Another ADIZ violation?

GS wrote:
I'm not familiar with the area with regards to the airspace
but with the IAD and BWI Class B plus the ADIZ, it must
be pretty easy to bust with everything working.
More importantly, I don't think the guy busted ANYTHING
per 91.3. A complete electrical failure is an emergency in my
book. If I had a complete electrical failure I'd
land wherever the hell *I* felt like it as long as my
butt was safe in the end.

91.3 doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you want. It gives you
the authority to deviate from the rules *to the extent required* to deal
with the emergency.

What were the flight conditions? Day-VFR in a typical light plane, for
example, total electrical failure should be a complete non-event, and
certainly doesn't justify calling 91.3 into play.

91.3 doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you want. It gives you
the authority to deviate from the rules *to the extent required* to deal
with the emergency.

.... and a communication failure in the ADIZ is a bona fide emergency
even in circumstances which, outside the ADIZ, would be a non-event. It
may well be better to turn around and land nearby than to point the nose
outward and drone on for fifteen minutes in an unexpected direction.
Those are real guns and missles the fighters carry, and they have almost
been used too often for my comfort.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Roy Smith wrote:

GS wrote:

I'm not familiar with the area with regards to the airspace
but with the IAD and BWI Class B plus the ADIZ, it must
be pretty easy to bust with everything working.
More importantly, I don't think the guy busted ANYTHING
per 91.3. A complete electrical failure is an emergency in my
book. If I had a complete electrical failure I'd
land wherever the hell *I* felt like it as long as my
butt was safe in the end.
91.3 doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you want. It gives you
the authority to deviate from the rules *to the extent required* to deal
with the emergency.
What were the flight conditions? Day-VFR in a typical light plane,for
example, total electrical failure should be a complete non-event, and
certainly doesn't justify calling 91.3 into play.

correct, I'd generally consider a complete electrical failure
a major emergency as in 'get to the nearest airport ASAP and as long
as myself and my passengers will be safe." Obviously something is
seriously wrong with the plane.

Yes the plane will continue to fly and you are in Day VFR, but a "none
event?" Would you just continue to fly on as though nothing had
happened? Would you take off in the same area with your electrical
system dead (and in a plane designed with an electrical system)?
I presume you wouldn't otherwise you should be working for MX
at my flying club. (I fly the only plane online that is NOT
maintained by my club.)


So do you think the complete electrical failure did NOT contribute to
this incident? How else would you explain busting the ADIZ? Would you
consider your busting the ADIZ as a "none event?"

Gerald

Actually, I believe the ADIZ procedure in case of communications
failure, as Michelle stated, is to exit the ADIZ by the shortest
possible route. I once was asked by Potomac to try to help communicate
with a guy who discovered after takeoff that he wasn't receiving. The
other pilot kep declaring his intention to return to the airport (he
was able to transmit) and the controller kept frantically trying to
tell him not to land but to exit the ADIZ.

Wiz

Jose wrote:
91.3 doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you want. It gives you
the authority to deviate from the rules *to the extent required* to deal
with the emergency.

... and a communication failure in the ADIZ is a bona fide emergency
even in circumstances which, outside the ADIZ, would be a non-event. It
may well be better to turn around and land nearby than to point the nose
outward and drone on for fifteen minutes in an unexpected direction.

It's hardly an unexpected direction, considering there's a NOTAM
instructing you to do exactly that:

!FDC 4/5555 ZDC SPECIAL NOTICE... EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UNTIL
FURTHER NOTICE. PURSUANT TO 14 CFR SECTION 99.7, SPECIAL SECURITY
INSTRUCTIONS, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES ARE IN EFFECT:
A. ANY PERSON OPERATING AN AIRCRAFT WITHIN THE WASHINGTON, DC
METROPOLITAN AREA AIR DEFENSE IDENTIFICATION ZONE (DC ADIZ),
IMMEDIATELY UPON BECOMING AWARE OF AN INABILITY TO COMPLY WITH THE
REQUIREMENT TO CONTINUOUSLY TRANSMIT THE ATC ASSIGNED TRANSPONDER
CODE, SHALL EXIT THE DC ADIZ BY FLYING THE MOST DIRECT COURSE TO
OUTSIDE THE LATERAL LIMITS OF THE DC ADIZ.

Wiz wrote:
Actually, I believe the ADIZ procedure in case of communications
failure, as Michelle stated, is to exit the ADIZ by the shortest
possible route. I once was asked by Potomac to try to help communicate
with a guy who discovered after takeoff that he wasn't receiving. The
other pilot kep declaring his intention to return to the airport (he
was able to transmit) and the controller kept frantically trying to
tell him not to land but to exit the ADIZ.

I don't live near 'thee' ADIZ but of course have heard a ton against
it. Now I fully understand the problems. If this pilot only
had a failed radio that shouldn't be a big deal. I've had that.
I'm sure we've all had that at one time or another. The complete
electrical failure is a much bigger problem where something on a
system-wide basis has failed. Now with this ADIZ, basically they
are saying, "we know you can dead stick your crippled plane into
the airport below you but don't. Just make sure when you crash,
your plane is pointed away from the ADIZ."

How far was this pilot from the departure airport? If he was
less than 5 miles, I'd say turn around. I can't
imagine flying 20 miles through an ADIZ with tons of air traffic
NORAD rather than flying 2 minutes. But rules are rules.

Sometimes I wish they had shot down that King Air with the governor
on board when their transponder failed. The loss of life would
be a shame but I really wonder what the hell all the government
agencies would have said. I can imagine George W saying, "Yes, the
pilots did everything like he should have but we did not have
his altitude encoder and therefore were justified in shooting
them down to protect this country. Democracy has worked."

Gerald

Every King Air I've flown had two electrical busses and two
transponders. I guess the Kentucky governor's plane was not
as well equipped.

Years ago, the Congress was considering a bill to allow the
Air Force to shoot down any NORDO flying at night, without a
flight plan, in from the Caribbean as a means to "fight the
war on drugs." I helped stop that lunacy by advising
several congressmen that congressmen and senators often go
to the warm islands to fish and sun, maybe drink and other
things to, and would be flying back on a week-end, at night.
That if the plane they were in had an electrical failure it
would have no lights, no radio, no transponder and if it had
a flight plan, would not likely be on time or course. They
would look like a drug smuggler and there would be a need
for some special elections to replace some junketing
congress persons.

The problem with the FAA/TSA approach to security is that it
presumes that terrorists will follow the rules, get a
license, file a flight plan and may be radio ahead. It also
presumes that an airplane would be the "weapon" rather than
a truck, boat or remote control device. Who is guarding our
sewers, to keep the IED out of the cities?
Who is guarding the California aqueducts in the desert? Who
is guarding the borders, north and south?

But the airplanes are easy to see and the news reports make
it look as though they are doing something.

BTW, about wire tapping and warrants...if they find a
terrorist doing a wire tap or by other means, they can not
tell the terrorist that his home was searched or his
phones/was tapped because that will break the cell and the
other dozen or hundreds will get away. The Patriot Act
needs to have a provision that only terrorism is the target
and that if the government finds that you are cheating on
your taxes or even have child porn on your computer, they
cannot prosecute or even give the IRS or cops the hint.
Just my thought, if you like that, call your Congressman and
Senator because the bill will be back in a few weeks.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm





"GS" wrote in message
et...
| Wiz wrote:
| Actually, I believe the ADIZ procedure in case of
communications
| failure, as Michelle stated, is to exit the ADIZ by the
shortest
| possible route. I once was asked by Potomac to try to
help communicate
| with a guy who discovered after takeoff that he wasn't
receiving. The
| other pilot kep declaring his intention to return to the
airport (he
| was able to transmit) and the controller kept
frantically trying to
| tell him not to land but to exit the ADIZ.
|
| I don't live near 'thee' ADIZ but of course have heard a
ton against
| it. Now I fully understand the problems. If this pilot
only
| had a failed radio that shouldn't be a big deal. I've had
that.
| I'm sure we've all had that at one time or another. The
complete
| electrical failure is a much bigger problem where
something on a
| system-wide basis has failed. Now with this ADIZ,
basically they
| are saying, "we know you can dead stick your crippled
plane into
| the airport below you but don't. Just make sure when you
crash,
| your plane is pointed away from the ADIZ."
|
| How far was this pilot from the departure airport? If he
was
| less than 5 miles, I'd say turn around. I can't
| imagine flying 20 miles through an ADIZ with tons of air
traffic
| NORAD rather than flying 2 minutes. But rules are rules.
|
| Sometimes I wish they had shot down that King Air with the
governor
| on board when their transponder failed. The loss of life
would
| be a shame but I really wonder what the hell all the
government
| agencies would have said. I can imagine George W saying,
"Yes, the
| pilots did everything like he should have but we did not
have
| his altitude encoder and therefore were justified in
shooting
| them down to protect this country. Democracy has worked."
|
| Gerald

(Roy Smith) wrote:

It's hardly an unexpected direction, considering there's a NOTAM
instructing you to do exactly that:

!FDC 4/5555 ZDC SPECIAL NOTICE... EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UNTIL
FURTHER NOTICE. PURSUANT TO 14 CFR SECTION 99.7, SPECIAL SECURITY
INSTRUCTIONS, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES ARE IN EFFECT:
A. ANY PERSON OPERATING AN AIRCRAFT WITHIN THE WASHINGTON, DC
METROPOLITAN AREA AIR DEFENSE IDENTIFICATION ZONE (DC ADIZ),
IMMEDIATELY UPON BECOMING AWARE OF AN INABILITY TO COMPLY WITH THE
REQUIREMENT TO CONTINUOUSLY TRANSMIT THE ATC ASSIGNED TRANSPONDER
CODE, SHALL EXIT THE DC ADIZ BY FLYING THE MOST DIRECT COURSE TO
OUTSIDE THE LATERAL LIMITS OF THE DC ADIZ.

A handheld aviation GPS would work well to do that. A non-aviation
GPS unit with knowledge of the ADIZ limits would also work.

Ron Lee

GS wrote:
What were the flight conditions? Day-VFR in a typical light plane,for
example, total electrical failure should be a complete non-event, and
certainly doesn't justify calling 91.3 into play.

correct, I'd generally consider a complete electrical failure
a major emergency as in 'get to the nearest airport ASAP and as long
as myself and my passengers will be safe." Obviously something is
seriously wrong with the plane.

Well, something is seriously wrong with the electrical system, that's
for sure. The vast majority of things which can bring a light plane's
electrical system down will have absolutely no effect on the plane's
ability to continue to fly safely until fuel is exhausted, as long as
you are in conditions which allow you to navigate visually.

Yes the plane will continue to fly and you are in Day VFR, but a "none
event?" Would you just continue to fly on as though nothing had
happened?

No, I didn't say that. What I said (or at least meant by "non-event")
was that it's not an emergency. Emergencies require immediate action.
Abnormal situations like electrical failures in benign conditions
require assessing the situation calmly and taking the time to come up
with a plan which minimizes the risks. The number one rule about
dealing with problems in flight is don't rush to do something which
may make the situation worse.

There's an old joke about a veteran pilot getting a flight check. The
examiner fails one engine. The pilot immediately follows the "engine
out" drill and gets the plane stabilized, then pulls out his pocket
watch and starts winding it. The exminer says, "Well, you did a
really good job getting the plane under control, but shouldn't you be
doing something about getting us on the ground now, we've still got an
emergency to deal with!" The pilot calmly replies, "Well, sonny, I
already dealt with the emergency. Plenty of people have gotten killed
recovering from engine failures, but I've never heard of anybody
getting killed by winding a watch".

Busting the ADIZ is more than just a technical violation, it's an
action which involves real, physical, risks. You're going to end up
flying close formation with high performance aircraft with whom you
cannot communicate. How much training do you have performing that
maneuver? There are examples of such intercepts which have resulted
in mid-airs. There was one a few years back off the NJ coast which
resulted in the airliner's crew performing a panic dive in response to
multiple TCAS RA's, causing serious injury to people in the cabin.
What's the wake turbulence like from an F-16 in slow flight? Beats
me, but I'd rather not find out.

Would you take off in the same area with your electrical
system dead (and in a plane designed with an electrical system)?

Of course not. I never said anything like that.

Roy Smith wrote:
GS wrote:
No, I didn't say that. What I said (or at least meant by "non-event")
was that it's not an emergency. Emergencies require immediate action.
Abnormal situations like electrical failures in benign conditions
require assessing the situation calmly and taking the time to come up
with a plan which minimizes the risks.

ok, we're saying the same thing just implying and inferring the
wrong thing. BTW, on my Archer checklist an Electrical
failure is listed under "Emergency Checklists." I would say
that an electrical failure requires *immediate* action. That
action doesn't necessarily mean an emergency descent to landing
Ok, enough. We're thinking the same thing.

Busting the ADIZ is more than just a technical violation, it's an
action which involves real, physical, risks. You're going to end up
flying close formation with high performance aircraft with whom you
cannot communicate. How much training do you have performing that
maneuver?

Not much. I wonder how much training they have intercepting an Archer
in slow flight with the stall horn going off at 52 knots, I wonder what
they would do. ;-)

There are examples of such intercepts which have resulted
in mid-airs. There was one a few years back off the NJ coast which
resulted in the airliner's crew performing a panic dive in response to
multiple TCAS RA's, causing serious injury to people in the cabin.

what year was this? Do you have a report? I'm just wondering
about this as I never heard of it. I heard of a a military jet flying
out of I think virigina getting vectored near a commercial jet causing
a near miss. I don't recall any injuries from that though.

What's the wake turbulence like from an F-16 in slow flight? Beats
me, but I'd rather not find out.

I bet a lot less than the jet blast. I doubt the F16 produces
that much lift from the wings. Just a guess though. Has
the same effect.

Cheers,

Gerald