New Prohibited Area

[Antoñio]

Northwest flyers might want to look at this AOPA article that announces
the establishment of new Prohibited area over the Bangor sub base in
Washington state. Currently it's a TFR...

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050525wa.html

What do you all think of this?

Antonio

[JohnH]

> What do you all think of this?

I think it's great the current administration is encouraging the removal of
these irrational obstructions to liberty.

oh, wait...

[Matt Barrow]

"JohnH" > wrote in message
...
> > What do you all think of this?
>
> I think it's great the current administration is encouraging the removal
of
> these irrational obstructions to liberty.
>
> oh, wait...
>

Yeah, how could we have liberty with the right to buzz around nuclear sub
bases?

[Larry Dighera]

On 27 May 2005 07:14:39 -0700, "Antoñio"
> wrote in
. com>::

>
>What do you all think of this?

I feel safer already. :-)

[turbo]

> Northwest flyers might want to look at this AOPA article that announces
> the establishment of new Prohibited area over the Bangor sub base in
> Washington state. Currently it's a TFR...
>
> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050525wa.html
>
> What do you all think of this?

I don't find it unreasonable at all to restrict airspace around a submarine
base, especially if it only extends to 2500 MSL. We should all try not to
make the current situation any worse by keeping our head screwed on straight
and staying out of the restricted areas.

[Peter Duniho]

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050525wa.html
>
> What do you all think of this?

Just read my comments to the NPRM.

Suffice to say, the new prohibited area is stupid. Anyone who thinks
there's any point at all to it is a moron (just learned that word
today...sure is great!). It doesn't protect the sub base from anything, and
serves only to interfere with air navigation in the area.

Pete

[Matt Whiting]

Antoñio wrote:

> Northwest flyers might want to look at this AOPA article that announces
> the establishment of new Prohibited area over the Bangor sub base in
> Washington state. Currently it's a TFR...
>
> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050525wa.html
>
> What do you all think of this?
>
> Antonio
>

It makes me a much bigger supporter of the committee's recommendation to
close a lot more military bases. If they don't exist, they can't have a
prohibited area. What a stupid decision...


Matt

[John Galban]

turbo wrote:
>
> I don't find it unreasonable at all to restrict airspace around a submarine
> base, especially if it only extends to 2500 MSL. We should all try not to
> make the current situation any worse by keeping our head screwed on straight
> and staying out of the restricted areas.

Just out of curiosity, can you explain why you don't think it's
unreasonable? Does this additional restriction on airspace do
anything whatsoever to protect the submarine base? Restricted airspace
for no logical purpose does not strike me as being in any way
reasonable.

I agree with you that we should make more of an effort to stay clear
of restricted airspace, but I don't agree that we should accept these
ridiculous restrictions without question. I am not a sheep.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[gatt]

"turbo" > wrote in message news:izHle.10122$

> I don't find it unreasonable at all to restrict airspace around a
submarine
> base, especially if it only extends to 2500 MSL.


WHAT?! The government doesn't want people buzzing our nuclear submarine
fleet or the missile-loading facilities?

Outrageous.

I'm curious what the GA population thinks of the friggin' HUGE closure of
the Nevada Test Site. I mean, how could they do such a thing to taxpayers,
not letting us fly over Area 51 and stuff? Sheesh.

;>

-c

[gatt]

"John Galban" > wrote in message

>Restricted airspace for no logical purpose

Nuclear submarines, nuclear warheads.

> I am not a sheep.

Try flying into the Nevada Test Site sometime.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"gatt" > writes:

> "John Galban" > wrote in message
>
>>Restricted airspace for no logical purpose
>
> Nuclear submarines, nuclear warheads.

Yes, but during the actual Cold War, was there restricted airspace
there? Do you feel there should have been?

How do you feel that restricted airspace there will protect the
submarines and warheads? What things will be made more dificult that
matter?
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[bill hunter]

I am sure glad that those Cessna 150s won't be harming those hardened sub
pens that were designed to survive an indirect hit from a ruski nuclear
warhead. If a terrorist crashes in to the pen, I am sure the FAA will be
right there to quickly take away his pilots license, and then He won't be
able to crash into sub pens ever again, without first flying without a
license.

This restriction is the price we pay for added security, or at least the
appearance of added security. It is just like the added sense of security we
get when we restrict small airplanes from flying around nuclear plants. I
for one stay up late at night worrying about aluminum framed aircraft
carrying tens of gallons of gasoline crashing through the ten foot thick
reinforced concrete walls of a nuclear reactor. I know the engineers
designed them to withstand a direct hit from a 747, but I don't know if the
engineers considered the insidious effects of a skyhawk or Cherokee
screaming in at 120 knots.

I am have no problem letting the government search my medical records and
library records. I am sure that there are certain medical conditions that
only afflict terrorists. Maybe the government knows that all the people with
gout are really Islamic terrorists. Maybe the terrorists do all their
research for their terrorist plots by reading the books in the non-fiction
section of your local library.

These are the sacrifices we all will have to make to live in the post 9/11
world. We are all going to have to learn to give up some our personal
freedoms and liberties for the impression of a safer world.


"turbo" > wrote in message
...
>> Northwest flyers might want to look at this AOPA article that announces
>> the establishment of new Prohibited area over the Bangor sub base in
>> Washington state. Currently it's a TFR...
>>
>> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050525wa.html
>>
>> What do you all think of this?
>
> I don't find it unreasonable at all to restrict airspace around a
> submarine
> base, especially if it only extends to 2500 MSL. We should all try not to
> make the current situation any worse by keeping our head screwed on
> straight
> and staying out of the restricted areas.
>
>

[Matt Whiting]

gatt wrote:
> "John Galban" > wrote in message
>
>
>>Restricted airspace for no logical purpose
>
>
> Nuclear submarines, nuclear warheads.

If our nuke subs can't withstand an attack by a C150, then I don't have
much confidence in their ability to protect our country! :-)


Matt

[John Galban]

gatt wrote:
> "John Galban" > wrote in message
>
> >Restricted airspace for no logical purpose
>
> Nuclear submarines, nuclear warheads.
>

And how exactly does having a small circle of airspace that only goes
to 2,500 MSL protect these nuclear submarines and warheads?

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 28 May 2005 00:21:32 GMT, "bill hunter" >
wrote in >::

>These are the sacrifices we all will have to make to live in the post 9/11
>world. We are all going to have to learn to give up some our personal
>freedoms and liberties for the impression of a safer world.

The situation is becoming a bit Orwellian. George got it right; he
was just 20 years premature.

[Skywise]

"bill hunter" > wrote in
:

<Snipola of excellent piece of sarcasm>

As Benjamin Franklin said...

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

(Or something close to that.)

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Home of the Seismic FAQ
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Matt Barrow]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> "bill hunter" > wrote in
> :
>
> <Snipola of excellent piece of sarcasm>
>
> As Benjamin Franklin said...
>
> "He that would give up essential liberty for a little
> security deserve neither liberty nor security."
>
> (Or something close to that.)

He also said, in the same paragraph, "The only way to preserve liberty is to
never be secure.", (meaning: complacent. just as the US was pre 9/11.)



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

[Skywise]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in
:

>
> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "bill hunter" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> <Snipola of excellent piece of sarcasm>
>>
>> As Benjamin Franklin said...
>>
>> "He that would give up essential liberty for a little
>> security deserve neither liberty nor security."
>>
>> (Or something close to that.)
>
> He also said, in the same paragraph, "The only way to preserve liberty
> is to never be secure.", (meaning: complacent. just as the US was pre
> 9/11.)

Thank you for that. I need to brush up on my Franklin quotes.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Home of the Seismic FAQ
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[george]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Anto=F1io wrote:
>
> > Northwest flyers might want to look at this AOPA article that announces
> > the establishment of new Prohibited area over the Bangor sub base in
> > Washington state. Currently it's a TFR...
> >
> > http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050525wa.html
> >
> > What do you all think of this?
> >
> > Antonio
> >
>
> It makes me a much bigger supporter of the committee's recommendation to
> close a lot more military bases. If they don't exist, they can't have a
> prohibited area. What a stupid decision...
>
Give them a chance. They can come up with even more stupidity given
time.
Wait ubtil they shut down all US airspace to GA
> Matt

[RST Engineering]

You idiots that don't top post or quote hundreds of lines of text understand
that you are simply wasting bandwidth, don't you?

Jim


"george" > wrote in message
oups.com...


Matt Whiting wrote:
> Antoñio wrote:
> Matt

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"RST Engineering" > wrote:

> You idiots that don't top post or quote hundreds of lines of text understand
> that you are simply wasting bandwidth, don't you?

People are now idiots if they don't top post?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Matt Barrow > posted:

> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "bill hunter" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> <Snipola of excellent piece of sarcasm>
>>
>> As Benjamin Franklin said...
>>
>> "He that would give up essential liberty for a little
>> security deserve neither liberty nor security."
>>
>> (Or something close to that.)
>
> He also said, in the same paragraph, "The only way to preserve
> liberty is to never be secure.", (meaning: complacent. just as the US
> was pre 9/11.)
>
I disagree with your interpretation that "never be secure" means
"complacent". It could be just the opposite, to mean "responsibly
vigilant", or "know what's going on around you". It's not necessary to
impose on our freedoms to achieve this state of mind.

Neil

[Matt Whiting]

RST Engineering wrote:

> You idiots that don't top post or quote hundreds of lines of text understand
> that you are simply wasting bandwidth, don't you?
>
> Jim
>
>
> "george" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>Antoñio wrote:
>>Matt

The post I replied to, including my reply, was a grand total of 20 lines
long. I don't even need to scroll my screen to read it all. What is
your problem, Jim?

Matt

[Matt Barrow]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> Recently, Matt Barrow > posted:
>
> > "Skywise" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "bill hunter" > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >> <Snipola of excellent piece of sarcasm>
> >>
> >> As Benjamin Franklin said...
> >>
> >> "He that would give up essential liberty for a little
> >> security deserve neither liberty nor security."
> >>
> >> (Or something close to that.)
> >
> > He also said, in the same paragraph, "The only way to preserve
> > liberty is to never be secure.", (meaning: complacent. just as the US
> > was pre 9/11.)
> >
> I disagree with your interpretation that "never be secure" means
> "complacent". It could be just the opposite, to mean "responsibly
> vigilant", or "know what's going on around you". It's not necessary to
> impose on our freedoms to achieve this state of mind.
>

Think: security blanket.

[Dave S]

John Galban wrote:

> And how exactly does having a small circle of airspace that only goes
> to 2,500 MSL protect these nuclear submarines and warheads?
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)


By giving the on-site defense forces an area where they are authorized
to use deadly force, with or without the use of a warning shot.

Who is to say there isnt going to be CIWS on a pedestal out there that
is LIVE.. I would hate to be on the recieving end of a volley from one
of them.

Dave

[Matt Whiting]

RST Engineering wrote:

> You idiots that don't top post or quote hundreds of lines of text understand
> that you are simply wasting bandwidth, don't you?

Who is the idiot?

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html

http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

[Montblack]

("Bob Noel" wrote)
>> You idiots that don't top post or quote hundreds of lines of text
>> understand that you are simply wasting bandwidth, don't you?

> People are now idiots if they don't top post?


I thought there was a two post moratorium around here before one invokes the
"i" word. <g>


Montblack

[Montblack]

("RST Engineering" wrote)
> You idiots that don't top post or quote hundreds of lines of text
> understand that you are simply wasting bandwidth, don't you?


I LIKE TOP POSTING as well, because that's where my screen sends me for each
post - to the top. Small quotes above the new post are OK, so long as I can
see part of the fresh post on my screen without having to scroll for it.

However ....people seem to prefer bottom posting, so I bottom post - don't
like it, but I do it. It is my suspicion that top posting fans are the
silent majority :-)

I hope we can all agree that people need to TRIM THEIR POSTS!!!
(It's to the point that if it happens - great!! If not - oh well)

Isn't June National Top Posting Month at rec.aviation?
If not, it should be. It's only 1 month out of 12 ....for now. <g>


Montblack

[Peter Duniho]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> > And how exactly does having a small circle of airspace that only goes
>> to 2,500 MSL protect these nuclear submarines and warheads?
>
> By giving the on-site defense forces an area where they are authorized to
> use deadly force, with or without the use of a warning shot.

A prohibited area does no such thing.

Even assuming deadly force was available, this particular prohibited area
isn't large enough to afford the theoretical deadly force to be engaged in
time to "protect" against an airplane.

Pete

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Montblack" > wrote:

> I hope we can all agree that people need to TRIM THEIR POSTS!!!

shack

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Matt Whiting]

Montblack wrote:

> I hope we can all agree that people need to TRIM THEIR POSTS!!!
> (It's to the point that if it happens - great!! If not - oh well)

I agree that long posts should be trimmed, however, the post the jumping
Jim was complaining about wasn't even a full page long! It was 20 lines
by my count. Hardly worth the time to type a complaint.


Matt

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 28 May 2005 15:10:51 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote in >::

>RST Engineering wrote:
>
>> You idiots that don't top post or quote hundreds of lines of text understand
>> that you are simply wasting bandwidth, don't you?
>
>Who is the idiot?
>
>http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html
>
>http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html


Hey, Mr. Wier is too lazy to roll the wheel on his mouse. Why should
he give a damn if top posting makes followup articles impossible to
follow? Chronology is only important to authors who have
consideration for their readers. :-)

[Dave S]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Dave S" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>> > And how exactly does having a small circle of airspace that only goes
>>
>>>to 2,500 MSL protect these nuclear submarines and warheads?
>>
>>By giving the on-site defense forces an area where they are authorized to
>>use deadly force, with or without the use of a warning shot.
>
>
> A prohibited area does no such thing.

No, the national command authority does, by either direct or standing
orders. The prohibited area designates an area where friendies should
not enter without proper identification and permission. The controlling
agency (or their superiors, all the way up to the NCA) determine what
response is appropriate response to a threat.

>
> Even assuming deadly force was available, this particular prohibited area
> isn't large enough to afford the theoretical deadly force to be engaged in
> time to "protect" against an airplane.
>
> Pete
>
>

Do you know what a CIWS (Close In Weapons System) is? Its a radar
controlled Gatling gun. It is used as a "last ditch ship defense weapon"
and its range is intended for that one to two mile area.. and under
several thousand feet. Radar controlled. If its set to "live" it does
the job automatically. Who is to say there isn't one on a sub tender,
and this is the airspace restriction that they need to

Dave

[Peter Duniho]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> No, the national command authority does, by either direct or standing
> orders.

As far as I know, there is no such order for Bangor. But whether there is
or not, the Prohibited Area doesn't create that; the order would.

> [...] Who is to say there isn't one on a sub tender, and this is the
> airspace restriction that they need to

Well, for one, the fact that no such defense has been described. The
Prohibited Area is described as protecting the sub base, not as protecting
aircraft that might fly close enough to be shot down.

In any case, the sub base is not at risk, and needs no such defense. To
even hint at the potential for killing unarmed, innocent civilians would be
ludicrous.

Pete

[george]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> "RST Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > You idiots that don't top post or quote hundreds of lines of text understand
> > that you are simply wasting bandwidth, don't you?
>
> People are now idiots if they don't top post?
>
It would appear that RST Engineering has problems.
Although I can see why with a 64k modem and a 386 he is unimpressed

[John Larson]

I agree.

I have flown by the base numerous times, I just hug the mountain range to
the North, and if someone were to decide to overfly the base it's barely 5
N. miles and would take just about no time.
"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Dave S" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>> > And how exactly does having a small circle of airspace that only
>> goes
>>> to 2,500 MSL protect these nuclear submarines and warheads?
>>
>> By giving the on-site defense forces an area where they are authorized to
>> use deadly force, with or without the use of a warning shot.
>
> A prohibited area does no such thing.
>
> Even assuming deadly force was available, this particular prohibited area
> isn't large enough to afford the theoretical deadly force to be engaged in
> time to "protect" against an airplane.
>
> Pete
>