The FAA continues it's war on General Aviation

[FlipSide]

This is completely unecessary and idiotic.
If the FAA had their way they would disallow any VFR flying in the US
period.

So what would additional ADIZ training entail? How do you implement it
and how do you verify that pilots have had the training. How is it
documented? Do you have a special code on your certificate or is it
just a log book entry? Will they create a new FAA ADIZ police force?

Can you say "Chicken Little"?

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060706adiz.html

[Gig 601XL Builder]

<FlipSide> wrote in message
...
> This is completely unecessary and idiotic.
> If the FAA had their way they would disallow any VFR flying in the US
> period.
>
> So what would additional ADIZ training entail? How do you implement it
> and how do you verify that pilots have had the training. How is it
> documented? Do you have a special code on your certificate or is it
> just a log book entry? Will they create a new FAA ADIZ police force?
>
> Can you say "Chicken Little"?
>
> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060706adiz.html

While I don't think the training is an especially good idea it would be
documented the same way all other special training is. A log book entry.

[Skylune[_1_]]

by FlipSide Jul 7, 2006 at 07:57 AM



If the FAA had their way they would disallow any VFR flying in the US
period

<<

Bull****. Total bull****. They are the ones who pushed the stupid LSA
rules, to EXPAND VFR GA. The Destroyer always brags about how AOPA can
influence the FAA (this is certainly true).
Here is an example of how cozy AOPA and FAA are:

http://www.faa.gov/region/ane/expo/keynote/

Outrageous for a taxpayer funded organization to be so clearly in the
pocket of a special interest group.

And, as you all know by now, the FAA provides tax subsidies to GA airports
all across the country to keep the cost of flying artificially low. That
is why it costs more to fly GA in every other country: they don't
subsidize GA like in the USA.

[Denny]

How many of us have written ( a real letter with a stamp) to our
senator and congress critter outlining the reasons that the Washington
ADIZ is insane bureaucratic excess and asking that they introduce
legislation abolishing the ADIZ for aircraft under 12,500 pounds?

For starters mention that the payload of the average Lycoming four
banger will not provide enough explosives to do real damage..
That no small GA aircraft has been implicated in an act of muslim
terrorism, whilst RYDER trucks continue to be freely available to
anyone with a drivers license, a suicide bomber in a hijacked semi can
haul 80,000 pounds of explosives right up to congressional offices,
and airliners fly over Washington passing within five seconds of the
capital buildings many times an hour...
Point out that the bureaucratically imposed restrictions upon the use
of thousands of square miles of public airspace has not been subject to
legislative review and a vote... I would expect any rules to limit the
constitutional right of the citizenry to travel through Washington DC,
would require a vote of both houses of congress... I would expect a
regulation depriving the citizenry of the use of 7,850 square miles of
public airspace to require a Constitutional Amendment...
Point out that the rules that put US citizens face down on the tarmac
with a gun in their back for crossing an invisible line in the sky
needs to be equated to doing the same thing to car drivers who might
take a 'forbidden but unmarked' ramp onto the freeway... What if
drivers had to take special training to drive within 100 miles of DC?

Those who are not a vocal part of the solution, are a part of the
problem...

denny

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 07:57:41 -0400, FlipSide wrote in
>::

>So what would additional ADIZ training entail? How do you implement it
>and how do you verify that pilots have had the training. How is it
>documented? Do you have a special code on your certificate or is it
>just a log book entry? Will they create a new FAA ADIZ police force?
>
>http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060706adiz.html

Here's a distillation of facts from the above link:

The FAA is proposing to require mandatory training for any VFR
pilot flying within 100 nautical miles of the DCA Vortac. That
effectively expands the ADIZ to engulf 117 airports.
http://www.aopa.org/images/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060706adiz.jpg

"And the FAA is not planning on marking the 'training ring' on any
charts. It's a 'gotcha' waiting to happen."

There's another 'gotcha' for IFR pilots. Pilots flying near the
ADIZ on an IFR flight plan wouldn't be required to have the ADIZ
training. But consider someone flying IFR from Wilmington,
Delaware (ILG), to Lancaster, Pennsylvania (LNS). The weather is
good, so the pilot cancels IFR 10 nm out to expedite his arrival.

Gotcha! You're now VFR and must have the ADIZ training, even
though you're 43 nm outside the ADIZ.

if a pilot exiting the ADIZ "squawks VFR" just before crossing the
ADIZ boundary, it's counted as an incursion under the Department
of Homeland Security's "zero tolerance" policy.

Being completely untenable, this has got to be a verbatim proposal of
DHS; FAA can't possibly be so shortsighted (can they?).

To require VFR pilots within 100 miles of the DCA Vortac to have
received special training will unquestionably cause more pilots to
face certificate actions, and little else. It does nothing to prevent
DC ADIZ incursions; it only provides a five times larger area in which
to trap VFR pilots.

Presumably those pilots who have received the proposed ADIZ training,
but manage to violate the 100 nm "training ring" will fair better
during their certificate action than those who haven't received the
training. That's absurd! This is all about protecting the White
House, but a 31,400 square mile area is clearly overkill. And
requiring training for pilots of VFR flights does nothing to prevent
unauthorized ADIZ penetration, and everything to provide our nation's
military pilots additional home-front duty with the authority to
intercept many times more innocent citizens, and place them in mortal
danger of being shot down by the very military they fund!

If I recall correctly, the FAA recently received the largest response
ever (>17,000) to its DC ADIZ NPRM, and this is the FAA's response,
completely counter to the input it requested. If that's how they want
to play it, we can organize a force of 100 VFR pilots who will enter
the newly proposed ring daily just enough to trigger the interceptors.
That should have them scrambling like a Chinese fire drill. :-)

When laws are absurd, they are not obeyed (remember the 55 MPH speed
limit?), they only create more "criminals" to fill our overflowing
jails. What the hell is that son of a Bush trying to do, incite a
national rebellion, in the name of homeland security?

[Newps]

FlipSide wrote:
> This is completely unecessary and idiotic.
> If the FAA had their way they would disallow any VFR flying in the US
> period.

You're an idiot. The FAA has never said they want to stop VFR. They
won't say that either because they know better than most that the system
cannot handle all the aircraft that are airborne at any given time.

[Terry[_1_]]

I am wondering what good a logbook entry would be in stopping
inadvertent incursions into this pointless ADIZ.

Several violations were made by F-16's and other military aircraft!

I have yet to see GA cause any terrorist acts, and if one wanted to
insure that GA never did, then all of us should be grounded.

The fact is, this ADIZ is "feel good" crap for the GP (general public)
since most of them are terrified of small planes and can easily imagine
a Cessna 150 or Tomahawk toting a nuclear bomb from Kansas to the Capitol.

Here is an interesting AOPA link wherein the TSA or other authority
admits that over 60% of the ADIZ violations were never identified.

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/051102aopa-comments.pdf

Terry

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> <FlipSide> wrote in message
> ...
>> This is completely unecessary and idiotic.
>> If the FAA had their way they would disallow any VFR flying in the US
>> period.
>>
>> So what would additional ADIZ training entail? How do you implement it
>> and how do you verify that pilots have had the training. How is it
>> documented? Do you have a special code on your certificate or is it
>> just a log book entry? Will they create a new FAA ADIZ police force?
>>
>> Can you say "Chicken Little"?
>>
>> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060706adiz.html
>
> While I don't think the training is an especially good idea it would be
> documented the same way all other special training is. A log book entry.
>
>

[Terry[_1_]]

That's a little harsh, don't you think?

Newps wrote:
>
>
> FlipSide wrote:
>> This is completely unecessary and idiotic.
>> If the FAA had their way they would disallow any VFR flying in the US
>> period.
>
> You're an idiot. The FAA has never said they want to stop VFR. They
> won't say that either because they know better than most that the system
> cannot handle all the aircraft that are airborne at any given time.
>


--
"The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due to the
absence from Jerusalem of a Lunatic Asylum."

- Havelock Ellis

[john smith]

In article
utaviation.com>,
"Skylune" > wrote:

> Outrageous for a taxpayer funded organization to be so clearly in the
> pocket of a special interest group.

Ohhh!!... now you are talking about the airline lobby.

[Tom Conner]

<FlipSide> wrote in message
...
> This is completely unecessary and idiotic.
> If the FAA had their way they would disallow any VFR
> flying in the US period.
>
> So what would additional ADIZ training entail? How do
> you implement it and how do you verify that pilots have
> had the training. How is it documented? Do you have a
> special code on your certificate or is it just a log book
> entry? Will they create a new FAA ADIZ police force?
>
> Can you say "Chicken Little"?
>
> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060706adiz.html

We haven't seen anything yet. Wait until the Very Light Jets have been on
the market for a few years. These things are going to be Al Queda's best
friend. And Phil Boyer is going to keep on singing his swan song that GA
has no potential for terrorism.

[FlipSide]

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 07:33:55 -0700, Terry > wrote:

>That's a little harsh, don't you think?
>
>Newps wrote:
>>
>>
>> FlipSide wrote:
>>> This is completely unecessary and idiotic.
>>> If the FAA had their way they would disallow any VFR flying in the US
>>> period.
>>
>> You're an idiot. The FAA has never said they want to stop VFR. They
>> won't say that either because they know better than most that the system
>> cannot handle all the aircraft that are airborne at any given time.
>>

Apparently the sarcasm is not readliy evident....something I should
have empasized with a little emoticon or something.

I was thinking that it was a little harsh too. I can't say that I have
ever encountered a stranger in the real world that would be so abrupt
in response to a sarcastic comment. I would only expect that kind of
response from a good friend. But maybe if I lived in a different part
of the country or another country altogether a response like that
would have been a more common occurrence.

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

I think there are two opposing forces within the FAA.
There are many people within the FAA who are general aviation pilots
and really work to improve GA. I suspect these are the people who
pushed the sport pilot through, as well as many other services we
enjoy. However, I am sure there are other bureaucrats in the FAA and
TSA who have no clue about GA. These are the forces we need to fight
against. Unless you have friends in high places in Washington, the only
way to do that is to contact your local representative. With elections
coming soon, this is a great time to get poloticians to listen.



FlipSide wrote:
> This is completely unecessary and idiotic.
> If the FAA had their way they would disallow any VFR flying in the US
> period.
>
> So what would additional ADIZ training entail? How do you implement it
> and how do you verify that pilots have had the training. How is it
> documented? Do you have a special code on your certificate or is it
> just a log book entry? Will they create a new FAA ADIZ police force?
>
> Can you say "Chicken Little"?
>
> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060706adiz.html

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Terry" > wrote in message
...
>I am wondering what good a logbook entry would be in stopping inadvertent
>incursions into this pointless ADIZ.

I'm not saying the ADIZ is either needed or good. What I'm saying is that if
there is an ongoing problem with pilots not understanding a certain aviation
hazard or regulation that requiring training that should reduce that
misunderstanding might not be a bad idea.

The original poster asked how would we show that we had the training. I
answered a log book entry. SFAR 73-1 as an example.

[Newps]

Nope.



Terry wrote:

> That's a little harsh, don't you think?
>
> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> FlipSide wrote:
>>
>>> This is completely unecessary and idiotic.
>>> If the FAA had their way they would disallow any VFR flying in the US
>>> period.
>>
>>
>> You're an idiot. The FAA has never said they want to stop VFR. They
>> won't say that either because they know better than most that the
>> system cannot handle all the aircraft that are airborne at any given
>> time.
>>
>
>

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:

> "Terry" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I am wondering what good a logbook entry would be in stopping inadvertent
> >incursions into this pointless ADIZ.
>
> I'm not saying the ADIZ is either needed or good. What I'm saying is that if
> there is an ongoing problem with pilots not understanding a certain aviation
> hazard or regulation that requiring training that should reduce that
> misunderstanding might not be a bad idea.
>
> The original poster asked how would we show that we had the training. I
> answered a log book entry. SFAR 73-1 as an example.


How about the converse? If there is a problem understanding an airspace
design, perhaps the whole thing should be redesigned into something easy
to use and logical, if it is first determined to be necessary to have it
in the first place.

IMHO, the ADIZ fails in all of the above areas.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>
>> "Terry" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >I am wondering what good a logbook entry would be in stopping
>> >inadvertent
>> >incursions into this pointless ADIZ.
>>
>> I'm not saying the ADIZ is either needed or good. What I'm saying is that
>> if
>> there is an ongoing problem with pilots not understanding a certain
>> aviation
>> hazard or regulation that requiring training that should reduce that
>> misunderstanding might not be a bad idea.
>>
>> The original poster asked how would we show that we had the training. I
>> answered a log book entry. SFAR 73-1 as an example.
>
>
> How about the converse? If there is a problem understanding an airspace
> design, perhaps the whole thing should be redesigned into something easy
> to use and logical, if it is first determined to be necessary to have it
> in the first place.
>
> IMHO, the ADIZ fails in all of the above areas.

The folks that get to make that determination have determined that the DC
ADIZ is needed and they have the regulatory power to enforce that
determination. If you don't like it lobby your congressmen and get a law
passed.

Until that happens the DC ADIZ is there and if you are going to fly near it
you better damn sure understand it. There seem to be a lot of people who
don't understand it and one of these days one of them is going to get their
ass shot down. So if the DC ADIZ is there it might not be a bad idea to put
in some type of training program for pilots so that doesn't happen.



But for

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 14:17:26 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in
>::

>The folks that get to make that determination have determined that the DC
>ADIZ is needed and they have the regulatory power to enforce that
>determination.

Just because DHS has the authority to demand the creation of the DC
ADIZ doesn't make them competent to make those kind of decisions. In
fact, DHS has repeatedly demonstrated its incompetence and fiscal
irresponsibility, yet they seem to escape public outrage unscathed,
and continue to perpetrate their stupid tyranny unchecked. :-(.

[Jose[_1_]]

> No, I'm afraid the morons that continually blundered into the
> Washington ADIZ have brought this down on us all. 'Tis a shame, since
> this was entirely, 100% predictable -- and preventable.

.... by not having the ADIZ and FRZ in the first place.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ron Natalie]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> "Terry" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I am wondering what good a logbook entry would be in stopping inadvertent
>> incursions into this pointless ADIZ.
>
> I'm not saying the ADIZ is either needed or good. What I'm saying is that if
> there is an ongoing problem with pilots not understanding a certain aviation
> hazard or regulation that requiring training that should reduce that
> misunderstanding might not be a bad idea.
>
>
What is stupid is it's not the pilots who live NEAR the ADIZ/FRZ that
are the problem. The same clowns who fly in ignorant of the ADIZ or
its procedures are the same ones who WON'T get the new training or
endorsement either.

All it means is that the FAA will have something to hang pilots on
who never intended to go anywhere near the DC ADIZ but did pass over
the eastern shore or more of the airspace grabbed by the 100 mile
radius.

If the ADIZ is permanent, what they should require is ALL PILOTS learn
the procedures prior to getting a rating, or at their next Flight Review.

[Emily[_1_]]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
<snip>
>
> If the ADIZ is permanent, what they should require is ALL PILOTS learn
> the procedures prior to getting a rating, or at their next Flight Review.

How about just getting rid of it?

[Dave Stadt]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Terry" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I am wondering what good a logbook entry would be in stopping inadvertent
>>incursions into this pointless ADIZ.
>
> I'm not saying the ADIZ is either needed or good. What I'm saying is that
> if there is an ongoing problem with pilots not understanding a certain
> aviation hazard or regulation that requiring training that should reduce
> that misunderstanding might not be a bad idea.
>
> The original poster asked how would we show that we had the training. I
> answered a log book entry. SFAR 73-1 as an example.


So Cessna XYZ flies into the area. How do the authorities know the pilot
has the training. Hold your log book up to the window so they can see it?
Dumb, dumb, dumb idea but typical of bureaucrats.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Emily > wrote:

> > If the ADIZ is permanent, what they should require is ALL PILOTS learn
> > the procedures prior to getting a rating, or at their next Flight Review.
>
> How about just getting rid of it?

don't be rationale. :-/

Getting rid of it would require the powers-that-be to admit they had
their collective heads up somewhere where the sun don't shine. :-(

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 17:27:23 -0500, Emily >
wrote in >::

>
>How about just getting rid of it?


Now, there's a novel idea. :-)

[Judah]

Bob Noel > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Emily > wrote:
>
>> > If the ADIZ is permanent, what they should require is ALL PILOTS
>> > learn the procedures prior to getting a rating, or at their next
>> > Flight Review.
>>
>> How about just getting rid of it?
>
> don't be rationale. :-/
>
> Getting rid of it would require the powers-that-be to admit they had
> their collective heads up somewhere where the sun don't shine. :-(
>

Not necessarily. "Powers" could very easily come up with a "study" saying
that the ADIZ has served its purpose in providing the necessary time to
get the training and systems in place to protect the Capitol region. Now
that they have had time to get it together, ongoing military support and
Whitehouse based missile silos (or whatever) will be adequate to keep the
Capitol safe with standard Class B airspace rules and procedures, and the
ADIZ is "no longer required." Faces would remain clear of eggs, and
everyone would be happy. We'd get our airspace back, the government would
be able to save some $$ on wasted FSS and controller costs (and maybe
some occassional F-16 fuel), and the public would feel good that they are
still safe.

The problem is that most "Powers" are not interested in effecting change
unless they would personally benefit from it, and the ones who are less
conservative are not interested in trimming the fat. Plus, I suspect the
most noticable ongoing cost is the FSS costs, which now are Lockheed's
problem, not the FAA's... So the benefit is even less because no one at
FAAland is going to want to renegotiate with Lockheed to get that $$$
back. So basically, they won't even be saving tax $$$ with the move.

So what's in it for the Powers-that-be?

Maybe I'm a cynic, but that's how I see it.

[Judah]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

<snip>
> When laws are absurd, they are not obeyed (remember the 55 MPH speed
> limit?), they only create more "criminals" to fill our overflowing
> jails. What the hell is that son of a Bush trying to do, incite a
> national rebellion, in the name of homeland security?

There are those that believe that speed zones and speed limits in general
were created for no other reason than to create enforcement actions and
produce revenue (in the form of speeding tickets)...

It's very possible that someone at the FAA has the same idea...

Guilt is not absolved by Ignorance...

[Emily[_1_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
<snip>

>What the hell is that son of a Bush trying to do, incite a
> national rebellion, in the name of homeland security?

He won't start a rebellion, because most Americans are perfectly fine
with all these new laws. Makes them feel "safe". Makes me want to find
a country where people have higher IQ's.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 03:22:27 GMT, Judah > wrote in
>::

>There are those that believe that speed zones and speed limits in general
>were created for no other reason than to create enforcement actions and
>produce revenue (in the form of speeding tickets)...

I always thought the 55 mph speed limit was a result of insurance
company lobbying. After all, the energy of a collision impact is
reduced by the *square* of the relative velocity of the automobiles
involved.

[Dave Stadt]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 03:22:27 GMT, Judah > wrote in
>> >::
>>
>> >There are those that believe that speed zones and speed limits in
>> >general
>> >were created for no other reason than to create enforcement actions and
>> >produce revenue (in the form of speeding tickets)...
>>
>> I always thought the 55 mph speed limit was a result of insurance
>> company lobbying. After all, the energy of a collision impact is
>> reduced by the *square* of the relative velocity of the automobiles
>> involved.
>
> Also -- and this is important -- Any "moving violation" (exceeding the
> speed limit) gives the insurance companies an excuse to raise your rates
> through the roof, because you are a "bad driver".

Actually what a moving violation does is allow you to pay extra to take a 4
hour hokey safe driving course which keeps the violation off your record and
provides additional income for the municipality. The 55mph limit was
enacted due to the fake energy crisis, insurance had nothing to do with it.

[Emily[_1_]]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 03:22:27 GMT, Judah > wrote in
>> >::
>>
>>> There are those that believe that speed zones and speed limits in general
>>> were created for no other reason than to create enforcement actions and
>>> produce revenue (in the form of speeding tickets)...
>> I always thought the 55 mph speed limit was a result of insurance
>> company lobbying. After all, the energy of a collision impact is
>> reduced by the *square* of the relative velocity of the automobiles
>> involved.
>
> Also -- and this is important -- Any "moving violation" (exceeding the
> speed limit) gives the insurance companies an excuse to raise your rates
> through the roof, because you are a "bad driver".

What insurance company do you use? Mine have never even asked.

[Dave Stadt]

"Emily" > wrote in message
...
> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 03:22:27 GMT, Judah > wrote in
>>> >::
>>>
>>>> There are those that believe that speed zones and speed limits in
>>>> general were created for no other reason than to create enforcement
>>>> actions and produce revenue (in the form of speeding tickets)...
>>> I always thought the 55 mph speed limit was a result of insurance
>>> company lobbying. After all, the energy of a collision impact is
>>> reduced by the *square* of the relative velocity of the automobiles
>>> involved.
>>
>> Also -- and this is important -- Any "moving violation" (exceeding the
>> speed limit) gives the insurance companies an excuse to raise your rates
>> through the roof, because you are a "bad driver".
>
> What insurance company do you use? Mine have never even asked.

They don't have to ask, it is public information available from your state
DMV.

[Emily[_1_]]

Dave Stadt wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 03:22:27 GMT, Judah > wrote in
>>>> >::
>>>>
>>>>> There are those that believe that speed zones and speed limits in
>>>>> general were created for no other reason than to create enforcement
>>>>> actions and produce revenue (in the form of speeding tickets)...
>>>> I always thought the 55 mph speed limit was a result of insurance
>>>> company lobbying. After all, the energy of a collision impact is
>>>> reduced by the *square* of the relative velocity of the automobiles
>>>> involved.
>>> Also -- and this is important -- Any "moving violation" (exceeding the
>>> speed limit) gives the insurance companies an excuse to raise your rates
>>> through the roof, because you are a "bad driver".
>> What insurance company do you use? Mine have never even asked.
>
> They don't have to ask, it is public information available from your state
> DMV.
>
>
They've never raised my rates, either.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 13:40:17 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote in >::

>The 55mph limit was
>enacted due to the fake energy crisis, insurance had nothing to do with it.

Of course, you are able to provide PROOF of the validity of such an
absolute (comma spliced) statement. :-)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >The 55mph limit was
> >enacted due to the fake energy crisis, insurance had nothing to do with it.
>
> Of course, you are able to provide PROOF of the validity of such an
> absolute (comma spliced) statement. :-)

Where were you when the national 55 mph limit was enacted? Almost
all of the discussion was about fuel economy.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 12:38:46 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>::

>Almost all of the discussion was about fuel economy.

Follow the money.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >Almost all of the discussion was about fuel economy.
>
> Follow the money.

do you dispute that almost all of the discussion was about fuel economy?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 14:56:41 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>::

>
>do you dispute that almost all of the discussion was about fuel economy?

Call me a cynic, but the discussion to which you refer smells to me
like a typical congressional boondoggle.

[Judah]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 03:22:27 GMT, Judah > wrote in
> >::
>
>>There are those that believe that speed zones and speed limits in general
>>were created for no other reason than to create enforcement actions and
>>produce revenue (in the form of speeding tickets)...
>
> I always thought the 55 mph speed limit was a result of insurance
> company lobbying. After all, the energy of a collision impact is
> reduced by the *square* of the relative velocity of the automobiles
> involved.

Actually, IIRC the 55 MPH speed limit was "invented" during the Carter Gas
Crisis to save fuel. Before then, 65MPH speed limits were common. I recall a
study that was done that said that most US drivers are willing to drive 10MPH
higher than the posted speed limit on a highway, whatever the posted speed
limit is - when a highway was 55MPH, the average speed was 65MPH. When the
same highway was raised back to 65MPH, the average speed went up to 75MPH...

[Judah]

Orval Fairbairn > wrote in
:

> Also -- and this is important -- Any "moving violation" (exceeding the
> speed limit) gives the insurance companies an excuse to raise your rates
> through the roof, because you are a "bad driver".

I'm an Excellent Driver. Sometimes daddy let me drive in the driveway. Wopner
at 5.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Judah > wrote:

> Larry Dighera > wrote in
> :
>
> > On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 03:22:27 GMT, Judah > wrote in
> > >::
> >
> >>There are those that believe that speed zones and speed limits in general
> >>were created for no other reason than to create enforcement actions and
> >>produce revenue (in the form of speeding tickets)...
> >
> > I always thought the 55 mph speed limit was a result of insurance
> > company lobbying. After all, the energy of a collision impact is
> > reduced by the *square* of the relative velocity of the automobiles
> > involved.
>
> Actually, IIRC the 55 MPH speed limit was "invented" during the Carter Gas
> Crisis to save fuel. Before then, 65MPH speed limits were common. I recall a
> study that was done that said that most US drivers are willing to drive 10MPH
> higher than the posted speed limit on a highway, whatever the posted speed
> limit is - when a highway was 55MPH, the average speed was 65MPH. When the
> same highway was raised back to 65MPH, the average speed went up to 75MPH...

We can blame a lot on Jimmy Carter, but the "double nickel" came to us
under Nixon -- not Carter. Of course, the Dems, with their trial lawyer
buddies, fought tooth and nail to retain it once Newt Gingrich and Co.
got control of the House.

[Dave Stadt]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 13:40:17 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
> wrote in >::
>
>>The 55mph limit was
>>enacted due to the fake energy crisis, insurance had nothing to do with
>>it.
>
> Of course, you are able to provide PROOF of the validity of such an
> absolute (comma spliced) statement. :-)

Certainly, go look up newspaper articles and other reports of the day. If
you find insurance mentioned even once as a cause of the reduced speed limit
report back. I was there and heard and read the reports of the time.
That's all the proof I need.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 04:03:51 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote in >::

>
>Certainly, go look up newspaper articles and other reports of the day. If
>you find insurance mentioned even once as a cause of the reduced speed limit
>report back. I was there and heard and read the reports of the time.
>That's all the proof I need.

You probably believe Iraq has WMD too. :-(

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
y.com...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Terry" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>I am wondering what good a logbook entry would be in stopping inadvertent
>>>incursions into this pointless ADIZ.
>>
>> I'm not saying the ADIZ is either needed or good. What I'm saying is that
>> if there is an ongoing problem with pilots not understanding a certain
>> aviation hazard or regulation that requiring training that should reduce
>> that misunderstanding might not be a bad idea.
>>
>> The original poster asked how would we show that we had the training. I
>> answered a log book entry. SFAR 73-1 as an example.
>
>
> So Cessna XYZ flies into the area. How do the authorities know the pilot
> has the training. Hold your log book up to the window so they can see it?
> Dumb, dumb, dumb idea but typical of bureaucrats.
>

So Robinson R22 1234 flies anywhere. How do authorities...

[Skylune[_1_]]

by Larry Dighera > Jul 7, 2006 at 08:03 PM


On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 14:17:26 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in
>::

>The folks that get to make that determination have determined that the
DC

>ADIZ is needed and they have the regulatory power to enforce that
>determination.

Just because DHS has the authority to demand the creation of the DC
ADIZ doesn't make them competent to make those kind of decisions. In
fact, DHS has repeatedly demonstrated its incompetence and fiscal
irresponsibility, yet they seem to escape public outrage unscathed,
and continue to perpetrate their stupid tyranny unchecked. :-(.

<<

The AOPA should get on this immediately, and organize a massive effort for
pilots to oppose this. A direct link to the docket management system
should be placed on their web site, with suggestions on exactly what to
write. If the bureau-rats read the same thing written by 20,000 people,
they will be convinced to drop the ADIZ.

[Skylune[_1_]]

by "Tom Conner" > Jul 7, 2006 at 03:55 PM


We haven't seen anything yet. Wait until the Very Light Jets have been
on
the market for a few years. These things are going to be Al Queda's best
friend. And Phil Boyer is going to keep on singing his swan song that GA
has no potential for terrorism.

<<

But, but, but..., didn't all the lawmakers see the bumper sticker???! It
provides AOPA-level proof of the stupidity of the ADIZ:

http://www.airportbusiness.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=2282

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 04:22:11 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 04:03:51 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
>wrote in >::
>
>>
>>Certainly, go look up newspaper articles and other reports of the day. If
>>you find insurance mentioned even once as a cause of the reduced speed limit
>>report back. I was there and heard and read the reports of the time.
>>That's all the proof I need.

However there were a lot of complaints and news stories about the
accident rates going up when the speed limit was put back up.

>
>You probably believe Iraq has WMD too. :-(

They had them once, they are easy to hide. They even had a Mig 29
burried within a mile or two of the one airbase which was found only
when the wind exposed a tail fin.

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

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 14:17:26 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:

>
>"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Terry" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >I am wondering what good a logbook entry would be in stopping
>>> >inadvertent
>>> >incursions into this pointless ADIZ.
>>>
>>> I'm not saying the ADIZ is either needed or good. What I'm saying is that
>>> if
>>> there is an ongoing problem with pilots not understanding a certain
>>> aviation
>>> hazard or regulation that requiring training that should reduce that
>>> misunderstanding might not be a bad idea.
>>>
>>> The original poster asked how would we show that we had the training. I
>>> answered a log book entry. SFAR 73-1 as an example.
>>
>>
>> How about the converse? If there is a problem understanding an airspace
>> design, perhaps the whole thing should be redesigned into something easy
>> to use and logical, if it is first determined to be necessary to have it
>> in the first place.
>>
>> IMHO, the ADIZ fails in all of the above areas.
>
>The folks that get to make that determination have determined that the DC
>ADIZ is needed and they have the regulatory power to enforce that

It's more of a "we think we want to do this". Unfortunately they do
have the power to implement and enforce, but that does not mean they
determined it was "needed".

>determination. If you don't like it lobby your congressmen and get a law
>passed.
>
>Until that happens the DC ADIZ is there and if you are going to fly near it
>you better damn sure understand it. There seem to be a lot of people who

Wellll... I don't think even that is a valid argument in that even the
AOPA pres, who teaches about the thing, caught caught when they
changed the thing while he was in flight. So even knowing them
thoroughly is no guarantee.

>don't understand it and one of these days one of them is going to get their
>ass shot down. So if the DC ADIZ is there it might not be a bad idea to put
>in some type of training program for pilots so that doesn't happen.

It could as easily happen (and has) to an airliner, or some one in GA
that is well trained in the things. GA planes are not the only ones
making the violations. Maybe that's why they want to add anti-missile
defenses to airliners.

Training for any aspect of flying is a good idea, but mandated for
something as irregular as the DC TFR is not a good idea until they
make the thing predictable and if it becomes predictable then the
training becomes unnecessary. Until then only real mandate is to
maintain contact with ATC and make sure they keep you apprised of the
ADIZ. Even that carries no assurance. On an IFR flight plan I've
been vectored in front of traffic, vectored for traffic avoidance and
forgotten, mistakenly given a circle to land in front of departing
traffic so I don't have a lot of faith in the system keeping me where
I need to be with something like an ADIZ that keeps changing shape and
size.

Like any other phase of flight all the pilot can do is become familiar
with the airspace, get an up-to-date briefing just before departure
and maintain contact with ATC. It is necessary to know intercept
procedures now, but that is true no mater where you fly in the US.
That is the most the pilot can do and the way the ADIZ is handled
there are still going to be violations from both commercial and GA.


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

[[email protected]]

On 7 Jul 2006 12:31:58 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>> How about the converse? If there is a problem understanding an airspace
>> design, perhaps the whole thing should be redesigned into something easy
>> to use and logical, if it is first determined to be necessary to have it
>> in the first place.
>>
>> IMHO, the ADIZ fails in all of the above areas.
>
>Hooo, boy -- now THAT is a can of worms just waiting to be opened.
>
>If you go down that road, I'm sure most of us can name a whole slew of
>designtated airspaces that fail the "need to exist" to test.
>
>No, I'm afraid the morons that continually blundered into the

Don't forget that the ADIZ changes shape and size which has caught a
number of well trained pilots including commercial.

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

>Washington ADIZ have brought this down on us all. 'Tis a shame, since
>this was entirely, 100% predictable -- and preventable.
Roger

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> Call me a cynic, but the discussion to which you refer smells to me
> like a typical congressional boondoggle.

The beauty of being a cynic is that it so greatly improves my ability
to predict the future. :-)


(I don't know where I read/heard that one, but I like it)

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Terry[_1_]]

But, but sir, some of those (morons) pilots were F-16'ers from a nearby
AFB ...

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> How about the converse? If there is a problem understanding an airspace
>> design, perhaps the whole thing should be redesigned into something easy
>> to use and logical, if it is first determined to be necessary to have it
>> in the first place.
>>
>> IMHO, the ADIZ fails in all of the above areas.
>
> Hooo, boy -- now THAT is a can of worms just waiting to be opened.
>
> If you go down that road, I'm sure most of us can name a whole slew of
> designtated airspaces that fail the "need to exist" to test.
>
> No, I'm afraid the morons that continually blundered into the
> Washington ADIZ have brought this down on us all. 'Tis a shame, since
> this was entirely, 100% predictable -- and preventable.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 07:57:41 -0400, FlipSide wrote in
>::

>This is completely unecessary and idiotic.
>If the FAA had their way they would disallow any VFR flying in the US
>period.



-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVwebFlash Volume 12, Number 28a -- July 10, 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------------

>>> The DC ADIZ, A Growing Concern

NEW ADIZ TRAINING REQUIREMENT SPARKS CONCERN
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/675-full.html#192664)
The seemingly ever-expanding security ring around Washington,
D.C., has AOPA officials hot under the collar. Last week, the FAA
issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/06-5997.htm)
that would make taking an online course on flight procedures
within the Air Defense Identification Zone mandatory for anyone
flying VFR within 100 nm of the capital. And while there's nothing
wrong with the training per se, AOPA claims
(http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060706adiz.html) the
proposed rule, in effect, expands the ADIZ and creates a form of
restricted airspace over a total of 117 airports (including AOPA's
home base at Frederick, Md.). "The FAA wants a de facto expansion
of the ADIZ," said Andy Cebula, AOPA's government expert. "That
could very well lead to more enforcement actions against pilots
who have not actually violated the ADIZ."
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/675-full.html#192664
HUGE AREA OF AIRSPACE, HUGE NUMBER OF PILOTS TARGETED
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/675-full.html#192665)
One of the problems with the proposed rule is that it would affect
pilots who don't have the slightest inclination toward entering
the ADIZ. The proposed ring encompasses almost 8,000 square miles
of some of the busiest airspace in the country, and despite what
those inside the Beltway may think, Washington is not necessarily
foremost on the minds of the rest of us. There are numerous
destinations within the training ring that, for practical
purposes, are nowhere near the airspace that the online course is
geared to and the chances of an incursion are remote at best. "And
the FAA is not planning on marking the 'training ring' on any
charts," Cebula noted. "It's a 'gotcha' waiting to happen."
Although the new rule applies only to VFR flights, there's a
pitfall for IFR operations.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/675-full.html#192665
FINDING ONLINE TRAINING FOR PILOTS -- FAA'S REQUIRED READING
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/675-full.html#192666)
Regardless of the practical and philosophical issues presented by
the NPRM, the course itself
(http://www.faasafety.gov/ALC/course_catalog.aspx?categoryId=11)
appears to be a straightforward tutorial on not only the ADIZ but
on TFRs in general, which have become a fact of life for most U.S.
pilots. Ironically, navigating the FAA Web site to find the course
was perhaps at least as challenging as applying its contents might
be. There's no convenient link from the FAA homepage (hint, hint
to FAA webmaster) and it's buried in the FAA Safety pages.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/675-full.html#192666