A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Washington DC airspace closing for good?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old August 7th 05, 03:33 AM
Happy Dog
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


Ads
  #102  
Old August 7th 05, 03:58 AM
George Patterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 7th 05, 05:43 AM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 7th 05, 06:02 AM
Jose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 7th 05, 01:35 PM
Happy Dog
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
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  
Old August 7th 05, 01:46 PM
Happy Dog
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old August 7th 05, 02:52 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 7th 05, 06:19 PM
W P Dixon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 7th 05, 10:17 PM
Happy Dog
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old August 8th 05, 02:52 AM
George Patterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Happy Dog wrote:
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2021 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.