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
  #151  
Old August 9th 05, 05:53 AM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 22:23:54 -0400, "W P Dixon"
wrote in
::

It will take the larger group to make a difference in the ADIZ , not
just a few of us.


This is the first time the FAA has permitted comments on the security
regulations governing this airspace; the previous times the FAA
claimed that the emergency nature of the regulations permitted
bypassing the comment process.

It would be my hope, that logic an reason would prevail over political
might in the FAA's decision process. Your statement makes the
decision process appear like a vote instead. What would the FAA write
in the resolution of this NPRM if their decision were entirely the
result of political influence?


Ads
  #152  
Old August 11th 05, 12:13 AM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 13:21:21 -0400, "W P Dixon"
wrote in
::


As for the won't meet the standards of the world ICAO for Class
B,....SO! We don't need anyones approval for something we consider to be in
our nations defense. Sometimes we have to make a rule for us, this would be
one of those cases.


Considering that international flights operated within the DC ADIZ,
foreign pilots may not be aware of your proposed new class of
airspace.

And yes Larry I realize what you are saying about the FAA and all with
the final say, and not Congress. That is the way they HOPE it goes. If
enough pressure from the right people,VOTERS, and in the right manner is
applied then Congress will in fact make the ruling change themselves.


Please post a draft of your letters to your congressmen.


  #153  
Old August 11th 05, 12:29 AM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 18:39:17 GMT, Jose
wrote in ::

Thanks for your comments; I look forward to more. To wit:

1: The FAA is required to "consider" the points being raised. To me
this means "to rebut them before enacting the rule anyway". (Ok, the
cynic in me!). In any case, what would their likely rebuttals be, so I
can anticipate them in the letter itself?


As you are championing Alternative 1, the NPRM already contains the
FAA's reason for not adopting it:

Alternative 1: Rescind the TSA’s 49
CFR part 1562, FAA’s NOTAM 3/0853,
and the DC ADIZ/FRZ immediately—
This alternative would provide
immediate relief to these airports by
removing security provisions and
restoring former air traffic control
procedures and air space configurations.
Implementation of this alternative
would facilitate the return of pilots who,
for the sake of operating simplicity and
reduced flying costs, relocated to other
airports. This would be the least costly
option. The FAA believes that the threat
of terrorists using aircraft as missiles
must be guarded against, and this option
would not adequately achieve that goal.

Conclusion: Rescinding these actions
would increase the vulnerability and
diminish the level of protection now in
place to safeguard vital national assets
located within the National Capital
Region. This alternative is rejected
because it would compromise the
security of vital national assets and
increase their vulnerability.


2: Does it matter how many people sign such a letter? i.e. does it
make sense to make a petition out of it?


I don't know. But my feeling is, that the more comments from
different individuals the FAA receives that echo your point, the more
credence it will carry.

3: Would it make sense to get an organization like MoveOn.org to read
it and perhaps generate an action item?


I don't see how it could hurt. At least it will make the general
public aware of the NPRM.
  #154  
Old August 11th 05, 12:56 AM
Jose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

As you are championing Alternative 1, the NPRM already contains the
FAA's reason for not adopting it:

[...] The FAA believes that the threat
of terrorists using aircraft as missiles
must be guarded against, and this option
would not adequately achieve that goal.

Conclusion: Rescinding these actions
would increase the vulnerability and
diminish the level of protection...


Well, either they have already made their decision (and further noise is
unnecessary even in what we considered a free state) or these are the
points that need to be rebutted. Alas, without actual data (which is
certainly classified) this will be difficult, as the response is
guaranteed to be "petitioner is wrong because of {CLASSIFIED}."

The NPRM contains the reasons for the decision that has already been
made. Our only hope is that the decision hasn't actually already been made.

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.
 




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 06:15 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.