Is the DC ADIZ on the charts?

[Snowbird]

from AVWeb:
"Frankly, we're a bit frustrated that pilots are still violating it,
and we don't know why," the FAA's William Shumann told AVweb
yesterday. "It's on the charts, it's on our Web site."

*Is* the DC ADIZ on the charts? Not on websites, on actual VFR
sectionals
and TACs?

Thanks!
Sydney

[Peter R.]

Snowbird ) wrote:

> from AVWeb:
> "Frankly, we're a bit frustrated that pilots are still violating it,
> and we don't know why," the FAA's William Shumann told AVweb
> yesterday. "It's on the charts, it's on our Web site."
>
> *Is* the DC ADIZ on the charts? Not on websites, on actual VFR
> sectionals
> and TACs?

Yes, it is. On the Washington Sectional the entire ADIZ is devoid of
terrain shading, which makes the area really stand out.


--
Peter















----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Jay Masino]

Peter R. > wrote:
> Yes, it is. On the Washington Sectional the entire ADIZ is devoid of
> terrain shading, which makes the area really stand out.


No it's not. The inner Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ) is on the chart, but
the ADIZ is not.

-- Jay


__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino/ ! ! !

Checkout http://www.oc-adolfos.com/
for the best Italian food in Ocean City, MD and...
Checkout http://www.brolow.com/ for authentic Blues music on Delmarva

[Peter R.]

Peter R. ) wrote:

>
> Yes, it is. On the Washington Sectional the entire ADIZ is devoid of
> terrain shading, which makes the area really stand out.

Sheesh, my memory was wrong. I just looked at the scanned sectional on
Aeroplanner and only inner ring is missing terrain shading. The outer
boundaries are drawn on the sectional chart as heavy blue lines.

Sorry for the incorrect info.


--
Peter















----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Ron Natalie]

"Snowbird" > wrote in message om...
> from AVWeb:
> "Frankly, we're a bit frustrated that pilots are still violating it,
> and we don't know why," the FAA's William Shumann told AVweb
> yesterday. "It's on the charts, it's on our Web site."
>
> *Is* the DC ADIZ on the charts? Not on websites, on actual VFR
> sectionals
> and TACs?
>
No, the ADIZ is NOT charted. The FRZ is. It shows up as a big white
spotch centered over DC.

I got into a discussion with a representative of NACO at one of the local pilots
meetings. They claimed they couldn't put temporary stuff on charts. I pointed
out that was nonsense because:

1. Nobody has indicated the ADIZ is temporary. They did chart the FRZ which is
no less transient.
2. They have put TFR's on the chart before. We even had a special issuance of the
DC TAC and Sectionals denoting the TFR's during the preliminary rounds of the
Olympic soccer matches held in the area.

If they can make an exception for a few weeks during the Olympics, why can't they
fix the *@#$@ charts when it's supposed important to national security.

[Ron Natalie]

"Peter R." > wrote in message ...
> Snowbird ) wrote:
>
> > from AVWeb:
> > "Frankly, we're a bit frustrated that pilots are still violating it,
> > and we don't know why," the FAA's William Shumann told AVweb
> > yesterday. "It's on the charts, it's on our Web site."
> >
> > *Is* the DC ADIZ on the charts? Not on websites, on actual VFR
> > sectionals
> > and TACs?
>
> Yes, it is. On the Washington Sectional the entire ADIZ is devoid of
> terrain shading, which makes the area really stand out.
>
That's the FRZ, not the ADIZ

[Ron Natalie]

"Peter R." > wrote in message ...
> Peter R. ) wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes, it is. On the Washington Sectional the entire ADIZ is devoid of
> > terrain shading, which makes the area really stand out.
>
> Sheesh, my memory was wrong. I just looked at the scanned sectional on
> Aeroplanner and only inner ring is missing terrain shading. The outer
> boundaries are drawn on the sectional chart as heavy blue lines.
>
That's NO depiction of the ADIZ at all. The blue lines are the Class B.
The ADIZ does not follow the class B bondaries. Look at the red lines
that AEROPLANNER.COM themselves draws on the chart on the south
side of the airspace. There is NO marking on the printed chart that
corresponds to the red line.

[Peter R.]

Ron Natalie ) wrote:

<snip>
> 2. They have put TFR's on the chart before.

Check out P-67, which is the expanded TFR surrounding the Kennebunkport,
ME, area. This TFR is depicted on the NY sectional as I (perhaps)
mistakenly thought of the ADIZ; devoid of terrain shading.

--
Peter


























----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Peter R.]

Ron Natalie ) wrote:

> That's NO depiction of the ADIZ at all.

Ah, fercrinoutloud. I'll just be crawling back into my hole now.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
>
> from AVWeb:
> "Frankly, we're a bit frustrated that pilots are still violating it,
> and we don't know why," the FAA's William Shumann told AVweb
> yesterday. "It's on the charts, it's on our Web site."
>
> *Is* the DC ADIZ on the charts? Not on websites, on actual VFR
> sectionals
> and TACs?
>

AeroPlanner's online charts show it.

http://map.aeroplanner.com/mapping/chart/chart.cfm?chart=Sectional&typ=APT&txt=iad

[John T]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net
>
> AeroPlanner's online charts show it.

Another *private* organization providing an unofficial chart. Can you
imagine the reaction of the FAA/USSS/other agency interregators when you try
to use the AeroPlanner chart to prove that you were, in fact, outside the
ADIZ?

This situation is like the small town that refuses to post speed limit signs
then locks up those who speed down the street.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

[EDR]

It doesn't matter if a "depiction" can be found on the web. It probably
carries a "NOT FOR NAVIGATIONAL USE" notice.
If I am at an airport preparing for a flight through that airspace, I
most likely do not have access to a computer with a color printer that
is capable of accurately reproducing the chart to scale so that it can
be used for navigational purposes.
If I call Flight Service on the telephone, I will be read the NOTAM
text, not an accurate pictoral depiction.
If I have received the briefing from the FSS specialist, it is
considered that I am fully informed, when in fact I have only a fuzzy
notion of the actual boundaries.
Also consider that because of the irregularity of the airspace
boundaries, I may be able to "draw" the boundaries, given lat/lon
coordinates to create waypoints, on my VFR only, handheld GPS. Is this
acceptable for navigation? Maybe
Does the FAA consider this "official"? Probably not.
So, if they are not willing to chart the boundaries on the offical,
government produced charts, issued every six months, how are we
expected to know, in the cockpit, flying along looking for ground
references, where the boundaries are?

[Kevin McCue]

Perhaps this whole thread should be sent to the FAA/TSA. It might* open
someone's eyes.

*doubtful

--
Kevin McCue
KRYN
'47 Luscombe 8E
Rans S-17 (for sale)




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Dave Stadt]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Ron Natalie ) wrote:
>
> > That's NO depiction of the ADIZ at all.
>
> Ah, fercrinoutloud. I'll just be crawling back into my hole now.
>
> --
> Peter
>

Good grief, locals can't even figure it out. As chopped up as the airspace
is out east what chance do transients have.

[John T]

"Kevin McCue" > wrote in message

>
> Perhaps this whole thread should be sent to the FAA/TSA. It
> might* open someone's eyes.

I was in the same meeting with Ron when he was discussing the lack of
charting. All of this was mentioned then - not very lightly, I might add -
with reps from NACO, FSDO and ATC. They are fully aware of the frustration
we pilots are feeling, but the minions we had by the scruff of the neck are
powerless bureaucrats.

They assured us that the bureaucratic security agencies running the show are
aware of the issues we raised, but are not interested in solving them.

I don't envy the job of the security folks. They are truly in a "damned if
you do, damned if you don't" situation, but I'm beginning to question
whether anybody has the patience it seems to require to resolve this
situation.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

[Ron Natalie]

"John T" > wrote in message ws.com...

>
> I was in the same meeting with Ron when he was discussing the lack of
> charting. All of this was mentioned then - not very lightly, I might add -
> with reps from NACO, FSDO and ATC. They are fully aware of the frustration
> we pilots are feeling, but the minions we had by the scruff of the neck are
> powerless bureaucrats.
>
Yes, conspicuosly absent was anybody from the security agencies.

[Snowbird]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message >...
> "Snowbird" > wrote in message om...
> > from AVWeb:
> > "Frankly, we're a bit frustrated that pilots are still violating it,
> > and we don't know why," the FAA's William Shumann told AVweb
> > yesterday. "It's on the charts, it's on our Web site."

> > *Is* the DC ADIZ on the charts?

> No, the ADIZ is NOT charted.

That's what I thought.

I wonder if someone could obtain contact information for the
FAA's William Shumann, so that concerned pilots could write
him a brief note correcting his misapprehension, and suggesting
that if the DC ADIZ were charted -- not on a computer which
might or might not be available to a pilot heading that way,
on a CHART -- it is possible that it might be of assistance
to pilots wishing to avoid it.

I think I'll write AVweb and suggest this, but if anyone
else knows how to dig out FAA contact info, please share.

I agree with you that it's absolute BS that NACO hasn't
added it to the charts.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Snowbird]

"John T" > wrote in message m>...

> I was in the same meeting with Ron when he was discussing the lack of
> charting. All of this was mentioned then - not very lightly, I might add -
> with reps from NACO, FSDO and ATC. They are fully aware of the frustration
> we pilots are feeling, but the minions we had by the scruff of the neck are
> powerless bureaucrats.

John,

Are you saying NACO does not have the authority to depict the
DC ADIZ on the sectional charts or to include the NOTAMs in the
AF/D?

If NACO does not have the authority, who does?

Are you saying the security agencies are preventing NACO from
depicting the ADIZ on the charts?

Thanks,
Sydney

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dave Stadt wrote:
>
> Good grief, locals can't even figure it out. As chopped up as the airspace
> is out east what chance do transients have.

Oh, we have an excellent chance at it. Just go around the entire class-B, and
you'll be safe. If you don't run into some other TFR.

George Patterson
If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging
the problem.

[Peter Duniho]

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
> Are you saying the security agencies are preventing NACO from
> depicting the ADIZ on the charts?

Of course they are. If the ADIZ were depicted, then all a terrorist would
have to do to find airspace where they could terrorize someone is look at
the Washington sectional. You don't want things to be that easy for them,
do you?

It's the same brilliant strategizing that the TSA used when they realized it
just wouldn't do to publish the actual locations of the nuclear power plants
we were supposed to avoid.

Pete

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
>
> It doesn't matter if a "depiction" can be found on the web. It probably
> carries a "NOT FOR NAVIGATIONAL USE" notice.
> If I am at an airport preparing for a flight through that airspace, I
> most likely do not have access to a computer with a color printer that
> is capable of accurately reproducing the chart to scale so that it can
> be used for navigational purposes.
> If I call Flight Service on the telephone, I will be read the NOTAM
> text, not an accurate pictoral depiction.
> If I have received the briefing from the FSS specialist, it is
> considered that I am fully informed, when in fact I have only a fuzzy
> notion of the actual boundaries.
> Also consider that because of the irregularity of the airspace
> boundaries, I may be able to "draw" the boundaries, given lat/lon
> coordinates to create waypoints, on my VFR only, handheld GPS. Is this
> acceptable for navigation? Maybe
> Does the FAA consider this "official"? Probably not.
> So, if they are not willing to chart the boundaries on the offical,
> government produced charts, issued every six months, how are we
> expected to know, in the cockpit, flying along looking for ground
> references, where the boundaries are?
>

Nevertheless, AeroPlanner's online charts do show it.

[John T]

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om
>
> Are you saying NACO does not have the authority to depict the
> DC ADIZ on the sectional charts or to include the NOTAMs in the
> AF/D?

No, the NACO rep said (as Ron said) "We can't chart temporary airspace."
The next logical question posed was "when will this temporary airspace go
away". The answer, of course, is "we don't know, but we don't expect it to
disappear any time soon."

> If NACO does not have the authority, who does?

NACO makes the charts. The FAA makes the airspace. Right now, at least,
the various security agencies are telling the FAA to make this airspace.
The FAA claims to be on our side which is why it's only a "temporary"
airspace change.

> Are you saying the security agencies are preventing NACO from
> depicting the ADIZ on the charts?

No, bureaucratic rules are preventing them from charting the ADIZ. The
security agencies are forcing the FAA to accommodate their demands for
restricted airspace. That's the role we're being told they're playing. We
were told stories about some of the changes that were demanded by these SA's
that clearly indicated they had no idea how the aviation system works.

At least Potomac Approach controllers appear to be seriously trying to make
our GA lives as easy as possible while they and we are getting squeezed by
these arbitrary rules.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

[Ron Natalie]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> Dave Stadt wrote:
> >
> > Good grief, locals can't even figure it out. As chopped up as the airspace
> > is out east what chance do transients have.
>
> Oh, we have an excellent chance at it. Just go around the entire class-B, and
> you'll be safe. If you don't run into some other TFR.

Way around. The ADIZ exudes past the class B boundaries. It follows the mode C
veil on part of it's borders but sticks out farther to the east and south as well.

[[email protected]]

On 13 Nov 2003 16:46:03 -0800, (Snowbird)
wrote:

>if someone could obtain contact information for the
>FAA's William Shumann

From:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-233115A1.pdf
Comes:
FAA Contact: William Shumann at (202) 267-3883 or

[Snowbird]

wrote in message >...
> FAA Contact: William Shumann at (202) 267-3883 or
>

Thanks, Larry. Hope it's the right chap. This is what I just
sent.

Dear Sir,

I write with regard to an article published by the WebZine "AvWeb"
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/147-full.html#186076
which quoted you as follows:
Since Feb. 10, when the ADIZ was put in place in Washington, it
has been violated more than 600 times. "Frankly, we're a bit
frustrated that pilots are still violating it, and we don't know
why," the FAA's William Shumann told AVweb yesterday. "It's on
the charts, it's on our Web site."

I would like to point out that while the FRZ (flight restricted zone)
is charted, the ADIZ is NOT, in fact, charted on the latest
VFR Sectional Charts in any way. Neither is the NOTAM creating the
ADIZ published in the Airport and Facilities Directory.

While it is useful to have graphical representations of the
ADIZ available on the internet, not all pilots use the Internet
to flight plan. Even pilots who prefer to flight plan online are
often without internet services whilst flightplanning enroute and
certainly whilst in the cockpit.

In fact, to my knowledge there is no official government publication
useable by pilots for in-cockpit navigation which depicts the DC ADIZ.

I would like to make the constructive suggestion that in order to
reduce the frustrating number of ADIZ incursions, the following
changes could be made:

1. Depict the ADIZ on the next printing of sectional and terminal area
charts of the DC area (Washington sectonal and TAC). If possible,
issue
an immediate special printing since these charts are printed on 6
month cycles.

2. Include the NOTAM plain text in the Northeast AF/D. Since these
are printed on 56 day cycles a special issuance might be superfluous.

3. Reference the NOTAM in the remarks section of every airport
inside the ADIZ/FRZ in the Northeast AF/D.

I am told by friends who have attended local DC pilot meetings and
spoken with NACO representatives regarding this issue, that NACO is
reluctant to make these changes and has refused to do so on the
grounds that they are "temporary". However, other temporary changes
such as flight restrictions for the Olympics have been charted in the
past; the FRZ iteself is "temporary" yet is charted.

If people in the FAA are indeed frustrated with the number of
incursions and wish to reduce them, I would like to suggest that the
absence of accurately charted depictions of the ADIZ on government
publications intended for navigational use by pilots is one possible
reason, and one which could readily be remedied were someone with the
appropriate authority to issue to NACO the appropriate direction.

Yours Sincerely,
Sydney Hoeltzli
PP ASEL IA

[EDR]

Great letter, Sydney!
I trust you sent it "overnight" to convey a sense of urgency. ;-)

[John T]

"EDR" > wrote in message

>
> Great letter, Sydney!

I disagree. I would suggest rephrasing this section:

<quote>
I would like to make the constructive suggestion that in order to
reduce the frustrating number of ADIZ incursions, the following
changes could be made:
</quote>

I would have used this language:

"I would like to make the constructive suggestion that the ADIZ be
abolished. Barring this sensible solution, perhaps these alternatives would
help:"

Don't give them the impression that you're willing to accept the ADIZ -
unless, of course, you are willing. :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

[G.R. Patterson III]

Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> Way around. The ADIZ exudes past the class B boundaries. It follows the mode C
> veil on part of it's borders but sticks out farther to the east and south as well.

Yep. That's why I take the north route (most of my runs through the area are to
TYS).

George Patterson
If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging
the problem.

[G.R. Patterson III]

John T wrote:
>
> "I would like to make the constructive suggestion that the ADIZ be
> abolished. Barring this sensible solution, perhaps these alternatives would
> help:"

Yeah! In fact, the effort to do this are probably a big reason why the ADIZ is
NOT charted. I suspect we have allies in the FAA and the mapping people. Their
efforts or our behalf should not be in vain!

George Patterson
If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging
the problem.

[C J Campbell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
news:Gk4tb.119| >
|
| Nevertheless, AeroPlanner's online charts do show it.

When did AeroPlanner become a source of official information?

[Snowbird]

"John T" > wrote in message m>...

> <quote>
> I would like to make the constructive suggestion that in order to
> reduce the frustrating number of ADIZ incursions, the following
> changes could be made:
> </quote>

> I would have used this language:
> "I would like to make the constructive suggestion that the ADIZ be
> abolished. Barring this sensible solution, perhaps these alternatives would
> help:"
>
> Don't give them the impression that you're willing to accept the ADIZ -
> unless, of course, you are willing. :)

Good points. Too late, alas the letter is sent.

But, John, you and everyone else can atone for my mistake by
writing your own letter, modified as you suggest. That ought
to overwhelm my error.

Cheers,
Sydney

PS Ron Natalie, hope you don't mind that I used your concise
summation as 'talking points'. I was home sick today and figured
I'd better do the deed while I had time.

[John T]

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om
>
> But, John, you and everyone else can atone for my mistake by
> writing your own letter, modified as you suggest. That ought
> to overwhelm my error.

Already done - a few times. Remember: I, along with Ron and many, many
others, have been dealing with this monstrosity since it was conceived. :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
_______________

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> When did AeroPlanner become a source of official information?
>

It hasn't, nor is it likely to become one. Were you trying to make a point?

[aaronw]

On 13 Nov 2003 11:00:29 -0800, (Snowbird)
wrote:

>from AVWeb:
>"Frankly, we're a bit frustrated that pilots are still violating it,
>and we don't know why," the FAA's William Shumann told AVweb
>yesterday. "It's on the charts, it's on our Web site."
>
>*Is* the DC ADIZ on the charts? Not on websites, on actual VFR
>sectionals
>and TACs?
>
>Thanks!
>Sydney

Other people have already replied, but I'll specially call out
something that incenses me:

No, the ADIZ is not on any TAC or sectional.

What drives me nuts is that it is *almost* the Class B airspace except
where, inexplicably, at the south, it has a bigger bumpout. This is
harder to get depicted and 'get a feel' for what it looks like.

Threadjacking: Anyone going to the FAA meetings?

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2003/03-4-094x.html

aw

[Larry Dighera]

On 14 Nov 2003 10:39:47 -0800, (Snowbird)
wrote in Message-Id:
>:

wrote in message >...
>> FAA Contact: William Shumann at (202) 267-3883 or
>>
>
>Thanks, Larry. Hope it's the right chap. This is what I just
>sent.
>
>Dear Sir,

[...]

Give 'em hell, Syd.

More contact information is available here:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?x=op&va=%22faa.gov%22&va_vt=any&vp=William+Shumann&vp_vt=any&vst=0&vd=all&fl=0&ei=ISO-8859-1&vm=p&n=20

[Big John]

Larry

What is they say, "Hell has no equal to a woman scorned" or something
like that <G>

Big John

----clip----]

Give 'em hell, Syd.

Larry

[G.R. Patterson III]

Big John wrote:
>
> What is they say, "Hell has no equal to a woman scorned" or something
> like that <G>

"Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned."

George Patterson
If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging
the problem.

[Snowbird]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...
> Big John wrote:
> >
> > What is they say, "Hell has no equal to a woman scorned" or something
> > like that <G>
>
> "Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned."

They might say that, but the letter I wrote IMO has nothing
of hell scorn nor fury

????

Y'all need a calibration standard for me?

Cheers,
Sydney

[Mike Schumann]

Let us know if you get a response.

Mike Schumann

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
> wrote in message
>...
> > FAA Contact: William Shumann at (202) 267-3883 or
> >
>
> Thanks, Larry. Hope it's the right chap. This is what I just
> sent.
>
> Dear Sir,
>
> I write with regard to an article published by the WebZine "AvWeb"
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/147-full.html#186076
> which quoted you as follows:
> Since Feb. 10, when the ADIZ was put in place in Washington, it
> has been violated more than 600 times. "Frankly, we're a bit
> frustrated that pilots are still violating it, and we don't know
> why," the FAA's William Shumann told AVweb yesterday. "It's on
> the charts, it's on our Web site."
>
> I would like to point out that while the FRZ (flight restricted zone)
> is charted, the ADIZ is NOT, in fact, charted on the latest
> VFR Sectional Charts in any way. Neither is the NOTAM creating the
> ADIZ published in the Airport and Facilities Directory.
>
> While it is useful to have graphical representations of the
> ADIZ available on the internet, not all pilots use the Internet
> to flight plan. Even pilots who prefer to flight plan online are
> often without internet services whilst flightplanning enroute and
> certainly whilst in the cockpit.
>
> In fact, to my knowledge there is no official government publication
> useable by pilots for in-cockpit navigation which depicts the DC ADIZ.
>
> I would like to make the constructive suggestion that in order to
> reduce the frustrating number of ADIZ incursions, the following
> changes could be made:
>
> 1. Depict the ADIZ on the next printing of sectional and terminal area
> charts of the DC area (Washington sectonal and TAC). If possible,
> issue
> an immediate special printing since these charts are printed on 6
> month cycles.
>
> 2. Include the NOTAM plain text in the Northeast AF/D. Since these
> are printed on 56 day cycles a special issuance might be superfluous.
>
> 3. Reference the NOTAM in the remarks section of every airport
> inside the ADIZ/FRZ in the Northeast AF/D.
>
> I am told by friends who have attended local DC pilot meetings and
> spoken with NACO representatives regarding this issue, that NACO is
> reluctant to make these changes and has refused to do so on the
> grounds that they are "temporary". However, other temporary changes
> such as flight restrictions for the Olympics have been charted in the
> past; the FRZ iteself is "temporary" yet is charted.
>
> If people in the FAA are indeed frustrated with the number of
> incursions and wish to reduce them, I would like to suggest that the
> absence of accurately charted depictions of the ADIZ on government
> publications intended for navigational use by pilots is one possible
> reason, and one which could readily be remedied were someone with the
> appropriate authority to issue to NACO the appropriate direction.
>
> Yours Sincerely,
> Sydney Hoeltzli
> PP ASEL IA