On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 20:43:03 GMT, "Matt Johnson"
wrote:

Larry, you've convinced me you're an idiot.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? Was there a flaw in the
_facts_ I presented as there appeared to be in those presented by
AOPA's Heidi Williams? Or are you just incapable of separating your
emotional nature from rational discourse?

The proposed rule gives back more than it takes.

We disagree.

The NPRM contains language that replaces two MOAs with an even larger
(in terms of cubic area) Restricted Area. That seems to contradict
your assertion above. Please state how you arrived at the erroneous
belief you espouse above?

With the proposed new restricted area limited to 20
days of use per year, ZLA/SoCal or LONGRIFLE will undoubtedly honor all
requests to transit the area.

All requests? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Won't ATC deny
Restricted Area transit requests during those 20 days? What of the
other 90 days of planned military activity?

If ATC were to grant _all_ transit requests through the proposed new
Restricted Area, what useful purpose would it serve?

For those pilots with such disdain for talking to ATC to obtain clearance through
the airspace, go the inland route or better yet, stay home--you're a hazard to
the rest of us.

If talking to ATC were all that will be required to transit the
proposed Restricted Area, that would be fine. But that is not the
case. The area above 4,000' along the coast will require all VFR
flights to obtain ATC permission to transit; currently that is not the
case. Currently one can over fly Camp Pendleton at 8,000' without ATC
contact. If the proposed new Restricted Area is established as
published, it raises that floor to 11,000'.

It's another military airspace grab. Let the military relinquish some
of the 50% of NAS they currently "own."

As for your suggestion that the MOAs and proposed restricted area be
replaced with TFRs, that'd be great, but the reality is that the area around
Pendleton is almost always busy with military traffic of all types, where
keeping on one's toes is a good idea for all concerned.

First you reassure me that the military will only be using the
proposed new Restricted Area 20 days a year. Then you tell me the
area is "almost always busy with military traffic of all types." You
seem to contradict yourself, and you definitely fail to mention the
other 90 nighttime periods of proposed military activity. That leads
me to believe you may have some vested interest in seeing the proposed
Restricted Area established. What is the source of your bias?

Taking away the MOAs and restricted area might tend to lull one into
complacency, precisely where complacency should be avoided.

Are you able to cite any past incidents regarding the San Onofre MOAs
in which a Restricted Area would have enhanced flight safety? Do you
have any factual _information_ regarding complacent pilots causing a
hazard in the MOAs? Please provide some evidence that supports your
contention, or risk having your argument appear to be a straw man.

I support the rule change.

Why? Do you have any _rational_ reason for supporting the proposed
new Restricted Area on California's coast? How will the proposed new
Restricted Area positively impact the high volume of flights daily on
V-23? How have the military managed to operate without the proposed
new Restricted Area for so many decades?

Matt Johnson
KMYF

While I welcome your input on this issue, it seems a little short of
_accurate_ facts, and long on emotional opinion.

PS:
As a friendly aside from one airman to another, name calling is often
the last desperate resort of a debater who lacks reasonable support
for his views.