GA headed for regulatory trouble

"Matt Barrow" wrote in news:OsIye.57$FZ6.23341
@news.uswest.net:


"Skywise" wrote in message
...
Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On 05 Jul 2005 15:45:52 GMT, (Jay Masino)
wrote in ::

How about returning things to normal, and NOT allowing the relatively
small number of terrorists in this world dictate how we live our lives?

Has my vote.

And fight the battle on their turf, not ours.

I agree on that as well.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Jon,

The Phalanx guns I imagine to be
strategically placed around the White House and Pentagon should be quite
effective against a King Air.


Which will then come down hard on something else important in the area...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

How about returning things to normal, and NOT allowing the relatively
small number of terrorists in this world dictate how we live our lives?

If only it were so easy.

I would nominate this quote as "Wishful Thinking of the Year"...

:-(
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In fact, be careful what you wish for. If you guys keep clamoring about
how
"ineffective" this ADIZ is, the Feds just might clamp down a "No-Fly Zone"
over Washington once again.
THAT would be far more effective against terrorist attack from the air,
don't you think?

Perhaps. But the public and corporate outrage over such a No-Fly
Zone would prevent it from being implemented.

Which is PRECISELY why we now have the "ineffective" ADIZ. I'm sure at the
deepest level of government security -- probably the Secret Service -- they
were clamoring for a permanent No-Fly Zone around D.C. after 9/11. When
this proved to be politically impossible, they "settled" for the ADIZ.

But -- mark my words -- all it will take is ONE successful attack using a GA
plane, and there WILL be a "No Fly Zone" around D.C.

Which is why ALL of us have to be vigilant around our local airports, by the
way. All it will take is one of these nut-case shoe-bombers to fly a stolen
Cherokee Six loaded with fill-in-the-blank into fill-in-the-blank, and
we'll all be recalling the ADIZ fondly.

Think it can't happen here?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Only "evidence" that I can sight (because I don't know the details of
most of the incursions) is the big one with the student and older guy in
the 150.

1: "cite"

2: I don't think this case was an example of an "I don't need no stinking
whiz bang GPS" attitude. He just (presumably) flew without a GPS. That's
different from the attitude I am referring to.

Can we ever get inside the guy's head to know for sure? Nope.

But his actions -- given the incredibly low cost of GPS nowadays -- are
consistent with this attitude.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Well, you keep changing your interpretation of what I'm saying.

Well, no.

Well, yes. :-)

The =flavor= of what you are saying ... snip

When you start interpreting the "flavor" of what I'm saying, you're stepping
on thin ice.

How about we leave it at this:

"If a pilot isn't 100% sure of his ability to ded reckon (or dead reckon, if
you prefer the Elizabethan spelling) with a chart, a stopwatch, and a
compass, he should not penetrate the ADIZ without using modern navigational
equipment."

There. I've eliminated the dreaded term "GPS", to which you seem to have a
pathological aversion...

;-)

NOW can we agree?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

How about returning things to normal, and NOT allowing the relatively
small number of terrorists in this world dictate how we live our lives?


If only it were so easy.

How is it "not so easy"?

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

But his actions -- given the incredibly low cost of GPS nowadays -- are
consistent with this attitude.

The actions of =any= pilot who rents a plane that doesn't have GPS is
consistent with this attitude. But that doesn't mean =possesses= this
attitude. They are different.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

How about we leave it at this:

"If a pilot isn't 100% sure of his ability to ded reckon (or dead reckon, if
you prefer the Elizabethan spelling) with a chart, a stopwatch, and a
compass, he should not penetrate the ADIZ without using modern navigational
equipment."

There. I've eliminated the dreaded term "GPS", to which you seem to have a
pathological aversion...

;-)

NOW can we agree?

Almost. Noting that VORs are modern, including pilotage in with dead
reckoning (yes, I prefer the original spelling and taking a slightly
smaller value of "100%" (nothing is truely certain), I agree.

I will further state however that if a pilot isn't "almost 100%" sure of
his ability to navigate using pilotage or dead reckoning with a chart, a
stopwatch, and a compass, then maybe he shouldn't be up there in the
first place, ADIZ or not. Granted, we both apply higher standards to
any complex airspace with consequences, but it's a basic piloting skill
whose value is being needlessly denegrated.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Almost. Noting that VORs are modern, including pilotage in with dead
reckoning (yes, I prefer the original spelling and taking a slightly
smaller value of "100%" (nothing is truely certain), I agree.

Well, VORs are about as modern as a '47 LaSalle Coupe, but I'll go with you
on the rest of that.

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"