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
  #11  
Old August 4th 05, 04:14 PM
Thomas Borchert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tony,

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050804/...al_restricted_
airspace


Thank you, Hayden Sheaffer. NOT!
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Ads
  #12  
Old August 4th 05, 04:36 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yes. I saw the AOPA language. But the actual proposal contains this
language:

We believe that as part of ensuring the
security of the people, property and
institutions in the Nation's capital, and
surrounding area, it is essential to know
the intended route of flight of the
aircraft, to have the aircraft squawk a
discrete transponder code, and to have
automatic altitude reporting equipment
on board the aircraft that transmits to
ATC. Government officials believe that
some types of aircraft operations (i.e.,
those conducted under parts 91, 101,
103, 105, 125, 133, 135 and 137) should
continue to be prohibited within 15
miles of the DCA VOR/DME, unless
specifically authorized by the FAA in
consultation with the DoD and DHS.

and this language:

Who Is Potentially Affected by This
Rulemaking?
Private Sector
All aircraft would have to be
transponder equipped when entering
the proposed DC SFRA and maintain
two-way communications while flying
in the proposed area. Pilots operating in
accordance with visual flight rules
(VFR) would have to file flight plans to
fly within the proposed DC SFRA.
There are approximately 150 airports
in the proposed DC ADIZ. Given the
additional requirements that general
aviation pilots face, the FAA is
concerned that many of these airports
would have fewer operations. In some
cases, some of these pilots may elect to
use alternate nearby airports outside of
the proposed DC SFRA.

Indeed, I read through the entire proposal, and I can't find anything
that
makes the restrictions worse. Indeed, It seems to loosen the
restrictions
for "Special Egress Procedures for Fringe Airports", specifically
"Airlie,
Albrecht, Harris, Martin, Martin State, Meadows, Mylander, Stewart, St.
John,
Tilghman Whipp, Upperville, and Wolf airports", by allowing folks those
pilots
to use a specific transponder code and not require them to contact ATC.
Of
course, I've only heard of two of these airports...Upperville, which is
private
and always deserted (CIA?) and Airlie...which is a grass strip that I
and
children went on a demo flight in a 1930's era biplane several years
ago. I
digress.

I hope I'm reading this correctly. I worked three gruelling years
getting my
ticket, and shutting down GA flights out of leesburg would essentially
render
flying impractical for me.

-BC

  #13  
Old August 4th 05, 04:55 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 11:09:10 -0400, "Peter R."
wrote in ::

Stand down, Larry.

He was expressing his frustration to the newsgroup at large regarding the
news that this closing looks to be a reality


I wish I had your gift of prescience.

and he making a statement to pilots in general that now more than ever
pilots need to join AOPA to fight this restriction.


A couple of letters to congressional representatives couldn't hurt
either.

He was not directing his comments specifically at you.


Given the second dictionary definition below:

Main Entry:2crap
Function:noun
Etymology:Middle English crappe chaff, residue from rendered fat,
perhaps from Old French crappe chaff, residue, from Medieval Latin
crappa
Date:circa 1897

1 a usually vulgar : EXCREMENT b usually vulgar : the act of
defecating
2 sometimes vulgar : NONSENSE, RUBBISH; also : STUFF 4b

The ambiguity of his one word sentence is easily misconstrued as
refuting my statement.

Thanks for your interpretation.
  #14  
Old August 4th 05, 05:00 PM
Peter R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Larry Dighera wrote:

The ambiguity of his one word sentence is easily misconstrued as
refuting my statement.


Yep, I now can see how your interpretation fits, too. Crap, as in "you
posted crap, Larry." It's amazing that there is any civility in Usenet.

--
Peter























  #15  
Old August 4th 05, 05:21 PM
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Peter R. wrote:

It's¬*amazing¬*that¬*there¬*is¬*any¬*civility¬*in¬ *Usenet.


Civility on USENET is as much the responsibility of the reader as the
writer.

I've recently been criticized on a mailing list for being excessively
verbose in my writing. I realize that it comes, at least partially, from
my history with email and USENET (which dates back to about 1980 for me).
I try to be sure that I've put everything in to cut down on the
back-and-forth, and also to be as precise as possible so as to minimize
opportunities for misinterpretation.

As an added benefit, I've become quite a quick typist.

ObOT: Didn't Congress demand that the FAA justify the ADIZ? Is this
the FAA's response?

- Andrew

  #16  
Old August 4th 05, 05:24 PM
George Patterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:

Am I missing something here?


Try
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...50803adiz.html . Second sentence.

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.
  #17  
Old August 4th 05, 05:31 PM
Jose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'm more concerned about the second paragraph. In part:

"AOPA recognizes the necessity to protect the national assets in the
nation's capital. The 15-nautical-mile-radius no-fly zone known as the
flight-restricted zone (FRZ) does that," said AOPA President Phil Boyer.

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.
  #18  
Old August 4th 05, 06:05 PM
George Patterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
Hm...I just read the proposed changes and I don't see that:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...4adiz-nprm.pdf

Am I missing something here?


Take a closer look at the fourth page of text (not counting the title page). It
states they propose to establish this area as "national defense airspace." Among
other things, that opens pilots to criminal prosecution for unauthorized entry
instead of the sanctions the FAA are allowed to use presently, as stated in
section 93.33. That section also clearly states that they may shoot you down
anywhere in the new zone. It's been assumed that they might do this if you got
into the FRZ section of the current ADIZ, but even that has not been openly
stated, AFAIK.

In section 93.49, they discuss additional costs. Just processing the new flight
plans required for traffic into and out of the airports in the area will cost
those airports an estimated additional $47,111.00. Costs for other airports are
expected to run $203,429.00. So we have the airports spending 1/4 million more
for new paperwork involving flight plans. New traffic control issues will cost
the FAA nearly $11 million more than today and flight plan processing pushes the
cost up well over $11 million for the FAA. All costs are in 2002 dollars.

Later on, they discuss other losses to the "Washington three" airports. All
things considered, this measure is expected to cost College Park alone $171,900
each year. The current ADIZ restrictions are costing College Park $1.62 million
a year.

Perhaps AOPA is technically incorrect in calling it a restricted area but, no,
they aren't just making the ADIZ permanent.

Thanks for the link to the proposal, by the way.

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.
  #19  
Old August 4th 05, 06:05 PM
George Patterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Thank you, Hayden Sheaffer. NOT!


You got that right!

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.
  #20  
Old August 4th 05, 06:15 PM
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Please post this link so it works properly . . . I cannot get to this
page.

 




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 - Todayís 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 07:44 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.