Report: More than 3,400 airspace violations since 9/11

[Dave Butler]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/21/restricted.air.space.ap/index.html

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:08:44 -0400, Dave Butler <x@yy> wrote in
>::

>http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/21/restricted.air.space.ap/index.html
>

Quotes from the CNN article:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Pilots who fly into restricted airspace could
face fines of $100,000 and a mandatory license suspension of two
to five years, according to a key lawmaker.

Rep. John Mica, chairman of the House aviation subcommittee, said
on Thursday that he would file a bill this fall to increase the
penalty for pilots who fly where they shouldn't.

A legislator who understands how to write balanced laws would not
discriminate against pilots; he would penalize anyone found to be the
cause of the restricted airspace violation such as ATC personnel, etc.
This congressional prejudice against pilots reveals an inappropriate
attitude that prevails throughout the nation.

Though pilots flew into the restricted zone over Washington more
than 1,600 times in 2003-04, only a few were penalized, Mica said.

Unintentional violations shouldn't receive severe penalties, he
said. But for those who deliberately disregard the rules, "I'm in
favor of throwing the book at them."

Just how does Representative Mica propose to determine if the
incursion was deliberate or inadvertent? Is he going to go to a
"higher source" like baby Bush did when deciding to invade, er
liberate Iraq?

The report noted that airspace violations are almost all
inadvertent.

If so, Mica's proposed bill will be virtually meaningless.

Pilots flying private planes are responsible for 88 percent of the
violations, and most occur in the eastern United States, where air
traffic is heavy and there's a lot of restricted airspace.

So who was responsible for the other 12% of airspace violations?

[Margy]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:08:44 -0400, Dave Butler <x@yy> wrote in
> >::
>
>
>>http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/21/restricted.air.space.ap/index.html
>>
>
>
> Quotes from the CNN article:
>
> WASHINGTON (AP) -- Pilots who fly into restricted airspace could
> face fines of $100,000 and a mandatory license suspension of two
> to five years, according to a key lawmaker.
>
> Rep. John Mica, chairman of the House aviation subcommittee, said
> on Thursday that he would file a bill this fall to increase the
> penalty for pilots who fly where they shouldn't.
>
> A legislator who understands how to write balanced laws would not
> discriminate against pilots; he would penalize anyone found to be the
> cause of the restricted airspace violation such as ATC personnel, etc.
> This congressional prejudice against pilots reveals an inappropriate
> attitude that prevails throughout the nation.
>
> Though pilots flew into the restricted zone over Washington more
> than 1,600 times in 2003-04, only a few were penalized, Mica said.
>
> Unintentional violations shouldn't receive severe penalties, he
> said. But for those who deliberately disregard the rules, "I'm in
> favor of throwing the book at them."
>
> Just how does Representative Mica propose to determine if the
> incursion was deliberate or inadvertent? Is he going to go to a
> "higher source" like baby Bush did when deciding to invade, er
> liberate Iraq?
>
> The report noted that airspace violations are almost all
> inadvertent.
>
> If so, Mica's proposed bill will be virtually meaningless.
>
> Pilots flying private planes are responsible for 88 percent of the
> violations, and most occur in the eastern United States, where air
> traffic is heavy and there's a lot of restricted airspace.
>
> So who was responsible for the other 12% of airspace violations?
>
>
135, airliners,

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 19:40:04 -0400, Margy > wrote in
>::

>
>> Pilots flying private planes are responsible for 88 percent of the
>> violations, and most occur in the eastern United States, where air
>> traffic is heavy and there's a lot of restricted airspace.
>>
>> So who was responsible for the other 12% of airspace violations?
>>
>>
>135, airliners,

Are you saying that ATC has never been responsible for airspace
violations?

[Margy]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 19:40:04 -0400, Margy > wrote in
> >::
>
>
>>> Pilots flying private planes are responsible for 88 percent of the
>>> violations, and most occur in the eastern United States, where air
>>> traffic is heavy and there's a lot of restricted airspace.
>>>
>>>So who was responsible for the other 12% of airspace violations?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>135, airliners,
>
>
> Are you saying that ATC has never been responsible for airspace
> violations?
>
>
no, I'm saying they are probably broken down by aircraft and ignoring
ATC as the entire flight is the responsibility of the pilot (even if
they vector you over the mall it's your job to say "you want me to do
WHAT?". I'm not saying it's right or fair or anything like that.

Margy

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> A legislator who understands how to write balanced laws would not
> discriminate against pilots; he would penalize anyone found to be the
> cause of the restricted airspace violation such as ATC personnel, etc.
> This congressional prejudice against pilots reveals an inappropriate
> attitude that prevails throughout the nation.

Pop quiz- Who said the following: "Anyone knows you could load into an
SUV or a U-Haul much more dangerous quantities of explosives or
biological materials than you can in a small airplane. We need to look
at a risk-based system and spend our money where it makes the most
sense. We can't close off general aviation in this country."

Congressman John Mica. There are not many guys in Washington who are
more on our side than him.

> Though pilots flew into the restricted zone over Washington more
> than 1,600 times in 2003-04, only a few were penalized, Mica said.
>
> Unintentional violations shouldn't receive severe penalties, he
> said. But for those who deliberately disregard the rules, "I'm in
> favor of throwing the book at them."
>
> Just how does Representative Mica propose to determine if the
> incursion was deliberate or inadvertent? Is he going to go to a
> "higher source" like baby Bush did when deciding to invade, er
> liberate Iraq?

Why don't you just get a big red marker and write "I AM A CRANK" across
your forehead? At least other people on the Internet wouldn't see it.

> The report noted that airspace violations are almost all
> inadvertent.
>
> If so, Mica's proposed bill will be virtually meaningless.

Have you considered that might be the point? It's called feel-good
legislation, like midnight basketball or school uniforms. Congress
passes the law, and next time a pilot busts the FRZ and makes the news,
everyone will say, "and the pilot could be subject to a fine of up to
$100,000," thus proving how seriously we take it. By the time it goes
to
court and is dismissed for lack of intent, the evening news will be
back to covering shark attacks.

> Pilots flying private planes are responsible for 88 percent of the
> violations, and most occur in the eastern United States, where air
> traffic is heavy and there's a lot of restricted airspace.
>
> So who was responsible for the other 12% of airspace violations?

Who cares? 88% doesn't exactly make us look good.

I'm done sympathizing with pilots who get caught in this dragnet. It's
been around for nearly four years now and there's just no excuse to not
be aware of it. With GPS's costing under $500 there's simply no reason
to bumble your way into this.

IMHO the best we could hope for would be to reduce the size of the DC
ADIZ or to have procedures evolve to be more like Class B without the
requirement for ground-filed flight plans and such. So long as "weekend
flyboys" are busting the rules regularly, the donut-eaters making the
rules are going to keep things the way they are or even tighten the
screws more.

The current system is counter-productive but that doesn't excuse the
fact that a lot of pilots just can't seem to keep their **** together.
The more that people continue screwing up, the worse it will get for
the rest of us.

-cwk.

[Larry Dighera]

On 21 Jul 2005 18:33:34 -0700, wrote in
. com>::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> A legislator who understands how to write balanced laws would not
>> discriminate against pilots; he would penalize anyone found to be the
>> cause of the restricted airspace violation such as ATC personnel, etc.
>> This congressional prejudice against pilots reveals an inappropriate
>> attitude that prevails throughout the nation.
>
>Pop quiz- Who said the following: "Anyone knows you could load into an
>SUV or a U-Haul much more dangerous quantities of explosives or
>biological materials than you can in a small airplane. We need to look
>at a risk-based system and spend our money where it makes the most
>sense. We can't close off general aviation in this country."
>
>Congressman John Mica. There are not many guys in Washington who are
>more on our side than him.

That's what I thought too.

you failed to address my point: Why isn't his proposed bill balanced?

>
>> Though pilots flew into the restricted zone over Washington more
>> than 1,600 times in 2003-04, only a few were penalized, Mica said.
>>
>> Unintentional violations shouldn't receive severe penalties, he
>> said. But for those who deliberately disregard the rules, "I'm in
>> favor of throwing the book at them."
>>
>> Just how does Representative Mica propose to determine if the
>> incursion was deliberate or inadvertent? Is he going to go to a
>> "higher source" like baby Bush did when deciding to invade, er
>> liberate Iraq?
>
>Why don't you just get a big red marker and write "I AM A CRANK" across
>your forehead? At least other people on the Internet wouldn't see it.

I'm disappointed by this response from you, sir. I have read several
of your articles posted to this newsgroup, and found them thoughtful,
informative and a very welcome relief from the creping chit chat often
found here. Your personal attack is beneath you.

Again you fail to answer my question: How will it be determined if the
pilot's action was deliberate or inadvertent?


>> The report noted that airspace violations are almost all
>> inadvertent.
>>
>> If so, Mica's proposed bill will be virtually meaningless.
>
>Have you considered that might be the point?

Yes. Actually I did. It might be a bone to through the journalists.
But it sends the wrong message in my opinion. Such an anti pilot bill
as proposed by Mica tacitly endorses the DC ADIZ instead of exposing
its utter uselessness in providing security.

>It's called feel-good
>legislation, like midnight basketball or school uniforms. Congress
>passes the law, and next time a pilot busts the FRZ and makes the news,
>everyone will say, "and the pilot could be subject to a fine of up to
>$100,000," thus proving how seriously we take it. By the time it goes
>to
>court and is dismissed for lack of intent, the evening news will be
>back to covering shark attacks.
>

Wonderful. Another bit of legislation about as appropriate as that
sparked by the Terry Schivo case. I find myself loosing respect for
our nation's statesmen more and more as they pander to the hysterical
masses and ignore important issues. It's even more disappointing than
your personal attack. :-(

>> Pilots flying private planes are responsible for 88 percent of the
>> violations, and most occur in the eastern United States, where air
>> traffic is heavy and there's a lot of restricted airspace.
>>
>> So who was responsible for the other 12% of airspace violations?
>
>Who cares? 88% doesn't exactly make us look good.

The point you failed to address is, Mica's proposed bill fails to
address that other 12%. Is everything about how it looks? What of
substance and balanced legislation?

>I'm done sympathizing with pilots who get caught in this dragnet. It's
>been around for nearly four years now and there's just no excuse to not
>be aware of it. With GPS's costing under $500 there's simply no reason
>to bumble your way into this.

So you've examined every case and found no circumstances where the
bumbling pilot was not at fault? Come on, you know better than that.

>IMHO the best we could hope for would be to reduce the size of the DC
>ADIZ

If the purpose of the DC ADIZ is to de clutter the airspace
surrounding the FRZ, it's doubtful its size will be reduced unless
F-16s are in the air 24 hours a day.

Why can't we hope that the ADZ be dispensed with entirely?

>or to have procedures evolve to be more like Class B without the
>requirement for ground-filed flight plans and such.

That is the first constructive suggestion you've expressed.

>So long as "weekend flyboys" are busting the rules regularly, the
>donut-eaters making the rules are going to keep things the way they
>are or even tighten the screws more.

Perhaps its time for someone with a bit more intellect to look at the
issue, and propose a security measure that might remotely have some
modicum of achieving its purpose, instead of permitting the
"dough-eaters" to foist their inane restrictions on the liberty of
this nation's citizens.

>The current system is counter-productive but that doesn't excuse the
>fact that a lot of pilots just can't seem to keep their **** together.

We're all human. Those pilots who blunder should be penalized
commensurate with their transgression. And the current
"counter-productive" system must be exposed publicly for the
ineffective, pseudo security it provides. And the policy of
evacuating all the government offices is so absurd as to be
reminiscent of the Keystone Cops. Please....

>The more that people continue screwing up, the worse it will get for
>the rest of us.

It sure will get worse for us if we continue to permit this useless DC
ADIZ to exist under the guise of security.

In any event, I doubt seriously that a $100,000.00 fine would have
prevented Sheaffer from committing his fiasco.

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On 21 Jul 2005 18:33:34 -0700, wrote in
> . com>::
>
> >Larry Dighera wrote:
> >
<snip>

> >
> >Congressman John Mica. There are not many guys in Washington who are
> >more on our side than him.
>
> That's what I thought too.
>
> you failed to address my point: Why isn't his proposed bill balanced?

I don't agree that it's unbalanced. More on this below.


> >>
> >> Just how does Representative Mica propose to determine if the
> >> incursion was deliberate or inadvertent? Is he going to go to a
> >> "higher source" like baby Bush did when deciding to invade, er
> >> liberate Iraq?
> >
> >Why don't you just get a big red marker and write "I AM A CRANK" across
> >your forehead? At least other people on the Internet wouldn't see it.
>
> I'm disappointed by this response from you, sir. I have read several
> of your articles posted to this newsgroup, and found them thoughtful,
> informative and a very welcome relief from the creping chit chat often
> found here. Your personal attack is beneath you.

Some phrases are markers for things. When I hear someone refer to the
President as "Baby Bush" I can hear the sound of an axe grinding in the
background. It's the same as when people on the right talked about how
Bill Clinton had Vince Foster killed. You're doing your own argument a
disservice by making the statement, doubly so because of how gratuitous
the insult is in this context. AFAICT, GA is totally bipartisan in both
friends and enemies and I doubt the election of John Kerry would have
made one whit of difference in the operation of the DC ADIZ. That's
determined by the professional bureaucrats who really run DC regardless
of which stuffed shirt is sitting in the Oval Office.

> Again you fail to answer my question: How will it be determined if the
> pilot's action was deliberate or inadvertent?

Throw him or her in the Potomac and see if they float.

> >> The report noted that airspace violations are almost all
> >> inadvertent.
> >>
> >> If so, Mica's proposed bill will be virtually meaningless.
> >
> >Have you considered that might be the point?
>
> Yes. Actually I did. It might be a bone to through the journalists.
> But it sends the wrong message in my opinion. Such an anti pilot bill
> as proposed by Mica tacitly endorses the DC ADIZ instead of exposing
> its utter uselessness in providing security.

Politics, they say, is the art of the possible. The way I see it is
that in this case we have the option of half a loaf in the form of
Mica's somewhat unenforceable bill, or nothing in the form of something
foisted on us by Chuck Schumer et. al. that makes this look like a
holiday in Monaco by comparison.


> Wonderful. Another bit of legislation about as appropriate as that
> sparked by the Terry Schivo case.

I fail to see what Terri Schiavo has to do with this besides being a
random outburst of your animus toward the right wing, which, I daresay,
does more to discredit your arguments than anything I could say.

>
> The point you failed to address is, Mica's proposed bill fails to
> address that other 12%. Is everything about how it looks? What of
> substance and balanced legislation?
>

I failed to address it because it's a red herring. A bill that
addresses 88% of a problem is better than average.

> >I'm done sympathizing with pilots who get caught in this dragnet. It's
> >been around for nearly four years now and there's just no excuse to not
> >be aware of it. With GPS's costing under $500 there's simply no reason
> >to bumble your way into this.
>
> So you've examined every case and found no circumstances where the
> bumbling pilot was not at fault? Come on, you know better than that.

It seems to me that the onus is on you to show that it's not pilots'
fault something like 75% of the time. Even if 30% of total incidents
are due to other causes, that still leaves us on the hook for the
overwhelming majority.

> >IMHO the best we could hope for would be to reduce the size of the DC
> >ADIZ
>
> If the purpose of the DC ADIZ is to de clutter the airspace
> surrounding the FRZ, it's doubtful its size will be reduced unless
> F-16s are in the air 24 hours a day.
>
> Why can't we hope that the ADZ be dispensed with entirely?

Because a half hour ago I got off the subway in Boston and they were
announcing at each stop for people to look around them to see if there
were any unattended packages left behind. In NYC they're doing random
bag checks on people. If they were to drop the ADIZ there would likely
be a huge outcry from the public about the inconveniences being borne
by the common man while rich pilots fly at will with no restrictions.
This isn't a fight we can win right now.

> >So long as "weekend flyboys" are busting the rules regularly, the
> >donut-eaters making the rules are going to keep things the way they
> >are or even tighten the screws more.
>
> Perhaps its time for someone with a bit more intellect to look at the
> issue, and propose a security measure that might remotely have some
> modicum of achieving its purpose, instead of permitting the
> "dough-eaters" to foist their inane restrictions on the liberty of
> this nation's citizens.

Like I said, you're simply asking too much of the current environment.
To the extent that any improvement is possible, I would offer that it
depends upon us as pilots demonstrating that we're not bumbling morons,
which is kind of what the current numbers suggest to the people making
the decisions.

>
> In any event, I doubt seriously that a $100,000.00 fine would have
> prevented Sheaffer from committing his fiasco.

Well, we do agree on something. It would however be better for us as
regards news coverage and public sentiment, to hear that the potential
peanlty for that kind of screwup is fairly stiff.

Best,
-cwk.

[Larry Dighera]

On 22 Jul 2005 12:37:53 -0700, wrote in
om>::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On 21 Jul 2005 18:33:34 -0700, wrote in
>> . com>::
>>
>>
>> you failed to address my point: Why isn't his proposed bill balanced?
>
>I don't agree that it's unbalanced. More on this below.
>

If Mica's bill truly only penalizes pilots, and not anyone responsible
for the ADIZ violation, it is patently unbalanced.

[...]

>Some phrases are markers for things. When I hear someone refer to the
>President as "Baby Bush" I can hear the sound of an axe grinding in the
>background.

My lack of respect for the current administration is no secret. I
believe they have put us and generations to come in extreme debt to
avenge the attempted assassination of the current president's father
by waging an unwinable war under false pretext that will last for
decades. After all, we could have just let the Arabs fight among
themselves, and used all those hundreds of billions of dollars to
bolster our lagging educational system, so that the future generations
of this nation would be a credit to our forefathers.... I further
believe that the current administration's arrogant hubris toward
constitutional guarantees, is a far more grave offence than that over
which president Clinton was impeached. I'll end this unfinished
diatribe by saying, I am ashamed to be represented in world politics
by the likes of the current regime and its inarticulate, smirking,
dolt...

>You're doing your own argument a disservice by making the statement,
>doubly so because of how gratuitous the insult is in this context.

You'll have to explain that to me; I'm afraid I don't see exactly
which context you mean.

>AFAICT, GA is totally bipartisan in both friends and enemies and I doubt
>the election of John Kerry would have made one whit of difference in the
>operation of the DC ADIZ.

Perhaps you are correct, but somehow I want to believe Kerry would
have had the guts to oppose ineffective security policy dictated by
those shortsighted folks who implemented the DC ADIZ. At least he can
relate; he is currently an active GA pilot.

>That's determined by the professional bureaucrats who really run DC regardless
>of which stuffed shirt is sitting in the Oval Office.

If the leader of the free world is powerless to oppose those
professional bureaucrats, we are in more trouble than I care to
imagine.

[...]

>Politics, they say, is the art of the possible. The way I see it is
>that in this case we have the option of half a loaf in the form of
>Mica's somewhat unenforceable bill, or nothing in the form of something
>foisted on us by Chuck Schumer et. al. that makes this look like a
>holiday in Monaco by comparison.

Call me an idealist, but I'd like to think that the possibility of
reason and intellect instead of hysteria and doltish reactions are
still possible among our nations leaders. Obviously you have given in
to the status quo.

>
>> Wonderful. Another bit of legislation about as appropriate as that
>> sparked by the Terry Schivo case.
>
>I fail to see what Terri Schiavo has to do with this besides being a
>random outburst of your animus toward the right wing, which, I daresay,
>does more to discredit your arguments than anything I could say.

Congressional legislation that addresses a single case is
inappropriate at best, and surely a breach of public trust by our
lawmakers. The Schiavo autopsy proved that. This nation's leaders
are out of control, and I find it appalling, and will openly oppose
what I feel is unreasonable at every opportunity.

>>
>> The point you failed to address is, Mica's proposed bill fails to
>> address that other 12%. Is everything about how it looks? What of
>> substance and balanced legislation?
>>
>
>I failed to address it because it's a red herring. A bill that
>addresses 88% of a problem is better than average.

While it may currently be better than average, it reeks of
unprofessionism. Must we continue to accept the erosion of
congressional dignity and statesmanship without voicing an opposing
word? That won't make the current situation improve.

>> >I'm done sympathizing with pilots who get caught in this dragnet. It's
>> >been around for nearly four years now and there's just no excuse to not
>> >be aware of it. With GPS's costing under $500 there's simply no reason
>> >to bumble your way into this.
>>
>> So you've examined every case and found no circumstances where the
>> bumbling pilot was not at fault? Come on, you know better than that.
>
>It seems to me that the onus is on you to show that it's not pilots'
>fault something like 75% of the time. Even if 30% of total incidents
>are due to other causes, that still leaves us on the hook for the
>overwhelming majority.

I understand your argument, but it is predicated on the assumption
that the DC ADIZ is necessary. That hasn't been demonstrated to my
knowledge.

>> >IMHO the best we could hope for would be to reduce the size of the DC
>> >ADIZ
>>
>> If the purpose of the DC ADIZ is to de clutter the airspace
>> surrounding the FRZ, it's doubtful its size will be reduced unless
>> F-16s are in the air 24 hours a day.
>>
>> Why can't we hope that the ADZ be dispensed with entirely?
>
>Because a half hour ago I got off the subway in Boston and they were
>announcing at each stop for people to look around them to see if there
>were any unattended packages left behind. In NYC they're doing random
>bag checks on people.

As the months and years go by, I expect to see additional and more
frequent terrorist activity. Like Mr. Blair recently intoned, the way
to deflect the intended impact of the terrorists' acts is to go about
our business as usual. In my opinion, all this contraconstitutional
activity in the name of security only serves to demonstrate to the
terrorists, that they are winning, and very little to actually enhance
our security.

>If they were to drop the ADIZ there would likely
>be a huge outcry from the public about the inconveniences being borne
>by the common man while rich pilots fly at will with no restrictions.

Perhaps the common man doesn't understand that he's being unjustly
manipulated by inept bureaucrats with a hidden agenda.

>This isn't a fight we can win right now.

That may be so, but we _surely_ won't win it by sitting on our hands
and stifling our outrage at bureaucratic inanity.

>> >So long as "weekend flyboys" are busting the rules regularly, the
>> >donut-eaters making the rules are going to keep things the way they
>> >are or even tighten the screws more.
>>
>> Perhaps its time for someone with a bit more intellect to look at the
>> issue, and propose a security measure that might remotely have some
>> modicum of achieving its purpose, instead of permitting the
>> "dough-eaters" to foist their inane restrictions on the liberty of
>> this nation's citizens.
>
>Like I said, you're simply asking too much of the current environment.

If hysteria is given free reign, we will not like the outcome.

>To the extent that any improvement is possible, I would offer that it
>depends upon us as pilots demonstrating that we're not bumbling morons,
>which is kind of what the current numbers suggest to the people making
>the decisions.

I understand what you are saying, but your assessment fails to
comprehend the true facts:

1. 2,000 square miles of the busiest airspace in the world
was arbitrarily declared restricted.

2. The perimeter of this restricted airspace is unmarked by
discernable ground reference points.

3. The current penalty for violating that restricted airspace
is the possibility of being shot down by our nation's military.

4. ...

Items 1 and 2 are guaranteed to trap a lot of pilots who are not
bumbling morons as is born out by the statistics.

>>
>> In any event, I doubt seriously that a $100,000.00 fine would have
>> prevented Sheaffer from committing his fiasco.
>
>Well, we do agree on something. It would however be better for us as
>regards news coverage and public sentiment, to hear that the potential
>peanlty for that kind of screwup is fairly stiff.

I would characterize our government's placing its citizen pilots in
the cross hairs of our military munitions as being not only a "fairly
stiff" penalty, but down right egregious.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 20:26:54 -0400, Margy > wrote in
>::

>> Are you saying that ATC has never been responsible for airspace
>> violations?
>>
>>
>no, I'm saying they are probably broken down by aircraft and ignoring
>ATC as the entire flight is the responsibility of the pilot (even if
>they vector you over the mall it's your job to say "you want me to do
>WHAT?". I'm not saying it's right or fair or anything like that.
>

If I recall correctly, recently there was a Kentucky polition's flight
nearly shot down in the DC ADIZ due to ATC errors.


http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/264-printable.html

The Finger On The Trigger, In D.C....
Fletcher's Flight Almost Shot Down...
Of course, the hubbub in Washington centered around Kentucky Gov.
Ernie Fletcher's near-fatal trip to Ronald Reagan's funeral on
June 9. According to The Washington Post, unnamed sources reported
that the military was on the verge of blasting Fletcher's King Air
out of the Washington sky after it showed up as an unidentified
aircraft on the monitors in the National Capital Region Control
Center (NCRCC). But perhaps they were a bit shy of acquiring a
lock on the target. As AVweb told you two weeks ago, a civilian
contractor failed to notice the manual tracking tags attached to
the radar image of Fletcher's transponder-less airplane and that
triggered the evacuation of the Capitol building and the
scrambling of F-16s. According to the Post, an F-16 was looking
for the King Air but the pilot couldn't visually identify it
because of cloud cover. Moments later, the plane began a normal
approach to DCA and the military called off the attack. Fletcher
told the Lexington Herald that he was originally told he was
"milliseconds" from being shot down. The governor also claims that
through the aftermath of the incident (those on board the plane
were oblivious to the events around them until after they landed)
his thoughts were not on his narrowly spared hide but on the way
the incident would play in the media. "You don't want the state
embarrassed for reasons beyond your control," he said. "The first
few hours that concerned me more than anything. We are trying to
build a good image in Kentucky."

..."Can't Happen Again" Says FAA
The FAA claims it's learned from the incident. "We don't believe
it can happen again," Linda Schuessler, vice president for system
operations at the FAA, told the hearing. A direct feed from
Washington-area air traffic control was to have been installed in
the NCRCC. On June 9, the command post was getting a raw feed of
radar images over the Internet and none of the manually added
tags, like the one clearing the way for Fletcher's flight, were
displayed. With the installation of the direct feed, the NCRCC
staff will see exactly what controllers see. Aviation subcommittee
chair Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.) said he couldn't believe that kind
of miscommunication could have occurred. "It is both alarming and
unacceptable that in the two and a half years since September 11,
the federal and local agencies involved in airspace control and
security have still not resolved simple coordination,
communication and training issues," he said. The National Air
Traffic Controllers Association blamed the incident on staff
shortages. In a statement, President John Carr said that because
of a shortage of controllers, the ADIZ monitoring position is
filled with civilian contractors. "The situation most likely would
have been avoided had a fully trained and certified federal air
traffic controller been in that chair instead of a contract
employee," Carr said. The FAA has dismissed NATCA's claim, saying
the contractor was properly qualified.

[Andrew Gideon]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> If I recall correctly, recently there was a Kentucky polition's flight
> nearly shot down in the DC ADIZ due to ATC errors.
>

Just a nit: my reading of the cited article is that it wasn't a [civilian]
ATC error, but an error of "aÂ*civilian contractor" whom I presume to be
contracting to the military (perhaps in the "ADIZ monitoring" position
mentioned later in the article).

I've had the opportunity to hear lectures by, and speak to, a couple of
controllers working w/in the ADIZ. They're no happier about it than we
are, and less well equiped to cope with it.

- Andrew

[Skywise]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

<Snipola of excellent description of the state of affairs in the US>

Holy ****! Another person with a free thinking brain!!!
What's the world coming to?

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

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:31:20 -0400, Andrew Gideon >
wrote in ne.com>::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> If I recall correctly, recently there was a Kentucky polition's flight
>> nearly shot down in the DC ADIZ due to ATC errors.
>>
>
>Just a nit: my reading of the cited article is that it wasn't a [civilian]
>ATC error, but an error of "a*civilian contractor" whom I presume to be
>contracting to the military (perhaps in the "ADIZ monitoring" position
>mentioned later in the article).
>
>I've had the opportunity to hear lectures by, and speak to, a couple of
>controllers working w/in the ADIZ. They're no happier about it than we
>are, and less well equiped to cope with it.
>
> - Andrew


Right. The point is, that the flight came within milliseconds of
being shot down by our own military, and the cause of that appalling
situation was not pilot error. So if congressman Mica's bill fails to
penalize all those who cause DC ADIZ violations, it is not worthy of
being enacted.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> Right. The point is, that the flight came within milliseconds of
> being shot down by our own military, and the cause of that appalling
> situation was not pilot error. So if congressman Mica's bill fails to
> penalize all those who cause DC ADIZ violations, it is not worthy of
> being enacted.

Larry: It was no where near that close. No authority to shoot was ever given.
Thus it is at best misleading to claim that the "flight came within milliseconds
of being shot down." Unless you are thinking about, oh say, 10**6 milliseconds.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 18:23:32 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>::

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> Right. The point is, that the flight came within milliseconds of
>> being shot down by our own military, and the cause of that appalling
>> situation was not pilot error. So if congressman Mica's bill fails to
>> penalize all those who cause DC ADIZ violations, it is not worthy of
>> being enacted.
>
>Larry: It was no where near that close. No authority to shoot was ever given.
>Thus it is at best misleading to claim that the "flight came within milliseconds
>of being shot down." Unless you are thinking about, oh say, 10**6 milliseconds.


Hey, I'm just quoting Governor Fletcher:

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/264-printable.html
As AVweb told you two weeks ago, a civilian
contractor failed to notice the manual tracking tags attached to
the radar image of Fletcher's transponder-less airplane and that
triggered the evacuation of the Capitol building and the
scrambling of F-16s. According to the Post, an F-16 was looking
for the King Air but the pilot couldn't visually identify it
because of cloud cover. Moments later, the plane began a normal
approach to DCA and the military called off the attack. Fletcher
told the Lexington Herald that he was originally told he was
"milliseconds" from being shot down.

Can you cite a reference for your refutation of his words?

In any event, the pilot wasn't at fault for this ADIZ violation, but
under Mica's proposed bill, only pilots will be fined $100,000.00 for
DC ADIZ violations. That is unjust.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> Hey, I'm just quoting Governor Fletcher:

ok.

>
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/264-printable.html
> As AVweb told you two weeks ago, a civilian
> contractor failed to notice the manual tracking tags attached to
> the radar image of Fletcher's transponder-less airplane and that
> triggered the evacuation of the Capitol building and the
> scrambling of F-16s. According to the Post, an F-16 was looking
> for the King Air but the pilot couldn't visually identify it
> because of cloud cover. Moments later, the plane began a normal
> approach to DCA and the military called off the attack. Fletcher
> told the Lexington Herald that he was originally told he was
> "milliseconds" from being shot down.
>
> Can you cite a reference for your refutation of his words?

Actually, look at your reference. Do you see anywhere in it that the
F-16's were actually authorized to shootdown the aircraft? Absent such
an authorization, there is no way that Fletcher could have been
milliseconds from being shot down. (Never mind that even if such
a shoot down order was given - which wasn't, the F-16's still would
have had to acquire the target.)

Also, Fletcher was "originally told ..." by who? Was that person in
the room where the weapons and surveillance operators were? Or was
that person on the conference call? Did that person see or hear
any authorization to shoot? Lacking that, there isn't anything to refute.



> In any event, the pilot wasn't at fault for this ADIZ violation, but
> under Mica's proposed bill, only pilots will be fined $100,000.00 for
> DC ADIZ violations. That is unjust.

Agreed.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 19:27:33 -0000, Skywise
> wrote in
>::

>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>
><Snipola of excellent description of the state of affairs in the US>
>
>Holy ****! Another person with a free thinking brain!!!
>What's the world coming to?
>
>Brian


Thanks.

It looks like Mica has Blakey thinking too:


-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 11, Number 30a -- July 25, 2005

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

FAA PLANS TRAINING COURSE ON ADIZ
If you're planning a flight to the Washington, D.C., area in the
future, you may soon need a new endorsement in your logbook. The
FAA is considering making it mandatory for all pilots who fly into
the national capital region to complete a training course on the
rules of the air in that complex restricted airspace. Pilots who
take the course will get a certificate of completion that they'll
have to take with them if they want to fly in that space. There's
no word on when the course might be available but AOPA hopes it's
soon. It's also hoped that the training requirement might calm
calls for draconian penalties suggested by some in Congress to
deter wayward pilots.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/442-full.html#190232


Unfortunately, I don't see how this proposed regulation nor Mica's
proposed bill, will prevent Sheafferesque DC ADIZ violations.

I wonder if anyone has thought about _not_ evacuating the bureaucrats
and politicians at the approach of every unidentified light aircraft.
It might be safer given the fact that the aircraft will likely be shot
down _before_ it reaches its target, and it would certainly be less
intrusive.

[Skywise]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 19:27:33 -0000, Skywise
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>>
>><Snipola of excellent description of the state of affairs in the US>
>>
>>Holy ****! Another person with a free thinking brain!!!
>>What's the world coming to?
>>
>>Brian
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> It looks like Mica has Blakey thinking too:
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> AVflash Volume 11, Number 30a -- July 25, 2005
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> FAA PLANS TRAINING COURSE ON ADIZ
> If you're planning a flight to the Washington, D.C., area in the
> future, you may soon need a new endorsement in your logbook. The
> FAA is considering making it mandatory for all pilots who fly into
> the national capital region to complete a training course on the
> rules of the air in that complex restricted airspace. Pilots who
> take the course will get a certificate of completion that they'll
> have to take with them if they want to fly in that space. There's
> no word on when the course might be available but AOPA hopes it's
> soon. It's also hoped that the training requirement might calm
> calls for draconian penalties suggested by some in Congress to
> deter wayward pilots.
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/442-full.html#190232
>
>
> Unfortunately, I don't see how this proposed regulation nor Mica's
> proposed bill, will prevent Sheafferesque DC ADIZ violations.
>
> I wonder if anyone has thought about _not_ evacuating the bureaucrats
> and politicians at the approach of every unidentified light aircraft.
> It might be safer given the fact that the aircraft will likely be shot
> down _before_ it reaches its target, and it would certainly be less
> intrusive.

Interesting proposal. It might certainly reduce the number of accidental
incursions on the part of intelligent thinking pilots. But as you have
been harping on there is still the possibility of error not due to the
pilot, and this idea does not seem to address that either.

And you're right about the foolishness of making 10,000+ people run
through the streets in panic. Makes it much easier to dust them with
chem or bio weapons.

Of course, all of this, including the existence of the ADIZ in general,
does nothing to stop a terrorist. Do they seriously think that a group
of terrorists could fill a learjet with explosives, file a perfectly
legal and normal flight plan to land at a local airport, then at the
last minute divert at high speed to the capitol building? I think it
would be all over before anyone realized there was a plane in the wrong
airspace.

If *I* can think of it, I'm sure the terrorists already have.

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

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[[email protected]]

Skywise wrote:
> Larry Dighera > wrote in
> :
>
> > On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 19:27:33 -0000, Skywise
> > > wrote in
> > >::
> >
> >
> > Unfortunately, I don't see how this proposed regulation nor Mica's
> > proposed bill, will prevent Sheafferesque DC ADIZ violations.
> >
> > I wonder if anyone has thought about _not_ evacuating the bureaucrats
> > and politicians at the approach of every unidentified light aircraft.

According to the original article, there have been well over a thousand
incursions of the DC ADIZ, and by my recollection, the Capitol has been
evacuated, what, three times? So they're clearly not hiting the panic
button every time someone grazes the edge.

> Interesting proposal. It might certainly reduce the number of accidental
> incursions on the part of intelligent thinking pilots. But as you have
> been harping on there is still the possibility of error not due to the
> pilot, and this idea does not seem to address that either.

If anybody knows of sources for some more in-depth statistics I think
this allegation could be pretty soundly refuted as a significant
factor. If you've seen more detailed numbers I'd love a pointer and
I'll crunch some numbers, and who knows.

In any case, you have to assume FSS/ATC screwups on an extremely
regular basis before their role becomes anything close to significant
in the overall picture. We're not talking about a pop-up TFR that's
announced 3 hours before it goes hot.

> Of course, all of this, including the existence of the ADIZ in general,
> does nothing to stop a terrorist. Do they seriously think that a group
> of terrorists could fill a learjet with explosives, file a perfectly
> legal and normal flight plan to land at a local airport, then at the
> last minute divert at high speed to the capitol building? I think it
> would be all over before anyone realized there was a plane in the wrong
> airspace.

Well, the Daley show would respond, "see, the ADIZ should be 100NM
around so they have enough time to respond."

You're thinking a little one-dimensionally here. Part of the role of
the ADIZ is to establish a demarcation line where certain Rules of
Engagement come into effect, namely shoot-down authority. Assume the
case where we have a somewhat suspicious plane moving around out there,
and as it approaches DC it is being watched, and there is no radio
contact, etc., authorities begin to say, OK, something ain't right
here. Fighters will be in the air before the suspect plane breaches the
ADIZ. If it crosses the line, then the countdown begins.

I think we can all agree that if someone in Podunk County Airport sees
a couple of unfamiliar people loading 55-gallon drums into a rusty old
Lear, calls it in to the cops, and they track it on radar as it heads
towards Washington while refusing any kind of radio contact, there
comes a point at which some decision needs to be made. The ADIZ is that
line where things change gear. Such lines are necessary and not alien
in aviation- Class B airspace is more complicated (different altitudes
and all) and most of us manage to spend our entire flying careers
without busting anyone's airspace.

Best,
-cwk.

[Skywise]

wrote in news:1122332057.792562.282220
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>
> Skywise wrote:
<Snipola>

>> Of course, all of this, including the existence of the ADIZ in general,
>> does nothing to stop a terrorist. Do they seriously think that a group
>> of terrorists could fill a learjet with explosives, file a perfectly
>> legal and normal flight plan to land at a local airport, then at the
>> last minute divert at high speed to the capitol building? I think it
>> would be all over before anyone realized there was a plane in the wrong
>> airspace.
>
> Well, the Daley show would respond, "see, the ADIZ should be 100NM
> around so they have enough time to respond."
>
> You're thinking a little one-dimensionally here. Part of the role of
> the ADIZ is to establish a demarcation line where certain Rules of
> Engagement come into effect, namely shoot-down authority. Assume the
> case where we have a somewhat suspicious plane moving around out there,
> and as it approaches DC it is being watched, and there is no radio
> contact, etc., authorities begin to say, OK, something ain't right
> here. Fighters will be in the air before the suspect plane breaches the
> ADIZ. If it crosses the line, then the countdown begins.
>
> I think we can all agree that if someone in Podunk County Airport sees
> a couple of unfamiliar people loading 55-gallon drums into a rusty old
> Lear, calls it in to the cops, and they track it on radar as it heads
> towards Washington while refusing any kind of radio contact, there
> comes a point at which some decision needs to be made. The ADIZ is that
> line where things change gear. Such lines are necessary and not alien
> in aviation- Class B airspace is more complicated (different altitudes
> and all) and most of us manage to spend our entire flying careers
> without busting anyone's airspace.
>
> Best,
> -cwk.

You are presuming that the plane would be acting suspiciously, that
there is a lack of communications, that someone saw the plane being
loaded with whatever explosives.

I'm envisioning a scenario where the sleeper cell terrorist sets the
flight up to look like any other flight, originating from within the US
border, no less. They may even have proper clearance into the ADIZ on
their way to landing. Perhaps loading the plane with explosives wouldn't
even be necessary, just topped off tanks and energy of momentum.

Al Qeada has already proven themselves to be very patient planners.
9/11 was in the works for several years at least. The WTC towers were
already a planned target for over a decade before 9/11, as shown by
the first attack on the Towers.

I'm arguing that the ADIZ and fighter jets and SAM's would not stop
a plane in such a scenario as it would happen too quickly. How close
is the closest airport to the Capitol Building? How long would it take
a business jet at 250-300 kts to get there after declaring a go-around.

The ADIZ is an ineffectual knee-jerk reaction that has at best minimal
impact on terrorism but several times more impact on innocent law
abiding citizens.

I'm reminded of a couple quotes;

"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."
"Locks only keep honest people honest."

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

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 20:25:44 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>::

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> Hey, I'm just quoting Governor Fletcher:
>
>ok.
>
>>
>> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/264-printable.html
>> As AVweb told you two weeks ago, a civilian
>> contractor failed to notice the manual tracking tags attached to
>> the radar image of Fletcher's transponder-less airplane and that
>> triggered the evacuation of the Capitol building and the
>> scrambling of F-16s. According to the Post, an F-16 was looking
>> for the King Air but the pilot couldn't visually identify it
>> because of cloud cover. Moments later, the plane began a normal
>> approach to DCA and the military called off the attack. Fletcher
>> told the Lexington Herald that he was originally told he was
>> "milliseconds" from being shot down.
>>
>> Can you cite a reference for your refutation of his words?
>
>Actually, look at your reference. Do you see anywhere in it that the
>F-16's were actually authorized to shootdown the aircraft?



>Absent such
>an authorization, there is no way that Fletcher could have been
>milliseconds from being shot down. (Never mind that even if such
>a shoot down order was given - which wasn't, the F-16's still would
>have had to acquire the target.)
>
>Also, Fletcher was "originally told ..." by who? Was that person in
>the room where the weapons and surveillance operators were? Or was
>that person on the conference call? Did that person see or hear
>any authorization to shoot? Lacking that, there isn't anything to refute.
>
>
>
>> In any event, the pilot wasn't at fault for this ADIZ violation, but
>> under Mica's proposed bill, only pilots will be fined $100,000.00 for
>> DC ADIZ violations. That is unjust.
>
>Agreed.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 20:25:44 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>::

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> Hey, I'm just quoting Governor Fletcher:
>
>ok.
>
>>
>> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/264-printable.html
>> As AVweb told you two weeks ago, a civilian
>> contractor failed to notice the manual tracking tags attached to
>> the radar image of Fletcher's transponder-less airplane and that
>> triggered the evacuation of the Capitol building and the
>> scrambling of F-16s. According to the Post, an F-16 was looking
>> for the King Air but the pilot couldn't visually identify it
>> because of cloud cover. Moments later, the plane began a normal
>> approach to DCA and the military called off the attack. Fletcher
>> told the Lexington Herald that he was originally told he was
>> "milliseconds" from being shot down.
>>
>> Can you cite a reference for your refutation of his words?
>
>Actually, look at your reference. Do you see anywhere in it that the
>F-16's were actually authorized to shootdown the aircraft?

Not only that, the word 'originally' is telling. Apparently the
milliseconds advice was later revised.

>Absent such
>an authorization, there is no way that Fletcher could have been
>milliseconds from being shot down. (Never mind that even if such
>a shoot down order was given - which wasn't, the F-16's still would
>have had to acquire the target.)

Right. But visual acquisition wasn't possible. That points out
another flaw in trying to make DC secure by putting airmen in our
military's cross hairs. Targeting our citizens is the wrong response
to terrorist activity in my opinion.

>Also, Fletcher was "originally told ..." by who? Was that person in
>the room where the weapons and surveillance operators were? Or was
>that person on the conference call? Did that person see or hear
>any authorization to shoot? Lacking that, there isn't anything to refute.
>

Who is responsible for issuing such an authorization?

>
>> In any event, the pilot wasn't at fault for this ADIZ violation, but
>> under Mica's proposed bill, only pilots will be fined $100,000.00 for
>> DC ADIZ violations. That is unjust.
>
>Agreed.

I'm sure there are other possible scenarios for ADIZ violation where
the pilot isn't the cause. Given enough time we'll probably be
hearing about them.

[[email protected]]

Skywise wrote:
> wrote in news:1122332057.792562.282220
> @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Skywise wrote:

<Snipola>

> I'm reminded of a couple quotes;
>
> "Locks only keep honest people honest."

So I take it you don't lock your doors, right?

I agree that the ADIZ will not serve as the primary defense against all
aircraft-based terror attacks. It will however help some portion of the
time.

In any case, the argument that the ADIZ is not capable in its current
form of stopping all or most attacks is not an argument against an ADIZ
per se. Again, the Schumer and Daley crowd would take your point and
say, "Indeed, if the ADIZ went out to 100NM, then we could have time to
scramble jets to stop a renegade Lear. QED."

Of course, maintaining a 100NM FRZ would have an enormous economic
cost, just as restricting trucks over 5000# curb weight into DC would
cause immense economic problems. So all of these things are a balancing
act. It seems to me that the security bureaucrats have decided that the
current ADIZ is large enough to buy some time to stop the simpler
attacks while not causing significant economic dislocations.

And, bottom line, I still maintain that the vast majority of these
incursions are unambiguously the fault of pilot screwups that are
utterly preventable. The best chance we have to loosen the chains is to
prove that we're not a bunch of nincompoops and the numbers right now
don't appear to make us look too good.

-cwk.

[Peter Duniho]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> I'm envisioning a scenario where the sleeper cell terrorist sets the
> flight up to look like any other flight, originating from within the US
> border, no less. They may even have proper clearance into the ADIZ on
> their way to landing. Perhaps loading the plane with explosives wouldn't
> even be necessary, just topped off tanks and energy of momentum.

A half-way intelligent terrorist wouldn't even bother with that. That is,
using the airplane for the actual attack.

It has already been demonstrated, at least twice, that you can easily empty
the large buildings protecting portions of our government, simply by flying
an airplane into the ADIZ and near DC. So, you just park a Ryder truck
around the corner and wait. Have an accomplice fly the plane, get everyone
out near the street, and then blow them up.

Alternatively, skip the truck and fly the plane into all the people. It
won't be nearly as gruesome or effective, but it would certainly still have
an impact, so to speak.

> [...]
> I'm arguing that the ADIZ and fighter jets and SAM's would not stop
> a plane in such a scenario as it would happen too quickly. How close
> is the closest airport to the Capitol Building? How long would it take
> a business jet at 250-300 kts to get there after declaring a go-around.

You are probably correct. But even assuming they could shoot the plane
down, a) the wreckage is sure to create some havok somewhere, and b) the
Ryder-truck-around-the-corner option works just fine even if the plane is
shot down (and as an added bonus, the accomplice in the plane gets his free
ride to wherever it is suicide terrorists think they're going, and no messy
FAA enforcement action to worry about).

Even more reason to believe that the ADIZ itself and the current responses
to violations are senseless.

Pete

[Skywise]

wrote in news:1122389222.466068.228830
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Skywise wrote:
>> wrote in news:1122332057.792562.282220
>> @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > Skywise wrote:
>
> <Snipola>
>
>> I'm reminded of a couple quotes;
>>
>> "Locks only keep honest people honest."
>
> So I take it you don't lock your doors, right?

Of course I do. But if a criminal _really_ wanted in those locks
wouldn't stop them.

There's a lot of security around the Hope Diamond, and it certainly
stops the scumbag criminals from simply walking up to the thing
and stuffing it in their pocket. But that doesn't mean there haven't
been attempts or plans at stealing it. If a group is determined
enough and wants it bad enough, they'll find a way to grab it.

The ADIZ may stop the low level wanna-be terrorists, but Al Queda
is a determined group and is willing to go to great lengths to
accomplish their goals.

That is not to say that I don't think there needs to be some sort
of security measures. I am saying that the security measures that
are in place are innefective. Don't ask me. I don't have a solution.
I don't know enough to be a security expert, but I do know enough
to realize that what's in place isn't going to work.

<Snipola of rest>

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

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Peter Duniho]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> Of course I do. But if a criminal _really_ wanted in those locks
> wouldn't stop them.

And of course, the point there is that locking the locks is an
inconsequential inconvenience.

It's well and good to make reasonable efforts to secure persons, places, and
property. But IMHO "reasonable" means the security measure is a tiny
fraction of the cost and/or inconvenience of whatever loss might occur (with
or without the security measure...it goes without saying no security measure
is 100% effective).

> [...]
> That is not to say that I don't think there needs to be some sort
> of security measures. I am saying that the security measures that
> are in place are innefective. Don't ask me. I don't have a solution.
> I don't know enough to be a security expert, but I do know enough
> to realize that what's in place isn't going to work.

I agree what's in place isn't going to work. I may disagree on whether it's
worth trying to make *anything* that is "going to work". That is, it's my
opinion that security measures required to ensure no terrorist attacks on DC
by airplanes are too draconian to be worthwhile. Heck, it's my opinion that
the CURRENT security measures are too draconian to be worthwhile, even if
they did do what they're supposed to.

Pete

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:41:59 -0000, Skywise
> wrote in
>::

>> I wonder if anyone has thought about _not_ evacuating the bureaucrats
>> and politicians at the approach of every unidentified light aircraft.
>> It might be safer given the fact that the aircraft will likely be shot
>> down _before_ it reaches its target, and it would certainly be less
>> intrusive.
>
>Interesting proposal. It might certainly reduce the number of accidental
>incursions on the part of intelligent thinking pilots. But as you have
>been harping on there is still the possibility of error not due to the
>pilot, and this idea does not seem to address that either.
>
>And you're right about the foolishness of making 10,000+ people run
>through the streets in panic. Makes it much easier to dust them with
>chem or bio weapons.

Not only that, but if the buildings are being defended by Stinger
missiles, they should be safer than the surrounding areas. Or am I
missing something?

>Of course, all of this, including the existence of the ADIZ in general,
>does nothing to stop a terrorist.

Right. The DC ADIZ only provides a means of possibly identifying
friendly aircraft before our government shoots them down. That
inconveniences only those citizens whom we've put in our military's
cross hairs: our nation's airmen.

>Do they seriously think that a group
>of terrorists could fill a learjet with explosives, file a perfectly
>legal and normal flight plan to land at a local airport, then at the
>last minute divert at high speed to the capitol building? I think it
>would be all over before anyone realized there was a plane in the wrong
>airspace.
>
>If *I* can think of it, I'm sure the terrorists already have.

Unfortunately, those responsible for the security of the DC area,
don't seem to have a defense for such an attack as you hypothesize,
other than the batteries of Stinger SAMs.

[Larry Dighera]

On 26 Jul 2005 07:47:02 -0700, wrote in
. com>::

>I agree that the ADIZ will not serve as the primary defense against all
>aircraft-based terror attacks. It will however help some portion of the
>time.

Please explain how the DC ADIZ will effectively deflect any
hypothetical attack. In my opinion, the DC ADIZ only provides an
identification buffer so friendly flights are not accidentally shot
down by the SAMs surrounding DC.

>In any case, the argument that the ADIZ is not capable in its current
>form of stopping all or most attacks is not an argument against an ADIZ
>per se. Again, the Schumer and Daley crowd would take your point and
>say, "Indeed, if the ADIZ went out to 100NM, then we could have time to
>scramble jets to stop a renegade Lear. QED."

If the flight of the hypothetical Lear attack proposed by Brian
originated _within_ the existing DC ADIZ, anyone who proposed
increasing the size of the ADIZ would be seen as irrational.

Schumer is a Bonanza pilot. What makes you think he's unfriendly
toward GA?

>It seems to me that the security bureaucrats have decided that the
>current ADIZ is large enough to buy some time to stop the simpler
>attacks while not causing significant economic dislocations.

Again, please explain how the current DC ADIZ provides any means of
stopping a hypothetical aerial attack. It's just there so our
military doesn't accidentally shoot down innocent civilians before
they enter the FRZ.

>And, bottom line, I still maintain that the vast majority of these
>incursions are unambiguously the fault of pilot screwups that are
>utterly preventable.

Perhaps that's true, but such an attitude fails to address the
outrageousness of restricting flight in some of the world's busiest
airspace with the expectation of said restriction effectively
preventing incursions into it. There are no visible points on the
surface to identify the ADIZ boundaries. The DC ADIZ is simply a trap
for airmen, that is ineffective in accomplishing its purpose.

>The best chance we have to loosen the chains is to
>prove that we're not a bunch of nincompoops and the numbers right now
>don't appear to make us look too good.

And the numbers aren't likely to get any better, unless you know of
something that will cause them to change. The threat of large fines
pales in comparison to the threat of being shot down by our military.
Laws written on paper do nothing to warn pilots before they enter the
unmarked DC ADIZ boundary. The DC ADIZ is a poorly designed,
ineffectual band-aid that should not be tolerated, but exposed for the
ill conceived imposition it is. Expecting the rate of DC ADIZ
incursions to decrease is an unrealistic expectation at best. It
smacks of the same imbecilic mentality that created the DC ADIZ in the
first place.

[George Patterson]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> Not only that, but if the buildings are being defended by Stinger
> missiles, they should be safer than the surrounding areas. Or am I
> missing something?

From the photos I've seen published, the missile batteries seem to be located
well away from buildings such as the Capitol, and so don't provide direct
protection. I would also bet that they don't form a perfect screen around the
Mall area. In addition, one of the articles I read (I posted the link in another
thread) strongly implied that the batteries are moved in only during periods in
which the security level is heightened (IIRC, "orange" or higher), so evacuation
would've made sense during most of the last year.

In addition, it's certain that the buildings themselves are the targets for a
group like Al Quaida; killing the occupants would be simply icing on the cake.
Evacuating a building moves people away from the bullseye.

Evacuation strategy is also imperfect. If the evacuees are told to scatter, you
reduce the possibility of large numbers of people being killed while increasing
the chance that some people will be killed if the plane hits off-target. Having
everyone move in the same direction decreases the chance that the plane will hit
anyone while increasing the chance of large numbers of casualties if it does hit
them.

You pays yer money and you takes yer chances.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:11:38 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote in <_mOFe.25$PX4.1@trndny08>::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> Not only that, but if the buildings are being defended by Stinger
>> missiles, they should be safer than the surrounding areas. Or am I
>> missing something?
>
>In addition, one of the articles I read (I posted the link in another
>thread) strongly implied that the batteries are moved in only during periods in
>which the security level is heightened (IIRC, "orange" or higher), so evacuation
>would've made sense during most of the last year.

So it would seem that the best way to prevent evacuations would be to
have the missile batteries in place all the time.

>Evacuation strategy is also imperfect. If the evacuees are told to scatter, you
>reduce the possibility of large numbers of people being killed while increasing
>the chance that some people will be killed if the plane hits off-target. Having
>everyone move in the same direction decreases the chance that the plane will hit
>anyone while increasing the chance of large numbers of casualties if it does hit
>them.

That's a reasonable analysis, but it says nothing of the loss of
dignity the evacuation policy imposes on the leaders of our noble
nation, nor the loss of productive work accomplished. There's got to
be a better strategy.

[George Patterson]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> Schumer is a Bonanza pilot.

This is Chuck Schumer? Since when? I can find no record of him having any sort
of certificate, and no aircraft is listed as being owned by him.

> What makes you think he's unfriendly toward GA?

Oh, trivial matters like his pressure on the government to set up a DC type ADIZ
over New York and establish "air carrier standard for security" at GA fields.
Articles on these and other efforts of his can be found on the AOPA site by
searching for "Schumer."

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On 26 Jul 2005 07:47:02 -0700, wrote in
> . com>::
>
> >I agree that the ADIZ will not serve as the primary defense against all
> >aircraft-based terror attacks. It will however help some portion of the
> >time.
>
> Please explain how the DC ADIZ will effectively deflect any
> hypothetical attack. In my opinion, the DC ADIZ only provides an
> identification buffer so friendly flights are not accidentally shot
> down by the SAMs surrounding DC.

Well, this is part of my point. IF you are willing to concede that at
some point the gov't will attempt to shoot down planes which are
suspected of being engaged in a terrorist attack, then you need to have
a line marked DO NOT CROSS.

> If the flight of the hypothetical Lear attack proposed by Brian
> originated _within_ the existing DC ADIZ, anyone who proposed
> increasing the size of the ADIZ would be seen as irrational.

No one but airlines inside the ADIZ. Problem solved. Of course there
will be a special security program so that jets owned by campaign
contributors will be able to get where they want.

> Schumer is a Bonanza pilot. What makes you think he's unfriendly
> toward GA?

Um, every public statement on GA he's made over the past four years?
Thanks George P for answering this one.

> Again, please explain how the current DC ADIZ provides any means of
> stopping a hypothetical aerial attack. It's just there so our
> military doesn't accidentally shoot down innocent civilians before
> they enter the FRZ.

It's an escalation point. If you didn't have the ADIZ you;d have a lot
more planes coming close to the kill line and less time to sort out the
Attas from the Sheaffers.

> >And, bottom line, I still maintain that the vast majority of these
> >incursions are unambiguously the fault of pilot screwups that are
> >utterly preventable.
>
> Perhaps that's true, but such an attitude fails to address the
> outrageousness of restricting flight in some of the world's busiest
> airspace with the expectation of said restriction effectively
> preventing incursions into it. There are no visible points on the
> surface to identify the ADIZ boundaries. The DC ADIZ is simply a trap
> for airmen, that is ineffective in accomplishing its purpose.

Bull****, Larry, Bull****. By that definition every slice of Class B
and C airspace are equally outrageous because they are defined by DME
arcs.

> >The best chance we have to loosen the chains is to
> >prove that we're not a bunch of nincompoops and the numbers right now
> >don't appear to make us look too good.
>
> And the numbers aren't likely to get any better, unless you know of
> something that will cause them to change. The threat of large fines
> pales in comparison to the threat of being shot down by our military.

It's a lot easier to actually apply the penalty of a fine than shooting
someone down. It's more likely to actually be used and therefore become
believable. No one really wants to shoot an innocent bumbling American
GA pilot out of the sky.

-cwk.

-cwk.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 19:23:37 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote in <ZaRFe.141$PX4.132@trndny08>::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> Schumer is a Bonanza pilot.
>
>This is Chuck Schumer? Since when? I can find no record of him having any sort
>of certificate, and no aircraft is listed as being owned by him.

My assumption that Schumer was a Bonanza pilot was a result of
skimming this article:
http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/newyork/features/10291/

From this article:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1159099/posts
it seems he charter's aircraft instead, and got caught in a bit of a
financial scandal as a result.

>> What makes you think he's unfriendly toward GA?
>
>Oh, trivial matters like his pressure on the government to set up a DC type ADIZ
>over New York and establish "air carrier standard for security" at GA fields.
>Articles on these and other efforts of his can be found on the AOPA site by
>searching for "Schumer."

I was unaware of those issues. Thank you for the information.

[Skywise]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:11:38 GMT, George Patterson
> > wrote in <_mOFe.25$PX4.1@trndny08>::
>
>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>
>>> Not only that, but if the buildings are being defended by Stinger
>>> missiles, they should be safer than the surrounding areas. Or am I
>>> missing something?
>>
>>In addition, one of the articles I read (I posted the link in another
>>thread) strongly implied that the batteries are moved in only during
>>periods in which the security level is heightened (IIRC, "orange" or
>>higher), so evacuation would've made sense during most of the last year.
>
> So it would seem that the best way to prevent evacuations would be to
> have the missile batteries in place all the time.

Not only that, but in a scenario like I described, those batteries
would almost certainly have to have independent authority to fire
at an incoming aircraft. Obviously that raises other concerns.

<Snipola of rest>

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

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Sylvain]

Skywise wrote:

> Not only that, but in a scenario like I described, those batteries
> would almost certainly have to have independent authority to fire
> at an incoming aircraft. Obviously that raises other concerns.

yep, imagine them being manned by the same kind of cop who
shot the Brazillian guy point blank seven times in the head (once,
I can understand, twice maybe, one has to be sure, three
times is perfectionism, but seven times? it was personal, and
he was enjoying himself, and I'd hate to see someone like him in
charge of a AAA battery...)

--Sylvain

[Larry Dighera]

On 25 Jul 2005 15:54:17 -0700, wrote in
. com>::

>In any case, you have to assume FSS/ATC screwups on an extremely
>regular basis before their role becomes anything close to significant
>in the overall picture.

I would disagree with that assessment. If our government's FSS/ATC
error resulted in the loss of life of one of our nation's citizen's,
it would be a tragic travesty of justice, and completely intolerable.

[Jose]

> No one but airlines inside the ADIZ. Problem solved.

I forgot - what kind of planes were responsible for the only aviation
related terrorist attack in this country ever?

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

Jose wrote:
>> No one but airlines inside the ADIZ. Problem solved.
>
> I forgot - what kind of planes were responsible for the only aviation
> related terrorist attack in this country ever?

Some sort of dinky little twins. I think a company named Boeing made them.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Larry Dighera]

On 27 Jul 2005 13:09:01 -0700, wrote in
om>::

>
>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On 26 Jul 2005 07:47:02 -0700, wrote in
>> . com>::
>>
>> >I agree that the ADIZ will not serve as the primary defense against all
>> >aircraft-based terror attacks. It will however help some portion of the
>> >time.
>>
>> Please explain how the DC ADIZ will effectively deflect any
>> hypothetical attack. In my opinion, the DC ADIZ only provides an
>> identification buffer so friendly flights are not accidentally shot
>> down by the SAMs surrounding DC.
>
>Well, this is part of my point. IF you are willing to concede that at
>some point the gov't will attempt to shoot down planes which are
>suspected of being engaged in a terrorist attack, then you need to have
>a line marked DO NOT CROSS.

The boundary of the FRZ is such a 'Do Not Cross' line in my opinion,
not the DC ADIZ boundary. So again I ask you, please explain how the
DC ADIZ will effectively deflect _any_ hypothetical attack?

>> If the flight of the hypothetical Lear attack proposed by Brian
>> originated _within_ the existing DC ADIZ, anyone who proposed
>> increasing the size of the ADIZ would be seen as irrational.
>
>No one but airlines inside the ADIZ. Problem solved.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how restricting GA from operations within
the DC ADIZ bolsters your argument for increasing the size of the DC
ADIZ. Please enlighten me.

>> Again, please explain how the current DC ADIZ provides any means of
>> stopping a hypothetical aerial attack. It's just there so our
>> military doesn't accidentally shoot down innocent civilians before
>> they enter the FRZ.
>
>It's an escalation point. If you didn't have the ADIZ you;d have a lot
>more planes coming close to the kill line and less time to sort out the
>Attas from the Sheaffers.

So you agree that the DC ADIZ does _nothing_ to prevent an aerial
attack?

>> >And, bottom line, I still maintain that the vast majority of these
>> >incursions are unambiguously the fault of pilot screwups that are
>> >utterly preventable.
>>
>> Perhaps that's true, but such an attitude fails to address the
>> outrageousness of restricting flight in some of the world's busiest
>> airspace with the expectation of said restriction effectively
>> preventing incursions into it. There are no visible points on the
>> surface to identify the ADIZ boundaries. The DC ADIZ is simply a trap
>> for airmen, that is ineffective in accomplishing its purpose.
>
>Bull****, Larry, Bull****.

Now there's an argument that's difficult to refute. :-)

>By that definition every slice of Class B
>and C airspace are equally outrageous because they are defined by DME
>arcs.

Your use of the word 'every' here is unfortunate, as the LAX Class B
(for one) is defined by surface features.

That aside, VFR flight into Class B airspace is accomplished by
contacting the controlling authority and voicing a request, unlike the
necessity for filing a flight plan in advance to enter the DC ADIZ, so
the example you chose is unfortunately flawed.

Class B airspace is created for a reasonable purpose: to separate
aircraft in congested terminal areas, unlike the DC ADIZ which was
created to give flights a chance to be interrogated before being shot
down in error by our military. Class B airspace serves a rational
function. The DC ADIZ is the result of hysteria and showmanship at
the expense of civil liberty; it serves only to palliate the lethal
danger in which our government places our airmen in the name of pseudo
security.

>> >The best chance we have to loosen the chains is to
>> >prove that we're not a bunch of nincompoops and the numbers right now
>> >don't appear to make us look too good.
>>
>> And the numbers aren't likely to get any better, unless you know of
>> something that will cause them to change. The threat of large fines
>> pales in comparison to the threat of being shot down by our military.
>
>It's a lot easier to actually apply the penalty of a fine than shooting
>someone down.

I would contend that squeezing a trigger is several orders of
magnitude easier than countless hours of judicial due process. The
recent brutal shooting of an innocent civilian victim at the hands of
nervous LEOs in Britain comes to mind.

>It's more likely to actually be used and therefore become
>believable.

The threat of the use of lethal force against our citizens by our
nation's military is quite believable to me. I suspect, that many
military pilots have little regard for civilian airmen as was
evidenced in the deliberate and wanton meteoric Ninja flight into
congested Class B and C terminal airspace without benefit of the
required ATC clearance resulting in the "disintegration" of an ATP
rated pilot under ATC control in his Cessna 172 on November 16, 2000.
General Rosa found that a verbal reprimand was appropriate punishment
for the military airman responsible for that. So it appears the
military faces little consequence for killing citizens in error if
history is any guide.

>No one really wants to shoot an innocent bumbling American
>GA pilot out of the sky.

Oh some military cowboys might disagree with that contention.

But a policy of fining DC ADIZ violators for crossing an invisible
line in the sky does nothing to remove our governments lethal threat
against its airmen. And if Mica's proposed bill is implemented as
written (only airmen would be fined, not any individual who caused the
ADIZ violation), it only adds an additional penalty to the lethal
threat already in place solely against airmen. The DC ADIZ is inane,
and Mica's proposed $100,000.00 fine for pilots who erroneously enter
the DC ADIZ bolsters the intimacy of the DC ADIZ concept at the
expense of airmen, not all who cause the errors. It's a matter of
further injustice piled upon existing injustice.

[John Larson]

I hate these restrictions as much as the next guy. But they are there. I
have Z E R O sympathy for some guy who doesn't know exactly where he is in
space at any given time on any given day or night. That includes myself.

But restricted we are. The answer is to live in the West (where I do) and
not worry ever about TFR's etc. (unless there is a fire.)

I love sitting back and watching you guys whine about the DC area when in
fact you can do N O T H I N G about it.


"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On 27 Jul 2005 13:09:01 -0700, wrote in
> om>::
>
>>
>>
>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> On 26 Jul 2005 07:47:02 -0700, wrote in
>>> . com>::
>>>
>>> >I agree that the ADIZ will not serve as the primary defense against all
>>> >aircraft-based terror attacks. It will however help some portion of the
>>> >time.
>>>
>>> Please explain how the DC ADIZ will effectively deflect any
>>> hypothetical attack. In my opinion, the DC ADIZ only provides an
>>> identification buffer so friendly flights are not accidentally shot
>>> down by the SAMs surrounding DC.
>>
>>Well, this is part of my point. IF you are willing to concede that at
>>some point the gov't will attempt to shoot down planes which are
>>suspected of being engaged in a terrorist attack, then you need to have
>>a line marked DO NOT CROSS.
>
> The boundary of the FRZ is such a 'Do Not Cross' line in my opinion,
> not the DC ADIZ boundary. So again I ask you, please explain how the
> DC ADIZ will effectively deflect _any_ hypothetical attack?
>
>>> If the flight of the hypothetical Lear attack proposed by Brian
>>> originated _within_ the existing DC ADIZ, anyone who proposed
>>> increasing the size of the ADIZ would be seen as irrational.
>>
>>No one but airlines inside the ADIZ. Problem solved.
>
> I'm sorry, but I fail to see how restricting GA from operations within
> the DC ADIZ bolsters your argument for increasing the size of the DC
> ADIZ. Please enlighten me.
>
>>> Again, please explain how the current DC ADIZ provides any means of
>>> stopping a hypothetical aerial attack. It's just there so our
>>> military doesn't accidentally shoot down innocent civilians before
>>> they enter the FRZ.
>>
>>It's an escalation point. If you didn't have the ADIZ you;d have a lot
>>more planes coming close to the kill line and less time to sort out the
>>Attas from the Sheaffers.
>
> So you agree that the DC ADIZ does _nothing_ to prevent an aerial
> attack?
>
>>> >And, bottom line, I still maintain that the vast majority of these
>>> >incursions are unambiguously the fault of pilot screwups that are
>>> >utterly preventable.
>>>
>>> Perhaps that's true, but such an attitude fails to address the
>>> outrageousness of restricting flight in some of the world's busiest
>>> airspace with the expectation of said restriction effectively
>>> preventing incursions into it. There are no visible points on the
>>> surface to identify the ADIZ boundaries. The DC ADIZ is simply a trap
>>> for airmen, that is ineffective in accomplishing its purpose.
>>
>>Bull****, Larry, Bull****.
>
> Now there's an argument that's difficult to refute. :-)
>
>>By that definition every slice of Class B
>>and C airspace are equally outrageous because they are defined by DME
>>arcs.
>
> Your use of the word 'every' here is unfortunate, as the LAX Class B
> (for one) is defined by surface features.
>
> That aside, VFR flight into Class B airspace is accomplished by
> contacting the controlling authority and voicing a request, unlike the
> necessity for filing a flight plan in advance to enter the DC ADIZ, so
> the example you chose is unfortunately flawed.
>
> Class B airspace is created for a reasonable purpose: to separate
> aircraft in congested terminal areas, unlike the DC ADIZ which was
> created to give flights a chance to be interrogated before being shot
> down in error by our military. Class B airspace serves a rational
> function. The DC ADIZ is the result of hysteria and showmanship at
> the expense of civil liberty; it serves only to palliate the lethal
> danger in which our government places our airmen in the name of pseudo
> security.
>
>>> >The best chance we have to loosen the chains is to
>>> >prove that we're not a bunch of nincompoops and the numbers right now
>>> >don't appear to make us look too good.
>>>
>>> And the numbers aren't likely to get any better, unless you know of
>>> something that will cause them to change. The threat of large fines
>>> pales in comparison to the threat of being shot down by our military.
>>
>>It's a lot easier to actually apply the penalty of a fine than shooting
>>someone down.
>
> I would contend that squeezing a trigger is several orders of
> magnitude easier than countless hours of judicial due process. The
> recent brutal shooting of an innocent civilian victim at the hands of
> nervous LEOs in Britain comes to mind.
>
>>It's more likely to actually be used and therefore become
>>believable.
>
> The threat of the use of lethal force against our citizens by our
> nation's military is quite believable to me. I suspect, that many
> military pilots have little regard for civilian airmen as was
> evidenced in the deliberate and wanton meteoric Ninja flight into
> congested Class B and C terminal airspace without benefit of the
> required ATC clearance resulting in the "disintegration" of an ATP
> rated pilot under ATC control in his Cessna 172 on November 16, 2000.
> General Rosa found that a verbal reprimand was appropriate punishment
> for the military airman responsible for that. So it appears the
> military faces little consequence for killing citizens in error if
> history is any guide.
>
>>No one really wants to shoot an innocent bumbling American
>>GA pilot out of the sky.
>
> Oh some military cowboys might disagree with that contention.
>
> But a policy of fining DC ADIZ violators for crossing an invisible
> line in the sky does nothing to remove our governments lethal threat
> against its airmen. And if Mica's proposed bill is implemented as
> written (only airmen would be fined, not any individual who caused the
> ADIZ violation), it only adds an additional penalty to the lethal
> threat already in place solely against airmen. The DC ADIZ is inane,
> and Mica's proposed $100,000.00 fine for pilots who erroneously enter
> the DC ADIZ bolsters the intimacy of the DC ADIZ concept at the
> expense of airmen, not all who cause the errors. It's a matter of
> further injustice piled upon existing injustice.