terror, etc." he'll
> have to upgrade it to include the other GA planes, like turboprops like the
> King Air.
>
> That guy isn't doing your cause any good. Check out the smirking picture
> in Letters section of the USA today that appeared about a week ago. Of
> course, right after his most recent appearance, there has been another
> intrusion, kids stealing planes, highway landings, etc.
>
> What an arrogant jerk. That's who represents you.
>

Skylune is Boyer's ex-wife.
That explains the incessant snotty trolling.

> Jay, the only nutcases at Waco and Ruby Ridge were the BATF and FBI.
>
> Thank you for demonstrating that so many are gullible enough to swallow
> the
> statist line.

Do I agree with how the government handled the situations at Waco or Ruby
Ridge? Nope.

But do I want our battle to keep general aviation free and accessible
associated in any way with the causes these folks believed in? Nope.

It's a one-way trip to a place none of us wants to take GA, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
....
>
> The real risk to us is at the local level, namely the disappearance of
> airports and the gradual shrinking of the GA base of services, driving
> up costs. The recent Kelo decision scares me a lot. I've heard legal
> experts take both sides, but my gut instinct is that this will
> encourage municipalities to stage a lot more eminent domain raids on
> unpopular properties like small airports,


http://www.ij.org/private_property/connecticut/6_29_05pr.html

--
*** A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981


--
*** A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 00:48:53 -0400, "Icebound"
> wrote in
>::

>http://www.ij.org/private_property/connecticut/6_29_05pr.html

Thousands of properties nationwide are facing the threat of
eminent domain for private development, and many more projects are
in the planning stages. In its first-ever nationwide study Public
Power, Private Gain, the Institute for Justice documented more
than 10,000 instances of threatened or actual condemnation for
private development nationwide ...

If our government continues to permit public takings for private use,
get ready for more Kansas City style protests.

Extremely weak.

But I am not surprised that a woman had the good sense to rid herself of
the smirking fool.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 00:48:53 -0400, "Icebound"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>http://www.ij.org/private_property/connecticut/6_29_05pr.html
>
> Thousands of properties nationwide are facing the threat of
> eminent domain for private development, and many more projects are
> in the planning stages. In its first-ever nationwide study Public
> Power, Private Gain, the Institute for Justice documented more
> than 10,000 instances of threatened or actual condemnation for
> private development nationwide ...
>
> If our government continues to permit public takings for private use,
> get ready for more Kansas City style protests.
>
>

I like this New Hampshire protest:
http://nhindymedia.org/newswire/display/2507/index.php

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 00:48:53 -0400, "Icebound"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>http://www.ij.org/private_property/connecticut/6_29_05pr.html
>
> Thousands of properties nationwide are facing the threat of
> eminent domain for private development, and many more projects are
> in the planning stages. In its first-ever nationwide study Public
> Power, Private Gain, the Institute for Justice documented more
> than 10,000 instances of threatened or actual condemnation for
> private development nationwide ...
>
> If our government continues to permit public takings for private use,
> get ready for more Kansas City style protests.
>
>

O'Connor must have been so p'ed-off at her colleagues that she has just
resigned! :-)

Icebound:
Holy cow! I agree with you that SCOTUS eminent domain decision was
horrendous. A direct contradiction to the Fifth Amendment. The idea of
targeting Souter's house is a delicious irony, and I'm happy that this is
happening in my home state of New Hampshire ("Live Free or Die").

Here's a link to a site where you can lodge an electronic protest.

http://www.petitiononline.com/lp001/petition.html

Of course, we anti-GA folks plan to use this horrible court decision to
our advantage....

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 10:08:44 -0400, "Icebound"
> wrote in
>::

>I like this New Hampshire protest:
>http://nhindymedia.org/newswire/display/2507/index.php
>
On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip
Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New
Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a
hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr.
Souter's home.


What goes around, comes around. :-)

I wasn't trying to be trollish with this message.
I just believe that these incursions aren't going to move in the
direction of removing regulation, but will just steer towards more
restriction.

The thing that scares me is the attitude.
There are a lot of "real pilots don't use GPS" types out there.
Actually, I could probably be accused of it myself, but I don't go
anywhere near restricted or controled space without nearly every tool at
my disposal to avoid an incursion.
This attitude of "I don't need no stinking whiz bang GPS", followed by
busting restricted space, followed by, "I am going to fight you to the
death on trying to violate me": I think cases like this hurt the
survival of free flight that I love.


Thanks
Mike

Icebound wrote:
> "PittsS1C" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Obviously shooting these a couple of these planes down is impractical.
>>(but I firmly believe you wouldn't have to kill many before no one would
>>wander there again)
>>Are there any other reasonable consequences that would major deterrent?
>>Part of the problem is that it is not a big enough inconvenience for
>>violators.
>>I would rather that the aviation community help find a solution before an
>>irrational governmental body imposes useless painful legislation upon all
>>the rest of us. We need to "take care of our own".
>>Is "Federal pound me in the ass" prison enough? (with huge bail, so they
>>would be massively inconvenienced)
>>
>>We as pilots would have to support it. Less incursions is safer for us
>>(the aviation community)
>>
>
>
> In democracies, legislators should be defending themselves from aviator's
> questions, rather than aviators cowering before the legislator's
> impositions.
>
> Before we go shooting these guys down, or incarcerating them for life,
> consider their intent and the relative consequence of their actions.
> Restrictions in any walk of life should be constantly questioned as to
> purpose and effectiveness. Where imposed by the law of the land they must
> be followed, of course, but they should continue to be questioned.
>
>
> "Taking care of our own" should mean aggressively defending pilots whose
> technical violation of a rule, has resulted in no significant consequence.
>
>
> Why do we think there will be no violations, no matter what the penalty? In
> all walks of life there are laws (prohibitions), and they all have
> violations. The law says it is dangerous to drive too fast, some of us do
> and get caught. Don't steal, burglaries do happen; don't cheat, Enron
> happens; don't kill, murders do happen, etc. The law says don't fly here,
> some do.
>
> So the *regulations* hold *violations* down to a manageable level, that's
> all.
>
> If someone violates the don't-kill rule, somebody dies. When Enron happens,
> ten of thousands of individual investors suffer for a very long time.
>
> When an ADIZ violation happens, the usual consequence of the perpetrator's
> action is.... uh... ???
>
>
>
>

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 10:08:44 -0400, "Icebound"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>I like this New Hampshire protest:
>>http://nhindymedia.org/newswire/display/2507/index.php
>>
> On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip
> Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New
> Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a
> hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr.
> Souter's home.
>
>
> What goes around, comes around. :-)

Great idea!!! I hope it comes to pass, except for the part about
Ayn Rand's book <shudder>.

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?

"Skylune" > wrote in
lkaboutaviation.com:

> Icebound:
> Holy cow! I agree with you that SCOTUS eminent domain decision was
> horrendous. A direct contradiction to the Fifth Amendment. The idea of
> targeting Souter's house is a delicious irony, and I'm happy that this is
> happening in my home state of New Hampshire ("Live Free or Die").
>
> Here's a link to a site where you can lodge an electronic protest.
>
> http://www.petitiononline.com/lp001/petition.html
>
> Of course, we anti-GA folks plan to use this horrible court decision to
> our advantage....

And you sir are part of the problem, not the solution.

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?

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> Isn't sex with the 12 year old daughter of your parishioner illegal?

And you believe this because the Federal murderers told you it occurred. That's
the same sort of story they would tell about you if they shot you down. By the
time anyone found out the lie, you would be identified by the public as just one
of those "nutcases", as Jay puts it.

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.

"pittss1c" > wrote in message
...
......
> This attitude of "I don't need no stinking whiz bang GPS", followed by
> busting restricted space, followed by, "I am going to fight you to the
> death on trying to violate me": I think cases like this hurt the survival
> of free flight that I love.
>


Nothing will hurt the survival of free flight (or the survival of free
anything) any more than will the imposition of meaningless feel-good
regulations that have questionable social or scientific value. Certain
rules are necessary, but many are not, and all should be continuously
monitored and questioned.

As I said before, as long as there are rules, there will be violations...
there are in every walk of life, its inevitable. That's why we invent
enforcement and justice systems. In spite of them, Washington still has to
live with something like 250 murders per year; it can live with a few dozen
or even a few hundred ADIZ incursions. If the murderers have the right to
all the usual legal defence manoeuvrings within the rules of justice, so do
the aviators.

> This attitude of "I don't need no stinking whiz bang GPS", followed by busting restricted space, followed by, "I am going to fight you to the death on trying to violate me": I think cases like this hurt the survival of free flight that I love.
>
Do you have any evidence that the people who do the first are the same
ones that do the second and third?

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > This attitude of "I don't need no stinking whiz bang GPS", followed by
> > busting restricted space, followed by, "I am going to fight you to the
> > death on trying to violate me": I think cases like this hurt the survival
> > of free flight that I love.
> >
> Do you have any evidence that the people who do the first are the same
> ones that do the second and third?

or any evidence that no one with a whiz band GPS would do the
second and third?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

>> Isn't sex with the 12 year old daughter of your parishioner illegal?
>
> And you believe this because the Federal murderers told you it occurred.
> That's the same sort of story they would tell about you if they shot you
> down. By the time anyone found out the lie, you would be identified by the
> public as just one of those "nutcases", as Jay puts it.

Well, George, this is now the third (?) time you've refuted my assertion
without resorting to facts.

So, let's hear 'em. What made the "nutcases" at Waco and Ruby Ridge so
noble, in your view?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>I wasn't trying to be trollish with this message.
> I just believe that these incursions aren't going to move in the direction
> of removing regulation, but will just steer towards more restriction.
>
> The thing that scares me is the attitude.
> There are a lot of "real pilots don't use GPS" types out there.

Exactly.

Anyone who doesn't recognize at least a few pilots they know in this vivid
description leads a pretty sheltered life. I can name a half a dozen of
them, without straining. Luckily, out here in Iowa, they and their "Screw
you" attitude can do us little harm.

For now.

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

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:hkwxe.123434$xm3.102855@attbi_s21...
> >I wasn't trying to be trollish with this message.
>> I just believe that these incursions aren't going to move in the
>> direction of removing regulation, but will just steer towards more
>> restriction.
>>
>> The thing that scares me is the attitude.
>> There are a lot of "real pilots don't use GPS" types out there.
>
> Exactly.
>
> Anyone who doesn't recognize at least a few pilots they know in this vivid
> description leads a pretty sheltered life. I can name a half a dozen of
> them, without straining. Luckily, out here in Iowa, they and their "Screw
> you" attitude can do us little harm.

I've seldom seen that real-pilots attitude expressed, and would not endorse
it myself. However, I would certainly say that real pilots shouldn't *need*
to use GPS. (The planes I rent don't have it, and I don't yet consider it
cost-effective to buy a handheld one, although I do carry a handheld
COM/VOR/LOC for backup in IMC.)

--Gary

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:ngwxe.124355$nG6.40034@attbi_s22...
> >> Isn't sex with the 12 year old daughter of your parishioner illegal?
> >
> > And you believe this because the Federal murderers told you it occurred.
> > That's the same sort of story they would tell about you if they shot you
> > down. By the time anyone found out the lie, you would be identified by
the
> > public as just one of those "nutcases", as Jay puts it.
>
> Well, George, this is now the third (?) time you've refuted my assertion
> without resorting to facts.
>
> So, let's hear 'em. What made the "nutcases" at Waco and Ruby Ridge so
> noble, in your view?

http://www.hardylaw.net/waco.html

>> There are a lot of "real pilots don't use GPS" types out there.

> Anyone who doesn't recognize at least a few pilots they know in this vivid
> description leads a pretty sheltered life.

Actually, it's "real pilots don't REQUIRE GPS", but it gets lost in
translation. Actually, the ones that scare me are the ones who won't
fly in CAVU if the GPS is TU.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> > Anyone who doesn't recognize at least a few pilots they know in this vivid
> > description leads a pretty sheltered life. I can name a half a dozen of
> > them, without straining. Luckily, out here in Iowa, they and their "Screw
> > you" attitude can do us little harm.
>
> I've seldom seen that real-pilots attitude expressed, and would not endorse
> it myself. However, I would certainly say that real pilots shouldn't *need*
> to use GPS. (The planes I rent don't have it, and I don't yet consider it
> cost-effective to buy a handheld one, although I do carry a handheld
> COM/VOR/LOC for backup in IMC.)

I would consider flying near the ADIZ without GPS to be simply asking
for trouble, although it is (of course) possible to do so.

To fly in an area where loss of situational awareness can cause
evacuation of the White House (or worse), not using every navigational
tool at our disposal is potentially foolhardy. I know that my AvMap
GPS made flying in the ADIZ child's play, even for someone totally
unfamiliar with the area.

Bottom line: If we want to fly without GPS, we've got 99% of the
continental land mass over which to do so, without penalty. We've
really only got to worry about that pesky 1%, for which we should all
be very thankful.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I would consider flying near the ADIZ without GPS to be simply asking
> for trouble, although it is (of course) possible to do so.
>
> To fly in an area where loss of situational awareness can cause
> evacuation of the White House (or worse), not using every navigational
> tool at our disposal is potentially foolhardy.

Then do you consider it foolhardy to fly in IMC without a GPS? The
consequences there of loss of situational awareness are considerably worse
than the consequences of busting the ADIZ.

I'd consider it foolhardy to fly at all without the ability to navigate
reliably without a GPS. I agree it'd be foolhardy to fly without a GPS if a
GPS were available for free (just as it'd be foolhardy to fly without a
Stormscope, TCAS, autopilot, deicing, etc., if those were free). Given the
expense, though--and given the need to be proficient at non-GPS navigation
in any case--I don't think it's at all unreasonable to do without a GPS.

--Gary

> > Well, George, this is now the third (?) time you've refuted my assertion
> > without resorting to facts.
> >
> > So, let's hear 'em. What made the "nutcases" at Waco and Ruby Ridge so
> > noble, in your view?
>
> http://www.hardylaw.net/waco.html

This webpage is supposed to make me think the Branch Davidians were NOT
nutcases?

Let's see. In the course of the FBI assault, David Koresh has been
shot in the groin, "the bullet blasting a 1-inch wide hole through his
pelvis" yet -- instead of surrendering immediately to the 100 or so FBI
agents that have surrounded his compound -- he's busily "writing his
explanation of the Seven Seals" while stalling a negotiator on the
phone?

Um, Matt, do *you* think that's a wise thing to do after hundreds of
rounds have been fired in a skirmish with law enforcement officials?

I don't know about you, but I'd be face down on the floor, politely
asking the men with the helmets and guns to fetch me a doctor and my
attorney.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in
:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> I would consider flying near the ADIZ without GPS to be simply asking
>> for trouble, although it is (of course) possible to do so.
>>
>> To fly in an area where loss of situational awareness can cause
>> evacuation of the White House (or worse), not using every navigational
>> tool at our disposal is potentially foolhardy.
>
> Then do you consider it foolhardy to fly in IMC without a GPS? The
> consequences there of loss of situational awareness are considerably
> worse than the consequences of busting the ADIZ.
>
> I'd consider it foolhardy to fly at all without the ability to navigate
> reliably without a GPS. I agree it'd be foolhardy to fly without a GPS
> if a GPS were available for free (just as it'd be foolhardy to fly
> without a Stormscope, TCAS, autopilot, deicing, etc., if those were
> free). Given the expense, though--and given the need to be proficient at
> non-GPS navigation in any case--I don't think it's at all unreasonable
> to do without a GPS.
>
> --Gary

With the way some folks are pushing GPS you'd get the impression
pilots were wandering aimlessly all over the place before GPS
was even available.

Lack of GPS is not the problem.

Having the ADIZ is the problem.

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?

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> > > Well, George, this is now the third (?) time you've refuted my
assertion
> > > without resorting to facts.
> > >
> > > So, let's hear 'em. What made the "nutcases" at Waco and Ruby Ridge
so
> > > noble, in your view?
> >
> > http://www.hardylaw.net/waco.html
>
> This webpage is supposed to make me think the Branch Davidians were NOT
> nutcases?
>
> Let's see. In the course of the FBI assault, David Koresh has been
> shot in the groin, "the bullet blasting a 1-inch wide hole through his
> pelvis" yet -- instead of surrendering immediately to the 100 or so FBI
> agents that have surrounded his compound -- he's busily "writing his
> explanation of the Seven Seals" while stalling a negotiator on the
> phone?
>
> Um, Matt, do *you* think that's a wise thing to do after hundreds of
> rounds have been fired in a skirmish with law enforcement officials?

It becomes evident, from all the non-government reports, that surrender was
not going to be allowed.

You know, Jay, I remember other times in hisotry when tyrants wanted to
suppress a minority, they villified and demonized them. Every indication
demonstrates the real nutcases where the guys with the badges.

Being a bit nutty is not illegal; murder from behind a badge still is.

> I don't know about you, but I'd be face down on the floor, politely
> asking the men with the helmets and guns to fetch me a doctor and my
> attorney.

You really need a clue as to what went on.

Read ALL the stuff, including the continuing links, an take the blinders off
and stop being so damn gullible.


Here, this is for you.
--
"At a time when our entire country
is banding together and facing down
individualism, the Patriots set a wonderful
example, showing us all what is possible
when we work together, believe
in each other, and sacrifice for the
greater good." -
SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY, D-MASS., in a statement read
onto the Congressional Record, praising the New
England Patriots and declaring us all to be in
an American war against individualism. --
Quoted in America's 1st Freedom magazine, April, 2002

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Let's see. In the course of the FBI assault, David Koresh has been
> shot in the groin, "the bullet blasting a 1-inch wide hole through his
> pelvis" yet -- instead of surrendering immediately to the 100 or so FBI
> agents that have surrounded his compound -- he's busily "writing his
> explanation of the Seven Seals" while stalling a negotiator on the
> phone?

He attempted to surrender once, and a Federal sniper put a bullet in the door
frame beside his head. It was obvious they had no intention of taking him alive.

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.

> With the way some folks are pushing GPS you'd get the impression
> pilots were wandering aimlessly all over the place before GPS
> was even available.
>
> Lack of GPS is not the problem.
>
> Having the ADIZ is the problem.

This is not a constructive attitude, IMHO. Railing against the darkness
helps not...

The Washington, D.C. ADIZ is there, and not moving any time soon. We, as
pilots, had better learn to live with it, and properly navigate through
it -- it's NOT difficult -- or our concept of Free Flight in America will be
jeopardized.

You can pick up a good used GPS for the cost of a SINGLE tank of gas in my
Pathfinder. To use "cost" as an excuse not to use it is goofy.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> I would consider flying near the ADIZ without GPS to be simply asking
> for trouble, although it is (of course) possible to do so.
>
> To fly in an area where loss of situational awareness can cause
> evacuation of the White House (or worse), not using every navigational
> tool at our disposal is potentially foolhardy.

Oh, Jay, that's just silly.

If there's GPS in the airplane, sure, turn it on and use it. But if
your rental does -not- have a GPS, then electing not to fly in the DC
area because of this would indicate to me a lack of confidence in one's
flying skills that requires more training, whether to build the skills,
or to build the confidence.

The ADIZ penetrations that made the news have (as far as I know) been
pilots who went in without a code and a clearance, not pilots who went
in with both and got lost. And frankly, it is trivial to bust airspace
with a fully functioning and turned on moving map GPS. All you have to
do is have it zoomed inappropriately (not too hard to do actually) and
rely on the wrong thin green line.

> We've
> really only got to worry about that pesky 1%, for which we should all
> be very thankful.

No, I don't feel that we should be thankful that we are restricted from
flying into what is arguably the most important airspace in the country.
I will be thankful when those restrictions on law abiding citizens
(though not on terrorists) go away, but I do not think I should have to
be thankful that we are getting back freedoms that are rightfully ours.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Well, George, this is now the third (?) time

I think you need to learn to count.

> So, let's hear 'em. What made the "nutcases" at Waco and Ruby Ridge so
> noble, in your view?

I didn't say anything about nobility, but everything *you* "know" about them has
been provided you by the people who killed them. In the case of Ruby Ridge,
there were adult survivors. After hearing the facts from all sides, Congress
told the head of the FBI to change their procedures immediately and "rethink"
their policies. The survivors were aquitted of the accusation which had been
used to "justify" the assault (I use the term in the military sense) and awarded
substantial monetary damages.

What we have in these two cases were citizens who were brutally attacked and
(mostly) killed by Federal agents and slandered during and after the fact. This
is exactly what would happen to a pilot who was shot down in the ADIZ. By the
time the facts came out (if they ever did), most of the people in the country
would believe that you were a known Al-Quaida agent and that the plane was
certainly carrying half a ton of TNT.

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.

> We, as
> pilots, had better learn to live with [the DC ADIZ], and properly navigate through
> it -- it's NOT difficult -- or our concept of Free Flight in America will be
> jeopardized.

Free Flight in America is already jeopardized. Afraid the restrictions
will come to Iowa? Then rail against the darkness before it covers you!

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 03:49:12 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in
<YeJxe.126042$xm3.76968@attbi_s21>::

>> Having the ADIZ is the problem.
>
>This is not a constructive attitude, IMHO. Railing against the darkness
>helps not...

How does benign complacency help?

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
> "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the
> name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program
> until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how
> it
> happened." -- Norman Thomas, six-time Socialist Party presidential
> candidate
> and one of the founders of the ACLU.

Doesn't it embarrass you to propagate such a suspicious-looking quote
without citing any source for it? (For one thing, people don't normally
*announce* a deception that they're hoping will succeed; for another,
liberalism may look socialist to right-wingers, but it doesn't look that way
to liberals or to socialists, so why would it look that way to Thomas?)

--Gary

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:YeJxe.126042$xm3.76968@attbi_s21:

>> With the way some folks are pushing GPS you'd get the impression
>> pilots were wandering aimlessly all over the place before GPS
>> was even available.
>>
>> Lack of GPS is not the problem.
>>
>> Having the ADIZ is the problem.
>
> This is not a constructive attitude, IMHO. Railing against the
> darkness helps not...

So what do you do everytime some new rule or law or restriction
of any kind comes along that you disagree with? Just put up with
it and say "oh well, just have to learn to live with it"?

"This is not a constructive attitude"

> The Washington, D.C. ADIZ is there, and not moving any time soon. We,
> as pilots, had better learn to live with it, and properly navigate
> through it -- it's NOT difficult -- or our concept of Free Flight in
> America will be jeopardized.

No it's not difficult, and you don't NEED a GPS to do it, IF
you are a good pilot. Avoiding the ADIZ is no different than
navigating around any other airspace that one wishes or is
required to avoid. It's just a polygon on a map. There's lot's
of other places besides the DC ADIZ that basically say "Don't go
here."

But that still doesn't mean we should put up with it. Does the
ADIZ do ANYTHING to make DC more secure? I say no. You are free
to disagree.

> You can pick up a good used GPS for the cost of a SINGLE tank of gas in
> my Pathfinder. To use "cost" as an excuse not to use it is goofy.


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 <YeJxe.126042$xm3.76968@attbi_s21>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > With the way some folks are pushing GPS you'd get the impression
> > pilots were wandering aimlessly all over the place before GPS
> > was even available.
> >
> > Lack of GPS is not the problem.
> >
> > Having the ADIZ is the problem.
>
> This is not a constructive attitude, IMHO. Railing against the darkness
> helps not...

acceptance helps protect our freedom even less.

> The Washington, D.C. ADIZ is there, and not moving any time soon.

it won't move EVER with that kind of attitude.


> We, as
> pilots, had better learn to live with it,

wrong

>and properly navigate through
> it -- it's NOT difficult -- or our concept of Free Flight in America will be
> jeopardized.

freedom is in jeopardy now.

>
> You can pick up a good used GPS for the cost of a SINGLE tank of gas in my
> Pathfinder. To use "cost" as an excuse not to use it is goofy.

Cost is always a consideration. Folks apparently still don't understand that
GPS is not essential to navigation.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>With the way some folks are pushing GPS you'd get the impression
>>pilots were wandering aimlessly all over the place before GPS
>>was even available.
>>
>>Lack of GPS is not the problem.
>>
>>Having the ADIZ is the problem.
>
>
> This is not a constructive attitude, IMHO. Railing against the darkness
> helps not...
>
> The Washington, D.C. ADIZ is there, and not moving any time soon. We, as
> pilots, had better learn to live with it, and properly navigate through
> it -- it's NOT difficult -- or our concept of Free Flight in America will be
> jeopardized.

Yes, we shouldn't violate it, but we also shouldn't stop fighting
against it using all available legal means.


Matt

Personal opinions of Mr. Koresh aside, does anyone remember the dog and pony
show put on after Iran Air 655? Much of the same stuff, and if you look into
the facts, not only was it actually a unarmed air carrier, the commanders of
British vessels present never wondered about the identity of the flight and
let us not forget our friends in the CIA for helping with the murder of a
missionary and her infant. So an innocent american splattered in the ADIZ
for getting lost would hardly ruffle a feather amongst the population when
they got done.
In the USA I remember, all of them folks would be swinging from the same
rope we would have used for the a**h**es that took out our aircraft in Sept.
if they would have survived.

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:LvJxe.6154$mr4.2471@trnddc05...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >
> > Well, George, this is now the third (?) time
>
> I think you need to learn to count.
>
> > So, let's hear 'em. What made the "nutcases" at Waco and Ruby Ridge so
> > noble, in your view?
>
> I didn't say anything about nobility, but everything *you* "know" about
them has
> been provided you by the people who killed them. In the case of Ruby
Ridge,
> there were adult survivors. After hearing the facts from all sides,
Congress
> told the head of the FBI to change their procedures immediately and
"rethink"
> their policies. The survivors were aquitted of the accusation which had
been
> used to "justify" the assault (I use the term in the military sense) and
awarded
> substantial monetary damages.
>
> What we have in these two cases were citizens who were brutally attacked
and
> (mostly) killed by Federal agents and slandered during and after the fact.
This
> is exactly what would happen to a pilot who was shot down in the ADIZ. By
the
> time the facts came out (if they ever did), most of the people in the
country
> would believe that you were a known Al-Quaida agent and that the plane was
> certainly carrying half a ton of TNT.
>
> 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.

>>This is not a constructive attitude, IMHO. Railing against the darkness
>>helps not...
>
> How does benign complacency help?

One person's "benign complacency" is another person's "following the rules."

Or are you advocating that we all bust the ADIZ to prove your point?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>> This is not a constructive attitude, IMHO. Railing against the
>> darkness helps not...
>
> So what do you do everytime some new rule or law or restriction
> of any kind comes along that you disagree with? Just put up with
> it and say "oh well, just have to learn to live with it"?

No.

But I don't advocate breaking the rule while I'm arguing against it --
especially when the stakes are so high.

Every one of these bozos who violate that ADIZ jeopardize my way of life.
THEY are the enemy, not my government.

We the People will eventually change or eliminate the ADIZ -- or not. It's
all going to come down to how well we (as pilots) argue our case in the
court of public opinion -- and brazenly breaking the ADIZ (and causing
thousands of non-pilots to panic every other week) is NOT helpful.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Cost is always a consideration. Folks apparently still don't understand
> that
> GPS is not essential to navigation.

Neither is vision. But I strongly advocate looking ahead once in a while.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>> The Washington, D.C. ADIZ is there, and not moving any time soon. We, as
>> pilots, had better learn to live with it, and properly navigate through
>> it -- it's NOT difficult -- or our concept of Free Flight in America will
>> be jeopardized.
>
> Yes, we shouldn't violate it, but we also shouldn't stop fighting against
> it using all available legal means.

Bravo! Now THAT is a constructive attitude!

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

>> To fly in an area where loss of situational awareness can cause
>> evacuation of the White House (or worse), not using every navigational
>> tool at our disposal is potentially foolhardy.
>
> Oh, Jay, that's just silly.
>
> If there's GPS in the airplane, sure, turn it on and use it. But if your
> rental does -not- have a GPS, then electing not to fly in the DC area
> because of this would indicate to me a lack of confidence in one's flying
> skills that requires more training, whether to build the skills, or to
> build the confidence.

I agree 100%. But are you willing to bet that the casual weekend pilot has
the navigational savvy to ded reckon his way around the ADIZ?

I don't. I flew in the ADIZ a few weeks ago, and there aren't very many
identifiable landmarks (until, of course, you see the Washington Monument,
by which time it's too late!) to use, especially in the evening haze. I was
damned glad to have that big ol' color map to follow.

Could I have done it with just a sectional? Sure! Hell, from Frederick, I
could have just set a course and a stop watch, and probably flown straight
to Dulles International without ever looking inside the plane. Unless, of
course, I had to deviate for weather (there was plenty in the area), or was
vectored by ATC. Suddenly my ded reckoning skills might have been taxed
beyond my abilities.

GPS makes that sort of thing a complete non-event, and costs less than a
tank of gas.

Again, if you're going to bet the farm on flying inside of an ADIZ, I think
you're foolish to leave GPS on the ground before you go.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>This is not a constructive attitude, IMHO. Railing against the
>>>darkness helps not...
>>
>>So what do you do everytime some new rule or law or restriction
>>of any kind comes along that you disagree with? Just put up with
>>it and say "oh well, just have to learn to live with it"?
>
>
> No.
>
> But I don't advocate breaking the rule while I'm arguing against it --
> especially when the stakes are so high.
>
> Every one of these bozos who violate that ADIZ jeopardize my way of life.
> THEY are the enemy, not my government.

Actually, I'm beginning to believe that both are the enemy ... and I'm a
life-long Republican.


> We the People will eventually change or eliminate the ADIZ -- or not. It's
> all going to come down to how well we (as pilots) argue our case in the
> court of public opinion -- and brazenly breaking the ADIZ (and causing
> thousands of non-pilots to panic every other week) is NOT helpful.

I agree that we shouldn't break the law and violate the ADIZ, but I do
believe we shnould "rail against the darkness" but continuing to lobby
our Congress critters to change this stupid restriction.


Matt

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:klaye.120489$_o.38047@attbi_s71...
> I agree 100%. But are you willing to bet that the casual weekend pilot
> has the navigational savvy to ded reckon his way around the ADIZ?
>
> I don't. I flew in the ADIZ a few weeks ago, and there aren't very many
> identifiable landmarks (until, of course, you see the Washington Monument,
> by which time it's too late!) to use, especially in the evening haze. I
> was damned glad to have that big ol' color map to follow.

But dead reckoning and pilotage don't exhaust the non-GPS navigational
options. Most rental planes have VOR receivers, for example.

--Gary

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 12:39:08 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in
<M5aye.119732$x96.80495@attbi_s72>::

>>>This is not a constructive attitude, IMHO. Railing against the darkness
>>>helps not...
>>
>> How does benign complacency help?
>
>One person's "benign complacency" is another person's "following the rules."
>
>Or are you advocating that we all bust the ADIZ to prove your point?

I'm sorry you missed my point.

What I found unacceptable is your apparent ready willingness to endure
without protest an ill conceived encroachment on the rights of airmen
under penalty of death, that fails to provide any modicum of deterrent
to those with evil intent. The DC ADIZ only serves as a palliative
for the uninformed to provide the appearance of effective action by a
government agency charged with an impossible task. If we become
benignly complacent toward such encroachments, we patently approve and
endorse them, and send the message that thinking airmen are eager and
willing dupes in the TSA's game of posturing before the public for
theatric effect.

Although the quoted part of your message to which I was responding
makes no reference to not following the rules, perhaps your suggestion
of a mass pilot civil disobedience protest may have some merit.
Railing against the darkness of stupid, lethal policies implemented by
our government is the only power we posses to bring the brutish nature
of this offending ADIZ out into the light of public scrutiny.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> >>>This is not a constructive attitude, IMHO. Railing against the
> >>>darkness helps not...
> >>
> >>So what do you do everytime some new rule or law or restriction
> >>of any kind comes along that you disagree with? Just put up with
> >>it and say "oh well, just have to learn to live with it"?
> >
> >
> > No.
> >
> > But I don't advocate breaking the rule while I'm arguing against it --
> > especially when the stakes are so high.
> >
> > Every one of these bozos who violate that ADIZ jeopardize my way of
life.
> > THEY are the enemy, not my government.
>
> Actually, I'm beginning to believe that both are the enemy ... and I'm a
> life-long Republican.
>

Remember the oath that says to "...protect against all enemies, foreign and
domestic...".

Just like people are their own worst enemies, so it is with nations.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Qaaye.120430$_o.46331@attbi_s71...
> > Cost is always a consideration. Folks apparently still don't understand
> > that
> > GPS is not essential to navigation.
>
> Neither is vision. But I strongly advocate looking ahead once in a while.

No matter how hard I try, I still can't check my ass except in a mirror.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Cbaye.120432$_o.87485@attbi_s71...
> >> The Washington, D.C. ADIZ is there, and not moving any time soon. We,
as
> >> pilots, had better learn to live with it, and properly navigate through
> >> it -- it's NOT difficult -- or our concept of Free Flight in America
will
> >> be jeopardized.
> >
> > Yes, we shouldn't violate it, but we also shouldn't stop fighting
against
> > it using all available legal means.
>
> Bravo! Now THAT is a constructive attitude!
>
Of course, that assumes that the bureaucracy is going to give up it's
feathered nest because, well heck, because we asked them to.

> Although the quoted part of your message to which I was responding
> makes no reference to not following the rules, perhaps your suggestion
> of a mass pilot civil disobedience protest may have some merit.
> Railing against the darkness of stupid, lethal policies implemented by
> our government is the only power we posses to bring the brutish nature
> of this offending ADIZ out into the light of public scrutiny.

This from the guy who doesn't want "Free Beer" mentioned on a pilot's
newsgroup, because it's "conduct unbecoming responsible airmen"???

Wow, Larry. You're positively turning into an anarchist in your old age!

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

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 18:51:16 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in
<Eyfye.133143$nG6.75652@attbi_s22>::

>> Although the quoted part of your message to which I was responding
>> makes no reference to not following the rules, perhaps your suggestion
>> of a mass pilot civil disobedience protest may have some merit.
>> Railing against the darkness of stupid, lethal policies implemented by
>> our government is the only power we posses to bring the brutish nature
>> of this offending ADIZ out into the light of public scrutiny.
>
>This from the guy who doesn't want "Free Beer" mentioned on a pilot's
>newsgroup, because it's "conduct unbecoming responsible airmen"???

It wasn't the mention of "Free Beer" to which I took offence. It was
the mention of free beer _en_route_.

>Wow, Larry. You're positively turning into an anarchist in your old age!
>
>;-)

I was merely agreeing with your suggestion. :-)

Larry Dighera wrote:

.....
> Railing against the darkness of stupid, lethal policies implemented by
> our government is the only power we posses to bring the brutish nature
> of this offending ADIZ out into the light of public scrutiny.

That is just plain wrong. Our voice in the law making process is
through Senators and Representatives. This Country is not ruled by
screaming malcontents, although there are a great number of people who
seem to think they can achieve something by being loud, fault-finding
critics.

"Stubby" > wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> ....
> > Railing against the darkness of stupid, lethal policies implemented by
> > our government is the only power we posses to bring the brutish nature
> > of this offending ADIZ out into the light of public scrutiny.
>
> That is just plain wrong. Our voice in the law making process is
> through Senators and Representatives.

Given the recent track record of Congress, that's not very promising.

> This Country is not ruled by
> screaming malcontents,

Are you kidding? Every heard that adage "The squeaky wheel gets the grease"?

> although there are a great number of people who
> seem to think they can achieve something by being loud, fault-finding
> critics.

Like Michael Moore?

> I was merely agreeing with your suggestion. :-)

Personally, I think it would be excellent to organize a mass protest where
100s of planes all flew toward the ADIZ en masse. (Stopping short of
actually breaking the ADIZ, of course.) It could garner terrific press
coverage, and probably cause great confusion in ATC and the Administration.

Who knows, it might even make the point that the ADIZ is pointless? It
might even result in the ADIZ shrinking, or being eliminated.

My experience with working with pilots, however, indicates that organizing a
protest of this kind would be very difficult. Getting pilots in line is
like herding cats -- it ain't gonna happen easily.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>> although there are a great number of people who
>> seem to think they can achieve something by being loud, fault-finding
>> critics.
>
> Like Michael Moore?

If we want to drive people away from GA, and harm our already tarnished
image, let's all start acting like Michael Moore.

Not.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:Odiye.121728$_o.119692@attbi_s71:

>> I was merely agreeing with your suggestion. :-)
>
> Personally, I think it would be excellent to organize a mass protest
> where 100s of planes all flew toward the ADIZ en masse. (Stopping short
> of actually breaking the ADIZ, of course.) It could garner terrific
> press coverage, and probably cause great confusion in ATC and the
> Administration.
>
> Who knows, it might even make the point that the ADIZ is pointless? It
> might even result in the ADIZ shrinking, or being eliminated.
>
> My experience with working with pilots, however, indicates that
> organizing a protest of this kind would be very difficult. Getting
> pilots in line is like herding cats -- it ain't gonna happen easily.

Unfortunately it would probably have the opposite effect. The government
would likely see it as an excuse to simply end GA across the board.

I could see the congressional hearings now,

"Obviously GA is a threat to the national security and should
be banned. Look at what hundreds of miscreant private pilots
did. They all worked together to attack the security of the
nations capitol. They are a threat on the same order as Al Queda."

Just as Al Queda and their kin fanaticals think so differently that
they embrace what we find appalling (eg suicide bombing), our
government thinks so differently from how a normal intelligent
educated rational human being does that they would react differently
than we would to the same situation. They've already proven that
with the existence of the ADIZ.

No, the problem is not so much organizing the protest, but rather
designing the protest to elicit the desired response.

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?

Stubby > wrote in news:mdSdnf-
:

> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> ....
>> Railing against the darkness of stupid, lethal policies implemented by
>> our government is the only power we posses to bring the brutish nature
>> of this offending ADIZ out into the light of public scrutiny.
>
> That is just plain wrong. Our voice in the law making process is
> through Senators and Representatives. This Country is not ruled by
> screaming malcontents, although there are a great number of people who
> seem to think they can achieve something by being loud, fault-finding
> critics.

Yes, elected officials that get elected by the citizens.

Many people will say, "if you don't like the guy in office, vote
'em out." The problem is, who do you vote in? For the past several
elections it seems as if voters at every level of election have
but a choice between the Devil or Satan. Take your pick. Even if
a large number of poeple voted for some other fellow(s), one of the
two parties (reps & dems) still have the simple majority and therefore
win.

To borrow from Hollywood, I feel there should be a selection for
"None Of The Above" and have it tallied and reported. Sure, one of
the candidates will still win, but it would make a hell of a statement
of lack of confidence when 75% of the vote goes to "None Of The Above".

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?

that would backfire. The response would be to make it bigger and harder
to get into. There has been a grass roots effort by some to try this.
They are nuts. Flying the ADIZ is simple. File, talk, squawk.
Michelle

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>I was merely agreeing with your suggestion. :-)
>>
>>
>
>Personally, I think it would be excellent to organize a mass protest where
>100s of planes all flew toward the ADIZ en masse. (Stopping short of
>actually breaking the ADIZ, of course.) It could garner terrific press
>coverage, and probably cause great confusion in ATC and the Administration.
>
>Who knows, it might even make the point that the ADIZ is pointless? It
>might even result in the ADIZ shrinking, or being eliminated.
>
>My experience with working with pilots, however, indicates that organizing a
>protest of this kind would be very difficult. Getting pilots in line is
>like herding cats -- it ain't gonna happen easily.
>
>

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 00:13:48 GMT, Michelle P
> wrote in
et>::

> Flying the ADIZ is simple. File, talk, squawk.

Oh, you forgot the important part: If you should happen to
accidentally stumble into the DC ADIZ, you are subject to your
government's military hardware intentionally shooting you down in the
name of security.

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> > Flying the ADIZ is simple. File, talk, squawk.
>
> Oh, you forgot the important part: If you should happen to
> accidentally stumble into the DC ADIZ, you are subject to your
> government's military hardware intentionally shooting you down in the
> name of security.

Exactly how many times has our government's military hardware intentionally
shot down someone penetrating the DC ADIZ?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

> I agree 100%. But are you willing to bet that the casual weekend pilot has
> the navigational savvy to ded reckon his way around the ADIZ?

The average recreational pilot should have the navigational savvy to
navigate his way around the ADIZ visually, whether that involves
pilotage or dead reckoning. I've done it, and I'm just an average
recreational pilot. I've made several trips to the ADIZ at 1000 feet
above the treetops, then climbing to 3K for radio reception to get my
squawk, navigating visually the whole way. There are plenty of
landmarks if you plan for them, including highways and power lines.

The plane I flew =did= have a moving map GPS, and it =was= turned on and
set for the moving map, but I did my navigation based on charts and
pilotage. That said, the presence of the moving map made life much
simpler, and though I tried not to "peek", I could easily see how
navigational skills could disappear pretty quickly by relying on the box.

In any case, the violations I've heard of have not been due to lack of
navigational skills, but simply not having the sqawk. That's a
different issue entirely.

> Again, if you're going to bet the farm on flying inside of an ADIZ, I think
> you're foolish to leave GPS on the ground before you go.

I think it's foolish to stay on the ground because the airplane doesn't
have GPS. It's important to use (and maintain!) all the tools at one's
disposal, and pilotage is one such tool. RELYING on GPS ("don't leave
home without it!") lets pilotage skills erode.

You say you agree with me, but then you say it's foolish to "leave GPS
on the ground". "Foolish" is a pretty strong word, and is incompatible
with agreeing with me 100%.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> Personally, I think it would be excellent to organize a mass protest where
> 100s of planes all flew toward the ADIZ en masse.

I recall "after a few beers", suggesting something like this.

> (Stopping short of actually breaking the ADIZ, of course.)

No, we'd have to bust the ADIZ en masse, and show that nothing happens.

Of course, what would probably happen is that a few of us would be shot
down, the flaming debris would rain down upon innocent children, and
some Al Quida terrorist would use the opportunity to fly in with us.

He wouldn't be one of the ones shot down. But nobody would ever know this.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> One person's "benign complacency" is another person's "following the rules."

I'd be interested Jay in what you would do if the ADIZ around DC were
eliminated, but another one of equal size were centered around your inn.
Let alone the fact that it's probably not going to happen, that it
wouldn't make sense, or just imagine some scenario in which it might
occur (i.e. that's where our secret nukes are buried).

There would probably be many who would rejoice that DC were finally
opened up to GA traffic, being as DC is a popular destination. Very few
pilots (in fact, very few people) would be affected by a 30 mile ADIZ in
Iowa, so you would likely garner little sympathy, at least from the
likes of those who post like you do.

So, were an ADIZ to pop up around your hotel, what would you hope us
other pilots would do?

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Bob Noel" > wrote

> no one likes an educated mule

That's why they don't sent them to school !!! <g>
--
Jim in NC

Jose wrote:
> I'd be interested Jay in what you would do if the ADIZ around DC were
> eliminated, but another one of equal size were centered around your inn.

GEORGE BUSH IS GOING TO STAY AT THE ASPEN INN???

I think Jay and Mary are going to be too busy to go flying while he his
there, so they won't be concerned about the temporary ADIZ around their inn.

> GEORGE BUSH IS GOING TO STAY AT THE ASPEN INN???
>
> I think Jay and Mary are going to be too busy to go flying while he his there, so they won't be concerned about the temporary ADIZ around their inn.

No, he's going to LIVE there. The ADIZ will be as "temporary" as the
one around DC. New rule: he gets to keep his Iowa ADIZ until he dies.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 21:11:08 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>::

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> > Flying the ADIZ is simple. File, talk, squawk.
>>
>> Oh, you forgot the important part: If you should happen to
>> accidentally stumble into the DC ADIZ, you are subject to your
>> government's military hardware intentionally shooting you down in the
>> name of security.
>
>Exactly how many times has our government's military hardware intentionally
>shot down someone penetrating the DC ADIZ?

The fact that within the short period of time the DC ADIZ has been in
effect there have yet been no shoot downs is not the point.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:Cbaye.120432$_o.87485@attbi_s71...
>> >> The Washington, D.C. ADIZ is there, and not moving any time soon. We,
> as
>> >> pilots, had better learn to live with it, and properly navigate
>> >> through
>> >> it -- it's NOT difficult -- or our concept of Free Flight in America
> will
>> >> be jeopardized.
>> >
>> > Yes, we shouldn't violate it, but we also shouldn't stop fighting
> against
>> > it using all available legal means.
>>
>> Bravo! Now THAT is a constructive attitude!
>>
> Of course, that assumes that the bureaucracy is going to give up it's
> feathered nest because, well heck, because we asked them to.

We don't have to ASK them to...

We have the Consitiutionally guarenteed right to TELL them to give it up.

The problems stem from the fact that the electorate won't get off their
collective keesters to do anything about it.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 21:11:08 -0400, Bob Noel
> > wrote in
> >::
>
> >In article >,
> > Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >
> >> > Flying the ADIZ is simple. File, talk, squawk.
> >>
> >> Oh, you forgot the important part: If you should happen to
> >> accidentally stumble into the DC ADIZ, you are subject to your
> >> government's military hardware intentionally shooting you down
> >> in the name of security.
> >
> >Exactly how many times has our government's military hardware
> >intentionally shot down someone penetrating the DC ADIZ?
>
> The fact that within the short period of time the DC ADIZ has been
> in effect there have yet been no shoot downs is not the point.

If there are any terrorists considering using a GA aircraft against DC the
fact that no aircraft has yet been shot down is probably something of which
they are very aware. I doubt if anyone wants to be responsible for shooting
down an innocent aircraft. Yet that very hesitation will benefit the one
aircraft that does try to do something. I wonder what a King Air fully
loaded with explosives and fuel would do to the White House? According to
AOPA, since it is a GA aircraft it should have no effect.

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
> news:Odiye.121728$_o.119692@attbi_s71:
>
> >> I was merely agreeing with your suggestion. :-)
> >
> > Personally, I think it would be excellent to organize a mass protest
> > where 100s of planes all flew toward the ADIZ en masse. (Stopping short
> > of actually breaking the ADIZ, of course.) It could garner terrific
> > press coverage, and probably cause great confusion in ATC and the
> > Administration.
> >
> > Who knows, it might even make the point that the ADIZ is pointless? It
> > might even result in the ADIZ shrinking, or being eliminated.
> >
> > My experience with working with pilots, however, indicates that
> > organizing a protest of this kind would be very difficult. Getting
> > pilots in line is like herding cats -- it ain't gonna happen easily.
>
> Unfortunately it would probably have the opposite effect. The government
> would likely see it as an excuse to simply end GA across the board.
>
> I could see the congressional hearings now,
>
> "Obviously GA is a threat to the national security and should
> be banned. Look at what hundreds of miscreant private pilots
> did. They all worked together to attack the security of the
> nations capitol. They are a threat on the same order as Al Queda."
>
> Just as Al Queda and their kin fanaticals think so differently that
> they embrace what we find appalling (eg suicide bombing), our
> government thinks so differently from how a normal intelligent
> educated rational human being does that they would react differently
> than we would to the same situation. They've already proven that
> with the existence of the ADIZ.
>

What...don't you trust government? You better be more respectful of your
masters! And they say I have weird political views :~)

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:Dopye.4531$Qo.3221@fed1read01...
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> > news:Cbaye.120432$_o.87485@attbi_s71...
> >> >> The Washington, D.C. ADIZ is there, and not moving any time soon.
We,
> > as
> >> >> pilots, had better learn to live with it, and properly navigate
> >> >> through
> >> >> it -- it's NOT difficult -- or our concept of Free Flight in America
> > will
> >> >> be jeopardized.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, we shouldn't violate it, but we also shouldn't stop fighting
> > against
> >> > it using all available legal means.
> >>
> >> Bravo! Now THAT is a constructive attitude!
> >>
> > Of course, that assumes that the bureaucracy is going to give up it's
> > feathered nest because, well heck, because we asked them to.
>
> We don't have to ASK them to...
>
> We have the Consitiutionally guarenteed right to TELL them to give it up.

And we have a Constitutional right to NOT have government steal our property
to give it to someone else.

>
> The problems stem from the fact that the electorate won't get off their
> collective keesters to do anything about it.

That same electorate that put them in in the first place?

Reality check!

> You say you agree with me, but then you say it's foolish to "leave GPS on
> the ground". "Foolish" is a pretty strong word, and is incompatible with
> agreeing with me 100%.

Well, you keep changing your interpretation of what I'm saying.

For the record, I have said: "It is, of course, possible to navigate the
ADIZ without GPS."

I have also said: "It is foolish to leave GPS on the ground when you're
betting the farm every time you fly in the ADIZ."

These are not incompatible statements.

What we *can* do, and what is *wise* to do, are often two very different
things.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> GEORGE BUSH IS GOING TO STAY AT THE ASPEN INN???

Please. That's "Alexis Park Inn & Suites."

If you're going to give me free advertising, at least get the name right!

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

Of course you are correct, but the actions that some of your fellow airmen
are encouraging is symtomatic of what is wrong with GA and the FAA's
willful disregard of enforcing regulations. The irresponsible actions of
the minority have created a strong (and growing) anti- GA lobby.

> So, were an ADIZ to pop up around your hotel, what would you hope us other
> pilots would do?

I expect there would be (impotent) howls of protest from a small but vocal
group of pilots known as "AOPA."

But what has this example got to do with an ADIZ that has been thrown up
around our seat of government which -- as you may recall -- WAS attacked
successfully from the air using suicide-piloted aircraft?

I mean, really. At some level you must concede that the White House,
Capitol, and Pentagon are proven targets of terrorists who *have already
used* aircraft to try to attack them. The ADIZ -- which only requires that
you have a squawk code and a flight plan -- is a pretty loose defense, IMHO,
considering everything that has occurred in D.C.

In fact, be careful what you wish for. If you guys keep clamoring about how
"ineffective" this ADIZ is, the Feds just might clamp down a "No-Fly Zone"
over Washington once again.

THAT would be far more effective against terrorist attack from the air,
don't you think?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Well, you keep changing your interpretation of what I'm saying.

Well, no.

The =flavor= of what you are saying ("only a damn fool would ever leave
the ground even on a clear day without two GPS units and a co-pilot")(*)
is incompatible with some of the plain text of what you are saying ("I
agree 100% [with Jose's contention that "electing not to fly in the DC
area because of this would indicate to me a lack of confidence in one's
flying skills that requires more training")

You said, very strongly, you consider "flying near the ADIZ without GPS
to be simply asking for trouble". I don't see it that way at all.
Where is my interpretation of what you're saying "wrong" or "changed"?

Jose
(*) of course you never said that in words, but it =is= the tone of what
you have been saying, in many words.
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> But what has this example got to do with an ADIZ that has been thrown up
> around our seat of government...

An ADIZ is an ADIZ. You have stated on several occasions that you don't
mind the one around DC because it affects few people, least of all you
(despite the fact that you later ended up flying there yourself), and we
should just live with it becasuse it is the law and it's possible to
obey. You've said that we still have 99% of the country to fly over,
and we should be thankful for that.

As I fly in the Northeast, and have friends (though not of the proper
type!) in DC, the ADIZ has significantly affected me. I've never been
to Iowa. The 99% of the country I can fly over is of less impact to me
than that single ten mile circle.

I'm trying to bring it home to you. That's what it has to do with.

> The ADIZ -- which only requires that
> you have a squawk code and a flight plan -- is a pretty loose defense, IMHO

The ADIZ is a useless nusiance at the outside of the donut. The inner
circle is essentially a no-fly zone for small GA aircraft. (I won't
reiterate the kind of aircraft that actually caused our.. um.. problem).
While it is possible now to fly into the DC3, it requires
fingerprinting, two separate trips (of course not with GA aircraft) into
that ring, and an invasion of privacy that is totally unwarranted, for a
degree of security that is almost laughable.

> At some level you must concede that the White House,
> Capitol, and Pentagon are proven targets of terrorists who *have already
> used* aircraft to try to attack them.

I will concede that they are targets of terrorists who have already used
Ryder trucks and commercial jets to attack this country. Both enter DC
freely.

> [a "No-Fly Zone"] would be far more effective against terrorist attack from the air,
> don't you think?

Yes, it would. But it would have to be huge. The inner (protected)
part of this zone would need to extend out to the countryside. The
outer (protecting) ring would need to be totally in the countryside.
Any aircraft entering the outer ring would need to be diverted or shot
down without exception before it penetrated the inner zone, so that the
debris would fall on farmland. There would be no exception for kites,
RC craft, or commercial airliners, there would be no altitude limits,
and zero tolerance.

Otherwise all you stop are law-abiding terrorists (with GPS).

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article <E6wye.124300$x96.124125@attbi_s72>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> In fact, be careful what you wish for. If you guys keep clamoring about how
> "ineffective" this ADIZ is, the Feds just might clamp down a "No-Fly Zone"
> over Washington once again.
>
> THAT would be far more effective against terrorist attack from the air,
> don't you think?

Nope.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> But what has this example got to do with an ADIZ that has been thrown up
> around our seat of government which -- as you may recall -- WAS attacked
> successfully from the air using suicide-piloted aircraft?

As Jose pointed out, our country was attacked by airliners and Ryder
trucks (in OK City), yet both can transit DC with little or no
restrictions. GA aircraft, although "supposedly" the obsession of Al
Quada, has NOT been used as a terrorist weapon. Seemingly every day, a
car bomb goes off somewhere in the middle east, yet no one is talking
about banning cars from DC.

> I mean, really. At some level you must concede that the White House,
> Capitol, and Pentagon are proven targets of terrorists who *have already
> used* aircraft to try to attack them. The ADIZ -- which only requires that
> you have a squawk code and a flight plan -- is a pretty loose defense, IMHO,
> considering everything that has occurred in D.C.

The terrorist used airliners, not GA aircraft. Also, the price of living
in a free society is accepting some level of danger. It's nausiating to
see how easily the American people are willing to give up their rights and
freedoms just to be "protected". Our founding fathers are rolling over in
their graves. I've literally lived under the airspace now known as the
ADIZ (and FRZ) for my entire life. Although, when everything works OK (as
it did for you), flying in and out is no big deal. However, things often
DO go wrong (from simple mistakes to equipment failures), and having to
live with it on a regular basis is bull s**t.

> In fact, be careful what you wish for. If you guys keep clamoring about how
> "ineffective" this ADIZ is, the Feds just might clamp down a "No-Fly Zone"
> over Washington once again.

How about returning things to normal, and NOT allowing the relatively
small number of terrorists in this world dictate how we live our lives?

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 06:16:12 GMT, "JP5" > wrote in
t>::

>I wonder what a King Air fully loaded with explosives and fuel would do
>to the White House?

If said King Air were traveling at 292 knots*, it would be within the
DC No Fly Zone in ~3 minutes. I wonder how F-16s could be scrambled
to intercept it before it arrives at the White House?

The ADIZ and No Fly Zone do nothing to enhance security.

*
http://www.executivebeechcraft.com/images/KAB200_Spec_Perf_2003.pdf

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 13:41:56 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in
<E6wye.124300$x96.124125@attbi_s72>::


>But what has this example got to do with an ADIZ that has been thrown up
>around our seat of government which -- as you may recall -- WAS attacked
>successfully from the air using suicide-piloted [airline] aircraft?

The current ADIZ will not protect the White House from similar
AIRLINER attacks. It only restricts law abiding flights.

>I mean, really. At some level you must concede that the White House,
>Capitol, and Pentagon are proven targets of terrorists who *have already
>used* aircraft to try to attack them.

I concede that those proven targets were attacked with AIRLINERS.

>The ADIZ is a pretty loose defense, IMHO, considering everything that has occurred in D.C.

I would characterize the DC ADIZ as ineffective in any measure of
defense.

>In fact, be careful what you wish for. If you guys keep clamoring about how
>"ineffective" this ADIZ is, the Feds just might clamp down a "No-Fly Zone"
>over Washington once again.

The airlines and the airline traveling public would not permit a
No-Fly Zone to exist in the DC area.

>THAT would be far more effective against terrorist attack from the air,
>don't you think?

Perhaps. But the public and corporate outrage over such a No-Fly
Zone would prevent it from being implemented.

On 05 Jul 2005 15:45:52 GMT, (Jay Masino)
wrote in >::

>How about returning things to normal, and NOT allowing the relatively
>small number of terrorists in this world dictate how we live our lives?

Someone wrote, "I wonder what a King Air fully loaded with explosives and
fuel would do to the White House?"

Larry Dighera replied, "If said King Air were traveling at 292 knots*, it
would be within the DC No Fly Zone in ~3 minutes. I wonder how F-16s could
be scrambled to intercept it before it arrives at the White House?"

I don't think F-16 are necessary. The Phalanx guns I imagine to be
strategically placed around the White House and Pentagon should be quite
effective against a King Air.

Jon

I have to disagree. I don't think American people are willing to give up
their own, individual rights and freedoms. We just have no problem giving up
rights and freedoms that don't affect us, and only affects others.

"Jay Masino" > wrote in message
...
> in a free society is accepting some level of danger. It's nausiating to
> see how easily the American people are willing to give up their rights and
> freedoms just to be "protected".

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 11:11:40 -0600, "Jon Woellhaf"
> wrote in
>::

>Someone wrote, "I wonder what a King Air fully loaded with explosives and
>fuel would do to the White House?"
>
>Larry Dighera replied, "If said King Air were traveling at 292 knots*, it
>would be within the DC No Fly Zone in ~3 minutes. I wonder how F-16s could
>be scrambled to intercept it before it arrives at the White House?"
>
>I don't think F-16 are necessary. The Phalanx guns I imagine to be
>strategically placed around the White House and Pentagon should be quite
>effective against a King Air.
>

Right. So the military shoot down authorization is unnecessary;
eliminate it.

Only "evidence" that I can sight (because I don't know the details of
most of the incursions) is the big one with the student and older guy in
the 150.

Jose wrote:
>> This attitude of "I don't need no stinking whiz bang GPS", followed by
>> busting restricted space, followed by, "I am going to fight you to the
>> death on trying to violate me": I think cases like this hurt the
>> survival of free flight that I love.
>>
> Do you have any evidence that the people who do the first are the same
> ones that do the second and third?
>
> Jose

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in news:lDqye.121$8h6.17630
@news.uswest.net:

<Snipola>
> What...don't you trust government? You better be more respectful of your
> masters! And they say I have weird political views :~)

As the saying goes, "Respect is earned, not granted." As yet, very
few politicians have earned my respect. Unfortunately, most of
them are long dead.

If yours and my political views are considered 'weird' it is only
in the context of what has become considered 'normal' today.

And in a lame attempt to stay on topic, I wish I had my PPL so I
could go flying!!! :)

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?

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On 05 Jul 2005 15:45:52 GMT, (Jay Masino)
> wrote in >::
>
>>How about returning things to normal, and NOT allowing the relatively
>>small number of terrorists in this world dictate how we live our lives?

Has my vote.

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?

We can't really focus on the average. I think they do just fine. They
process the consequences of their actions and prepare appropriately.
(I still believe the average pilot is a pretty sharp individual)
Again, even technically capable individuals with a poor attitude are
problematic.
The biggest stink incursion was with a plane knowingly going close to
camp David and the ADIZ who basically got in trouble because they were
yielding a little extra room to be sure they would avoid camp David.
That isn't pilotage or dead reckoning. That is just "feeling your way
around". Perfectly acceptable in North Dakota (or Iowa). It takes a
significant attitude problem to head towards an ADIZ and "feel" around
when a $100 non-aviation GPS would keep you out of the headlines when
you weren't exactly sure where you were.


Mike

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>To fly in an area where loss of situational awareness can cause
>>>evacuation of the White House (or worse), not using every navigational
>>>tool at our disposal is potentially foolhardy.
>>
>>Oh, Jay, that's just silly.
>>
>>If there's GPS in the airplane, sure, turn it on and use it. But if your
>>rental does -not- have a GPS, then electing not to fly in the DC area
>>because of this would indicate to me a lack of confidence in one's flying
>>skills that requires more training, whether to build the skills, or to
>>build the confidence.
>
>
> I agree 100%. But are you willing to bet that the casual weekend pilot has
> the navigational savvy to ded reckon his way around the ADIZ?
>
> I don't. I flew in the ADIZ a few weeks ago, and there aren't very many
> identifiable landmarks (until, of course, you see the Washington Monument,
> by which time it's too late!) to use, especially in the evening haze. I was
> damned glad to have that big ol' color map to follow.
>
> Could I have done it with just a sectional? Sure! Hell, from Frederick, I
> could have just set a course and a stop watch, and probably flown straight
> to Dulles International without ever looking inside the plane. Unless, of
> course, I had to deviate for weather (there was plenty in the area), or was
> vectored by ATC. Suddenly my ded reckoning skills might have been taxed
> beyond my abilities.
>
> GPS makes that sort of thing a complete non-event, and costs less than a
> tank of gas.
>
> Again, if you're going to bet the farm on flying inside of an ADIZ, I think
> you're foolish to leave GPS on the ground before you go.

> Only "evidence" that I can sight (because I don't know the details of most of the incursions) is the big one with the student and older guy in the 150.

1: "cite"

2: I don't think this case was an example of an "I don't need no
stinking whiz bang GPS" attitude. He just (presumably) flew without a
GPS. That's different from the attitude I am referring to.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> The biggest stink incursion was with a plane knowingly going close to camp David and the ADIZ who basically got in trouble because they were yielding a little extra room to be sure they would avoid camp David. That isn't pilotage or dead reckoning. That is just "feeling your way around".

Fine. Don't "feel your way around" the ADIZ. GPS isn't the only
alternative. Pilotage works too. Look out the stinkin' window! :)

But if you do have a GPS, it's certainly worth using in the area. I'm
not saying one should not use all the tools, I'm saying one should not
allow ones other tools to atrophy by relying on the latest and greatest
electron dance.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >I don't think F-16 are necessary. The Phalanx guns I imagine to be
> >strategically placed around the White House and Pentagon should be quite
> >effective against a King Air.
>
> Right. So the military shoot down authorization is unnecessary;
> eliminate it.

I believe that the ground-based defense systems will require a shoot down
authorization, not just the airborne assets.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> I believe that the ground-based defense systems will require a shoot down
> authorization, not just the airborne assets.

Probably. But in that case, the imagined Phalanx guns would be no more
effective that the F-16s.

Do the cracks extend to the pilots too? From AOPA:

Most older aircraft have developed cracks in some structures because of
the natural aging process. Although certification authorities in some
other countries will ground aircraft with any cracks, the United States
has taken the more reasonable position of determining if the crack poses
any threat to safety.

I thought it was fairly well-established that ATF wanted more funding and
intended to use the Waco incident to display its prowess and justify an
increase in money. That's why the raid was so well publicized from the
outset. They could have taken Koresh into custody during his visits to
town, but they wanted something more dramatic. And they got it.

Then, when it escalated to the point where the Attorney General was, er,
calling the shots, they needed a weak-kneed, spineless Army General to
allow use of US military hardware against civilians in this country. Funny
how Wesley Clark's career took off after that.

Ruby Ridge was a absolute horror. That was a set-up by the government from
the word go. They were going to use a fuel-air bomb on that family. This
is why reasonable people are afraid of government, especially when people
like the Clintons are running things.


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> > > Well, George, this is now the third (?) time you've refuted my
> assertion
>> > > without resorting to facts.
>> > >
>> > > So, let's hear 'em. What made the "nutcases" at Waco and Ruby Ridge
> so
>> > > noble, in your view?
>> >
>> > http://www.hardylaw.net/waco.html
>>
>> This webpage is supposed to make me think the Branch Davidians were NOT
>> nutcases?
>>
>> Let's see. In the course of the FBI assault, David Koresh has been
>> shot in the groin, "the bullet blasting a 1-inch wide hole through his
>> pelvis" yet -- instead of surrendering immediately to the 100 or so FBI
>> agents that have surrounded his compound -- he's busily "writing his
>> explanation of the Seven Seals" while stalling a negotiator on the
>> phone?
>>
>> Um, Matt, do *you* think that's a wise thing to do after hundreds of
>> rounds have been fired in a skirmish with law enforcement officials?
>
> It becomes evident, from all the non-government reports, that surrender
> was
> not going to be allowed.
>
> You know, Jay, I remember other times in hisotry when tyrants wanted to
> suppress a minority, they villified and demonized them. Every indication
> demonstrates the real nutcases where the guys with the badges.
>
> Being a bit nutty is not illegal; murder from behind a badge still is.
>
>> I don't know about you, but I'd be face down on the floor, politely
>> asking the men with the helmets and guns to fetch me a doctor and my
>> attorney.
>
> You really need a clue as to what went on.
>
> Read ALL the stuff, including the continuing links, an take the blinders
> off
> and stop being so damn gullible.
>
>
> Here, this is for you.
> --
> "At a time when our entire country
> is banding together and facing down
> individualism, the Patriots set a wonderful
> example, showing us all what is possible
> when we work together, believe
> in each other, and sacrifice for the
> greater good." -
> SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY, D-MASS., in a statement read
> onto the Congressional Record, praising the New
> England Patriots and declaring us all to be in
> an American war against individualism. --
> Quoted in America's 1st Freedom magazine, April, 2002
>
>

I fly into and out of the ADIZ several times a day five days a week. i
have seen the blackhawks and F-16s up close but they were after someone
else. ;-)
Michelle

Larry Dighera wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 00:13:48 GMT, Michelle P
> wrote in
et>::
>
>
>
>>Flying the ADIZ is simple. File, talk, squawk.
>>
>>
>
>Oh, you forgot the important part: If you should happen to
>accidentally stumble into the DC ADIZ, you are subject to your
>government's military hardware intentionally shooting you down in the
>name of security.
>
>
>
>

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera > wrote in
> :
>
> > On 05 Jul 2005 15:45:52 GMT, (Jay Masino)
> > wrote in >::
> >
> >>How about returning things to normal, and NOT allowing the relatively
> >>small number of terrorists in this world dictate how we live our lives?
>
> Has my vote.
>
And fight the battle on their turf, not ours.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in news:OsIye.57$FZ6.23341
@news.uswest.net:

>
> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Larry Dighera > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > On 05 Jul 2005 15:45:52 GMT, (Jay Masino)
>> > wrote in >::
>> >
>> >>How about returning things to normal, and NOT allowing the relatively
>> >>small number of terrorists in this world dictate how we live our lives?
>>
>> Has my vote.
>>
> And fight the battle on their turf, not ours.

I agree on that as well.

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?

Jon,

> The Phalanx guns I imagine to be
> strategically placed around the White House and Pentagon should be quite
> effective against a King Air.
>

Which will then come down hard on something else important in the area...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

>>How about returning things to normal, and NOT allowing the relatively
>>small number of terrorists in this world dictate how we live our lives?

If only it were so easy.

I would nominate this quote as "Wishful Thinking of the Year"...

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

>>In fact, be careful what you wish for. If you guys keep clamoring about
>>how
>>"ineffective" this ADIZ is, the Feds just might clamp down a "No-Fly Zone"
>>over Washington once again.
>>THAT would be far more effective against terrorist attack from the air,
>>don't you think?
>
> Perhaps. But the public and corporate outrage over such a No-Fly
> Zone would prevent it from being implemented.

Which is PRECISELY why we now have the "ineffective" ADIZ. I'm sure at the
deepest level of government security -- probably the Secret Service -- they
were clamoring for a permanent No-Fly Zone around D.C. after 9/11. When
this proved to be politically impossible, they "settled" for the ADIZ.

But -- mark my words -- all it will take is ONE successful attack using a GA
plane, and there WILL be a "No Fly Zone" around D.C.

Which is why ALL of us have to be vigilant around our local airports, by the
way. All it will take is one of these nut-case shoe-bombers to fly a stolen
Cherokee Six loaded with <fill-in-the-blank> into <fill-in-the-blank>, and
we'll all be recalling the ADIZ fondly.

Think it can't happen here?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>> Only "evidence" that I can sight (because I don't know the details of
>> most of the incursions) is the big one with the student and older guy in
>> the 150.
>
> 1: "cite"
>
> 2: I don't think this case was an example of an "I don't need no stinking
> whiz bang GPS" attitude. He just (presumably) flew without a GPS. That's
> different from the attitude I am referring to.

Can we ever get inside the guy's head to know for sure? Nope.

But his actions -- given the incredibly low cost of GPS nowadays -- are
consistent with this attitude.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>> Well, you keep changing your interpretation of what I'm saying.
>
> Well, no.

Well, yes. :-)

> The =flavor= of what you are saying ... <snip>

When you start interpreting the "flavor" of what I'm saying, you're stepping
on thin ice.

How about we leave it at this:

"If a pilot isn't 100% sure of his ability to ded reckon (or dead reckon, if
you prefer the Elizabethan spelling) with a chart, a stopwatch, and a
compass, he should not penetrate the ADIZ without using modern navigational
equipment."

There. I've eliminated the dreaded term "GPS", to which you seem to have a
pathological aversion...

;-)

NOW can we agree?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>> How about returning things to normal, and NOT allowing the relatively
>> small number of terrorists in this world dictate how we live our lives?
>
>
> If only it were so easy.

How is it "not so easy"?

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> But his actions -- given the incredibly low cost of GPS nowadays -- are
> consistent with this attitude.

The actions of =any= pilot who rents a plane that doesn't have GPS is
consistent with this attitude. But that doesn't mean =possesses= this
attitude. They are different.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> How about we leave it at this:
>
> "If a pilot isn't 100% sure of his ability to ded reckon (or dead reckon, if
> you prefer the Elizabethan spelling) with a chart, a stopwatch, and a
> compass, he should not penetrate the ADIZ without using modern navigational
> equipment."
>
> There. I've eliminated the dreaded term "GPS", to which you seem to have a
> pathological aversion...
>
> ;-)
>
> NOW can we agree?

Almost. Noting that VORs are modern, including pilotage in with dead
reckoning (yes, I prefer the original spelling :) and taking a slightly
smaller value of "100%" (nothing is truely certain), I agree.

I will further state however that if a pilot isn't "almost 100%" sure of
his ability to navigate using pilotage or dead reckoning with a chart, a
stopwatch, and a compass, then maybe he shouldn't be up there in the
first place, ADIZ or not. Granted, we both apply higher standards to
any complex airspace with consequences, but it's a basic piloting skill
whose value is being needlessly denegrated.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> Almost. Noting that VORs are modern, including pilotage in with dead
> reckoning (yes, I prefer the original spelling :) and taking a slightly
> smaller value of "100%" (nothing is truely certain), I agree.

Well, VORs are about as modern as a '47 LaSalle Coupe, but I'll go with you
on the rest of that.

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

>>> How about returning things to normal, and NOT allowing the relatively
>>> small number of terrorists in this world dictate how we live our lives?
>>
>>
>> If only it were so easy.
>
> How is it "not so easy"?

It would require a major political and social sea change, on the same order
as what happened after 9/11.

I don't think we'll see that (a sudden, utter and complete change in the
social contract) happen again, maybe ever?

What we will see, hopefully, is a gradual realization that things *are* back
to normal, and that we can drop a lot of the goofier parts of our
"heightened security." Unfortunately, that happens with almost glacial
slowness, and can be instantly and irretrievably reversed at the next
terrorist threat.

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

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> What we will see, hopefully, is a gradual realization that things *are* back
> to normal, <snip>

Things are certainly NOT back to normal for me (and a lot of other people
in the Mid-Atlantic states).



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

>> What we will see, hopefully, is a gradual realization that things *are*
>> back
>> to normal, <snip>
>
> Things are certainly NOT back to normal for me (and a lot of other people
> in the Mid-Atlantic states).

I know that, Jay. I was referring to things being back to normal in "the
real world" outside of our rarefied little aviation world.

If things stay calm, there are no more terrorist attacks, and stupid pilots
stop busting TFRs and ADIZ's for any length of time, the general public will
gradually come to the realization that things are "back to normal" -- and
the politicians will soon follow.

Only then will we see some of the dumber parts of our security
"preparedness" eliminated or reduced.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"How many of them, what did they look like, which way did they go? I must
follow them, for I am their leader."

(Sign on JFK's desk in the Oval Office.)

Jim



, the general public will
> gradually come to the realization that things are "back to normal" -- and
> the politicians will soon follow.

> It would require a major political and social sea change, on the same order
> as what happened after 9/11.

Yes. We are now ruled by the terrorists. And before you object, note
that your response was to that very statement a few messages up thread.

More exactly, we are ruled by fear, and our government is using this
fear against us. Not against the terrorists, but against us law-abiding
citizens of the United States, a nation that supposes itself to be free.

> I don't think we'll see that (a sudden, utter and complete change in the
> social contract) happen again, maybe ever?

Then you have little faith in the Constitution, which is the wedge we
have against Washington that helps us keep what freedoms we deem important.

> What we will see, hopefully, is a gradual realization that things *are*
> back to normal, and that we can drop a lot of the goofier parts of our
> "heightened security."

We are not back to normal here on the East Coast, but at least you
recognize that this is because of our lawmakers, not because of the
terrorists. But since you don't have to live with the ADIZ all the
time, it seems to have much less importance to you.

I agree with your statement "it's not so easy" to the extent that you
mean "it's not easy to accomplish because of all the political pressures
to keep us in fear...". However, I strongly disagree with that =same=
statement ("It's not so easy") if it is taken to mean "...because there
will be significant adverse consequences if we do".

In the former case, the implication is "...therefore we need to work
hard to accopmlish it" but in the later case the implication is
"...therefore we shouldn't do it".

That's why I reacted.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> Well, VORs are about as modern as a '47 LaSalle Coupe

(googling '47 LaSalle Coupe)... you mean, it's one of those horseless
carriage things?? Sheesh, what'll they think of next!

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

("Jon Woellhaf" wrote)
> I don't think F-16 are necessary. The Phalanx guns I imagine to be
> strategically placed around the White House and Pentagon should be quite
> effective against a King Air.


Read the Product Warning Label: Not recommended for use in urban areas.

Otherwise, it's a great weapon system for a carrier task force out at sea.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/weapons/wep-phal.html

http://www.colosseumbuilders.com/john/nj/phalanx.htm
(Up close photos)


Montblack
http://www.montysminiguns.com/RealityPage.htm
(What the heck, while we're at it .... fun site)

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Jon Woellhaf" wrote)
>> I don't think F-16 are necessary. The Phalanx guns I imagine to be
>> strategically placed around the White House and Pentagon should be quite
>> effective against a King Air.
>
>
> Read the Product Warning Label: Not recommended for use in urban areas.
>
> Otherwise, it's a great weapon system for a carrier task force out at sea.
>
> http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/weapons/wep-phal.html
>
> http://www.colosseumbuilders.com/john/nj/phalanx.htm
> (Up close photos)
>
>
> Montblack
> http://www.montysminiguns.com/RealityPage.htm
> (What the heck, while we're at it .... fun site)

The CIWS is amazingly agile for its size.

Spent a week at Norfolk back in the late '80s shooting video for RCA while
the Navy replaced the starboard/forward Aegis radar plate on the CG-47 (USS
Ticonderoga.)

Each morning, they would run the CIWS mounts through a diagnostic routine
that looked a lot like a mechanical form of "jazzercize." Just spinning up
the barrells, it was LOUD!

Don't know what the official numbers are, but I'd bet it can rotate and
elevate at rates exceeding 90 degrees a second and at 4500 rounds/min, they
can throw out a lot of lead (er, depleted uranium.)

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:J8Sye.138516$xm3.101979@attbi_s21...
>>>In fact, be careful what you wish for. If you guys keep clamoring about
>>>how
>>>"ineffective" this ADIZ is, the Feds just might clamp down a "No-Fly
>>>Zone"
>>>over Washington once again.
>>>THAT would be far more effective against terrorist attack from the air,
>>>don't you think?
>>
>> Perhaps. But the public and corporate outrage over such a No-Fly
>> Zone would prevent it from being implemented.
>
> Which is PRECISELY why we now have the "ineffective" ADIZ. I'm sure at
> the deepest level of government security -- probably the Secret Service --
> they were clamoring for a permanent No-Fly Zone around D.C. after 9/11.
> When this proved to be politically impossible, they "settled" for the
> ADIZ.
>
> But -- mark my words -- all it will take is ONE successful attack using a
> GA plane, and there WILL be a "No Fly Zone" around D.C.
>
> Which is why ALL of us have to be vigilant around our local airports, by
> the way. All it will take is one of these nut-case shoe-bombers to fly a
> stolen Cherokee Six loaded with <fill-in-the-blank> into
> <fill-in-the-blank>, and we'll all be recalling the ADIZ fondly.
>
> Think it can't happen here?
> --


Then democracy has a problem, and cannot be the wonderful institution that
we claim it to be... since we claim a need to suspend its freedoms.

The destruction of any icon of democracy will not destroy democracy, nor
will the preservation of any icon ensure democracy...... especially if the
means of preservation is specifically at the expense of democratic
principles.

Democracy does not need icons... icons are the trappings of Kings: Palaces
that symbolized protection of its peasants, but also came to symbolize the
oppression of the masses.

Have we forgotten that democracy is of the people, by the people, for the
people ,... the *people*.... not *by* any particular icon, and not *for*
any particular icon.

The *people* of a Democratic America can withstand much worse than a psycho
doing damage to an icon, or even 20 psychos doing damage to any number of
icons.

If they give themselves half a chance.

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of
zeal,
well meaning but without understanding."
- Justice Louis Brandeis (1928)

--
*** A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> The *people* of a Democratic America can withstand much worse than a
> psycho doing damage to an icon, or even 20 psychos doing damage to any
> number of icons.
>
> If they give themselves half a chance.

Thank you. I'm doing my best to stay out of the off-topic threads, but your
post deserves special recognition for its truthfulness and insight.

Pete

>> The *people* of a Democratic America can withstand much worse than a
>> psycho doing damage to an icon, or even 20 psychos doing damage to any
>> number of icons.
>>
>> If they give themselves half a chance.
>
> Thank you. I'm doing my best to stay out of the off-topic threads, but
> your post deserves special recognition for its truthfulness and insight.

While his post was, indeed, full of insight and depth, it was also, sadly,
woefully disconnected from modern American society.

Much as I would like to believe his words, I'm afraid the old saying "It's
impossible to be too cynical" applies here. Americans would demand -- and
their leaders would provide -- severe restrictions on GA in the event of a
successful terrorist attack that utilized GA aircraft.

It's really a simple political equation: Ryder rental trucks cannot be
removed from the roads without severe consequences -- but our little planes
can be swept from the skies with the stroke of a pen, with little or no
political fallout.

We would be wise to remember that.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> It's really a simple political equation: Ryder rental trucks cannot be
> removed from the roads without severe consequences -- but our little planes
> can be swept from the skies with the stroke of a pen, with little or no
> political fallout.
>
> We would be wise to remember that.

You might feel differently (about suggesting that we just "take it") if
it were your airspace that was under the ADIZ.

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

>> It's really a simple political equation: Ryder rental trucks cannot be
>> removed from the roads without severe consequences -- but our little
>> planes can be swept from the skies with the stroke of a pen, with little
>> or no political fallout.
>>
>> We would be wise to remember that.
>
> You might feel differently (about suggesting that we just "take it") if it
> were your airspace that was under the ADIZ.

You continue to equate "taking it" with "following the current rules."

There is a difference, you know.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Icebound" > wrote in
:

<Snipola of EXCELLENT post>

> "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men
> of zeal,
> well meaning but without understanding."
> - Justice Louis Brandeis (1928)

Don't forget Benjamin Franklin...

"He that would give up essential liberty for a little security
deserve neither liberty nor security."


or Thomas B. Reed...

"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the
evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."


or Thomas Jefferson...

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too
much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."


or Harlan Carter...

"Can our form of government, our system of justice, survive if
one can be denied a freedom because he might abuse it?"


or Thomas Paine...

"Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like
men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."


or Kwame Nkrumah (founder of Ghana)...

"We prefer self-government with danger, to servitude with
tranquillity."


or George Bernard Shaw...

"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."


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?

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:J8Sye.138516$xm3.101979@attbi_s21:

<Snipola>
> But -- mark my words -- all it will take is ONE successful attack using
> a GA plane, and there WILL be a "No Fly Zone" around D.C.
<Snipola>

Which will prove what we've been saying all along, that the ADIZ
does NOTHING to secure 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?

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:oW1ze.141757$xm3.84543@attbi_s21:

>>> The *people* of a Democratic America can withstand much worse than a
>>> psycho doing damage to an icon, or even 20 psychos doing damage to any
>>> number of icons.
>>>
>>> If they give themselves half a chance.
>>
>> Thank you. I'm doing my best to stay out of the off-topic threads, but
>> your post deserves special recognition for its truthfulness and
>> insight.
>
> While his post was, indeed, full of insight and depth, it was also,
> sadly, woefully disconnected from modern American society.
>
> Much as I would like to believe his words, I'm afraid the old saying
> "It's impossible to be too cynical" applies here. Americans would
> demand -- and their leaders would provide -- severe restrictions on GA
> in the event of a successful terrorist attack that utilized GA aircraft.
>
> It's really a simple political equation: Ryder rental trucks cannot be
> removed from the roads without severe consequences -- but our little
> planes can be swept from the skies with the stroke of a pen, with little
> or no political fallout.
>
> We would be wise to remember that.


And you sir are a fine example of why this country is falling apart,
with that attitude.

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?

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:oW1ze.141757$xm3.84543@attbi_s21...
> While his post was, indeed, full of insight and depth, it was also, sadly,
> woefully disconnected from modern American society.

No. American society may be disconnected from the truth of what he says,
but if so, they do so at their own peril.

If the government is successful in shutting GA down completely, do you think
they'll stop at that? The government would take complete control of every
aspect of American society if they could. GA is simply an early step in a
lengthy process of abandonment of civil rights.

You continue to miss the whole point of where this thread went. It's not a
question of whether we ought to obey the existing restrictions. It's a
question of whether we ought to sit by and just let the restrictions happen
without complaint.

Pete

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 23:45:01 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>You continue to miss the whole point of where this thread went. It's not a
>question of whether we ought to obey the existing restrictions. It's a
>question of whether we ought to sit by and just let the restrictions happen
>without complaint.

Thank you for putting it succinctly and bluntly.

Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> You might feel differently (about suggesting that we just "take it") if it
>> were your airspace that was under the ADIZ.
>
> You continue to equate "taking it" with "following the current rules."
>
> There is a difference, you know.

There's a difference for the occassional ADIZ "user", but if you have to
live with it, day after day, following the current rules without protest
IS "taking it".



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

> You continue to equate "taking it" with "following the current rules."
>
> There is a difference, you know.

No, I don't equate the two. I equate "taking it" with "resigning myself
to the current rules", especially when the current rules don't affect
you much.

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

>> But -- mark my words -- all it will take is ONE successful attack using
>> a GA plane, and there WILL be a "No Fly Zone" around D.C.
> <Snipola>
>
> Which will prove what we've been saying all along, that the ADIZ
> does NOTHING to secure the area.

I'm afraid GA is in a no-win situation, outside of the political arena.

- If we bitch about the ADIZ being ineffective, the Feds may actually listen
and take note, and impose harsher restrictions.

- If we DON'T bitch about the ADIZ, it may become permanent...

- If the ADIZ is violated (as it is, almost daily), this proves to the
general public that we GA pilots are a bunch of idiots who cannot
navigate...

- If there is an actual terrorist attack using GA planes inside the ADIZ, we
will have proven that the ADIZ was ineffective -- and lost everything.

Our only hope, IMHO, at this point is to:

1. Maintain political pressure, through AOPA, EAA, and individual efforts.
2. Exert peer pressure on our flying peers, to educate themselves and STOP
BUSTING THE ADIZ.
3. Make sure that our airports -- and, specifically, our airplanes -- are
secure from theft.
4. Keep your fingers crossed that all of these actions (plus whatever unseen
actions our government security forces are taking) result in there being NO
terrorist attacks utilizing GA planes.

If these four things come together, I think eventually the ADIZ and TFRs
will go away. If any one of those four thing DON'T come together, the ADIZ
is here to stay -- or worse.

It's a shame, but it's just the way it is.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> And you sir are a fine example of why this country is falling apart,
> with that attitude.

An interesting observation, Brian -- but I haven't heard any alternatives
from you, yet.

What do you suggest?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>>You continue to miss the whole point of where this thread went. It's not
>>a
>>question of whether we ought to obey the existing restrictions. It's a
>>question of whether we ought to sit by and just let the restrictions
>>happen
>>without complaint.
>
> Thank you for putting it succinctly and bluntly.

Sadly, as usual, Peter "put it" neither succinctly nor bluntly. In fact, he
missed the point entirely.

We should be protesting the airspace restrictions at every level of
government possible -- short of busting the ADIZ. At no point have I
suggested otherwise; I have merely explained the utterly logical rationale
behind the imposition of airspace restrictions after 9/11.

The fact that I apparently must explain the reasons for the restrictions
quite frankly scares me.

Here's the bottom line: It matters not if the ADIZ is truly effective -- it
is PERCEIVED by the general public as effective. Those who fail to
understand the reasons for the restrictions have NO chance of getting them
rescinded. You can keep calling a duck a chicken, but the rest of the world
will just think your dumb -- and the duck will continue on as if nothing has
happened. You will have done nothing to further your cause without
understanding the opposition.

Pilots who continue to bust the ADIZ are individually -- and with malice --
signing our death warrant. If we're going to fight this thing, we're going
to have to be smarter than their actions would indicate we are -- and THAT
is the real tragedy here.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck > wrote:
<SNIP>
> - If the ADIZ is violated (as it is, almost daily), this proves to the
> general public that we GA pilots are a bunch of idiots who cannot
> navigate...
<SNIP>
> 2. Exert peer pressure on our flying peers, to educate themselves and STOP
> BUSTING THE ADIZ.

You only hear about the "big" busts. What about the fairly frequent
"busts" that are not the pilots fault at all. These are usually caused by
equipment problems (air and ground), controller mistakes, NORAD and
Customs mistakes, etc.



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

> And you sir are a fine example of why this country is falling apart, with
> that attitude.

An interesting observation, Brian -- but I haven't heard any alternatives
from you, yet.

What do you suggest?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay,
I am afraid there is nothing you can say to make some folks see things.
We all know there are those that think standing around holding hands and
singing Kumbaya will keep us from ever having an attack here again. The ADIZ
is here and I think to stay. Wish it were not so. In order to put a stop to
it I would suggest these folks use all of this anger and energy about the
situation to really do something about it. I am sure the US military would
love to have that pent up emotion unleashed on the enemy on a battlefield.;)
Talking to a Congressman probably will not do much, join the military and
destroy the enemy so it's no longer thought to be needed. Just a thought! ;)
Good Luck on your debate Jay!

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Rmcze.130414$_o.74441@attbi_s71...
>>>You continue to miss the whole point of where this thread went. It's not
>>>a
>>>question of whether we ought to obey the existing restrictions. It's a
>>>question of whether we ought to sit by and just let the restrictions
>>>happen
>>>without complaint.
>>
>> Thank you for putting it succinctly and bluntly.
>
> Sadly, as usual, Peter "put it" neither succinctly nor bluntly. In fact,
> he missed the point entirely.
>
> We should be protesting the airspace restrictions at every level of
> government possible -- short of busting the ADIZ. At no point have I
> suggested otherwise; I have merely explained the utterly logical rationale
> behind the imposition of airspace restrictions after 9/11.
>
> The fact that I apparently must explain the reasons for the restrictions
> quite frankly scares me.
>
> Here's the bottom line: It matters not if the ADIZ is truly effective --
> it is PERCEIVED by the general public as effective. Those who fail to
> understand the reasons for the restrictions have NO chance of getting them
> rescinded. You can keep calling a duck a chicken, but the rest of the
> world will just think your dumb -- and the duck will continue on as if
> nothing has happened. You will have done nothing to further your cause
> without understanding the opposition.
>
> Pilots who continue to bust the ADIZ are individually -- and with
> malice -- signing our death warrant. If we're going to fight this thing,
> we're going to have to be smarter than their actions would indicate we
> are -- and THAT is the real tragedy here.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

"Jay Masino" > wrote

>
> You only hear about the "big" busts. What about the fairly frequent
> "busts" that are not the pilots fault at all. These are usually caused by
> equipment problems (air and ground), controller mistakes, NORAD and
> Customs mistakes, etc.

Name one, in the last six months, or whenever.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans > wrote:
> Name one, in the last six months, or whenever.

They happen all the time. All you have to do is monitor one or more of
the DC-specific aviation discussion groups for a few months.


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

"Jay Masino" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans > wrote:
> > Name one, in the last six months, or whenever.
>
> They happen all the time. All you have to do is monitor one or more of
> the DC-specific aviation discussion groups for a few months.

Ones that involved something more than not checking all available info, on a
timely basis? What type of general scenarios?
--
Jim in NC

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:fdcze.129405
$x96.25583@attbi_s72:

>> And you sir are a fine example of why this country is falling apart,
>> with that attitude.
>
> An interesting observation, Brian -- but I haven't heard any alternatives
> from you, yet.
>
> What do you suggest?

I am willing to admit that I do not have a solution.

Your post about the four things that need to come together could
be a good starting point for a possible solution.

What peeves me about your posts is that you come across with the
general attitude of 'since that's the way things are you should just
accept it regardless of it being wrong or right, that there's no
point fighting it.' That's an attitude that I feel is too prevelant
in American society and I feel it has allowed those on top of the
pile to stomp on the little guys down below a little too much.

America is supposed to be a country of laws, a country of majority
rule with minority rights. But when things go astray from that ideal
it is the obligation of the citizens to stand up and make a stink
about things until the situation is corrected. 'going with the flow'
and 'not making waves' and 'just learning to live with it' will not
accomplish that.

The current discussion about the ADIZ is just one example of how
the country is faltering from the the ideal.

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?

Morgans > wrote:
> Ones that involved something more than not checking all available info, on a
> timely basis? What type of general scenarios?

Off the top of my head, some are:

People being ordered out of the airspace because they can't pick up your
transponder, even though your transponder's OK (ground problem).

People being chased down by Customs helicopters because they got too close
to the ADIZ boundary (even though they were well clear of it).


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

>>> And you sir are a fine example of why this country is falling apart,
>>> with that attitude.
>>
>> An interesting observation, Brian -- but I haven't heard any alternatives
>> from you, yet.
>>
>> What do you suggest?
>
> I am willing to admit that I do not have a solution.

Well, Brian, I'm afraid that generalized opposition, without solutions or
alternatives, is a lost battle.

But I'll fight to the death for your right to wage the battle!

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

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:_LFze.138233$_o.95680
@attbi_s71:

>>>> And you sir are a fine example of why this country is falling apart,
>>>> with that attitude.
>>>
>>> An interesting observation, Brian -- but I haven't heard any alternatives
>>> from you, yet.
>>>
>>> What do you suggest?
>>
>> I am willing to admit that I do not have a solution.
>
> Well, Brian, I'm afraid that generalized opposition, without solutions or
> alternatives, is a lost battle.
>
> But I'll fight to the death for your right to wage the battle!
>
> ;-)

But at least I recognize there is a problem and that something
should be done about it. Much better than stuffing my head in the
sand and pretending the sky isn't falling.

The only reason I don't have a solution in the case of the ADIZ
is that I don't feel I have enough knowledge or experience to
offer one.

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?

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:_LFze.138233$_o.95680
> @attbi_s71:
>
> >>>> And you sir are a fine example of why this country is falling apart,
> >>>> with that attitude.
> >>>
> >>> An interesting observation, Brian -- but I haven't heard any
alternatives
> >>> from you, yet.
> >>>
> >>> What do you suggest?
> >>
> >> I am willing to admit that I do not have a solution.
> >
> > Well, Brian, I'm afraid that generalized opposition, without solutions
or
> > alternatives, is a lost battle.
> >
> > But I'll fight to the death for your right to wage the battle!
> >
> > ;-)
>
> But at least I recognize there is a problem and that something
> should be done about it. Much better than stuffing my head in the
> sand and pretending the sky isn't falling.
>
> The only reason I don't have a solution in the case of the ADIZ
> is that I don't feel I have enough knowledge or experience to
> offer one.
>
> Brian

Any solution is going to have many facets, not a single point of reference.

As it is, the ADIZ is our version of the Magginot line. It is, as George
Patton said about such defenses, "... monuments to human stupidity", but
also about what we should expect from a self-perpetuating bureaucracy (is
that latter part redundant??).

At the very least, it's going to require greatly increased HumInt, and a
well publicized overwhelming and lethal response, with all the chicken****
hand-wringing set aside.