Dangerous Cessna evacuates govt again

On 5/11/05 9:40 AM, in article
, "Paul kgyy"
wrote:

True to the rugged pioneer spirit of our great country, DC cowered for
cover again as a Cessna violated the no-fly zone. Fighter jets were
scrambled to deal with this imminent threat to the security of our
nation.


The pilots of those fighter jets, armed to the teeth, would be arrested the
moment they flew a Cessna 150 into the same area. Apparently the latest
technology in military armament is less dangerous than a Cessna 150. What
does the government know about our little airplanes that we don't? We should
form a committee to study the secret powers we are wielding!

Christopher Campbell wrote:
On 5/11/05 9:40 AM, in article
, "Paul kgyy"
wrote:

True to the rugged pioneer spirit of our great country, DC cowered
for
cover again as a Cessna violated the no-fly zone. Fighter jets
were
scrambled to deal with this imminent threat to the security of our
nation.


The pilots of those fighter jets, armed to the teeth, would be
arrested the
moment they flew a Cessna 150 into the same area. Apparently the
latest
technology in military armament is less dangerous than a Cessna 150.
What
does the government know about our little airplanes that we don't? We
should
form a committee to study the secret powers we are wielding!

You're not supposed to point out facts like that.
According to their logic
A fully armed supersonic fighter crashing into a building won't have
half the effect that a C152 will have..
Who's running the asylum ?

Come on guys, rules are rules! No-Fly Zone means just that. Mistakes are
made but don't discount the mistake.

How many IFR pilots in the group would tell the controller....thanks for
Clearing me for the approach ILS 18 but I think I'll just land on rwy 36
because the rules don't apply to me.

Steve

"smf" wrote in message


Come on guys, rules are rules! No-Fly Zone means just that. Mistakes
are made but don't discount the mistake.

Sorry, but this is stepping on a raw nerve. Show me any navigation chart or
NOTAM establishing a "no-fly zone" around Washington.

It's a two-layer airspace restriction: The larger Air Defense
Identification Zone and an inner Flight Restricted Zone. Flights - even by
GA aircraft - routinely fly in both zones. There is *not* a "no-fly zone"
around DC.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"John T" wrote in message
m...
Sorry, but this is stepping on a raw nerve. Show me any navigation chart
or
NOTAM establishing a "no-fly zone" around Washington.

3/2126 PART 4 OF 4 FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS WASHINGTON DC. 5. PRIOR TO OPERATING
THE AIRCRAFT IN THIS ADIZ, THE FLIGHT CREW OBTAINS A DISCRETE TRANSPONDER
CODE FROM ATC; 6. THE AIRCRAFT''S TRANSPONDER CONTINUOUSLY TRANSMITS THE ATC
ISSUED DISCRETE TRANSPONDER CODE WHILE THE AIRCRAFT IS OPERATING IN THIS
ADIZ; 7. PRIOR TO OPERATING AN AIRCRAFT IN THE DC ADIZ, PILOTS MUST FILE
THEIR FLIGHT PLAN WITH AN AFSS; MUST ACTIVATE THEIR FLIGHT PLAN PRIOR TO
DEPARTURE OR ENTERING THE DC ADIZ; AND CLOSE THEIR FLIGHT PLANS UPON LANDING
OR LEAVING THE DC ADIZ. B. AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS BY THE U.S. MILITARY, LAW
ENFORCEMENT, AND AEROMEDICAL FLIGHTS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF
PART II A. PARAGRAPH 7. PART III. THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES APPLY WITHIN THE
WASHINGTON DC METROPOLITAN FRZ. A. UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE FAA
IN CONSULTATION WITH THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE AND THE TRANSPORTATION
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, ALL PARTS 91, 101, 103, 105, 125, 133, 135, 137
FLIGHT OPERATIONS ARE PROHIBITED WITHIN THE WASHINGTON D.C. METROPOLITAN
FRZ. B. THESE RESTRICTIONS DO NOT APPLY TO DOD, LAW ENFORCEMENT, OR
AEROMEDICAL FLIGHT OPERATIONS THAT ARE IN CONTACT WITH ATC AND ARE
DISPLAYING AN ATC ASSIGNED DISCRETE TRANSPONDER BEACON CODE. END PART 4 OF 4
WIE UNTIL UFN

call it what you will, they shouldn't have been there.

It's a two-layer airspace restriction: The larger Air Defense
Identification Zone and an inner Flight Restricted Zone. Flights - even
by
GA aircraft - routinely fly in both zones. There is *not* a "no-fly zone"
around DC.

Routinely? c'mon.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"Mike W." wrote in message


3/2126 PART 4 OF 4 FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS
...
call it what you will, they shouldn't have been there.

No, they shouldn't have been there, but that does *not* mean the ADIZ or FRZ
is a "no-fly zone". Show me the part of that NOTAM that says "no flight is
permitted".

It's a two-layer airspace restriction: The larger Air Defense
Identification Zone and an inner Flight Restricted Zone. Flights -
even by GA aircraft - routinely fly in both zones. There is *not* a
"no-fly zone" around DC.

Routinely? c'mon.

Yes! Routinely. Even flight instruction from the DC-3.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

Mike W. wrote:
"John T" wrote in message
m...

Sorry, but this is stepping on a raw nerve. Show me any navigation chart

or

NOTAM establishing a "no-fly zone" around Washington.

The WASHINGTON Sectional and Terminal Area charts for over
a year now depict both the ADIZ and the FRX. The FRZ as well
as the expanded prohibited area over Camp David are displayed
on a white background. This is a depiction used nowhere else
in US charting.

Ron Natalie wrote:

The WASHINGTON Sectional and Terminal Area charts for over
a year now depict both the ADIZ and the FRX. The FRZ as well
as the expanded prohibited area over Camp David are displayed
on a white background. This is a depiction used nowhere else
in US charting.

They show the ADIZ and FRZ, but not a "no-fly zone". A "no-fly zone" is
what we imposed on Iraq. Prohibited airspace, like P-40, could be
considered a "no-fly zone", but neither the ADIZ nor FRZ are such entities.

Allowing media outlets to perpetuate the myth of a "no-fly zone" gives the
non-flying public the impression that no planes are allowed in the area.
This is like the common impression of "stall". *We* don't need to fuel that
misperception by calling the ADIZ/FRZ a "no-fly zone" as earlier posters
have done here.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

On Thu, 12 May 2005 07:46:04 -0400, Ron Natalie
wrote:

The WASHINGTON Sectional and Terminal Area charts for over
a year now depict both the ADIZ and the FRX. The FRZ as well
as the expanded prohibited area over Camp David are displayed
on a white background. This is a depiction used nowhere else
in US charting.

The New York sectional uses the same white background circle to show
what area would be in the 30NM expanded TFR around ENE when activated.

Paul kgyy wrote:

True to the rugged pioneer spirit of our great country, DC cowered for
cover again as a Cessna violated the no-fly zone. Fighter jets were
scrambled to deal with this imminent threat to the security of our
nation.

AOPA Phil Boyer was interviewed on CNN at 1745 EDT. He set the record
straight by stating that a C150, carrying two adults and full fuel has
little to no cargo capacity (polite way of saying no explosives). Boyer
also did say that the two pilots flying the 150 made a stupid mistake
and the security people in Washington acted in accord with proper plans.

This interview was just after some undersecretary for Homeland Security
stated to Wolf Blitzer that a "small aircraft of this size can carry 0ne
or Two THOUSAND pounds of explosives". Talk about your typical
uneducated Washington Bureaucrat!