View Single Post
  #108  
Old August 7th 05, 06:19 PM
W P Dixon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

How About This,
You get more flies with honey than vinegar approach, mention that as
Class B airspace , every plane has to have approval from ATC before entering
the airspace. So if the entire point of the ADIZ is to know which planes are
there, then the Class B does that just because you must have permission to
enter Class B and you must have a transponder. All it requires is ATC giving
a plane a transponder code and they know who you are. If the airspace has to
much traffic Class B can always deny entrance until traffic is at acceptable
levels. It' simple, it is factual, and it does not make the Congress
Critters think you are a radical who wants to set up a training camp in the
mountains of Montana to retake the government!

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Jose" wrote in message
.. .
Here's a first draft.

I oppose the proposed rules codifying current flight restrictions for
certain aircraft operations in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area. I
believe that the nation is much better served by preserving the values
that made America great in the first place, by rescinding the current FRZ
and ADIZ completely. Neither the current airspace restrictions, nor the
proposed ones, are an effective security measure, but their implementation
has greatly curtailed the freedom of law-abiding citizens to effectively
utilize over ten thousand cubic miles of airspace around one of the most
popular destinations in America.

These restrictions permit low altitude commercial air carrier operations
within only a few miles of the Capitol and the Pentagon. The only known
terrorist attacks on the United States that utilized aircraft used
commercial air carriers. At the same time, these restrictions would
prohibit or severely restrict small aircraft such as four seat, single
engine, piston powered airplanes. This kind of aircraft has never been
used in an attack in the United States, and its utility in such an attack
is primarily in the imagination.

Although small aircraft could be used in a terrorist attack, the limited
load that these small airplanes can carry makes them less effective than
other methods of delivering a payload (such as ground vehicles), so
protecting the capitol against small aircraft does not increase security
by any appreciable amount, although at the same time it imposes an
inappropriate burden on law abiding citizens. Although it may increase
the appearance of security, it is very important not to confuse illusion
with reality. This is especially true where terrorism is concerned,
because if we are not careful we will do the terrorist's work for them,
destroying our own country and all it stands for, little by little.


The current and proposed restrictions do not protect the capitol.
Terrorists are law-abiding when it suits their purposes, and law-breaking
when that suits their purposes. They are not going to be stopped by laws,
nor will the threat of punishment such as certificate action or large
fines deter a terrorist from pursuing his goal. Only the good folk are
going to be victimized by flight restrictions and the threat of
punishment. A terrorist who, for whatever reason, chooses to fly an
airplane into the DC area to commit mayhem will almost certainly do it
under cover of complete compliance with the law, until the very last
minute. The only way this is not "too late" is for a huge amount of
airspace around the presumed target to be completely sterile - no flights,
no aircraft, no airports, no populated areas underneath that would be
affected by the wreckage when an errant aircraft is shot down. The present
proposal to codify existing regulations does not accomplish this,
therefore it is ineffective. The adverse impact of a truly effective
restriction would be to virtually shut down air travel to and from
Washington DC and Baltimore. The impact is far too great for this to be
implemented,

The current and proposed restrictions put our citizens at risk. Based on
the number of airspace incursions already recorded, and the number of ATC
errors which have led to airspace incursions or the erroneous belief that
an airspace incursion has occurred, and the number of times fighters have
been scrambled to face down with lethal force what turned out not to be an
evildoer, it will only be a matter of time before we shoot our own people
out of the sky. Considering where they are flying, it is not beyond
reason that the victims could be our own congressmen, lobbyists, or
business leaders - the very people the flight restrictions are supposed to
be protecting. And considering where they would likely be when they are
shot down, the debris alone would cause considerable damage and loss of
life.

Since the restrictions do not effectively protect the capitol, and they do
put our own citizens in danger, they should be eliminated, and the
airspace should revert to the way it was in the year 2000.


The adverse effects of the flight restrictions do not accrue just to the
local airports that are directly affected. They radiate out to all the
airports from which flights into the FRZ and ADIZ might have originated,
but don't because the burden is too great. Flying to National Airport in
a Piper Cherokee from my home base in Danbury would take a little under
two hours. My home is ten minutes from Danbury, and National is right in
the center of Washington DC. This is an attractive proposition, and I
have done this in the past, for example to see a show at the Kennedy
Center. With the flight restrictions in place, National is out of the
question as a destination, as are the airports known as the DC3. Dulles
is possible, but it's not a very convenient airport and it's another hour
or more by ground transportation into the DC area, not including the time
it takes to arrange to rent a car or wait for a taxi. Gaithersburg is
another option, it's a little more convenient to land at, but though there
is a Metro within taxi distance, it is still a good hour away from the
action. Freeway airport is a hair closer but getting transportation at
Freeway is a bit of a problem. Manassas has rail transportation, but it
too takes over an hour, not counting the wait for the train, after which I
am still not where I want to be, and I am dependent on the vagaries of a
lot more ground transportation. In addition, Manassas is further away
from my home airport so the flight would take longer. By the time all the
overhead time has been figured into getting where I want to go, my trip
length has nearly doubled, each way. Faced with this, I have elected many
times to simply not make the trip. My home base at Danbury airport loses
my business, the intended destination airport in the Capitol loses my
business, Washington DC itself loses my business and my tax dollars, the
cultural events I would have attended play to a slightly emptier house,
and all the money that I would have spent in any of these places is not
available to be spent again by those businesses. Further, the money that
my friends in DC would have spent along with me does not circulate either.

The Washington/Baltimore area becomes incrementally less vibrant.

Further, the existence of this illusory "special security airspace"
invites other areas to attempt to justify and implement their own security
airspace. There are plenty of cities that have attractive terrorist
targets and leaders that will not stand by while other towns get
"protection". Flight restrictions are an attractive "feel good" measure
that politicians can implement to make their citizens feel like something
is being done, yet in fact what is being done is that we are slowly
paralyzing ourselves. Small aircraft are eminently useful not only for
transportation and commerce, but also for sightseeing, photography,
training, search and rescue, construction surveys, they support
recreational activities such as parachuting and tourism, and like boats of
all sizes, they serve as a recreational activity in their own right. But
since the public does not have much contact with general aviation, they
are easily misled to believe that restrictions on our basic freedoms such
as the freedom to sightsee from the air around the Capitol of our own
country will serve them. It does not. It makes it easier to choke out
other freedoms.


Politicians benefit by having citizens remain scared, if they can offer
something that will calm their anxieties. The proposed codification of
the existing temporary flight restrictions covering over ten thousand
cubic miles does exactly that. It reinforces the idea that small
airplanes are dangerous, that a significant terrorist attack is likely to
come from these "uncontrolled" airplanes, and that the government has a
ready solution at hand. Evacuating the buildings in the DC area when a
small plane flies overhead is an example of such posturing. Ironically,
for the one possible threat that a small airplane could conceivably carry
out (though far less effectively than a rented car), which is the spread
of chemical or biological agents, evacuating the buildings is exactly the
wrong thing to do. But it was done anyway.


There are certain things that simply must be accepted. Just as it is not
possible to protect oneself from gunfire when walking down the street
without giving up a significant quality of life, it is also not possible
to protect the nation from terrorist attacks by restricting our airspace,
unless we actually close down so much airspace that air travel stops being
practical. Like finding a number that is greater than six but less than
four, it cannot be done. Many people would pick five as a solution. It
may feel good, but it is in fact neither less than four, nor greater than
six.

The proposed rules codifying current flight restrictions for certain
aircraft operations in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area are like using
five as a solution. It neither provides real security, nor does it
preserve the freedoms that make this country great. We, as a nation, and
the FAA as an agency, need to choose between security and freedom. We
cannot have both, not even a little bit. Freedom gets eroded away long
before the illusion of security turns into real security.

I do not believe that rescinding the TSA’s 49 CFR part 1562, FAA’s NOTAM
3/0853, and the DC ADIZ/FRZ would increase the vulnerability or decrease
the level of protection now in place. I believe that the protection that
these rules provide is illusory, and illusions are very dangerous.

I am in favor of the freedoms that thousands upon thousands of people have
given their lives to obtain and preserve for this country. I am opposed
to the erosion of these freedoms to provide us the illusion of security in
the guise of a permanent and huge flight restricted area around the
greater Washington DC area.

Therefore, I recommend that your Alternative 1 - to rescind the TSA’s 49
CFR part 1562, FAA’s NOTAM 3/0853, and the DC ADIZ/FRZ, be enacted
immediately.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no
universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.