Security in the USA

[Cockpit Colin]

I'm curious ...

What do you folks in the USA think the answer to the big "question" is, when
it comes to things like security of the whitehouse?

What's best ...

(a) Increase the radius of the no-fly zones to give greater protection
against faster aircraft?

(b) Leave things the way thay are now and "hope for the best"?

(c) Something else?

Seriously, we've all read many compelling arguments as to how and why the
existing procedures don't work, and tend to "drag down" GA - what I'm
interested in hearing though is not what DOESN'T work, but what DOES.

Any ideas?

Cheers,

CC

[Mike W.]

The system is restrictive, but it does work if you are doing what you are
supposed to. File a flight plan (and follow it), talk with ATC, have good
situational awareness, stay clear of TFR's and restricted airspace, etc.
These are all things a private pilot is supposed to know in order to get his
certificate. Whether or not they choose to put it into practice is another
story.

--
Hello, my name is Mike, and I am an airplane addict....

"Cockpit Colin" > wrote in message
...
> I'm curious ...

> Seriously, we've all read many compelling arguments as to how and why the
> existing procedures don't work, and tend to "drag down" GA - what I'm
> interested in hearing though is not what DOESN'T work, but what DOES.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Cheers,
>
> CC
>

[Jose]

> What's best ...
>
> (a) Increase the radius of the no-fly zones to give greater protection
> against faster aircraft?
>
> (b) Leave things the way thay are now and "hope for the best"?
>
> (c) Something else?

(c) Something else. Get rid of the FRZ and the ADIZ around DC.

Now, what is the "problem" we are attempting to solve?

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

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > What's best ...
> >
> > (a) Increase the radius of the no-fly zones to give greater protection
> > against faster aircraft?
> >
> > (b) Leave things the way thay are now and "hope for the best"?
> >
> > (c) Something else?
>
> (c) Something else. Get rid of the FRZ and the ADIZ around DC.
>
> Now, what is the "problem" we are attempting to solve?
>
> Jose


Make the Secret Service answerable to Congress.

Fire the "Chicken Littles" who came up with the FRZ.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[George Patterson]

Cockpit Colin wrote:
>
> What do you folks in the USA think the answer to the big "question" is, when
> it comes to things like security of the whitehouse?

Get rid of the ADIZ and re-establish the VFR corridor. You can't violate an ADIZ
that isn't there.

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'.

[Mike W.]

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
>
> Make the Secret Service answerable to Congress.
>
> Fire the "Chicken Littles" who came up with the FRZ.
>
That would be ideal, but realistically we should shoot for...

1) Hope that TFR's and other special restricted airspaces go away.

2) Hope that dumb-ass pilots stop busting aforesaid airspaces so as not to
create even more unnecessary media frenzy about deadly little planes.

[Cecil Chapman]

> 2) Hope that dumb-ass pilots stop busting aforesaid airspaces so as not to
> create even more unnecessary media frenzy about deadly little planes.

a BIG 'AMEN' to that one! :0)

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

[Mike W.]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:X0Ahe.1644$KQ6.82@trndny02...

> Get rid of the ADIZ and re-establish the VFR corridor. You can't violate
an ADIZ
> that isn't there.
>
> 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'.

That's a pretty good idea. Have a legal, safe path thru the DC area. Of
course, there would always be some butt-head that can't stay within that,
either, but it's better.

--
Hello, my name is Mike, and I am an airplane addict....

[Icebound]

"Mike W." > wrote in message
...
>
....
> 2) Hope that dumb-ass pilots stop busting aforesaid airspaces so as not to
> create even more unnecessary media frenzy about deadly little planes.
>
>

Actually, the way media seems to work, the more such intrusions occur
without anyone getting seriously hurt, the more the media (and the public)
will get tired of them and will go away. They will go off to look for blood
in more-likely places, such as a good high-speed-chase on the freeway.

[john smith]

I am simply amazed that we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars
to protect people we vote out of office every four to six years because
of their incompetence.

[SolarSapien]

ALL AIRCRAFT WITHIN 60 MILES of DC SHOULD BE SQUAWKING AND
TRACKED, surface to 50,000 feet

The fact that a 150 (Student pilot and Instructor)

Could have been... (2 Arabs looking for 72 virgins with
plastic explosives and Uranium isotope) is scary

TSA (Thousands Standing Around) is a joke

FAA (Still worrying more about promoting unqualified black
females and Gay pride month than air safety) is a joke

Homeland Security is nothing but a bloated "Guvment" empire

Militarize the airspace around sensitive areas (DC New York
and others) and get the FAA out of the business of social
engineering (Promoting woman and blacks) and put them back
on their primary job of Air safety

The chaos in DC with thousands of Government employees
rushing on to the streets and looking up with the
possibility of a F16 blasting a 150 or 172 out of the air
full of radioactive debris was just F&^% Stupid. Imagine if
the F16 did shoot down the 150?? Where is it going to land??
What if it was full of a dirty bomb???? Shooting it down
would be worse than letting it crash.

STUPID STUPID STUPID way of handling the situation

This time we got lucky. I am sure the ragheads are laughing
at our total buffoon handling of the situation last week

What a joke


Cockpit Colin wrote:
> I'm curious ...
>
> What do you folks in the USA think the answer to the big "question" is, when
> it comes to things like security of the whitehouse?
>
> What's best ...
>
> (a) Increase the radius of the no-fly zones to give greater protection
> against faster aircraft?
>
> (b) Leave things the way thay are now and "hope for the best"?
>
> (c) Something else?
>
> Seriously, we've all read many compelling arguments as to how and why the
> existing procedures don't work, and tend to "drag down" GA - what I'm
> interested in hearing though is not what DOESN'T work, but what DOES.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Cheers,
>
> CC
>
>

[Hank Rausch]

I would vote for (a), modified, as follows:

Even though as a pilot in the DC area, I am as inconvenienced and
frustrated by the ADIZ as everyone else, I can understand its
rationale--a buffer zone to qualify/charcterize traffic around the DC
area. But the last incursion brought to light 2 flaws:

(1) It barely worked for a C-150 doing 95 mph-- I mean, they were at 3
miles from the White House before the shooters were in place with
launch authorization--many previous posts to this newsgroup have
highlighted the fact that a faster platform could have been on target
well before a response could have been brought to bear

(2) it responds best to platforms that pose the least threat--lost
light singles with crappy navigation/comms--kind of like the all the
news stories of the TSA beating up on old ladies with tweezers and
sewing pins and letting the guns through

If the ADIZ is going to really protect us then it has to expanded for
faster aircraft, in other words a "time on target" envelope rather than
a fixed radius for all aircraft. Light planes would have an ADIZ at
the current radius; faster ones at an expanded envelope.

In order to implement this, some means of characterization needs to be
in place to enforce it. I think current sensor technology allows this.
As a submarine driver during the cold war, I used a combination of
electromagnetic, infrared, and acoustic sensors that (I think) could
accomplish this--ID the target at point of incursion. To get an idea:

The acoustic sensors could tell you not only that the plane was a
C-150, but that the #3 cylinder was not going to make it to TBO

The infrared sensors would allow you to see the structural girders of
the aircraft internally, because they are at a slightly different
temperature than the skin

The EM sensors were truly magic, without going into a lot of detail
they would provide you with every possible bit of information about an
emitter, down to its place of manufacture

As it stands now the ADIZ is like a lot of the "feel good, look good,
not really do anything" meausures post-911. Like the non-Title 10
National Guardsmen standing around airports immediately
afterwards--pure eye candy.

Hank Rausch

[Margy]

Hank Rausch wrote:
>
> As it stands now the ADIZ is like a lot of the "feel good, look good,
> not really do anything" meausures post-911. Like the non-Title 10
> National Guardsmen standing around airports immediately
> afterwards--pure eye candy.
>
> Hank Rausch
>

Even if you expanded the ADIZ to 500 miles from DC it would still be
"eye candy". What is to prevent Mr. Bad Guy from filing an ADIZ flight
plan or even an IFR flight plan? That would put Mr. Bad Guy 15 miles
from any target in DC. Now in a 150 that might still take some time,
but in something fast, it wouldn't take any time at all.

Margy

[Wade]

Hank Rausch wrote:
> I would vote for (a), modified, as follows:
<snip>
> ... Light planes would have an ADIZ at
> the current radius; faster ones at an expanded envelope.
>
> In order to implement this, some means of characterization needs to be
> in place to enforce it. I think current sensor technology allows this.
<snip>

What if, instead of just 4096 squawk codes, there was
a way to allow each airplane to have it's own unique code?
If that code were registered at the FAA along with the N number,
then a radar return would allow automated lookup of aircraft type.

I know TWO mode C transponders per aircraft wouldn't exactly work,
but something along those lines?
--wade

[Garner Miller]

In article >, Wade
> wrote:

> What if, instead of just 4096 squawk codes, there was
> a way to allow each airplane to have it's own unique code?
> If that code were registered at the FAA along with the N number,
> then a radar return would allow automated lookup of aircraft type.

It's called Mode S, and it's been around for 25 years. It's in every
TCAS-equipped airplane out there, at a minimum.

But they're 5 times the price of the Mode C transponder, meaning it's
unlikely folks are going to install them unless the FARs mandate it.

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Clifton Park, NY =USA=

[George Patterson]

Wade wrote:
>
> What if, instead of just 4096 squawk codes, there was
> a way to allow each airplane to have it's own unique code?

You mean like a Mode-S transponder?

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'.

[Montblack]

("john smith" wrote)
>I am simply amazed that we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to
>protect people we vote out of office every four to six years because of
>their incompetence.


In one of the last elections (1998) the re-election number for members of
Congress was something like 98%.

(Found it)
http://www.thisnation.com/question/016.html


Montblack

[Matt Barrow]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("john smith" wrote)
> >I am simply amazed that we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars
to
> >protect people we vote out of office every four to six years because of
> >their incompetence.
>
>
> In one of the last elections (1998) the re-election number for members of
> Congress was something like 98%.
>
> (Found it)
> http://www.thisnation.com/question/016.html
>
>
It's been that way since the 1940's.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Montblack" > wrote in message
> ...
>> ("john smith" wrote)
>> >I am simply amazed that we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars
> to
>> >protect people we vote out of office every four to six years because of
>> >their incompetence.
>>
>>
>> In one of the last elections (1998) the re-election number for members of
>> Congress was something like 98%.
>>
>> (Found it)
>> http://www.thisnation.com/question/016.html
>>
>>
> It's been that way since the 1940's.
>
>
>

Everybody thinks Congress is doing a lousy job. The same everybody thinks
that there congress criters hung the moon.

[Jay Masino]

>> In one of the last elections (1998) the re-election number for members of
>> Congress was something like 98%.
>>
> It's been that way since the 1940's.

Most people are sheep.



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

[Matt Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:_S3ie.3089$DC2.2593@okepread01...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> >>
> >> In one of the last elections (1998) the re-election number for members
of
> >> Congress was something like 98%.
> >>
> >> (Found it)
> >> http://www.thisnation.com/question/016.html
> >>
> >>
> > It's been that way since the 1940's.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Everybody thinks Congress is doing a lousy job. The same everybody thinks
> that there congress criters hung the moon.

It's all cyclical. Every one thinks government should cut funding for all
the "pet projects" except THEIR "pet projects".


Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Masino" > wrote in message
...
> >> In one of the last elections (1998) the re-election number for members
of
> >> Congress was something like 98%.
> >>
> > It's been that way since the 1940's.
>
> Most people are sheep.
>
And as I mentioned in my other post:

[It's all cyclical. Every one thinks government should cut funding for all
the "pet projects" except THEIR "pet projects".]

[Blueskies]

"Mike W." > wrote in message ...
>
>
> 2) Hope that dumb-ass pilots stop busting aforesaid airspaces so as not to
> create even more unnecessary media frenzy about deadly little planes.
>

Surprising little 'frenzy' about this matter, pretty much closed as far as the mainstream media goes....

[Blueskies]

"Cockpit Colin" > wrote in message ...
> I'm curious ...
>
> What do you folks in the USA think the answer to the big "question" is, when
> it comes to things like security of the whitehouse?
>
> What's best ...
>
> (a) Increase the radius of the no-fly zones to give greater protection
> against faster aircraft?
>
> (b) Leave things the way thay are now and "hope for the best"?
>
> (c) Something else?
>
> Seriously, we've all read many compelling arguments as to how and why the
> existing procedures don't work, and tend to "drag down" GA - what I'm
> interested in hearing though is not what DOESN'T work, but what DOES.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Cheers,
>
> CC
>

Move the White House to the middle of Wyoming?