DC ADIZ NPRM

Post your comments about the DC "ADIZ".

http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm

Search for docket number 17005

Thanks!

Here's draft number two. I've incorporated some of the suggestions made
here. I will send it in in a few days, after considering other replies
here.

====

Docket number 17005 (FAA-2004-17005)
U.S. DOT/FAA
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
Washington, DC Metropolitan Area Special Flight Rules Area

===

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, which were capable of destroying the two
largest buildings in the United States. 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 even
with a bomb on board, its utility in such an attack is primarily in the
imagination.

It is a staggering overreaction. 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). Cost needs to be considered, not
only by us as we attempt to defend ourselves effectively, but also by
the terrorists as they plan their attacks. A lot of attention is paid
to what they could possibly do with a small airplane, largely because
people don't have much contact with or understanding of small aircraft
and the milieu in which they operate. Therefore small airplanes are
inherently scary to an uneducated public. However, it is far cheaper
for the terrorist to mount an attack using a car or truck than it is to
use a small airplane. The payload does not have to be supported by a
blast of air, so a lot more can be carried, and it can be loaded much
more discreetly.

Since these other methods are so much more accessible to terrorists
already, protecting the capitol against small aircraft does not increase
security by any appreciable amount. At the same time it imposes a
significant and inappropriate burden on law abiding citizens, including
fixed base operators, and accelerates the loss of liberty we are
experiencing in this country. Although these restrictions 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 (and most likely
non-hostile) aircraft is shot down. The adverse impact of a truly
effective restriction would be to virtually shut down air travel to and
from Washington DC and Baltimore. The adverse impact of such draconian
measures is far too great for this to be implemented.

Since the present proposal to codify existing regulations does not
accomplish this, it is ineffective as an actual security measure.
Further, the current and proposed restrictions put our own citizens at
risk of being shot down, or having the wreckage of the shot down
aircraft (and the ordnance used) land on them or on their property.
Based on the number of DC ADIZ 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, and the danger of being
mistaken for a hostile aircraft and being shot down is also 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' prospects for re-election are increased when 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 is already a pre-9-11 requirement for aircraft within the mode C
veil (which extends further than the DC ADIZ boundary) to have an
operating mode C transponder, so all flights in the ADIZ are already
being tracked on radar even without the added restrictions of the ADIZ.
When needed, discrete squawk codes are used by ATC to identify traffic
for separation purposes, but the added requirement in the ADIZ that all
aircraft have a discrete code affords no additional security protection.
It does however reduce ATC's ability to handle traffic and deal with
weather diversions, since there are only a finite number of available
codes, and the ability to handle VFR flights via the universal 1200 code
is lost.

There are certain things that simply must be accepted in a free society.
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 itself stops being practical. Like finding a number
that is less than four, but greater than six, it cannot be done. Many
people would pick five as a solution. It may "seem right", but it is in
fact neither less than four, nor greater than six.

Implementing the proposed rules codifying current flight restrictions
for certain aircraft operations in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area
is 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.

In article ,
Jose wrote:

Here's draft number two. I've incorporated some of the suggestions made
here. I will send it in in a few days, after considering other replies
here.

fwiw:

I think the "less than 4, greater than 6" thing is just too cute to be taken
seriously.

A possible rewording of a couple of paragraphs.

There are certain things that simply must be accepted in a free society.
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 itself stops being practical. It may "seem right", but in
fact doesn't actually increase security.

Implementing the proposed rules codifying current flight restrictions
for certain aircraft operations in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area
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 balance security and freedom. We cannot have both absolute
freedom and absolute security. Freedom gets eroded away long before the
illusion of security turns into real security.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

I have submitted my comments. I encourage all of you to do so also.

I think the "less than 4, greater than 6" thing is just too cute to be taken
seriously.

Perhaps, though it is a different way of making my point, and it might
resonate with some. I decided to keep it in because I think there are
more people that might be able to latch on to this than there are people
who would be turned away by it, given everything else that is in my comment.

To all who commented on my comments, thanks - I appreciate the insight
and found it helpful.

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.