"StellaStar" wrote in message


After investigation, the controllers who dropped
the ball about passing on word of the nonfunctioning transponder were
clearly at the root of the problem.

I beg to differ. The controllers were operating under what used to be
standard operating procedure - and still is SOP in most of the airspace in
this country.

Even if you accept the necessity of the ADIZ (and I'm not at all suggesting
that I do), our tax dollars built a coordination facility for this type of
situation (the KY governor's faulty xponder) and it failed. Whoever
designed it apparently didn't link its radar display to the FAA's computer
system in a way that allowed the coordination facility to see what the
controllers see.

Why is it that the controllers are the root of the problem?

The root of the problem, IMO, is the ADIZ/FRZ and the seemingly
ever-changing security requirements in the DC area. See definition of P-40.
See also restrictions unilaterally - and temporarily - placed on pattern
work in the ADIZ as a result of the KY governor issue.

Oh, and instead of simply fixing the radar data link, a NOTAM has been
issued (4/5555 ZDC) prohibiting flight within the ADIZ without a functioning
transponder. Period. I'm just waiting to hear what happens to a commercial
flight that has a similar problem:

"Captain here, folks. Sorry to let you know, but even though we've started
our descent into [Dulles, National, BWI], we've had to divert and land in
[Philly, Richmond] because we've had an electrical glitch. We'll get it
squared away and have you on your way in no time."

OK, so I went on a rant. My apologies, but I'm a bit frustrated after
talking about this situation with aviation-ignorant members of the public
today. I was able to persuade the couple of folks I talked to that the
ADIZ/FRZ isn't a reasonable solution, but I still have 289.9 million more to
go - especially those on Capitol Hill...

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________