PDA

View Full Version : Airmens' Freedoms Threatened by Harsh Congressional Proposals


Larry Dighera
July 15th 05, 03:17 PM
Airmens' Freedoms Threatened by Harsh Congressional Proposals

As many predicted, the knee jerk congressional response to recent anti
GA news media stories threatens airmens' freedoms. Outrageously
unjust in their ill conceived penalty proposals, new legislative bills
reflect the current administration's siege mentality.



-------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Volume 7, Issue 28 July 15, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------

TOUGH GA SECURITY LEGISLATION BEGINS TO SURFACE IN CONGRESS
The media hype following four recent airspace incursions over
Washington, D.C., and Camp David, Maryland, and two aircraft
thefts by unlicensed young people didn't help general aviation's
image in some lawmakers' minds. After suffering through repeated
evacuations, lawmakers are responding with some potentially
threatening legislation. The most severe amendment, offered by New
Mexico Sens. Pete Domenici (R) and Jeff Bingaman (D), calls for a
$100,000 fine, confiscation of the aircraft, and a five-year loss
of flying privileges for "whoever negligently flies an aircraft in
a manner that violates the [700 square mile area] Washington,
D.C., Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ) and causes
the evacuation of a federal building or any other public
property...." AOPA is already talking with Domenici's office. "The
proposed penalty is extraordinarily harsh--too harsh in fact--but
it's clear that members of Congress want to get every pilot's
attention that they will not accept any more excuses for these
transgressions," said AOPA President Phil Boyer.

A true statesman would have also included penalties imposed on ATC
personnel if they should be found to have caused an unauthorized
penetration of the FRZ, as well as have considered a pilot's emergency
authority.

Another amendment from Sens. Hillary R. Clinton (D-N.Y.) and
Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), calls for a government study of general
aviation security, including "the vulnerability posed to high-risk
areas and facilities from general aviation aircraft that could be
stolen or used as a weapon or armed with a weapon." Meanwhile, a
bill that would impose a $10,000 to $100,000 fine and a two- to
five-year certificate suspension is being contemplated in the
House. "We will continue to work on Capitol Hill to try to dial
these measures back down to 'more reasonable,'" Boyer added. "And
when you think about it, with F-16s and Patriot missile batteries
stationed around the area that are ready to inflict the ultimate
penalty on an errant pilot, what more deterrent could and should
there be?

We've got to find a way to get some GA sympathetic press coverage to
counter the nation's hysterical scapegoating of GA.

The actions of a few bad apples are spoiling it for all the rest."

Above, Boyer turns airman against airman. Disappointing.

"Do your part to diminish the media mania about every small
airplane and small airport being a terrorist threat. If we all
don’t participate in this clear and present problem, we might not
like the national and local solutions that will be handed to us."
Download Boyer's latest editorial, "
( http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2005/pp0508.pdf ).

I doubt journalists can be found who will tell the public that GA is
no threat to them. That won't sell newspapers.



http://66.218.71.225/search/cache?p=%22Pete+Domenici%22+tsa+dc+evacuation&ei=UTF-8&n=10&fl=0&u=us-aviator.com/PlainPage.cfm&w=%22pete+domenici%22+tsa+dc+evacuation&d=C77BC38527&icp=1&.intl=us
Wed, Jul 13 2005
Aero-News Alert: Senators Declaring War On GA
...
Two amendments to the Department of Homeland Security
appropriations bill* were filed this week in the U.S. Senate.

...

The second amendment, nearly as distressing, comes from Senators
Hillary R. Clinton (D-NY-Pictured, Above) and Richard Durbin
(D-IL-Pictured, Below). calls for a government study of general
aviation security, including "the vulnerability posed to high-risk
areas and facilities from general aviation aircraft that could be
stolen or used as a weapon or armed with a weapon."

The study would also include GA airport security, technology that
could easily track GA aircraft, disabling measures that could
prevent aircraft theft, and "an assessment of the threat posed to
high population arrears, nuclear facilities, key infrastructure,
military bases, and transportation infrastructure that stolen or
hijacked general aviation aircraft pose, especially if armed with
weapons or explosives."

*
http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=471&Month=5&Year=2005
Requires DHS to implement a security plan to permit general aviation
aircraft to land and take off at Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport within 90 days of enactment of this Act;


http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Legislations.Detail&Legislation_id=190&OrderBy=BillNumber&OrderSort=ASC
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Number: H.R.2360
Date Introduced: 05/13/05

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:29:./temp/~bdDPJX::
S.AMDT.1106
SEC. 519. (a) Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation, shall assess and report in writing to the
Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Homeland Security and
Government Affairs, and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate on the following:

(1) The vulnerability posed to high risk areas and facilities from
general aviation aircraft that could be stolen or used as a weapon or
armed with a weapon.

(2) The security vulnerabilities existing at general aviation
airports that would permit general aviation aircraft to be stolen.

(3) Low-cost, high-performance technology that could be used to
easily track general aviation aircraft that could otherwise fly
undetected.

(4) The feasibility of implementing security measures that would
disable general aviation aircraft while on the ground and parked to
prevent theft.

(5) The feasibility of performing requisite background checks on
individuals working at general aviation airports that have access to
aircraft or flight line activities.

(6) An assessment of the threat posed to high population areas,
nuclear facilities, key infrastructure, military bases, and
transportation infrastructure that stolen or hijacked general aviation
aircraft pose especially if armed with weapons or explosives.

(7) An assessment of existing security precautions in place at
general aviation airports to prevent breaches of the flight line and
perimeter.

(8) An assessment of whether unmanned air traffic control towers
provide a security or alert weakness to the security of general
aviation aircraft.

(9) An assessment of the additional measures that should be
adopted to ensure the security of general aviation aircraft.

(b) The report required by subsection (a) shall include cost
estimates associated with implementing each of the measures
recommended in the report.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask that Senators LAUTENBERG, CORZINE,
and SCHUMER be added as cosponsors of this amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, this is a commonsense amendment
regarding the potential threat that all of our cities and States face
from the theft or misuse of general aviation aircraft by criminals or
terrorists.

This amendment would require the Secretary of Homeland Security, in
coordination with the Secretary of Transportation, to assess the
dangers posed to high-risk, large population, and critical
infrastructure areas should general aviation aircraft be stolen and
used as a weapon by a criminal or terrorist.

[Page: S8183] GPO's PDF
This study would require the two Secretaries to assess the
vulnerability of general aviation airports and aircraft and study what
low-cost, high-technology devices could be available to better track
general aviation aircraft.

Last month, a 20-year-old young man, while intoxicated and
accompanied by two other individuals, breached a perimeter fence of an
airport in Danbury, CT. He and his companions stole a small Cessna 172
aircraft, departed from the airport without detection, flew across the
eastern border of New York, and eventually, thankfully, landed without
incident at the Westchester County Airport in New York very near to my
home.

What is alarming about this is that this happened, and it happened
without detection. So far as we know, no one knew the aircraft had
been stolen or that the joyride was taking place. This incident
occurred very close to New York City, very close to Indian Point, the
nuclear facility in the county. Thankfully, this particular incident
ended without any damage, destruction, or death, and the individuals
were eventually detained by law enforcement.

Following the incident, which, as you might imagine, happening so
close to New York City involving stolen aircraft raised a great deal
of concern among my constituents, I wrote to Secretary Chertoff and
Secretary Mineta asking for an investigation into this incident, and I
hope to hear back from them both soon. But this incident should be a
forewarning of the types of threats we still face from aircraft. We
have been very focused on the big commercial aircraft that many of us
use on a regular basis, but we cannot forget that most aircraft are in
private hands in local airports, many of them privately owned or
privately leased, and that they still pose a potential danger to key
infrastructure, to populated areas, and we need to be more aware of
what that threat could be.

The 9/11 Commission, which looked at this, concluded:


Major vulnerabilities still exist in cargo and general aviation
security. These, together with inadequate screening and access
controls, continue to present aviation security challenges.


In addition, the 9/11 Commission told us that we needed to be
imaginative, we needed to think outside the box. Unfortunately, we
needed to think like those who wish us harm about what the new and
emerging threats could be.

The Transportation Security Administration, known as TSA, issued
security guidelines for general aviation airports in May of 2004, and
they outlined some guidelines that general aviation airports should
follow in order to secure the aircraft and the airfield.

There are more than 19,000 landing facilities nationwide, including
heliports, lakes, and dirt landing strips from which aircraft could be
launched and more than 200,000 general aviation aircraft in our
country.

Of course, it is impossible to avoid every threat that is posed to
the public or that we can imagine, but we should be vigilant to make
sure we have a partnership so that local communities, private
individuals, and private businesses can all take necessary steps to be
vigilant and protective.

My amendment requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, in
coordination with the Secretary of Transportation, to conduct a threat
assessment posed by security breaches at general aviation airports and
to look at the potential impact such threats could pose to a number of
potential targets if an aircraft were used as weapon or were loaded
with explosives by terrorists.

The Department of Homeland Security would assess low-cost
technologies to track general aviation aircraft, the feasibility of
implementing additional security measures and background checks, an
analysis of airports with unmanned air traffic control towers and what
costs may be associated with implementing necessary additional
security measures.

We have been very blessed that we have not suffered another
terrorist attack. That is due to the hard work and vigilance of
countless Americans who have responded not just heroically but in a
very steadfast, daily way to prevent, detect, deter, and defend
against potential threats.

In this building, we have experienced evacuations which,
thankfully, were caused by either false alarms or as a result of
errors by pilots. Recently, another general aviation aircraft breached
the airspace over Camp David while the President of the United States
was present.

It is important to evaluate the threats that could be posed. In its
2004 report, the TSA stated that as many vulnerabilities within other
areas of aviation have been reduced, general aviation may be perceived
as a more attractive target and consequently more vulnerable to
misuses by terrorists.

I have flown in just about every little kind of plane you can
imagine--medium-sized plane, big plane, crop dusters. I have had doors
blow off, windows blow off, I have had emergency landings in pastures
and cow fields and roads. I have been in so many airports at all hours
of the day and night when no one was around except those getting into
the airport or those just landing. I have a good idea how available
these airfields are.

I appreciate the work the Aviation Security Advisory Committee
Working Group did in advising the TSA. However, given the heightened
vulnerability that we all are aware of, given some of the recent
events--including the evacuations of our own Capitol involving general
aviation aircraft--we need to roll up our sleeves and take another
hard look at this. I hope we can do it hand in hand with the general
aviation fixed-base operators, pilots, owners, airport managers, and
others who have been working hard to increase security measures at so
many of these small airports.

I believe in general aviation. I take advantage of it practically
every week. It is a significant and important contributor to our
national economy. I want to be sure we do everything possible to make
sure it is not in any way affected by any potential criminal or
terrorist activity.

This amendment does not mandate any new costs for general aviation.
It simply requires the study be conducted on vulnerabilities and a
report made to Congress within 120 days. Most people who own these
airports, most people who own these general aviation aircraft, want to
be safe. They want to do what is necessary to protect their
investment. But we need to have a good analysis of what the threats
might be so we can be smart about how we address them. We certainly do
not want to wait until an incident happens.

I appreciate Chairman Gregg and Senator Byrd who have agreed to
accept this amendment.

I ask unanimous consent amendment 1106 be agreed to.

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the
amendment.

The amendment (No. 1106) was agreed to.

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



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:91:./temp/~bdov20::
S.AMDT.1168
Amends: H.R.2360
Sponsor: Sen Domenici, Pete V. [NM] (submitted 7/11/2005)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r109:1:./temp/~r109opTXLG:e280978:

SA 1168. Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2360, making
appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes; which was
ordered to lie on the table; as follows:


At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18.

(a) In General.--Chapter 2 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following: ``§1A39. Violation of
Washington, D.C. airspace

``Whoever negligently flies an aircraft in a manner that violates
the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted Zone (as
defined by the Federal Aviation Administration) and causes the
evacuation a Federal building or any other public property shall be
subject to a fine of $100,000, confiscation of the aircraft, and loss
of the right to fly in United States airspace for 5 years.''.

(b) Chapter Analysis.--The table of sections for chapter 2 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:


``Sec..39..Violation of Washington, D.C. airspace.''.

Paul kgyy
July 15th 05, 04:11 PM
Stupid rules (ADIZ) beget bad legislation. Meanwhile, what about mass
transit?

Mike Weller
July 15th 05, 04:37 PM
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:17:46 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>
> Airmens' Freedoms Threatened by Harsh Congressional Proposals
>
> Boyer added. "And
> when you think about it, with F-16s and Patriot missile batteries
> stationed around the area that are ready to inflict the ultimate
> penalty on an errant pilot, what more deterrent could and should
> there be?

There is not a PATRIOT missile anywhere near that area.

Ask me how I know that PATRIOT is an acronym! My wife invented it
and I have worked on PATRIOT since 1977.

JOVIAL is the password.

Mike Weller

Steve Foley
July 15th 05, 04:40 PM
How long before Daley wants the same thing?

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> The most severe amendment, offered by New
> Mexico Sens. Pete Domenici (R) and Jeff Bingaman (D), calls for a
> $100,000 fine, confiscation of the aircraft, and a five-year loss
> of flying privileges for "whoever negligently flies an aircraft in
> a manner that violates the [700 square mile area] Washington,
> D.C., Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ) and causes
> the evacuation of a federal building or any other public
> property...."

john smith
July 15th 05, 05:25 PM
He already asked.

Steve Foley wrote:
> How long before Daley wants the same thing?

> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> The most severe amendment, offered by New
>> Mexico Sens. Pete Domenici (R) and Jeff Bingaman (D), calls for a
>> $100,000 fine, confiscation of the aircraft, and a five-year loss
>> of flying privileges for "whoever negligently flies an aircraft in
>> a manner that violates the [700 square mile area] Washington,
>> D.C., Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ) and causes
>> the evacuation of a federal building or any other public
>> property...."

Peter Duniho
July 15th 05, 06:25 PM
"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Airmens' Freedoms Threatened by Harsh Congressional Proposals
>
> As many predicted, the knee jerk congressional response to recent anti
> GA news media stories threatens airmens' freedoms. Outrageously
> unjust in their ill conceived penalty proposals, new legislative bills
> reflect the current administration's siege mentality.

Well, the penalties are clearly ridiculous. But then, so is the ADIZ. It
shouldn't be much of a surprise that the Congress-critters, having gotten
annoyed at having to get out of their chairs and leave the building a couple
of times, would choose this reaction, rather than to pose the serious
question as to what the ADIZ and other flight restrictions in the area are
actually doing (answer: nothing, with respect to protecting DC).

I welcome the study, however. Assuming it's done honestly and efficiently
(two words not well-known among politicians, I realize), it could be just
what we need to get rid of the ADIZ altogether. The one major flaw in the
proposal is that it does not compare the risk to the public presented by
aviation to the risk presented by other forms of transportation. It is
insufficient to identify risks; those risks must be evaluated in context,
something the general public and the government are both chronically rotten
at doing.

Pete

Larry Dighera
July 15th 05, 08:39 PM
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:37:12 -0500, Mike Weller > wrote in
<1121437780.ac75d9e53f97f2fff4939e955b76e1dc@onlyne ws>::

>On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:17:46 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>
>>
>> Airmens' Freedoms Threatened by Harsh Congressional Proposals
>>
>> Boyer added. "And
>> when you think about it, with F-16s and Patriot missile batteries
>> stationed around the area that are ready to inflict the ultimate
>> penalty on an errant pilot, what more deterrent could and should
>> there be?
>
>There is not a PATRIOT missile anywhere near that area.
>
>Ask me how I know that PATRIOT is an acronym! My wife invented it
>and I have worked on PATRIOT since 1977.
>
>JOVIAL is the password.
>
>Mike Weller
>
>

Right. As I recall, they were shoulder fired.

kontiki
July 15th 05, 08:47 PM
Paul kgyy wrote:
> Stupid rules (ADIZ) beget bad legislation. Meanwhile, what about mass
> transit?
>

How dare you inject logic into the maelstrom.

W P Dixon
July 15th 05, 09:45 PM
The Patriot system has a 7.4 foot long missile powered by a single stage
solid propellant rocket motor that runs at mach 3 speeds.The missile itself
weighs 2200 pounds and its range is 43 miles. The Patriot is armed with a
200 pound high-explosive warhead detonated by a proximity fuse that causes
shrapnell to destroy the intended target. Each Patriot missile system has
eight m-901 storage/transportation containers that serve as launchers, and
every launcher contains four missiles. The launchers are hooked to an m-860
trailer. The system possesses an MSQ-104 engagement control station, which
is mounted on an M-818 tractor. The Track Via Missile guidance system is the
basis of the overall system.

The system is built around radar and fast computers.The missile is launched
and guided to the target through three phases. First, the missiles guidance
system turns the Patriot toward the incoming missile as that missile flies
into the Patriot's radar beam. Then the Patriot's computer guides the
missile toward the incoming Scud missile. Finally, the Patriot Missile's
internal radar receiver guides it toward the interception of the incoming
missile. (Boyne, Walter Colonel U.S.A.F. (Ret) Gulf War-A comprehensive
guide to people, places and weapons Signet 1991)

I believe the Patriot they refer to is this puppy here ;)

I believe the original "Patriot" missle was done in the 70's wasn't it? Was
it really shoulder fired? Wow must have been a heck of alot smaller than the
modern Patriot?



Patrick

student SPL

aircraft structural mech



"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:37:12 -0500, Mike Weller > wrote in
> <1121437780.ac75d9e53f97f2fff4939e955b76e1dc@onlyne ws>::
>
>>On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:17:46 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Airmens' Freedoms Threatened by Harsh Congressional Proposals
>>>
>>> Boyer added. "And
>>> when you think about it, with F-16s and Patriot missile batteries
>>> stationed around the area that are ready to inflict the ultimate
>>> penalty on an errant pilot, what more deterrent could and should
>>> there be?
>>
>>There is not a PATRIOT missile anywhere near that area.
>>
>>Ask me how I know that PATRIOT is an acronym! My wife invented it
>>and I have worked on PATRIOT since 1977.
>>
>>JOVIAL is the password.
>>
>>Mike Weller
>>
>>
>
> Right. As I recall, they were shoulder fired.
>

Gig 601XL Builder
July 15th 05, 10:15 PM
The Patriot was never shoulder fired. Here's a website on it.
www.army-technology.com/projects/patriot


"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> The Patriot system has a 7.4 foot long missile powered by a single stage
> solid propellant rocket motor that runs at mach 3 speeds.The missile
> itself weighs 2200 pounds and its range is 43 miles. The Patriot is armed
> with a 200 pound high-explosive warhead detonated by a proximity fuse that
> causes shrapnell to destroy the intended target. Each Patriot missile
> system has eight m-901 storage/transportation containers that serve as
> launchers, and every launcher contains four missiles. The launchers are
> hooked to an m-860 trailer. The system possesses an MSQ-104 engagement
> control station, which is mounted on an M-818 tractor. The Track Via
> Missile guidance system is the basis of the overall system.
>
> The system is built around radar and fast computers.The missile is
> launched and guided to the target through three phases. First, the
> missiles guidance system turns the Patriot toward the incoming missile as
> that missile flies into the Patriot's radar beam. Then the Patriot's
> computer guides the missile toward the incoming Scud missile. Finally, the
> Patriot Missile's internal radar receiver guides it toward the
> interception of the incoming missile. (Boyne, Walter Colonel U.S.A.F.
> (Ret) Gulf War-A comprehensive guide to people, places and weapons Signet
> 1991)
>
> I believe the Patriot they refer to is this puppy here ;)
>
> I believe the original "Patriot" missle was done in the 70's wasn't it?
> Was it really shoulder fired? Wow must have been a heck of alot smaller
> than the modern Patriot?
>
>
>
> Patrick
>
> student SPL
>
> aircraft structural mech
>
>
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:37:12 -0500, Mike Weller > wrote in
>> <1121437780.ac75d9e53f97f2fff4939e955b76e1dc@onlyne ws>::
>>
>>>On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:17:46 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Airmens' Freedoms Threatened by Harsh Congressional Proposals
>>>>
>>>> Boyer added. "And
>>>> when you think about it, with F-16s and Patriot missile batteries
>>>> stationed around the area that are ready to inflict the ultimate
>>>> penalty on an errant pilot, what more deterrent could and should
>>>> there be?
>>>
>>>There is not a PATRIOT missile anywhere near that area.
>>>
>>>Ask me how I know that PATRIOT is an acronym! My wife invented it
>>>and I have worked on PATRIOT since 1977.
>>>
>>>JOVIAL is the password.
>>>
>>>Mike Weller
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Right. As I recall, they were shoulder fired.
>>
>

W P Dixon
July 15th 05, 10:21 PM
Yep Gig,
That's the Patriot I know of, but I was wondering if one really was
shoulder fired. LAW's are really fun to shoot, as are the old Dragons. But I
have never heard of a shoulder fired Patriot. Just wondering if they had
one"Before My Time" so to speak. ;)
Patrick


"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:THVBe.40295$DC2.28633@okepread01...
> The Patriot was never shoulder fired. Here's a website on it.
> www.army-technology.com/projects/patriot
>
>

George Patterson
July 16th 05, 03:04 AM
Steve Foley wrote:
> How long before Daley wants the same thing?

Last year.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

Larry Dighera
July 16th 05, 03:56 AM
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:37:12 -0500, Mike Weller > wrote in
>> <1121437780.ac75d9e53f97f2fff4939e955b76e1dc@onlyne ws>::
>>
>>>On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:17:46 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Airmens' Freedoms Threatened by Harsh Congressional Proposals
>>>>
>>>> Boyer added. "And
>>>> when you think about it, with F-16s and Patriot missile batteries
>>>> stationed around the area that are ready to inflict the ultimate
>>>> penalty on an errant pilot, what more deterrent could and should
>>>> there be?
>>>
>>>There is not a PATRIOT missile anywhere near that area.
>>>
>>>Ask me how I know that PATRIOT is an acronym! My wife invented it
>>>and I have worked on PATRIOT since 1977.
>>>
>>>JOVIAL is the password.
>>>
>>>Mike Weller
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Right. As I recall, they were shoulder fired.
>>
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 16:45:20 -0400, "W P Dixon"
> wrote in
>::

>The Patriot system has a 7.4 foot long missile powered by a single stage
>solid propellant rocket motor that runs at mach 3 speeds.The missile itself
>weighs 2200 pounds and its range is 43 miles. The Patriot is armed with a
>200 pound high-explosive warhead detonated by a proximity fuse that causes
>shrapnell to destroy the intended target. Each Patriot missile system has
>eight m-901 storage/transportation containers that serve as launchers, and
>every launcher contains four missiles. The launchers are hooked to an m-860
>trailer. The system possesses an MSQ-104 engagement control station, which
>is mounted on an M-818 tractor. The Track Via Missile guidance system is the
>basis of the overall system.
>
>The system is built around radar and fast computers.The missile is launched
>and guided to the target through three phases. First, the missiles guidance
>system turns the Patriot toward the incoming missile as that missile flies
>into the Patriot's radar beam. Then the Patriot's computer guides the
>missile toward the incoming Scud missile. Finally, the Patriot Missile's
>internal radar receiver guides it toward the interception of the incoming
>missile. (Boyne, Walter Colonel U.S.A.F. (Ret) Gulf War-A comprehensive
>guide to people, places and weapons Signet 1991)
>
>I believe the Patriot they refer to is this puppy here ;)
>
>I believe the original "Patriot" missle was done in the 70's wasn't it? Was
>it really shoulder fired? Wow must have been a heck of alot smaller than the
>modern Patriot?
>

No. I don't think the Patriot was ever shoulder fired. As Mike
Weller pointed out, there are no Patriot missiles around DC. But I
recall hearing about the SS being equipped with shoulder launch
missiles.

bill hunter
July 16th 05, 04:09 AM
They have installed missile systems at several locations around DC. I don't
know what missile system it is. Many of the batteries are in site of the
public. I heard this reported in main stream media, so it is no secret. I
think the AOPA had an article on it.

"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
news:1121437780.ac75d9e53f97f2fff4939e955b76e1dc@o nlynews...
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:17:46 GMT, Larry Dighera >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Airmens' Freedoms Threatened by Harsh Congressional Proposals
>>
>> Boyer added. "And
>> when you think about it, with F-16s and Patriot missile batteries
>> stationed around the area that are ready to inflict the ultimate
>> penalty on an errant pilot, what more deterrent could and should
>> there be?
>
> There is not a PATRIOT missile anywhere near that area.
>
> Ask me how I know that PATRIOT is an acronym! My wife invented it
> and I have worked on PATRIOT since 1977.
>
> JOVIAL is the password.
>
> Mike Weller
>
>
>

W P Dixon
July 16th 05, 04:21 AM
I have no doubt that with all the military bases in the DC area that it's
got plenty of surface to air protection . I do recall not long after 9/11
hearing on the news that anti-aircraft batteries were around DC. Sorry but I
don't remember the source.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"bill hunter" > wrote in message
...
> They have installed missile systems at several locations around DC. I
> don't know what missile system it is. Many of the batteries are in site of
> the public. I heard this reported in main stream media, so it is no
> secret. I think the AOPA had an article on it.
>

Doug
July 16th 05, 04:42 AM
Well, seeing how that Washington DC IS in a foreign country, an ADIZ
is appropriate, I guess. The more isolated they become though, the
scarier it gets. DC, another mess.

George Patterson
July 16th 05, 04:24 PM
Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> But I
> recall hearing about the SS being equipped with shoulder launch
> missiles.

There's more than that out there now.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/002224.php

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

George Patterson
July 16th 05, 04:25 PM
bill hunter wrote:
> They have installed missile systems at several locations around DC. I don't
> know what missile system it is.

The Avenger system.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

Larry Dighera
July 16th 05, 05:55 PM
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:24:11 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote in <vE9Ce.1397$xe3.201@trndny09>::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> But I
>> recall hearing about the SS being equipped with shoulder launch
>> missiles.
>
>There's more than that out there now.
>http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/002224.php
>

Thanks, George.

Given:

February 13, 2003
Anti-Missile Batteries Deployed in Washington

The Avenger is an air defense missile system that uses a pedestal
or vehicle mounted 'Stinger' missile battery. Avengers are being
deployed around Washington D.C. to guard against air attack. This
one is near the Washington Monument.

It would seem that 2-1/2 year old information does mention 'Stinger'
missiles which I always considered to be shoulder fired.

The U.S. Army's shoulder-fired STINGER Weapon System provides
effective, short-range air defense capabilities...
http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/systems/STINGER.html
http://www.nisat.org/weapons%20pages%20linked/US/stinger_missile_system.htm

The Avenger is an air defense missile system consisting of a pedestal
mounted "Stinger" missile battery of eight heat-seeking Stinger
missiles in two quickly reloadable pods and a .50-caliber machine gun
for self-defense.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/systems/dvic412.htm

Larry Dighera
July 16th 05, 11:07 PM
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:25:57 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::
>
>It shouldn't be much of a surprise that the Congress-critters, having gotten
>annoyed at having to get out of their chairs and leave the building a couple
>of times, would choose this reaction, rather than to pose the serious
>question as to what the ADIZ and other flight restrictions in the area are
>actually doing (answer: nothing, with respect to protecting DC).
>

Prior the creation of the DC ADIZ, there were no evacuations (of which
I am aware). So those bureaucrats who were inconvenienced should aim
their venom at the creators of the ADIZ and it's poorly conceived
response policies, not airmen. I wonder how we could get that
viewpoint printed in the Washington Post or WSJ...

Blueskies
July 17th 05, 03:10 AM
"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:25:57 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> > wrote in
> >::
>>
>>It shouldn't be much of a surprise that the Congress-critters, having gotten
>>annoyed at having to get out of their chairs and leave the building a couple
>>of times, would choose this reaction, rather than to pose the serious
>>question as to what the ADIZ and other flight restrictions in the area are
>>actually doing (answer: nothing, with respect to protecting DC).
>>
>
> Prior the creation of the DC ADIZ, there were no evacuations (of which
> I am aware). So those bureaucrats who were inconvenienced should aim
> their venom at the creators of the ADIZ and it's poorly conceived
> response policies, not airmen. I wonder how we could get that
> viewpoint printed in the Washington Post or WSJ...


Exactly right...

George Patterson
July 17th 05, 04:28 AM
Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> It would seem that 2-1/2 year old information does mention 'Stinger'
> missiles which I always considered to be shoulder fired.

I ran into another article today. Apparently the Avenger batteries come and go,
being set up whenever the government thinks they might be needed. The article
stated that they were removed after the president's inauguration but are now
back in place since the recent increase in the security alert level.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

July 22nd 05, 11:10 PM
Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Airmens' Freedoms Threatened by Harsh Congressional Proposals
> >
> > As many predicted, the knee jerk congressional response to recent anti
> > GA news media stories threatens airmens' freedoms. Outrageously
> > unjust in their ill conceived penalty proposals, new legislative bills
> > reflect the current administration's siege mentality.
>
> Well, the penalties are clearly ridiculous. But then, so is the ADIZ. It
> shouldn't be much of a surprise that the Congress-critters, having gotten
> annoyed at having to get out of their chairs and leave the building a couple
> of times, would choose this reaction, rather than to pose the serious
> question as to what the ADIZ and other flight restrictions in the area are
> actually doing (answer: nothing, with respect to protecting DC).
>
> I welcome the study, however. Assuming it's done honestly and efficiently
> (two words not well-known among politicians, I realize), it could be just
> what we need to get rid of the ADIZ altogether. The one major flaw in the
> proposal is that it does not compare the risk to the public presented by
> aviation to the risk presented by other forms of transportation. It is
> insufficient to identify risks; those risks must be evaluated in context,
> something the general public and the government are both chronically rotten
> at doing.

Boo-Hoo, All of this would have been avoided if your industry hadn't
trained
Mohamed Atta and gang, all the way thru jet simulators.

JG

>
> Pete

Darrel Toepfer
July 23rd 05, 03:29 PM
wrote:

> Boo-Hoo, All of this would have been avoided if your industry hadn't
> trained Mohamed Atta and gang, all the way thru jet simulators.

And we trained the ones thats been taking the fight to them ever since
too... Equal opportunity training, it used to be called...

John Larson
July 29th 05, 06:15 PM
Are you finally figuring out just how useless Boyer and the AOPA is Mr.
Dighera?

Or will it take more for you to finally cancel your association with that
organization?

Boyer loves spending your $39.00 on fuel for his biz-jet you bought him. He
also likes the travel, nice hotels food and drink and the other perks.

He tosses you guys a bone or two (medical advice etc.) and you folks just
love'm. Smart he is. Not so smart you guys are.

No offense.
"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Airmens' Freedoms Threatened by Harsh Congressional Proposals
>
> As many predicted, the knee jerk congressional response to recent anti
> GA news media stories threatens airmens' freedoms. Outrageously
> unjust in their ill conceived penalty proposals, new legislative bills
> reflect the current administration's siege mentality.
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> AOPA ePilot Volume 7, Issue 28 July 15, 2005
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> TOUGH GA SECURITY LEGISLATION BEGINS TO SURFACE IN CONGRESS
> The media hype following four recent airspace incursions over
> Washington, D.C., and Camp David, Maryland, and two aircraft
> thefts by unlicensed young people didn't help general aviation's
> image in some lawmakers' minds. After suffering through repeated
> evacuations, lawmakers are responding with some potentially
> threatening legislation. The most severe amendment, offered by New
> Mexico Sens. Pete Domenici (R) and Jeff Bingaman (D), calls for a
> $100,000 fine, confiscation of the aircraft, and a five-year loss
> of flying privileges for "whoever negligently flies an aircraft in
> a manner that violates the [700 square mile area] Washington,
> D.C., Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ) and causes
> the evacuation of a federal building or any other public
> property...." AOPA is already talking with Domenici's office. "The
> proposed penalty is extraordinarily harsh--too harsh in fact--but
> it's clear that members of Congress want to get every pilot's
> attention that they will not accept any more excuses for these
> transgressions," said AOPA President Phil Boyer.
>
> A true statesman would have also included penalties imposed on ATC
> personnel if they should be found to have caused an unauthorized
> penetration of the FRZ, as well as have considered a pilot's emergency
> authority.
>
> Another amendment from Sens. Hillary R. Clinton (D-N.Y.) and
> Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), calls for a government study of general
> aviation security, including "the vulnerability posed to high-risk
> areas and facilities from general aviation aircraft that could be
> stolen or used as a weapon or armed with a weapon." Meanwhile, a
> bill that would impose a $10,000 to $100,000 fine and a two- to
> five-year certificate suspension is being contemplated in the
> House. "We will continue to work on Capitol Hill to try to dial
> these measures back down to 'more reasonable,'" Boyer added. "And
> when you think about it, with F-16s and Patriot missile batteries
> stationed around the area that are ready to inflict the ultimate
> penalty on an errant pilot, what more deterrent could and should
> there be?
>
> We've got to find a way to get some GA sympathetic press coverage to
> counter the nation's hysterical scapegoating of GA.
>
> The actions of a few bad apples are spoiling it for all the rest."
>
> Above, Boyer turns airman against airman. Disappointing.
>
> "Do your part to diminish the media mania about every small
> airplane and small airport being a terrorist threat. If we all
> don't participate in this clear and present problem, we might not
> like the national and local solutions that will be handed to us."
> Download Boyer's latest editorial, "
> ( http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2005/pp0508.pdf ).
>
> I doubt journalists can be found who will tell the public that GA is
> no threat to them. That won't sell newspapers.
>
>
>
> http://66.218.71.225/search/cache?p=%22Pete+Domenici%22+tsa+dc+evacuation&ei=UTF-8&n=10&fl=0&u=us-aviator.com/PlainPage.cfm&w=%22pete+domenici%22+tsa+dc+evacuation&d=C77BC38527&icp=1&.intl=us
> Wed, Jul 13 2005
> Aero-News Alert: Senators Declaring War On GA
> ...
> Two amendments to the Department of Homeland Security
> appropriations bill* were filed this week in the U.S. Senate.
>
> ...
>
> The second amendment, nearly as distressing, comes from Senators
> Hillary R. Clinton (D-NY-Pictured, Above) and Richard Durbin
> (D-IL-Pictured, Below). calls for a government study of general
> aviation security, including "the vulnerability posed to high-risk
> areas and facilities from general aviation aircraft that could be
> stolen or used as a weapon or armed with a weapon."
>
> The study would also include GA airport security, technology that
> could easily track GA aircraft, disabling measures that could
> prevent aircraft theft, and "an assessment of the threat posed to
> high population arrears, nuclear facilities, key infrastructure,
> military bases, and transportation infrastructure that stolen or
> hijacked general aviation aircraft pose, especially if armed with
> weapons or explosives."
>
> *
> http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=471&Month=5&Year=2005
> Requires DHS to implement a security plan to permit general aviation
> aircraft to land and take off at Ronald Reagan Washington National
> Airport within 90 days of enactment of this Act;
>
>
> http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Legislations.Detail&Legislation_id=190&OrderBy=BillNumber&OrderSort=ASC
> DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bill Number: H.R.2360
> Date Introduced: 05/13/05
>
> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:29:./temp/~bdDPJX::
> S.AMDT.1106
> SEC. 519. (a) Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of
> this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the
> Secretary of Transportation, shall assess and report in writing to the
> Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Homeland Security and
> Government Affairs, and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
> Transportation of the Senate on the following:
>
> (1) The vulnerability posed to high risk areas and facilities from
> general aviation aircraft that could be stolen or used as a weapon or
> armed with a weapon.
>
> (2) The security vulnerabilities existing at general aviation
> airports that would permit general aviation aircraft to be stolen.
>
> (3) Low-cost, high-performance technology that could be used to
> easily track general aviation aircraft that could otherwise fly
> undetected.
>
> (4) The feasibility of implementing security measures that would
> disable general aviation aircraft while on the ground and parked to
> prevent theft.
>
> (5) The feasibility of performing requisite background checks on
> individuals working at general aviation airports that have access to
> aircraft or flight line activities.
>
> (6) An assessment of the threat posed to high population areas,
> nuclear facilities, key infrastructure, military bases, and
> transportation infrastructure that stolen or hijacked general aviation
> aircraft pose especially if armed with weapons or explosives.
>
> (7) An assessment of existing security precautions in place at
> general aviation airports to prevent breaches of the flight line and
> perimeter.
>
> (8) An assessment of whether unmanned air traffic control towers
> provide a security or alert weakness to the security of general
> aviation aircraft.
>
> (9) An assessment of the additional measures that should be
> adopted to ensure the security of general aviation aircraft.
>
> (b) The report required by subsection (a) shall include cost
> estimates associated with implementing each of the measures
> recommended in the report.
>
> Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask that Senators LAUTENBERG, CORZINE,
> and SCHUMER be added as cosponsors of this amendment.
>
> The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
>
> Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, this is a commonsense amendment
> regarding the potential threat that all of our cities and States face
> from the theft or misuse of general aviation aircraft by criminals or
> terrorists.
>
> This amendment would require the Secretary of Homeland Security, in
> coordination with the Secretary of Transportation, to assess the
> dangers posed to high-risk, large population, and critical
> infrastructure areas should general aviation aircraft be stolen and
> used as a weapon by a criminal or terrorist.
>
> [Page: S8183] GPO's PDF
> This study would require the two Secretaries to assess the
> vulnerability of general aviation airports and aircraft and study what
> low-cost, high-technology devices could be available to better track
> general aviation aircraft.
>
> Last month, a 20-year-old young man, while intoxicated and
> accompanied by two other individuals, breached a perimeter fence of an
> airport in Danbury, CT. He and his companions stole a small Cessna 172
> aircraft, departed from the airport without detection, flew across the
> eastern border of New York, and eventually, thankfully, landed without
> incident at the Westchester County Airport in New York very near to my
> home.
>
> What is alarming about this is that this happened, and it happened
> without detection. So far as we know, no one knew the aircraft had
> been stolen or that the joyride was taking place. This incident
> occurred very close to New York City, very close to Indian Point, the
> nuclear facility in the county. Thankfully, this particular incident
> ended without any damage, destruction, or death, and the individuals
> were eventually detained by law enforcement.
>
> Following the incident, which, as you might imagine, happening so
> close to New York City involving stolen aircraft raised a great deal
> of concern among my constituents, I wrote to Secretary Chertoff and
> Secretary Mineta asking for an investigation into this incident, and I
> hope to hear back from them both soon. But this incident should be a
> forewarning of the types of threats we still face from aircraft. We
> have been very focused on the big commercial aircraft that many of us
> use on a regular basis, but we cannot forget that most aircraft are in
> private hands in local airports, many of them privately owned or
> privately leased, and that they still pose a potential danger to key
> infrastructure, to populated areas, and we need to be more aware of
> what that threat could be.
>
> The 9/11 Commission, which looked at this, concluded:
>
>
> Major vulnerabilities still exist in cargo and general aviation
> security. These, together with inadequate screening and access
> controls, continue to present aviation security challenges.
>
>
> In addition, the 9/11 Commission told us that we needed to be
> imaginative, we needed to think outside the box. Unfortunately, we
> needed to think like those who wish us harm about what the new and
> emerging threats could be.
>
> The Transportation Security Administration, known as TSA, issued
> security guidelines for general aviation airports in May of 2004, and
> they outlined some guidelines that general aviation airports should
> follow in order to secure the aircraft and the airfield.
>
> There are more than 19,000 landing facilities nationwide, including
> heliports, lakes, and dirt landing strips from which aircraft could be
> launched and more than 200,000 general aviation aircraft in our
> country.
>
> Of course, it is impossible to avoid every threat that is posed to
> the public or that we can imagine, but we should be vigilant to make
> sure we have a partnership so that local communities, private
> individuals, and private businesses can all take necessary steps to be
> vigilant and protective.
>
> My amendment requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, in
> coordination with the Secretary of Transportation, to conduct a threat
> assessment posed by security breaches at general aviation airports and
> to look at the potential impact such threats could pose to a number of
> potential targets if an aircraft were used as weapon or were loaded
> with explosives by terrorists.
>
> The Department of Homeland Security would assess low-cost
> technologies to track general aviation aircraft, the feasibility of
> implementing additional security measures and background checks, an
> analysis of airports with unmanned air traffic control towers and what
> costs may be associated with implementing necessary additional
> security measures.
>
> We have been very blessed that we have not suffered another
> terrorist attack. That is due to the hard work and vigilance of
> countless Americans who have responded not just heroically but in a
> very steadfast, daily way to prevent, detect, deter, and defend
> against potential threats.
>
> In this building, we have experienced evacuations which,
> thankfully, were caused by either false alarms or as a result of
> errors by pilots. Recently, another general aviation aircraft breached
> the airspace over Camp David while the President of the United States
> was present.
>
> It is important to evaluate the threats that could be posed. In its
> 2004 report, the TSA stated that as many vulnerabilities within other
> areas of aviation have been reduced, general aviation may be perceived
> as a more attractive target and consequently more vulnerable to
> misuses by terrorists.
>
> I have flown in just about every little kind of plane you can
> imagine--medium-sized plane, big plane, crop dusters. I have had doors
> blow off, windows blow off, I have had emergency landings in pastures
> and cow fields and roads. I have been in so many airports at all hours
> of the day and night when no one was around except those getting into
> the airport or those just landing. I have a good idea how available
> these airfields are.
>
> I appreciate the work the Aviation Security Advisory Committee
> Working Group did in advising the TSA. However, given the heightened
> vulnerability that we all are aware of, given some of the recent
> events--including the evacuations of our own Capitol involving general
> aviation aircraft--we need to roll up our sleeves and take another
> hard look at this. I hope we can do it hand in hand with the general
> aviation fixed-base operators, pilots, owners, airport managers, and
> others who have been working hard to increase security measures at so
> many of these small airports.
>
> I believe in general aviation. I take advantage of it practically
> every week. It is a significant and important contributor to our
> national economy. I want to be sure we do everything possible to make
> sure it is not in any way affected by any potential criminal or
> terrorist activity.
>
> This amendment does not mandate any new costs for general aviation.
> It simply requires the study be conducted on vulnerabilities and a
> report made to Congress within 120 days. Most people who own these
> airports, most people who own these general aviation aircraft, want to
> be safe. They want to do what is necessary to protect their
> investment. But we need to have a good analysis of what the threats
> might be so we can be smart about how we address them. We certainly do
> not want to wait until an incident happens.
>
> I appreciate Chairman Gregg and Senator Byrd who have agreed to
> accept this amendment.
>
> I ask unanimous consent amendment 1106 be agreed to.
>
> Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to.
>
> The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the
> amendment.
>
> The amendment (No. 1106) was agreed to.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:91:./temp/~bdov20::
> S.AMDT.1168
> Amends: H.R.2360
> Sponsor: Sen Domenici, Pete V. [NM] (submitted 7/11/2005)
> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r109:1:./temp/~r109opTXLG:e280978:
>
> SA 1168. Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman) submitted an
> amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2360, making
> appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal
> year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes; which was
> ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
>
>
> At the appropriate place, insert the following:
>
> SEC. __. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18.
>
> (a) In General.--Chapter 2 of title 18, United States Code, is
> amended by adding at the end the following: ``§1A39. Violation of
> Washington, D.C. airspace
>
> ``Whoever negligently flies an aircraft in a manner that violates
> the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted Zone (as
> defined by the Federal Aviation Administration) and causes the
> evacuation a Federal building or any other public property shall be
> subject to a fine of $100,000, confiscation of the aircraft, and loss
> of the right to fly in United States airspace for 5 years.''.
>
> (b) Chapter Analysis.--The table of sections for chapter 2 of
> title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
> following:
>
>
> ``Sec..39..Violation of Washington, D.C. airspace.''.
>
>

Google