![]() |
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yes. I saw the AOPA language. But the actual proposal contains this
language: We believe that as part of ensuring the security of the people, property and institutions in the Nation's capital, and surrounding area, it is essential to know the intended route of flight of the aircraft, to have the aircraft squawk a discrete transponder code, and to have automatic altitude reporting equipment on board the aircraft that transmits to ATC. Government officials believe that some types of aircraft operations (i.e., those conducted under parts 91, 101, 103, 105, 125, 133, 135 and 137) should continue to be prohibited within 15 miles of the DCA VOR/DME, unless specifically authorized by the FAA in consultation with the DoD and DHS. and this language: Who Is Potentially Affected by This Rulemaking? Private Sector All aircraft would have to be transponder equipped when entering the proposed DC SFRA and maintain two-way communications while flying in the proposed area. Pilots operating in accordance with visual flight rules (VFR) would have to file flight plans to fly within the proposed DC SFRA. There are approximately 150 airports in the proposed DC ADIZ. Given the additional requirements that general aviation pilots face, the FAA is concerned that many of these airports would have fewer operations. In some cases, some of these pilots may elect to use alternate nearby airports outside of the proposed DC SFRA. Indeed, I read through the entire proposal, and I can't find anything that makes the restrictions worse. Indeed, It seems to loosen the restrictions for "Special Egress Procedures for Fringe Airports", specifically "Airlie, Albrecht, Harris, Martin, Martin State, Meadows, Mylander, Stewart, St. John, Tilghman Whipp, Upperville, and Wolf airports", by allowing folks those pilots to use a specific transponder code and not require them to contact ATC. Of course, I've only heard of two of these airports...Upperville, which is private and always deserted (CIA?) and Airlie...which is a grass strip that I and children went on a demo flight in a 1930's era biplane several years ago. I digress. I hope I'm reading this correctly. I worked three gruelling years getting my ticket, and shutting down GA flights out of leesburg would essentially render flying impractical for me. -BC |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| NAS and associated computer system | Newps | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | August 12th 04 06:12 AM |
| AOPA Sells-Out California Pilots in Military Airspace Grab? | Larry Dighera | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | April 26th 04 07:12 PM |
| AOPA Sells-Out California Pilots in Military Airspace Grab? | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 12 | April 26th 04 07:12 PM |
| 12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 13th 03 12:01 AM |
| USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 04:17 PM |