The FAA continues it's war on General Aviation

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 07:33:55 -0700, Terry wrote:

That's a little harsh, don't you think?

Newps wrote:


FlipSide wrote:
This is completely unecessary and idiotic.
If the FAA had their way they would disallow any VFR flying in the US
period.

You're an idiot. The FAA has never said they want to stop VFR. They
won't say that either because they know better than most that the system
cannot handle all the aircraft that are airborne at any given time.


Apparently the sarcasm is not readliy evident....something I should
have empasized with a little emoticon or something.

I was thinking that it was a little harsh too. I can't say that I have
ever encountered a stranger in the real world that would be so abrupt
in response to a sarcastic comment. I would only expect that kind of
response from a good friend. But maybe if I lived in a different part
of the country or another country altogether a response like that
would have been a more common occurrence.

I think there are two opposing forces within the FAA.
There are many people within the FAA who are general aviation pilots
and really work to improve GA. I suspect these are the people who
pushed the sport pilot through, as well as many other services we
enjoy. However, I am sure there are other bureaucrats in the FAA and
TSA who have no clue about GA. These are the forces we need to fight
against. Unless you have friends in high places in Washington, the only
way to do that is to contact your local representative. With elections
coming soon, this is a great time to get poloticians to listen.



FlipSide wrote:
This is completely unecessary and idiotic.
If the FAA had their way they would disallow any VFR flying in the US
period.

So what would additional ADIZ training entail? How do you implement it
and how do you verify that pilots have had the training. How is it
documented? Do you have a special code on your certificate or is it
just a log book entry? Will they create a new FAA ADIZ police force?

Can you say "Chicken Little"?

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...60706adiz.html

"Terry" wrote in message
...
I am wondering what good a logbook entry would be in stopping inadvertent
incursions into this pointless ADIZ.

I'm not saying the ADIZ is either needed or good. What I'm saying is that if
there is an ongoing problem with pilots not understanding a certain aviation
hazard or regulation that requiring training that should reduce that
misunderstanding might not be a bad idea.

The original poster asked how would we show that we had the training. I
answered a log book entry. SFAR 73-1 as an example.

Nope.



Terry wrote:

That's a little harsh, don't you think?

Newps wrote:



FlipSide wrote:

This is completely unecessary and idiotic.
If the FAA had their way they would disallow any VFR flying in the US
period.


You're an idiot. The FAA has never said they want to stop VFR. They
won't say that either because they know better than most that the
system cannot handle all the aircraft that are airborne at any given
time.

In article ,
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:

"Terry" wrote in message
...
I am wondering what good a logbook entry would be in stopping inadvertent
incursions into this pointless ADIZ.

I'm not saying the ADIZ is either needed or good. What I'm saying is that if
there is an ongoing problem with pilots not understanding a certain aviation
hazard or regulation that requiring training that should reduce that
misunderstanding might not be a bad idea.

The original poster asked how would we show that we had the training. I
answered a log book entry. SFAR 73-1 as an example.


How about the converse? If there is a problem understanding an airspace
design, perhaps the whole thing should be redesigned into something easy
to use and logical, if it is first determined to be necessary to have it
in the first place.

IMHO, the ADIZ fails in all of the above areas.

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:

"Terry" wrote in message
...
I am wondering what good a logbook entry would be in stopping
inadvertent
incursions into this pointless ADIZ.

I'm not saying the ADIZ is either needed or good. What I'm saying is that
if
there is an ongoing problem with pilots not understanding a certain
aviation
hazard or regulation that requiring training that should reduce that
misunderstanding might not be a bad idea.

The original poster asked how would we show that we had the training. I
answered a log book entry. SFAR 73-1 as an example.


How about the converse? If there is a problem understanding an airspace
design, perhaps the whole thing should be redesigned into something easy
to use and logical, if it is first determined to be necessary to have it
in the first place.

IMHO, the ADIZ fails in all of the above areas.

The folks that get to make that determination have determined that the DC
ADIZ is needed and they have the regulatory power to enforce that
determination. If you don't like it lobby your congressmen and get a law
passed.

Until that happens the DC ADIZ is there and if you are going to fly near it
you better damn sure understand it. There seem to be a lot of people who
don't understand it and one of these days one of them is going to get their
ass shot down. So if the DC ADIZ is there it might not be a bad idea to put
in some type of training program for pilots so that doesn't happen.



But for

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 14:17:26 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in
::

The folks that get to make that determination have determined that the DC
ADIZ is needed and they have the regulatory power to enforce that
determination.

Just because DHS has the authority to demand the creation of the DC
ADIZ doesn't make them competent to make those kind of decisions. In
fact, DHS has repeatedly demonstrated its incompetence and fiscal
irresponsibility, yet they seem to escape public outrage unscathed,
and continue to perpetrate their stupid tyranny unchecked. :-(.

No, I'm afraid the morons that continually blundered into the
Washington ADIZ have brought this down on us all. 'Tis a shame, since
this was entirely, 100% predictable -- and preventable.

.... by not having the ADIZ and FRZ in the first place.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
"Terry" wrote in message
...
I am wondering what good a logbook entry would be in stopping inadvertent
incursions into this pointless ADIZ.

I'm not saying the ADIZ is either needed or good. What I'm saying is that if
there is an ongoing problem with pilots not understanding a certain aviation
hazard or regulation that requiring training that should reduce that
misunderstanding might not be a bad idea.


What is stupid is it's not the pilots who live NEAR the ADIZ/FRZ that
are the problem. The same clowns who fly in ignorant of the ADIZ or
its procedures are the same ones who WON'T get the new training or
endorsement either.

All it means is that the FAA will have something to hang pilots on
who never intended to go anywhere near the DC ADIZ but did pass over
the eastern shore or more of the airspace grabbed by the 100 mile
radius.

If the ADIZ is permanent, what they should require is ALL PILOTS learn
the procedures prior to getting a rating, or at their next Flight Review.

Ron Natalie wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
snip

If the ADIZ is permanent, what they should require is ALL PILOTS learn
the procedures prior to getting a rating, or at their next Flight Review.

How about just getting rid of it?