Another ADIZ violation? [Archive]

Michelle P

December 29th 05, 03:07 AM

Yeah it happened.
The guy took off from Hyde went somewhere and tried to come back in. Had
a "total electrical failure" and ended up landing at Maryland Airport.
Michelle

Wiz wrote:

>All:
>
>I heard a lot of air activity over my Washington, DC home today, and
>was told later by a friend that an 84-year-old pilot had a total
>electrical failure on the way from Stafford, VA (KRMN), where
>maintenance was being performed on his plane. According to my friend,
>the pilot landed at Indian Head, MD (2W5) after violating the
>Washington DC ADIZ airspace, and didn't even see the intercept chopper
>until it landed with him. Don't know how accurate these details are,
>haven't seen any news on it yet.
>
>Paradoxically, every time someone accidentally violates the ADIZ, it
>reinforces the notion for some people that we really need the ADIZ...
>
>
>

December 29th 05, 05:27 AM

I'm not familiar with the area with regards to the airspace
but with the IAD and BWI Class B plus the ADIZ, it must
be pretty easy to bust with everything working.
More importantly, I don't think the guy busted ANYTHING
per 91.3. A complete electrical failure is an emergency in my
book. If I had a complete electrical failure I'd
land wherever the hell *I* felt like it as long as my
butt was safe in the end. When the blackhawks
showed up, I'd be more than happy to have an
escort to airport of *my* choosing. I'll deal
with any paperwork on the ground.

Gerald

Michelle P wrote:
> Yeah it happened.
> The guy took off from Hyde went somewhere and tried to come back in. Had
> a "total electrical failure" and ended up landing at Maryland Airport.
> Michelle
>
> Wiz wrote:
>
>> All:
>>
>> I heard a lot of air activity over my Washington, DC home today, and
>> was told later by a friend that an 84-year-old pilot had a total
>> electrical failure on the way from Stafford, VA (KRMN), where
>> maintenance was being performed on his plane. According to my friend,
>> the pilot landed at Indian Head, MD (2W5) after violating the
>> Washington DC ADIZ airspace, and didn't even see the intercept chopper
>> until it landed with him. Don't know how accurate these details are,
>> haven't seen any news on it yet.
>>
>> Paradoxically, every time someone accidentally violates the ADIZ, it
>> reinforces the notion for some people that we really need the ADIZ...
>>
>>
>>

Flyingmonk

December 29th 05, 06:06 AM

Gerald wrote:
>I'm not familiar with the area with regards to the airspace but with the IAD and BWI Class B

Hyde is also a stone throw from Andrews AFB.

The Monk

Michelle P

December 29th 05, 12:52 PM

The problem is if you have a communications or transponder problem then
you must turn around and leave the ADIZ on the most direct route out and
away from the center. He may not have done this. Maryland (2W5) is
inside the ADIZ. I have not talked to him yet. He was leaving the
airport when I was just landing from my morning Traffic run.
Michelle

GS wrote:

> I'm not familiar with the area with regards to the airspace
> but with the IAD and BWI Class B plus the ADIZ, it must
> be pretty easy to bust with everything working.
> More importantly, I don't think the guy busted ANYTHING
> per 91.3. A complete electrical failure is an emergency in my
> book. If I had a complete electrical failure I'd
> land wherever the hell *I* felt like it as long as my
> butt was safe in the end. When the blackhawks
> showed up, I'd be more than happy to have an
> escort to airport of *my* choosing. I'll deal
> with any paperwork on the ground.
>
> Gerald
>
>
>
> Michelle P wrote:
>
>> Yeah it happened.
>> The guy took off from Hyde went somewhere and tried to come back in.
>> Had a "total electrical failure" and ended up landing at Maryland
>> Airport.
>> Michelle
>>
>> Wiz wrote:
>>
>>> All:
>>>
>>> I heard a lot of air activity over my Washington, DC home today, and
>>> was told later by a friend that an 84-year-old pilot had a total
>>> electrical failure on the way from Stafford, VA (KRMN), where
>>> maintenance was being performed on his plane. According to my friend,
>>> the pilot landed at Indian Head, MD (2W5) after violating the
>>> Washington DC ADIZ airspace, and didn't even see the intercept chopper
>>> until it landed with him. Don't know how accurate these details are,
>>> haven't seen any news on it yet.
>>>
>>> Paradoxically, every time someone accidentally violates the ADIZ, it
>>> reinforces the notion for some people that we really need the ADIZ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

Orval Fairbairn

December 29th 05, 01:40 PM

In article et>,
Michelle P > wrote:

> The problem is if you have a communications or transponder problem then
> you must turn around and leave the ADIZ on the most direct route out and
> away from the center. He may not have done this. Maryland (2W5) is
> inside the ADIZ. I have not talked to him yet. He was leaving the
> airport when I was just landing from my morning Traffic run.
> Michelle

The problem here is that you really don't know if your TXP has failed if
you can't communicate with anyone. Transmitters are usually the first
things to go off line when the voltage drops.

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

Andrew Gideon

December 29th 05, 03:09 PM

Michelle P wrote:

> The problem is if you have a communications or transponder problem then
> you must turn around and leave the ADIZ on the most direct route out and
> away from the center.

Depending upon the circumstances of the failure (ie. a complete electrical
failure in IMC but still near an airport), departing an airport's area
would compound the problem. I don't know the circumstances of this pilot's
difficulty or response, but I could easily see following the aforementioned
rule being the wrong choice in at least some cases.

That is a perspective I've yet to notice: the ADIZ is unsafe.

- Andrew

Michael Ware

December 29th 05, 03:36 PM

Is a transponder not a transmitter? Output power is directly related to
voltage.

I was flying back from PA to Columbus, OH a few weeks ago and lost the
alternator. I was talking with Indy center. I shut off everything but the
transponder, one comm and the tail strobe. Eventually, the controller asked
for my altitude, as the voltage had apparently dropped enough that she
wasn't getting a reply, but I was still able to communicate.

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> Michelle P > wrote:
>
> > The problem is if you have a communications or transponder problem then
> > you must turn around and leave the ADIZ on the most direct route out and
> > away from the center. He may not have done this. Maryland (2W5) is
> > inside the ADIZ. I have not talked to him yet. He was leaving the
> > airport when I was just landing from my morning Traffic run.
> > Michelle
>
> The problem here is that you really don't know if your TXP has failed if
> you can't communicate with anyone. Transmitters are usually the first
> things to go off line when the voltage drops.
>
> --
> Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

Roy Smith

December 29th 05, 03:54 PM

GS > wrote:
> I'm not familiar with the area with regards to the airspace
> but with the IAD and BWI Class B plus the ADIZ, it must
> be pretty easy to bust with everything working.
> More importantly, I don't think the guy busted ANYTHING
> per 91.3. A complete electrical failure is an emergency in my
> book. If I had a complete electrical failure I'd
> land wherever the hell *I* felt like it as long as my
> butt was safe in the end.

91.3 doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you want. It gives you
the authority to deviate from the rules *to the extent required* to deal
with the emergency.

What were the flight conditions? Day-VFR in a typical light plane, for
example, total electrical failure should be a complete non-event, and
certainly doesn't justify calling 91.3 into play.

Jose

December 29th 05, 04:35 PM

> 91.3 doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you want. It gives you
> the authority to deviate from the rules *to the extent required* to deal
> with the emergency.

.... and a communication failure in the ADIZ is a bona fide emergency
even in circumstances which, outside the ADIZ, would be a non-event. It
may well be better to turn around and land nearby than to point the nose
outward and drone on for fifteen minutes in an unexpected direction.
Those are real guns and missles the fighters carry, and they have almost
been used too often for my comfort.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

December 29th 05, 05:39 PM

Roy Smith wrote:

> GS > wrote:
>
>>I'm not familiar with the area with regards to the airspace
>>but with the IAD and BWI Class B plus the ADIZ, it must
>>be pretty easy to bust with everything working.
>>More importantly, I don't think the guy busted ANYTHING
>>per 91.3. A complete electrical failure is an emergency in my
>>book. If I had a complete electrical failure I'd
>>land wherever the hell *I* felt like it as long as my
>>butt was safe in the end.
> 91.3 doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you want. It gives you
> the authority to deviate from the rules *to the extent required* to deal
> with the emergency.
> What were the flight conditions? Day-VFR in a typical light plane,for
> example, total electrical failure should be a complete non-event, and
> certainly doesn't justify calling 91.3 into play.

correct, I'd generally consider a complete electrical failure
a major emergency as in 'get to the nearest airport ASAP and as long
as myself and my passengers will be safe." Obviously something is
seriously wrong with the plane.

Yes the plane will continue to fly and you are in Day VFR, but a "none
event?" Would you just continue to fly on as though nothing had
happened? Would you take off in the same area with your electrical
system dead (and in a plane designed with an electrical system)?
I presume you wouldn't otherwise you should be working for MX
at my flying club. (I fly the only plane online that is NOT
maintained by my club.)

So do you think the complete electrical failure did NOT contribute to
this incident? How else would you explain busting the ADIZ? Would you
consider your busting the ADIZ as a "none event?"

Gerald

Wiz

December 29th 05, 05:56 PM

Actually, I believe the ADIZ procedure in case of communications
failure, as Michelle stated, is to exit the ADIZ by the shortest
possible route. I once was asked by Potomac to try to help communicate
with a guy who discovered after takeoff that he wasn't receiving. The
other pilot kep declaring his intention to return to the airport (he
was able to transmit) and the controller kept frantically trying to
tell him not to land but to exit the ADIZ.

Wiz

Roy Smith

December 29th 05, 06:24 PM

Jose > wrote:
>> 91.3 doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you want. It gives you
>> the authority to deviate from the rules *to the extent required* to deal
>> with the emergency.
>
>... and a communication failure in the ADIZ is a bona fide emergency
>even in circumstances which, outside the ADIZ, would be a non-event. It
>may well be better to turn around and land nearby than to point the nose
>outward and drone on for fifteen minutes in an unexpected direction.

It's hardly an unexpected direction, considering there's a NOTAM
instructing you to do exactly that:

!FDC 4/5555 ZDC SPECIAL NOTICE... EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UNTIL
FURTHER NOTICE. PURSUANT TO 14 CFR SECTION 99.7, SPECIAL SECURITY
INSTRUCTIONS, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES ARE IN EFFECT:
A. ANY PERSON OPERATING AN AIRCRAFT WITHIN THE WASHINGTON, DC
METROPOLITAN AREA AIR DEFENSE IDENTIFICATION ZONE (DC ADIZ),
IMMEDIATELY UPON BECOMING AWARE OF AN INABILITY TO COMPLY WITH THE
REQUIREMENT TO CONTINUOUSLY TRANSMIT THE ATC ASSIGNED TRANSPONDER
CODE, SHALL EXIT THE DC ADIZ BY FLYING THE MOST DIRECT COURSE TO
OUTSIDE THE LATERAL LIMITS OF THE DC ADIZ.

December 29th 05, 06:32 PM

Wiz wrote:
> Actually, I believe the ADIZ procedure in case of communications
> failure, as Michelle stated, is to exit the ADIZ by the shortest
> possible route. I once was asked by Potomac to try to help communicate
> with a guy who discovered after takeoff that he wasn't receiving. The
> other pilot kep declaring his intention to return to the airport (he
> was able to transmit) and the controller kept frantically trying to
> tell him not to land but to exit the ADIZ.

I don't live near 'thee' ADIZ but of course have heard a ton against
it. Now I fully understand the problems. If this pilot only
had a failed radio that shouldn't be a big deal. I've had that.
I'm sure we've all had that at one time or another. The complete
electrical failure is a much bigger problem where something on a
system-wide basis has failed. Now with this ADIZ, basically they
are saying, "we know you can dead stick your crippled plane into
the airport below you but don't. Just make sure when you crash,
your plane is pointed away from the ADIZ."

How far was this pilot from the departure airport? If he was
less than 5 miles, I'd say turn around. I can't
imagine flying 20 miles through an ADIZ with tons of air traffic
NORAD rather than flying 2 minutes. But rules are rules.

Sometimes I wish they had shot down that King Air with the governor
on board when their transponder failed. The loss of life would
be a shame but I really wonder what the hell all the government
agencies would have said. I can imagine George W saying, "Yes, the
pilots did everything like he should have but we did not have
his altitude encoder and therefore were justified in shooting
them down to protect this country. Democracy has worked."

Gerald

Jim Macklin

December 29th 05, 06:50 PM

Every King Air I've flown had two electrical busses and two
transponders. I guess the Kentucky governor's plane was not
as well equipped.

Years ago, the Congress was considering a bill to allow the
Air Force to shoot down any NORDO flying at night, without a
flight plan, in from the Caribbean as a means to "fight the
war on drugs." I helped stop that lunacy by advising
several congressmen that congressmen and senators often go
to the warm islands to fish and sun, maybe drink and other
things to, and would be flying back on a week-end, at night.
That if the plane they were in had an electrical failure it
would have no lights, no radio, no transponder and if it had
a flight plan, would not likely be on time or course. They
would look like a drug smuggler and there would be a need
for some special elections to replace some junketing
congress persons.

The problem with the FAA/TSA approach to security is that it
presumes that terrorists will follow the rules, get a
license, file a flight plan and may be radio ahead. It also
presumes that an airplane would be the "weapon" rather than
a truck, boat or remote control device. Who is guarding our
sewers, to keep the IED out of the cities?
Who is guarding the California aqueducts in the desert? Who
is guarding the borders, north and south?

But the airplanes are easy to see and the news reports make
it look as though they are doing something.

BTW, about wire tapping and warrants...if they find a
terrorist doing a wire tap or by other means, they can not
tell the terrorist that his home was searched or his
phones/was tapped because that will break the cell and the
other dozen or hundreds will get away. The Patriot Act
needs to have a provision that only terrorism is the target
and that if the government finds that you are cheating on
your taxes or even have child porn on your computer, they
cannot prosecute or even give the IRS or cops the hint.
Just my thought, if you like that, call your Congressman and
Senator because the bill will be back in a few weeks.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

"GS" > wrote in message
et...
| Wiz wrote:
| > Actually, I believe the ADIZ procedure in case of
communications
| > failure, as Michelle stated, is to exit the ADIZ by the
shortest
| > possible route. I once was asked by Potomac to try to
help communicate
| > with a guy who discovered after takeoff that he wasn't
receiving. The
| > other pilot kep declaring his intention to return to the
airport (he
| > was able to transmit) and the controller kept
frantically trying to
| > tell him not to land but to exit the ADIZ.
|
| I don't live near 'thee' ADIZ but of course have heard a
ton against
| it. Now I fully understand the problems. If this pilot
only
| had a failed radio that shouldn't be a big deal. I've had
that.
| I'm sure we've all had that at one time or another. The
complete
| electrical failure is a much bigger problem where
something on a
| system-wide basis has failed. Now with this ADIZ,
basically they
| are saying, "we know you can dead stick your crippled
plane into
| the airport below you but don't. Just make sure when you
crash,
| your plane is pointed away from the ADIZ."
|
| How far was this pilot from the departure airport? If he
was
| less than 5 miles, I'd say turn around. I can't
| imagine flying 20 miles through an ADIZ with tons of air
traffic
| NORAD rather than flying 2 minutes. But rules are rules.
|
| Sometimes I wish they had shot down that King Air with the
governor
| on board when their transponder failed. The loss of life
would
| be a shame but I really wonder what the hell all the
government
| agencies would have said. I can imagine George W saying,
"Yes, the
| pilots did everything like he should have but we did not
have
| his altitude encoder and therefore were justified in
shooting
| them down to protect this country. Democracy has worked."
|
| Gerald

Ron Lee

December 29th 05, 06:59 PM

(Roy Smith) wrote:
>
>It's hardly an unexpected direction, considering there's a NOTAM
>instructing you to do exactly that:
>
>!FDC 4/5555 ZDC SPECIAL NOTICE... EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UNTIL
>FURTHER NOTICE. PURSUANT TO 14 CFR SECTION 99.7, SPECIAL SECURITY
>INSTRUCTIONS, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES ARE IN EFFECT:
>A. ANY PERSON OPERATING AN AIRCRAFT WITHIN THE WASHINGTON, DC
>METROPOLITAN AREA AIR DEFENSE IDENTIFICATION ZONE (DC ADIZ),
>IMMEDIATELY UPON BECOMING AWARE OF AN INABILITY TO COMPLY WITH THE
>REQUIREMENT TO CONTINUOUSLY TRANSMIT THE ATC ASSIGNED TRANSPONDER
>CODE, SHALL EXIT THE DC ADIZ BY FLYING THE MOST DIRECT COURSE TO
>OUTSIDE THE LATERAL LIMITS OF THE DC ADIZ.

A handheld aviation GPS would work well to do that. A non-aviation
GPS unit with knowledge of the ADIZ limits would also work.

Ron Lee

Roy Smith

December 29th 05, 07:07 PM

GS > wrote:
>> What were the flight conditions? Day-VFR in a typical light plane,for
>> example, total electrical failure should be a complete non-event, and
>> certainly doesn't justify calling 91.3 into play.
>
>correct, I'd generally consider a complete electrical failure
>a major emergency as in 'get to the nearest airport ASAP and as long
>as myself and my passengers will be safe." Obviously something is
>seriously wrong with the plane.

Well, something is seriously wrong with the electrical system, that's
for sure. The vast majority of things which can bring a light plane's
electrical system down will have absolutely no effect on the plane's
ability to continue to fly safely until fuel is exhausted, as long as
you are in conditions which allow you to navigate visually.

>Yes the plane will continue to fly and you are in Day VFR, but a "none
>event?" Would you just continue to fly on as though nothing had
>happened?

No, I didn't say that. What I said (or at least meant by "non-event")
was that it's not an emergency. Emergencies require immediate action.
Abnormal situations like electrical failures in benign conditions
require assessing the situation calmly and taking the time to come up
with a plan which minimizes the risks. The number one rule about
dealing with problems in flight is don't rush to do something which
may make the situation worse.

There's an old joke about a veteran pilot getting a flight check. The
examiner fails one engine. The pilot immediately follows the "engine
out" drill and gets the plane stabilized, then pulls out his pocket
watch and starts winding it. The exminer says, "Well, you did a
really good job getting the plane under control, but shouldn't you be
doing something about getting us on the ground now, we've still got an
emergency to deal with!" The pilot calmly replies, "Well, sonny, I
already dealt with the emergency. Plenty of people have gotten killed
recovering from engine failures, but I've never heard of anybody
getting killed by winding a watch".

Busting the ADIZ is more than just a technical violation, it's an
action which involves real, physical, risks. You're going to end up
flying close formation with high performance aircraft with whom you
cannot communicate. How much training do you have performing that
maneuver? There are examples of such intercepts which have resulted
in mid-airs. There was one a few years back off the NJ coast which
resulted in the airliner's crew performing a panic dive in response to
multiple TCAS RA's, causing serious injury to people in the cabin.
What's the wake turbulence like from an F-16 in slow flight? Beats
me, but I'd rather not find out.

> Would you take off in the same area with your electrical
> system dead (and in a plane designed with an electrical system)?

Of course not. I never said anything like that.

December 29th 05, 07:55 PM

Roy Smith wrote:
> GS > wrote:
> No, I didn't say that. What I said (or at least meant by "non-event")
> was that it's not an emergency. Emergencies require immediate action.
> Abnormal situations like electrical failures in benign conditions
> require assessing the situation calmly and taking the time to come up
> with a plan which minimizes the risks.

ok, we're saying the same thing just implying and inferring the
wrong thing. :) BTW, on my Archer checklist an Electrical
failure is listed under "Emergency Checklists." I would say
that an electrical failure requires *immediate* action. That
action doesn't necessarily mean an emergency descent to landing
Ok, enough. We're thinking the same thing.

> Busting the ADIZ is more than just a technical violation, it's an
> action which involves real, physical, risks. You're going to end up
> flying close formation with high performance aircraft with whom you
> cannot communicate. How much training do you have performing that
> maneuver?

Not much. I wonder how much training they have intercepting an Archer
in slow flight with the stall horn going off at 52 knots, I wonder what
they would do. ;-)

>There are examples of such intercepts which have resulted
> in mid-airs. There was one a few years back off the NJ coast which
> resulted in the airliner's crew performing a panic dive in response to
> multiple TCAS RA's, causing serious injury to people in the cabin.

what year was this? Do you have a report? I'm just wondering
about this as I never heard of it. I heard of a a military jet flying
out of I think virigina getting vectored near a commercial jet causing
a near miss. I don't recall any injuries from that though.

> What's the wake turbulence like from an F-16 in slow flight? Beats
> me, but I'd rather not find out.

I bet a lot less than the jet blast. I doubt the F16 produces
that much lift from the wings. Just a guess though. Has
the same effect.

Cheers,

Gerald

Jose

December 29th 05, 08:02 PM

> It's hardly an unexpected direction, considering there's a NOTAM
> instructing you to do exactly that:

In an emergency, one can disregard NOTAMs. And if there are clouds,
you'd be dodging clouds as you try to make your exit. The flight would
look erratic and would attract the attention of big fast airplanes with
guns and missles.

I would consider a communications failure in the ADIZ to be a DIRE
EMERGENCY and would take what steps I thought prudent to stay alive. If
there's an airport below me, I'm probably not going to futz with trying
to thread my way among some cloud for twenty minutes to exit the ADIZ
just because of a NOTAM. It would not be prudent to assume that the
fighters that are scrambled won't pick me to make an example of that day.

Outside the ADIZ, a non-event. But the ADIZ can become a war zone in an
instant. It's a stupid construct, it has to go (along with the FRZ),
but until it does, aviators are depending on everything going right.

We've been lucky so far. But just lucky.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Flyingmonk

December 29th 05, 08:22 PM

I wonder if the boys with the guns knows that when you rock your wing
it means you have no radio...

Ron Lee

December 29th 05, 08:39 PM

"Flyingmonk" > wrote:

>I wonder if the boys with the guns knows that when you rock your wing
>it means you have no radio...

I wonder how many pilots know that. I did not.

Ron Lee
>

Larry Dighera

December 29th 05, 08:53 PM

On 29 Dec 2005 12:22:55 -0800, "Flyingmonk" >
wrote in om>::

>I wonder if the boys with the guns knows that when you rock your wing
>it means you have no radio...

Can you cite the regulation that supports that?

Dan Foster

December 29th 05, 09:11 PM

10 Steps To Deal With a ADIZ Violation (from a pilot's perspective):

1. Thou shalt whip out your cell phone and immediately start calling
major media outfits to get a sympathetic side of the story out ASAP,
even before you've landed (or been shot down). Hey, free advertising.

2. Thou shalt plead abject ignorance as to how you busted an ADIZ.

Be like that cool gentleman whom had a nice tour around the Statue of
Liberty, "forgot" to talk to ATC, "forgot" lost procedures, and then
claimed he honestly didn't know where he was despite the abundance of
unique and prominent ground reference points in VMC.

3. Thou shalt immediately execute an Immelmann to exit the ADIZ. After
all, you've got armed men in much faster fighter jets chasing you!

Put on your flyin' goggles and go inverted in your SuperCub.

4. Thou shalt have a more competent and cool-headed passenger
(preferrably at least a student pilot) to fly you out of there when
you hit mental vapor lock.

5. Thou shalt *NOT* have a current map. Real Men don't need no stinkin' maps!

6. If thou play paper-scissors-rock with the nice F-16 fighters behind
you, assume that you're the paper and will lose every single time.

7. Thou shalt *NOT* study AIM section 5-6-2 ("Intercept Procedures");
information like that is, too, for wimps!

8. Don't bother the ATC controllers. They're too busy dealing with big
jets in a busy airspace to listen to puddlejumpers like you.

9. Play a game of 'Sneak in Like The Mossad' and test the detection and
response systems to make sure it's "up to par". (Also see the entry
under 'reporters: favorite tactics'.) It helps not to file flight
plans and blunder into the ADIZ. Who needs AWACS, after all?

10. Do all of the above at least thrice, preferrably at least five times.
Hey, practice makes perfect, right? It also helps clean up the gene
pool, too.

(Note: all of the above written entirely in jest. Better summary: "What
*NOT* to do regarding an ADIZ bust.")

December 29th 05, 09:17 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On 29 Dec 2005 12:22:55 -0800, "Flyingmonk" >
> wrote in om>::
>>I wonder if the boys with the guns knows that when you rock your wing
>>it means you have no radio...
> Can you cite the regulation that supports that?

I doubt it is a regulation. In fact, I don't know what it is. AOPA
has it on their website.

http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2003/intercept.pdf

in very short:

intercepter: rocks wings to say you've been intercepted.
interceptee: rocks wings and follows that plane to a new heading

intercepter: performs an abrupt climbingin 90 degree or more turn
interceptee: rock wings to acknowledge that "you may proceed"

intercepter: circles an airport and gets into landing configuration and
overflies runway
interceptee: land

intercepted aircraft signals to the intercepeter

Interceptee: comes out of landing configuration while overflying a
runway means the airport is inadequate.

interceptee: turns on and off all available lights at *regular*
intervals means 'cannot comply' with the instruction

interceptee: turns on and off all available lights at *irregular*
intervalsmeans 'in distress'

Interceptee has no lights, no radios, no cell phone, no handheld,
no flashlight, should promptly spin the plane into the largest
house in the immediate area to avoid having the US government
shooting high velocity (radioactive) depleted uranium over
densely populated areas and then having to face the media.

Gerald

Flyingmonk

December 29th 05, 09:26 PM

I was taught to rock my wings coming in to a landing in a controlled
tower when/if my radio was out. :^) When I started flying helos, I
have often wondered how the ATC was gonna be able to see me rock the
rotors...

Flyingmonk

December 29th 05, 09:27 PM

I remember you posted this before, and it is funny now. :^)

Peter Clark

December 29th 05, 09:35 PM

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:24:58 +0000 (UTC), (Roy Smith)
wrote:

>Jose > wrote:
>>> 91.3 doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you want. It gives you
>>> the authority to deviate from the rules *to the extent required* to deal
>>> with the emergency.
>>
>>... and a communication failure in the ADIZ is a bona fide emergency
>>even in circumstances which, outside the ADIZ, would be a non-event. It
>>may well be better to turn around and land nearby than to point the nose
>>outward and drone on for fifteen minutes in an unexpected direction.
>
>It's hardly an unexpected direction, considering there's a NOTAM
>instructing you to do exactly that:
>
>!FDC 4/5555 ZDC SPECIAL NOTICE... EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UNTIL
>FURTHER NOTICE. PURSUANT TO 14 CFR SECTION 99.7, SPECIAL SECURITY
>INSTRUCTIONS, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES ARE IN EFFECT:
>A. ANY PERSON OPERATING AN AIRCRAFT WITHIN THE WASHINGTON, DC
>METROPOLITAN AREA AIR DEFENSE IDENTIFICATION ZONE (DC ADIZ),
>IMMEDIATELY UPON BECOMING AWARE OF AN INABILITY TO COMPLY WITH THE
>REQUIREMENT TO CONTINUOUSLY TRANSMIT THE ATC ASSIGNED TRANSPONDER
>CODE, SHALL EXIT THE DC ADIZ BY FLYING THE MOST DIRECT COURSE TO
>OUTSIDE THE LATERAL LIMITS OF THE DC ADIZ.

OK, this NOTAM handles the case of no transponder, but what about no 2
way comm's?

As long as he's still squawking the code, I would think turn around
and land at nearest suitable field (squawk 7600 for a minute or two
and then go back to assigned code?) should work to remain within the
limits of both requirements. Course, I wouldn't turn *toward* the
city or FRZ, but if there's an airfield right near me?

Dan Foster

December 29th 05, 09:50 PM

In article >, Peter Clark > wrote:

(Somebody else wrote this particular paragraph, not Peter.)

>>>> 91.3 doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you want. It gives you
>>>> the authority to deviate from the rules *to the extent required* to deal
>>>> with the emergency.

I've lost track of the attribution for the above comment, but should
note that there has been cases in the past where a pilot had to deviate
from ATC instructions in order to deal with an immediate emergency,
dealt with it safely, but then got dinged by the FAA when they didn't
accept his situation as having had qualified under that provision.

One may *always* exercise authority under this provision, but it may not
necessarily be consequence-free.

>>>... and a communication failure in the ADIZ is a bona fide emergency
>>>even in circumstances which, outside the ADIZ, would be a non-event. It
>>>may well be better to turn around and land nearby than to point the nose
>>>outward and drone on for fifteen minutes in an unexpected direction.
>>
>>It's hardly an unexpected direction, considering there's a NOTAM
>>instructing you to do exactly that:
>>
>>!FDC 4/5555 ZDC SPECIAL NOTICE... EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UNTIL
>>FURTHER NOTICE. PURSUANT TO 14 CFR SECTION 99.7, SPECIAL SECURITY
>>INSTRUCTIONS, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES ARE IN EFFECT:
>>A. ANY PERSON OPERATING AN AIRCRAFT WITHIN THE WASHINGTON, DC
>>METROPOLITAN AREA AIR DEFENSE IDENTIFICATION ZONE (DC ADIZ),
>>IMMEDIATELY UPON BECOMING AWARE OF AN INABILITY TO COMPLY WITH THE
>>REQUIREMENT TO CONTINUOUSLY TRANSMIT THE ATC ASSIGNED TRANSPONDER
>>CODE, SHALL EXIT THE DC ADIZ BY FLYING THE MOST DIRECT COURSE TO
>>OUTSIDE THE LATERAL LIMITS OF THE DC ADIZ.
>
> OK, this NOTAM handles the case of no transponder, but what about no 2
> way comm's?

That's a good point, though I would have to say that the general intent
is such that partial or complete loss in communications (including nav
related and voice communications) while in the ADIZ would most likely
and ordinarily result in an escort outside of the ADIZ to further
resolve.

(With laws and rules, the intent behind it is just as important as the
letter of the rule/law.)

One of the rationale behind this is that it is possible for a flight
crew to be overpowered when nearing a target and then go 'no comm'; how
does the ADIZ-watchers distinguish an accident from malicious intent?
Hence, err on side of caution by requiring an immediate exit.

Obviously, if one was on fire or had a situation that just *couldn't*
wait, then one does best one can to deal with it, and hope one isn't
shot down in the process.

If it was one of the simpler situations, then I'd just say to turn
'round and head out and deal with it elsewhere. No comm by itself is not
an emergency -- I say this as I exclusively fly NORDO. :-)

> As long as he's still squawking the code, I would think turn around
> and land at nearest suitable field (squawk 7600 for a minute or two
> and then go back to assigned code?) should work to remain within the
> limits of both requirements. Course, I wouldn't turn *toward* the
> city or FRZ, but if there's an airfield right near me?

I guess that'd depend on if one can land there faster than the escorts
can show up. :)

Otherwise, the escorts might have different ideas as to where to go
next.

-Dan

Gig 601XL Builder

December 29th 05, 09:55 PM

"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I was taught to rock my wings coming in to a landing in a controlled
> tower when/if my radio was out. :^) When I started flying helos, I
> have often wondered how the ATC was gonna be able to see me rock the
> rotors...
>

When I got my helicopter rating I asked my instructor that very question.
His answer was get where the tower can see you, hover and, if possible,
flash landing lights.

Larry Dighera

December 29th 05, 09:58 PM

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 21:17:46 GMT, GS >
wrote in >::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On 29 Dec 2005 12:22:55 -0800, "Flyingmonk" >
>> wrote in om>::
>>>I wonder if the boys with the guns knows that when you rock your wing
>>>it means you have no radio...
>> Can you cite the regulation that supports that?
>
>I doubt it is a regulation. In fact, I don't know what it is. AOPA
>has it on their website.
>
>http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2003/intercept.pdf

[snip intercept procedures]

Unfortunately, there is nothing at that link that supports Mr.
Chaisone's assertion. But then he lacks an airman certificate ...

George

December 29th 05, 10:07 PM

It's in the AIM 5-6-4 (Intercepting Signals)

George
If you request flight following, can you "slip the surly bonds of earth"?

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 21:17:46 GMT, GS > wrote:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On 29 Dec 2005 12:22:55 -0800, "Flyingmonk" >
>> wrote in om>::
>>>I wonder if the boys with the guns knows that when you rock your wing
>>>it means you have no radio...
>> Can you cite the regulation that supports that?
>
>I doubt it is a regulation. In fact, I don't know what it is. AOPA
>has it on their website.
>
>http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2003/intercept.pdf
>
>
>in very short:
>
>intercepter: rocks wings to say you've been intercepted.
>interceptee: rocks wings and follows that plane to a new heading

Jose

December 29th 05, 10:09 PM

> how does the ADIZ-watchers distinguish an accident from malicious intent?

Heading towards an airport and entering a standard pattern would weigh
heavily in my view.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Brien K. Meehan

December 29th 05, 10:43 PM

It's possible you didn't know that because it's NOT what it means.

Roy Smith

December 29th 05, 11:17 PM

GS > wrote:
>Roy Smith wrote:
>> GS > wrote:
>> No, I didn't say that. What I said (or at least meant by "non-event")
>> was that it's not an emergency. Emergencies require immediate action.
>> Abnormal situations like electrical failures in benign conditions
>> require assessing the situation calmly and taking the time to come up
>> with a plan which minimizes the risks.
>
>ok, we're saying the same thing just implying and inferring the
>wrong thing. :) BTW, on my Archer checklist an Electrical
>failure is listed under "Emergency Checklists." I would say
>that an electrical failure requires *immediate* action. That
>action doesn't necessarily mean an emergency descent to landing
>Ok, enough. We're thinking the same thing.
>
>> Busting the ADIZ is more than just a technical violation, it's an
>> action which involves real, physical, risks. You're going to end up
>> flying close formation with high performance aircraft with whom you
>> cannot communicate. How much training do you have performing that
>> maneuver?
>
>Not much. I wonder how much training they have intercepting an Archer
>in slow flight with the stall horn going off at 52 knots, I wonder what
>they would do. ;-)

My guess is they would interpret it as a deliberate attempt to avoid
being intercepted and be very unhappy about that. These are not
people to be playing games with. As long as can keep them convinced
that you're just an idiot who's lost, they'll watch and wait. But, if
somehow you manage to convince them that you really are a threat,
things might change. Remember that emotionally disturbed man just a
couple of weeks ago who got shot dead by air marshals?

I suspect the pair of F-16's would take up an overhead holding pattern
while the blackhask helicopters moved in for close escort and followed
you to wherever you land, at which point you would be met by large
numbers of armed people in uniform, and with absolutely no sense of
humor about stuff like this. Personally, I've never been forced to
lay face down on the runway while humorless men pointed automatic
weapons at my head. I've never had my certificate revoked either.
Both of those are experiences I think I'd rather avoid. But that's
just me.

>>There are examples of such intercepts which have resulted
>> in mid-airs. There was one a few years back off the NJ coast which
>> resulted in the airliner's crew performing a panic dive in response to
>> multiple TCAS RA's, causing serious injury to people in the cabin.
>
>what year was this? Do you have a report? I'm just wondering
>about this as I never heard of it. I heard of a a military jet flying
>out of I think virigina getting vectored near a commercial jet causing
>a near miss. I don't recall any injuries from that though.

I searched the NTSB data base, but can't find it. I do remember that
it was a botched airspace handoff between McGuire approch and either
New York Approch or New York Center. McGuire thought they still owned
the airspace for a training exercise, and New York thought it had been
handed back to them.

December 29th 05, 11:53 PM

Peter Clark wrote:
> As long as he's still squawking the code, I would think turn around
> and land at nearest suitable field (squawk 7600 for a minute or two
> and then go back to assigned code?) should work to remain within the
> limits of both requirements. Course, I wouldn't turn *toward* the
> city or FRZ, but if there's an airfield right near me?

If you squawk 7600, you should remain on the frequency and not change
back to the original code. Same for 7700 and 7500. I think the
changing back to the original code was the SOP from years ago.

Gerald

Morgans

December 30th 05, 03:04 AM

"Roy Smith" > wrote

> My guess is they would interpret it as a deliberate attempt to avoid
> being intercepted and be very unhappy about that. These are not
> people to be playing games with. As long as can keep them convinced
> that you're just an idiot who's lost, they'll watch and wait. But, if
> somehow you manage to convince them that you really are a threat,
> things might change.

They could do a 600MPH *close* flyby, 50 feet above your altitude, directly
in your flight path and perpendicular to the flight path, doing a hard pull
up, right when they got to you. Can anyone say wake turbulence?
--
Jim in NC

Lynne

December 30th 05, 05:41 AM

It should be a requirement to have a minimum of an ATP prior to ADIZ
penetration. When you think about it, you don't hear of ATP's busting
into the ADIZ, it's always the private pilots.

This would include folks such as Dudley. At this point I would like to
point out that Dudley does not even have an ATP. He has a COMMERCIAL
certificate, with multi-engine limited to center line thrust. Yes,
that's correct -- he can't even fly a "real" multi-engine airplane, and
was not good enough to get an ATP. And people here take his advice as a
gospel.

Lynne

Morgans

December 30th 05, 07:01 AM

"Lynne" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> It should be a requirement to have a minimum of an ATP prior to ADIZ
> penetration. When you think about it, you don't hear of ATP's busting
> into the ADIZ, it's always the private pilots.

Hmm, I wonder what type of rating the gov of Kentucky had, when he busted
the ADIZ, and caused an evacuation? More than PP, I would think. Possibly
an ATP.
>
> This would include folks such as Dudley. At this point I would like to
> point out that Dudley does not even have an ATP. He has a COMMERCIAL
> certificate, with multi-engine limited to center line thrust. Yes,
> that's correct -- he can't even fly a "real" multi-engine airplane, and
> was not good enough to get an ATP. And people here take his advice as a
> gospel.

Oh, not that again. Could it be that military planes and other HIGH
performance aerobatic planes don't need multi tickets? Yep.

Lynne, time to put up or shut up. Lay down your thousand bucks.

We know you will not, cause everyone here knows you are a lieing fraud,
constantly misrepresenting who and what you are and are not.

Try not to look foolish. Do that by keeping your mouth closed, and your
fingers away from the keyboard.
--
Jim in NC
>
> Lynne
>

Montblack

December 30th 05, 07:18 AM

("Jose" wrote)
[snip]
> Those are real guns and missles the fighters carry, and they have almost
> been used too often for my comfort.

A missle, fired by a fighter pilot patroling Washington DC's airspace,
slammed into the roof of a school for handicaped blind children today, after
missing its intended target. Film at 11.

Montblack ....breaking into song!

And Go-Cart Mozart was checkin' out the weather chart
to see if it was safe to go outside

And little Early-Pearly came by in her curly-wurly
and asked me if I needed a ride

Oh, some hazard from Harvard was skunked on beer,
playin' backyard bombardier

Yes, and Scotland Yard was trying hard,
they sent some dude with a calling card,
he said, "Do what you like, but don't do it here"

Well, I jumped up, turned around, spit in the air, fell on the ground
and asked him which was the way back home

He said, "Take a right at the light, keep goin' straight until night,
and then, boy, you're on your own"

- Bruce Springsteen 1973

Ron Natalie

December 30th 05, 01:42 PM

Martin Hotze wrote:
> (Roy Smith) wrote:
>
>> INSTRUCTIONS, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES ARE IN EFFECT:
>> A. ANY PERSON OPERATING AN AIRCRAFT WITHIN THE WASHINGTON, DC
>> METROPOLITAN AREA AIR DEFENSE IDENTIFICATION ZONE (DC ADIZ),
>> IMMEDIATELY UPON BECOMING AWARE OF AN INABILITY TO COMPLY WITH THE
>> REQUIREMENT TO CONTINUOUSLY TRANSMIT THE ATC ASSIGNED TRANSPONDER
>> CODE, SHALL EXIT THE DC ADIZ BY FLYING THE MOST DIRECT COURSE TO
>> OUTSIDE THE LATERAL LIMITS OF THE DC ADIZ.
>
> And - in case of engine failure - don't find the nearest suitable place to
> land your plane! Leave the ADIZ first.
>
> #m
Before there was an ADIZ, and everything was grounded in the DC area,
I departed on my special clearance out of Potomac the static system
plugged up on me. However, I figured it was better to get the hell
out than return to VKX. ATC confiremed I was in severe clear and
told me to stop altitude squawk (the fact that I was showing 300 feet
as my altitude was a bit confusing).

Morgans

December 30th 05, 02:23 PM

"Ron Natalie" > wrote

> ATC confiremed I was in severe clear and
> told me to stop altitude squawk (the fact that I was showing 300 feet
> as my altitude was a bit confusing).

Mowing the grass, eh?
--
Jim in NC

Roy Smith

December 30th 05, 02:35 PM

In article >,
"Montblack" > wrote:

>
> A missle, fired by a fighter pilot patroling Washington DC's airspace,
> slammed into the roof of a school for handicaped blind children today, after
> missing its intended target. Film at 11.

You say that like it's a joke, but it's not very far from a real incident:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26557-2004Nov4.html

JohnH

December 30th 05, 02:56 PM

>. Yes,
> that's correct -- he can't even fly a "real" multi-engine airplane,
> and was not good enough to get an ATP. And people here take his
> advice as a gospel.
>
> Lynne

And you wonder why he left you? ;)

Lynne

December 30th 05, 04:32 PM

My $1,000 has been in an attorney in Santa Clara, California's hands
for about four days now. Dudley Henriques- no email responses received
despite multiple email attempts. It's up to you guys, but it's time to
realize this guy is not who he claims he is.

Lynne

Dudley Henriques

December 30th 05, 05:45 PM

"Lynne" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> My $1,000 has been in an attorney in Santa Clara, California's hands
> for about four days now. Dudley Henriques- no email responses received
> despite multiple email attempts. It's up to you guys, but it's time to
> realize this guy is not who he claims he is.
>
> Lynne

For the group at large;

I assume its not necessary for me to say this to all of you, but the above
statement is as I'm sure you are already aware, a complete fabrication,
but a fabrication easily verified.
Might I suggest to "Lynne" that since an attorney in Santa Clara has been
retained by him/her for the purpose of setting up our little charity
donation, and since Lynne seems to be having some trouble reaching me at
dhenriques@earthlink,net that the name of that attorney be posted here on
the public forum or that the attorney be invited to post to me directly on
this forum for me to answer at that time.
Thank you
Dudley Henriques

Larry Dighera

December 30th 05, 07:49 PM

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 17:45:55 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote in
et>::

>that the name of that attorney be posted here

Hell, I'd settle for having "Lynne" post *his/her* full name here like
you do. :-)

Ron Natalie

December 30th 05, 11:01 PM

Morgans wrote:
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote
>
>> ATC confiremed I was in severe clear and
>> told me to stop altitude squawk (the fact that I was showing 300 feet
>> as my altitude was a bit confusing).
>
> Mowing the grass, eh?

Well, in some areas around here, that's digging a new metro tunnel :-)

Dudley Henriques

December 31st 05, 02:19 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 17:45:55 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote in
> et>::
>
>>that the name of that attorney be posted here
>
> Hell, I'd settle for having "Lynne" post *his/her* full name here like
> you do. :-)

Hell, I'd settle for just finding out how one individual can get such a huge
bug up their butt
:-))

Dudley

Terry

December 31st 05, 03:25 PM

Sad, but true.

Feel good stuff for the masses

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:27:10 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Wiz" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> [...]
>> Paradoxically, every time someone accidentally violates the ADIZ, it
>> reinforces the notion for some people that we really need the ADIZ...
>
>Only to people who have left their brain in neutral.
>
>To anyone that bothers to think about it, ADIZ violations simply prove how
>little the ADIZ has to do with actual security.
>

Roger

January 1st 06, 01:08 AM

Ohhhh,..LOrdy... another one.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger

January 1st 06, 01:17 AM

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:01:43 -0500, Ron Natalie >
wrote:

>Morgans wrote:
>> "Ron Natalie" > wrote
>>
>>> ATC confiremed I was in severe clear and
>>> told me to stop altitude squawk (the fact that I was showing 300 feet
>>> as my altitude was a bit confusing).
>>
>> Mowing the grass, eh?
>
>Well, in some areas around here, that's digging a new metro tunnel :-)

Well, I hear they are looking for ways to cut the cost over runs.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Jim M

January 1st 06, 06:45 AM

Lynne wrote:
> It should be a requirement to have a minimum of an ATP prior to ADIZ
> penetration. When you think about it, you don't hear of ATP's busting
> into the ADIZ, it's always the private pilots.
>

A "minimum"? You mean there's a higher rating?
YOU think about it: there have been thousands of ADIZ violations.
How many have you even heard about? How many were ATP's exercising PPL
privileges? You don't know, do you? Have you even read the ADIZ
notam? Doing so may enlighten you as to why not many airliners violate
it. Or maybe it won't, since you seem to form your opinions on so few
facts. An ATP just to fly a Cub within 30 miles of DCA. What an idiot.

Grumman-581

January 1st 06, 07:51 AM

"GS" wrote in message ...
> A complete electrical failure is an emergency in my
> book. If I had a complete electrical failure I'd
> land wherever the hell *I* felt like it as long as my
> butt was safe in the end.

Depends upon the weather conditions at the time... Day VFR over familiar
territory? Nawh, I wouldn't consider it an emergency... Night VFR over
Houston? Not a big deal, I've landed without a landing light quite a few
times... I guess it depends upon how familiar you are with your aircraft...

darthpup

January 1st 06, 10:56 PM

There is a requirement that in the event the aircraft you are flying
becomes non airworthy to land the aircraft as soon as possible at the
closest airport.

Bob Moore

January 2nd 06, 12:51 AM

"darthpup" >wrote

> There is a requirement that in the event the aircraft you are
> flying becomes non airworthy to land the aircraft as soon as
> possible at the closest airport.

That! My friend, is a bunch of BS.

Bob Moore
ATP CFI

Jose

January 2nd 06, 01:05 AM

> There is a requirement that in the event the aircraft you are flying
> becomes non airworthy to land the aircraft as soon as possible at the
> closest airport.

What rule is that? (I assume you are not referring to the laws of
physics). "As soon as practicable" is not the same as "as soon as
possible".

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

darthpup

January 2nd 06, 03:17 AM

Tell the judge that reply in a civil court after you crash into
someones home with failed- in- flight equipment and see what he says.

Dan Foster

January 2nd 06, 03:34 AM

In article . com>, darthpup > wrote:
> Tell the judge that reply in a civil court after you crash into
> someones home with failed- in- flight equipment and see what he says.

But, you know, judges are supposed to rule on basis of *law*...

(And hence, the basis for the term 'legal system'.)

If a judge rules out of emotion, it may get shot down in appeal court.

If a judge rule on basis of written law and historical interpretation,
it'll probably stand.

So the question still stands: which law or FAA-administered rule forms
the basis of the original claim?

-Dan

Roy Smith

January 2nd 06, 03:55 AM

darthpup > wrote:
> Tell the judge that reply in a civil court after you crash into
> someones home with failed- in- flight equipment and see what he says.

And how do you think this line of questioning will play out:

"Why did you attempt a landing at an unlit 2000 foot runway in the
dark when if you had just flown on for another hour, you would have
reached an airport with a 5000 foot runway and the sun would have been
up by then?"

Jim M

January 2nd 06, 06:48 AM

Grumman-581 wrote:
> Depends upon the weather conditions at the time... Day VFR over familiar
> territory? Nawh, I wouldn't consider it an emergency... Night VFR over
> Houston? Not a big deal, I've landed without a landing light quite a few
> times... I guess it depends upon how familiar you are with your aircraft...

What about if you're attempting to navigate through really complicated
airspace? I ask because to the south of these areas (where the
pilot in the OP was attempting to fly) are several military airfields
and loads of special use & restricted airspace. Above is the floor of
DCA's class B. Just wandering south or following the river will get
you out of the ADIZ, but you will still fly into a world of problems.
Flying the plane--which is supposed to be the first priority -- can
quickly take a back seat to just getting on the ground where you can
simply be cuffed rather than be shot down.

It's not just a theoretical discussion for me. I regularly fly in both
the FRZ and ADIZ, and could some day need to make this call. I think
I know the area well enough to be Ok if it's daylight severe clear.
3-5 mi viz would be iffy. Night? Forget it.