The current issue of AOPA Pilot has a fascinating article about the two
pilots (one certificated, one student) who penetrated the Washington ADIZ
last spring, and brought the wrath of the government down upon us all.

What struck me was the entirely casual way in which it all happened. Troy
Martin (the student) and Jim Sheaffer (the 70 year old pilot -- NOT a flight
instructor, as some had reported) had met completely by chance at an airport
function, and become friends just a week before the flight. Martin had 30
hours of training, and was coming up on his long cross-country flights -- so
when he heard that Sheaffer was planning a long flight from their base in
Lancaster, PA to a North Carolina fly-in, he inquired about tagging along.

Thus began the most atrociously influential ADIZ bust since 9/11.

It truly was a comedy of errors in many ways. Thanks to the stupid AD
against allowing cigarette lighters in Cessna 150s, the lighter had been
disconnected in the rental plane they flew. Without on-board power,
Sheaffer left his GPS in the truck. They didn't get a weather briefing
because of construction in the terminal building that prevented them from
getting into the lounge where the phone was located. The weather was CAVU,
so they just skipped it.

Then the helicopter that initially intercepted them could not communicate on
civilian frequencies, so our wayward pilots didn't know what they wanted
them to do. A simple "Follow me" sign would have solved the problem almost
instantly -- but the crew in the Blackhawk had no such sign.

Finally, the F-16s that intercepted them broke off in two different
directions in front of the 150. If they had broken in the *same* direction,
Martin (who was flying) would have followed them. But they didn't, and he
didn't know what to do, or which way to turn.

Of course, the most incredible thing of all is that Sheaffer (the
certificated one) simply didn't know there was an ADIZ over Washington. He
was clearly not an active pilot (among other things, he was busted for
carrying a passenger more than 90 days after his last flight, and it had
been 20 years since his last cross-country flight), and he clearly hadn't
been following events since 9/11. It's hard to feel sorry for such
ignorance -- especially when it harmed us all so severely -- but I found
myself thinking about all the 70 year-old pilots that hang out at my
airport, and I realized that it could have easily happened to many of them.

Strangely, when I was a student I made an almost identical flight with an
older pilot. He was not a very active pilot, and -- although we didn't
manage to get *too* lost -- he clearly wasn't on the navigational ball, any
more than Sheaffer was. Of course, my flight took place in Wisconsin, in
the pre-9/11 world, and the worst thing that happened to us was "kissing"
the edge of Class D before realizing where we were. No harm, no foul, for
us.

Not so for these guys -- or all you folks back east.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> A simple "Follow me" sign would have solved the problem almost
> instantly -- but the crew in the Blackhawk had no such sign.

They should have flown a code flag Lima.

"Jay Honeck" >wrote
> -- but I found myself thinking about all the 70 year-old pilots
> that hang out at my airport, and I realized that it could have
> easily happened to many of them.

Now..now..Jay, Being 70 years old doesn't equate to being a
"dumb****".

Bob Moore 70+

There are informed 70 year olds and un-informed 70 year olds. Could
have just as easily happened to some cocky 30 year old.
--
Gene (70 is only 15 away) Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

Roy Smith wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>> A simple "Follow me" sign would have solved the problem almost
>>instantly -- but the crew in the Blackhawk had no such sign.
>
>
> They should have flown a code flag Lima.
OK. I'll bite. Please explain.

Stubby >wrote

> Roy Smith wrote:
>> They should have flown a code flag Lima.

> OK. I'll bite. Please explain.

Roy should have said "signal flag Lima" a Navy flag signaling
that "I am maneuvering with difficulty, stay clear".

Bob

In article >,
Stubby > wrote:
>Roy Smith wrote:
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>>
>>> A simple "Follow me" sign would have solved the problem almost
>>>instantly -- but the crew in the Blackhawk had no such sign.
>>
>>
>> They should have flown a code flag Lima.
>OK. I'll bite. Please explain.

It means "Follow me"

In article >,
Bob Moore > wrote:
>Stubby >wrote
>
>> Roy Smith wrote:
>>> They should have flown a code flag Lima.
>
>> OK. I'll bite. Please explain.
>
>Roy should have said "signal flag Lima" a Navy flag signaling
>that "I am maneuvering with difficulty, stay clear".
>
>Bob

Actually I had in mind the *chopper* flying Lima. I thought it meant
"Follow me". At least it does in yacht racing :-)

(Roy Smith)wrote

> Actually I had in mind the *chopper* flying Lima. I thought it
> meant "Follow me". At least it does in yacht racing :-)

Yep! I screwed that one up. I gave the meaning for "Delta"'
Sorry :-(

Bob

I have 0 sympathy for either of these guys. Since when is a GPS required
for VFR navigation? What happened to learning how to read a map and looking
out the window? Makes you really question a system where you get your
pilots license and you are good to go for life. Maybe there should be some
periodic retest to make sure people still have the skills they need or have
learned about new stuff that didn't exist when they first got their license.

Mike Schumann

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:vzvuf.457464$084.400527@attbi_s22...
> The current issue of AOPA Pilot has a fascinating article about the two
> pilots (one certificated, one student) who penetrated the Washington ADIZ
> last spring, and brought the wrath of the government down upon us all.
>
> What struck me was the entirely casual way in which it all happened. Troy
> Martin (the student) and Jim Sheaffer (the 70 year old pilot -- NOT a
> flight instructor, as some had reported) had met completely by chance at
> an airport function, and become friends just a week before the flight.
> Martin had 30 hours of training, and was coming up on his long
> cross-country flights -- so when he heard that Sheaffer was planning a
> long flight from their base in Lancaster, PA to a North Carolina fly-in,
> he inquired about tagging along.
>
> Thus began the most atrociously influential ADIZ bust since 9/11.
>
> It truly was a comedy of errors in many ways. Thanks to the stupid AD
> against allowing cigarette lighters in Cessna 150s, the lighter had been
> disconnected in the rental plane they flew. Without on-board power,
> Sheaffer left his GPS in the truck. They didn't get a weather briefing
> because of construction in the terminal building that prevented them from
> getting into the lounge where the phone was located. The weather was
> CAVU, so they just skipped it.
>
> Then the helicopter that initially intercepted them could not communicate
> on civilian frequencies, so our wayward pilots didn't know what they
> wanted them to do. A simple "Follow me" sign would have solved the
> problem almost instantly -- but the crew in the Blackhawk had no such
> sign.
>
> Finally, the F-16s that intercepted them broke off in two different
> directions in front of the 150. If they had broken in the *same*
> direction, Martin (who was flying) would have followed them. But they
> didn't, and he didn't know what to do, or which way to turn.
>
> Of course, the most incredible thing of all is that Sheaffer (the
> certificated one) simply didn't know there was an ADIZ over Washington.
> He was clearly not an active pilot (among other things, he was busted for
> carrying a passenger more than 90 days after his last flight, and it had
> been 20 years since his last cross-country flight), and he clearly hadn't
> been following events since 9/11. It's hard to feel sorry for such
> ignorance -- especially when it harmed us all so severely -- but I found
> myself thinking about all the 70 year-old pilots that hang out at my
> airport, and I realized that it could have easily happened to many of
> them.
>
> Strangely, when I was a student I made an almost identical flight with an
> older pilot. He was not a very active pilot, and -- although we didn't
> manage to get *too* lost -- he clearly wasn't on the navigational ball,
> any more than Sheaffer was. Of course, my flight took place in Wisconsin,
> in the pre-9/11 world, and the worst thing that happened to us was
> "kissing" the edge of Class D before realizing where we were. No harm, no
> foul, for us.
>
> Not so for these guys -- or all you folks back east.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Mike Schumann wrote:
> Thanks to the stupid AD against allowing cigarette lighters in Cessna 150s, the lighter had been
> disconnected in the rental plane they flew. Without on-board power,
> Sheaffer left his GPS in the truck.

I read the above as "thanks to the stupid decision of not having fresh
batteries on his GPS receiver..."

Besides, the AD doesn't forbid cigarette lighters, it gives you the
choice of installing a fuse, or disconnecting it.

Most rental Cessnas I came across simply disconnected it (cheaper than
adding a fuse, I guess...)

I haven't yet read the whole article. I guess I now have a lunch time plan.

-jav

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Thanks to the stupid AD
> against allowing cigarette lighters in Cessna 150s, the lighter had been
> disconnected in the rental plane they flew.

You would prefer having the occasional in-flight fire? The owner could have
installed a fuse. If there's any stupidity involved in disconnecting it, it lies
on the shoulders of the owner.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I have 0 sympathy for either of these guys. Since when is a GPS required
> for VFR navigation? What happened to learning how to read a map and
looking
> out the window? Makes you really question a system where you get your
> pilots license and you are good to go for life. Maybe there should be
some
> periodic retest to make sure people still have the skills they need or
have
> learned about new stuff that didn't exist when they first got their
license.
>
> Mike Schumann

You mean something like a BFR?

Jay Honeck wrote:
Thanks to the stupid AD
> against allowing cigarette lighters in Cessna 150s, the lighter had been
> disconnected in the rental plane they flew.

The AD didn't make the lighter illegal. Cessna in their infinite wisdom
didn't put any circuit protection on the lighter so it was quite
possible to start a fire and never pop a breaker. The AD gave you a
choice. Either disconnect the lighter or put in a breaker.

> Now..now..Jay, Being 70 years old doesn't equate to being a
> "dumb****".
>
> Bob Moore 70+

Shoot, Bob, I used to think being 40+ meant "dumb ****"... Funny how
that changes with the perspective of 47 years...

:-)

It's not really an age thing, Bob, it's a retirement thing, and a
currency thing. We've got lots of older guys at our airport who "fly
the bench" WAY more than they actually fly. Dunno if it's a matter of
money, or boredom with flying, or what, but it's just a fact -- and
these guys just get rusty.

This Sheaffer fellow seems an awful lot like some of those guys --
except that he hopped in a 150 and blasted off into the most heavily
defended airspace in the world, almost completely unprepared.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> I have 0 sympathy for either of these guys. Since when is a GPS required
> for VFR navigation? What happened to learning how to read a map and looking
> out the window? Makes you really question a system where you get your
> pilots license and you are good to go for life. Maybe there should be some
> periodic retest to make sure people still have the skills they need or have
> learned about new stuff that didn't exist when they first got their license.

Funny. I though that's what a biennial was all about?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Thanks to the stupid AD
> > against allowing cigarette lighters in Cessna 150s, the lighter had been
> > disconnected in the rental plane they flew.
>
> The AD didn't make the lighter illegal. Cessna in their infinite wisdom
> didn't put any circuit protection on the lighter so it was quite
> possible to start a fire and never pop a breaker. The AD gave you a
> choice. Either disconnect the lighter or put in a breaker.

Thanks for the correction.

I can't believe people would be so penny-wise and pound-foolish. On
the other hand, the decision to disconnect the lighter was probably
made before the advent of all these hand-held, battery-operated
devices.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I have 0 sympathy for either of these guys. Since when is a GPS required
> for VFR navigation? What happened to learning how to read a map and
> looking out the window?

You have zero sympathy for the student-pilot passenger who hadn't even begun
his cross-country flight-training yet? What sort of navigational
responsibility do you expect such a passenger to bear? (The FAA, of course,
found him to be blameless.)

--Gary

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 14:08:27 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in
<vzvuf.457464$084.400527@attbi_s22>::

>Thanks to the stupid AD against allowing cigarette lighters in Cessna 150s,
>the lighter had been disconnected in the rental plane they flew. Without
>on-board power, Sheaffer left his GPS in the truck.

Are you saying that the FAA had no grounds for the AD?

What prevented the PIC from using his GPS under battery power?

What prevented the PIC (or the student) from carrying a navigational
chart?

>They didn't get a weather briefing because of construction in the
>terminal building that prevented them from getting into the lounge
>where the phone was located.

What prevented the PIC from using his or the student's mobile phone?

How dumb do they get. The should both have their priviledges
suspended.
If you are going to fly near an ADIZ wear a parachute. If you get
caught inside the zone then bail out and hide in the woods. That way
you avoid all the embarassment of being a poor pilot.
dddddduuuuuhhhh

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>I have 0 sympathy for either of these guys. Since when is a GPS required
>for VFR navigation? What happened to learning how to read a map and
>looking out the window? Makes you really question a system where you get
>your pilots license and you are good to go for life. Maybe there should be
>some periodic retest to make sure people still have the skills they need or
>have learned about new stuff that didn't exist when they first got their
>license.
>
> Mike Schumann

There is a review you know? Happens about every 2 years.

Me too

Bob Gardner 77+

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 122...
> "Jay Honeck" >wrote
>> -- but I found myself thinking about all the 70 year-old pilots
>> that hang out at my airport, and I realized that it could have
>> easily happened to many of them.
>
> Now..now..Jay, Being 70 years old doesn't equate to being a
> "dumb****".
>
> Bob Moore 70+

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> This Sheaffer fellow seems an awful lot like some of those guys --
> except that he hopped in a 150 and blasted off into the most heavily
> defended airspace in the world, almost completely unprepared.

How 'bout we change "heavily defended" to "heavily regulated"? :)

I'm not sure our defenses are any more elaborate here than, say, Nellis or
Tonopah.

"Comedy of errors". hmph

It might have been if it had only affected the two of them. Instead we had
a near-panic in the downtown DC area and thousands of pilots flagged as
"untrustworthy" simply by association.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article >,
> Stubby > wrote:
>
>>Roy Smith wrote:
>>
>>>"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>A simple "Follow me" sign would have solved the problem almost
>>>>instantly -- but the crew in the Blackhawk had no such sign.
>>>
>>>
>>>They should have flown a code flag Lima.
>>
>>OK. I'll bite. Please explain.
>
>
> It means "Follow me"
>
>
Do you know for sure that one of the choppers didn't fly the flag.
Now, if I saw it, I'm not sure I'd understand what a chopper was trying
to tell me. [I'd like to fly a flag with my cell phone number on it!]

I read the article too, but it scares me that there are pilots out
there flying with so littel understanding of navigation and airspace
in general. I think the license suspension was justified, IMHO.

(Roy Smith) wrote:

>In article >,
>Stubby > wrote:
>>Roy Smith wrote:
>>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> A simple "Follow me" sign would have solved the problem almost
>>>>instantly -- but the crew in the Blackhawk had no such sign.
>>>
>>>
>>> They should have flown a code flag Lima.
>>OK. I'll bite. Please explain.
>
>It means "Follow me"

You may be right but you would have to educate many people on the
meaning. A sign in a helicopter makes more sense. At least I have
seen intercept procedures and protocol but could not explain all of
them without me cheat sheet.

Ron Lee

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>I can't believe people would be so penny-wise and pound-foolish. On
>the other hand, the decision to disconnect the lighter was probably
>made before the advent of all these hand-held, battery-operated
>devices.

And my Etrex will run about 12 hours ona fresh set of rechargeable
batteries. My Airmap may not last that long but surely enough for a
typical cross-country flight. No cigarette lighter plugin is needed.

Ron Lee

Mike Schumann wrote:
> I have 0 sympathy for either of these guys. Since when is a GPS required
> for VFR navigation? What happened to learning how to read a map and looking
> out the window? Makes you really question a system where you get your
> pilots license and you are good to go for life. Maybe there should be some
> periodic retest to make sure people still have the skills they need or have
> learned about new stuff that didn't exist when they first got their license.

If they'd drawn a straight line between Smoketown and Lumberton, they
would have pretty much missed the entire ADIZ mess (and the class B as
well). The straight line path if I recall runs right down the east
edge of the ADIZ. If they'd have tracked down the eastern shore until
past DC, they wouldn't have come close and the visual landmark (the
Chesapeake bay) is pretty hard to miss. Yes, it does mean that they
would have had to cross the water however.

Jay Honeck wrote:
> The current issue of AOPA Pilot has a fascinating article about the two
> pilots (one certificated, one student) who penetrated the Washington ADIZ
> last spring, and brought the wrath of the government down upon us all.
>
> What struck me was the entirely casual way in which it all happened. Troy
> Martin (the student) and Jim Sheaffer (the 70 year old pilot -- NOT a flight
> instructor, as some had reported) had met completely by chance at an airport
> function, and become friends just a week before the flight. Martin had 30
> hours of training, and was coming up on his long cross-country flights -- so
> when he heard that Sheaffer was planning a long flight from their base in
> Lancaster, PA to a North Carolina fly-in, he inquired about tagging along.
>
> Thus began the most atrociously influential ADIZ bust since 9/11.

Another reason that we all learn de(a)d reckoning and pilotage. Not
having a GPS is a pretty poor excuse for getting lost. How many years
did airplanes navigate successfully, including across oceans, with no GPS?

Yes, it sounds like the Feds intercepting weren't the sharpest knives in
the drawer, but this screw-up clearly rests on the shoulders of both of
these pilots, and I hesitate to use the term pilot.


Matt

Gene Seibel wrote:

> There are informed 70 year olds and un-informed 70 year olds. Could
> have just as easily happened to some cocky 30 year old.
> --
> Gene (70 is only 15 away) Seibel

You're 85 and still using a computer! I'm impressed!! :-)


Matt

darthpup wrote:

> If you get
> caught inside the zone then bail out and hide in the woods.

Unless you carry a transponder and transceiver, that is a violation of the
ADIZ. You're supposed to depart the ADIZ, but that's tough to achieve
while hanging under a parachute.

- Andrew

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> Funny. I though that's what a biennial was all about?

What isn't funny, is how many people are flying that have not had a biennial
in decades.
--
Jim in NC

"Ron Lee" > wrote

> And my Etrex will run about 12 hours ona fresh set of rechargeable
> batteries. My Airmap may not last that long but surely enough for a
> typical cross-country flight. No cigarette lighter plugin is needed.

There is also the choice of taking one of those emergency car starting
battery units, too. For a couple pounds of luggage, you can run whatever
you want, for a long time, and not spend any money on batteries; just
recharge the car jumper back up.
--
Jim in NC

> What isn't funny, is how many people are flying that have not had a biennial
> in decades.

I fly all the time. Sometimes I use an airplane. :)
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

The pilot didn't have BFR, or the BFR system isn't working.

Mike Schumann

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> I have 0 sympathy for either of these guys. Since when is a GPS required
>> for VFR navigation? What happened to learning how to read a map and
>> looking
>> out the window? Makes you really question a system where you get your
>> pilots license and you are good to go for life. Maybe there should be
>> some
>> periodic retest to make sure people still have the skills they need or
>> have
>> learned about new stuff that didn't exist when they first got their
>> license.
>
> Funny. I though that's what a biennial was all about?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Obviously the pilot is the one responsible. But you would think that a
stundent pilot with 30 hours, particularly one who is going along to get
cross country experience would have a little better grasp of map reading and
basic navigation.

Mike Schumann

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> I have 0 sympathy for either of these guys. Since when is a GPS required
>> for VFR navigation? What happened to learning how to read a map and
>> looking out the window?
>
> You have zero sympathy for the student-pilot passenger who hadn't even
> begun his cross-country flight-training yet? What sort of navigational
> responsibility do you expect such a passenger to bear? (The FAA, of
> course, found him to be blameless.)
>
> --Gary
>
>

On 1/3/06 11:55 AM, in article ,
"Gary Drescher" > wrote:

> "Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> I have 0 sympathy for either of these guys. Since when is a GPS required
>> for VFR navigation? What happened to learning how to read a map and
>> looking out the window?
>
> You have zero sympathy for the student-pilot passenger who hadn't even begun
> his cross-country flight-training yet? What sort of navigational
> responsibility do you expect such a passenger to bear? (The FAA, of course,
> found him to be blameless.)
>
> --Gary
>
>
The "student/pilot passenger" was flying.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 00:54:30 GMT, "Mike Schumann"
> wrote in
t>::

>Obviously the pilot is the one responsible.

Actually, I would place some culpability on the FBO (presumably) that
rented the PIC the aircraft. However, that in no way diminishes the
multiple transgressions of the PIC.

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>
> > Funny. I though that's what a biennial was all about?
>
> What isn't funny, is how many people are flying that have not had a biennial
> in decades.

Only fly during the odd numbered years and you never need a BFR :-)

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:vzvuf.457464$084.400527@attbi_s22...
> The current issue of AOPA Pilot has a fascinating article about the two pilots (one certificated, one student) who
> penetrated the Washington ADIZ last spring, and brought the wrath of the government down upon us all.
>


Link is here: http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2006/flight0601.html
(may need to be an AOPA member)


> What struck me was the entirely casual way in which it all happened. Troy Martin (the student) and Jim Sheaffer (the
> 70 year old pilot -- NOT a flight instructor, as some had reported) had met completely by chance at an airport
> function, and become friends just a week before the flight. Martin had 30 hours of training, and was coming up on
> his long cross-country flights -- so when he heard that Sheaffer was planning a long flight from their base in
> Lancaster, PA to a North Carolina fly-in, he inquired about tagging along.
>


You fail to mention that they got together the evening before the flight to build a flight plan, and checked the on-line
references for weather, etc. Sheaffer is in process of rebuilding a C-172 and is active in the local EAA chapter. Martin
is an aeronautical engineer.


> Thus began the most atrociously influential ADIZ bust since 9/11.
>
> It truly was a comedy of errors in many ways. Thanks to the stupid AD against allowing cigarette lighters in Cessna
> 150s, the lighter had been disconnected in the rental plane they flew. Without on-board power, Sheaffer left his GPS
> in the truck. They didn't get a weather briefing because of construction in the terminal building that prevented them
> from getting into the lounge where the phone was located. The weather was CAVU, so they just skipped it.
>


They checked online weather the day of the flight; they did not contact FSS or file a flight plane however.


> Then the helicopter that initially intercepted them could not communicate on civilian frequencies, so our wayward
> pilots didn't know what they wanted them to do. A simple "Follow me" sign would have solved the problem almost
> instantly -- but the crew in the Blackhawk had no such sign.
>


The helicopter had a 'well armed' person on board and presented a sign that said contact 121.5. When they dialed up
121.5 all they heard was and ELT beep-beep-beep swamping out the frequency.


> Finally, the F-16s that intercepted them broke off in two different directions in front of the 150. If they had
> broken in the *same* direction, Martin (who was flying) would have followed them. But they didn't, and he didn't know
> what to do, or which way to turn.
>
> Of course, the most incredible thing of all is that Sheaffer (the certificated one) simply didn't know there was an
> ADIZ over Washington. He was clearly not an active pilot (among other things, he was busted for carrying a passenger
> more than 90 days after his last flight, and it had been 20 years since his last cross-country flight), and he clearly
> hadn't been following events since 9/11. It's hard to feel sorry for such ignorance -- especially when it harmed us
> all so severely -- but I found myself thinking about all the 70 year-old pilots that hang out at my airport, and I
> realized that it could have easily happened to many of them.
>


Sheaffer knew about the ADIZ, but he thought it followed the class B airspace configuration; in other words he thought
he could fly under it. He was 4 days beyond the 90 day 3 takeoff & landing requirement; not exactly inactive, but
certainly not current.


> Strangely, when I was a student I made an almost identical flight with an older pilot. He was not a very active
> pilot, and -- although we didn't manage to get *too* lost -- he clearly wasn't on the navigational ball, any more than
> Sheaffer was. Of course, my flight took place in Wisconsin, in the pre-9/11 world, and the worst thing that happened
> to us was "kissing" the edge of Class D before realizing where we were. No harm, no foul, for us.
>
> Not so for these guys -- or all you folks back east.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
--
Dan DeVillers
http://www.ameritech.net/users/ddevillers/start.html


..

> Actually, I would place some culpability on the FBO (presumably) that
> rented the PIC the aircraft.

Why?

How much nanny do you want in life?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 00:54:30 GMT, "Mike Schumann"
> > wrote in
> t>::
>
>>Obviously the pilot is the one responsible.
>
> Actually, I would place some culpability on the FBO (presumably) that
> rented the PIC the aircraft. However, that in no way diminishes the
> multiple transgressions of the PIC.


Sheaffer owned a share in the C-150, no mention of an FBO....
--
Dan DeVillers
http://www.ameritech.net/users/ddevillers/start.html


..

> Maybe there should be some
> periodic retest to make sure people still have the skills they need or have
> learned about new stuff that didn't exist when they first got their license.

there is, it's the BFR; was the CFI who signed
this guy last BFR questioned in this incident?

--Sylvain

"Wizard of Draws" > wrote in message
news:BFE08A31.5171C%jeffbREMOVE@REMOVEwizardofdraw s.com...
> On 1/3/06 11:55 AM, in article
> ,
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote:
>
>> "Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>> I have 0 sympathy for either of these guys. Since when is a GPS
>>> required
>>> for VFR navigation? What happened to learning how to read a map and
>>> looking out the window?
>>
>> You have zero sympathy for the student-pilot passenger who hadn't even
>> begun
>> his cross-country flight-training yet? What sort of navigational
>> responsibility do you expect such a passenger to bear? (The FAA, of
>> course,
>> found him to be blameless.)
>>
>> --Gary
>>
>>
> The "student/pilot passenger" was flying.

The passenger was manipulating the controls, yes. But that in no way places
any navigational responsibility on him--especially since his cross-country
training hadn't even begun yet.

--Gary

("Matt Whiting" wrote)
>> Gene (70 is only 15 away) Seibel

> You're 85 and still using a computer! I'm impressed!! :-)


By 85 when the darn thing bogs down or freezes up - life IS too short ...12
lb sledge hammer time!!


Montblack
BTDT and I'm only 45!

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>> I have 0 sympathy for either of these guys. Since when is a GPS
>>> required for VFR navigation? What happened to learning how to read a
>>> map and looking out the window?
>>
>> You have zero sympathy for the student-pilot passenger who hadn't even
>> begun his cross-country flight-training yet? What sort of navigational
>> responsibility do you expect such a passenger to bear? (The FAA, of
>> course, found him to be blameless.)
>>
> Obviously the pilot is the one responsible. But you would think that a
> stundent pilot with 30 hours, particularly one who is going along to get
> cross country experience would have a little better grasp of map reading
> and basic navigation.

His number of hours tells you nothing useful; different students can be at
very different points in their training at the same number of hours. What's
relevant is that this particular student had not yet had any cross-country
training. Why would you expect a student at that stage to already be
competent to read charts and navigate?

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" > wrote
>
> The passenger was manipulating the controls, yes. But that in no way
> places any navigational responsibility on him--especially since his
> cross-country training hadn't even begun yet.

I thought I remembered that the 70 yr old was flying, until intercepted; the
student took over at that point. No?
--
Jim in NC

Ron Natalie wrote:

> If they'd drawn a straight line between Smoketown and Lumberton, they
> would have pretty much missed the entire ADIZ mess (and the class B as
> well).

When I plug that in to my flight planner, the course goes nearly right over DCA.
Straight through the FRZ.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

..Blueskies. wrote:

> The helicopter had a 'well armed' person on board and presented a sign that said contact 121.5. When they dialed up
> 121.5 all they heard was and ELT beep-beep-beep swamping out the frequency.

Then the chopper had them switch to another frequency. There was nothing on it
at all. Outside parties claim the chopper's radio was inoperative; the HSA
refuses to comment on that.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 00:54:30 GMT, "Mike Schumann"
> > wrote in
> t>::
>
>
>>Obviously the pilot is the one responsible.
>
>
> Actually, I would place some culpability on the FBO (presumably) that
> rented the PIC the aircraft. However, that in no way diminishes the
> multiple transgressions of the PIC.

He was part owner of the aircraft.

"Morgans" > wrote:

>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote
>>
>> The passenger was manipulating the controls, yes. But that in no way
>> places any navigational responsibility on him--especially since his
>> cross-country training hadn't even begun yet.
>
> I thought I remembered that the 70 yr old was flying, until
> intercepted; the student took over at that point. No?

The article says the student did all the flying, from the left seat, and the licensed pilot (PIC) was in the
right seat and handled the nav and comm.

Mike

Morgans wrote:

> I thought I remembered that the 70 yr old was flying, until intercepted; the
> student took over at that point. No?

I also remember reading that, but, according to this article, the student was
flying all the time.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

"Ron Lee" >
> (Roy Smith) wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>>Stubby > wrote:
>>>Roy Smith wrote:
>>>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A simple "Follow me" sign would have solved the problem almost
>>>>>instantly -- but the crew in the Blackhawk had no such sign.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They should have flown a code flag Lima.
>>>OK. I'll bite. Please explain.
>>
>>It means "Follow me"
>
> You may be right but you would have to educate many people on the
> meaning. A sign in a helicopter makes more sense.

A frigging *radio* would have made sense.

> At least I have
> seen intercept procedures and protocol but could not explain all of
> them without me cheat sheet.

But you probably would have remembered to try 121.5.

Homeland insecurity at its best. Imagine if they'd killed these guys. Nah.
They're not *that* stupid...

moo

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
>I have 0 sympathy for either of these guys. Since when is a GPS required
>for VFR navigation? What happened to learning how to read a map and
>looking out the window? Makes you really question a system where you get
>your pilots license and you are good to go for life. Maybe there should be
>some periodic retest to make sure people still have the skills they need or
>have learned about new stuff that didn't exist when they first got their
>license.

Yessssss.... More regulations. More draconian enforcement. Listen bub,
weekly testing and the death penalty wouldn't prevent this **** from ever
happening. The root cause rests in stupidity; which is incurable. Assuming
the AOPA account is mostly accurate, everybody ****ed up. A student pilot
could have done a better job of intercepting these guys.

moo

"Jay Honeck" >
> The current issue of AOPA Pilot has a fascinating article about the two
> pilots (one certificated, one student) who penetrated the Washington ADIZ
> last spring, and brought the wrath of the government down upon us all.
>
> What struck me was the entirely casual way in which it all happened.

That and the inability, after millions of dollars spent, to be able to
contact the most likely offenders. That's on a par with the worst cockups
we've seen at airport security carried out by people with a fraction of the
training. These offenders were ****ups, for sure, but are there any pilots
here who think they couldn't have done a better job of intercepting these
guys?

moo

Gary Drescher wrote:

> The passenger was manipulating the controls, yes. But that in no way places
> any navigational responsibility on him--especially since his cross-country
> training hadn't even begun yet.

Thirty hours and no x-c training? Will this guy live long enough to get
his ticket at this rate?


Jack

"Happy Dog" > wrote

> These offenders were ****ups, for sure, but are there any pilots here who
> think they couldn't have done a better job of intercepting these guys?

Ahhhhhhh, yep? How about just about anyone here?
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Happy Dog" > wrote
>
>> These offenders were ****ups, for sure, but are there any pilots here who
>> think they couldn't have done a better job of intercepting these guys?
>
> Ahhhhhhh, yep? How about just about anyone here?

To be fair, we didn't get the intercepting pilots' stories. They were
undoubtedly being directed by senior officers and that, or some problem with
their ship (the radio problem mentioned seems odd) may have played a
significant role. But, whatever happened, it's an equally black mark for
Homeland Insecurity. Most pilots have heard stories about troubled planes
being guided to safety by pilots in other planes who weren't out flying
looking for anyone to intercept or rescue.

moo

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 01:37:29 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>
>> Actually, I would place some culpability on the FBO (presumably) that
>> rented the PIC the aircraft.
>
>Why?

Because in my experience the FBO's insurance requires a current
medical certificate and BFR for coverage.

> Because in my experience the FBO's insurance requires a current
> medical certificate and BFR for coverage.

That may let the insurance company off the hook (though maybe not).
However, how does that place -blame- on the FBO?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> Thirty hours and no x-c training? Will this guy live long enough to get
> his ticket at this rate?

I used to think the same thing, but nowadays I seem to meet a fair number of
student pilots who haven't even soloed by 25 hours. Fragmented training is
a HUGE waste of time and money, in the long run.

Incidentally, according to the article the student *has* stuck with his
training, which is a tribute to his resiliency, IMHO. (I've known pilots
who quit flying for less.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Yessssss.... More regulations. More draconian enforcement. Listen bub,
> weekly testing and the death penalty wouldn't prevent this **** from ever
> happening. The root cause rests in stupidity; which is incurable.

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

> To be fair, we didn't get the intercepting pilots' stories.

Actually, the article mentions that one of the F-16 pilots was quoted as
saying that "They knew the C-150 wasn't a threat" -- which is why
(apparently) they didn't shoot him down.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>> Yessssss.... More regulations. More draconian enforcement. Listen bub,
>> weekly testing and the death penalty wouldn't prevent this **** from ever
>> happening. The root cause rests in stupidity; which is incurable.
>
>Amen, brother.
>--

Unfortunately that is correct. The FAA can mandate all the black
boxes that can be imagined at huge cost to GA or comercial pilots but
at the end of the day human failure will continue to be a major cause
of aircraft accidents, incidents and fatalities.

Ron Lee

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 14:42:57 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>> Because in my experience the FBO's insurance requires a current
>> medical certificate and BFR for coverage.
>
>That may let the insurance company off the hook (though maybe not).
>However, how does that place -blame- on the FBO?
>

Apparently, the matter is moot in this instance, as others have
reported the PIC did not rent the aircraft.

However, renting an aircraft to an unqualified pilot would seem
irresponsible.

"Jack" > wrote in message
m...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>
>> The passenger was manipulating the controls, yes. But that in no way
>> places any navigational responsibility on him--especially since his
>> cross-country training hadn't even begun yet.
>
> Thirty hours and no x-c training? Will this guy live long enough to get
> his ticket at this rate?

I did my first x-c training at 26 hours, and my first x-c solo at 47 hours
(that's close to the average around here). Start to finish, my private-pilot
training took four months (flying 3 times a week), so life expectancy
doesn't appear to be an issue.

--Gary

> However, renting an aircraft to an unqualified pilot would seem
> irresponsible.

Yes, but how much checking would you expect or tolerate. Would you
expect the FBO to examine your license, medical, and logbook before
every flight? Would you expect them to rent to you for a one week trip
if you would be out of passenger currency halfway through that week?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>> However, renting an aircraft to an unqualified pilot would seem
>> irresponsible.
>
> Yes, but how much checking would you expect or tolerate. Would you expect
> the FBO to examine your license, medical, and logbook before every flight?
> Would you expect them to rent to you for a one week trip if you would be
> out of passenger currency halfway through that week?
>
> Jose
> --
>

I would think that their insurance carrier would expect the FBO to have some
system in place to assure that the people they rent to are legal and
qualified to fly the aircraft that are being rented. I further believe that
a jury in a liability case would be easily led to think the same.

> I would think that their insurance carrier would expect the FBO to have some
> system in place to assure that the people they rent to are legal and
> qualified to fly the aircraft that are being rented.

Agreed. The question is how intrusive that system ought to be. It
would be simple to subvert anything that's not intrusive. OTOH I've run
into places that want a copy of my driver license, pilot certificate,
medical certificate, logbook, and my SSN before renting.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jack wrote:

> Thirty hours and no x-c training?

Yes. That's been typical for at least 15 years.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

Happy Dog wrote:

> To be fair, we didn't get the intercepting pilots' stories.

It's not for lack of trying. The department of HSA has refused to comment.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

I get the same thing as George with the path right through the ADIZ and FRZ.
Ron, are you putting in Lumberton in New Jersey?

Marco Leon

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:tmHuf.320$q26.56@trnddc03...
> Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> > If they'd drawn a straight line between Smoketown and Lumberton, they
> > would have pretty much missed the entire ADIZ mess (and the class B as
> > well).
>
> When I plug that in to my flight planner, the course goes nearly right
over DCA.
> Straight through the FRZ.
>
> George Patterson
> Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong
to
> your slightly older self.

I bet if they found some regulation or penalty that may decrease the
thousands of ADIZ incursions by half, they WILL do it.

Marco Leon

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
> >> Yessssss.... More regulations. More draconian enforcement. Listen
bub,
> >> weekly testing and the death penalty wouldn't prevent this **** from
ever
> >> happening. The root cause rests in stupidity; which is incurable.
> >
> >Amen, brother.
> >--
>
> Unfortunately that is correct. The FAA can mandate all the black
> boxes that can be imagined at huge cost to GA or comercial pilots but
> at the end of the day human failure will continue to be a major cause
> of aircraft accidents, incidents and fatalities.
>
> Ron Lee

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 16:26:45 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> However, renting an aircraft to an unqualified pilot would seem
>> irresponsible.
>
>Yes, but how much checking would you expect or tolerate. Would you
>expect the FBO to examine your license, medical, and logbook before
>every flight? Would you expect them to rent to you for a one week trip
>if you would be out of passenger currency halfway through that week?

My FBO's reservation computer has the expiration dates for the pilots
medical and BFR. If you show up for a reservation and are out of
date, they ask you to show them the new one before giving you the key.

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> I would think that their insurance carrier would expect the FBO to have
>> some system in place to assure that the people they rent to are legal and
>> qualified to fly the aircraft that are being rented.
>
> Agreed. The question is how intrusive that system ought to be. It would
> be simple to subvert anything that's not intrusive. OTOH I've run into
> places that want a copy of my driver license, pilot certificate, medical
> certificate, logbook, and my SSN before renting.
>
> Jose

I would think that a copy of your certificates both pilot & medical along
with the log book ought to be OK. Since there isn't a photo on any of those
I can understand getting the DL. But I can see no reason for the SSN.

In article >, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>
> I would think that a copy of your certificates both pilot & medical along
> with the log book ought to be OK. Since there isn't a photo on any of those
> I can understand getting the DL. But I can see no reason for the SSN.

Well, you see, the *real* reason for the SSN requirement is because the
FBO -- bless their heart -- wants to make sure you would be covered by
disability payments out of the U.S. Social Security system should you
get badly injured in an aviation accident, instead of their insurance
carrier footing the bill.

</VERY tongue-in-cheek>

Beats me why they'd require the SSN, especially since it was never
intended to be a national identification number, and I don't think the
Social Security system is a particular concern of the FBO...

-Dan

> Beats me why they'd require the SSN

Until recently the pilot certificate had the SSN on it. For many people
it still does.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 16:26:45 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>> However, renting an aircraft to an unqualified pilot would seem
>> irresponsible.
>
>Yes, but how much checking would you expect or tolerate. Would you
>expect the FBO to examine your license, medical, and logbook before
>every flight?

Actually, where I rent they check a photocopy of my BFR logbook entry,
medical and license before each flight.

>Would you expect them to rent to you for a one week trip
>if you would be out of passenger currency halfway through that week?

They don't check for that at all.

In the subject case, the PIC lacked considerably more than 3 TOs and
Ldgs within 90 days.

Dan Foster wrote:
> Beats me why they'd require the SSN, especially since it was never
> intended to be a national identification number, and I don't think the
> Social Security system is a particular concern of the FBO...

The way it works is that there is nothing that prevents a
business from asking for it, and nothing that compels you
to give it (and nothing that compels the business to do
business with you either); most people are completely
careless with their privacy -- or more scary about any other
information, including information entrusted to them by, say,
customers -- and give any information to whoever asks. My
take, when asked for SSN by someone who has no legitimate
reason to be asking for it (i.e., anyone except the IRS,
employer, bank and unfortunately the DMV) is to put 'DO NOT USE'
as the answer, the worst that can happen is that you might have
to find another place to conduct your business (which is
not as bad as what could happen by giving away the info
carelessly); alternatively, if you feel like it, you could
also give away any number between 987-65-4320 and
987-65-4329 inclusive which are numbers used by the administration
to run tests and guaranteed never to be assigned to anyone...

oh well, here I go again, a pet peeve of mine :-))

--Sylvain

"George Patterson" > wrote in message news:OpHuf.325$q26.78@trnddc03...
> .Blueskies. wrote:
>
>> The helicopter had a 'well armed' person on board and presented a sign that said contact 121.5. When they dialed up
>> 121.5 all they heard was and ELT beep-beep-beep swamping out the frequency.
>
> Then the chopper had them switch to another frequency. There was nothing on it at all. Outside parties claim the
> chopper's radio was inoperative; the HSA refuses to comment on that.
>
> George Patterson
> Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
> your slightly older self.



Exactly, amazing the incompetence all around this incident...
--
Dan DeVillers
http://www.ameritech.net/users/ddevillers/start.html


..

Sylvain > wrote in news:iKGdnTn-
:

<Snipola>
> My take, when asked for SSN by someone who has no legitimate
> reason to be asking for it (i.e., anyone except the IRS,
> employer, bank and unfortunately the DMV)
<Snipola>

My understanding is that of those four listed, only the
IRS has a legal right to the number.

Unfortunately, doing anything with the other three without
providing your SSN, although possible, is very difficult
and time consuming. But basically it involves getting yourself
assigned an alternate tax ID number. From what I've read on
the subject, you really REALLY need to know what you are doing,
because everytime you try to use it with someone, you have to
explain in horrid detail why they must accept it in lieu of
your SSN.

Probably more trouble than it's worth.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Jose >wrote

> Until recently the pilot certificate had the SSN on it. For
> many people it still does.

My 1959 pilot certificate doesn't bear my SSN and for some
time after that, they didn't.

Bob Moore

"Jose" > wrote in message . ..
>> Beats me why they'd require the SSN
>
> Until recently the pilot certificate had the SSN on it. For many people it still does.
>
> Jose
> --

I got mine ticket in '75 and there was the option to have the FAA assign a number or you could use your SSN. I choose to
have them assign me a number and keep my SSN a little more private...

--
Dan
http://www.ameritech.net/users/ddevillers/start.html


..

If your FAA certificate has a SSN on the certificate or as
the certificate number, the FAA will purge their files of
all reference to the SSN and issue you new certificates (no
cost to you). See the FAA webpage for details.

On the FAA application, just put "Do Not Use" in the blank
and for a certificate number list "pending" or if you
already have a FAA number, show that. They will combine
numbers on all certificate, such as pilot, mechanic, rigger,
etc.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


".Blueskies." > wrote in
message
om...
|
| "Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
| >> Beats me why they'd require the SSN
| >
| > Until recently the pilot certificate had the SSN on it.
For many people it still does.
| >
| > Jose
| > --
|
| I got mine ticket in '75 and there was the option to have
the FAA assign a number or you could use your SSN. I choose
to
| have them assign me a number and keep my SSN a little more
private...
|
| --
| Dan
| http://www.ameritech.net/users/ddevillers/start.html
|
|
| .
|
|

"Dan Foster" > wrote
>
> Beats me why they'd require the SSN, especially since it was never
> intended to be a national identification number, and I don't think the
> Social Security system is a particular concern of the FBO...

It is my understanding that it is against the law to be required to give
your SS#, to anyone besides a government agency.
--
Jim in NC

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message

>
> A frigging *radio* would have made sense.
> ...
> But you probably would have remembered to try 121.5.

You may be unaware of a couple key facts. Both aircraft had functioning
radios and the initial instruction from the Blackhawk was to tune to 121.5.
However, there was other traffic (I've never understood exactly what, but
the consensus is it was an ELT) on that frequency that prevented its use.
More valuable time was lost trying to figure out a) a new frequency and b)
how to communicate that to the errant 150.

> Homeland insecurity at its best. Imagine if they'd killed these
> guys. Nah. They're not *that* stupid...

Yeah, it's real stupid to risk getting shot by not knowing where you are.
DoD and DHS claim to have learned valuable lessons, but I can only hope
other pilots have learned there is an ADIZ around here with special rules
and special penalties.

Every violation hurts our chances of getting the damned thing dismantled.

More info and opinion:
<http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer/PermaLink,guid,4ebaf403-5dbd-479f-8514-355334db4275.aspx>

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

> It is my understanding that it is against the law to be required to give
> your SS#, to anyone besides a government agency.

It's not against the law to ask for it, it's not against the law to
choose with whom to deal.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:wlTuf.6643$If.5052@trnddc05
>
> It's not for lack of trying. The department of HSA has refused to
> comment.

I'm not aware of DHS staffing F-16's. :)

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

John T wrote:

> Both aircraft had functioning
> radios and the initial instruction from the Blackhawk was to tune to 121.5.

Actually, several witnesses have stated that the Blackhawk did not have a
functioning radio. The department of Homeland Security has refused to comment on
that statement.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:Qq0vf.18074$Uf7.6586@trnddc01
>
> Actually, several witnesses have stated that the Blackhawk did not
> have a functioning radio. The department of Homeland Security has
> refused to comment on that statement.

That's news to me. Do you have any links I can check out? I tried Google,
but I may not be using the right search criteria.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

As I recall the article, they were planning on flying under the Class B near
its edge. Of course that's now the ADIZ that goes all the way down to the
surface, so they were actually expecting to be in what is now ADIZ.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Mike Schumann wrote:
>> I have 0 sympathy for either of these guys. Since when is a GPS required
>> for VFR navigation? What happened to learning how to read a map and
>> looking out the window? Makes you really question a system where you get
>> your pilots license and you are good to go for life. Maybe there should
>> be some periodic retest to make sure people still have the skills they
>> need or have learned about new stuff that didn't exist when they first
>> got their license.
>
> If they'd drawn a straight line between Smoketown and Lumberton, they
> would have pretty much missed the entire ADIZ mess (and the class B as
> well). The straight line path if I recall runs right down the east
> edge of the ADIZ. If they'd have tracked down the eastern shore until
> past DC, they wouldn't have come close and the visual landmark (the
> Chesapeake bay) is pretty hard to miss. Yes, it does mean that they would
> have had to cross the water however.
>

Jose wrote:

> Until recently the pilot certificate had the SSN on it. For many people
> it still does.

For many people it never did.


Jack

John T wrote:

> Both aircraft had functioning
> radios and the initial instruction from the Blackhawk was to tune to 121.5.
> However, there was other traffic (I've never understood exactly what, but
> the consensus is it was an ELT) on that frequency that prevented its use.
> More valuable time was lost trying to figure out a) a new frequency and b)
> how to communicate that to the errant 150.

Was the ELT in either the Blackhawk or in the C-150?

Must have been a real _strong_ ELT to have disabled the freq for two
aircraft that were relatively close to one another.


Jack

Skywise wrote:

> My understanding is that of those four listed, only the
> IRS has a legal right to the number.

that was my understanding too, but it seems that the
DMV can indeed require it, at least here in California
(I can dig it up if you'd like, it's probably buried in
my privacy related doc);

oh I forgot another bunch of folks who demand (and
use rather casually SSN#): anything to do with the
military it seems whether directly or indirectly (e.g.,
you wont be able to register for a high altitude training
without it, the CAP for some reason demand it, etc.)

--Sylvain

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>>> Yessssss.... More regulations. More draconian enforcement. Listen
>>> bub,
>>> weekly testing and the death penalty wouldn't prevent this **** from
>>> ever
>>> happening. The root cause rests in stupidity; which is incurable.
>>
>>Amen, brother.
>>--
>
> Unfortunately that is correct. The FAA can mandate all the black
> boxes that can be imagined at huge cost to GA or comercial pilots but
> at the end of the day human failure will continue to be a major cause
> of aircraft accidents, incidents and fatalities.

And insane measures will make such fallibility appear far more dangerous
than it is. Homeland Insecurity with a billion dollars couldn't talk one
lost pilot down or even identify what he was. This was failure at all
levels. It's crap. It's shoot to kill at any cost crap. Sky marshals on
GA flights crap. The radios didn't work crap. The cigarette lighter didn't
work crap. F16s trying to slow to 110KTS crap. CIs (commanding idiots)
wondering if this is the one to make an example of crap. ARRARAGHHH.. Ok.
Not tonight.

moo

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:3sRuf.704951$xm3.340008@attbi_s21...
>> To be fair, we didn't get the intercepting pilots' stories.
>
> Actually, the article mentions that one of the F-16 pilots was quoted as
> saying that "They knew the C-150 wasn't a threat" -- which is why
> (apparently) they didn't shoot him down.

That's not a story. A C150 is never a real threat to an F16. A real story
would be "We're making this situation worse. LET'S GET THIS GUY ON THE
TARMAC PRONTO." whAT'S A THREAT?

MOO

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:wlTuf.6643$If.5052@trnddc05...
> Happy Dog wrote:
>
>> To be fair, we didn't get the intercepting pilots' stories.
>
> It's not for lack of trying. The department of HSA has refused to comment.

That's not the pilots fault.

moo

"John T" > wrote in message news:
> "Happy Dog" > wrote in message
>
>>
>> A frigging *radio* would have made sense.
>> ...
>> But you probably would have remembered to try 121.5.
>
> You may be unaware of a couple key facts. Both aircraft had functioning
> radios and the initial instruction from the Blackhawk was to tune to
> 121.5. However, there was other traffic (I've never understood exactly
> what, but the consensus is it was an ELT) on that frequency that prevented
> its use. More valuable time was lost trying to figure out a) a new
> frequency and b) how to communicate that to the errant 150.

Crap. Read the report and try again.
>
>> Homeland insecurity at its best. Imagine if they'd killed these
>> guys. Nah. They're not *that* stupid...
>
> Yeah, it's real stupid to risk getting shot by not knowing where you are.
> DoD and DHS claim to have learned valuable lessons, but I can only hope
> other pilots have learned there is an ADIZ around here with special rules
> and special penalties.
>
> Every violation hurts our chances of getting the damned thing dismantled.

Especially when it's almost a given that there will be some innocuous
violations.
>
> More info and opinion:
> <http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer/PermaLink,guid,4ebaf403-5dbd-479f-8514-355334db4275.aspx>

There are substantial differences between this account and AOPA. Explain
them.

moo

"Jack" > wrote in message
m...
> John T wrote:
>
> > Both aircraft had functioning
>> radios and the initial instruction from the Blackhawk was to tune to
>> 121.5. However, there was other traffic (I've never understood exactly
>> what, but the consensus is it was an ELT) on that frequency that
>> prevented its use. More valuable time was lost trying to figure out a) a
>> new frequency and b) how to communicate that to the errant 150.
>
> Was the ELT in either the Blackhawk or in the C-150?
>
> Must have been a real _strong_ ELT to have disabled the freq for two
> aircraft that were relatively close to one another.

Exactly. In fact, it's crap unless new of them had an operating 121.5
beacon. People talk over these things all the time.

moo

"John T" > wrote in message news:
> "Happy Dog" > wrote in message
>
>>
>> A frigging *radio* would have made sense.
>> ...
>> But you probably would have remembered to try 121.5.
>
> You may be unaware of a couple key facts. Both aircraft had functioning
> radios and the initial instruction from the Blackhawk was to tune to
> 121.5. However, there was other traffic (I've never understood exactly
> what, but the consensus is it was an ELT) on that frequency that prevented
> its use. More valuable time was lost trying to figure out a) a new
> frequency and b) how to communicate that to the errant 150.

Crap. Student pilots can figure this out. The radcio doesn't work on
121.5, try another frequency. This brought the who intercept procedure
down? Get a grip!
>
>> Homeland insecurity at its best. Imagine if they'd killed these
>> guys. Nah. They're not *that* stupid...
>
> Yeah, it's real stupid to risk getting shot by not knowing where you are.
> DoD and DHS claim to have learned valuable lessons, but I can only hope
> other pilots have learned there is an ADIZ around here with special rules
> and special penalties.

More rules. More penalties. That's it. Read the ****ing AOPA report.
This was a 6 out of 10 for stupid pilot tricks. There's no risk
commeseurate with the defence effort. m Get it?
>
> Every violation hurts our chances of getting the damned thing dismantled.

As does every twit who goes on record supporting it.
>

moo

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message

>
> Crap. Student pilots can figure this out. The radcio doesn't work on
> 121.5, try another frequency. This brought the who intercept
> procedure down? Get a grip!

How do you propose to tell the other guy what frequency you're going to use?
There's no question another frequency would need to be used. The issue is
figuring out one both pilots would know to use.

> More rules. More penalties. That's it. Read the ****ing AOPA
> report. This was a 6 out of 10 for stupid pilot tricks.

I think it ranks much higher as a "Stupid Pilot Trick".

From the AOPA article posted on their website:
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2006/flight0601.html

"Shaeffer...crafted a radio navigation plan that showed what radials the
pair needed to fly from various VORs to avoid flying into the ADIZ and
P-40..."

Then, the next paragraph:
"I didn't realize that there was an ADIZ around Washington, or otherwise I
would never have gone there," confirmed Sheaffer."

Which one of these statements is correct? You can't intentionally craft a
nav plan avoiding something you never knew was there. What VOR route did
they plan?

They claim they planned the flight "using current sectional charts that
Sheaffer said he purchased the week before." I just happen to have in front
of me the Washington TAC dated August 5, 2004 (a full 10 months before this
flight) that clearly shows the ADIZ. I don't have a sectional from the same
time to demonstrate, but it was also updated around the same date with the
ADIZ. See
<http://aviationtoolbox.org/munge/data/square_warped/Washington%2075%20North.jpg>
for an example.

It seems to me they were not using current charts - at least not for the
Washington area.

The author continues:
"Sheaffer owned a Palm personal digital assistant with Control Vision
Anywhere Map...Because there was no power available on the airplane,
Sheaffer left the GPS in his truck the next day instead of taking it along."

A) ControlVision's AnywhereMap (http://www.anywheremap.com) does not run on
the Palm platform.
B) Why leave a battery-powered GPS behind? Would it not make more sense to
have it in the cockpit - even powered down when not in use - to hep find
your way if you get lost?

More:
"They checked weather using a Web site, but did not get an official weather
briefing."
Right before takeoff with fog "blanketing the region", "Sheaffer checked the
Web site again for a weather update before leaving home, but did not call
flight service."

What web site were they using for flight planning did not offer NOTAMs?

"[W]orkers were installing a new floor in the building and the telephone was
not accessible."

Neither pilot could use a home phone (assuming neither had a cell)?

After the intercept, they were instructed to tune to 121.5 but heard only
beeping. "Later the two learned that an emergency locator transmitter was
in operation nearby."

""My thinking was that we were probably approaching P-40 and that we should
be heading to the south to clear, and with no instruction forthcoming we
found ourselves flying more and more toward the south," continued
Martin...Sheaffer said he knew that they were not in the Camp David
airspace, although he didn't tell that to Martin until after the flight."

They simply "found themselves" flying south, eh? After saying he thought
they should head south to clear where he thought he was? I'm thinking he
took a southerly heading intentionally. Good guess on his part, just way
wrong.

"When asked by AOPA Pilot to clarify which aircraft it was [that finally
contacted the C150], DHS officials chose not to comment."

This doesn't mean the radios on any given aircraft were inoperative or
anything more than DHS didn't disclose which aircraft made the call. It
does raise an eyebrow regarding "why" they didn't disclose it, but no safe
conclusions can be drawn from this.

"Sheaffer said he was told twice by a DHS official that the helicopter had
radio problems..."

I might say something similar, too. I would be interested to hear from a
reliable source whether the radios were indeed inop.

Martin said "it was a good landing. I am proud of it." At least there's
something to be proud of in this incident.

They do list some good ideas and lessons learned and AOPA did their level
best to paint these two individuals in a sympathetic light, but I'm not yet
convinced Shaeffer deserves to get his certficate back due to the harm he's
done to the reputations of every GA pilot.

> There's no
> risk commeseurate with the defence effort. m Get it?

No doubt, but are you supporting violations of the ADIZ?

>> Every violation hurts our chances of getting the damned thing
>> dismantled.
>
> As does every twit who goes on record supporting it.

Answer carefully: Which "twit" around here is supporting it?

From the article you insisted I read:
"As a result of that blundering flight on May 11, 2005, all GA pilots in the
Washington, D.C., region face the daunting prospects of a permanent ADIZ..."

My statement stands.

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> Sylvain > wrote in news:iKGdnTn-
> :
>
> <Snipola>
>> My take, when asked for SSN by someone who has no legitimate
>> reason to be asking for it (i.e., anyone except the IRS,
>> employer, bank and unfortunately the DMV)
> <Snipola>
>
> My understanding is that of those four listed, only the
> IRS has a legal right to the number.

I've heard the IRS is moving to separate taxpayer IDs.
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Bob Jones" > wrote:

> How do you propose to tell the other guy what frequency you're going to use?
> There's no question another frequency would need to be used. The issue is
> figuring out one both pilots would know to use.

The general rule of thumb is to get in contact with any ATC or FSS
facility, and let them figure it out.

At the high-tech end, I've punched up "nearest ARTCC" on our Garmin-480
when I've flown out of radio range with the guy I was talking to. It only
took a moment for me to explain to the center controller what my problem
was, and he got me a good frequency for the next tracon sector.

Try any approach or FSS freq you can find on the chart. In a pinch, 122.0
(flight watch) from almost anywhere in the country will get you to somebody
who can respond in a useful way to "Sorry to bother you, but I've got an
F-16 on my wingtip, what should I do now?"

If you've got a cell phone, calling 1-800-WX-BRIEF is another ace up your
sleeve.

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> Sylvain > wrote in news:iKGdnTn-
> :
>
> <Snipola>
>> My take, when asked for SSN by someone who has no legitimate
>> reason to be asking for it (i.e., anyone except the IRS,
>> employer, bank and unfortunately the DMV)
> <Snipola>
>
> My understanding is that of those four listed, only the
> IRS has a legal right to the number.
>

Your employer has a right and a responsibility to have your SSN number. It's
how you get credits for withheld taxes including Social Security taxes.

George Patterson wrote:
>
> Then the chopper had them switch to another frequency. There was
> nothing on it at all. Outside parties claim the chopper's radio was
> inoperative; the HSA refuses to comment on that.

Claims of inop. While possible the radios didn't work, it's at least as
likely the operator dialed the wrong frequency. Either way, it in no way
absolves or mitigates the actions of Shaeffer and Martin.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

"Bob Jones" > wrote in
>> Crap. Student pilots can figure this out. The radcio doesn't work on
>> 121.5, try another frequency. This brought the who intercept
>> procedure down? Get a grip!
>
> How do you propose to tell the other guy what frequency you're going to
> use? There's no question another frequency would need to be used. The
> issue is figuring out one both pilots would know to use.

You fly? You couldn't do this? FSS, *any* ATC. A student should be able
to fihure this out.
>
>> More rules. More penalties. That's it. Read the ****ing AOPA
>> report. This was a 6 out of 10 for stupid pilot tricks.
>
> I think it ranks much higher as a "Stupid Pilot Trick".

If you look at the subsequent hype, sure. But the initial screwups were,
sadly, fairly ordinary.

< snip Monday Morning QBing >

>> There's no
>> risk commeseurate with the defence effort. m Get it?
>
> No doubt, but are you supporting violations of the ADIZ?
>
>>> Every violation hurts our chances of getting the damned thing
>>> dismantled.
>>
>> As does every twit who goes on record supporting it.
>
> Answer carefully: Which "twit" around here is supporting it?

Anyone who thinks it serves any useful purpose or that it doesn't cause
unnecessary problems. Like this one.

m

"Bob Jones" > wrote:
>From the article you insisted I read:
>"As a result of that blundering flight on May 11, 2005, all GA pilots in the
>Washington, D.C., region face the daunting prospects of a permanent ADIZ..."
>
>My statement stands.

Bob, you may be right but it also may be that some beauracrats may
just use the incident as a reason to make the ADIZ permanent. The
ADIZ will not stop a terrorist.

Ron Lee

Happy Dog wrote:
>
> You fly? You couldn't do this? FSS, *any* ATC. A student should be
> able to fihure this out.

You're right. Why didn't this student (Martin)? Why didn't Shaeffer?

> < snip Monday Morning QBing >

Funny. Isn't that what you're doing?

>> Answer carefully: Which "twit" around here is supporting it?
>
> Anyone who thinks it serves any useful purpose or that it doesn't
> cause unnecessary problems. Like this one.

If you think I'm supporting the ADIZ, I challenge you to find a single
statement I've made in favor of it.

The fact remains Shaeffer screwed us all with this stunt and largely because
of him (and the overreaction by DC officials), we face a *permanent* ADIZ.
Now you come along and appear sympathetic to him.

Let him cry on your shoulder, if you'd like. I'm too busy dealing with the
consequences of his actions to be sympathetic to him in the least.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
http://pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

> The fact remains Shaeffer screwed us all with this stunt and largely because
> of him (and the overreaction by DC officials), we face a *permanent* ADIZ.

Actually, I'm not convinced that the proposal for a permanent ADIZ is
triggered by or even supported by this incident.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
>
> Actually, I'm not convinced that the proposal for a permanent ADIZ is
> triggered by or even supported by this incident.

I am. Soon after this incident (and directly due to it) members of Congress
from both parties introduced legislation to strengthen penalties for ADIZ
violations. Not long after that (in bureaucratic terms), the FAA proposed
to make the ADIZ permanent. I'm sure the fact that as of May 12, 2005 there
were 1,682 ADIZ violations had something to do with it, too.

Shaeffer's obviously isn't the only violation, but it is the most visible.
The only other ADIZ violation that comes close to the visibility of
Shaeffer's was Gov. Ernie Fletcher of Kentucky when his plane's transponder
wasn't working correctly. Also in relatively recent memory was the incident
where another pilot flew across the ADIZ and landed at Winchester. This one
didn't get the notoriety because the Capitol was not evacuated, but it does
reinforce the notion that we pilots can't/won't follow the rules.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
http://pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

John T wrote:

> That's news to me. Do you have any links I can check out? I tried Google,
> but I may not be using the right search criteria.

From the AOPA article --
"Based on conversations later with government officials, both men believe the
helicopter's radios did not work — or at least did not work on civilian
frequencies — when it first approached the 150. Martin said he was told that
during the ordeal, the helicopter landed, fixed the radio, and then returned to
re-intercept the airplane. Sheaffer said he was told twice by a DHS official
that the helicopter had radio problems and had to land. Again, DHS chose not to
comment on any problems with the radios."

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

I saw that, too. I was hoping you had other links.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

Sylvain > wrote in news:Q7-
:

> Skywise wrote:
>
>> My understanding is that of those four listed, only the
>> IRS has a legal right to the number.
>
> that was my understanding too, but it seems that the
> DMV can indeed require it, at least here in California
> (I can dig it up if you'd like, it's probably buried in
> my privacy related doc);

I'd be interested in reading that. If it's online and you
can post a link, that'd be fine. Otherwise just visit my
website in my sig below to find my email.

ISTR, and I can't vouch for the accuracy of this, but I
had read somewhere there were only four entities where you
were required by law to give your SSN, and they weren't all
what you thought they'd be. I cannot remmeber what they all
were, obviously one is Social Security, and I think one was
to a member of congress (for some odd reason). The other two
were equally obscure. Military seems a logical choice. But
I seem to recall being surprised that the IRS was *NOT* on
the list.

Damn...now I'm curious again. I'll have to see if I can
google anything up on this. It may all just be poppycock,
though.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Skywise wrote:
>that was my understanding too, but it seems that the
>>DMV can indeed require it,

> I'd be interested in reading that.

found it! :-)


California Vehicle Code Section 1653.5:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d02/vc1653_5.htm

--Sylvain

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
>> I'd be interested in reading that.
>
> found it! :-)

California law doesn't have the authority to override the federal
prohibition against use of the social security number.

They can put whatever they want into the California Vehicle Code. If
federal law prohibits their use of the SS number, it is prohibited, and the
California law is in violation of federal law.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> They can put whatever they want into the California Vehicle Code. If
> federal law prohibits their use of the SS number, it is prohibited, and
> the California law is in violation of federal law.

However, the premise that "federal law prohibits their use of the SS number"
is false (as I've now learned).

Here's the SSA FAQ on the question:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?J3BB42B6C

(long version:
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=78)

Some quotes:

The Privacy Act regulates the use of SSNs by government agencies.
When a Federal, State, or local government agency asks an individual
to disclose his or her Social Security number, the Privacy Act
requires the agency to inform the person of the following: the
statutory or other authority for requesting the information;
whether disclosure is mandatory or voluntary; what uses will be
made of the information; and the consequences, if any, of failure
to provide the information.

And,

If a business or other enterprise asks you for your SSN, you can
refuse to give it. However, that may mean doing without the purchase
or service for which your number was requested.

IMHO the latter quote is a bit of a "duh". Other than the usual contractual
obligations, I'm not aware of any law that gives a private business the
authority to compel me to do something. Apparently, federal law does *not*
prohibit businesses from asking for and using a social security number as a
requirement for doing business with them.

Basically, the way I read this, pretty much anyone can ask for and use your
social security number, and governments can impose a legal obligation
requiring you to divulge it.

"Privacy Act". Right.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Privacy Act". Right.

at least California came up with the Civil Code Section 1798.85
-- gosh, why do I manage to memorize things like that, but
can forget where I parked my car? -- which brings a bit of
sanity in the whole thing (in short -- probably inaccurate
summary, but that's the gist of it as I remember it --
it prevents whoever has your SSN# from being as outwardly
careless and reckless with it as they once were, e.g., using
it in correspondence, on membership/id cards, etc., not
much about how they store and protect the info though...

--Sylvain

Skywise > wrote in
:

<Snipola>
> Damn...now I'm curious again. I'll have to see if I can
> google anything up on this. It may all just be poppycock,
> though.

Here's what I've found, some of which may have been stated
by others already.

Some gov't agencies can require your SSN *IF* required by
law.

All gov't agencies are required to provide a disclosure
statement stating how and why they are required by law
to have your SSN.

No gov't agency can deny you services for not providing
your SSN *unless* they are required to have it by law.
(see first point above) They may *think* they require it
but unless they can provide a disclosure statement as
required by law which states the law that requires them
to use it, they probably don't have a right to it. (see
point two above)

Private business cannot compel you to provide your SSN
unless the transaction involves notification of the IRS.

No law prevents private business from asking for your
SSN, and no law exists to prevent them from refusing to
do business with you for refusing to release your SSN.

It seems the only legal right any private business has with
your SSN is for tax purposes (such as your employer). Not
even insurers, creditors, or banks can *require* it. If
they insist on it, you are encouraged to complain to higher
levels as they may have policies to allow the use of an
alternate number that the peeons aren't aware of. If they
continue to insist, you are encouraged to take your business
elsewhere.

As always, there are the scattered exceptions to the rules,
and each state may have additional laws.

Information gleaned from:
http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs10-ssn.htm

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

"John T" > wrote in message m...
> Jose wrote:
>>
>> Actually, I'm not convinced that the proposal for a permanent ADIZ is
>> triggered by or even supported by this incident.
>
> I am. Soon after this incident (and directly due to it) members of Congress from both parties introduced legislation
> to strengthen penalties for ADIZ violations. Not long after that (in bureaucratic terms), the FAA proposed to make
> the ADIZ permanent. I'm sure the fact that as of May 12, 2005 there were 1,682 ADIZ violations had something to do
> with it, too.
>
....snip...
> John T
> http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
> http://pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
> ____________________
>
>


The NPRM for permanently making this airspace restricted is the FAAs way to calling the TSA or Homeland Security to the
table; when this airspace was defined, the TSA (or Homeland Security, or SS) was supposed to justify it every 60 days or
so which has never been done. This NPRM requires public hearings so they will have to try and justify it which should
prove to be interesting....

More:

Governmentium

A major research institution has announced the discovery of the heaviest
element yet know to science - "governmentium." It has 1 neutron, 12
assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons and 111 assistant deputy neutrons
for an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by
forces called morons that are further surrounded by vast quantities of
lepton-like sub particles called peons.

Governmentium has no electrons and is therefore inert. It can be
detected
however since it impedes every reaction it comes into contact with. A
tiny amount of governmentium can take a reaction that normally occurs in
seconds and slow it to the point where it takes days.

Governmentium has a normal half life of three years. It doesn't decay
but "re-organizes", a process where assistant deputy neutrons and deputy
neutrons change places. This process actually causes it to grow and in
the confusion some morons become neutrons, thereby forming isodopes.

This phenomenon of "moron promotion" has led to some speculation that
governmentium forms whenever sufficient morons meet in concentration
forming critical morass. Researchers believe that in Governmentium, the
more you re-organize, the morass you cover.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:08:04 -0800, Sylvain > wrote in
>::

>Skywise wrote:
>>that was my understanding too, but it seems that the
>>>DMV can indeed require it,
>
>> I'd be interested in reading that.
>
>found it! :-)
>
>
>California Vehicle Code Section 1653.5:
>
>http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d02/vc1653_5.htm
>


More information here:

http://www.cpsr.org/prevsite/cpsr/privacy/ssn/ssn.faq.html

Why SSN Privacy matters

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it illegal for someone to ask for my SSN?
The short answer is that there are many restrictions on government
agencies asking for your number, but few on individuals or companies.
When someone from a government agency asks for your number, they are
required to provide a Privacy Act Disclosure Notice, which is required
to tell you what law allows them to ask, whether you have to provide
your number, and what will happen if you don't provide the number.

Private companies aren't required to follow this law, and in general
your recourse is to find another company to do business with if you
don't like their policies.


Why Should I Care Whether Anyone Knows my SSN?
There are two problem with the way SSNs are used these days. The first
is that they are used (by different parties) as if they were both a
representation of identity and a secure password. The second problem
is that they have become a widely used identifier which can be used to
tie multiple records together about a single individual.

Many institutions, including hospitals and some banks and brokerages
use client's SSNs as a secure representation of their identity. This
seems a good idea, since you aren't allowed to change your SSN, even
though you might change your address, your name, or your phone number.
Other institutions, notably banks, use SSNs as if they were secret
passwords that only the owner would know. If someone knows the name
and the SSN, and is willing to say they have forgotten the account
number, they will usually be allowed to transfer funds, or make other
changes to an account with serious repercussions.

The problem is that these uses are incompatible. As SSNs are widely
used representations of people's identities, appearing on driver's
licenses, mailing labels, and publicly-posted progress reports at
universities, their broad availability becomes more apparent.

There is further discussion of this issue in the section on
Significance of the SSN.


Didn't the government promise that SSNs wouldn't be used for ID?
For the first few decades that SSN cards were issued, they carried the
admonition: "Not to be used for Identification." Unfortunately there
was never any law passed instituting this as a policy. The Social
Security Agency was apparently attempting to instill good values in
the citizens, but was apparently unsuccessful in preventing government
encroachment into this territory. For more information on the
evolution of the laws concerning privacy and Social Security
additional details are available in the more complete version of the
FAQ.

Skywise wrote:

> Not
> even insurers, creditors, or banks can *require* it.

Banks can require it, since they are obligated to report certain transactions to
the IRS.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

> Private business cannot compel you to provide your SSN
> unless the transaction involves notification of the IRS.
>
> No law prevents private business from asking for your
> SSN, and no law exists to prevent them from refusing to
> do business with you for refusing to release your SSN.

These two together (both of which are in fact true) do give the lie to
the word "compel" though.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
> These two together (both of which are in fact true) do give the lie to
> the word "compel" though.

that's how ID cards, rfid and/or biometric IDs/passports, etc.
are being snuck in pretty much everywhere: hey, it's not compulsory,
but if you don't have one, you won't be allowed to fly, ride the
train, take the bus, drive, etc.

--Sylvain

".Blueskies." > wrote in message
et...
> The NPRM for permanently making this airspace restricted is the FAAs way
> to calling the TSA or Homeland Security to the table; when this airspace
> was defined, the TSA (or Homeland Security, or SS) was supposed to justify
> it every 60 days or so which has never been done. This NPRM requires
> public hearings so they will have to try and justify it which should prove
> to be interesting....

You are quite the optimist.

The NPRM doesn't force anyone to justify anything. It's not the FAA's "way
to calling the TSA or DHS to the table". It's their way of following the
legally required steps to implement their new rules.

If the NPRM were anything other than bureaucratic procedure, then all the
previous NPRMs for bad ideas would have resulted in those bad ideas not
being implemented. But it's not, and they didn't. Anyone who thinks that
comments to a NPRM will have any real effect on the outcome just hasn't been
paying attention to the way the FAA has handled them.

Pete

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:w_jvf.15562$Gu6.3912@trnddc06...
> Banks can require it, since they are obligated to report certain
> transactions to the IRS.

Anyone can require it. If you decline, they can refuse to do business with
you.

It's like those stupid binding arbitration agreements that stock brokers all
use now. You have a choice to refuse them, but then you can't use any real
financial services, because there aren't any companies that don't have them.

Pete

".Blueskies." > wrote in news:STjvf.63153
:

> Governmentium
<Snipola>

HAHAHAH...that's too funny....where did you find that?

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

".Blueskies." > wrote in message
et
>
> justify it which should prove to be interesting....

As Peter said, the NPRM is just the FAA dotting i's and crossing t's to make
permanent airspace changes.

As for justifying its existence, Congress mandated the FAA (not DHS, etc.)
justify it periodically. As you say, nobody has done it and, as far as I
can tell, nobody has followed through on requiring it.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

"Bob Chilcoat" > wrote in message

>
> As I recall the article, they were planning on flying under the Class
> B near its edge. Of course that's now the ADIZ that goes all the way
> down to the surface, so they were actually expecting to be in what is
> now ADIZ.

....and was then the ADIZ.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 19:08:06 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>Anyone who thinks that comments to a NPRM will have
>any real effect on the outcome just hasn't been
>paying attention to the way the FAA has handled them.

While I don't disagree with that analysis of the record, the NPRM
procedure does require the FAA to justify their decision with reasoned
responses to the questions/objections raised during the comment
period(s). It would seem that this opens an avenue to legally
challenge that rational in an effort to modify/strike-down the
rule(s).

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> It would seem that this opens an avenue to legally
> challenge that rational in an effort to modify/strike-down the
> rule(s).

If that were true, why has no one contested any of the prior rule-making
changes that have similar lack of justification?

I doubt that there's any genuinely feasible way to engage a legal challenge
to the FAA's analysis. If there is, I'm all ears. We've got a ridiculous
*prohibited* area here in the Puget Sound that is just begging to be
overturned.

Pete

On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 00:14:21 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> [...]
>> It would seem that this opens an avenue to legally
>> challenge that rational in an effort to modify/strike-down the
>> rule(s).
>
>If that were true, why has no one contested any of the prior rule-making
>changes that have similar lack of justification?

Perhaps, because it would require exposing the fallacy in FAA's
reasoning used to justify their rule making?

Can you provide your source, that supports your assertion of there
never having been a contest?

>I doubt that there's any genuinely feasible way to engage a legal challenge
>to the FAA's analysis. If there is, I'm all ears. We've got a ridiculous
>*prohibited* area here in the Puget Sound that is just begging to be
>overturned.
>

Have you studied the FAA's rationale in issuing that Prohibited Area?
If you are able to show how their logic is flawed, I would think you
would have grounds to petition your representatives for redress.

> If that were true, why has no one contested any of the prior rule-making
> changes that have similar lack of justification?

Maybe because the effect of those other changes was not as onerous for
as many people? Even here we have people in the midwest who think the
ADIZ is "no big deal".

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> Perhaps, because it would require exposing the fallacy in FAA's
> reasoning used to justify their rule making?

How is that an impediment?

> Can you provide your source, that supports your assertion of there
> never having been a contest?

You want me to prove a negative?

> [...]
> Have you studied the FAA's rationale in issuing that Prohibited Area?

Yes. You are free to read my comments regarding the matter on the federal
docket for the issue. They are a matter of public record.

> If you are able to show how their logic is flawed, I would think you
> would have grounds to petition your representatives for redress.

Yes, it's clear that's what you think. In a perfect world, it's what I'd
think too.

Pete

> Maybe because the effect of those other changes was not as onerous for as
> many people? Even here we have people in the midwest who think the ADIZ
> is "no big deal".

I resemble that remark.

However, my stating that flying is unchanged in most of the nation since
9/11 is a far cry from saying that the D.C. ADIZ is "no big deal". Having
flown inside that ADIZ, I know it's a VERY big deal, and it's a shame that
we have such an abomination in our country.

But it's there. We can fight it, we can complain about it, but -- in the
end -- we must deal with it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Skywise" > wrote in message ...
> ".Blueskies." > wrote in news:STjvf.63153
> :
>
>> Governmentium
> <Snipola>
>
> HAHAHAH...that's too funny....where did you find that?
>
> Brian
> --
>

One of the government inspector guys at work. I suppose it is a part of their manual...

;-)

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> However, my stating that flying is unchanged in most of the nation since
> 9/11 is a far cry from saying that the D.C. ADIZ is "no big deal". Having
> flown inside that ADIZ, I know it's a VERY big deal, and it's a shame that
> we have such an abomination in our country.
>
> But it's there. We can fight it, we can complain about it, but -- in the
> end -- we must deal with it.

The thing that upsets me is that, even though almost 20,000 people have
submitted comments to the FAA on the NPR for making the ADIZ permanent,
there are something like 400,000 AOPA members. Where the hell are the
other 380,000 AOPA members/pilots? Why aren't they submiting
comments? The unfortunate thruth is that the aviation community is *far*
from the close knit community that some people like to pretend it is.

--- Jay



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

It isn't a plebiscite so it matters not how many comments are received.
By statute, they are looking for new or different ideas.

"Jay Masino" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> However, my stating that flying is unchanged in most of the nation
>> since
>> 9/11 is a far cry from saying that the D.C. ADIZ is "no big deal".
>> Having
>> flown inside that ADIZ, I know it's a VERY big deal, and it's a shame
>> that
>> we have such an abomination in our country.
>>
>> But it's there. We can fight it, we can complain about it, but -- in
>> the
>> end -- we must deal with it.
>
> The thing that upsets me is that, even though almost 20,000 people
> have
> submitted comments to the FAA on the NPR for making the ADIZ
> permanent,
> there are something like 400,000 AOPA members. Where the hell are the
> other 380,000 AOPA members/pilots? Why aren't they submiting
> comments? The unfortunate thruth is that the aviation community is
> *far*
> from the close knit community that some people like to pretend it is.
>
> --- Jay
>
>
>
> --
> __!__
> Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
> http://www.JayMasino.com ! ! !
> http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
> http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

Real nice Honeck, some of us over 70's people actually do know how to
get from here to there, and amazingly enough, with just a sectional.



On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 14:08:27 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>The current issue of AOPA Pilot has a fascinating article about the two
>pilots (one certificated, one student) who penetrated the Washington ADIZ
>last spring, and brought the wrath of the government down upon us all.


[ deleted crap about 70+ pilots who are ignorant and can't find their
ass with both hands ]

My 1961 license does, and it's because I didn't give them (whoever
made out the certificate) a number so they put my SSN number down.


On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 00:34:07 GMT, Bob Moore >
wrote:

>Jose >wrote
>
>> Until recently the pilot certificate had the SSN on it. For
>> many people it still does.
>
>My 1959 pilot certificate doesn't bear my SSN and for some
>time after that, they didn't.
>
>Bob Moore

Seems to be to me, that everyone's SS number is "out there" and here's
why.

1) Can't get a credit card without one.
2) Drivers license.
3) Most hospitals require it.
4) Social Security has it (and their data base has been compromised
int he past.)
5) Phone company (cell and landline require it)

And probably lot's more places like buying a home etc.

So, I wonder just how one can keep the number private?





On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 01:54:27 -0800, Sylvain > wrote:

>Skywise wrote:
>
>> My understanding is that of those four listed, only the
>> IRS has a legal right to the number.
>
>that was my understanding too, but it seems that the
>DMV can indeed require it, at least here in California
>(I can dig it up if you'd like, it's probably buried in
>my privacy related doc);
>
>oh I forgot another bunch of folks who demand (and
>use rather casually SSN#): anything to do with the
>military it seems whether directly or indirectly (e.g.,
>you wont be able to register for a high altitude training
>without it, the CAP for some reason demand it, etc.)
>
>--Sylvain

On 07 Jan 2006 22:03:41 GMT, (Jay Masino)
wrote in >::

>The unfortunate thruth is that the aviation community is *far*
>from the close knit community that some people like to pretend it is.

What would you suggest we do to change that?

Jay Masino wrote:
<snip>
> The thing that upsets me is that, even though almost 20,000 people have
> submitted comments to the FAA on the NPR for making the ADIZ permanent,
> there are something like 400,000 AOPA members. Where the hell are the
> other 380,000 AOPA members/pilots? Why aren't they submiting
> comments? The unfortunate thruth is that the aviation community is *far*
> from the close knit community that some people like to pretend it is.

And there's a reason for that. Pilots have attitudes, and it gets in
the way of that close knit community thing.

Terry wrote:
> 1) Can't get a credit card without one.

fair enough, but that's because they check
your credit history and these bozos of the credit
bureaus keep using SSN#...

Note that you can protect yourself a bit here, by
putting a freeze on your credit history (you have
to contact all credit bureaus and ask for it, and
they'll charge you money for the privilege, ten
bucks each); so even if someone's steal your SSN#,
you can limit the potential damage to some extent.

> 3) Most hospitals require it.

you tell them no. and it works, there is nothing they
can do about it. All they need to know
is your insurance information (which shouldn't mention
your SSN#); it might take some arguing -- some people
just don't like to do things differently if they have
'always done it that way' -- but just keep smiling,
be polite, and stand your ground.

Now the health insurance demand the number as well, and
it is also possible to tell them no, but it is tricky; I
didn't manage there... but I got them to abide by the
California Civil Code Section 1798.85 and they don't
use it as a ID number... that's the best I was able to
obtain here...


> 5) Phone company (cell and landline require it)

you can tell them no, and it works too. I used
pre-paid plans for my cell phone, and the only number
they care to know is that of my credit card :-)

but you are right: there are far too many people who
demand this number even though they have no legitimate
reasons to know it.

--Sylvain

Terry > wrote in
:

> Seems to be to me, that everyone's SS number is "out there" and here's
> why.
>
> 1) Can't get a credit card without one.
> 2) Drivers license.
> 3) Most hospitals require it.
> 4) Social Security has it (and their data base has been compromised
> int he past.)
> 5) Phone company (cell and landline require it)
>
> And probably lot's more places like buying a home etc.
>
> So, I wonder just how one can keep the number private?

Not easily, I'll admit.

The problem is that people were giving it out so freely
to begin with due to their own complacency/ignorance/gullibity.
Now it's like **** in the ocean. Because so many people so
willingly allowed their SSN to be used for things it was
never intended to be used for, it's now considered normal
and everyone expects you to just cough it up whenever they
ask for it.

It's become this way because people allowed it to. And it
didn't happen overnight.

Reversing the course won't happen overnight either. But if
people start refusing to allow their SSN to be used so
gratuitously, things will turn around.

It'll take time. It won't be easy at first. But if people
want to change things, they have to start somewhere.

Unfortunately, I realize it probably won't happen without
something forcing the issue, such as government legislation.
Most people are all too willing to bitch and moan about a
problem, but how many of them are actually willing to do
something, even a little thing, to change it.

It's always "let someone else fix it".

<sigh>

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

> there are far too many people who
> demand this number even though they have no legitimate
> reasons to know it.

Not to mention all those that have "just the last four digits". Most of
the rest of the digits can be reconstructed by anybody who knows how the
system is set up.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"John T" > wrote in message
m...
> Happy Dog wrote:
>>
>> You fly? You couldn't do this? FSS, *any* ATC. A student should be
>> able to fihure this out.
>
> You're right. Why didn't this student (Martin)? Why didn't Shaeffer?

I agree that they're idiots. But I was referring to the entire US
Government effort directed at intercepting them. This incursion was a
foreseeable occurrance and they seriously botched it.
>
>> < snip Monday Morning QBing >
>
> Funny. Isn't that what you're doing?

Hardly.

> The fact remains Shaeffer screwed us all with this stunt and largely
> because of him (and the overreaction by DC officials), we face a
> *permanent* ADIZ. Now you come along and appear sympathetic to him.

I don't much care about him. He got a bit worse than I think he deserved.
But not as bad as he could have. Any interaction with law enforcement is
like that. This was fairly ordinary.
>
> Let him cry on your shoulder, if you'd like. I'm too busy dealing with
> the consequences of his actions to be sympathetic to him in the least.

Godlike.

moo

> The thing that upsets me is that, even though almost 20,000 people have
> submitted comments to the FAA on the NPR for making the ADIZ permanent,
> there are something like 400,000 AOPA members. Where the hell are the
> other 380,000 AOPA members/pilots? Why aren't they submiting
> comments? The unfortunate thruth is that the aviation community is *far*
> from the close knit community that some people like to pretend it is.

How true!

Getting pilots to agree on anything is like herding cats.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 16:18:40 -0800, Sylvain > wrote in
>::

>I used pre-paid plans for my cell phone,

Do all providers offer pre-paid plans?

Larry Dighera wrote:
>>I used pre-paid plans for my cell phone,
> Do all providers offer pre-paid plans?

no and if you compare cost on a dollars per minute
basis, it is usually a bad deal (if you are a heavy
user); however, since I use few minutes, and the
plan I have carry over the ones I don't use, it's
good enough for my purpose.

--Sylvain

Jose wrote:
>> there are far too many people who
>> demand this number even though they have no legitimate
>> reasons to know it.
>
>
> Not to mention all those that have "just the last four digits". Most of
> the rest of the digits can be reconstructed by anybody who knows how the
> system is set up.
>
> Jose
I've been following the SSN debate for a bit and I have not yet seen any
mention of the fact that there is a legitinmate nneed to a single
identification number to tie together the various parts of people's
information. Banks and insurance companies have a need to be able to
gather the complete record for a person for giving credit or giving out
payments. If you don't want this single identify to be a SSN, fine then
what would you have it be? You want to come up with a different number?
It will have the same issue as the SSN number. If it falls into the
wrong hands then ID theft may occur. If you want to attack ID theft,
that's a different story. Make the number tie to something that only
you can provide. Some sort of biometric identifier might work. In a
perfect world we would not need a single identifier but given todays
computer system and silos of information we need a way to tie the
systems together.

John

> I've been following the SSN debate for a bit and I have not yet seen any mention of the fact that there is a legitinmate nneed to a single identification number to tie together the various parts of people's information.

I don't want all the various parts of my information to be tied together
by other people for their benefit.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

John Theune wrote:
> I've been following the SSN debate for a bit and I have not yet seen any
> mention of the fact that there is a legitinmate nneed to a single
> identification number to tie together the various parts of people's
> information. Banks and insurance companies have a need to be able to
> gather the complete record for a person for giving credit or giving out
> payments.

you are making two erroneous assumptions; the first, is that
the SSN is guaranteed to be unique, it is not. That fact
has been widely documented and discussed. The second is
that banks and insurances and such need a unique *common*
identification, this is flat wrong; your bank has no legitimate
reasons to cross reference your banking info with, say, your
health care info, or the list of phone calls you made; it is none
of their business;

the problem is both the use and abuse of this number and the
fact that all the entities to whom you entrust your personal
information make no effort to keep it private, and worst,
actively trade and/or exchange it; this fact with the ability
to cross reference information -- not always correctly, the
SSN being a lousy identifier -- is what creates the problem.

It might not have been as much of a problem at a time when
large scale data mining was not as easy as today, but it is
becoming scary. If you are amongst the folks who complacently
think that they have nothing to hide therefore what is all
this fuss about, you do not deserve the freedom you are
currently enjoying (not for long though as things are evolving)

Your bank wants a unique number to identify their client? sure,
let them have their own system; so does your insurance, and
phone companies, etc. I have no problem with that, so long
as each have their own separate system. Besides their is
perfectly good enough means of identifying yourself as far
as commercial or other companies are concerned: your name.

--Sylvain

"John Theune" > wrote in message
news:0Fbwf.30749$uy3.6067@trnddc08...
> Jose wrote:
> >> there are far too many people who
> >> demand this number even though they have no legitimate
> >> reasons to know it.
> >
> >
> > Not to mention all those that have "just the last four digits". Most of
> > the rest of the digits can be reconstructed by anybody who knows how the
> > system is set up.
> >
> > Jose
> I've been following the SSN debate for a bit and I have not yet seen any
> mention of the fact that there is a legitinmate nneed to a single
> identification number to tie together the various parts of people's
> information. Banks and insurance companies have a need to be able to
> gather the complete record for a person for giving credit or giving out
> payments. If you don't want this single identify to be a SSN, fine then
> what would you have it be? You want to come up with a different number?
> It will have the same issue as the SSN number. If it falls into the
> wrong hands then ID theft may occur. If you want to attack ID theft,
> that's a different story. Make the number tie to something that only
> you can provide. Some sort of biometric identifier might work. In a
> perfect world we would not need a single identifier but given todays
> computer system and silos of information we need a way to tie the
> systems together.
>
> John

I see absolutely no need for any, much less all, of my information to be
tied together anywhere by anybody.

John Theune wrote:

> I've been following the SSN debate for a bit and I have not yet seen any
> mention of the fact that there is a legitinmate nneed to a single
> identification number to tie together the various parts of people's
> information.

As far as I'm concerned, there is a much stronger need to make it impossible for
other people to tie all my information together.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

Jose wrote:
>> I've been following the SSN debate for a bit and I have not yet seen
>> any mention of the fact that there is a legitinmate nneed to a single
>> identification number to tie together the various parts of people's
>> information.
>
>
> I don't want all the various parts of my information to be tied together
> by other people for their benefit.
>
> Jose
Not a problem, then don't deal with banks or insurance companies.

>> I don't want all the various parts of my information to be tied together by other people for their benefit.
> Not a problem, then don't deal with banks or insurance companies.

.... or stores, or doctors, or airplanes, or telephones, or employers...

"If you have done nothing wrong, the next administration will re-define
'wrong; for you. Don't worry, it won't hurt.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
> ... or stores, or doctors, or airplanes, or telephones, or employers...

or potential dates. I mean, there is no excuses anymore for
bad surprises in this department, when you can find out
someone's detailed medical history -- a must in these days
and age of dating hazards, any dealing with the
law, including as a juvenile, complete history of telephone
calls -- both landlines and cellphones, including unlisted
numbers -- history of online contributions (newsgroups, web,
mailing lists, including the ones you thought were closed
to members only), credit history of course, political and
religious affiliations or lack thereof (if you haven't managed
to guess already from previous info), details of travel
history, purchasing habits, including but not limited to
books read and purchased or simply browsed (someone posted a
pretty neat account on reddit of how one can easily mine data
from Amazon's wish lists -- pretty crude, but it gives a
good idea of what's possible), as well as borrowed from
public libraries (a bit more tricky this one, but feasible
as well -- not out of reach of a self respecting PI), most
of these info already available to anyone for a fee (or for
free with a bit of effort).

No more bad dates (or bad employees or bad tenants) -- 'bad'
being whatever you want it to be. Can't wait for the day
when everyone's complete DNA informations -- along with easy
to use tools to extract whatever info you are seeeking from
it -- make its way into this wealth of freely available data.

Brave new world indeed,

--Sylvain

("Jose" wrote)
> "If you have done nothing wrong, the next administration will re-define
> 'wrong; for you. Don't worry, it won't hurt.


"Your papers please!"


Montblack
"My dear fellow! This isn't Spain ... this is England!"
A Man For All Seasons (1966)
Winner of six Academy Awards - including Best Picture

Sylvain wrote:
> John Theune wrote:
>
>> I've been following the SSN debate for a bit and I have not yet seen
>> any mention of the fact that there is a legitinmate nneed to a single
>> identification number to tie together the various parts of people's
>> information. Banks and insurance companies have a need to be able to
>> gather the complete record for a person for giving credit or giving
>> out payments.
>
>
> you are making two erroneous assumptions; the first, is that
> the SSN is guaranteed to be unique, it is not. That fact
> has been widely documented and discussed. The second is
> that banks and insurances and such need a unique *common*
> identification, this is flat wrong; your bank has no legitimate
> reasons to cross reference your banking info with, say, your
> health care info, or the list of phone calls you made; it is none
> of their business;
>
> the problem is both the use and abuse of this number and the
> fact that all the entities to whom you entrust your personal
> information make no effort to keep it private, and worst,
> actively trade and/or exchange it; this fact with the ability
> to cross reference information -- not always correctly, the
> SSN being a lousy identifier -- is what creates the problem.
>
> It might not have been as much of a problem at a time when
> large scale data mining was not as easy as today, but it is
> becoming scary. If you are amongst the folks who complacently
> think that they have nothing to hide therefore what is all
> this fuss about, you do not deserve the freedom you are
> currently enjoying (not for long though as things are evolving)
>
> Your bank wants a unique number to identify their client? sure,
> let them have their own system; so does your insurance, and
> phone companies, etc. I have no problem with that, so long
> as each have their own separate system. Besides their is
> perfectly good enough means of identifying yourself as far
> as commercial or other companies are concerned: your name.
>
> --Sylvain
I'll addresss the last first. You really think your name is a good
identifier? Have you looked at a phone book lately?

As far as other points you made, for example, your bank has a valid need
to know if you have had your credit card revoked from another bank due
to non payment before issuing you a credit card. If there is not a way
for them to determine this then they must charge everyone enough to
build in a reserve to deal with those who won't pay their bill. You
could make a argument that banks could have a common identifier and
medical could have a different one as well as insurance having a third
but at some point there is need for crossover between the systems and
having multiple numbers will increase the chance of a mismatch being made.

As far as SSN not being unique, the system was designed to have it be
unique, if it broke down then fix it. I just spent several minutes
goggling on the "SSN Not Unique" and while it had many hits none of them
said anything about the number being assigned to multiple people. All
the hits talked about the SSN being hijacked by other people. That is
not the fault of the identifier. As I said in my post you could augment
the identifier with a biometric identifier that would prove that it was
you. The issue here is not that identifier is not good, it's the data
that is assigned to that account number is bad. If you want better data
then push for laws that make the data file available to the person in
question and force penalties on the reporting agency for miss filing or
error nous information. Oh I'm sorry that would be the Fair Credit
Reporting Act and the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act as
reported on the FTC website.

I think you need to remove your tinfoil hat here. Your bank has no
legitimate reason to cross reference your account and your phone calls
nor will they as they is no business reason for them to do so. Besides
if they really wanted the information for some reason all they would
have to do is use your address to get your records if they could get the
phone company to part with them at all. They don't need a SSN or any
other identification number your address would be enough.

I believe that privacy of individual information needs to be preserved
and enhanced but the way to do that is not by making it hard to
correctly match the info and the person it goes with but rather making
it illegal to do so and making the punishment severe enough that it
won't happen by accident. Those who don't care about the law will
always have ways of finding the information they want as the cost of
obtaining the information is often not important to them. The real key
is to make sure that the information is not left lying around because
there are no effective rules forbidding the release of private
information. A good example of this would be the laws regarding the
dumping of hazardous wastes. Yes, it still happens but now that
companies know they may be required to clean them up the companies who
play by the rules don't do it anymore and for those who still commit the
crimes there are programs in place to catch them.

It would be nice to go back to a world where everyone knew who you were
and all parties to a transaction could be positively identified by all
parties involved but that day is long gone and we need to find a way to
deal with it so we can preserve the best of the old ways and still gain
the benefits of a large world filled with computers that record some
much of our lives.

John Theune wrote:
> I'll addresss the last first. You really think your name is a good
> identifier? Have you looked at a phone book lately?

only one guy in the rest of the USA with the same last name, who
design fancy women shoes in New York :-) definitely nobody else
with the same combination of first name and last name; ok, may
be I am a bit of an exception here, but this is good enough for a
business or bank, especially when coupled with an account
number.

> but at some point there is need for crossover between the systems and
> having multiple numbers will increase the chance of a mismatch being made.

why? what possible reason would your bank have to know your
medical history? or history of phone calls?

>
> As far as SSN not being unique, the system was designed to have it be
> unique, if it broke down then fix it.

it has broken down, and it has not been fixed.

> I just spent several minutes
> goggling on the "SSN Not Unique" and while it had many hits none of them
> said anything about the number being assigned to multiple people.

as good as Google is, this is not the only source of info out there
by the way.


> I think you need to remove your tinfoil hat here.

Ah, the good ol' 'you are paranoid' argument; right next to
the 'but, I have nothing to hide' argument.

if you believe that all that's needed is additional regulations to
protect you, then you are naive. May be, you might be lucky to
live at a time when the current administration is indeed following
its own rules, and respect due process, and all that. But
information collected about you will outlive any administration;

now may be you are right, may be I am paranoid and we will never
live in a country where one's freedom of travel can be limited by secret
lists which you cannot correct, where due process is no longer
respected, where one can be imprisoned indefinitely and tortured without
access to a lawyer or the evidence used against him, only based
on bad intel collected via non transparent means, where
the constitution becomes just a 'goddamn piece of paper', etc. yeah,
it can be only a bad dream, my imagination is really running wild,
cannot possibly happen here.

> Your bank has no
> legitimate reason to cross reference your account and your phone calls
> nor will they as they is no business reason for them to do so.

then why make it easily available in the first place? oh, I get
it; you can trust them, they are good people, why would they
want to do you harm? nay, they'll never be tempted to sell your
information to the best bidder, even when it becomes one of the
hottest commodity in these days and age, why would they? it is not
as if they would want to make money, just to look after your welfare.
And in any case, you can trust the government to take care of it
and look after your best interest should it ever be abused. Right.

now, you are good at googling; find out what was the first large
scale use of information technology -- beware, it predates electronic
computers -- where cross referencing of seemingly innocuous personal
information was used to its full potential (search for 'Edwin Black',
should be mandatory reading to anyone taking up an IT course);

Sorry for being so completely off the topic of this group, but
this is a serious matter, where complacency eventually kills.

--Sylvain

John Theune > wrote in news:7zjwf.1494$Tn6.742@trnddc04:

> Jose wrote:
>>> I've been following the SSN debate for a bit and I have not yet seen
>>> any mention of the fact that there is a legitinmate nneed to a single
>>> identification number to tie together the various parts of people's
>>> information.
>>
>>
>> I don't want all the various parts of my information to be tied together
>> by other people for their benefit.
>>
>> Jose
> Not a problem, then don't deal with banks or insurance companies.

Ahhh...another person who'd make an excellent citizen in the
new world order....should I call you 'cousin'?

Just three of many books that I think should be compulsory reading
in school are "Brave New World", "1984", and "Farhenheit 451".

I'm also reminded of that British series, "The Prisoner".

"I am not a number! I am a free man!"

Or we can all start worrying about becoming "obsolete" (Twilight Zone)

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Skywise wrote:

> Just three of many books that I think should be compulsory reading
> in school are "Brave New World", "1984", and "Farhenheit 451".

Two of those were compulsory when I was in high school.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

George Patterson wrote:
> Skywise wrote:
>
>> Just three of many books that I think should be compulsory reading
>> in school are "Brave New World", "1984", and "Farhenheit 451".
>
>
> Two of those were compulsory when I was in high school.

All three were, for various classes, when I was in high school, not all
that long ago. Unfortunately, no one takes away any lessons from them.

> at some point there is need for crossover between the systems

At what point would that be?

> Your bank has no legitimate reason to cross reference your account and your phone calls
> nor will they as they is no business reason for them to do so.

Sure there is. And they have a business reason to cross reference my
account with my health information too. Both are valuable, and banks
are a business. I just don't want them to.

My employer has a business reason to cross reference my bank account, my
health information, my mortgage information, my phone calls, and
everything I do on and off the job. I don't want them to.

And anybody who gets any of my information has an easy method to get all
the rest of it. I don't want them to.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Farnham's Freehold" by Robert Heinlein

> Ahhh...another person who'd make an excellent citizen in the
> new world order....should I call you 'cousin'?

> Just three of many books that I think should be compulsory reading
> in school are "Brave New World", "1984", and "Farhenheit 451".

> I'm also reminded of that British series, "The Prisoner".

> "I am not a number! I am a free man!"

> Or we can all start worrying about becoming "obsolete" (Twilight Zone)

> Brian


Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocations!"
--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer<at>frii.com http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot BM218 HAM N0FZD 235 Young Eagles!

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 19:08:06 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>Anyone who thinks that comments to a NPRM will have any real effect
>on the outcome just hasn't been paying attention to the way the FAA
>has handled them.

Well, perhaps an NPRM _meeting_ with representatives from six federal
agencies listening to pilots will be more effective in getting a bad
idea revoked:

-------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Volume 8, Issue 2 January 13, 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------

ADIZ DRAWS IRE FROM PILOTS DURING FIRST PUBLIC MEETING
More than 200 people on Thursday filled a conference room in
Columbia, Maryland, and almost all were there to tell federal
officials why the Washington, D.C., Air Defense Identification
Zone (ADIZ) shouldn't be made permanent. "The ADIZ should be
abolished," said Scott Proudfoot, one of the first speakers at the
public meeting. He was speaking for the air traffic controllers
union, NATCA, and added, "The ADIZ is nothing but a burden on the
users and the controllers." AOPA had pushed for public meetings,
arguing that regulators needed to hear directly from pilots
themselves about the problems caused by the ADIZ. And there are
plenty. Meanwhile, pilots didn't realize that an ADIZ clearance
wasn't the same thing as "radar identification," so that even
though they were talking to ATC, they weren't receiving traffic
advisories. William Finagin, whose company sells Aviat aircraft,
said he has lost $1 million a year in sales since the ADIZ was
imposed. Another local pilot based at Montgomery County Airpark
inside the ADIZ said an FBO there had closed because of lack of
business. "Flights to our home in Williamsburg (Virginia) are now
50 percent longer, and I spend $50 more for fuel, because of
circumnavigating the ADIZ," said Russell Madsen. The public
meeting continued through Thursday evening, with representatives
from six federal agencies listening to pilots. A second public
meeting, where AOPA President Phil Boyer will speak, is scheduled
next Wednesday in Dulles, Virginia. Nearly 20,000 people have
filed written comments, mostly in opposition to the ADIZ. If you
haven't done so, file your comments today. The deadline is
February 6. See AOPA's Member Action Center: Operation ADIZ
( http://www.aopa.org/adizalert ) for more information.

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 19:08:06 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
> >Anyone who thinks that comments to a NPRM will have any real effect
> >on the outcome just hasn't been paying attention to the way the FAA
> >has handled them.
>
> Well, perhaps an NPRM _meeting_ with representatives from six federal
> agencies listening to pilots will be more effective in getting a bad
> idea revoked:
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> AOPA ePilot Volume 8, Issue 2 January 13, 2006
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ADIZ DRAWS IRE FROM PILOTS DURING FIRST PUBLIC MEETING
> More than 200 people on Thursday filled a conference room in
> Columbia, Maryland, and almost all were there to tell federal
> officials why the Washington, D.C., Air Defense Identification
> Zone (ADIZ) shouldn't be made permanent. "The ADIZ should be
> abolished," said Scott Proudfoot, one of the first speakers at the
> public meeting. He was speaking for the air traffic controllers
> union, NATCA, and added, "The ADIZ is nothing but a burden on the
> users and the controllers." AOPA had pushed for public meetings,
> arguing that regulators needed to hear directly from pilots
> themselves about the problems caused by the ADIZ. And there are
> plenty. Meanwhile, pilots didn't realize that an ADIZ clearance
> wasn't the same thing as "radar identification," so that even
> though they were talking to ATC, they weren't receiving traffic
> advisories. William Finagin, whose company sells Aviat aircraft,
> said he has lost $1 million a year in sales since the ADIZ was
> imposed. Another local pilot based at Montgomery County Airpark
> inside the ADIZ said an FBO there had closed because of lack of
> business. "Flights to our home in Williamsburg (Virginia) are now
> 50 percent longer, and I spend $50 more for fuel, because of
> circumnavigating the ADIZ," said Russell Madsen. The public
> meeting continued through Thursday evening, with representatives
> from six federal agencies listening to pilots. A second public
> meeting, where AOPA President Phil Boyer will speak, is scheduled
> next Wednesday in Dulles, Virginia. Nearly 20,000 people have
> filed written comments, mostly in opposition to the ADIZ. If you
> haven't done so, file your comments today. The deadline is
> February 6. See AOPA's Member Action Center: Operation ADIZ
> ( http://www.aopa.org/adizalert ) for more information.

Two important questions to ask of the Homeland Security people in
attendance:

1. Which one of you is Chicken Little?

2. Which one is Fearless Fosdick?

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> 1. Which one of you is Chicken Little?

The guy on the left.

> 2. Which one is Fearless Fosdick?

The guy on the right.

http://www.aopa.org/images/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060112adiz.jpg

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.