Re: Another ADIZ violation?

[Dan Foster]

While on the topic of ADIZ violations, just noticed from AOPA's web site
that the infamous ADIZ bust last year led to an interview with the two
pilots involved once dust had settled down.

Must've been hard for them to do that interview, especially with such a
highly watched organization like AOPA, in the aviation community. Kudos
to them for having agreed to reflect upon it publically in the interview.

AOPA apparently hopes to be more proactive about identifying things that
we all can learn from and improve, in order to not give GA an
unnecessary black eye in the popular press by (hopefully) avoiding
future ADIZ busts. Concern was that ADIZ busts could potentially lead to
an outcry by the less informed to set up permanent ADIZs around major
cities in the future.

AOPA members can read the article (Jan '06 publication) online at:

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2006/flight0601.html

Bottom line: situational awareness, being on proper freequencies,
communicate with ATC early on if needed (aka 'confessing') to get help,
having backup equipment for nav, amongst other things were suggested.

-Dan

[Jon Woellhaf]

I fail to see the connection between an inadvertent DC ADIZ violation by a
Cessna 150 and the need to make the ADIZ permanent. If the presence of the
ADIZ had enabled the detection, interception, and downing of one or more
hijacked airliners, then I might see its usefulness. If many GA pilots
violate the ADIZ, and it doesn't prevent any terrorist attacks, then doesn't
that indicate the ADIZ should be eliminated?

[George Patterson]

Jon Woellhaf wrote:

> If many GA pilots
> violate the ADIZ, and it doesn't prevent any terrorist attacks, then doesn't
> that indicate the ADIZ should be eliminated?

Yes.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Flyingmonk]

George Patterson wrote:
>Jon Woellhaf wrote:
>> If many GA pilots
>> violate the ADIZ, and it doesn't prevent any terrorist attacks, then doesn't
>> that indicate the ADIZ should be eliminated?

>Yes.

Double yes.

The Monk

[.Blueskies.]

"Jon Woellhaf" > wrote in message . ..
>I fail to see the connection between an inadvertent DC ADIZ violation by a Cessna 150 and the need to make the ADIZ
>permanent. If the presence of the ADIZ had enabled the detection, interception, and downing of one or more hijacked
>airliners, then I might see its usefulness. If many GA pilots violate the ADIZ, and it doesn't prevent any terrorist
>attacks, then doesn't that indicate the ADIZ should be eliminated?
>

Yes
--
Dan DeVillers
http://www.ameritech.net/users/ddevillers/start.html


..

[Michael Ware]

It's like gun control for airplanes.

".Blueskies." > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Jon Woellhaf" > wrote in message
. ..
> >I fail to see the connection between an inadvertent DC ADIZ violation by
a Cessna 150 and the need to make the ADIZ
> >permanent. If the presence of the ADIZ had enabled the detection,
interception, and downing of one or more hijacked
> >airliners, then I might see its usefulness. If many GA pilots violate the
ADIZ, and it doesn't prevent any terrorist
> >attacks, then doesn't that indicate the ADIZ should be eliminated?
> >
>
> Yes
> --
> Dan DeVillers
> http://www.ameritech.net/users/ddevillers/start.html
>
>
> .
>
>