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 |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 07:26:03 -0400, Bob Noel "Happy Dog" wrote: When you guys are done patting yourselves on the back you might address my point that there isn't any good evidence that the ADIZ was created to reduce "clutter". Define "clutter" In the case of the DC ADIZ, I believe it was created to restrict the number of targets/flights within its boundaries, so that unidentified primary radar targets will be easier to spot. Perhaps 'congestion' would have been a more accurate word than 'clutter.' Where is your evidence that this is the reason behind the ADIZ? moo |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Happy Dog wrote:
In the case of the DC ADIZ, I believe it was created to restrict the number of targets/flights within its boundaries, so that unidentified primary radar targets will be easier to spot. Perhaps 'congestion' would have been a more accurate word than 'clutter.' Where is your evidence that this is the reason behind the ADIZ? During the 9/11 investigations, several security people stated that that was the case. They wanted to reduce the number of radar targets in the area to something manageable if they had to intercept. A fair amount of the hearingd were broadcast on NPR last Spring. George Patterson Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 22:33:43 -0400, "Happy Dog"
wrote in :: "Larry Dighera" wrote in message On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 07:26:03 -0400, Bob Noel In the case of the DC ADIZ, I believe it was created to restrict the number of targets/flights within its boundaries, so that unidentified primary radar targets will be easier to spot. Perhaps 'congestion' would have been a more accurate word than 'clutter.' Where is your evidence that this is the reason behind the ADIZ? I have no evidence. It is purely a matter of logical deduction, a guess. The August FAA NPRM contains this information: In February 2003, FAA, in consultation with DHS and other Federal agencies, implemented a system of airspace control measures to protect against a potential threat to the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area. The dimensions of this protected airspace were determined after considering such factors as the speed of likely suspect aircraft, minimum launch time and the speed of intercept aircraft. After extensive coordination among Federal agencies, two airspace areas were implemented. The outer area, which closely mimics the current Washington Tri-area Class B airspace, is called an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) ... I suppose one could research the original FAA ADIZ NPRM and find the reason for it stated the http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2002/sfar94.html or in its extension: http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite..._extension.pdf I wasn't able to find the reason for the DC ADIZ in those documents, hence the guess. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:aNeJe.1241$lT.705@trndny05... Happy Dog wrote: In the case of the DC ADIZ, I believe it was created to restrict the number of targets/flights within its boundaries, so that unidentified primary radar targets will be easier to spot. Perhaps 'congestion' would have been a more accurate word than 'clutter.' Where is your evidence that this is the reason behind the ADIZ? During the 9/11 investigations, several security people stated that that was the case. They wanted to reduce the number of radar targets in the area to something manageable if they had to intercept. A fair amount of the hearingd were broadcast on NPR last Spring. That's it, really? "Several security people stated"? You OK with that? moo |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
... On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 22:33:43 -0400, "Happy Dog" wrote in :: "Larry Dighera" wrote in message On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 07:26:03 -0400, Bob Noel In the case of the DC ADIZ, I believe it was created to restrict the number of targets/flights within its boundaries, so that unidentified primary radar targets will be easier to spot. Perhaps 'congestion' would have been a more accurate word than 'clutter.' Where is your evidence that this is the reason behind the ADIZ? I have no evidence. It is purely a matter of logical deduction, a guess. Thank you for your research. But, it doesnt support your claim. In fact, the paragrapgh you quote is just plain silly. "Minimun launch time"? Did you read this crap before dropping to your knees? I repost the following to invite defenders of it.: The August FAA NPRM contains this information: In February 2003, FAA, in consultation with DHS and other Federal agencies, implemented a system of airspace control measures to protect against a potential threat to the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area. The dimensions of this protected airspace were determined after considering such factors as the speed of likely suspect aircraft, minimum launch time and the speed of intercept aircraft. After extensive coordination among Federal agencies, two airspace areas were implemented. The outer area, which closely mimics the current Washington Tri-area Class B airspace, is called an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) ... I suppose one could research the original FAA ADIZ NPRM and find the reason for it stated the http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2002/sfar94.html or in its extension: http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite..._extension.pdf I wasn't able to find the reason for the DC ADIZ in those documents, hence the guess. Hence shut up. moo |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 08:46:24 -0400, "Happy Dog"
wrote in :: Hence shut up. Is it your intent to revoke my right to express an opinion on Usenet? |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
... On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 08:46:24 -0400, "Happy Dog" wrote in :: Hence shut up. Is it your intent to revoke my right to express an opinion on Usenet? Oh please. insert Voltaire quote if needed It's a direct referral to your inability to present evidence for the reasons you claim the ADIZ exists. I'm saying you're wrong. If you don't like the way I say it, killfile me. moo |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Happy Dog wrote:
"George Patterson" wrote in message news:aNeJe.1241$lT.705@trndny05... During the 9/11 investigations, several security people stated that that was the case. They wanted to reduce the number of radar targets in the area to something manageable if they had to intercept. A fair amount of the hearingd were broadcast on NPR last Spring. That's it, really? "Several security people stated"? You OK with that? Certainly. NPR didn't state "several security people stated", they played recordings of the hearings and identified the speakers. In other words, I heard some of the people responsible for getting the ADIZ set up state that the purpose was to reduce the number of radar targets and make sure that there were no unidentified primary radar echoes. George Patterson Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks. |
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 05:12 AM |
AOPA Sells-Out California Pilots in Military Airspace Grab? | Larry Dighera | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | April 26th 04 06:12 PM |
AOPA Sells-Out California Pilots in Military Airspace Grab? | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 12 | April 26th 04 06:12 PM |
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 12th 03 11:01 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |