Washington DC airspace closing for good?

[tony roberts]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050804/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/capital_restricted_
airspace


Tony
--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

[George Patterson]

tony roberts wrote:

Looks like it.
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050803adiz.html

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.

[Michael 182]

It's incredibly stupid, but it is not, as the topic suggests, a proposal to
close DC airspace. I assume it is a proposal to make the ADIZ permanent.

Michael

[George Patterson]

Michael 182 wrote:
> It's incredibly stupid, but it is not, as the topic suggests, a proposal to
> close DC airspace. I assume it is a proposal to make the ADIZ permanent.

Not exactly. It's a proposal to turn the ADIZ into restricted airspace. That
effectively closes it to many of us.

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 Thu, 04 Aug 2005 03:12:06 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote in <aIfIe.12003$W72.2040@trndny05>::

>
>Not exactly. It's a proposal to turn the ADIZ into restricted airspace. That
>effectively closes it to many of us.

The FAA proposal to change the DC ADIZ into Restricted airspace with a
ceiling of 18,000' is likely an effort to further de-clutter it.
Perhaps there are so many authorized flights using the airspace now,
that it is too congested to permit effective radar tracking of primary
targets. If so, perhaps a new radar installation might be more
effective.

One wonders how flights originating within the airspace, and
congressional commuters will be handled when it becomes Restricted.

[Happy Dog]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 03:12:06 GMT, George Patterson
> > wrote in <aIfIe.12003$W72.2040@trndny05>::
>
>>
>>Not exactly. It's a proposal to turn the ADIZ into restricted airspace.
>>That
>>effectively closes it to many of us.
>
> The FAA proposal to change the DC ADIZ into Restricted airspace with a
> ceiling of 18,000' is likely an effort to further de-clutter it.

Crap.

http://www.aopa.org/

Join if you already haven't.

moo

[[email protected]]

Hm...I just read the proposed changes and I don't see that:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050804adiz-nprm.pdf

Am I missing something here?

What I read is that the current adiz requirements would be made
permanent. Where does it deviate from that?

This PDF hadn't been linked to the AOPA article last night, so I went
to bed thinking my flying days were effectively over after reading your
post.

Now, after reading it, I think its what Michael said it is, a proposal
to make the ADIZ permanent.

I fly out of leesburg. The proceedures are really not that dificult or
time consuming for a plane with mode C:

-Call Flight service and file an ADIZ FP prior to flight. Five minutes
and can be done while driving to airport.

-Call CD prior to takeing off to get a code and departure freq.

-Call ATC and remain in contact after leaving the pattern (no need to
call if you are staying in the pattern)

-BC

[Larry Dighera]

On 4 Aug 2005 06:56:26 -0700, wrote in
. com>::

>What I read is that the current adiz requirements would be made
>permanent. Where does it deviate from that?

AOPA says it will be a restricted area:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050803adiz.html
AOPA will oppose an FAA proposal scheduled for release tomorrow
that would codify flight restrictions in the Washington, D.C.,
metropolitan area. The restricted area would replace the current
air defense identification zone (ADIZ). It would receive a
brand-new designation, "National Defense Airspace," and cover
nearly 2,000 square miles around Washington, D.C., extending to an
altitude of 18,000 feet.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 05:34:59 -0400, "Happy Dog" >
wrote in >::

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 03:12:06 GMT, George Patterson
>> > wrote in <aIfIe.12003$W72.2040@trndny05>::
>>
>>>
>>>Not exactly. It's a proposal to turn the ADIZ into restricted airspace.
>>>That
>>>effectively closes it to many of us.
>>
>> The FAA proposal to change the DC ADIZ into Restricted airspace with a
>> ceiling of 18,000' is likely an effort to further de-clutter it.
>
>Crap.
>

Oh, no thank you.


>http://www.aopa.org/
>
>Join if you already haven't.

While I've been an AOPA member for decades, I completely fail to
understand how that relates to your outburst.

>moo
>

Oh. And here I expected to be debating with a non bovine airman. Oh
well...

[Peter R.]

Larry Dighera > wrote:

> Oh, no thank you.
>
>
>>http://www.aopa.org/
>>
>>Join if you already haven't.
>
> While I've been an AOPA member for decades, I completely fail to
> understand how that relates to your outburst.
>
>>moo
>>
>
> Oh. And here I expected to be debating with a non bovine airman. Oh
> well...

Stand down, Larry.

He was expressing his frustration to the newsgroup at large regarding the
news that this closing looks to be a reality and he making a statement to
pilots in general that now more than ever pilots need to join AOPA to fight
this restriction.

He was not directing his comments specifically at you.

--
Peter

[Thomas Borchert]

Tony,

> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050804/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/capital_restricted_
> airspace
>

Thank you, Hayden Sheaffer. NOT!
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[[email protected]]

Yes. I saw the AOPA language. But the actual proposal contains this
language:

We believe that as part of ensuring the
security of the people, property and
institutions in the Nation's capital, and
surrounding area, it is essential to know
the intended route of flight of the
aircraft, to have the aircraft squawk a
discrete transponder code, and to have
automatic altitude reporting equipment
on board the aircraft that transmits to
ATC. Government officials believe that
some types of aircraft operations (i.e.,
those conducted under parts 91, 101,
103, 105, 125, 133, 135 and 137) should
continue to be prohibited within 15
miles of the DCA VOR/DME, unless
specifically authorized by the FAA in
consultation with the DoD and DHS.

and this language:

Who Is Potentially Affected by This
Rulemaking?
Private Sector
All aircraft would have to be
transponder equipped when entering
the proposed DC SFRA and maintain
two-way communications while flying
in the proposed area. Pilots operating in
accordance with visual flight rules
(VFR) would have to file flight plans to
fly within the proposed DC SFRA.
There are approximately 150 airports
in the proposed DC ADIZ. Given the
additional requirements that general
aviation pilots face, the FAA is
concerned that many of these airports
would have fewer operations. In some
cases, some of these pilots may elect to
use alternate nearby airports outside of
the proposed DC SFRA.

Indeed, I read through the entire proposal, and I can't find anything
that
makes the restrictions worse. Indeed, It seems to loosen the
restrictions
for "Special Egress Procedures for Fringe Airports", specifically
"Airlie,
Albrecht, Harris, Martin, Martin State, Meadows, Mylander, Stewart, St.
John,
Tilghman Whipp, Upperville, and Wolf airports", by allowing folks those
pilots
to use a specific transponder code and not require them to contact ATC.
Of
course, I've only heard of two of these airports...Upperville, which is
private
and always deserted (CIA?) and Airlie...which is a grass strip that I
and
children went on a demo flight in a 1930's era biplane several years
ago. I
digress.

I hope I'm reading this correctly. I worked three gruelling years
getting my
ticket, and shutting down GA flights out of leesburg would essentially
render
flying impractical for me.

-BC

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 11:09:10 -0400, "Peter R." >
wrote in >::

>Stand down, Larry.
>
>He was expressing his frustration to the newsgroup at large regarding the
>news that this closing looks to be a reality

I wish I had your gift of prescience.

>and he making a statement to pilots in general that now more than ever
>pilots need to join AOPA to fight this restriction.

A couple of letters to congressional representatives couldn't hurt
either.

>He was not directing his comments specifically at you.

Given the second dictionary definition below:

Main Entry:2crap
Function:noun
Etymology:Middle English crappe chaff, residue from rendered fat,
perhaps from Old French crappe chaff, residue, from Medieval Latin
crappa
Date:circa 1897

1 a usually vulgar : EXCREMENT b usually vulgar : the act of
defecating
2 sometimes vulgar : NONSENSE, RUBBISH; also : STUFF 4b

The ambiguity of his one word sentence is easily misconstrued as
refuting my statement.

Thanks for your interpretation.

[Peter R.]

Larry Dighera > wrote:

> The ambiguity of his one word sentence is easily misconstrued as
> refuting my statement.

Yep, I now can see how your interpretation fits, too. Crap, as in "you
posted crap, Larry." It's amazing that there is any civility in Usenet.

--
Peter

[Andrew Gideon]

Peter R. wrote:

> It'sÂ*amazingÂ*thatÂ*thereÂ*isÂ*anyÂ*civilityÂ*in *Usenet.

Civility on USENET is as much the responsibility of the reader as the
writer.

I've recently been criticized on a mailing list for being excessively
verbose in my writing. I realize that it comes, at least partially, from
my history with email and USENET (which dates back to about 1980 for me).
I try to be sure that I've put everything in to cut down on the
back-and-forth, and also to be as precise as possible so as to minimize
opportunities for misinterpretation.

As an added benefit, I've become quite a quick typist.

ObOT: Didn't Congress demand that the FAA justify the ADIZ? Is this
the FAA's response?

- Andrew

[George Patterson]

wrote:
>
> Am I missing something here?

Try http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050803adiz.html . Second sentence.

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.

[Jose]

I'm more concerned about the second paragraph. In part:

"AOPA recognizes the necessity to protect the national assets in the
nation's capital. The 15-nautical-mile-radius no-fly zone known as the
flight-restricted zone (FRZ) does that," said AOPA President Phil Boyer.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

wrote:
> Hm...I just read the proposed changes and I don't see that:
>
> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050804adiz-nprm.pdf
>
> Am I missing something here?

Take a closer look at the fourth page of text (not counting the title page). It
states they propose to establish this area as "national defense airspace." Among
other things, that opens pilots to criminal prosecution for unauthorized entry
instead of the sanctions the FAA are allowed to use presently, as stated in
section 93.33. That section also clearly states that they may shoot you down
anywhere in the new zone. It's been assumed that they might do this if you got
into the FRZ section of the current ADIZ, but even that has not been openly
stated, AFAIK.

In section 93.49, they discuss additional costs. Just processing the new flight
plans required for traffic into and out of the airports in the area will cost
those airports an estimated additional $47,111.00. Costs for other airports are
expected to run $203,429.00. So we have the airports spending 1/4 million more
for new paperwork involving flight plans. New traffic control issues will cost
the FAA nearly $11 million more than today and flight plan processing pushes the
cost up well over $11 million for the FAA. All costs are in 2002 dollars.

Later on, they discuss other losses to the "Washington three" airports. All
things considered, this measure is expected to cost College Park alone $171,900
each year. The current ADIZ restrictions are costing College Park $1.62 million
a year.

Perhaps AOPA is technically incorrect in calling it a restricted area but, no,
they aren't just making the ADIZ permanent.

Thanks for the link to the proposal, by the way.

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.

[George Patterson]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
> Thank you, Hayden Sheaffer. NOT!

You got that right!

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]]

Please post this link so it works properly . . . I cannot get to this
page.

[George Patterson]

wrote:
> Please post this link so it works properly . . . I cannot get to this
> page.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z4E465E8B

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.

[Darrel Toepfer]

George Patterson wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> Please post this link so it works properly . . . I cannot get to this
>> page.
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z4E465E8B

Other news source here:
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/446-full.html#190314

Interesting how they want the VFR pilots filing flight plans to enter
the NDA/ADIZ causing more paperwork for the agency facing a $4B deficit
by 2010...

[PPT33R]

This is clearly NOT an FAA decision, rather the Interagency Airspace
Working Group. In other words, the Secret Squirrels, Capitol Police
(responsible for the last "Godzilla Alert" - run and scream from that
terrifying Cessna 150), and DoD.

DoD already got the approval for direct shoot-down authority without
having to coordinate with DHS last month.

FAA is not in control of this thing, they are just following orders.

[George Patterson]

Darrel Toepfer wrote:
>
> Interesting how they want the VFR pilots filing flight plans to enter
> the NDA/ADIZ causing more paperwork for the agency facing a $4B deficit
> by 2010...

The actual proposal contains quite a few instances of language that indicates
that the FAA doesn't really want to do this. For example, they point out that
the current ADIZ is costing various airports millions of dollars a year and that
this proposal will dramatically increase that, in addition to costing the FAA
over 11 million a year. On the other hand, what's 11 or 12 million dollars to an
agency 4 billion in the hole.

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.

[Darrel Toepfer]

George Patterson wrote:

> On the other hand, what's 11 or 12 million dollars to an agency
> 4 billion in the hole.

Well eventually it adds up to real money...

[Happy Dog]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>>> The FAA proposal to change the DC ADIZ into Restricted airspace with a
>>> ceiling of 18,000' is likely an effort to further de-clutter it.
>>
>>Crap.
>>
>
> Oh, no thank you.

C'mon. Do you really believe that this is being considered to reduce
clutter?

>>http://www.aopa.org/
>>
>>Join if you already haven't.
>
> While I've been an AOPA member for decades, I completely fail to
> understand how that relates to your outburst.

Membership dues pay for the fight against this sort of crap. Glad you're on
board!

moo

[Terry Briggs]

Not to sound obtuse, but when has the AOPA ever won one of these battles
with the FAA?

And I don't mean the local battles, but a biggie like this one?


Terry


"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>>>> The FAA proposal to change the DC ADIZ into Restricted airspace with a
>>>> ceiling of 18,000' is likely an effort to further de-clutter it.
>>>
>>>Crap.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, no thank you.
>
> C'mon. Do you really believe that this is being considered to reduce
> clutter?
>
>>>http://www.aopa.org/
>>>
>>>Join if you already haven't.
>>
>> While I've been an AOPA member for decades, I completely fail to
>> understand how that relates to your outburst.
>
> Membership dues pay for the fight against this sort of crap. Glad you're
> on board!
>
> moo
>

[Terry Briggs]

Isn't the (((Secret Service))) in on this also?


Terry


"PPT33R" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> This is clearly NOT an FAA decision, rather the Interagency Airspace
> Working Group. In other words, the Secret Squirrels, Capitol Police
> (responsible for the last "Godzilla Alert" - run and scream from that
> terrifying Cessna 150), and DoD.
>
> DoD already got the approval for direct shoot-down authority without
> having to coordinate with DHS last month.
>
> FAA is not in control of this thing, they are just following orders.
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 16:48:10 -0400, "Happy Dog" >
wrote in >::

>Do you really believe that this is being considered to reduce
>clutter?

I'm talking about radar screen clutter. Yes. I see no other rational
reason for the DC ADIZ.

Why do you think it was implemented?

[Jose]

> Why do you think [the DC ADIZ] was implemented?

To "do something".

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 22:57:46 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>> Why do you think [the DC ADIZ] was implemented?
>
>To "do something".
>

You don't believe that the DC ADIZ was created as a 'friend or foe'
buffer zone so that innocent citizens aren't mistakenly shot down?

Creating the FRZ was doing something, but it posed certain lethal
hazards.

[Jose]

>>>Why do you think [the DC ADIZ] was implemented?
>>
>>To "do something".
>>
> You don't believe that the DC ADIZ was created as a 'friend or foe'
> buffer zone so that innocent citizens aren't mistakenly shot down?

No.

It has a nice plausible ring to it (btw, I do consider the FRZ part of
the ADIZ), but I don't think it was created for this purpose at all.

It does not accomplish this purpose. To do so it would have to be a
hundred miles across. Maybe more. At least, in a free country where we
don't shoot on sight (and so far, we have not shot on sight - how free
the country is is subject to debate).

It does not even remotely address the actual threat that was
demonstrated, nor the likely most damaging threats that could be
implemented. And inside of ten years, when terrorist operatives already
have ATP licenses, are air traffic controllers, and work the baggage
areas at major airports, it won't even matter.

In my opinion, it was designed to reassure the public that they should
be scared, but that the government will protect them.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Terry Briggs]

I think I agree with Jose on this one.

If the powers that be were really serious about enforcing this area wouldn't
they just shoot people down? Since, to date, no one has been intercepted and
shot down it seems to me that those enforcers aren't really serious, or so
it seems.

Terry

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>>Why do you think [the DC ADIZ] was implemented?
>>>
>>>To "do something".
>>>
>> You don't believe that the DC ADIZ was created as a 'friend or foe'
>> buffer zone so that innocent citizens aren't mistakenly shot down?
>
> No.
>
> It has a nice plausible ring to it (btw, I do consider the FRZ part of the
> ADIZ), but I don't think it was created for this purpose at all.
>
> It does not accomplish this purpose. To do so it would have to be a
> hundred miles across. Maybe more. At least, in a free country where we
> don't shoot on sight (and so far, we have not shot on sight - how free
> the country is is subject to debate).
>
> It does not even remotely address the actual threat that was demonstrated,
> nor the likely most damaging threats that could be implemented. And
> inside of ten years, when terrorist operatives already have ATP licenses,
> are air traffic controllers, and work the baggage areas at major airports,
> it won't even matter.
>
> In my opinion, it was designed to reassure the public that they should be
> scared, but that the government will protect them.
>
> Jose
> --
> Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
> except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no
> universe.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Franklin Newton]

"Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
...
> George Patterson wrote:
>
> > On the other hand, what's 11 or 12 million dollars to an agency
> > 4 billion in the hole.
>
> Well eventually it adds up to real money...

Well, if it's really because of an increased terror threat, what it does
confirm is a complete failure on the part of the federal goverment and our
armed forces to protect and defend our way of life.When they finally get off
the dime and get the job done, all of the ADIZ, TFR and other associated
airspace stuff should vanish, until then these folks don't get a passing
grade.

[Jose]

> ...complete failure on the part of the federal goverment and our
> armed forces to protect and defend our way of life.
> When they finally get off
> the dime and get the job done, all of the
> ADIZ, TFR and other associated
> airspace stuff should vanish

We'll win the war on terror the same way we won the war on drugs.

Some things are just not possible... like finding a number that's
greater than six but less than four. The only way to really stop
terrorists is to find them and destroy them before they do their deeds,
but they hide pretty well while they are sleeping. To find them when
they are sleeping, we need to be able to investigate them pretty
thoroughly, before we know who they are. That means we need to
investigate everyone pretty thoroughly, and that pretty much undermines
the consititution and the freedoms it promises.

Your papers please.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:40:15 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>>>>Why do you think [the DC ADIZ] was implemented?
>>>
>>>To "do something".
>>>
>> You don't believe that the DC ADIZ was created as a 'friend or foe'
>> buffer zone so that innocent citizens aren't mistakenly shot down?
>
>No.
>
>It has a nice plausible ring to it (btw, I do consider the FRZ part of
>the ADIZ), but I don't think it was created for this purpose at all.
>
>It does not accomplish this purpose.

I disagree. The DC ADIZ provides an opportunity for the military to
intercept flights that violate it before they might enter the FRZ
within which lethal force may be exercised. If the DC ADIZ (or
something similar) did not exist, there would be no opportunity to
determine how much of a threat those flights might be, and the
military would have no other option but to shoot them down. So while
the DC ADIZ does nothing, in my opinion, to make DC more secure, it
may provide some measure of mitigating erroneous shoot downs of fellow
airmen.

>To do so it would have to be a hundred miles across. Maybe more.

The DC ADIZ, at it's present size, seems to have been effective so far
in preventing erroneous killing of wayward, non-treating flights. If
it did not exist, I could easily see unidentified/unauthorized flights
that penetrate the FRZ being downed by mistake.

>At least, in a free country where we don't shoot on sight (and so far,
>we have not shot on sight - how free the country is is subject to debate).

You mean like the CIA did in Peru:

http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/24/24002.html

CIA helps Peruvian jet shoot down Christian missionaries over
Amazon

The Peruvian anti-drug tactic of blowing suspected drug smuggling
planes out of the sky aroused little notice in the press or
elsewhere as long as the victims were presumed bad guys. Since
April 20th - when a Peruvian pilot guided to his target by
contract employees of the CIA in a plane leased from the Defense
Department attacked a civilian Cessna and killed a US missionary
and her infant child - the airwaves have been filled with mutual
finger-pointing and hand-wringing as Peru and the US each seek to
assign blame to the other. ...

Perhaps this incident made it obvious to our government, that it might
be prudent to attempt to ascertain if the aircraft in question is
'friend or foe' _before_ shooting it down, and inspired the DC ADIZ.

>It does not even remotely address the actual threat that was
>demonstrated, nor the likely most damaging threats that could be
>implemented.

I agree; the DC ADIZ does nothing to make DC more secure. It's the
Stinger SAMs that are supposed to do that, apparently. But that's
another issue entirely, in my opinion.

>And inside of ten years, when terrorist operatives already
>have ATP licenses, are air traffic controllers, and work the baggage
>areas at major airports, it won't even matter.

I don't think it matters now. If an unidentified aircraft is
intercepted in the DC ADIZ, and it appears to be hostile or capable of
carrying out a terrorist mission, when/if it penetrates the FRZ I'm
confident it will be shot down.

>In my opinion, it was designed to reassure the public that they should
>be scared, but that the government will protect them.
>
>Jose

I think the DC ADIZ was imposed to prevent the TSA/CIA/... form making
a mistake, that could turn the nation against further unconstitutional
acts in the name of security against terrorist attacks.

Don't get me wrong. I don't believe the FRZ is an effective measure
against all hypothetical attacks on DC. Further, I feel that our
government putting it's citizens in the cross hairs is repugnant in a
free society.

What would you propose in place of the DC ADIZ and FRZ?

[Jose]

> If the DC ADIZ (or
> something similar) did not exist, there would be no opportunity to
> determine how much of a threat those flights might be, and the
> military would have no other option but to shoot them down.

Not true. The military would always have the option of not shooting
them down. The likelyhood that an aircraft flying around Washington DC
is a threat is miniscule. I am comfortable continuing with this
assumption. If historical fact is to be any guide, airliners should be
banned from DC, certainly from National Airport. Anyone wanting to fly
the airlines into DC should have to fly to Baltimore and catch a bus.

The DC ADIZ is protection against an imaginary monster in the closet.

> The DC ADIZ, at it's present size, seems to have been effective so far
> in preventing erroneous killing of wayward, non-treating flights. If
> it did not exist, I could easily see unidentified/unauthorized flights
> that penetrate the FRZ being downed by mistake.

What has been effective has been our reluctance to down aircraft that
are already =in= the FRZ. This appears to be ending.

> You mean like the CIA did in Peru:

Yep. Exactly like that. But the CIA, like the Secret Service, does
whatever it wants. I'm not convinced it's really accountable to
anybody. And I know people personally who have witnessed and been
victim of other atrocities in this country (USA) at the hands of US
agencies like this one.

> What would you propose in place of the DC ADIZ and FRZ?

Class E and class B airspace, the way it was in 2000.

The cat is out of the bag. Just as you cannot reasonably defend
yourself from being hit by gunfire while walking down the street, we
cannot reasonably defend ourselves from having our own high-energy
devices turned against us. There are too many of them, manned by too
few people, too low on the pay scale. You'd need armed guards around
every gas station's storage tank valve, escorts for every delivery truck
in the city, and a listening watch on the entire internet and cellphone
network.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 02:05:51 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>We'll win the war on terror the same way we won the war on drugs.

Agreed. Given the fact that the Volstead Act sparked the worst crime
spree in the history of the nation, one would think that lawmakers
would take a clue about outlawing victimless "crime".

>Some things are just not possible... like finding a number that's
>greater than six but less than four.

Or like getting the John Larson's certified before they take to the
air.

>The only way to really stop
>terrorists is to find them and destroy them before they do their deeds,
>but they hide pretty well while they are sleeping. To find them when
>they are sleeping, we need to be able to investigate them pretty
>thoroughly, before we know who they are. That means we need to
>investigate everyone pretty thoroughly, and that pretty much undermines
>the consititution and the freedoms it promises.

There is another way to find Islamic terrorists. If those Muslims who
are aware of terrorists in their midst were to inform on them, it
would not only help identify them, but establish Muslim immigrants as
sincerely attempting to do their part. They are, after all, in the
best position to identify Islamic terrorists. Perhaps a bounty, al la
the GOP's whistle blower offer on Chicago's mayor, might help too.
Until that begins to occur, they're all suspects.

[Jose]

> There is another way to find Islamic terrorists.

Islamic terrorists aren't the problem.

Terrorists are the problem.

There are Christian terrorists too. It just so happens that the Islamic
ones are the special of the day, but terrorism comes in all guises, and
it will get much worse in this country because it works so well. All we
need are enemies.

It is not even sufficient to try to stop =people=, because it is =ideas=
that are really dangerous, and they can slip into this country
unimpeded, where they are picked up by passport-carrying Americans. It
is the evil ideas that must be stopped. But alas, there's something in
the constitution about that.

> If those Muslims who are aware of terrorists
> in their midst were to inform on them...

Didn't communist China do this some years back? This kind of thing can
be useful if it is appropriately contained, but it's hard to say where
it should stop. Or rather, it's easy to say, but hard to agree, and I
don't trust this administration to agree with me.

Clearly we should encourage informants to out terrorists, drug kingpins,
religious extremists, welfare abusers, deadbeat dads, athiests,
jaywalkers, gays, and people who fly little airplanes "for fun". If
you're doing nothing wrong, you shouldn't be afraid.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dave Stadt]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
> >>>Why do you think [the DC ADIZ] was implemented?
> >>
> >>To "do something".
> >>
> > You don't believe that the DC ADIZ was created as a 'friend or foe'
> > buffer zone so that innocent citizens aren't mistakenly shot down?
>
> No.
>
> It has a nice plausible ring to it (btw, I do consider the FRZ part of
> the ADIZ), but I don't think it was created for this purpose at all.
>
> It does not accomplish this purpose. To do so it would have to be a
> hundred miles across. Maybe more. At least, in a free country where we
> don't shoot on sight (and so far, we have not shot on sight - how free
> the country is is subject to debate).
>
> It does not even remotely address the actual threat that was
> demonstrated, nor the likely most damaging threats that could be
> implemented. And inside of ten years, when terrorist operatives already
> have ATP licenses, are air traffic controllers, and work the baggage
> areas at major airports, it won't even matter.
>
> In my opinion, it was designed to reassure the public that they should
> be scared, but that the government will protect them.

It appears the government is protecting itself and could care less about the
public.

[John T]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> I disagree. The DC ADIZ provides an opportunity for the military to
> intercept flights that violate it before they might enter the FRZ
> within which lethal force may be exercised. If the DC ADIZ (or
> something similar) did not exist, there would be no opportunity to
> determine how much of a threat those flights might be, and the
> military would have no other option but to shoot them down. So while
> the DC ADIZ does nothing, in my opinion, to make DC more secure, it
> may provide some measure of mitigating erroneous shoot downs of fellow
> airmen.

You give our enemies far too little credit if you really believe this.

Every single violation of the DC ADIZ to date has been erroneous - some
grossly so (see "Hayden Shaeffer") while most were not. The ADIZ does
nothing but separate those following the rules from those not following
them. Assuming for the moment that Al Qaeda (or some similar outfit) were
to use airplanes to cause mischief here in DC, I'd exect them to follow the
rules right up to the last minute.

Really, how hard do you think it would be to locate a vetted pilot, kidnap
them and extract the information needed to penetrate the FRZ?

> You mean like the CIA did in Peru:

You keep bringing that up like the CIA shot down the plane. They didn't.
The Peruvians did after the CIA operatives told them *not* to shoot
(admittedly after providing tracking/guidance for the Peruvians).

> Perhaps this incident made it obvious to our government, that it might
> be prudent to attempt to ascertain if the aircraft in question is
> 'friend or foe' _before_ shooting it down, and inspired the DC ADIZ.

I think it's far more likely that various security agencies saw an
opportunity to justify their budget requests.

> I agree; the DC ADIZ does nothing to make DC more secure.

If this is the case, why do you keep arguing *for* the ADIZ?

> Don't get me wrong. I don't believe the FRZ is an effective measure
> against all hypothetical attacks on DC.

I haven't seen any hypothetical attack where the FRZ is an effective
countermeasure.

> Further, I feel that our
> government putting it's citizens in the cross hairs is repugnant in a
> free society.

Yet you argue for just that when you want fighters intercepting errant
aircraft in the ADIZ.

> What would you propose in place of the DC ADIZ and FRZ?

Considering that *nobody* is claiming knowledge of any imminent attack,
nothing. I'm not opposed to *temporary* restrictions in times of heightened
threat, but most of the rest of the country now enjoys the same freedoms
they had prior to 9/11 and February 2003 while those of us under the DC veil
are still denied those freedoms - even in the absence of a heightened
threat.

By the way, where are those regular justifications for the ADIZ the FAA was
mandated to provide to Congress?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[Don Tuite]

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 03:59:58 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

Actually, first somebody else wrote:
>
>> If those Muslims who are aware of terrorists
>> in their midst were to inform on them...

>Then Jose said:
>Didn't communist China do this some years back? This kind of thing can
>be useful if it is appropriately contained, but it's hard to say where
>it should stop.

Try England under the later Tudors. Denunciation and Star Chamber
trial. Then the headsman. Or France under the Reign of Terror. Or
Germany in the twentieth century. And France and Poland, and in fact,
damn near everywhere except (for the most part) Holland and Denmark.
Your next-door neighbor is often happy to denounce you if there's a
chance of picking up your land.

You know who resisted the temptation? Our parents and grandparents.
There is story after story about Euro-americans looking after the
property of Japanese internees during the war and returning their
homes and business to them after it was over. I'd like to hope that
the current generation has the same scruples, but I'd rather not have
to find out.

Don

[Happy Dog]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in

> I disagree. The DC ADIZ provides an opportunity for the military to
> intercept flights that violate it before they might enter the FRZ
> within which lethal force may be exercised. If the DC ADIZ (or
> something similar) did not exist, there would be no opportunity to
> determine how much of a threat those flights might be, and the
> military would have no other option but to shoot them down.

Bull****. Do you still live with your mother?

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 16:48:10 -0400, "Happy Dog" >
> wrote in >::
>
>>Do you really believe that this is being considered to reduce
>>clutter?
>
> I'm talking about radar screen clutter. Yes. I see no other rational
> reason for the DC ADIZ.
>
> Why do you think it was implemented?

Political pressure. Absolute irrelevant bull****. As for clutter, have you
visited a radar facility? It's a computer game. There is a huge amount of
filtering that goes on specifically to reduce clutter.

moo

[PPT33R]

"It appears the government is protecting itself and could care less
about the
public."

SHACK!!! But even then, it is a farce. The extent of the existing ADIZ
/ NDA will provide no time for intercept if the TOI is a fast-mover, or
a commercial flight out of IAD...

This is purely an issue of the oligarchy trying to protect itself, and
the USSS and Capitol Police completely out of their domain trying to
figure it out with incremental elimination of freedom of movement. DoD
got what it wanted last month with direct 'shoot-down' authority.

Bear in mind as well that this Administration has an Iron Fist policy
over the Executive Branch. I would be EXTREMELY surprised if Karl Rove
and Fran Townsend did not personally approve. They know exactly what
FAA has been ordered to do, and they hold the leash, so put the blame
where it is deserved.

The ONLY way the "Land of the Free and the Brave" will once again
become Free and Brave is if this becomes an election issue in 2008.
Cast aside any sad devotions to "political parties", having lived in
the Beltway for many years I have concluded neither party represents
the national interest anymore. Study the issues, figure out who is
LIKELY to inact policies and laws commensurate with your beliefs, and
THEN pull the handle...

[Jose]

> It appears the government is protecting itself and could care less about the
> public.

If you mean bureaucratically, it's doing a find job.

If you mean physically, then it's inviting Darwin to the party.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 01:00:47 -0400, "John T" > wrote in
>::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> I disagree. The DC ADIZ provides an opportunity for the military to
>> intercept flights that violate it before they might enter the FRZ
>> within which lethal force may be exercised. If the DC ADIZ (or
>> something similar) did not exist, there would be no opportunity to
>> determine how much of a threat those flights might be, and the
>> military would have no other option but to shoot them down. So while
>> the DC ADIZ does nothing, in my opinion, to make DC more secure, it
>> may provide some measure of mitigating erroneous shoot downs of fellow
>> airmen.
>
>You give our enemies far too little credit if you really believe this.

I fail to understand you inferred that from what I wrote. You will
note that I made no mention whatsoever of enemies in that statement.
My point was that the DC ADIZ's purpose most probably is to protect
the innocent from lethal force.

[...]

>> I agree; the DC ADIZ does nothing to make DC more secure.
>
>If this is the case, why do you keep arguing *for* the ADIZ?

I'm not in favor of the DC ADIZ. I'm just attempting to clarify its
intended purpose.

[...]

>> Further, I feel that our government putting it's citizens in the cross hairs
> is repugnant in a free society.
>
>Yet you argue for just that when you want fighters intercepting errant
>aircraft in the ADIZ.

Surely you must agree, that the attempt to identify flights violating
the DC ADIZ as friend or foe preferable to downing all such flights.

>> What would you propose in place of the DC ADIZ and FRZ?
>
>Considering that *nobody* is claiming knowledge of any imminent attack,
>nothing. I'm not opposed to *temporary* restrictions in times of heightened
>threat, but most of the rest of the country now enjoys the same freedoms
>they had prior to 9/11 and February 2003 while those of us under the DC veil
>are still denied those freedoms - even in the absence of a heightened
>threat.

That seems a reasonable proposal.

>By the way, where are those regular justifications for the ADIZ the FAA was
>mandated to provide to Congress?

Ask baby Bush. He's an expert at justifying inane actions. :-)

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 03:59:58 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>> There is another way to find Islamic terrorists.
>
>Islamic terrorists aren't the problem.
>
>Terrorists are the problem.

Bill Maher recently expressed the opinion, that crashing airliners
laden with hundreds of people was a faith based initiative. :-)

[...]

>It is the evil ideas that must be stopped. But alas, there's something in
>the constitution about that.

So if it's not possible to stop ideas, what action is appropriate?

>> If those Muslims who are aware of terrorists
>> in their midst were to inform on them...
>
>Didn't communist China do this some years back? This kind of thing can
>be useful if it is appropriately contained, but it's hard to say where
>it should stop. Or rather, it's easy to say, but hard to agree, and I
>don't trust this administration to agree with me.

I'm just talking about Muslims coming forward of their own volition
and exposing those in their ranks they believe to be terrorists. Such
active cooperation would be an additional source of information, and
paint the Muslim-American community as allies in the fight-for-right
not the harborers of evil as they are currently being viewed.

I fail to understand your fear of where "this kind of thing" should
stop.

>Clearly we should encourage informants to out terrorists, drug kingpins,
>religious extremists, welfare abusers, deadbeat dads, athiests,
>jaywalkers, gays, and people who fly little airplanes "for fun". If
>you're doing nothing wrong, you shouldn't be afraid.

Oh, you're concerned about informing in an Orwellian way. I
understand now: kids informing to the government on their parents, and
such.

When you lump "people who fly little airplanes" and terrorists in the
same group, it becomes difficult to take your words seriously.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 05:48:16 GMT, Don Tuite
> wrote in
>::

>On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 03:59:58 GMT, Jose >
>wrote:
>
>Actually, first somebody else wrote:
>>
>>> If those Muslims who are aware of terrorists
>>> in their midst were to inform on them...
>
>>Then Jose said:
>>Didn't communist China do this some years back? This kind of thing can
>>be useful if it is appropriately contained, but it's hard to say where
>>it should stop.
>
>Try England under the later Tudors. Denunciation and Star Chamber
>trial. Then the headsman. Or France under the Reign of Terror. Or
>Germany in the twentieth century. And France and Poland, and in fact,
>damn near everywhere except (for the most part) Holland and Denmark.
>Your next-door neighbor is often happy to denounce you if there's a
>chance of picking up your land.
>
>You know who resisted the temptation? Our parents and grandparents.
>There is story after story about Euro-americans looking after the
>property of Japanese internees during the war and returning their
>homes and business to them after it was over. I'd like to hope that
>the current generation has the same scruples, but I'd rather not have
>to find out.
>
>Don


Thanks for the information.

If exposing the evil in their midst is so fraught with possible abuse,
what do you propose to assist in quelling terrorist activities?

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 03:37:31 -0400, "Happy Dog" >
wrote in >::

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in
>
>> I disagree. The DC ADIZ provides an opportunity for the military to
>> intercept flights that violate it before they might enter the FRZ
>> within which lethal force may be exercised. If the DC ADIZ (or
>> something similar) did not exist, there would be no opportunity to
>> determine how much of a threat those flights might be, and the
>> military would have no other option but to shoot them down.
>
>Bull****. Do you still live with your mother?
>
>moo
>

At the risk of having misinterpreted another of your outbursts, please
let me request that you compose a cognate rebuttal worthy of rational
discussion.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 03:37:45 -0400, "Happy Dog" >
wrote in >::

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 16:48:10 -0400, "Happy Dog" >
>> wrote in >::
>>
>>>Do you really believe that this is being considered to reduce
>>>clutter?
>>
>> I'm talking about radar screen clutter. Yes. I see no other rational
>> reason for the DC ADIZ.
>>
>> Why do you think it was implemented?
>
>Political pressure. Absolute irrelevant bull****.

Are you able to provide any supporting evidence for that assumption?

>As for clutter, have you visited a radar facility?

Does the SoCal TRACON count?

>It's a computer game.

No. It's real time tracking of aircraft in the NAS.

>There is a huge amount of filtering that goes on specifically
> to reduce clutter.

Are you referring to the clutter caused by ground based targets? I'm
referring to making it easier to spot primary targets in congested
airspace.

[Larry Dighera]

On 5 Aug 2005 02:53:23 -0700, "PPT33R" > wrote in
om>::

>"It appears the government is protecting itself and could care less
>about the public."
>
>The extent of the existing ADIZ/ NDA will provide no time for intercept
>if the TOI is a fast-mover, or a commercial flight out of IAD...

Agreed. But perhaps the purpose of the DC ADIZ is not to stop such
flights. Perhaps its purpose is to protect innocent flights from
accidental shoot-down.

>This is purely an issue of the oligarchy trying to protect itself, and
>the USSS and Capitol Police completely out of their domain trying to
>figure it out with incremental elimination of freedom of movement. DoD
>got what it wanted last month with direct 'shoot-down' authority.

There is that issue also. Those charged with implementing security
measures are doing their best. While it may not be good, it's
difficult to fault them for attempting to do their jobs. What is
lacking is a cooler head with intellect to see the flaws in their
proposals, and veto their implantation.

>Bear in mind as well that this Administration has an Iron Fist policy
>over the Executive Branch. I would be EXTREMELY surprised if Karl Rove
>and Fran Townsend did not personally approve. They know exactly what
>FAA has been ordered to do, and they hold the leash, so put the blame
>where it is deserved.

Agreed. Thank you.

>The ONLY way the "Land of the Free and the Brave" will once again
>become Free and Brave is if this becomes an election issue in 2008.
>Cast aside any sad devotions to "political parties", having lived in
>the Beltway for many years I have concluded neither party represents
>the national interest anymore. Study the issues, figure out who is
>LIKELY to inact policies and laws commensurate with your beliefs, and
>THEN pull the handle...

Given that 60%of our nation's citizens believe that creationism should
be taught along side Darwinism in our public schools, your hope has
little chance of happening even if a suitable candidate could be run
and find sufficient exposure to win. :-(

Given today's political arena, the opposition to the iron fist of the
GOP is going to have to be fought with the assistance of a rovesque
strategy. Perhaps it's time the FCC mandated the networks provide
free air time to qualified candidates, so that the candidate with the
most resonate rhetoric is elected instead of the party stooge with the
most funding and dirtiest tricks.

[John T]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>> I disagree. The DC ADIZ provides an opportunity for the military to
>>> intercept flights that violate it before they might enter the FRZ
>>> within which lethal force may be exercised. If the DC ADIZ (or
>>> something similar) did not exist, there would be no opportunity to
>>> determine how much of a threat those flights might be, and the
>>> military would have no other option but to shoot them down. So
>>> while
>>> the DC ADIZ does nothing, in my opinion, to make DC more secure, it
>>> may provide some measure of mitigating erroneous shoot downs of
>>> fellow airmen.
>>
>> You give our enemies far too little credit if you really believe
>> this.
>
> I fail to understand you inferred that from what I wrote. You will
> note that I made no mention whatsoever of enemies in that statement.
> My point was that the DC ADIZ's purpose most probably is to protect
> the innocent from lethal force.

You snipped the part where I explain that:
<quote>
Every single violation of the DC ADIZ to date has been erroneous - some
grossly so (see "Hayden Shaeffer") while most were not. The ADIZ does
nothing but separate those following the rules from those not following
them. Assuming for the moment that Al Qaeda (or some similar outfit) were
to use airplanes to cause mischief here in DC, I'd exect them to follow the
rules right up to the last minute.

Really, how hard do you think it would be to locate a vetted pilot, kidnap
them and extract the information needed to penetrate the FRZ?
</quote>

The point being, it's all to easy to appear as a legitimate flight so the
ADIZ doesn't even do what you suggest it is intended to do: Help ID the bad
guys.

> Surely you must agree, that the attempt to identify flights violating
> the DC ADIZ as friend or foe preferable to downing all such flights.

Identifying targets before shooting is good. However, the ADIZ offers
nothing to help this. See my point above.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[Jose]

> Bill Maher recently expressed the opinion, that crashing airliners
> laden with hundreds of people was a faith based initiative.

.... and faith is not restricted to Islamics. Your statement
specifically implicated Islamic terrorists, and to do so is a mistake -
both strategic, tactical, and moral. I'm not familiar with Bill Maher's
statement, but just because he said it doesn't mean I agree with it. :)

> So if it's not possible to stop ideas, what action is appropriate?

Acceptance.

Accept the fact that freedom cuts both ways. Support freedom of speech,
freedom of association, and freedom of flight - for enemies as well as
for friends. The measure of a man is not how he treats his friends, but
how he treats his enemies. A great nation leads by example. Now don't
misconstrue my words as if I were saying that we should let terrorists
get away with their actions - no, those who commit vile acts ought to be
hunted down and taken to task. But we should MOST EMPHATICALLY NOT go
treating everyone as a potential terrorist, subject to being shot down
unless they can prove they are good.

You talk about the ADIZ as being a way to prevent innocents from being
shot down. There's another way. Just don't shoot.

> I'm just talking about Muslims coming forward of their own volition
> and exposing those in their ranks they believe to be terrorists.

That would be nice. It would also be nice if Christians did the same
for those who bomb abortion clinics, and if the pilot community reported
those they believe to be dangerous aviators to the FAA, and if
taxpayers did the same for tax cheats and the IRS. If every neighbor is
looking over the shoulder of every other neighbor, we'll have a much
safer society, no? It's also really great way to "get even" with
somebody who did you wrong... just report them as a suspected
{whatever}, and let the justice system sort it all out.

So... neither you nor I get to decide where it stops. The police and
your neighbors do. But if you're doing nothing wrong, there's nothing
to worry about.

> When you lump "people who fly little airplanes" and terrorists in the
> same group, it becomes difficult to take your words seriously.

But that is =exactly= what the premise of the ADIZ is.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> Bill Maher recently expressed the opinion, that crashing airliners
> laden with hundreds of people was a faith based initiative.

I was a little slow on the irony detector. :)

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

It seems that the issue of the FAA closing the 2,000 square mile
airspace around DC is capable of generating a lot of heat among the
pilot community. Let's try to see if we can use this forum to
generate some light, and mount an effective opposition to the FAA's
NPRM: http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050804adiz-nprm.pdf
(Full Text included below.)

Perhaps if we airmen each contribute rational opposing arguments to
the NPRM, and the more intelligent among us distills that raw data
into a coherent rebuttal, we may prevail in defeating the closure of
DC airspace by an overwhelming show of opposition voiced on the DOT
Docket Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov and Government-wide Rulemaking Web
Site: http://www.regulations.gov

Unless we are able to provide rational arguments against this NPRM and
defeat it, it will set an onerous anti-GA precedent for future
closures.



--------------------------------------------------------
45250 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 149 / Thursday, August 4, 2005 /
Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 93
[Docket No. FAA–2003–17005; Notice No.
05–07]
RIN 2120–AI17
Washington, DC Metropolitan Area Special Flight Rules Area
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to codify
current flight restrictions for certain
aircraft operations in the Washington,
DC Metropolitan Area. This action is
necessary because of the ongoing threat
of terrorist attacks. The FAA intends by
this action to help the Department of
Homeland Security and the Department
of Defense protect national assets in the
National Capital region.

DATES: Send your comments on or
before November 2, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments
that do not include national security or
sensitive security information identified
by Docket Number FAA–2003–17005
using any of the following methods:
• DOT Docket Web Site: Go to
http://dms.dot.gov and follow the
instructions for sending your comments
electronically.
• Government-wide Rulemaking Web
Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov
and follow the instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–
001.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For more information on the
rulemaking process or instructions on
submitting comments that include
national security or sensitive security
information, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
Privacy: Subject to review for national
security or sensitive security
information, we will post all comments
we receive, without change, to http://
dms.dot.gov, including any personal
information you provide. For more
information, see the Privacy Act
discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.

Docket: To read background
documents or comments received, go to
http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to
Room PL–401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ellen Crum, Airspace and Rules, Office
of System Operations and Safety,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202)
267–8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to
participate in this rulemaking by
submitting written comments, data, or
views. (See also ‘‘Sensitive Security
Information’’ below.) We also invite
comments relating to the economic,
environmental, energy, or federalism
impacts that might result from adopting
the proposals in this document. The
most helpful comments reference a
specific portion of the proposal, explain
the reason for any recommended
change, and include supporting data.
We ask that you send us two copies of
written comments.

We will file in the docket all
comments we receive, subject to review
for national security or sensitive
security information as indicated above,
as well as a report summarizing each
substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed
rulemaking. The docket is available for
public inspection before and after the
comment closing date. If you wish to
review the docket in person, go to the
address in the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. You may also review the
docket using the Internet at the Web
address in the ADDRESSES section.
Privacy Act: Using the search function
of our docket Web site, anyone can find
and read the comments received into
any of our dockets, including the name
of the individual sending the comment
(or signing the comment on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT’s complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000
(65 FR 19477–78) or you may visit
http://dms.dot.gov.

Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive
on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments
filed late if it is possible to do so
without incurring expense or delay. We
may change this proposal in light of the
comments we receive.

If you want the FAA to acknowledge
receipt of your comments on this
proposal, include with your comments
a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on
which the docket number appears. We
will stamp the date on the postcard and
mail it to you.

Sensitive Security Information
Do not file in the docket information
that you consider to be sensitive
security information. Send or deliver
this information (identified as docket
number FAA–2003–17005) directly to
Edith V. Parish, Acting Manager,
Airspace and Rules, Office of System
Operations and Safety, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591,
telephone (202) 267–8783. You must
mark information that you consider
security-sensitive.

Under 14 CFR 11.35 (a), we will
review comments as we receive them,
before they are placed in the docket. If
a comment contains sensitive security
information, we remove it before
placing the comment in the general
docket.

Availability of This Action
You can get an electronic copy using
the Internet by:
(1) Searching the Department of
Transportation’s electronic Docket
Management System (DMS) Web page
(http://dms.dot.gov/search);
(2) Visiting the FAA’s Web page at
http://www.faa.gov; or
(3) Accessing the Government
Printing Office’s Web page at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index/html.
You can also get a copy by submitting
a request to the Federal Aviation
Administration, Office of Rulemaking,
ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by
calling (202) 267–9680. Be sure to
identify the docket number, notice
number, or amendment number of this
rulemaking.

Statutory Authority
The FAA Administrator has broad
authority to regulate the safe and
efficient use of the navigable airspace
(49 U.S.C. 40103). The Administrator is
also authorized to issue air traffic rules
and regulations to govern the flight of
aircraft, the navigation, protection, and
identification of aircraft for the
protection of persons and property on
the ground, and for the efficient use of
the navigable airspace. Additionally,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(3) the
Administrator has the authority, in
consultation with the Secretary of
Defense, to ‘‘establish security
provisions that will encourage and
allow maximum use of the navigable
airspace by civil aircraft consistent with
national security.’’ Such provisions may
include establishing airspace areas the
Administrator decides are necessary in
the interest of national defense; and by
regulation or order, restricting or
prohibiting flight of civil aircraft that
the Administrator cannot identify,
locate and control with available
facilities in those areas. See 49 U.S.C.
40103(b). The Administrator also has
broad statutory authority to issue
regulations to promote safe flight of civil
aircraft in air commerce, when the
Administrator finds that such
regulations are necessary for safety in
air commerce and national security. See
49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5). The FAA must
consider, as a matter of policy,
maintaining and enhancing safety and
security in air commerce as its highest
priorities (49 U.S.C. 40101(d)).

Background
After the September 11, 2001 terrorist
attacks, which resulted in the loss of
human life at the World Trade Center,
the Pentagon, and in southwestern
Pennsylvania, the FAA immediately
curtailed all aircraft operations within
the National Airspace System (NAS),
except certain military, law
enforcement, and emergency related
aircraft operations.

On September 13, 2001, the FAA took
action to allow additional aircraft
operations in some areas of the NAS.
However, the FAA maintained flight
restrictions over certain cities and
sensitive sites. Even after specific
temporary flight restrictions over a
particular city or site were rescinded,
some flight restrictions were
occasionally reinstated in response to
specific and general intelligence
information regarding terrorist threats.
Most of these flight restrictions were
issued pursuant to the Code of Federal
Regulations in 14 CFR 91.139,
Emergency Air Traffic Rules; 14 CFR
91.137, Temporary Flight Restrictions in
the Vicinity of Disaster/Hazard Areas; or
14 CFR part 99, Security Control of Air
Traffic. These flight restrictions were
issued via the U.S. Notice to Airmen
(NOTAM) System.

While many aspects of the initial
flight restrictions were cancelled, in the
Washington, DC Metropolitan Area the
FAA continued to impose several
temporary flight restrictions at the
request of the Departments of Homeland
Security (DHS) and Defense (DoD) to
assist them in their newly assigned
counter-terrorism mission.

On February 19, 2002, the FAA issued
Special Federal Aviation Regulation
(SFAR) No. 94, Enhanced Security
Procedures for Operations at Certain
Airports in the Washington, DC
Metropolitan Area Special Flight Rules
Area (67 FR 7538; Feb. 19, 2002). SFAR
94, which expired on February 13, 2005,
required any person operating an
aircraft to or from College Park Airport,
Potomac Airfield, or Washington
Executive/Hyde Field to conduct those
operations in accordance with security
procedures approved by the
Administrator. The SFAR was a general
operating rule containing both flight
communication requirements and
airport security requirements. It applied
to any person operating an aircraft to or
from one of the specified airports and
affected all aircraft operations at these
airports, including those conducted
under 14 CFR part 91, those for which
an air carrier or an operating certificate
may be issued under 14 CFR part 119
(for operations conducted under 14 CFR
part 121 or 135), and those which may
be conducted under part 125, 129, 133,
or 137.

Procedures addressing airport security
previously contained in SFAR 94 are
now included in a regulation
promulgated on February 10, 2005 by
the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), which is now
responsible for airport security
procedures (70 FR 7150; Feb. 10, 2005).
The flight communication requirements
are included in this NPRM. They
include flight plan filing, two-way radio
communication, and transponder
requirements.

Request To Permanently Codify
Temporary Flight Restrictions Over the
Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area
Because of its status as home to all
three branches of the Federal
government, as well as numerous
Federal buildings, foreign embassies,
multi-national institutions, and national
monuments, the Washington, DC
Metropolitan Area continues to be an
obvious high value target for terrorists.
Despite recent successes in the war on
terrorism, the DHS believes that the
threat of extremists launching an attack
using aircraft remains high. Although
there is no information suggesting an
imminent plan by terrorists to use
airplanes to attack targets in the
Washington, DC Metropolitan Area, the
success of the September 11, 2001 attack
on the Pentagon and reports
demonstrating terrorist groups’ enduring
interest in aviation-related attacks
indicate the need for continued
vigilance in aviation security.

For example, the April 2003 arrest of
Waleed bin Attash and the subsequent
discovery of a plot to crash an
explosive-laden small aircraft into the
U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
illustrates terrorist groups’ continued
interest in using aircraft to attack U.S.
interests. Other information—such as
documents found in Zacarias
Moussaoui’s possession, which outlined
crop duster operations—suggests that
terrorist groups may have been
considering other domestic aviation
attack plans in addition to the
September 11, 2001 attacks. As of mid-
June 2003, Islamic extremists may have
been planning suicide hijackings against
government, military, and/or economic
targets along the east coast of the United
States.

In addition, press reports on the
debriefings of detained terrorist leader
Khalid Shaykh Muhammad not only
hint at the complexity of planning
involved in the September 11, 2001
attacks, but also suggest the group was
likely planning follow-on operations
inside the United States, possibly
including inside the Washington, DC
Metropolitan Area.

While the DHS has no specific
information that terrorist groups are
currently planning to use general
aviation (GA) aircraft to perpetrate
attacks against the U.S., it remains
concerned that (in light of completed
and ongoing security enhancements for
commercial aircraft and airports)
terrorists may turn to GA as an
alternative method for conducting
operations.

The DHS believes that Al-Qa’ida is
the group most likely to use GA to
attack targets in the U.S. Several of its
operatives—including some of the
September 11 hijackers—have trained
on small aircraft. Indeed, according to
the testimony before Congress of the
then-Director of Central Intelligence,
George Tenet, September 11 mastermind
Khalid Shaykh Muhammad originally
proposed using multiple small aircraft
packed with explosives to conduct the
attacks. Usama Bin Laden reportedly
suggested the use of larger aircraft
instead. Even earlier, Muhammad and
Ramzi Yousef—both involved in the
1995 Manila Air plot—considered the
notion of crashing an airplane into CIA
Headquarters.

• Based on this and other
information, the DHS believes that GA
aircraft may be vulnerable to targeting
by terrorists for misuse.

In February 2003, FAA, in
consultation with DHS and other
Federal agencies, implemented a system
of airspace control measures to protect
against a potential threat to the
Washington, DC Metropolitan Area. The
dimensions of this protected airspace
were determined after considering such
factors as the speed of likely suspect
aircraft, minimum launch time and the
speed of intercept aircraft. After
extensive coordination among Federal
agencies, two airspace areas were
implemented. The outer area, which
closely mimics the current Washington
Tri-area Class B airspace, is called an
Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ)
and requires identification of all flight
operations within the airspace in order
to ensure the security of protected
ground assets. The inner area, called a
Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ), is
approximately a 15 NM radius around
the Washington VHF omni-directional
range/distance measuring equipment
(DCA VOR/DME) where more stringent
access procedures are applied. Most
kinds of flight operations are prohibited
in this area, and under this proposal
such operations would continue to be
prohibited in this area. Part 121
operations are presently permitted in
this airspace and, under this proposal,
would continue to be permitted in the
FRZ airspace. DoD, law enforcement
and aeromedical flights are permitted in
this airspace and would continue to be
permitted in this airspace as long as the
flight crew remains in contact with air
traffic control (ATC) and operates the
aircraft transponder on an air traffic
control-assigned beacon code. If
adopted, the airspace presently known
as the DC ‘‘ADIZ’’ would be
redesignated as the Washington, DC
Metropolitan Area Special Flight Rules
Area (DC SFRA). The DC SFRA would
encompass the same airspace as the
ADIZ and include the area known as the
FRZ.

This airspace structure and associated
procedures associated with the ADIZ
and FRZ have been in place for about
2 years. The agencies responsible for
intercepting intruders within the
Washington, DC Metropolitan Area (the
DoD and agencies of the DHS) believe
that the existing airspace dimensions
and procedures are the minimum
acceptable to successfully accomplish
their missions and should be retained
on a permanent basis.

This airspace structure is also an
essential component of the DoD and
DHS air security plan. The DoD and
DHS believe that by establishing a
National Defense airspace area over the
Washington, DC Metropolitan Area,
they would have sufficient time to
successfully conduct countermeasures
to ensure the safety of protectees in the
event that a potentially hostile aircraft
enters the airspace area.

It is with this in mind that the
Departments of Defense and Homeland
Security requested that the FAA
Administrator take action to codify
permanently current aviation flight
restrictions over the Washington, DC
Metropolitan Area to support their
continuing mission to protect national
assets in the National Capital Region.
General Discussion of the Proposal
After the events of September 11,
2001, Congress and the President tasked
government agencies to increase the
protection of the United States and its
interests. Congress established the TSA
and tasked it with protecting the
security of our nation’s transportation
infrastructure. Additionally, Congress
established the Department of
Homeland Security, in order to
centralize the administration of the
country’s security efforts.

For the past two years, the FAA has
been working closely with the DoD and
DHS to draft security contingency plans
to protect the American public, national
assets, and operations in the National
Airspace System. Some of the measures
taken by the FAA include additional
cockpit security for certain air carrier
aircraft and temporary flight restrictions
over special events (often at stadiums)
that attract large numbers of people and
may be seen as potential targets by
terrorists.

Since the seat of our nation’s
government is in Washington, DC, flight
restrictions were established
immediately after September 11, 2001,
and most remain in place. Establishing
specific airspace for security reasons in
the Washington, DC area is not a new
practice. In 1938, by Executive Order
7910, the President reserved and set
apart airspace for national defense, the
public safety and other governmental
purposes. Those airspace reservations
were subsequently codified in 14 CFR
part 73 as ‘‘prohibited areas.’’ Over the
years, the size and dimensions of one of
these areas, Prohibited Area 56 (P–56),
which is the airspace over and near the
White House, has changed in response
to world events. In accordance with 14
CFR 73.83, no person may operate an
aircraft within a prohibited area unless
authorization has been granted by the
using agency. The action proposed in
this notice does not modify P–56.

The FAA is aware that the flight
restrictions imposed over the
Washington DC Metropolitan Area have
impacted, and will continue to impact
some pilots in the area. However,
government security officials believe
that the proposed DC SFRA would
enhance and strengthen the ability of
DoD and DHS to protect the President,
Cabinet members, the Congress and
other assets in the capital region.

According to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), the threat of
extremists launching an attack using
aircraft still exists. Numerous reports
continue to be received that
demonstrate Al-Qa’ida’s enduring
interest in aviation-related attacks.
Thus, there is a continued need for
aviation security vigilance. Intelligence
reports indicate that terrorists continue
to be interested in using general aviation
aircraft as part of another attack on the
U.S. or facilitation of activities since
general aviation aircraft are readily
available and relatively inexpensive.
Also, though security measures at
general aviation airports have improved,
they are less stringent than those in
place at many commercial airports.

Overall and even though general
aviation aircraft are generally smaller
than those used in the 9/11 attack, the
destructive potential of a small aircraft
loaded with explosives may be
significant. It should be noted that
almost 70% of U.S. general aviation is
comprised of aircraft that are relatively
small. Aircraft in this segment of the
industry range from homebuilt craft to
large airliners. In addition, there are
thousands of general aviation airports in
the United States with varying degrees
of security procedures implemented.

We believe that as part of ensuring the
security of the people, property and
institutions in the Nation’s capital, and
surrounding area, it is essential to know
the intended route of flight of the
aircraft, to have the aircraft squawk a
discrete transponder code, and to have
automatic altitude reporting equipment
on board the aircraft that transmits to
ATC. Government officials believe that
some types of aircraft operations (i.e.,
those conducted under parts 91, 101,
103, 105, 125, 133, 135 and 137) should
continue to be prohibited within 15
miles of the DCA VOR/DME, unless
specifically authorized by the FAA in
consultation with the DoD and DHS.
Generally speaking, pre-departure
security procedures and onboard
security equipment for such operations
are substantially less demanding than
those security procedures and
safeguards currently in place for part
121 aircraft operations. Therefore, the
FAA is proposing the following action
which, in part, restricts flight in certain
areas and requires pilots operating in
designated areas to file flight plans,
communicate with appropriate air
traffic control facilities, and display an
ATC-assigned transponder code. This
proposed action is one of many being
undertaken by government agencies that

1 Section 46307. Violation of national defense
airspace. A person that knowingly or willfully
violates section 40103(b)(3) of this title or a
regulation prescribed or order issued under section
40103(b)(3) shall be fined under title 18,
imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
are intended to enhance security in the
Washington DC Metropolitan area.
By this proposed action the Federal
Government would more explicitly
classify the airspace over the
Washington DC Metropolitan Area (the
DC SFRA) as ‘‘National Defense
Airspace.’’ Any person who knowingly
or willfully violates the rules
concerning operations in National
Defense Airspace is subject to certain
criminal penalties. See 49 U.S.C. 46307.

It is hoped that codification of these
airspace restrictions and the
classification of this airspace as
‘‘National Defense Airspace’’ will
reduce, through pilot education, the
number of careless and inadvertent
encroachments of the airspace by some
pilots. Reducing the number of
unauthorized airspace penetrations will
reduce the number of times that the U.S.
Government aircraft have to intercept
unauthorized aircraft. The government
also believes this rule will reduce the
risks that the Government might have to
fire on an aircraft that proceeds
dangerously close to certain locations in
the Washington DC Metropolitan Area.
In addition, in response to
Congressional mandate, the
Transportation Security Administration
issued an interim final rule on July 19,
2005 to restore access to Reagan
National Airport for certain aircraft
operations (70 FR 41586; July 19, 2005).
The rule will become effective on
August 18, 2005. The final rule will
reflect changes to the airspace
restrictions based on that rule, as well
as other changes that might result from
other unforeseen security concerns.
Section-by-Section Discussion of the
Proposed 14 CFR Part 93 Subpart B
Section 93.31—What Is the Purpose of
This Subpart and Who Would Be
Affected?

This section, if adopted, would
inform the public that this subpart was
issued to enhance security efforts in the
Washington, DC Metropolitan Area and
deter anyone who might use an aircraft
for terrorist activity. It would further
inform readers that it establishes a
National Defense Airspace Area over the
Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area.
This area would be known as the
Washington DC Metropolitan Area
Special Flight Rules Area, which would
be defined in proposed § 93.35. This
would include flights in the
Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area
Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ), which is
also defined in proposed § 93.35. This
subpart would affect anyone who
operates an aircraft in the DC SFRA.
Section 93.33—What Could Happen if
You Fail To Comply With the Rules of
This Subpart?

This proposed section informs readers
that if they do not comply with this rule
or any special security instruction
announced by a Notice to Airmen
(NOTAM) that affects this rule, then the
government may do any or all of the
following:

(1) Direct deadly force toward their
aircraft. This could happen if it is
determined that the aircraft poses an
imminent security threat.

(2) Pursue criminal charges. Criminal
prosecutions could be pursued, in the
right case with the appropriate
evidence, because this airspace is being
established, in part, pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 40103(b) as National Defense
Airspace.1 This would not be the first
time that the Administrator, in
consultation with the Secretary of
Defense, has acted pursuant to the
authority under 49 U.S.C. 40103(b). For
example, the FAA considers certain
Prohibited Areas to be National Defense
Airspace and certain temporary flight
restrictions (TFRs) sites in the same
vein, because those prohibited areas and
those TFRs were established, in part,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 40103 in
consultation with the Secretary of
Defense.

(3) Take administrative action,
including imposing civil penalties and
suspend or revoke airmen certificates.
Paragraph (c) simply summarizes the
FAA’s long-standing and longrecognized
statutory authority to take
administrative enforcement action
against those who violate FAA
regulations (See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 44709
and 49 U.S.C. Chapter 463 (Penalties)).

Section 93.35—Definitions
This proposed section contains
definitions applicable to this rule.
Specifically, this section provides the
definition for the proposed airspace
known as the Washington, DC,
Metropolitan Area Special Flight Rules
Area (SFRA) and the airspace contained
within the Washington DC Metropolitan
Area Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ). The
SFRA is currently defined by a NOTAM,
and known as the Washington DC ADIZ.
Both the SFRA airspace and the FRZ
airspace (which is part of SFRA
airspace) are categorized as ‘‘National
Defense Airspace.’’ This proposed
section also defines the term ‘‘fringe
airports’’ to identify certain airports
located near the outer boundary of the
SFRA where specific egress-only
procedures may be applied.

Section 93.37—General Requirements
for Operating in the Washington, DC,
Metropolitan Area SFRA
This proposed section establishes that
if you conduct any type of flight in the
Washington, DC, SFRA, you will be
subject to:

(1) All of the requirements in this
part;
(2) All special instructions issued by
the FAA in the interest of national
security; and
(3) All other FAA requirements in 14
CFR.

Generally, any special instructions
would be issued as NOTAMs pursuant
to § 99.7 and would be temporary, but
could be issued in any manner the FAA
considers appropriate.

Section 93.39—Specific Requirements
for Operating in the Washington, DC,
Metropolitan Area SFRA, Including the
FRZ

On February 10, 2003, the FAA issued
NOTAM 3/2126 that established the
Washington DC Metropolitan Area
ADIZ. NOTAM 3/2126 contains flight
restrictions and procedures for aircraft
operations within the area, including
transponder equipment, two-way radio
communication and filing a flight plan.
In this action we propose to establish an
area (Washington DC SFRA) with
specific procedures and pilot and
equipment requirements. The proposed
procedures reflect those currently in
place via NOTAM for that airspace
currently known as the Washington DC
Metropolitan Area Air Defense
Identification Zone (ADIZ).

Section 93.41—Aircraft Operations
Prohibited in the Washington, DC,
Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted
Zone (FRZ)

This section proposes to codify
prohibitions on certain kinds of aircraft
operations in the Washington DC
Metropolitan Area FRZ. The FRZ
evolved from flight restrictions
originally imposed by NOTAM on
December 19, 2001. On February 10,
2003, the FRZ (which covers
approximately a 15 nautical mile radius
of the Washington DC VOR/DME) was
introduced to describe an area wherein
all flight operations conducted under
parts 91, 101, 103, 105, 125, 133, 135,
and 137 are prohibited unless
specifically authorized by the FAA, in
consultation with DHS.

Section 93.43—Requirements for
Aircraft Operations to or From College
Park Airport; Potomac Airfield; or
Washington Executive/Hyde Field
Airports

This proposed section contains
portions of the procedures previously
found in SFAR No. 94, and it also
contains air traffic procedures that are
in place via NOTAM.

SFAR 94 contained both flight
communication requirements and
airport security requirements. The flight
communication requirements are
included in this NPRM. They include
flight plan filing, two-way radio
communication, and transponder
requirements. Procedures addressing
airport security previously contained in
SFAR 94 are now regulated by the TSA.
See ‘‘Background’’ above.

Section 93.45—Special Ingress/Egress
Procedures for Bay Bridge and Kentmorr
Airports

This section proposes to permanently
codify ingress/egress procedures for
certain airports within the Washington,
DC Metropolitan Area Special Flight
Rules Area but not in the FRZ. This
proposed section details ingress/egress
procedures for pilots operating to/from
the Bay Bridge and Kentmorr Airports.
Specifically, the procedures would
allow aircraft arriving at or departing
from either of these airports to operate
directly to or from the airport, along a
specified route, at a specified altitude,
without filing a flight plan or contacting
air traffic control, provided they are
displaying the appropriate ATCassigned
transponder code (1227 for Bay
Bridge Airport and 1233 for Kentmorr
Airport).

Section 93.47—Special Egress
Procedures for Fringe Airports
This section proposes egress-only
procedures for those pilots departing the
Airlie, Albrecht, Harris, Martin, Martin
State, Meadows, Mylander, Stewart, St.
John, Tilghman Whipp, Upperville, and
Wolf airports. Pilots departing from
these airports would display ATC
transponder code 1205 and monitor the
appropriate ATC frequency for the area.
They would be expected to exit the
SFRA by the most direct route. Also,
these pilots would not have to establish
two-way communications with ATC
unless requested, and would not have to
file a flight plan.

It should be noted that these
procedures are being proposed to
provide relief to certain pilot operations
in the SFRA. Any pilot deviating from
these procedures will trigger a U.S.
government response.

Section 93.49—Airport Security
Procedures
This section proposes to prohibit any
person from operating an aircraft at the
three subject Maryland airports unless
those airports have a TSA-approved
airport security program.

Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposal contains the following
new information collection
requirements. As required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted
the information requirements associated
with this proposal to the Office of
Management and Budget for its review.
This information is currently being
collected under the NOTAM issued
pursuant to 14 CFR 99.7.

Estimated Burden: The FAA expects
that this proposed rule would impose
additional reporting and recordkeeping
requirements on airports and pilots. It
would have the following impacts:
• For the airports impacted by SFAR
94, the FAA estimates that it would take
1,497.50 hours to process flight plans,
costing $47,111 annually.

• For the other airports affected by
this rulemaking, the FAA estimates that
it would take 6,466.28 hours to process
the additional flight plans, costing
$203,429 annually.

The total impact to file these flight plans
averages $250,540, taking 7,963.78
hours annually.

The regulation would increase
paperwork for the Federal government,
as there would be an additional air
traffic burden dealing with pilot
deviations, tracks of interest, and
litigation, taking an average of
129,197.33 hours, costing $10,913,253
annually. In addition, FAA employees
would have to process the additional
flight plans; for the airports impacted by
SFAR 94, this would take 1,497.50
hours, costing $70,847, and for all other
airports in the SFRA, this would take
6,466.28 hours, costing $203,429
annually. The total impact on the
Federal government would be
137,161.10 hours, costing $11,187,529
annually.

The agency is soliciting comments
to—
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed
information requirement is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions
of the agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Individuals and organizations may
submit comments on the information
collection requirement by October 3,
2005, and should direct them to the
address listed in the ADDRESSES section
of this document. Comments also
should be submitted to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
OMB, New Executive Building, Room
10202, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20053, Attention: Desk
Officer for FAA.

According to the 1995 amendments to
the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR
1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not
collect or sponsor the collection of
information, nor may it impose an
information collection requirement
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
number for this information collection
will be published in the Federal
Register, after the Office of Management
and Budget approves it.

International Compatibility
In keeping with U.S. obligations
under the Convention on International
Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to
comply with International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards
and Recommended Practices to the
maximum extent practicable. The FAA
has determined that there are no ICAO
Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these proposed
regulations.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary
Changes to Federal regulations must
undergo several economic analyses.
First, Executive Order 12866 directs that
each Federal agency shall propose or
adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the
intended regulation justify its costs.

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act
of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the
economic impact of regulatory changes
on small entities. Third, the Trade
Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2531–2533)
prohibits agencies from setting
standards that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the
United States. In developing U.S.
standards, this Trade Act requires
agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, to be
the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Public Law 104–4) requires agencies to
prepare a written assessment of the
costs, benefits, and other effects of
proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditure by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $120.7 million or more
annually (adjusted for inflation).

In conducting these analyses, the FAA
has determined this proposed rule: (1)
Would have benefits that justify its
costs, is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
as defined in section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866, and is ‘‘significant’’ as
defined in DOT’s Regulatory Policies
and Procedures; (2) may have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities; (3)
would have no affect on international
trade; and does not impose an unfunded
mandate on state, local, or tribal
governments, or on the private sector.
These analyses, available in the docket,
are summarized below.

Who Is Potentially Affected by This
Rulemaking

Private Sector
All aircraft would have to be
transponder equipped when entering
the proposed DC SFRA and maintain
two-way communications while flying
in the proposed area. Pilots operating in
accordance with visual flight rules
(VFR) would have to file flight plans to
fly within the proposed DC SFRA.
There are approximately 150 airports
in the proposed DC ADIZ. Given the
additional requirements that general
aviation pilots face, the FAA is
concerned that many of these airports
would have fewer operations. In some
cases, some of these pilots may elect to
use alternate nearby airports outside of
the proposed DC SFRA.
Government

The FAA has experienced additional
burdens in maintaining the requested
security requirements within the DC
ADIZ/FRZ since September 11, 2001. In
particular, this includes additional work
for the air traffic control facilities of
Potomac Consolidated Terminal Radar
Approach Control (TRACON) and
Leesburg Automated Flight Service
Station (AFSS) as well as adjacent air
traffic control towers and AFSS’s.
One of the airports affected by the
flight restrictions imposed since
September 11, 2001 is the College Park
Airport. This airport is owned and
partially funded by two Maryland
Counties, Montgomery and Prince
George’s.

Our Cost Assumptions and Sources of
Information

In this analysis, the FAA estimated
future costs for a 10-year period, from
2004 through 2013. As required by the
Office of Management and Budget, the
present value of this stream of costs was
calculated using a discount factor of 7
percent. All costs in this analysis are in
2002 dollars.

The analysis examined costs
associated with the proposed DC SFRA.
Impact to Air Traffic
The FAA calculated the number of
additional air traffic staff by looking at
air traffic controller availability during
the average workweek and during the
year. Staffing demands in the future are
calculated by using annual growth rates
of 1.2% for the TRACONs and 0.5% for
the AFSSs. In addition, personnel
compensation and benefits for a
certified professional controller are
estimated at $140,000 and for an
automated flight service station
specialist are estimated at $90,000.
Airports Impacted by the Former SFAR
94—College Park, Potomac, and
Washington Executive/Hyde
For the three airports impacted by the
former SFAR 94, the FAA also used the
following assumptions:

• The cost of either a pilot’s or an
aircraft occupant’s time is $31.46 per
hour.
• The per hour cost of operating a
piston driven, four seat aircraft is
$64.75.
• The average load factor for a four
seat aircraft is 43.7 percent or 1.75
occupants.
• An airport manager’s hourly wage,
based on each airport’s actual cost and
revenue streams, is $45 per hour at
College Park, $42 per hour at Potomac,
and $40 per hour at Washington
Executive/Hyde.
• To account for financial losses not
explicitly captured by the analysis,
twenty percent of lost revenue is added
to the estimated cost of operational
restrictions for all three airports.
• To compensate for the lack of
financial data for Washington Executive
Airport/Hyde Field, the average
estimated cost of certain operational
restrictions for the two other airports
(College Park and Potomac) is used to
estimate the revenue losses.
• The data for the days that each
airport was open and operating in 2002
was annualized to help estimate total
operations and revenues. This data
summed to about 61/2 months for the
College Park and Potomac airports and
4 months for Washington Executive
Airport/Hyde Field.
• Hourly costs to the Federal
Government include airport inspector
(FG–14, $56.48) and flight service
station specialist ($47.37) and to the
state government law enforcement
agency employee ($47.80).
• Revenue is used as the financial
indicator of economic costs in lieu of
unavailable data on lost profits.
• Local purchases include
procurements made by the airport and
its tenants and airport sales to tenants,
visitors, and local organizations.
• For ground delays, the hourly value
of passenger time per operation is
$55.06. The average ground delay varied
per airport.
• For in-flight delays, the hourly cost
of an in-flight delay is $119.81. The
average flight delay varied per airport.
In addition, the FAA made the
following assumptions concerning the
number of operations and revenue at
these three airports:
• The number of operations, which
was annualized from 2002 data, would
remain constant at all three airports for
the ten years examined by this analysis.

In a recent Interim Final Rule, the TSA
has allowed transient operations into
these airports. However, FAA does not
know how many additional aircraft will
fly into or out of these airports. Unless
a pilot plans on using one of these
airports on a regular basis, they
probably would not want to go through
the vetting process. Thus, the FAA
believes that the number of additional
new operations would be minimal.

• Given the additional security
vetting required by TSA, the FAA
believes that these pilots who fly into
any of these three airports would do so
only if they believe that it is to their
advantage to do so. In other words, the
FAA recognizes that these pilots would
enjoy an unquantifiable benefit.
• The FAA does not believe that the
recent TSA rule would increase the total
number of flights within the SFRA. So
while the actual number of flights to the
Maryland-3 and to the other airports
within the SFRA may change, the total
number of flights within the SFRA
would not. While the costs estimated
and projected for the Maryland-3 and
the other airports may change, the total
costs related to these operations within
the SFRA (in-flight delays, on-theground
delays, and flight plan
processing) would not change.
• Annual revenue, which was also
annualized from 2002 data, would
remain constant at all three airports for
the ten years examined by this analysis.
The FAA recognizes that additional
transient flights have the potential to
boost revenue to each airport, but
believes that any potential increase
would be small.

Other Costs Associated With the
Proposed DC SFRA
• The FAA assumes that the
additional number of flight plans filed
in 2004 would be 123,800, growing to
135,000 in 2013; these numbers are net
of those needed to be filed for the three
airports impacted by the former SFAR
94.
• As above, for ground delays, the
hourly value of passenger time per
operation is $55.06, while for in-flight
delays; the hourly cost per operation is
$119.81.

Benefits of This Rulemaking
This proposed rule is intended to
enhance DoD/DHS security measures to
deter airborne terrorist attacks. The
primary benefit of the proposal would
be enhanced protection for a significant
number of government assets and
infrastructure in the National Capital
Region. The security provisions and
flight restrictions contained in this rule
are an integral part of the effort to
identify and defeat the threat posed by
terrorists.

Given the myriad of possible
scenarios, the cost of an act of terrorism
against a nationally prominent target or
critical government infrastructure is
extremely difficult to quantify. They can
include areas such as the direct and
indirect costs of the September 11
attacks as well as a reduction in D.C.
tourism. Due to the sensitive nature of
this information, many of the specifics
of these effects will not be discussed in
this document. However, the FAA
acknowledges that these costs would be
very high.

The FAA acknowledges that there
would be non-quantifiable benefits. The
separation of air traffic is predicated on
knowing the intentions of aircraft
operating within the controller’s
airspace. The proposed DC SFRA would
require two way communication, flight
plans and operable transponders for
pilots to operate in the area. This would
allow the government to know the
pilots’ intentions, to monitor the aircraft
altitude, and to communicate with each
pilot. Knowing this information would
enhance safety and security.

In addition, the FAA believes that this
rule will reduce the number of times
that the U.S. Government might have to
intercept unauthorized aircraft. The
current restrictions are contained in
NOTAMs, which are not as widely
disseminated or understood as Federal
regulations. As the public becomes more
aware of these airspace restrictions, the
FAA believes the number of careless
and inadvertent encroachments of the
airspace will be reduced. The FAA does
not have any data on the possible
reduction in the number of times that
the U.S. Government might have to
intercept unauthorized aircraft, but
believes that a better educated flying
public would make fewer critical flying
errors.

Costs of This Rulemaking
The analysis examined costs
associated with the proposed DC SFRA.
The Impact to Air Traffic
The FAA has borne additional
burdens in maintaining the requested
airspace restrictions within the existing
Washington, DC ADIZ/FRZ. To
calculate the costs associated with the
proposed DC SFRA, the FAA made a
comparison using the baseline months
of July 2001, 2002, and 2003. Based on
the additional workload for 2003,
controller staffing has been increased;
total increased staffing costs, over ten
years, sum to $62.12 million ($43.83
million, discounted). The total number
of controllers would increase from 39 in
2004 to 43 in 2013.

There are other costs due to
additional activities, all centered at the
Potomac TRACON. These other costs
include additional pilot deviations,
additional tracks of interest, increased
litigation, and costs associated with
creating and operating a National
Security Special Operations Unit. This
increased workload sums to $122.15
million ($71.28 million, discounted)
over ten years.

Total ten-year costs, to handle the
additional air traffic burden, sum to
$184.27 million ($128.70 million,
discounted).

Costs to the Airports Impacted by the
Former SFAR 94—College Park,
Potomac, and Washington Executive/
Hyde

SFAR 94, enacted February 13, 2002,
authorized general aviation operations
at College Park Airport, Potomac
Airfield, and Washington Hyde Field,
provided that stringent requirements
were met. In February 2003, the FAA, in
concert with TSA, extended the SFAR
94 for an additional two years. In
February 2005, TSA extended the
security aspects of these procedures
under 49 CFR part 1562; the airspace
restrictions and communications
provisions in NOTAM 3/0853 remain
under FAA authority. This rulemaking
would codify these airspace restrictions
and communications provisions.

The FAA was able to obtain limited
historical financial and operational data
for College Park and Potomac Field
Airports for part of their first year under
the SFAR. Additional data restrictions,
however, limited the analysis of the
rule’s impact on the Washington
Executive Airport/Hyde Field. Thus, the
FAA was required to make additional
assumptions in doing the analysis for
this airport.

College Park Airport
The College Park Airport opened in
1909 and is the oldest continuously
operating airport in the world. With the
exception of about 100 annual air taxi
operations, the College Park Airport
serves private pilots who use their
aircraft for pleasure and business. The
estimate of annual losses to College Park
Airport associated with complying with
the current DC ADIZ/FRZ operational
restrictions is $1.62 million. This
annualized revenue loss has been
increased by a factor of 20% to account
for revenue losses not included in the
analysis. The annual airspace restriction
costs to the pilots using the College Park
Airport sum to $171,900 and are based
on the ground and in-flight delays as
well as the time to file flight plans.
Complying with the airspace and
communication requirements in the
proposed DC SFRA would cost the
College Park Airport an estimated $1.80
million annually.

Potomac Airfield
The Potomac Airfield is a small
privately owned airport located in Fort
Washington, Maryland. Based on
information from the first 8 months of
2002, and assuming that these revenues
derived during the period stay the same,
the FAA estimates the revenue loss to be
$1.36 million. This annualized revenue
loss has been increased by a factor of
20% to account for revenue losses not
included in the analysis. Thus the FAA
estimates annual losses of $1.63 million
for the time examined by this analysis.
The annual airspace restriction costs to
the pilots using the Potomac Airfield
Airport sum to $368,500 and are based
on the ground and in-flight delays as
well as the time to file flight plans.
Complying with the requirements in the
proposed DC SFRA would cost the
Potomac Airfield Airport an estimated
$2.00 million annually.

Washington Executive/Hyde Field
Airport
Washington Executive/Hyde Field
Airport is a small privately owned
airport located in Clinton, Maryland.
The airport largely serves the needs of
private pilots who occasionally fly for
business reasons. This airport was
closed longer than the other two;
operations resumed at Hyde Field on
March 2, 2002. However, on May 17,
2002, the airport was closed again
because of a security violation. The
airport reopened on September 28,
2002. This annualized revenue loss has
been increased by a factor of 20% to
account for revenue losses not included
in the analysis. This resulted in the
estimate of annual losses associated
with complying with the operational
restrictions in the former SFAR 94 for
this airport to be $1.60 million.

The annual airspace restriction costs
to the pilots using the Washington
Executive Airport/Hyde Field sum to
$596,500 and are based on the ground
and in-flight delays as well as the time
to file flight plans. Complying with the
requirements in the proposed DC SFRA
would cost the Washington Executive/
Hyde Field Airport an estimated $2.19
million annually.

Other Costs Related to the Above Three
Airports

Flight service station specialists
would need to process the flight plans;
annual costs sum to approximately
$70,800. Annual costs for the ten-year
extension of the provisions of the
proposed DC SFRA sum to $6.06
million. Over ten years, these costs sum
to $60.64 million ($42.59, discounted).

Other Costs Related to the Proposed DC
SFRA

There are approximately 150 airports/
heliports within the proposed DC SFRA.
The costs for three of these airports
(College Park, Potomac, and Washington
Executive/Hyde) have already been
discussed above. However, there are
additional costs, both for pilots and
airports within the proposed DC SFRA.
Costs for pilots—The proposal would
implement new requirements for all
pilots. The proposal would require all
operators to file flight plans. Pilots
operating VFR would have to file flight
plans to operate within the proposed DC
SFRA; these are new costs. The FAA
estimates an additional 123,800 flight
plans would need to be filed annually
in 2004, growing to 135,000 in 2013.
Ten year costs due to flight delays and
the time to file flight plans sum to
$48.63 million. In addition, flight
service station specialists would need to
process the flight plans; ten-year costs
sum to approximately $3.06 million.
Total costs for these additional flight
plans sum to $51.70 million ($36.12
million, discounted) over ten years.

The FAA invites comments on:
• The total number of additional
flight plans,
• The filing time due to ground and
in-flight delays and related costs, and
• The net results of pilots
circumventing the DC SFRA.
The FAA requests that all comments
be accompanied by documentation.
Costs for small airports—There are
approximately 150 airports/heliports in
the proposed DC SFRA, most of which
do not keep operations records. Given
the additional requirements that general
aviation pilots face, the FAA notes that
many of these airports would have
fewer operations, resulting in a loss of
revenue. In some cases, some of these
pilots would fly to alternate airports
outside the proposed DC SFRA,
resulting in an increase in operations
and revenue for these alternate airports.
The FAA does not have data as to the
change in operations and revenue in the
airports both within and just outside the
proposed DC SFRA since February
2001. Accordingly, the FAA invites
comments from both small airports and
general aviation pilots on the effect of
the DC SFRA on these airports. The
FAA requests that all comments be
accompanied by documentation.

Total Costs
Total quantifiable costs sum to
$296.60 million ($207.41 million,
discounted) over ten years.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination
For this proposed rule, the small
entity group is considered to be small
general aviation airports (North
American Industry Classification
System [NAICS] 488119—Airport
Operations and Terminal Services). The
small entity size standards criteria
involving airports defines a small
airport as one that is independently
owned with annual revenues of less
than $5 million or owned by a small
governmental jurisdiction with a
population less than 50,000. In addition,
all privately owned, public-use airports
are considered small. All the small
airports, both public-use and privateuse,
in the proposed Washington, DC
SFRA need to be examined in this
regulatory flexibility analysis.
The FAA only has revenue (both preand
post-DC ADIZ) and compliance cost
data for the three airports within the
FRZ, and so can only do a regulatory
flexibility analysis on these airports,
based on the effects of the SFRA.

Because the proposal would have a
significant impact on two of the three
airports impacted by the former SFAR
94 that would trigger the need for a
regulatory flexibility analysis if the
proposed rule were only dealing with
the former SFAR 94 and the current
combination of TSA’s 49 CFR part 1562
and FAA’s NOTAM 3/0853. However,
there are approximately 150 airports
within the SFRA that are affected by
other provisions of the proposed rule,
and the FAA does not know if these
other provisions would have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of all those airports.
Accordingly, the FAA prepared a
regulatory flexibility analysis, as it
believes it important to show the
potential impact on these entities for the
sake of completeness and to engender
comments.

Hence, the focus of the following
analysis will not be the proposed rule,
but rather, a subsection of the proposed
rule—the impact of the former SFAR 94.
The FAA requests comments containing
revenue (both pre- and post-DC ADIZ)
and compliance cost data for these other
airports within the existing Washington,
DC SFRA/FRZ as well as any other
pertinent information of the potential
burden of this proposal on small
airports. The FAA requests that such
data be accompanied with full
documentation.

As discussed above, three airports are
directly affected. The College Park
Airport is owned and partially funded
by two Maryland Counties, Montgomery
and Prince George’s. The 2000 census
discloses that the combined population
of the two counties is approximately 1.7
million. As such, the College Park
Airport is not a small entity. Both the
Potomac Airfield Airport and
Washington Executive Airport/Hyde
Field are privately owned and
considered small in this analysis.

Small general aviation airports are not
required to have security programs; only
those airports that have scheduled
service are required to have such a
program. Air carrier airports are funded
from tax revenues and generally have
greater aviation traffic activity than
general aviation airports and airports
without scheduled service. By and large,
Potomac Airfield and Hyde Field are not
supported from tax revenues, as the
revenues that sustain the two airports
are derived solely from the pilots who
use the airports; however, these airports
received Airport Improvement Project
(AIP) funds for the costs of operating
and for security enhancements due to
the special provisions in the Aviation
and Transportation Security Act
(ATSA). The provision lasted for one
year, in 2002. Potomac Airfield Airport
received about $150,100, while
Washington Executive Airport/Hyde
Field received $342,300. Neither airport
can count on these AIP funds to sustain
them in the future.

The estimated annual cost of
compliance, based on known costs and
revenues for the Washington Executive
Airport is $291,600 and the burden on
the Potomac Airfield Airport is
$221,400; they increase to $334,000 and
$252,900 when the anticipated airport
revenue losses are increased by 20%, as
discussed above. These costs are
considered burdensome because they
are well in excess of one percent of the
median annual revenue of small airport
operators (one percent of the annual
median revenue for small operators is
$28,000). If these were the only small
airports within the proposed DC SFRA,
the FAA would determine that the rule
would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Without similar information
from the other small airports, the FAA
is unable to make such a determination,
but, as mentioned above, the FAA
believes it is important to show the
potential impact on these entities for the
sake of completeness. Accordingly, it
conducted a regulatory flexibility
analysis only on a subsection of the
proposed rule—those airports impacted
by the former SFAR 94.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Under section 603 (b) of the RFA (as
amended), each regulatory flexibility
analysis is required to address the
following points: (1) Reasons the FAA
considered the rule, (2) the objectives
and legal basis of the rule, (3) the kind
and number of small entities to which
the rule will apply, (4) the reporting,
record keeping, and other compliance
requirements of the rule, and (5) all
Federal rules that may duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the rule. The
FAA will perform an analysis for the
two small airports impacted by this rule,
because the rule will make SFAR 94
permanent.

Reasons the FAA considered the rule:
The catastrophic events of September
11, 2001 introduced the awareness that
terrorists will use civil aviation aircraft
as a missile or, potentially, as carriers of
biological, chemical, radioactive and/or
conventional weaponry against civilian
targets. This proposed rule recognizes
that the terrorist threat is changing and
growing and that extraordinary steps
must be taken to safeguard the
Washington, DC Metropolitan Area.

The objectives and legal basis for the
rule: The objective of the rule is to
combine all the airspace restrictions
within the Washington, DC
Metropolitan Area into one regulation.
This effort is to assist DHS and DoD in
their efforts to enhance security
protection of vital national assets
located within the National Capital
Region. The statutory authority for these
rules can be found in 49 U.S.C. 40103
and 44701(a)(5). The FAA must
consider, as a matter of policy,
maintaining and enhancing safety and
security in air commerce as its highest
priorities (49 U.S.C. 40101 (d)).

The kind and number of small entities
to which the rule will apply: As noted
above, the FAA only has enough data on
two small airports, Potomac and
Washington Executive/Hyde to perform
this analysis; however, the proposed
rule potentially applies to all pilots,
regardless of where they are based, if
they operate within the proposed DC
SFRA. Private pilots operate their
aircraft for business and pleasure at
these airports.

All Federal rules that may duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the rule: The
FAA is unaware of any Federal rules
that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with
this rule.

Other Considerations
Affordability analysis: The extent to
which a small airport can ‘‘afford’’ the
cost of compliance is directly related to
the availability of income and earnings.
The small airports subject to this rule
generate income to sustain their
operations from landing fees, tie-down
charges, rent and other compensation
paid by airport tenants, fuel sales, flight
school instruction, sightseeing rides,
aircraft rentals, and miscellaneous local
sales. All of these sources of income are
influenced directly by the number of
operations at the airport. The reduction
in operations experienced by the
airports as a consequence of the flight
restrictions in place before and after the
former SFAR 94 became effective is
significant. Even if there is an increase
in operations as a result of the recent
TSA rule, the FAA believes that this
increase would be minimal, leading to
the same conclusion that the overall
reduction in operations is significant.

The decrease in operations
corresponds directly to the decline in
working capital at the airports. Working
capital is defined as the excess of
current assets over current liabilities.
The financial strength and viability of a
business entity is substantially
influenced by its working capital
position and its ability to meet its shortterm
liabilities. As fixed-base operators
and pilots have relocated to other
airfields, revenues have continued to
decline. Besides laying off staff, without
other sources of revenue, the airports
are unable to implement offsetting costsaving
efficiencies that could ameliorate
the loss of income.
At this time, there is no
comprehensive source of information
available that would account for a total
financial picture of these airports. There
is also no information about the
airports’ ability to obtain credit. The
only evidence is limited to the fact that
the airport and its tenants generated
revenues in previous years and were
able to pay their taxes. As such, it can
be assumed that these small entities
were generating sufficient revenues to
meet tax and other obligations; however,
the costs of complying with the former
SFAR 94 are very high relative to the
current revenues reported by the
airports. As discussed for both airports,
the security costs alone are more than
20% of the projected revenues, $63,800
out of total airport revenue of $259,000
at Potomac and $79,500 out of total
airport revenue of $291,300 at
Washington Executive Airport/Hyde
Field.

The financial impact of the flight
restrictions in place before the effective
date of the former SFAR 94 is significant
relative to the size of these airports. The
reopening of the airports has not
improved the financial posture of the
airports. The May 17, 2002, temporary
closing again of Washington Executive
Airport/Hyde Field imperiled the
survival of this airport. The complex
and burdensome flight restrictions now
in place have caused private pilots to
relocate to other airports. On the basis
of the above, the FAA considers that the
rule impacts the viability of the affected
airports. Even with the potential for an
increase in revenue as a result of
transient operations, the FAA still
considers that the rule would impact the
viability of the affected airports.

Competitiveness analysis: Airports
located farther away from the DCA
VOR/DME are not subject to the security
provisions and air traffic restrictions
now in effect for Potomac Airfield
Airport and Washington Executive
Airport/Hyde Field. These airports offer
a convenient alternative location for
pilots seeking to avoid costly
operational restrictions and security
requirements. The availability of these
airports has contributed to reducing the
competitiveness of the affected airports.
Pilots flying into the airports covered by
this proposed action face additional
costs in filing flight plans which they
would not have at alternative airport;
these costs sum to $368,500 annually at
Potomac and $596,500 annually at
Washington Executive Airport/Hyde
Field, both averaging $35.10 per
operation. The advent of transient
flights has the potential to increase
these total costs to pilots.

Business Closure: The FAA is unable
to determine with certainty whether the
two small airports significantly
impacted by this rule would remain
open. On the basis of the Affordability
Analysis provided above, the FAA
considers that the rule would impact the
viability of these affected airports. Even
with the addition of transient
operations, the FAA still reaches the
same conclusion.

Alternatives
The objective of the rule is to combine
all the airspace restrictions within the
Washington, DC Metropolitan Area into
one regulation. This effort is to assist
DHS and DoD in their efforts to enhance
security protection of vital national
assets located within the National
Capital Region. The fact that the
provisions of former SFAR 94 are still
in effect (in TSA’s interim final rule and
the FAA’s NOTAM 3/0853), and that the
existing Washington, DC Metropolitan
Area ADIZ/FRZ is also in effect, reduces
the number of options to be examined
in this analysis. The government
believes that substantial changes to the
security requirements or air traffic
restrictions would be the equivalent of
revoking the rule and increasing the
vulnerability of the National Capital
Region. Thus, the FAA has examined
the following three alternatives.

Alternative 1: Rescind the TSA’s 49
CFR part 1562, FAA’s NOTAM 3/0853,
and the DC ADIZ/FRZ immediately—
This alternative would provide
immediate relief to these airports by
removing security provisions and
restoring former air traffic control
procedures and air space configurations.
Implementation of this alternative
would facilitate the return of pilots who,
for the sake of operating simplicity and
reduced flying costs, relocated to other
airports. This would be the least costly
option. The FAA believes that the threat
of terrorists using aircraft as missiles
must be guarded against, and this option
would not adequately achieve that goal.

Conclusion: Rescinding these actions
would increase the vulnerability and
diminish the level of protection now in
place to safeguard vital national assets
located within the National Capital
Region. This alternative is rejected
because it would compromise the
security of vital national assets and
increase their vulnerability.

Alternative 2: Codify existing flight
restrictions over the Washington, DC
Metropolitan Area—Under this
alternative, the government would
maintain the present security and air
traffic operational restrictions. The
annual cost of compliance for the
affected airports totals $513,000; they
increase to $585,400 when the
anticipated airport revenue losses are
increased by 20%. These costs could
change marginally with the advent of
transient operations. The proposed rule
enhances security measures in place
that would require any aircraft operating
to and from the affected airports and
transiting the proposed SFRA to be
properly identified and cleared.

Conclusion: This alternative is
preferred because it balances the
government’s security concerns about a
terrorist attack in this area against the
costs that would be imposed by more
draconian measures.

Alternative 3—Close all airports
within the proposed DC SFRA
permanently—Under this alternative,
the government would completely close
these airports to all aviation operations.
This would effectively close all
aviation-related businesses in the area.
They would be forced to move to other
airports or close their businesses
permanently. All pilots who have
aircraft permanently based at the
airports would also be forced to move
their aircraft to other locations, thereby
imposing moving costs, including new
hangar, tie-down, storage fees, etc.
Workers at the airports would be forced
to seek employment at one of the other
general aviation airports in the
Washington Metro area. This is the most
costly option.

Conclusion: This alternative is not
preferred because it causes the greatest
financial burden on the airports, their
tenants and aviation-related businesses,
and individuals who work or store
aircraft at those airports.
Alternative 4—Retain the FRZ,
eliminate the ADIZ—Under this
proposal, airspace in the Washington
DC Metropolitan area with flight
restrictions would be reduced
considerably. The only flight
restrictions remaining would be within
approximately 15 miles of the DCA
VOR, restricting all aircraft operations
except part 121 operators, DOD
operations, law enforcement operations
and authorized Emergency Medical
Services operations. This removes the
requirement for filing flight plans for
aircraft operators in airspace outside the
FRZ, resulting in reduced pilot and
controller workload. This alternative
would provide relief to some general
aviation operators that would operate in
the ADIZ area and not into the FRZ. It
would restore former air traffic control
procedures and air space configurations
for some of the area. Implementation of
this alternative may reduce costs for
some general aviation operators in that
they would not have to comply with
many of the current ADIZ restrictions.

Conclusion: This alternative is not
preferred because it does not meet the
requirements of those security agencies
responsible for the safety of the
Washington DC Metropolitan area.

Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreement Act of 1979
prohibits Federal agencies from
establishing any standards or engaging
in related activities that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States.
Legitimate domestic objectives, such as
safety, are not considered unnecessary
obstacles. The statute also requires
consideration of international standards
and, where appropriate, that they be the
basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this
NPRM and has determined that it would
have only a domestic impact and
therefore no effect on any tradesensitive
activity.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (the Act) is intended, among
other things, to curb the practice of
imposing unfunded Federal mandates
on State, local, and tribal governments.
Title II of the Act requires each Federal
agency, to the extent permitted by law,
to prepare a written statement assessing
the effects of any Federal mandate in a
proposed or final agency rule that may
result in an expenditure of $100 million
or more (adjusted annually for inflation)
in any one year by State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
by the private sector. Such a mandate is
deemed to be a ‘‘significant regulatory
action.’’ The FAA currently uses an
inflation-adjusted value of $120.7
million in lieu of $100 million.

This proposed rule does not contain
such a mandate. Therefore, the
requirements of Title II do not apply.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this proposed
rule under the principles and criteria of
Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We
have determined that this action would
not have a substantial direct effect on
the States, on the relationship between
the national Government and the States,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, and therefore
would not have federalism implications.

Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
Oct. 4, 1993) requires each agency to
write regulations that are simple and
easy to understand. We invite your
comments on how to make these
proposed regulations easier to
understand, including answers to
questions such as the following:
• Are the requirements in the
proposed regulations clearly stated?
• Do the proposed regulations contain
unnecessary technical language or
jargon that interferes with their clarity?
• Would the regulations be easier to
understand if they were divided into
more (but shorter) sections?
• Is the description in the preamble
helpful in understanding the proposed
regulations?

Please send your comments to the
address specified in the ADDRESSES
section.

Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA
actions that are categorically excluded
from preparation of an environmental
assessment or environmental impact
statement under the National
Environmental Policy Act in the
absence of extraordinary circumstances.
The FAA has determined that this
proposed rulemaking action qualifies for
the categorical exclusion identified in
paragraph 312f and involves no
extraordinary circumstances.

Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
The FAA has analyzed this NPRM
under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We
have determined that it is not a
‘‘significant energy action’’ under the
executive order because it is not likely
to have a significant adverse effect on
the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 93
Aircraft flight, Airspace, Aviation
safety, Air traffic control, Aircraft,
Airmen, Airports.

The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
proposes to amend part 93 of title 14
Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR
part 93) as follows:

PART 93—SPECIAL AIR TRAFFIC
RULES
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR
part 93 continues to read as follows;
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106,
40109, 40113, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719,
46301, 46307.
2. Amend part 93 by adding subpart
B, consisting of §§ 93.31 through 93.49,
to read as follows:
Subpart B—Washington, DC,
Metropolitan Area Special Flight Rules
Area

Sec. 93.31 What is the purpose of this subpart
and who would be affected?

93.33 What could happen if you fail to
comply with the rules of this subpart?

93.35 Definitions.

93.37 General requirements for operating in
the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area
SFRA.

93.39 Specific requirements for operating in
the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area
SFRA, including the FRZ.

93.41 Aircraft operations prohibited in the
Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area
Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ).

93.43 Requirements for aircraft operations
to or from College Park; Potomac
Airfield; or Washington Executive/Hyde
Field Airports.

93.45 Special ingress/egress procedures for
Bay Bridge and Kentmorr airports.
93.47 Special egress procedures for fringe
airports.

93.49 Airport security procedures.

§ 93.31 What is the purpose of this subpart
and who would be affected?

The purpose for this subpart is to
enhance security efforts in the
Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area by
creating national defense airspace to
deter persons who would use an aircraft
as a weapon, or as the means of
delivering weapons, to conduct an
attack on persons, property, or an
institution in the area. This subpart
applies to you if you conduct any type
of flight operations in the airspace
designated as the Washington, DC,
Metropolitan Area Special Flight Rules
Area (as defined in § 93.35), which
includes the airspace designated as the
Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area
Flight Restricted Zone (as defined in
§ 93.35).

§ 93.33 What could happen if you fail to
comply with the rules of this subpart?

If you do not comply with any rule in
this subpart or any special security
instruction announced by NOTAM that
modifies, amends or adds to any rule of
this subpart, it could result in any of the
following:

(a) The United States Government
directing deadly force against the
airborne aircraft you are operating, if it
is determined that the aircraft poses an
imminent security threat;
(b) The United States Government
pursuing criminal charges against you,
including charges under Title 49 of the
United States Code, section 46307; and
(c) The FAA taking administrative
action against you, including imposing
civil penalties and the suspension or
revocation of airmen certificates.

§ 93.35 Definitions.

Fringe Airports. For the purposes of
this subpart, the following airports
located near the outer boundary of the
Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area
Special Flight Rules Area are considered
to be Fringe airports: Airlie, VA;
Albrecht, MD; Harris, VA; Martin, MD;
Martin State, MD; Meadows, VA;
Mylander, MD; Stewart, MD; St. John,
MD; Tilghman Whipp, MD; Upperville,
VA; and Wolf, MD, Airports.

Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area
Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ) is National
Defense Airspace. It is within the SFRA
airspace and consists of that airspace
within an area from the surface up to,
but not including, FL180 bounded by a
line beginning at the Washington (DCA)
VOR/DME 311° radial at 15 nautical
miles (nm) (lat. 38°59'31. N., long.
77°18'30. W.); then clockwise along the
DCA 15 nautical mile arc to the DCA
022° radial at 15 nm (lat. 39°06'11. N.,
long 76°57'51. W.); then southeast along
a line drawn to the DCA 049° radial at
14 nm (lat. 39°02'18. N., long. 76°50'38.
W.); then south along a line drawn to
the DCA 064° radial at 13 nm (lat.
38°59'01. N., long. 76°48'32. W.); then
clockwise along the DCA 13 nm arc to
the DCA 276° radial at 13 nm
(lat.38°50'53. N., long 77°18'48. W.);
then north along a line to the point of
beginning. The FRZ does not include
the airspace within a one nautical mile
radius of the Freeway Airport,
Mitchellville, MD Airport Reference
Point.

Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area
Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA) is
National Defense Airspace. It consists of
that airspace, from the surface up to, but
not including, Flight Level (FL) 180,
within the outer boundary of the
Washington, DC, Tri-Area Class B
Airspace Area; and that additional
airspace bounded by a line beginning at
lat. 38°37'12. N., long. 77°36'00. W.;
then counterclockwise along the 30-mile
arc of the DCA VOR/DME to lat.
38°41'24. N., long. 76°25'48. W; then
west along the southern boundary of the
Washington, DC, Tri-Area Class B
Airspace Area to the point of beginning.
The SFRA airspace includes the
Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area
Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ).

§ 93.37 General requirements for operating
in the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area
SFRA.

If you conduct any type of flight
operation in the Washington, DC, SFRA,
in addition to the restrictions listed in
this subpart, you must comply with all
special instructions issued by the FAA
in the interest of national security.

Those special instructions may be
issued in any manner the FAA
considers appropriate, including a
NOTAM. Additionally, complying with
the rules of this subpart does not relieve
you from complying with the other FAA
requirements listed in 14 CFR.

§ 93.39 Specific requirements for
operating in the Washington, DC,
Metropolitan Area SFRA, including the FRZ.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs
(b) and (c) of this section and in §§ 93.45
and 93.47, or unless authorized by Air
Traffic Control, no person may operate
an aircraft, including an ultralight or
any civil aircraft or public aircraft, in
the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area
SFRA, including the FRZ, unless:
(1) The aircraft is equipped with an
operable two-way radio capable of
communicating with Air Traffic Control
on appropriate radio frequencies;
(2) Before operating the aircraft in the
SFRA airspace, including the FRZ
airspace, the flight crew establishes twoway
radio communications with the
appropriate Air Traffic Control facility
and maintains such communications
while operating the aircraft in the SFRA
airspace, including the FRZ airspace;
(3) The aircraft is equipped with an
operating automatic altitude reporting
transponder;
(4) Before operating an aircraft in the
SFRA airspace, including the FRZ
airspace, the flight crew obtains and
displays a discrete transponder code
from ATC, and the aircraft’s transponder
continues to transmit the assigned code
while operating within the SFRA
airspace;
(5) The flight crew files and activates
a flight plan with an AFSS before
entering the SFRA and closes the flight
plan upon landing or departing the
SFRA;
(6) Before operating the aircraft into,
out of, or through the Washington, DC
Tri-Area Class B airspace area, the flight
crew receives a specific ATC clearance
to operate in the Class B airspace area;
and
(7) Before operating the aircraft into,
out of, or through Class C or D airspace
area that is within the SFRA airspace,
the flight crew complies with § 91.130
or § 91.129 of this chapter, respectively.
(b) Paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of
this section do not apply to Department
of Defense, law enforcement, or
aeromedical flight operations if the
flight crew is in contact with Air Traffic
Control and is displaying an Air Traffic
Control assigned discrete transponder
code.
(c) You may, without filing a flight
plan, operate an aircraft in the VFR
traffic pattern at an airport that is within
the SFRA airspace (but not in FRZ
airspace) if:
(1) At an airport that does not have an
Airport Traffic Control tower:
(i) Before moving the aircraft to taxi
or take off, you notify Air Traffic
Control of the time and location of the
VFR traffic pattern operation you will
conduct;
(ii) You monitor the airport’s
Common Traffic Advisory Frequency
continuously while operating the
aircraft;
(iii) The aircraft’s transponder
continuously transmits Code 1234
(Department of Defense aircraft,
operating in a VFR traffic pattern at a
military airport may be assigned a
beacon code other than 1234); and
(iv) When exiting the VFR traffic
pattern, you comply with paragraphs
(a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section.
(2) At an airport that has an operating
Airport Traffic Control Tower you must:
(i) Request to remain in the traffic
pattern before taxiing, or before entering
the traffic pattern;
(ii) Remain in two-way radio
communications with the tower;
(iii) Continuously operate the aircraft
transponder on code 1234 unless Air
Traffic Control assigns you a different
code; and
(iv) Before exiting the traffic pattern,
comply with paragraphs (a)(1) through
(a)(5) of this section.

§ 93.41 Aircraft operations prohibited in
the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area
Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ).

(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this section, no person may
conduct any flight operation under part
91, 101, 103, 105, 125, 133, 135, or 137
of this chapter in the Washington DC,
Metropolitan Area FRZ, unless the
specific flight is authorized by the FAA,
in consultation with the United States
Secret Service and the Transportation
Security Administration.
(b) Department of Defense, law
enforcement, and aeromedical flight
operations are excepted from the
prohibition in paragraph (a) of this
section if the flight crew is in contact
with Air Traffic Control and operates
the aircraft transponder on an Air
Traffic Control assigned beacon code.
§ 93.43 Requirements for aircraft
operations to or from College Park;
Potomac Airfield; or Washington Executive/
Hyde Field Airports.
(a) You may not operate an aircraft to
or from College Park, MD Airport;
Potomac, MD Airfield; or Washington
Executive/Hyde Field, MD Airport
unless the following requirements are
met:

(1) The aircraft and its crew and
passengers comply with security rules
issued by the Transportation Security
Administration in 49 U.S.C. 1562
subpart A;
(2) Before departing, the pilot files an
IFR or VFR flight plan with Leesburg
AFSS for each departure and arrival at
College Park, Potomac Airfield, and
Washington Executive/Hyde Field
airports, whether or not the aircraft
makes an intermediate stop;
(3) When you file a flight plan with
Leesburg AFSS, you identify yourself
using the pilot identification code
assigned to you. Leesburg AFSS will
accept the flight plan only after
verifying the code;
(4) You do not close a VFR flight plan
with Leesburg AFSS until the aircraft is
on the ground. You may request ATC to
cancel an IFR flight plan while airborne;
however, if you are landing at the
College Park, Potomac Airfield, and
Washington Executive/Hyde Field
airports you must remain on your
assigned beacon code until on the
ground and close your flight plan with
Leesburg AFSS after you are on the
ground; and
(5) You must comply with the
applicable IFR or VFR departure
procedures in paragraph (c), (d) or (e) of
this section.
(b) You may operate a Department of
Defense, law enforcement, or
aeromedical services aircraft if you
comply with paragraph (a) of this
section and any additional procedures
specified by the FAA.
(c) If using IFR departure procedures,
you must comply with the following:
(1) You must obtain an Air Traffic
Control clearance from Potomac
Approach by calling 540–349–7597; and
(2) Departures from Washington
Executive/Hyde Field or Potomac
Airport, receive eastbound radar vectors
from Air Traffic Control to exit the FRZ.
You must then proceed on course and
remain clear of the FRZ; or
(3) Departures from College Park
Airport may receive radar vectors
eastbound or northbound from Air
Traffic Control to exit the FRZ. You
must then proceed on the Air Traffic
Control assigned course and remain
clear of the FRZ.
(d) If using VFR departure procedures,
you must comply with the following:
(1) Depart as instructed by Air Traffic
Control, and expect a heading directly
away from the FRZ airspace until you
establish two-way radio communication
with Potomac Approach; and
(2) Operate as assigned by Air Traffic
Control until clear of the FRZ and Class
B airspace area.
(e) If using VFR arrival procedures,
the aircraft must remain outside the
SFRA until you establish
communications with Air Traffic
Control and receive authorization for
the aircraft to enter the SFRA.
(f) VFR arrivals:
(1) If arriving College Park Airport
you may expect routing via the vicinity
of Freeway Airport; or
(2) If arriving Washington Executive/
Hyde Field and Potomac Airport you
may expect routing via the vicinity of
Maryland Airport or the Nottingham
VORTAC.

§ 93.45 Special ingress/egress procedures
for Bay Bridge and Kentmorr Airports.

(a) Ingress/egress procedures area for
Bay Bridge and Kentmorr Airports. The
Bay Bridge/Kentmorr airports ingress/
egress procedures area consists of that
airspace inside an area beginning at
39°03'27. N., 076°22'23. W., or the BAL
128015.1, to 39°00'45. N., 076°24'16.
W., or the BAL 139015.3, to 38°50'12.
N., 076°25'48. W., or the BAL 163022.7,
to 38°50'10. N., 076°14'20. W., or the
BAL 146028.2, to 39°00'49. N.,
076°11'03. W., or the BAL 124024.2,
thence to the point of beginning.

(b) You may operate an aircraft to or
from the Bay Bridge Airport or
Kentmorr Airport without filing a flight
plan or communicating with ATC, as
long as you comply with the following:
(1) You ensure that the aircraft
remains in the ingress/egress area
described in paragraph (a) of this
section, proceeding no further west than
the western-most point of the
Chesapeake Bay Bridge;
(2) You ensure that the aircraft
remains below the floor of Class B
airspace; and
(3) If you are operating arriving
aircraft, you must fly the aircraft along
the shortest and most direct route from
the eastern SFRA boundary to the Bay
Bridge or Kentmorr airports.
(4) If you are operating departing
aircraft, you must fly the aircraft along
the shortest and most direct route from
Bay Bridge Airport or Kentmorr Airport
to the eastern SFRA boundary.
(5) If you are operating an arriving or
departing aircraft from or to Bay Bridge
Airport, the aircraft’s transponder must
transmit code 1227.
(6) If you are operating an arriving or
departing aircraft from or to Kentmorr
Airport, the aircraft’s transponder must
transmit code 1233.
(7) If your planned flight will not
conform to the procedures in paragraphs
(b) (1) through (b)(6) of this section, you
must follow the DC SFRA procedures in
§ 93.39.

§ 93.47 Special egress procedures for
fringe airports.

(a) SFRA egress-only procedures for
fringe airports. You may depart from a
fringe airport as defined in § 93.35
without filing a flight plan or
communicating with Air Traffic Control,
unless requested, as long as:
(1) The aircraft’s transponder
transmits code 1205;
(2) You monitor CTAF frequency until
leaving traffic pattern altitude, then
monitor the appropriate Potomac
TRACON frequency until clear of the
DC SFRA;
(3) You exit the SFRA by the shortest
route before proceeding on course.
(b) You do not operate an aircraft
arriving at a fringe airport or transit the
SFRA unless you comply with the SFRA
procedures in § 93.39.
§ 93.49 Airport security procedures.
You may not operate an aircraft from
College Park, Potomac Airfield, or
Washington Executive/Hyde Field
Airports unless the airport has an
established airport security program
approved by the TSA.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 29,
2005.
Nancy B. Kalinowski,
Director, System Operations and Safety.
[FR Doc. 05–15375 Filed 8–3–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
VerDate jul<14>2003 16:21 Aug 03, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00014
Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04AUP3.SGM 04AUP3

[Terry Briggs]

Excuse me for being pessimistic, but I think I saw a note on another thread
here that there are about 600,000 pilots in the USA.

Forgive my math, but isn't that less than 1% of the population?

If that is the case, and politicians are great at figuring out who matters,
why should anyone in Washington listen to us?

Look at the problems faced by the NRA (and I am neither for or against them,
nor am I a member) when it comes to gun control. That organization certainly
has more clout than we do.

Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that it is hopeless to fight battles
like the Washington area ADIZ.

The folks that live there feel safe surrounded by millions of people living
elbow to elbow and most probably haven't and never will fly in a small plane
and experience the joy that we do.

Terry


"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> It seems that the issue of the FAA closing the 2,000 square mile
> airspace around DC is capable of generating a lot of heat among the
> pilot community. Let's try to see if we can use this forum to
> generate some light, and mount an effective opposition to the FAA's
> NPRM:

<snipped ...>

[Jose]

> If that is the case, and politicians are great at figuring out who matters,
> why should anyone in Washington listen to us?

Suppose pilots boycotted DC? Not us spam cans, but bizjet pilots,
airline pilots and such... the ones that carry the Important People.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[John T]

Terry Briggs wrote:
>
> Excuse me for being pessimistic, but I think I saw a note on another
> thread here that there are about 600,000 pilots in the USA.
>
> Forgive my math, but isn't that less than 1% of the population?

600k / 290M = ~0.2%

> If that is the case, and politicians are great at figuring out who
> matters, why should anyone in Washington listen to us?

They may not, but that's not a reason to keep quiet.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[Mike Rapoport]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
> Suppose pilots boycotted DC? Not us spam cans, but bizjet pilots, airline
> pilots and such... the ones that carry the Important People.
>
> Jose
> --

They would be fired within ten minutes of refusing to fly there.

Mike
MU-2

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 03:37:31 -0400, "Happy Dog" >

>>Bull****. Do you still live with your mother?
>>
>>moo
>>
>
> At the risk of having misinterpreted another of your outbursts, please
> let me request that you compose a cognate rebuttal worthy of rational
> discussion.
>
>

Ha good luck with that request.

[George Patterson]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> It seems that the issue of the FAA closing the 2,000 square mile
> airspace around DC is capable of generating a lot of heat among the
> pilot community. Let's try to see if we can use this forum to
> generate some light, and mount an effective opposition to the FAA's
> NPRM: http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050804adiz-nprm.pdf

Not only that, but pull out the sections on how much this is going to cost the
FAA and hand that out to your aquaintances outside the aviation community.
Perhaps something along the lines of "their taxes" going to pay for
Congresscritters' cowardice and "feel-good" efforts would be in order.

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.

[Jose]

> They would be fired within ten minutes of refusing to fly there.

This is bad if other pilots fill in for them. But if NOBODY flies
there, then there is leverage.

I'm not holding my breath though.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Happy Dog]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message \>>"Larry Dighera"
> wrote in
>>
>>> I disagree. The DC ADIZ provides an opportunity for the military to
>>> intercept flights that violate it before they might enter the FRZ
>>> within which lethal force may be exercised. If the DC ADIZ (or
>>> something similar) did not exist, there would be no opportunity to
>>> determine how much of a threat those flights might be, and the
>>> military would have no other option but to shoot them down.
>>
>>Bull****. Do you still live with your mother?
>>
> At the risk of having misinterpreted another of your outbursts, please
> let me request that you compose a cognate rebuttal worthy of rational
> discussion.

It should be obvious. You continually suggest that the ADIZ is a necessary
government as nanny action to protect us from ourselves. It isn't.

m

[Happy Dog]

"Larry Dighera" >
>>> I'm talking about radar screen clutter. Yes. I see no other rational
>>> reason for the DC ADIZ.
>>>
>>> Why do you think it was implemented?
>>
>>Political pressure. Absolute irrelevant bull****.
>
> Are you able to provide any supporting evidence for that assumption?

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050803adiz.html

>
>>As for clutter, have you visited a radar facility?
>
> Does the SoCal TRACON count?
>
>>It's a computer game.
>
> No. It's real time tracking of aircraft in the NAS.
>
>>There is a huge amount of filtering that goes on specifically
>> to reduce clutter.
>
> Are you referring to the clutter caused by ground based targets? I'm
> referring to making it easier to spot primary targets in congested
> airspace.

Why? ATC was not consulted when the ADIZ was created. I have seen no
evidence that ATC has asked for relief from the problem you claim exists.
The burden of proof rests with you.

moo

[Bob Noel]

In article <x5OIe.27$f.11@trndny09>, George Patterson >
wrote:

> Not only that, but pull out the sections on how much this is going to cost
> the
> FAA and hand that out to your aquaintances outside the aviation community.
> Perhaps something along the lines of "their taxes" going to pay for
> Congresscritters' cowardice and "feel-good" efforts would be in order.

two words: user fees.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[bravocharlie]

> The folks that live there feel safe surrounded by millions of people living
> elbow to elbow and most probably haven't and never will fly in a small plane
> and experience the joy that we do.

Ah, no, we don't live elbow to elbow. In fact, much of the western
part of the ADIZ, between Leesburg and 30 nm west of IAD is fairly
sparcely populated.

And, yes, there are GA pilots inside the ADIZ.

For some reason, I had assumed (wrongly, I guess), that most of the
people involved in this discussion where also in ADIZ and were thus
annoyed by this proposal.

[Jose]

> For some reason, I had assumed (wrongly, I guess), that most of the
> people involved in this discussion where also in ADIZ and were thus
> annoyed by this proposal.

You don't have to be under the ADIZ to be affected by it.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Andrew Gideon]

Jose wrote:

> You don't have to be under the ADIZ to be affected by it.

You don't have to be affected by it to be offended by it either.

- Andrew

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 10:35:07 -0700, "Terry Briggs" >
wrote in >::

>Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that it is hopeless to fight battles
>like the Washington area ADIZ.

With such an attitude, you can be _assured_ that your view will not
prevail.

Given the fact that the FAA must address the points raised during the
NPRM comment period, each idea submitted in opposition to the NOPR
must be rationally explained away or adopted. This issue isn't really
about the number of pilots at this point in the process.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 18:20:13 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote in <x5OIe.27$f.11@trndny09>::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> It seems that the issue of the FAA closing the 2,000 square mile
>> airspace around DC is capable of generating a lot of heat among the
>> pilot community. Let's try to see if we can use this forum to
>> generate some light, and mount an effective opposition to the FAA's
>> NPRM: http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050804adiz-nprm.pdf
>
>Not only that, but pull out the sections on how much this is going to cost the
>FAA and hand that out to your aquaintances outside the aviation community.
>Perhaps something along the lines of "their taxes" going to pay for
>Congresscritters' cowardice and "feel-good" efforts would be in order.
>

Right. Now you're thinking along productive lines.

The NPRM is a rich source of information that can be used to make our
case. Perhaps each of us should take a section of it, and propose
comments about it that bolster our case.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 17:45:39 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>
>Suppose pilots boycotted DC? Not us spam cans, but bizjet pilots,
>airline pilots and such... the ones that carry the Important People.

Civil disobedience isn't the best route for us at this time in the
NPRM process. We need to provide astute arguments that will dissuade
the FAA from adopting the permanent closure of 2,000 square miles of
airspace first.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 20:30:54 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>
>You don't have to be under the ADIZ to be affected by it.

Right. If adopted, permanent closure of 2,000 square miles of
airspace will set a precedent for additional closures in the future.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 13:06:32 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in <HUNIe.3569$_t.1366@okepread01>::

>
>Ha good luck with that request.
>


Umm.. I see what you mean. Disappointing. :-(

[bravocharlie]

>> You don't have to be under the ADIZ to be affected by it.

> You don't have to be affected by it to be offended by it either.

I am encouraged to hear both sentiments.

Another thing I'd like to mention is the sometimes effective strategy
of calling one's congressman. The FAA does have to answer to congress,
and at times, if a group puts enough pressure on enough represenatives,
change can occur.

-BC

[Terry Briggs]

How does it affect me in Eastern Oregon?

Terry


"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> For some reason, I had assumed (wrongly, I guess), that most of the
>> people involved in this discussion where also in ADIZ and were thus
>> annoyed by this proposal.
>
> You don't have to be under the ADIZ to be affected by it.
>
> Jose
> --
> Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
> except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no
> universe.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Terry Briggs]

Fair enough. But how will your "attitude" prevail when Congress, the FAA,
CIA, TSA and Secret Service won't listen to you?

And furthermore, why is it an "attitude" when one has a view opposing yours?

It appears to me that the AOPA (no matter how many of us join) is toothless
and can't even win the minor skirmishes like Meigs.

I am just saying, we need to fight the battles we can win, and we can't win
the battle of the District of Columbia.

Now if you think that is just a "bad attitude," so be it.

Terry

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 10:35:07 -0700, "Terry Briggs" >
> wrote in >::
>
>>Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that it is hopeless to fight battles
>>like the Washington area ADIZ.
>
> With such an attitude, you can be _assured_ that your view will not
> prevail.
>
> Given the fact that the FAA must address the points raised during the
> NPRM comment period, each idea submitted in opposition to the NOPR
> must be rationally explained away or adopted. This issue isn't really
> about the number of pilots at this point in the process.

[Terry Briggs]

I am still lost on who is going to listen to your presentation, agree with
it, and take action that you will like.

Now, if you still think that is just an "attitude" problem that I have, come
on back after you have pounded your head against that brick wall.

Terry

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 18:20:13 GMT, George Patterson
> > wrote in <x5OIe.27$f.11@trndny09>::
>
>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> It seems that the issue of the FAA closing the 2,000 square mile
>>> airspace around DC is capable of generating a lot of heat among the
>>> pilot community. Let's try to see if we can use this forum to
>>> generate some light, and mount an effective opposition to the FAA's
>>> NPRM: http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050804adiz-nprm.pdf
>>
>>Not only that, but pull out the sections on how much this is going to cost
>>the
>>FAA and hand that out to your aquaintances outside the aviation community.
>>Perhaps something along the lines of "their taxes" going to pay for
>>Congresscritters' cowardice and "feel-good" efforts would be in order.
>>
>
> Right. Now you're thinking along productive lines.
>
> The NPRM is a rich source of information that can be used to make our
> case. Perhaps each of us should take a section of it, and propose
> comments about it that bolster our case.
>
>

[Jose]

> How does [the DC ADIZ] affect me in Eastern Oregon?

1: If you ever fly out here, you won't be able to fly in there. I live
in the Northeast, but have friends on the west coast, and will indeed be
flying up and down the Pacific coast in a light GA airplane. You may
well find yourself visiting friends on the East coast and flying up and
down the seaboard similarly.

2: Every thousand square miles of successful restriction makes it
easier to restrict another thousand square miles. Maybe some of them
will be in Eastern Oregon. Or Western Oregon (where you are likely to
fly to). Or Seattle. If Bill Gates wants to protect the Microsoft
Campus from terrorist attacks in a 150, he is likely to have
considerable influence over that airspace. Right now he won't have
enough to close Seattle, but the DC Restricted Area will play right into
his hands. (I'll refrain from attempting to decide which is better for
the country - a terrorist attack on DC or a terrorist attack on Redmond :)

3: The successful implementation of restrictions such as this one
further convinces the public that such restrictions are for the good of
the country, and that these little airplanes are dangerous, especially
when they fly around with no oversight whatsoever. This makes it easy
to pass more restrictive regulations on all flight - such as having all
nighttime VFR flights require a flight plan. Or all flights requring
radio contact with controllers. Or anything else you can imagine. It
amplifies the effect of such antics as the drunk stealing an airplane
from Danbury CT and flying at night into Weschester.

4: You might move East. More ironic things have happened.

There are more reasons, but the point is that the loss of freedoms is
like a Boa Constrictor. It happens little by little, unnoticed, until
you finally pass out and wonder how it happened.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 15:11:10 -0700, "Terry Briggs" >
wrote in >::

>And furthermore, why is it an "attitude" when one has a view opposing yours?

It's not about agreeing or disagreeing. It's about not making the
attempt to succeed that assures defeat.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 15:13:34 -0700, "Terry Briggs" >
wrote in >::

>I am still lost on who is going to listen to your presentation, agree with
>it, and take action that you will like.

The "presentation" will be posted during the NPRM comment period. If
you had read the NPRM you'd know that.

[Morgans]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote

> Ha good luck with that request.

The best thing to do is to open up the kill file, and make room for yet
another loony tunes.
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"John T" > wrote:

> Terry Briggs wrote:
> >
> > Excuse me for being pessimistic, but I think I saw a note on another
> > thread here that there are about 600,000 pilots in the USA.
> >
> > Forgive my math, but isn't that less than 1% of the population?
>
> 600k / 290M = ~0.2%
>
> > If that is the case, and politicians are great at figuring out who
> > matters, why should anyone in Washington listen to us?
>
> They may not, but that's not a reason to keep quiet.

Actually, politicians work on the assumption that most people are lazy,
and that one person speaking up represents the views of 100 or so others
who feel the same way but were just to complacent or busy to make their
views known. If even half of the 600,000 pilots in the country were to
weigh in against the NPRM it would be major news, and the politicians
would notice.

For myself, I am on the West coast and so not directly affected by the
ADIZ. But I am offended by it. The way this country is going we're
going to have to change the last line of the national anthem to read
"the land of the protected and the home of the fearful." Personally,
I'd rather be free than safe.

Give me liberty or give me death.

Ron Garret

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 18:38:01 -0700, Ron Garret >
wrote in >::

>The way this country is going we're
>going to have to change the last line of the national anthem to read
>"the land of the protected and the home of the fearful." Personally,
>I'd rather be free than safe.

[George Patterson]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> We need to provide astute arguments that will dissuade
> the FAA from adopting the permanent closure of 2,000 square miles of
> airspace first.

I agree with this, as far as it goes, but I still think from reading that
proposal that the FAA is a *very* reluctant partner in this effort. If so, our
efforts should also be spent on pressuring Congress.

I'd bet this whole thing is the brainchild of some of those Congresscritters
who're POed about the recent evacuations. They just discovered that they can't
put anyone in jail over those, and they want to "fix" that.

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.

[George Patterson]

bravocharlie wrote:
>
> Another thing I'd like to mention is the sometimes effective strategy
> of calling one's congressman. The FAA does have to answer to congress,
> and at times, if a group puts enough pressure on enough represenatives,
> change can occur.

And I believe that this entire effort originated there. I wholeheartedly agree
with you that Congress should be contacted.

My personal take is that we will get the best effect by placing special emphasis
on the cost of this proposal, but I could be wrong there.

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.

[George Patterson]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>You don't have to be under the ADIZ to be affected by it.
>
> Right. If adopted, permanent closure of 2,000 square miles of
> airspace will set a precedent for additional closures in the future.

You don't even have to look that far ahead -- just plan a flight from 3N6 to TYS
and see what you have to deal with.

There are a lot of pilots outside the ADIZ who are affected by it frequently.

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.

[George Patterson]

Terry Briggs wrote:
>
> It appears to me that the AOPA (no matter how many of us join) is toothless
> and can't even win the minor skirmishes like Meigs.

If you view AOPA as an organization that wins battles by conflict, then you are
correct. AOPA wins battles purely by negotiation and exposure of backroom deals.
When faced by an unscrupulous individual like Daley, AOPA will lose (as will we
all).

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.

[George Patterson]

Bob Noel wrote:
>
> two words: user fees.

Why on Earth would you mention them?

*I* was discussing tactics to defeat this proposal. You want to give the other
side arguments to use in favor of it? Maybe your friends and relatives would
automatically think - Hey, make the pilots pay for it." Fortunately, mine won't.

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.

[Bob Noel]

In article <OGVIe.71$Yf7.52@trndny06>, George Patterson >
wrote:

> > two words: user fees.
>
> Why on Earth would you mention them? *I* was discussing tactics to defeat this proposal.

And *I* was pointing out a problem with those tactics. Trying to defeat
the stupid ADIZ rule based on increased costs to the FAA puts the issue of
costs front and center. This will naturally lead to looking at user fees to
pay for this.

Note that "it costs too much" is a losing argument against a
"security" measure, especially if there is some way to make someone
else pay for the increased costs.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Happy Dog]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 13:06:32 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in <HUNIe.3569$_t.1366@okepread01>::
>
>>
>>Ha good luck with that request.
>>
> Umm.. I see what you mean. Disappointing. :-(

When you guys are done patting yourselves on the back you might address my
point that there isn't any good evidence that the ADIZ was created to reduce
"clutter".

moo

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 02:44:26 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote in <euVIe.67$Yf7.39@trndny06>::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> We need to provide astute arguments that will dissuade
>> the FAA from adopting the permanent closure of 2,000 square miles of
>> airspace first.
>
>I agree with this, as far as it goes, but I still think from reading that
>proposal that the FAA is a *very* reluctant partner in this effort. If so, our
>efforts should also be spent on pressuring Congress.

If we are able to provide the FAA with additional arguments against
implementing the NPRM, they would probably welcome the opportunity to
use them to justify not creating the new rules. It can't hurt to
lobby your congressmen either, but as you point out below, they have a
vested interest in seeing the NPRM enacted.

>I'd bet this whole thing is the brainchild of some of those Congresscritters
>who're POed about the recent evacuations. They just discovered that they can't
>put anyone in jail over those, and they want to "fix" that.
>

That's a reasonable guess. The FAA states that the request to make
the restrictions permanent came from DOD and DHS:


... the
Departments of Defense and Homeland
Security requested that the FAA
Administrator take action to codify
permanently current aviation flight
restrictions over the Washington, DC
Metropolitan Area to support their
continuing mission to protect national
assets in the National Capital Region.

So the NPRM may be an attempt by DOD to perpetuate cushy home-side
duty, and DHS is so disorganized and over funded, that their input
borders on meaningless.

Here's what the FAA says about the history of the restrictions:

General Discussion of the Proposal
After the events of September 11,
2001, Congress and the President tasked
government agencies to increase the
protection of the United States and its
interests. Congress established the TSA
and tasked it with protecting the
security of our nation’s transportation
infrastructure. Additionally, Congress
established the Department of
Homeland Security, in order to
centralize the administration of the
country’s security efforts.

For the past two years, the FAA has
been working closely with the DoD and
DHS to draft security contingency plans
to protect the American public, national
assets, and operations in the National
Airspace System. Some of the measures
taken by the FAA include additional
cockpit security for certain air carrier
aircraft and temporary flight restrictions
over special events (often at stadiums)
that attract large numbers of people and
may be seen as potential targets by
terrorists.

Since the seat of our nation’s
government is in Washington, DC, flight
restrictions were established
immediately after September 11, 2001,
and most remain in place. Establishing
specific airspace for security reasons in
the Washington, DC area is not a new
practice. In 1938, by Executive Order
7910, the President reserved and set
apart airspace for national defense, the
public safety and other governmental
purposes. Those airspace reservations
were subsequently codified in 14 CFR
part 73 as ‘‘prohibited areas.’’ Over the
years, the size and dimensions of one of
these areas, Prohibited Area 56 (P–56),
which is the airspace over and near the
White House, has changed in response
to world events. In accordance with 14
CFR 73.83, no person may operate an
aircraft within a prohibited area unless
authorization has been granted by the
using agency. The action proposed in
this notice does not modify P–56.

That statement is a bit misleading in its failure to mention
shoot-down authority.

The FAA is aware that the flight
restrictions imposed over the
Washington DC Metropolitan Area have
impacted, and will continue to impact
some pilots in the area. However,
government security officials believe
that the proposed DC SFRA would
enhance and strengthen the ability of
DoD and DHS to protect the President,
Cabinet members, the Congress and
other assets in the capital region.

There are the DOD and DHS again.

According to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), the threat of
extremists launching an attack using
aircraft still exists.

It's safe to say that such a threat has existed since aircraft started
flying, and will continue to exist as long as they do. Therefore it's
difficult to justify the NPRM on that ground exclusively.

Numerous reports
continue to be received that
demonstrate Al-Qa’ida’s enduring
interest in aviation-related attacks.
Thus, there is a continued need for
aviation security vigilance. Intelligence
reports indicate that terrorists continue
to be interested in using general aviation
aircraft as part of another attack on the
U.S. or facilitation of activities since
general aviation aircraft are readily
available and relatively inexpensive.
Also, though security measures at
general aviation airports have improved,
they are less stringent than those in
place at many commercial airports.

It would be interesting to know when those reports were last received
and how many there have been. Perhaps a FOIA request is in order.

Overall and even though general
aviation aircraft are generally smaller
than those used in the 9/11 attack, the
destructive potential of a small aircraft
loaded with explosives may be
significant. It should be noted that
almost 70% of U.S. general aviation is
comprised of aircraft that are relatively
small. Aircraft in this segment of the
industry range from homebuilt craft to
large airliners. In addition, there are
thousands of general aviation airports in
the United States with varying degrees
of security procedures implemented.

So what sort of airport security procedures will reduce the
destructive potential of small aircraft? Does this portend additional
restrictions on GA in the future?

We believe that as part of ensuring the
security of the people, property and
institutions in the Nation’s capital, and
surrounding area, it is essential to know
the intended route of flight of the
aircraft, to have the aircraft squawk a
discrete transponder code, and to have
automatic altitude reporting equipment
on board the aircraft that transmits to
ATC. Government officials believe that
some types of aircraft operations (i.e.,
those conducted under parts 91, 101,
103, 105, 125, 133, 135 and 137) should
continue to be prohibited within 15
miles of the DCA VOR/DME, unless
specifically authorized by the FAA in
consultation with the DoD and DHS.

Ah. There it is. I'll bet "government officials" equates to members
of congress quaking in their boots.

So it may be that DC bureaucrats and congressmen are fearful, DOD
wants more stateside duty, and DHS would be embarrassed by any action
other than endorsing "security".

If those are the root causes of the NPRM, it is our duty to expose the
falicy of the security the NPRM attempts to assure. Jose has
expressed the opinion that there is no effective defense against
terrorist attacks. If persuasive evidence in support of that
contention can be presented in the docket comments, it would obviate
the need for the NPRM.

Perhaps there are other reasonable arguments that will persuade those
in authority to abandon their futile attempt. It's going to take a
creative mind and perspicacity to deliver such an effective argument.
Those among us with constructive thoughts on defeating this NPRM are
eagerly sought. Let's hear what we can come up with.

[Happy Dog]

"Morgans" > wrote in message

> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote
>
>> Ha good luck with that request.
>
> The best thing to do is to open up the kill file, and make room for yet
> another loony tunes.
> --
> Jim in NC

Hey Jim in Nobody Cares where, this is your only post in this thread.
Couldn't even make on one-topic response, eh?

moo

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Happy Dog" > wrote:

> When you guys are done patting yourselves on the back you might address my
> point that there isn't any good evidence that the ADIZ was created to reduce
> "clutter".

Define "clutter"

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Happy Dog]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Happy Dog" > wrote:
>
>> When you guys are done patting yourselves on the back you might address
>> my
>> point that there isn't any good evidence that the ADIZ was created to
>> reduce
>> "clutter".
>
> Define "clutter"

From this thread:

I'm talking about radar screen clutter. Yes. I see no other rational
reason for the DC ADIZ.

and (subsequently from the same poster)

My point was that the DC ADIZ's purpose most probably is to protect
the innocent from lethal force.


Comment:

The contention (stated by a few posters here) that the OP is objecting to is
that the ADIZ is unjustified, is unworkable and, thus, is little more than a
political move to satisfy the uneducated, early-weaned emotionally
underdeveloped populace that the government has, once again, taken over
where mom and dad left off. It's a case of Transference, in the Freudian
sense. Excuses are made, for the government, suggesting that this measure
is necessary to protect pilots from themselves, solves an ATC workload
problem etc. That these claims have been shown to lack in merit does
nothing to dissuade the odd person from repeating them or claiming similar
new ones. It's crap.

moo

[W P Dixon]

It may sound alittle impossible, but I don't think the Congress Critters
care if just certifed pilots want the ADIZ or not.......however if those
said certifed pilots got petitions of voters who did not have any interest
in aviation, other then just for pleasure travel with friends...maybe a
"chance?"

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 02:44:26 GMT, George Patterson
> > wrote in <euVIe.67$Yf7.39@trndny06>::
>
>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>
>>> We need to provide astute arguments that will dissuade
>>> the FAA from adopting the permanent closure of 2,000 square miles of
>>> airspace first.
>>
>>I agree with this, as far as it goes, but I still think from reading that
>>proposal that the FAA is a *very* reluctant partner in this effort. If so,
>>our
>>efforts should also be spent on pressuring Congress.
>
> If we are able to provide the FAA with additional arguments against
> implementing the NPRM, they would probably welcome the opportunity to
> use them to justify not creating the new rules. It can't hurt to
> lobby your congressmen either, but as you point out below, they have a
> vested interest in seeing the NPRM enacted.
>
>>I'd bet this whole thing is the brainchild of some of those
>>Congresscritters
>>who're POed about the recent evacuations. They just discovered that they
>>can't
>>put anyone in jail over those, and they want to "fix" that.
>>
>
> That's a reasonable guess. The FAA states that the request to make
> the restrictions permanent came from DOD and DHS:
>
>
> ... the
> Departments of Defense and Homeland
> Security requested that the FAA
> Administrator take action to codify
> permanently current aviation flight
> restrictions over the Washington, DC
> Metropolitan Area to support their
> continuing mission to protect national
> assets in the National Capital Region.
>
> So the NPRM may be an attempt by DOD to perpetuate cushy home-side
> duty, and DHS is so disorganized and over funded, that their input
> borders on meaningless.
>
> Here's what the FAA says about the history of the restrictions:
>
> General Discussion of the Proposal
> After the events of September 11,
> 2001, Congress and the President tasked
> government agencies to increase the
> protection of the United States and its
> interests. Congress established the TSA
> and tasked it with protecting the
> security of our nation's transportation
> infrastructure. Additionally, Congress
> established the Department of
> Homeland Security, in order to
> centralize the administration of the
> country's security efforts.
>
> For the past two years, the FAA has
> been working closely with the DoD and
> DHS to draft security contingency plans
> to protect the American public, national
> assets, and operations in the National
> Airspace System. Some of the measures
> taken by the FAA include additional
> cockpit security for certain air carrier
> aircraft and temporary flight restrictions
> over special events (often at stadiums)
> that attract large numbers of people and
> may be seen as potential targets by
> terrorists.
>
> Since the seat of our nation's
> government is in Washington, DC, flight
> restrictions were established
> immediately after September 11, 2001,
> and most remain in place. Establishing
> specific airspace for security reasons in
> the Washington, DC area is not a new
> practice. In 1938, by Executive Order
> 7910, the President reserved and set
> apart airspace for national defense, the
> public safety and other governmental
> purposes. Those airspace reservations
> were subsequently codified in 14 CFR
> part 73 as ''prohibited areas.'' Over the
> years, the size and dimensions of one of
> these areas, Prohibited Area 56 (P-56),
> which is the airspace over and near the
> White House, has changed in response
> to world events. In accordance with 14
> CFR 73.83, no person may operate an
> aircraft within a prohibited area unless
> authorization has been granted by the
> using agency. The action proposed in
> this notice does not modify P-56.
>
> That statement is a bit misleading in its failure to mention
> shoot-down authority.
>
> The FAA is aware that the flight
> restrictions imposed over the
> Washington DC Metropolitan Area have
> impacted, and will continue to impact
> some pilots in the area. However,
> government security officials believe
> that the proposed DC SFRA would
> enhance and strengthen the ability of
> DoD and DHS to protect the President,
> Cabinet members, the Congress and
> other assets in the capital region.
>
> There are the DOD and DHS again.
>
> According to the Federal Bureau of
> Investigation (FBI), the threat of
> extremists launching an attack using
> aircraft still exists.
>
> It's safe to say that such a threat has existed since aircraft started
> flying, and will continue to exist as long as they do. Therefore it's
> difficult to justify the NPRM on that ground exclusively.
>
> Numerous reports
> continue to be received that
> demonstrate Al-Qa'ida's enduring
> interest in aviation-related attacks.
> Thus, there is a continued need for
> aviation security vigilance. Intelligence
> reports indicate that terrorists continue
> to be interested in using general aviation
> aircraft as part of another attack on the
> U.S. or facilitation of activities since
> general aviation aircraft are readily
> available and relatively inexpensive.
> Also, though security measures at
> general aviation airports have improved,
> they are less stringent than those in
> place at many commercial airports.
>
> It would be interesting to know when those reports were last received
> and how many there have been. Perhaps a FOIA request is in order.
>
> Overall and even though general
> aviation aircraft are generally smaller
> than those used in the 9/11 attack, the
> destructive potential of a small aircraft
> loaded with explosives may be
> significant. It should be noted that
> almost 70% of U.S. general aviation is
> comprised of aircraft that are relatively
> small. Aircraft in this segment of the
> industry range from homebuilt craft to
> large airliners. In addition, there are
> thousands of general aviation airports in
> the United States with varying degrees
> of security procedures implemented.
>
> So what sort of airport security procedures will reduce the
> destructive potential of small aircraft? Does this portend additional
> restrictions on GA in the future?
>
> We believe that as part of ensuring the
> security of the people, property and
> institutions in the Nation's capital, and
> surrounding area, it is essential to know
> the intended route of flight of the
> aircraft, to have the aircraft squawk a
> discrete transponder code, and to have
> automatic altitude reporting equipment
> on board the aircraft that transmits to
> ATC. Government officials believe that
> some types of aircraft operations (i.e.,
> those conducted under parts 91, 101,
> 103, 105, 125, 133, 135 and 137) should
> continue to be prohibited within 15
> miles of the DCA VOR/DME, unless
> specifically authorized by the FAA in
> consultation with the DoD and DHS.
>
> Ah. There it is. I'll bet "government officials" equates to members
> of congress quaking in their boots.
>
> So it may be that DC bureaucrats and congressmen are fearful, DOD
> wants more stateside duty, and DHS would be embarrassed by any action
> other than endorsing "security".
>
> If those are the root causes of the NPRM, it is our duty to expose the
> falicy of the security the NPRM attempts to assure. Jose has
> expressed the opinion that there is no effective defense against
> terrorist attacks. If persuasive evidence in support of that
> contention can be presented in the docket comments, it would obviate
> the need for the NPRM.
>
> Perhaps there are other reasonable arguments that will persuade those
> in authority to abandon their futile attempt. It's going to take a
> creative mind and perspicacity to deliver such an effective argument.
> Those among us with constructive thoughts on defeating this NPRM are
> eagerly sought. Let's hear what we can come up with.
>
>
>
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 02:33:29 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>The likelyhood that an aircraft flying around Washington DC
>is a threat is miniscule. I am comfortable continuing with this
>assumption.

That's because you don't live and work there. :-)

>The DC ADIZ is protection against an imaginary monster in the closet.

While that may be true of the FRZ, the DC ADIZ is protection against a
very real monster in an F-16.

>
>> What would you propose in place of the DC ADIZ and FRZ?
>
>Class E and class B airspace, the way it was in 2000.

That sounds good to me.

>The cat is out of the bag. Just as you cannot reasonably defend
>yourself from being hit by gunfire while walking down the street, we
>cannot reasonably defend ourselves from having our own high-energy
>devices turned against us. There are too many of them, manned by too
>few people, too low on the pay scale. You'd need armed guards around
>every gas station's storage tank valve, escorts for every delivery truck
>in the city, and a listening watch on the entire internet and cellphone
>network.
>

Right. Effective security renders the system unusable.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 16:21:24 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>> Bill Maher recently expressed the opinion, that crashing airliners
>> laden with hundreds of people was a faith based initiative.
>
>... and faith is not restricted to Islamics. Your statement
>specifically implicated Islamic terrorists, and to do so is a mistake -
>both strategic, tactical, and moral.

I suppose you're right. I was just trying suggest a more effective
way of outing the terrorists in our midst.

>I'm not familiar with Bill Maher's
>statement, but just because he said it doesn't mean I agree with it. :)

He's the anti-Rush Limbaugh, and a lot more humorous.

>> So if it's not possible to stop ideas, what action is appropriate?
>
>Acceptance.
>
>Accept the fact that freedom cuts both ways. Support freedom of speech,
>freedom of association, and freedom of flight - for enemies as well as
>for friends. The measure of a man is not how he treats his friends, but
>how he treats his enemies. A great nation leads by example.

Now that PM Blair is deporting those that preach suicide bombing in
Britain, I suppose it can no longer be called _Great_ Britain. :-)

>Now don't
>misconstrue my words as if I were saying that we should let terrorists
>get away with their actions - no, those who commit vile acts ought to be
>hunted down and taken to task.

Unfortunately, about all that remains of them is a slimy goo and
fragments. :-) It would be much more effective to some how take them
to task before they detonate themselves.

>But we should MOST EMPHATICALLY NOT go
>treating everyone as a potential terrorist, subject to being shot down
>unless they can prove they are good.

Are you referring to the DC ADIZ there?

>You talk about the ADIZ as being a way to prevent innocents from being
>shot down. There's another way. Just don't shoot.

I agree completely. I am in favor of eliminating it. I was just
attempting to define its intended purpose.

>> I'm just talking about Muslims coming forward of their own volition
>> and exposing those in their ranks they believe to be terrorists.
>
>That would be nice. It would also be nice if Christians did the same
>for those who bomb abortion clinics, and if the pilot community reported
> those they believe to be dangerous aviators to the FAA, and if
>taxpayers did the same for tax cheats and the IRS.

Actually, I believe it may be illegal not to inform if you have
evidence of criminal acts.

>If every neighbor is
>looking over the shoulder of every other neighbor, we'll have a much
>safer society, no? It's also really great way to "get even" with
>somebody who did you wrong... just report them as a suspected
>{whatever}, and let the justice system sort it all out.

There's a downside to any policy, but I'd prefer there be a myriad of
false reports than a single fellow airman downed by mistake.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 07:26:03 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>::

>In article >,
> "Happy Dog" > wrote:
>
>> When you guys are done patting yourselves on the back you might address my
>> point that there isn't any good evidence that the ADIZ was created to reduce
>> "clutter".
>
>Define "clutter"


In the case of the DC ADIZ, I believe it was created to restrict the
number of targets/flights within its boundaries, so that unidentified
primary radar targets will be easier to spot. Perhaps 'congestion'
would have been a more accurate word than 'clutter.'

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 18:57:05 -0400, "W P Dixon"
> wrote in
>::

>It may sound alittle impossible, but I don't think the Congress Critters
>care if just certifed pilots want the ADIZ or not.......however if those
>said certifed pilots got petitions of voters who did not have any interest
>in aviation, other then just for pleasure travel with friends...maybe a
>"chance?"

That's a constructive suggestion.

How would you word the petition, and what sort of argument would you
suggest we use to persuade voters to sign it?

At the moment however, there is a rapidly waning 30-day window of
opportunity to present opposing arguments to the FAA's NPRM. I was
hoping someone cared enough about the issue to draft some coherent
opposing views, and we could refine the ideas and submit them here:
http://dms.dot.gov/submit/

[Happy Dog]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 07:26:03 -0400, Bob Noel
>
>> "Happy Dog" > wrote:
>>
>>> When you guys are done patting yourselves on the back you might address
>>> my
>>> point that there isn't any good evidence that the ADIZ was created to
>>> reduce
>>> "clutter".
>>
>>Define "clutter"

> In the case of the DC ADIZ, I believe it was created to restrict the
> number of targets/flights within its boundaries, so that unidentified
> primary radar targets will be easier to spot. Perhaps 'congestion'
> would have been a more accurate word than 'clutter.'

Where is your evidence that this is the reason behind the ADIZ?

moo

[George Patterson]

Happy Dog wrote:
>
>>In the case of the DC ADIZ, I believe it was created to restrict the
>>number of targets/flights within its boundaries, so that unidentified
>>primary radar targets will be easier to spot. Perhaps 'congestion'
>>would have been a more accurate word than 'clutter.'
>
> Where is your evidence that this is the reason behind the ADIZ?

During the 9/11 investigations, several security people stated that that was the
case. They wanted to reduce the number of radar targets in the area to something
manageable if they had to intercept. A fair amount of the hearingd were
broadcast on NPR last Spring.

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 Sat, 6 Aug 2005 22:33:43 -0400, "Happy Dog" >
wrote in >::

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 07:26:03 -0400, Bob Noel
>
>> In the case of the DC ADIZ, I believe it was created to restrict the
>> number of targets/flights within its boundaries, so that unidentified
>> primary radar targets will be easier to spot. Perhaps 'congestion'
>> would have been a more accurate word than 'clutter.'
>
>Where is your evidence that this is the reason behind the ADIZ?
>

I have no evidence. It is purely a matter of logical deduction, a
guess.

The August FAA NPRM contains this information:

In February 2003, FAA, in consultation with DHS and other Federal
agencies, implemented a system of airspace control measures to
protect against a potential threat to the Washington, DC
Metropolitan Area. The dimensions of this protected
airspace were determined after considering such factors as the
speed of likely suspect aircraft, minimum launch time and the
speed of intercept aircraft. After extensive coordination among
Federal agencies, two airspace areas were implemented. The outer
area, which closely mimics the current Washington Tri-area Class B
airspace, is called an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) ...


I suppose one could research the original FAA ADIZ NPRM and find the
reason for it stated there:
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2002/sfar94.html
or in its extension:
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2003/sfar94_extension.pdf

I wasn't able to find the reason for the DC ADIZ in those documents,
hence the guess.

[Jose]

Here's a first draft.

I oppose the proposed rules codifying current flight restrictions for
certain aircraft operations in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area. I
believe that the nation is much better served by preserving the values
that made America great in the first place, by rescinding the current
FRZ and ADIZ completely. Neither the current airspace restrictions, nor
the proposed ones, are an effective security measure, but their
implementation has greatly curtailed the freedom of law-abiding citizens
to effectively utilize over ten thousand cubic miles of airspace around
one of the most popular destinations in America.

These restrictions permit low altitude commercial air carrier operations
within only a few miles of the Capitol and the Pentagon. The only known
terrorist attacks on the United States that utilized aircraft used
commercial air carriers. At the same time, these restrictions would
prohibit or severely restrict small aircraft such as four seat, single
engine, piston powered airplanes. This kind of aircraft has never been
used in an attack in the United States, and its utility in such an
attack is primarily in the imagination.

Although small aircraft could be used in a terrorist attack, the limited
load that these small airplanes can carry makes them less effective than
other methods of delivering a payload (such as ground vehicles), so
protecting the capitol against small aircraft does not increase security
by any appreciable amount, although at the same time it imposes an
inappropriate burden on law abiding citizens. Although it may increase
the appearance of security, it is very important not to confuse illusion
with reality. This is especially true where terrorism is concerned,
because if we are not careful we will do the terrorist's work for them,
destroying our own country and all it stands for, little by little.


The current and proposed restrictions do not protect the capitol.
Terrorists are law-abiding when it suits their purposes, and
law-breaking when that suits their purposes. They are not going to be
stopped by laws, nor will the threat of punishment such as certificate
action or large fines deter a terrorist from pursuing his goal. Only
the good folk are going to be victimized by flight restrictions and the
threat of punishment. A terrorist who, for whatever reason, chooses to
fly an airplane into the DC area to commit mayhem will almost certainly
do it under cover of complete compliance with the law, until the very
last minute. The only way this is not "too late" is for a huge amount
of airspace around the presumed target to be completely sterile - no
flights, no aircraft, no airports, no populated areas underneath that
would be affected by the wreckage when an errant aircraft is shot down.
The present proposal to codify existing regulations does not
accomplish this, therefore it is ineffective. The adverse impact of a
truly effective restriction would be to virtually shut down air travel
to and from Washington DC and Baltimore. The impact is far too great
for this to be implemented,

The current and proposed restrictions put our citizens at risk. Based
on the number of airspace incursions already recorded, and the number of
ATC errors which have led to airspace incursions or the erroneous belief
that an airspace incursion has occurred, and the number of times
fighters have been scrambled to face down with lethal force what turned
out not to be an evildoer, it will only be a matter of time before we
shoot our own people out of the sky. Considering where they are flying,
it is not beyond reason that the victims could be our own congressmen,
lobbyists, or business leaders - the very people the flight restrictions
are supposed to be protecting. And considering where they would likely
be when they are shot down, the debris alone would cause considerable
damage and loss of life.

Since the restrictions do not effectively protect the capitol, and they
do put our own citizens in danger, they should be eliminated, and the
airspace should revert to the way it was in the year 2000.


The adverse effects of the flight restrictions do not accrue just to the
local airports that are directly affected. They radiate out to all the
airports from which flights into the FRZ and ADIZ might have originated,
but don't because the burden is too great. Flying to National Airport
in a Piper Cherokee from my home base in Danbury would take a little
under two hours. My home is ten minutes from Danbury, and National is
right in the center of Washington DC. This is an attractive
proposition, and I have done this in the past, for example to see a show
at the Kennedy Center. With the flight restrictions in place, National
is out of the question as a destination, as are the airports known as
the DC3. Dulles is possible, but it's not a very convenient airport and
it's another hour or more by ground transportation into the DC area, not
including the time it takes to arrange to rent a car or wait for a taxi.
Gaithersburg is another option, it's a little more convenient to land
at, but though there is a Metro within taxi distance, it is still a good
hour away from the action. Freeway airport is a hair closer but getting
transportation at Freeway is a bit of a problem. Manassas has rail
transportation, but it too takes over an hour, not counting the wait for
the train, after which I am still not where I want to be, and I am
dependent on the vagaries of a lot more ground transportation. In
addition, Manassas is further away from my home airport so the flight
would take longer. By the time all the overhead time has been figured
into getting where I want to go, my trip length has nearly doubled, each
way. Faced with this, I have elected many times to simply not make the
trip. My home base at Danbury airport loses my business, the intended
destination airport in the Capitol loses my business, Washington DC
itself loses my business and my tax dollars, the cultural events I would
have attended play to a slightly emptier house, and all the money that I
would have spent in any of these places is not available to be spent
again by those businesses. Further, the money that my friends in DC
would have spent along with me does not circulate either.

The Washington/Baltimore area becomes incrementally less vibrant.

Further, the existence of this illusory "special security airspace"
invites other areas to attempt to justify and implement their own
security airspace. There are plenty of cities that have attractive
terrorist targets and leaders that will not stand by while other towns
get "protection". Flight restrictions are an attractive "feel good"
measure that politicians can implement to make their citizens feel like
something is being done, yet in fact what is being done is that we are
slowly paralyzing ourselves. Small aircraft are eminently useful not
only for transportation and commerce, but also for sightseeing,
photography, training, search and rescue, construction surveys, they
support recreational activities such as parachuting and tourism, and
like boats of all sizes, they serve as a recreational activity in their
own right. But since the public does not have much contact with general
aviation, they are easily misled to believe that restrictions on our
basic freedoms such as the freedom to sightsee from the air around the
Capitol of our own country will serve them. It does not. It makes it
easier to choke out other freedoms.


Politicians benefit by having citizens remain scared, if they can offer
something that will calm their anxieties. The proposed codification of
the existing temporary flight restrictions covering over ten thousand
cubic miles does exactly that. It reinforces the idea that small
airplanes are dangerous, that a significant terrorist attack is likely
to come from these "uncontrolled" airplanes, and that the government has
a ready solution at hand. Evacuating the buildings in the DC area when
a small plane flies overhead is an example of such posturing.
Ironically, for the one possible threat that a small airplane could
conceivably carry out (though far less effectively than a rented car),
which is the spread of chemical or biological agents, evacuating the
buildings is exactly the wrong thing to do. But it was done anyway.


There are certain things that simply must be accepted. Just as it is
not possible to protect oneself from gunfire when walking down the
street without giving up a significant quality of life, it is also not
possible to protect the nation from terrorist attacks by restricting our
airspace, unless we actually close down so much airspace that air travel
stops being practical. Like finding a number that is greater than six
but less than four, it cannot be done. Many people would pick five as a
solution. It may feel good, but it is in fact neither less than four,
nor greater than six.

The proposed rules codifying current flight restrictions for certain
aircraft operations in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area are like
using five as a solution. It neither provides real security, nor does
it preserve the freedoms that make this country great. We, as a nation,
and the FAA as an agency, need to choose between security and freedom.
We cannot have both, not even a little bit. Freedom gets eroded away
long before the illusion of security turns into real security.

I do not believe that rescinding the TSA’s 49 CFR part 1562, FAA’s NOTAM
3/0853, and the DC ADIZ/FRZ would increase the vulnerability or decrease
the level of protection now in place. I believe that the protection
that these rules provide is illusory, and illusions are very dangerous.

I am in favor of the freedoms that thousands upon thousands of people
have given their lives to obtain and preserve for this country. I am
opposed to the erosion of these freedoms to provide us the illusion of
security in the guise of a permanent and huge flight restricted area
around the greater Washington DC area.

Therefore, I recommend that your Alternative 1 - to rescind the TSA’s 49
CFR part 1562, FAA’s NOTAM 3/0853, and the DC ADIZ/FRZ, be enacted
immediately.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Happy Dog]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:aNeJe.1241$lT.705@trndny05...
> Happy Dog wrote:
>>
>>>In the case of the DC ADIZ, I believe it was created to restrict the
>>>number of targets/flights within its boundaries, so that unidentified
>>>primary radar targets will be easier to spot. Perhaps 'congestion'
>>>would have been a more accurate word than 'clutter.'
>>
>> Where is your evidence that this is the reason behind the ADIZ?
>
> During the 9/11 investigations, several security people stated that that
> was the case. They wanted to reduce the number of radar targets in the
> area to something manageable if they had to intercept. A fair amount of
> the hearingd were broadcast on NPR last Spring.

That's it, really? "Several security people stated"? You OK with that?

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 22:33:43 -0400, "Happy Dog" >
> wrote in >::
>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>>> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 07:26:03 -0400, Bob Noel
>>
>>> In the case of the DC ADIZ, I believe it was created to restrict the
>>> number of targets/flights within its boundaries, so that unidentified
>>> primary radar targets will be easier to spot. Perhaps 'congestion'
>>> would have been a more accurate word than 'clutter.'
>>
>>Where is your evidence that this is the reason behind the ADIZ?
>>
>
> I have no evidence. It is purely a matter of logical deduction, a
> guess.

Thank you for your research. But, it doesnt support your claim. In fact,
the paragrapgh you quote is just plain silly. "Minimun launch time"? Did
you read this crap before dropping to your knees?

I repost the following to invite defenders of it.:

> The August FAA NPRM contains this information:
>
> In February 2003, FAA, in consultation with DHS and other Federal
> agencies, implemented a system of airspace control measures to
> protect against a potential threat to the Washington, DC
> Metropolitan Area. The dimensions of this protected
> airspace were determined after considering such factors as the
> speed of likely suspect aircraft, minimum launch time and the
> speed of intercept aircraft. After extensive coordination among
> Federal agencies, two airspace areas were implemented. The outer
> area, which closely mimics the current Washington Tri-area Class B
> airspace, is called an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) ...
>
>
> I suppose one could research the original FAA ADIZ NPRM and find the
> reason for it stated there:
> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2002/sfar94.html
> or in its extension:
> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2003/sfar94_extension.pdf
>
> I wasn't able to find the reason for the DC ADIZ in those documents,
> hence the guess.

Hence shut up.

moo

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 08:46:24 -0400, "Happy Dog" >
wrote in >::

>
>Hence shut up.

Is it your intent to revoke my right to express an opinion on Usenet?

[W P Dixon]

How About This,
You get more flies with honey than vinegar approach, mention that as
Class B airspace , every plane has to have approval from ATC before entering
the airspace. So if the entire point of the ADIZ is to know which planes are
there, then the Class B does that just because you must have permission to
enter Class B and you must have a transponder. All it requires is ATC giving
a plane a transponder code and they know who you are. If the airspace has to
much traffic Class B can always deny entrance until traffic is at acceptable
levels. It' simple, it is factual, and it does not make the Congress
Critters think you are a radical who wants to set up a training camp in the
mountains of Montana to retake the government! ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
> Here's a first draft.
>
> I oppose the proposed rules codifying current flight restrictions for
> certain aircraft operations in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area. I
> believe that the nation is much better served by preserving the values
> that made America great in the first place, by rescinding the current FRZ
> and ADIZ completely. Neither the current airspace restrictions, nor the
> proposed ones, are an effective security measure, but their implementation
> has greatly curtailed the freedom of law-abiding citizens to effectively
> utilize over ten thousand cubic miles of airspace around one of the most
> popular destinations in America.
>
> These restrictions permit low altitude commercial air carrier operations
> within only a few miles of the Capitol and the Pentagon. The only known
> terrorist attacks on the United States that utilized aircraft used
> commercial air carriers. At the same time, these restrictions would
> prohibit or severely restrict small aircraft such as four seat, single
> engine, piston powered airplanes. This kind of aircraft has never been
> used in an attack in the United States, and its utility in such an attack
> is primarily in the imagination.
>
> Although small aircraft could be used in a terrorist attack, the limited
> load that these small airplanes can carry makes them less effective than
> other methods of delivering a payload (such as ground vehicles), so
> protecting the capitol against small aircraft does not increase security
> by any appreciable amount, although at the same time it imposes an
> inappropriate burden on law abiding citizens. Although it may increase
> the appearance of security, it is very important not to confuse illusion
> with reality. This is especially true where terrorism is concerned,
> because if we are not careful we will do the terrorist's work for them,
> destroying our own country and all it stands for, little by little.
>
>
> The current and proposed restrictions do not protect the capitol.
> Terrorists are law-abiding when it suits their purposes, and law-breaking
> when that suits their purposes. They are not going to be stopped by laws,
> nor will the threat of punishment such as certificate action or large
> fines deter a terrorist from pursuing his goal. Only the good folk are
> going to be victimized by flight restrictions and the threat of
> punishment. A terrorist who, for whatever reason, chooses to fly an
> airplane into the DC area to commit mayhem will almost certainly do it
> under cover of complete compliance with the law, until the very last
> minute. The only way this is not "too late" is for a huge amount of
> airspace around the presumed target to be completely sterile - no flights,
> no aircraft, no airports, no populated areas underneath that would be
> affected by the wreckage when an errant aircraft is shot down. The present
> proposal to codify existing regulations does not accomplish this,
> therefore it is ineffective. The adverse impact of a truly effective
> restriction would be to virtually shut down air travel to and from
> Washington DC and Baltimore. The impact is far too great for this to be
> implemented,
>
> The current and proposed restrictions put our citizens at risk. Based on
> the number of airspace incursions already recorded, and the number of ATC
> errors which have led to airspace incursions or the erroneous belief that
> an airspace incursion has occurred, and the number of times fighters have
> been scrambled to face down with lethal force what turned out not to be an
> evildoer, it will only be a matter of time before we shoot our own people
> out of the sky. Considering where they are flying, it is not beyond
> reason that the victims could be our own congressmen, lobbyists, or
> business leaders - the very people the flight restrictions are supposed to
> be protecting. And considering where they would likely be when they are
> shot down, the debris alone would cause considerable damage and loss of
> life.
>
> Since the restrictions do not effectively protect the capitol, and they do
> put our own citizens in danger, they should be eliminated, and the
> airspace should revert to the way it was in the year 2000.
>
>
> The adverse effects of the flight restrictions do not accrue just to the
> local airports that are directly affected. They radiate out to all the
> airports from which flights into the FRZ and ADIZ might have originated,
> but don't because the burden is too great. Flying to National Airport in
> a Piper Cherokee from my home base in Danbury would take a little under
> two hours. My home is ten minutes from Danbury, and National is right in
> the center of Washington DC. This is an attractive proposition, and I
> have done this in the past, for example to see a show at the Kennedy
> Center. With the flight restrictions in place, National is out of the
> question as a destination, as are the airports known as the DC3. Dulles
> is possible, but it's not a very convenient airport and it's another hour
> or more by ground transportation into the DC area, not including the time
> it takes to arrange to rent a car or wait for a taxi. Gaithersburg is
> another option, it's a little more convenient to land at, but though there
> is a Metro within taxi distance, it is still a good hour away from the
> action. Freeway airport is a hair closer but getting transportation at
> Freeway is a bit of a problem. Manassas has rail transportation, but it
> too takes over an hour, not counting the wait for the train, after which I
> am still not where I want to be, and I am dependent on the vagaries of a
> lot more ground transportation. In addition, Manassas is further away
> from my home airport so the flight would take longer. By the time all the
> overhead time has been figured into getting where I want to go, my trip
> length has nearly doubled, each way. Faced with this, I have elected many
> times to simply not make the trip. My home base at Danbury airport loses
> my business, the intended destination airport in the Capitol loses my
> business, Washington DC itself loses my business and my tax dollars, the
> cultural events I would have attended play to a slightly emptier house,
> and all the money that I would have spent in any of these places is not
> available to be spent again by those businesses. Further, the money that
> my friends in DC would have spent along with me does not circulate either.
>
> The Washington/Baltimore area becomes incrementally less vibrant.
>
> Further, the existence of this illusory "special security airspace"
> invites other areas to attempt to justify and implement their own security
> airspace. There are plenty of cities that have attractive terrorist
> targets and leaders that will not stand by while other towns get
> "protection". Flight restrictions are an attractive "feel good" measure
> that politicians can implement to make their citizens feel like something
> is being done, yet in fact what is being done is that we are slowly
> paralyzing ourselves. Small aircraft are eminently useful not only for
> transportation and commerce, but also for sightseeing, photography,
> training, search and rescue, construction surveys, they support
> recreational activities such as parachuting and tourism, and like boats of
> all sizes, they serve as a recreational activity in their own right. But
> since the public does not have much contact with general aviation, they
> are easily misled to believe that restrictions on our basic freedoms such
> as the freedom to sightsee from the air around the Capitol of our own
> country will serve them. It does not. It makes it easier to choke out
> other freedoms.
>
>
> Politicians benefit by having citizens remain scared, if they can offer
> something that will calm their anxieties. The proposed codification of
> the existing temporary flight restrictions covering over ten thousand
> cubic miles does exactly that. It reinforces the idea that small
> airplanes are dangerous, that a significant terrorist attack is likely to
> come from these "uncontrolled" airplanes, and that the government has a
> ready solution at hand. Evacuating the buildings in the DC area when a
> small plane flies overhead is an example of such posturing. Ironically,
> for the one possible threat that a small airplane could conceivably carry
> out (though far less effectively than a rented car), which is the spread
> of chemical or biological agents, evacuating the buildings is exactly the
> wrong thing to do. But it was done anyway.
>
>
> There are certain things that simply must be accepted. Just as it is not
> possible to protect oneself from gunfire when walking down the street
> without giving up a significant quality of life, it is also not possible
> to protect the nation from terrorist attacks by restricting our airspace,
> unless we actually close down so much airspace that air travel stops being
> practical. Like finding a number that is greater than six but less than
> four, it cannot be done. Many people would pick five as a solution. It
> may feel good, but it is in fact neither less than four, nor greater than
> six.
>
> The proposed rules codifying current flight restrictions for certain
> aircraft operations in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area are like using
> five as a solution. It neither provides real security, nor does it
> preserve the freedoms that make this country great. We, as a nation, and
> the FAA as an agency, need to choose between security and freedom. We
> cannot have both, not even a little bit. Freedom gets eroded away long
> before the illusion of security turns into real security.
>
> I do not believe that rescinding the TSA’s 49 CFR part 1562, FAA’s NOTAM
> 3/0853, and the DC ADIZ/FRZ would increase the vulnerability or decrease
> the level of protection now in place. I believe that the protection that
> these rules provide is illusory, and illusions are very dangerous.
>
> I am in favor of the freedoms that thousands upon thousands of people have
> given their lives to obtain and preserve for this country. I am opposed
> to the erosion of these freedoms to provide us the illusion of security in
> the guise of a permanent and huge flight restricted area around the
> greater Washington DC area.
>
> Therefore, I recommend that your Alternative 1 - to rescind the TSA’s 49
> CFR part 1562, FAA’s NOTAM 3/0853, and the DC ADIZ/FRZ, be enacted
> immediately.
>
> Jose
> --
> Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
> except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no
> universe.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Happy Dog]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 08:46:24 -0400, "Happy Dog" >
> wrote in >::
>
>>
>>Hence shut up.
>
> Is it your intent to revoke my right to express an opinion on Usenet?

Oh please. < insert Voltaire quote if needed > It's a direct referral to
your inability to present evidence for the reasons you claim the ADIZ
exists. I'm saying you're wrong. If you don't like the way I say it,
killfile me.

moo

[George Patterson]

Happy Dog wrote:
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> news:aNeJe.1241$lT.705@trndny05...
>
>>During the 9/11 investigations, several security people stated that that
>>was the case. They wanted to reduce the number of radar targets in the
>>area to something manageable if they had to intercept. A fair amount of
>>the hearingd were broadcast on NPR last Spring.
>
> That's it, really? "Several security people stated"? You OK with that?

Certainly. NPR didn't state "several security people stated", they played
recordings of the hearings and identified the speakers. In other words, I heard
some of the people responsible for getting the ADIZ set up state that the
purpose was to reduce the number of radar targets and make sure that there were
no unidentified primary radar echoes.

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.

[George Patterson]

W P Dixon wrote:
> How About This,
> You get more flies with honey than vinegar approach, mention that as
> Class B airspace , every plane has to have approval from ATC before
> entering the airspace. So if the entire point of the ADIZ is to know
> which planes are there, then the Class B does that just because you must
> have permission to enter Class B and you must have a transponder.

The problem with that is that the class B airspace does not extend to the ground
at the perimeter, nor does it extend above 10,000'. If you change the class B to
do this, you have almost the existing ADIZ, so why make that change?

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.

[W P Dixon]

Correct George,
But see my answer to the problem would be to make the entire area minus
Class A , into a super class"B". The normal rules of what Class B would be
re-defined for the ADIZ area, which is very very possible and very very
simple. We could call it Class B plus!!! ;)
Gov is happy everybody has a transponder on and being tracked, only
enter by permission, and it would not be restricted airspace. Would it be a
pain..sure Class B can be..would it be a no fly zone...NOPE. Problem solved.
Sometimes the simplicity of a solution is the hardest to get people to
see,.....especially CONGRESS!:)
Just change the rules of DC's Class B...no need to reinvent the wheel.
With the stroke of a pen and changing the charts and POOF we have the DC
Bplus!!! Still may not be perfect but it frees pilots some, and still offers
the same security the politicians want(so it appears they have done
something!)

Patrick

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:AYyJe.895$Im1.392@trndny02...
>W P Dixon wrote:
>> How About This,
>> You get more flies with honey than vinegar approach, mention that as
>> Class B airspace , every plane has to have approval from ATC before
>> entering the airspace. So if the entire point of the ADIZ is to know
>> which planes are there, then the Class B does that just because you must
>> have permission to enter Class B and you must have a transponder.
>
> The problem with that is that the class B airspace does not extend to the
> ground at the perimeter, nor does it extend above 10,000'. If you change
> the class B to do this, you have almost the existing ADIZ, so why make
> that change?
>
> 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.

[Morgans]

"W P Dixon" > wrote

> Just change the rules of DC's Class B...no need to reinvent the wheel.
> With the stroke of a pen and changing the charts and POOF we have the DC
> Bplus!!!

I like it! Make it so!
--
Jim in NC

[Jose]

> But see my answer to the problem would be to make the entire area minus Class A , into a super class"B". The normal rules of what Class B would be re-defined for the ADIZ area, which is very very possible and very very simple. We could call it Class B plus!!! ;)

How does this materially differ from simply eliminating the FRZ and
keeping the ADIZ (other than that the airspace boundaries would now
coincide with class B)? IF you redefine the rules for B+ airspace, you
can redefine them in accordance with the ADIZ rules, and all we've done
is change the name.

It does get rid of the FRZ, but the justification for the ADIZ =is= the
FRZ. With no FRZ, there's no need for B+ either.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[W P Dixon]

Hee Hee,
See Jose you are trying to re invent the wheel think simple. The ADIZ
would be no more, is that not your goal? Tracking for every plane in the new
ClassBplus, is that not the gov's goal? Sometimes you have to give alittle
to get alittle. I don't see all restrictions disappearing,..so maybe we can
give to a ClassB idea,..of course it like all else would require pilots
following the rules.
But as I see it not only is there going to be a permanent ADIZ but all
these pilots that can not follow the rules are going to make it into an
absolute NO FLY ZONE. Yeah yeah I know the ones that actually busted it on
there on is not really a large large number. But think about it, IF
something does happen in that area and the reason it happened was because
"powers that be" could not make a shoot down order in time because they were
not sure it was a putz from PA that was lost or threat.....then GA probably
would not be flying at all.
Compromise is always the best way to find a solution, if our side is
just as hard headed as the other side guess what will happen..more and more
restrictions. The other side is the gov and they will win...our option is to
compromise and say hey we understand but listen to this solution, then just
maybe the gov will say "hey we can live with that!" IMHO of course.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech


"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
>> But see my answer to the problem would be to make the entire area minus
>> Class A , into a super class"B". The normal rules of what Class B would
>> be re-defined for the ADIZ area, which is very very possible and very
>> very simple. We could call it Class B plus!!! ;)
>
> How does this materially differ from simply eliminating the FRZ and
> keeping the ADIZ (other than that the airspace boundaries would now
> coincide with class B)? IF you redefine the rules for B+ airspace, you
> can redefine them in accordance with the ADIZ rules, and all we've done is
> change the name.
>
> It does get rid of the FRZ, but the justification for the ADIZ =is= the
> FRZ. With no FRZ, there's no need for B+ either.
>
> Jose
> --
> Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
> except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no
> universe.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> The ADIZ would be no more, is that not your goal? Tracking for every plane in the new ClassBplus, is that not the gov's goal?

The FRZ would be no more. That is (part of) my goal. The ADIZ going
away is also my goal, but I'm not sure you've done more than just
renaming it. We already have all aircraft in the 30nm ring requring
transponders, this would add a discrete code and clearance requirement;
clearance that can be denied at whim.

I don't see how we could sell this as =sufficient=, and it certainly
isn't =necessary=, for any defense purposes. If we are arguing that the
current or proposed rules are not appropriate, it makes little sense to
propose an alternative that is also unjustified.

I agree that mentioning that class B aircraft are also tracked is worth
doing. But letting untracked aircraft under the shelf does not weaken
the security of DC in any appreciable way; that's the whole point of my
comment to the FAA.

Am I missing something in your proposal?

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[W P Dixon]

Jose,
I think you most definitely are missing something, a simple fact that
something will exist in the DC area if we like it or not. So why not make it
something we could be alittle bit happier with. You and others may think
there is no threat, but I assure you as a military man who has watched very
carefully how these "critters" operate, it's a very real threat. A small
plane in itself may not carry enough to do alot of damage, but in that area
it would not take alot of damage to do what the bad guys want...to show they
can hit wherever they want when they want.
Our only option is a compromise, and there is no way that the gov is
gonna give up the transponder requirement. A Class B plus is the only idea I
can come up with that addresses both sides..not just one. And that is alot
of the problem , people only seeing one side. Does the whole thing suck? Yep
it sure does! But unless we can get the Feds to find and kick out approx.
11million illegals it is a threat. And then we have the threat of the legal
ones that are out to kill us as well. If we could keep the bad guys out of
this country, then we would not need the restrictions.
There will be something over DC, wouldn't it be better if we actually
had some say in it? You will not if you do not realize there will be
transponder tracking in that area.
If we want the Founding Fathers freedoms given back to us all, then all of
us need to stop voting for the same damn fools we continue to put in office
just because they "say" they are a Dem or a Repub. They ALL care about a
vote, not your freedom. We must bend , so they appear to have done something
(for their vote). We don't bend we will have less..until Americans get their
head out of their butts and vote the entire 2 parties out of Washington.
What you want requires changing the entire government, what I propose
gets along with the current one. See the difference? It's something we may
not like, but it is the way the chips are stacked at this point in time.
they have the advantage, in one room they say hey lets do this it is voted
on in minutes (when they want to!!!;) ) and it is done..no fly or whatever!
For the country to get rid of all the crooks will take alot of old timers
dying out that can not see the problems of their parties. Not to mention
those with the mindset of I am voting Democrat because my Daddy his Daddy
and his Daddy were all Democrats all have to die out. Then maybe in another
75-100 years the government will really change, as long as no more like them
come into play mind you.
So see who has the advantage? See why we have to bend? And you know what
will happen if we don't? All those little things that the public let their
rights go away alittle on, because it did not effect them....sooner or later
it becomes a right that does effect you. Then it's to late the downhill
slide has started. Just say Thank You Mr. Lincoln!!!! ;)
A majority of Americans do feel aircraft as a real threat , and the
majority of votes wins that argument. They listen to the vote..so you must
bend or not be heard at all.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 13:19:18 -0400, "W P Dixon"
> wrote in
>::

>... mention that as
>Class B airspace , every plane has to have approval from ATC before entering
>the airspace. So if the entire point of the ADIZ is to know which planes are
>there,

If you had read the NPRM*, you'd know that is not the entire extent of
the information the FAA/DOD/DHS/TSA/... seek.

>then the Class B does that just because you must have permission to
>enter Class B and you must have a transponder.

But in Class B airspace ATC must admit aircraft in the order they
call, which limits ATC flexibility, and ATC must provide separation to
all aircraft, which may not be possible.

>All it requires is ATC giving
>a plane a transponder code and they know who you are.

No, they ATC will not know who you are as they would with a Flight
Plan.

>If the airspace has to[o]
>much traffic Class B can always deny entrance until traffic is at acceptable
>levels. It' simple, it is factual, and it does not make the Congress
>Critters think you are a radical ...

The comments on the NPRM are evaluated by the FAA not Congress.


* http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050804adiz-nprm.pdf

[bravocharlie]

I think we are off a bit when we assume this has anything to do with
votes.
I think this has much more to do with personal fear then anything else.
Let me pose this question and then provide my answer. Given the same
circumstances and the politicians of 30 years ago, would we have put in
to
place such restrictions. I say no. 30 years ago, a large majority of
politicians (including a majority or Presidents), were used to allowing
themselves to be in harms way as the price of freedom. This generation
of
politicians is the generation of deferments and special privileges that
got the out of military service and harms way (obviously notable
exceptions
i.e. Powell, McCain, Kerry). And what does the ADIZ protect? Their
Skins.
Pure and simple.
This fear is never discussed though. Instead there is this implicit
need to
protect our capital over every other city in the country. Its ironic
that
there is no longer an ADIZ over Manhattan, where a majority of the Sept
11th
deaths occurred, but here in DC, we seem to need one (no disrespect
meant to
family's of those killed in the Pentagon).
We have, to a large extent, lost our backbone in this country. We have
no
qualms about sending our poor into a war over oil, but refuse to allow
our rich and well connected to be at the slightest bit of risk at the
behest
of personal freedom.
One last thing...I'll bet if John M is elected President, the ADIZ will
disappear into thin air.

-BC

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 22:20:46 -0400, "W P Dixon"
> wrote in
>::

>The normal rules of what Class B would be re-defined

Than the airspace wouldn't be in compliance with ICAO worldwide
standards.

[Jose]

> Given the same
> circumstances and the politicians of 30 years ago, would we have put in
> to place such restrictions. I say no.

Change it to 50 years ago and I say yes. The Japanese internment camps
were an even more blatant disregard for basic freedoms.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 17:17:48 -0400, "Happy Dog" >
wrote in >::

>I'm saying you're wrong.

As you haven't provided an alternate plausible explanation for the
existence of the DC ADIZ nor any evidence to support your view, I am
not able to argue it.

>If you don't like the way I say it,

Your rudeness speaks volumes about you.

> killfile me.

I prefer not to stick my head in the sand, thanks. Who knows, you
might post something about which you actually have some knowledge
sometime.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 05:02:15 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>Here's a first draft.

You didn't ask, but I'll offer a little constructive criticism you may
find useful in arriving at a final draft. These comments are
respectfully offered in a spirit of cooperation.

>I oppose the proposed rules codifying current flight restrictions for
>certain aircraft operations in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area.

Including the docket number here might be useful.

>I believe that the nation is much better served by preserving the values
>that made America great in the first place, by rescinding the current
>FRZ and ADIZ completely. Neither the current airspace restrictions, nor
>the proposed ones, are an effective security measure, but their
>implementation has greatly curtailed the freedom of law-abiding citizens
>to effectively utilize over ten thousand cubic miles of airspace around
>one of the most popular destinations in America.

>These restrictions permit low altitude commercial air carrier operations
>within only a few miles of the Capitol and the Pentagon. The only known
>terrorist attacks on the United States that utilized aircraft used
>commercial air carriers. At the same time, these restrictions would
>prohibit or severely restrict small aircraft such as four seat, single
>engine, piston powered airplanes. This kind of aircraft has never been
>used in an attack in the United States, and its utility in such an
>attack is primarily in the imagination.
>
>Although small aircraft could be used in a terrorist attack, the limited
>load that these small airplanes can carry

My Cherokee 235 had a useful load of 1,400 lbs, and could probably
become airborne carrying substantially more weight.

>makes them less effective than
>other methods of delivering a payload (such as ground vehicles), so
>protecting the capitol against small aircraft does not increase security
>by any appreciable amount, although at the same time it imposes an
>inappropriate burden on law abiding citizens.

I might reword that as: ... does not increase security by an amount
commensurate with the financial and bourdons it imposes on Fixed Based
Operators in the area, and the loss of liberty of law abiding
citizens.

>Although it may increase
>the appearance of security, it is very important not to confuse illusion
>with reality. This is especially true where terrorism is concerned,
>because if we are not careful we will do the terrorist's work for them,
>destroying our own country and all it stands for, little by little.
>
>The current and proposed restrictions do not protect the capitol.
>Terrorists are law-abiding when it suits their purposes, and
>law-breaking when that suits their purposes. They are not going to be
>stopped by laws, nor will the threat of punishment such as certificate
>action or large fines deter a terrorist from pursuing his goal. Only
>the good folk are going to be victimized by flight restrictions and the
>threat of punishment. A terrorist who, for whatever reason, chooses to
>fly an airplane into the DC area to commit mayhem will almost certainly
>do it under cover of complete compliance with the law, until the very
>last minute. The only way this is not "too late" is for a huge amount
>of airspace around the presumed target to be completely sterile - no
>flights, no aircraft, no airports, no populated areas underneath that
>would be affected by the wreckage when an errant aircraft is shot down.

First, I would rethink suggesting "a huge amount of airspace ...
completely sterile - no flights no aircraft ..." to an agency capable
of enacting that.

Second, our government may consider collateral damage associated with
any shoot-down acceptable, and certainly preferable to having the
aircraft impact their offices.

I respectively suggest wording along these lines:

Under the present and proposed regulations it would require a
huge sterile zone surrounding the presumed target. Such a zone
would have to be devoid of _all_ aircraft, as well as populated
surface area that would be affected by the wreckage in the event
an aircraft were shot down.


> The present proposal to codify existing regulations does not
>accomplish this, therefore it is ineffective. The adverse impact of a
>truly effective restriction would be to virtually shut down air travel
>to and from Washington DC and Baltimore. The impact is far too great
>for this to be implemented,
>
>The current and proposed restrictions put our citizens at risk.

of being shot down or have the wreckage of the shot down aircraft land
on them or their property.

>Based
>on the number of

DC ADIZ

>airspace incursions already recorded, and the number of
>ATC errors which have led to airspace incursions or the erroneous belief
>that an airspace incursion has occurred, and the number of times
>fighters have been scrambled to face down with lethal force what turned
>out not to be an evildoer, it will only be a matter of time before we
>shoot our own people out of the sky. Considering where they are flying,
>it is not beyond reason that the victims could be our own congressmen,
>lobbyists, or business leaders - the very people the flight restrictions
>are supposed to be protecting. And considering where they would likely
>be when they are shot down, the debris alone would cause considerable
>damage and loss of life.
>
>Since the restrictions do not effectively protect the capitol, and they
>do put our own citizens in danger, they should be eliminated, and the
>airspace should revert to the way it was in the year 2000.
>
>
>The adverse effects of the flight restrictions do not accrue just to the
>local airports that are directly affected. They radiate out to all the
>airports from which flights into the FRZ and ADIZ might have originated,
>but don't because the burden

and danger of being shot down

>is too great. Flying to National Airport
>in a Piper Cherokee from my home base in Danbury would take a little
>under two hours. My home is ten minutes from Danbury, and National is
>right in the center of Washington DC. This is an attractive
>proposition, and I have done this in the past, for example to see a show
>at the Kennedy Center. With the flight restrictions in place, National
>is out of the question as a destination, as are the airports known as
>the DC3. Dulles is possible, but it's not a very convenient airport and
>it's another hour or more by ground transportation into the DC area, not
>including the time it takes to arrange to rent a car or wait for a taxi.
> Gaithersburg is another option, it's a little more convenient to land
>at, but though there is a Metro within taxi distance, it is still a good
>hour away from the action. Freeway airport is a hair closer but getting
>transportation at Freeway is a bit of a problem. Manassas has rail
>transportation, but it too takes over an hour, not counting the wait for
>the train, after which I am still not where I want to be, and I am
>dependent on the vagaries of a lot more ground transportation. In
>addition, Manassas is further away from my home airport so the flight
>would take longer. By the time all the overhead time has been figured
>into getting where I want to go, my trip length has nearly doubled, each
>way. Faced with this, I have elected many times to simply not make the
>trip. My home base at Danbury airport loses my business, the intended
>destination airport in the Capitol loses my business, Washington DC
>itself loses my business and my tax dollars, the cultural events I would
>have attended play to a slightly emptier house, and all the money that I
>would have spent in any of these places is not available to be spent
>again by those businesses. Further, the money that my friends in DC
>would have spent along with me does not circulate either.
>
>The Washington/Baltimore area becomes incrementally less vibrant.
>
>Further, the existence of this illusory "special security airspace"
>invites other areas to attempt to justify and implement their own
>security airspace. There are plenty of cities that have attractive
>terrorist targets and leaders that will not stand by while other towns
>get "protection". Flight restrictions are an attractive "feel good"
>measure that politicians can implement to make their citizens feel like
>something is being done, yet in fact what is being done is that we are
>slowly paralyzing ourselves. Small aircraft are eminently useful not
>only for transportation and commerce, but also for sightseeing,
>photography, training, search and rescue, construction surveys, they
>support recreational activities such as parachuting and tourism, and
>like boats of all sizes, they serve as a recreational activity in their
>own right. But since the public does not have much contact with general
>aviation, they are easily misled to believe that restrictions on our
>basic freedoms such as the freedom to sightsee from the air around the
>Capitol of our own country will serve them. It does not. It makes it
>easier to choke out other freedoms.
>
>
>Politicians

prospects for reelection

>benefit by having citizens remain scared, if they can offer
>something that will calm their anxieties. The proposed codification of
>the existing temporary flight restrictions covering over ten thousand
>cubic miles does exactly that. It reinforces the idea that small
>airplanes are dangerous, that a significant terrorist attack is likely
>to come from these "uncontrolled" airplanes, and that the government has
>a ready solution at hand. Evacuating the buildings in the DC area when
>a small plane flies overhead is an example of such posturing.
>Ironically, for the one possible threat that a small airplane could
>conceivably carry out (though far less effectively than a rented car),
>which is the spread of chemical or biological agents, evacuating the
>buildings is exactly the wrong thing to do. But it was done anyway.
>
>
>There are certain things that simply must be accepted. Just as it is
>not possible to protect oneself from gunfire when walking down the
>street without giving up a significant quality of life, it is also not
>possible to protect the nation from terrorist attacks by restricting our
>airspace, unless we actually close down so much airspace that air travel
>stops being practical. Like finding a number that is greater than six
>but less than four, it cannot be done. Many people would pick five as a
>solution. It may feel good, but it is in fact neither less than four,
>nor greater than six.
>
>The proposed rules codifying current flight restrictions for certain
>aircraft operations in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area are like
>using five as a solution. It neither provides real security, nor does
>it preserve the freedoms that make this country great. We, as a nation,
>and the FAA as an agency, need to choose between security and freedom.
>We cannot have both, not even a little bit. Freedom gets eroded away
>long before the illusion of security turns into real security.
>
>I do not believe that rescinding the TSA’s 49 CFR part 1562, FAA’s NOTAM
>3/0853, and the DC ADIZ/FRZ would increase the vulnerability or decrease
>the level of protection now in place. I believe that the protection
>that these rules provide is illusory, and illusions are very dangerous.
>
>I am in favor of the freedoms that thousands upon thousands of people
>have given their lives to obtain and preserve for this country. I am
>opposed to the erosion of these freedoms to provide us the illusion of
>security in the guise of a permanent and huge flight restricted area
>around the greater Washington DC area.
>
>Therefore, I recommend that your Alternative 1 - to rescind the TSA’s 49
>CFR part 1562, FAA’s NOTAM 3/0853, and the DC ADIZ/FRZ, be enacted
>immediately.
>
>Jose


Bravo! Very well stated indeed.

[Matt Barrow]

"bravocharlie" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> This generation
> of
> politicians is the generation of deferments and special privileges that
> got the out of military service and harms way (obviously notable
> exceptions
> i.e. Powell, McCain, Kerry).

Kerry tried to get deferments (three times) and failed, then volunteered for
what he though was safe duty (Navy), then tried again to get safe duty (SB's
at the time were coastal).

At least find out what you're talking about and don't just rely on the MSM.

[Larry Dighera]

That is a sentiment worthy of being included in the comments to NPRM.
Can you draft it as such?

[Jose]

It may be true that a compromise is better than losing the battle
completely, but we are not negotiating here. We don't get to say "yes"
or "no".

Rather, we are making a point - that point being that restrictions in
the DC area do nothing to enhance security and do a lot to adversely
affect pilots and those they deal with. This point needs to be made
clearly and convincingly.

> I assure you as a military man who has watched very carefully how these "critters" operate, it's a very real threat.

Is it a threat that can actually be defended against? I think not.

> ...A small plane in itself may not carry enough to do alot of damage, but in that area it would not take alot of damage to do what the bad guys want...to show they can hit wherever they want when they want.

I can think up a hundred scenarios of this nature, and I'm not even a
terrorist. For example, dropping a stick of dynamite down a gas
station's storage tank, coordinated over a hundred gas stations, would
make the same point. How easy is it for a terrorist to get a job
pumping gas? There isn't a good way of defending against this either
without virtually erasing the constitution first (after which it no
longer matters).

> They ALL care about a vote, not your freedom. We must bend...

but not bend over.

Bending comes into play when we get to choose among alternatives - not
when we show (or show up) justification for alternatives.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

W P Dixon wrote:
> Jose,
> I think you most definitely are missing something, a simple fact that
> something will exist in the DC area if we like it or not. So why not
> make it something we could be alittle bit happier with.

But your proposal for a super-B doesn't produce anything I would be happier
with. I used to be able to cut a good deal of time off trips south by cutting
under the class-B floor or (rarely) going over the top. I can't do that with the
ADIZ and wouldn't be able to do that with your proposal.

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.

[Happy Dog]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 17:17:48 -0400, "Happy Dog" >
> wrote in >::
>
>>I'm saying you're wrong.
>
> As you haven't provided an alternate plausible explanation for the
> existence of the DC ADIZ nor any evidence to support your view, I am
> not able to argue it.

It doesn't work that way. You made two claims. Then you engaged in warious
forms of diversion when pressed for evidence. The ADIZ is a politically
motivated action. There is *plenty* of evidence of this and I pointed you
to an article in AOPA. There is little evidence that it's to reduce radar
clutter or prevent us silly pilots from getting our stupid asses shot out of
the air. These are your claims. Government as nanny. It's crap.

Note the alternate suggestions here.
>
>>If you don't like the way I say it,
>
> Your rudeness speaks volumes about you.

It's Usenet, darling.
>
>> killfile me.
>
> I prefer not to stick my head in the sand, thanks. Who knows, you
> might post something about which you actually have some knowledge
> sometime.

In this thread, my knowledge isn't the issue as much as you try to make it
so. But, hope away. :)

moo

[W P Dixon]

Jose I do agree with a whole lot of what you say, but you have to understand
you are getting to choose. You can choose to haggle , or you can choose to
say we don't need it and you will get nowhere.
As for the won't meet the standards of the world ICAO for Class
B,....SO! We don't need anyones approval for something we consider to be in
our nations defense. Sometimes we have to make a rule for us, this would be
one of those cases.
It would take alot more than just a no fly or ADIZ to make it effective,
it would include closing our borders to illegals, and kicking the ones here
out. That is this nations greatest threat. If no "bad guys" are here, then I
am sure we could all agree none of this other would be necessary at all. But
we can't get either party to do what is basically there job...defend the
borders.
And yes Larry I realize what you are saying about the FAA and all with
the final say, and not Congress. That is the way they HOPE it goes. If
enough pressure from the right people,VOTERS, and in the right manner is
applied then Congress will in fact make the ruling change themselves.
My ClassBplus plan may not be perfect, but it is the only logical idea I
have heard. I would love to hear more! But any idea that you can tell the
American people that there is no threat and you are in a dreamworld and will
get nowhere very quickly. Acknowledge a small threat, and bend a hair! I can
come up with about 100 things to do in a C-150 that would shut this nation
down. I will not post nor discuss them , but you can be assured I am not the
only one that has thought of them. But in case some nut hasn't I am not
going to give him any ideas.
YEP I said him, and a islamic him at that...not the 85 year old grandma
getting strip searched at the airport!!!!;)Jose you made a good statement
about what happened to the Japanese here during WWII. But I am afraid we are
so worried about doing THAT again that we are not doing what we should be
doing. We should be watching them like Hawks, as the Brits can attest to. If
we are to PC to do that to defend ourselves it shows how soft we have
become. Soft equals vunerable....and our citizens are wayyyyyyy to soft.
So like I have said, my idea is a compromise and the only one I have
seen here. It's alot more complicated than just flying around DC, there are
lots and lots of factors that all add up. Seems some of us are to focused on
looking straight ahead at this problem and not the 360 degree view that is
required to really comprehend it. We must bend, we must understand, and we
must realize that some old sets of "how things are" will have to be changed,
and yep that may include some orginizations rule of airspace definition.
But if someone can come up with any idea without putting the "don't
think it's needed" on it, hey let's hear it. Any letter with the phrase
"don't think it's needed" will be immediately put in File 6..the trashcan.

Patrick

[bravocharlie]

Geez...I certainly didn't want to open that up again.
I'll capitulate this. The right-wing establishment has succeeded in
making it conventional
wisdom that Kerry was a coward. No need to rub it in.

-BC

[W P Dixon]

Hmm,
George do you not have a transponder? That would most definitely be a
problem.But other than the "it's not needed" any idea? I doubt if I'll have
a transponder in my airplane either, so I'd more than likely be in that boat
as well. But if I really need to go across the airspace I can get a
transponder. I'd be willing to get a transponder to just have a Class B
situation. but what's the old saying, Ya can't make everybody happy! This
entire situation is one of those deals ;) Wouldn't saying you can fly in it
with a transponder make you happier than them finally saying we are shutting
it down completely? NO FLY?

Patrick

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:M2MJe.576$Yf7.343@trndny06...
>W P Dixon wrote:
>> Jose,
>> I think you most definitely are missing something, a simple fact that
>> something will exist in the DC area if we like it or not. So why not make
>> it something we could be alittle bit happier with.
>
> But your proposal for a super-B doesn't produce anything I would be
> happier with. I used to be able to cut a good deal of time off trips south
> by cutting under the class-B floor or (rarely) going over the top. I can't
> do that with the ADIZ and wouldn't be able to do that with your proposal.
>
> 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.

[John T]

GAO study results relevant to this thread:

"HOMELAND SECURITY
Agency Resources Address
Violations of Restricted
Airspace, but Management
Improvements Are Needed"

http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05928t.html
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05928t.pdf

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[Jose]

> You didn't ask...

Actually, by posting the draft, I was implicitly asking. :) I
appreciate the feedback, and will incorporate many of the changes as is.
However...

> My Cherokee 235 had a useful load of 1,400 lbs, and could probably
> become airborne carrying substantially more weight.

.... and this can make a fair sized bang. No argument. But what
triggered this whole thing was not a "fair sized" bang, but a "humongous
boom", next to which 1400 lbs of explosive is a firecracker. (anybody a
demolition expert that could quantify the destructive power of a
commercial jet vs a cherokee with 1400 lbs of bang in it?)

Although any sized bang is bad for the people in it, there needs to be a
threshold of bang required before we consider imposing strong
restrictions in an attempt to avoid it.

> I might reword
> [does not increase security by any appreciable amount,
> although at the same time it imposes an inappropriate burden...]
> as: ...
> does not increase security by an amount
> commensurate with the financial and bourdons...

My point is that if a bang can be delivered several ways, one needs to
close =all= those doors before security is appreciably increased.
Unless the roads are closed, the airplane provides little advantage.

> I would rethink suggesting "a huge amount of airspace ...
> completely sterile - no flights no aircraft ..." to an agency capable
> of enacting that.

You think they haven't thought of it? :) My point is that this, which
would be necessary, would also be (obviously) too burdensome.

> Second, our government may consider collateral damage associated with
> any shoot-down acceptable, and certainly preferable to having the
> aircraft impact their offices.

You are right. But (my point is that) the likelyhood that the
alternative to a rain of aircraft parts and flaming avgas is an airplane
in the White House lobby. The most likely alternative is a peaceful
sightseeing flight with four patriotic US citizens awestruck by the
beauty of our Capitol. Ok, a little rhetoric there, but it's an
important point. To this, collateral damage is =not= acceptable. I
suppose I need to state that more forcefully.

Thanks for your comments; I look forward to more. To wit:

1: The FAA is required to "consider" the points being raised. To me
this means "to rebut them before enacting the rule anyway". (Ok, the
cynic in me!). In any case, what would their likely rebuttals be, so I
can anticipate them in the letter itself?

2: Does it matter how many people sign such a letter? i.e. does it
make sense to make a petition out of it?

3: Would it make sense to get an organization like MoveOn.org to read
it and perhaps generate an action item?

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> If no "bad guys" are here, then I am sure we could all agree none of this other would be necessary at all.

"bad guys" != "non-citizens".

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> I can come up with about 100 things to do in a C-150 that would shut this nation down.

How many can you think of that =require= a C-150?

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[W P Dixon]

I can think of lots and lots, both requiring and not requiring the use of
any aircraft...all would pretty much shut the capital down. Dangers are most
definitely by more than just the air. And for the most part most of the bad
guys are non-citizens..but sad to say we have our own little "moles" just
like the Brits had in their recent attacks. IMHO we have not moved as fast
as we need to to get rid of the vermin.
9/11 was a very sucessful air attack, if the attack had been like the
OKC bombing, I would guess they would stop Uhaul trucks and such at the DC
limits. Just the way they think. Look at the useless bag checks on NYC
subways now, it's reason is so you "feel" safer, but it isn't doing anything
.. But New Yorkers are lining up letting the cops rummage through there
belongings, for what otherwise would be an illegal search. Go Figure huh!
Shoot for the "if our borders were secure then DC would be
secure",..that'll ruffle their feathers! ;) Red tapers hate common sense!

Patrick
"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>> I can come up with about 100 things to do in a C-150 that would shut this
>> nation down.
>
> How many can you think of that =require= a C-150?
>
> Jose
> --
> Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
> except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no
> universe.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> IMHO we have not moved as fast as we need to to get rid of the vermin.

.... and how would you do that? First you have to identify the vermin,
knowing that they look just like you and me. Some are citizens, and
some citizens "look foreign". So, you have to pry into the private
lives of many innocent people. Like you.

This would be unacceptable.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[W P Dixon]

Jose,
well I am not the FBI but I would just have to guess they already have
some great ideas of who the vermin is, and no they do not look like me ;) I
have not seen a Scot blow up anything in the name of Islam yet ;) If the
Islamic cleric is preaching violence I would say that's a dern good place to
start.And they already have the Not To Patriot Act to use to find whomever
whenever. And even with all of that we can't find 11 million illegals? HAHA
Sometimes you wonder if any of us has enough sense to get out of bed ! ;)
Searching Grandma is NOT going to find a terrorist, but the chances increase
if you search Abdul. But of course if we do not stop them at the border then
it will all be a waste of time anyway, cause they will keep right on coming!

Patrick

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
>> IMHO we have not moved as fast as we need to to get rid of the vermin.
>
> ... and how would you do that? First you have to identify the vermin,
> knowing that they look just like you and me. Some are citizens, and some
> citizens "look foreign". So, you have to pry into the private lives of
> many innocent people. Like you.
>
> This would be unacceptable.
>
> Jose
> --
> Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
> except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no
> universe.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Happy Dog]

"George Patterson" >

>>>During the 9/11 investigations, several security people stated that that
>>>was the case. They wanted to reduce the number of radar targets in the
>>>area to something manageable if they had to intercept. A fair amount of
>>>the hearingd were broadcast on NPR last Spring.
>>
>> That's it, really? "Several security people stated"? You OK with that?
>
> Certainly. NPR didn't state "several security people stated", they played
> recordings of the hearings and identified the speakers. In other words, I
> heard some of the people responsible for getting the ADIZ set up state
> that the purpose was to reduce the number of radar targets and make sure
> that there were no unidentified primary radar echoes.

Other ways of accomplishing this have been suggested.

moo

[Jose]

> Searching Grandma is NOT going to find a terrorist

But if we let it be known that we won't search Grandma, then somehow
Grandma will be the bomb. Terrorists aren't dumb.

> But of course if we do not stop them at the border...

Even if we do, the ideas will cross the border and infiltrate our society.

We're getting off topic here though. :)

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[W P Dixon]

Terrorists aren't dumb but only searching those who are not of a terrorist
profile is very dumb. From what I hear that is what our security ends up
doing more often than not because people are concerned about getting sued.To
think a bunch of Catholics or what have you will covert to Islam for their
ideas is just not going to happen. Not saying their aren't some idiots out
there, just you may be over estimating the power of Islam. Close the border
kick the radicals out and the radical message starts to disappear. It's
about religion not really an idea, unless you want to consider it an idea of
religion.
And if you believe in our government were to do it's job and protect our
borders and root out the bad guys and send them to where ever and there
would not be any need in taking any other Americans rights or no fly zones
or searches. Get rid of them, make sure they can not get here and the need
for spending craploads of money on non-existant security drastically
reduces. And then you could really say there is no need for the ADIZ.
IMHO of course and we shall leave her there so if anyone else thinks
it's getting off topic.

Patrick

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>> Searching Grandma is NOT going to find a terrorist
>
> But if we let it be known that we won't search Grandma, then somehow
> Grandma will be the bomb. Terrorists aren't dumb.
>
>> But of course if we do not stop them at the border...
>
> Even if we do, the ideas will cross the border and infiltrate our society.
>
> We're getting off topic here though. :)
>
> Jose
> --
> Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
> except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no
> universe.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

Happy Dog wrote:
> "George Patterson" >
>
>>Certainly. NPR didn't state "several security people stated", they played
>>recordings of the hearings and identified the speakers. In other words, I
>>heard some of the people responsible for getting the ADIZ set up state
>>that the purpose was to reduce the number of radar targets and make sure
>>that there were no unidentified primary radar echoes.
>
> Other ways of accomplishing this have been suggested.

That's as may be, but the fact is that *they* say that *they* did it for *this*
reason.

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.

[George Patterson]

W P Dixon wrote:
>
> But New Yorkers are lining up letting the cops rummage
> through there belongings, for what otherwise would be an illegal search.

No more illegal than searching airline passengers stuff. As the mayor says, you
don't want to be searched, that's fine. Don't ride the subway.

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.

[Happy Dog]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:tVSJe.1664$lT.630@trndny05...
> Happy Dog wrote:
>> "George Patterson" >
>>
>>>Certainly. NPR didn't state "several security people stated", they played
>>>recordings of the hearings and identified the speakers. In other words, I
>>>heard some of the people responsible for getting the ADIZ set up state
>>>that the purpose was to reduce the number of radar targets and make sure
>>>that there were no unidentified primary radar echoes.
>>
>> Other ways of accomplishing this have been suggested.
>
> That's as may be, but the fact is that *they* say that *they* did it for
> *this* reason.

They may have said it but it still doesn't make sense. That makes it less
than credible. Were these "security people" aviation experts?

moo

[George Patterson]

W P Dixon wrote:
>
> George do you not have a transponder? That would most definitely be a
> problem.

Somewhere something got lost in here. Yes, I had a transponder with mode-C. It's
pretty necessary in this neck of the woods. And you wouldn't go under or over
class-B airspace without one in an aircraft like those I owned.

I thought we were discussing the sort of super class-B you described in which
the protected airspace goes down to the ground and up to the flight levels
throughout the area as an alternative to the ADIZ. I used to make runs from New
Jersey to Knoxville and once made a short trip to Asheville, flying under the
1500' floor of the old class-B. I have also on occasion flown directly over
Dulles at 10,500' or 11,500', back when the cap was 10,000'. I've even flown
directly over downtown DC, back when it was a "TCA" and the roof was something
like 7,000'.

To make those same Asheville and Tennessee runs today, I would have to file a
flight plan, get a squawk code, and get permission to enter the ADIZ. Turn it
into a super class-B, and I still need to get a squawk code and get permission
to enter, and, if it's anything like the old class-B was, I probably won't get
permission to enter if I haven't filed a flight plan.

What has the ADIZ cost me? About half an hour on a run to Tennessee, plus it
forces me to cut past the first ridge of the Appalachians. Weather in that
pocket could make the run impossible for a VFR pilot like myself. In that case,
a run around the ADIZ to the east would add about an hour to the trip. The super
class-B would do the same.

The ADIZ also cost me the ability to attend the picnics that the Natalies used
to host, though. Just *maybe* a class-B setup would allow for that.

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.

[George Patterson]

Happy Dog wrote:
>
> They may have said it but it still doesn't make sense.

Of course it does. With a limited number of squawk codes, that limits the number
of aircraft that can be allowed in the area. With a requirement for flight
plans, that means that the authorities know exactly what aircraft are there. You
can keep out anything that you think is suspicious, and the military radars in
the area will alert you to anything that's not supposed to be there. In one
stroke, you eliminate all of the unknown radar targets, especially the ones down
around 1,100' squawking VFR. And if one does come along anyway, you can assume
it's hostile. From a security viewpoint, it's nearly perfect and the military
and Secret Service have been asking for something like it for at least a decade
(that info comes from the same hearings).

> Were these "security people" aviation experts?

No. You are somehow under the impression that the ADIZ was set up for aviation
or by aviation experts? It was set up to protect the area *from* aviation. From
their viewpoint, we're lucky that anyone is allowed to fly there at all. These
are the same people that shut Reagan airport down completely. If they had their
way, it would still be closed -- opening it required tremendous pressure from
Congress.

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.

[W P Dixon]

Yes you are so correct George..what should be illegal searches are the norm.
And the sheeple do not complain, that being the case can we not all realize
the difficulty of telling the public at large the ADIZ is not needed? I just
think it would be impossible without getting some "critter" folk onboard a
Class Bplus to give the false sense of security and like I said it appears
that the Gov has done something to protect the voters. Not the small number
of pilot voters but the public at large voters.
The people DO have the power , but it is the larger public not a small
group. If you and I stop taking commercial flights because we feel the
searches are against our Constitutional freedom nobody cares..if 95% of the
flying public did the same it would have impact.
It will take the larger group to make a difference in the ADIZ , not
just a few of us. Thus the need for a petition signed not just by us
aviation nuts but the public ...as many as we could possibly get. If the
powers that be saw the public at large thought it was a waste of time and
money and thought more about their freedom to fly with friends if they so
chose ,..then that is how the red tape would see it as well.
It's a hard row to hoe when the public has very little concern over
their own rights as a whole. A letter signed by 100,000 pilots would get as
much attention as me going in the meeting and singing "Zippidy Doo Dah"..I'd
get a weird look and they would move right along and do what they plan on
doing anyway.;) What a shame too! I have such a lovely singing voice!!!! ;)

Patrick

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:0YSJe.1665$lT.1300@trndny05...
> No more illegal than searching airline passengers stuff. As the mayor
> says, you don't want to be searched, that's fine. Don't ride the subway.
>
> 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.

[Happy Dog]

"George Patterson" > wrote in
>> Were these "security people" aviation experts?
>
> No. You are somehow under the impression that the ADIZ was set up for
> aviation or by aviation experts? It was set up to protect the area *from*
> aviation. From their viewpoint, we're lucky that anyone is allowed to fly
> there at all. These are the same people that shut Reagan airport down
> completely. If they had their way, it would still be closed -- opening it
> required tremendous pressure from Congress.

I'm under the impression that it was set up for no legitimate security or
safety reasons. And, so far, I haven't seen any evidence that it was. And,
that's what I've been asking for.

le m

[bravocharlie]

> What has the ADIZ cost me? About half an hour on a run to Tennessee, plus it
> forces me to cut past the first ridge of the Appalachians. Weather in that
> pocket could make the run impossible for a VFR pilot like myself. In that case,
> a run around the ADIZ to the east would add about an hour to the trip. The super
> class-B would do the same.

Why don't you go through the ADIZ? Filing is a five minute process and
getting permission ussually can be done without any delay if you call
10-15 mins before you would enter.

I rarely fly without an ADIZ flight plan, since I'm ussually leaving or
entering it (based in Leesburg).

I just don't see how its costing you 1/2 hour, unless your refering to
the fact that you can't fly through the smaller restricted zone.

-BC

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 14:36:59 -0400, "John T" > wrote in
>::

>GAO study results relevant to this thread:
>
>"HOMELAND SECURITY
>Agency Resources Address
>Violations of Restricted
>Airspace, but Management
>Improvements Are Needed"
>
>http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05928t.html
>http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05928t.pdf


Many thanks for these links. I searched for these documents without
success.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 22:23:54 -0400, "W P Dixon"
> wrote in
>::

>It will take the larger group to make a difference in the ADIZ , not
>just a few of us.

This is the first time the FAA has permitted comments on the security
regulations governing this airspace; the previous times the FAA
claimed that the emergency nature of the regulations permitted
bypassing the comment process.

It would be my hope, that logic an reason would prevail over political
might in the FAA's decision process. Your statement makes the
decision process appear like a vote instead. What would the FAA write
in the resolution of this NPRM if their decision were entirely the
result of political influence?

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 13:21:21 -0400, "W P Dixon"
> wrote in
>::


> As for the won't meet the standards of the world ICAO for Class
>B,....SO! We don't need anyones approval for something we consider to be in
>our nations defense. Sometimes we have to make a rule for us, this would be
>one of those cases.

Considering that international flights operated within the DC ADIZ,
foreign pilots may not be aware of your proposed new class of
airspace.

> And yes Larry I realize what you are saying about the FAA and all with
>the final say, and not Congress. That is the way they HOPE it goes. If
>enough pressure from the right people,VOTERS, and in the right manner is
>applied then Congress will in fact make the ruling change themselves.

Please post a draft of your letters to your congressmen.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 18:39:17 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>Thanks for your comments; I look forward to more. To wit:
>
>1: The FAA is required to "consider" the points being raised. To me
>this means "to rebut them before enacting the rule anyway". (Ok, the
>cynic in me!). In any case, what would their likely rebuttals be, so I
>can anticipate them in the letter itself?

As you are championing Alternative 1, the NPRM already contains the
FAA's reason for not adopting it:

Alternative 1: Rescind the TSA’s 49
CFR part 1562, FAA’s NOTAM 3/0853,
and the DC ADIZ/FRZ immediately—
This alternative would provide
immediate relief to these airports by
removing security provisions and
restoring former air traffic control
procedures and air space configurations.
Implementation of this alternative
would facilitate the return of pilots who,
for the sake of operating simplicity and
reduced flying costs, relocated to other
airports. This would be the least costly
option. The FAA believes that the threat
of terrorists using aircraft as missiles
must be guarded against, and this option
would not adequately achieve that goal.

Conclusion: Rescinding these actions
would increase the vulnerability and
diminish the level of protection now in
place to safeguard vital national assets
located within the National Capital
Region. This alternative is rejected
because it would compromise the
security of vital national assets and
increase their vulnerability.


>2: Does it matter how many people sign such a letter? i.e. does it
>make sense to make a petition out of it?

I don't know. But my feeling is, that the more comments from
different individuals the FAA receives that echo your point, the more
credence it will carry.

>3: Would it make sense to get an organization like MoveOn.org to read
>it and perhaps generate an action item?

I don't see how it could hurt. At least it will make the general
public aware of the NPRM.

[Jose]

> As you are championing Alternative 1, the NPRM already contains the
> FAA's reason for not adopting it:
>
> [...] The FAA believes that the threat
> of terrorists using aircraft as missiles
> must be guarded against, and this option
> would not adequately achieve that goal.
>
> Conclusion: Rescinding these actions
> would increase the vulnerability and
> diminish the level of protection...

Well, either they have already made their decision (and further noise is
unnecessary even in what we considered a free state) or these are the
points that need to be rebutted. Alas, without actual data (which is
certainly classified) this will be difficult, as the response is
guaranteed to be "petitioner is wrong because of {CLASSIFIED}."

The NPRM contains the reasons for the decision that has already been
made. Our only hope is that the decision hasn't actually already been made.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.