ADIZ incursion - where were the lasers?

[Andrew Sarangan]

I thought they had green lasers to warn airplanes straying into the DC
ADIZ. Are they not operational?

[Blueskies]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
1...
>I thought they had green lasers to warn airplanes straying into the DC
> ADIZ. Are they not operational?
>

May 21

[Bob Chilcoat]

You're presuming that these Bozos would know what they meant. "Look at the
pretty lights. Must be some sort of political celebration with a light
show."

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Blueskies" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> 1...
> >I thought they had green lasers to warn airplanes straying into the DC
> > ADIZ. Are they not operational?
> >
>
> May 21
>
>

[Roger]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 22:51:01 -0400, "Bob Chilcoat"
> wrote:

>You're presuming that these Bozos would know what they meant. "Look at the
>pretty lights. Must be some sort of political celebration with a light
>show."

I was gonna say, they'd have needed to have tied them to a big hammer
first if things were as they appeard to have been.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[RNR]

On Fri, 13 May 2005 00:30:13 GMT, "Blueskies"
> wrote:

>
>"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
1...
>>I thought they had green lasers to warn airplanes straying into the DC
>> ADIZ. Are they not operational?
>>
>
>May 21
>

Even if they were operational, how many pilots do you think really
know about this program? And I don't mean among the pilots that read
the aviation newsgroups. My guess is that most of the pilots that are
based at my home airport have absolutely no clue that these lights are
going on line or what they mean. The pilots that read a lot of
aviation related material and keep themselves up to date (such as this
group) will be aware, the rest will think that they're flying over an
amusement park with a light show. I don't mean this in a nasty way
but the education process for programs like this is difficult if one
is not continually and voluntarily continuing the process on their
own.
Rich Russell

[Peter Clark]

On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:32:26 -0400, RNR >
wrote:

>On Fri, 13 May 2005 00:30:13 GMT, "Blueskies"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
1...
>>>I thought they had green lasers to warn airplanes straying into the DC
>>> ADIZ. Are they not operational?
>>>
>>
>>May 21
>>
>
>Even if they were operational, how many pilots do you think really
>know about this program? And I don't mean among the pilots that read
>the aviation newsgroups. My guess is that most of the pilots that are
>based at my home airport have absolutely no clue that these lights are
>going on line or what they mean. The pilots that read a lot of
>aviation related material and keep themselves up to date (such as this
>group) will be aware, the rest will think that they're flying over an
>amusement park with a light show. I don't mean this in a nasty way
>but the education process for programs like this is difficult if one
>is not continually and voluntarily continuing the process on their
>own.

Even if you don't hang out on newsgroups, read AOPA, AvWeb, etc,
anyone who reads FDC NOTAM 5/3123 would know about the signal, when it
comes online, and what to do in the event you're painted.

[Rolf Blom]

On 2005-05-13 02:24, Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> I thought they had green lasers to warn airplanes straying into the DC
> ADIZ. Are they not operational?
>

I'm surprised you don't have barrage ballons and searchlights along the
ADIZ border, it almost seems to be a warzone in making.

/Rolf

[Blueskies]

"Rolf Blom" > wrote in message ...
> On 2005-05-13 02:24, Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>> I thought they had green lasers to warn airplanes straying into the DC ADIZ. Are they not operational?
>>
>
> I'm surprised you don't have barrage ballons and searchlights along the ADIZ border, it almost seems to be a warzone
> in making.
>
> /Rolf

Now that is a plan. Should be pretty cost effective also. Hmmmm, it may cast some shadows on the folks on hte ground
though and possibly obstruct their view of the sky.....

[George Patterson]

Rolf Blom wrote:
>
> I'm surprised you don't have barrage ballons and searchlights along the
> ADIZ border, it almost seems to be a warzone in making.

A miniature Kammhuber line? That would certainly give an errant pilot some
indication that they were off course.

Of course, I suppose the proposed lasers could be considered modern-day
"searchlights."

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[William W. Plummer]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

> I thought they had green lasers to warn airplanes straying into the DC
> ADIZ. Are they not operational?
>
This is the Visual Warning System (VWS). It was discussed in the NASA
Safety Newsletter.

My own take on it is that if a pilot is not communicating and doesn't
know where he is, he isn't likely to see the VWS or know what it means.
The CFI should have to redo all his courses and flying, i.e. requalify.

[Ron Natalie]

William W. Plummer wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>
>> I thought they had green lasers to warn airplanes straying into the DC
>> ADIZ. Are they not operational?
>>
> This is the Visual Warning System (VWS). It was discussed in the NASA
> Safety Newsletter.
>
> My own take on it is that if a pilot is not communicating and doesn't
> know where he is, he isn't likely to see the VWS or know what it means.
> The CFI should have to redo all his courses and flying, i.e. requalify.

There was no CFI involved. The FAA is peruing revokation of the
PRIVATE PILOT's certificate.

[Dave Stadt]

"William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
...
> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>
> > I thought they had green lasers to warn airplanes straying into the DC
> > ADIZ. Are they not operational?
> >
> This is the Visual Warning System (VWS). It was discussed in the NASA
> Safety Newsletter.
>
> My own take on it is that if a pilot is not communicating and doesn't
> know where he is, he isn't likely to see the VWS or know what it means.
> The CFI should have to redo all his courses and flying, i.e. requalify.

There was no CFI.

Anybody know what color the lasers are? I heard red and green which seems
terribly confusing. Red means stop, green means go. Not a good combination
in my book.

[Morgans]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote

> Anybody know what color the lasers are? I heard red and green which seems
> terribly confusing. Red means stop, green means go. Not a good
combination
> in my book.

Sure it does! Red means stop coming this way, and green means start going
the other way!

I think the alternating is meant to rule out the chance that it is an idiot
playing games, and I think red and green are chosen because that is the two
colors of popular lasers out there, of appropriate power output. Just my
opinion.
--
Jim in NC

[Charles O'Rourke]

Dave Stadt wrote:
> Anybody know what color the lasers are? I heard red and green which seems
> terribly confusing. Red means stop, green means go. Not a good combination
> in my book.

When a tower uses light signals, don't they use alternating red and
green to represent "exercise extreme caution"? Seems like that should
put an automatic "oops something is wrong" in the pilot's mind if the
plane is near the ADIZ.

Charles.
-N8385U

[Ron Natalie]

Dave Stadt wrote:
..
>
> Anybody know what color the lasers are? I heard red and green which seems
> terribly confusing. Red means stop, green means go. Not a good combination
> in my book.
>
>
>
Two red flashes followed by a green. There's a video on it on AOPA's
website.

[Jay Somerset]

On Sat, 14 May 2005 21:16:21 -0400, Ron Natalie > wrote:

> Dave Stadt wrote:
> .
> >
> > Anybody know what color the lasers are? I heard red and green which seems
> > terribly confusing. Red means stop, green means go. Not a good combination
> > in my book.
> >
> >
> >
> Two red flashes followed by a green. There's a video on it on AOPA's
> website.
Where? I looked, but couldn't find any obvioous link to it.
--
Jay.
(remove dashes for legal email address)

[Peter Clark]

On Sun, 15 May 2005 22:16:18 -0400, Jay Somerset
> wrote:

>On Sat, 14 May 2005 21:16:21 -0400, Ron Natalie > wrote:
>
>> Dave Stadt wrote:
>> .
>> >
>> > Anybody know what color the lasers are? I heard red and green which seems
>> > terribly confusing. Red means stop, green means go. Not a good combination
>> > in my book.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Two red flashes followed by a green. There's a video on it on AOPA's
>> website.
>Where? I looked, but couldn't find any obvioous link to it.

They have a story about it in the news section.

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050414laser.html is a
direct link to the article which has a click-here for the video.

[Blueskies]

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
>
> They have a story about it in the news section.
>
> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050414laser.html is a
> direct link to the article which has a click-here for the video.
>

What does it look like during the daytime?

[Ron Natalie]

Blueskies wrote:
> "Peter Clark" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>They have a story about it in the news section.
>>
>>http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050414laser.html is a
>>direct link to the article which has a click-here for the video.
>>
>
>
> What does it look like during the daytime?
>
>
About the same...if you dig through the article you'll find a still
shot of the laser during the day (this is what I used to fix it's
position, it's either on the FAA headquarters building downtown or
on the building one block west of it). Next time I'm downtown I'm
going to have to see if I can find it.

---

The XM comedy channel was doing a promo for a DC-area nightclub act
and said "Well if you're in the DC Area and you're not flying a small
plane, come down to...

[John Lakesford]

Let's just look at that issue, revoking the errant pilots license. Let's say
it is revoked for life, or maybe 5 years or so. Let's say this guy doesn't
renew his medical and decides to forgo his BFR.

Add to that maybe he get's arrested tomorrow and subsequently has his
drivers license suspended.

What is to stop this guy from firing up an airplane and flying it about?

I wonder if the FAA/TSA and the SS (Secret Service) have considered this
possibility? It looks like this means that all this tom-foolery about
super-duper drivers licenses and magic photo pilot certificates means
exactly nothing.

When the security people do finally figure this out, you will see the
restrictions from hell. As someone noted here previously, there is nothing
in the Constitution of this country that gives us a "right" to fly about
aimlessly.
"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> William W. Plummer wrote:
>> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>>
>>> I thought they had green lasers to warn airplanes straying into the DC
>>> ADIZ. Are they not operational?
>>>
>> This is the Visual Warning System (VWS). It was discussed in the NASA
>> Safety Newsletter.
>>
>> My own take on it is that if a pilot is not communicating and doesn't
>> know where he is, he isn't likely to see the VWS or know what it means.
>> The CFI should have to redo all his courses and flying, i.e. requalify.
>
> There was no CFI involved. The FAA is peruing revokation of the PRIVATE
> PILOT's certificate.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 16 May 2005 23:56:54 -0700, "John Lakesford"
> wrote in
>::

>As someone noted here previously, there is nothing
>in the Constitution of this country that gives us a "right" to fly about
>aimlessly.

Actually, anything not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is a
right of the people or states.

[Morgans]

"John Lakesford" > wrote

As someone noted here previously, there is nothing
> in the Constitution of this country that gives us a "right" to fly about
> aimlessly.

TROLL ALERT ! ! ! !

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 17 May 2005 18:22:34 -0400, Ron Natalie >
wrote in >::

>Unfortunately, the government takes the commerce clause as justifying
>"delegated to the US."

Given the definition of the word 'commerce":

Main Entry: commerce
Pronunciation:*k*-(*)m*rs
Function:noun
Etymology:Middle French, from Latin commercium, from com- + merc-,
merx merchandise
Date:1537

1 : social intercourse : interchange of ideas, opinions, or
sentiments
2 : the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large
scale involving transportation from place to place
3 : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
synonyms see BUSINESS

How does the government justify such a position in the case of
recreational flyers?

Are you able to provide any information detailing the government's
revoking a citizen's _right_ to fly? Such a right seems to be
confirmed by the this act:



Federal Aviation Act of 1958:

PUBLIC RIGHT OF TRANSIT

Sec. 104 [49 U. S. Code 1304]. There is hereby recognized and
declared to exist in behalf of any citizen of the United States a
public right of freedom of transit through the navigable airspace
of the United States.

Source: Sec. 3, Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938.

Note that Sec. 104 does not grant the right to fly, it simply
recognizes that it exists. None of our rights are granted by the
government, we simply have them. Now, there are certainly rules
to be followed, but those rules don't take away from your rights,
they protect the rights of others.

You have a right to fly, it is not a privilege. If you meet all
the requirements, you cannot be denied an airman's certificate,
you have a right to it.


However, it seems the Law Judge sees it otherwise:

From: "Rick Cremer" >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: Arrrgghhh!! FAA strikes again...
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:02:45 -0500
Message-ID: >

[...]
NTSB Hearing Order EA-4232; Docket SE-13136. Here is [sic] the
pertinent parts of that Law Judge's finding:

The FAA is charged with being sure that it fulfills its mission to
the public and that is keeping the airways and aircraft that use
these airways safe. Flying is a privilege, it is not a right and
all airmen are charged with discharging their duties in a highly
conscientious, responsible and prudent manner and at all times.
[...]

[Ron Natalie]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> How does the government justify such a position in the case of
> recreational flyers?

Because the courts have interpretted to mean any interstate travel
(even personal or recreational). Don't argue with me, I'm just
telling you how it is.

>
> Are you able to provide any information detailing the government's
> revoking a citizen's _right_ to fly? Such a right seems to be
> confirmed by the this act:
>
>

The Federal Aviation Act would be without meaning without the commerce
clause. It couldn't grant any rights or place any restraints without it.

>
> Sec. 104 [49 U. S. Code 1304]. There is hereby recognized and
> declared to exist in behalf of any citizen of the United States a
> public right of freedom of transit through the navigable airspace
> of the United States.

There two key issues here:

1. Right to transit means you can be on a plane through that airspace,
not necessarily that you can pilot it yourself.

2. Navigable airspace doesn't mean all airspace.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 18 May 2005 07:35:16 -0400, Ron Natalie >
wrote in >::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>
>> How does the government justify such a position in the case of
>> recreational flyers?
>
>Because the courts have interpretted [the government's
>Constitutionally granted right to manage interstate commerce] to
>mean any interstate travel (even personal or recreational).
>Don't argue with me, I'm just telling you how it is.

I'm not arguing with you. I'm seeking information from someone who
professes to be familiar with the subject, and am grateful for the
information you provide.

So your understanding is, that the government considers all interstate
travel to be commerce. To me, that seems to contradict the meaning of
the word 'commerce', but I'm not a Judge. Surely, it appears to leave
room for argument at least.

>
>>
>> Are you able to provide any information detailing the government's
>> revoking a citizen's _right_ to fly? Such a right seems to be
>> confirmed by the this act:
>>
>
>The Federal Aviation Act would be without meaning without the commerce
>clause. It couldn't grant any rights or place any restraints without it.

Given, that Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution grants Congress
the power:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes.

I assume that you mean this is where the government's authority over
the skies originates, so the government wouldn't specifically have
Constitutionally granted jurisdiction over the skies unless commerce
were occurring in them? From my point of view, it would seem that the
government has jurisdiction only over those flights that actually
involve commerce, and those recreational flights during which no
business is conducted, would be exempt from Constitutionally derived
governmental jurisdiction.

Of course, 230 years ago the drafters of the Constitution had no idea
that the issue of airborne commerce would ever develop, given that the
tenuous, first balloon flights occurred in 1783. So that document
couldn't logically be interpreted as specifically including air travel
among it's dictates.

>
>>
>> Sec. 104 [49 U. S. Code 1304]. There is hereby recognized and
>> declared to exist in behalf of any citizen of the United States a
>> public right of freedom of transit through the navigable airspace
>> of the United States.
>
>There two key issues here:
>
>1. Right to transit means you can be on a plane through that airspace,
> not necessarily that you can pilot it yourself.

If the government recognizes my right to transit through navigable
airspace without their qualifying the means of said transit, it would
seem that those means are left to my discretion.

>2. Navigable airspace doesn't mean all airspace.

It would be interesting to find the government's official definition
of 'navigable airspace'. I presume they mean any airspace on which
they haven't placed restrictions. But from a strictly logical
interpretation, it would seem that such restrictions are based on
Constitutional authority granting the government the right to regulate
commerce, and if a flight isn't conducting commerce, it would be
exempt from such governmentally imposed restrictions.

While I can appreciate the chaos that might occur as a result of such
an interpretation, it none the less may be a useful basis for someone
who is willing to take the issue of governmentally imposed penalties
resulting from an airspace incursion to the Supreme Court.

Thank you for the information you have provided.

[Klein]

On Wed, 18 May 2005 07:35:16 -0400, Ron Natalie >
wrote:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>
>> How does the government justify such a position in the case of
>> recreational flyers?
>
>Because the courts have interpretted to mean any interstate travel
>(even personal or recreational). Don't argue with me, I'm just
>telling you how it is.
>
>>
>> Are you able to provide any information detailing the government's
>> revoking a citizen's _right_ to fly? Such a right seems to be
>> confirmed by the this act:
>>
>>
>
>The Federal Aviation Act would be without meaning without the commerce
>clause. It couldn't grant any rights or place any restraints without it.
>
>>
>> Sec. 104 [49 U. S. Code 1304]. There is hereby recognized and
>> declared to exist in behalf of any citizen of the United States a
>> public right of freedom of transit through the navigable airspace
>> of the United States.
>
>There two key issues here:
>
>1. Right to transit means you can be on a plane through that airspace,
> not necessarily that you can pilot it yourself.
>
>2. Navigable airspace doesn't mean all airspace.

There is also the interesting detail that Federal jurisdiction over
airspace means that we do not have to secure permission of every
landowner to fly through the airspace over their land. Imagine what a
nighmare that would be!

Klein

[Bob Chilcoat]

The new owner of the "horse farm" that is under the departure end of RW 30
at Somerset Airport and is a common reporting point, firmly believes that he
owns the airspace above his farm. He has been harrassing the airport for
over a year, sending faxes and calling with tail numbers when he can, any
time someone flies "low" over his house. For a while he had "NO FLY"
painted on the roof of the house. More seriously, he recently got elected
to the Bedminster Town Council, and has been organizing the airport
neighbors against the airport. A lunatic, but a dangerous one.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Klein" > wrote in message
...
<snip>
>
> There is also the interesting detail that Federal jurisdiction over
> airspace means that we do not have to secure permission of every
> landowner to fly through the airspace over their land. Imagine what a
> nighmare that would be!
>
> Klein
>

[george]

Morgans wrote:
> "John Lakesford" > wrote
>
> As someone noted here previously, there is nothing
> > in the Constitution of this country that gives us a "right" to fly
about
> > aimlessly.
>
> TROLL ALERT ! ! ! !

I want to see them stop birds or insects flying in 'closed airspace.
ROTFL