The FAA continues it's war on General Aviation

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...

"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.


So Cessna XYZ flies into the area. How do the authorities know the pilot
has the training. Hold your log book up to the window so they can see it?
Dumb, dumb, dumb idea but typical of bureaucrats.

In article ,
Emily wrote:

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?

don't be rationale. :-/

Getting rid of it would require the powers-that-be to admit they had
their collective heads up somewhere where the sun don't shine. :-(

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 17:27:23 -0500, Emily
wrote in ::


How about just getting rid of it?


Now, there's a novel idea. :-)

Bob Noel wrote in
:

In article ,
Emily wrote:

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?

don't be rationale. :-/

Getting rid of it would require the powers-that-be to admit they had
their collective heads up somewhere where the sun don't shine. :-(


Not necessarily. "Powers" could very easily come up with a "study" saying
that the ADIZ has served its purpose in providing the necessary time to
get the training and systems in place to protect the Capitol region. Now
that they have had time to get it together, ongoing military support and
Whitehouse based missile silos (or whatever) will be adequate to keep the
Capitol safe with standard Class B airspace rules and procedures, and the
ADIZ is "no longer required." Faces would remain clear of eggs, and
everyone would be happy. We'd get our airspace back, the government would
be able to save some $$ on wasted FSS and controller costs (and maybe
some occassional F-16 fuel), and the public would feel good that they are
still safe.

The problem is that most "Powers" are not interested in effecting change
unless they would personally benefit from it, and the ones who are less
conservative are not interested in trimming the fat. Plus, I suspect the
most noticable ongoing cost is the FSS costs, which now are Lockheed's
problem, not the FAA's... So the benefit is even less because no one at
FAAland is going to want to renegotiate with Lockheed to get that $$$
back. So basically, they won't even be saving tax $$$ with the move.

So what's in it for the Powers-that-be?

Maybe I'm a cynic, but that's how I see it.

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

snip
When laws are absurd, they are not obeyed (remember the 55 MPH speed
limit?), they only create more "criminals" to fill our overflowing
jails. What the hell is that son of a Bush trying to do, incite a
national rebellion, in the name of homeland security?

There are those that believe that speed zones and speed limits in general
were created for no other reason than to create enforcement actions and
produce revenue (in the form of speeding tickets)...

It's very possible that someone at the FAA has the same idea...

Guilt is not absolved by Ignorance...

Larry Dighera wrote:
snip

What the hell is that son of a Bush trying to do, incite a
national rebellion, in the name of homeland security?

He won't start a rebellion, because most Americans are perfectly fine
with all these new laws. Makes them feel "safe". Makes me want to find
a country where people have higher IQ's.

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 03:22:27 GMT, Judah wrote in
::

There are those that believe that speed zones and speed limits in general
were created for no other reason than to create enforcement actions and
produce revenue (in the form of speeding tickets)...

I always thought the 55 mph speed limit was a result of insurance
company lobbying. After all, the energy of a collision impact is
reduced by the *square* of the relative velocity of the automobiles
involved.

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 03:22:27 GMT, Judah wrote in
::

There are those that believe that speed zones and speed limits in
general
were created for no other reason than to create enforcement actions and
produce revenue (in the form of speeding tickets)...

I always thought the 55 mph speed limit was a result of insurance
company lobbying. After all, the energy of a collision impact is
reduced by the *square* of the relative velocity of the automobiles
involved.

Also -- and this is important -- Any "moving violation" (exceeding the
speed limit) gives the insurance companies an excuse to raise your rates
through the roof, because you are a "bad driver".

Actually what a moving violation does is allow you to pay extra to take a 4
hour hokey safe driving course which keeps the violation off your record and
provides additional income for the municipality. The 55mph limit was
enacted due to the fake energy crisis, insurance had nothing to do with it.

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 03:22:27 GMT, Judah wrote in
::

There are those that believe that speed zones and speed limits in general
were created for no other reason than to create enforcement actions and
produce revenue (in the form of speeding tickets)...
I always thought the 55 mph speed limit was a result of insurance
company lobbying. After all, the energy of a collision impact is
reduced by the *square* of the relative velocity of the automobiles
involved.

Also -- and this is important -- Any "moving violation" (exceeding the
speed limit) gives the insurance companies an excuse to raise your rates
through the roof, because you are a "bad driver".

What insurance company do you use? Mine have never even asked.

"Emily" wrote in message
...
Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 03:22:27 GMT, Judah wrote in
::

There are those that believe that speed zones and speed limits in
general were created for no other reason than to create enforcement
actions and produce revenue (in the form of speeding tickets)...
I always thought the 55 mph speed limit was a result of insurance
company lobbying. After all, the energy of a collision impact is
reduced by the *square* of the relative velocity of the automobiles
involved.

Also -- and this is important -- Any "moving violation" (exceeding the
speed limit) gives the insurance companies an excuse to raise your rates
through the roof, because you are a "bad driver".

What insurance company do you use? Mine have never even asked.

They don't have to ask, it is public information available from your state
DMV.