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
  #61  
Old August 5th 05, 07:06 PM
Gig 601XL Builder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 03:37:31 -0400, "Happy Dog"


Bull****. Do you still live with your mother?

moo


At the risk of having misinterpreted another of your outbursts, please
let me request that you compose a cognate rebuttal worthy of rational
discussion.



Ha good luck with that request.


Ads
  #62  
Old August 5th 05, 07:20 PM
George Patterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Larry Dighera wrote:
It seems that the issue of the FAA closing the 2,000 square mile
airspace around DC is capable of generating a lot of heat among the
pilot community. Let's try to see if we can use this forum to
generate some light, and mount an effective opposition to the FAA's
NPRM: http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...4adiz-nprm.pdf


Not only that, but pull out the sections on how much this is going to cost the
FAA and hand that out to your aquaintances outside the aviation community.
Perhaps something along the lines of "their taxes" going to pay for
Congresscritters' cowardice and "feel-good" efforts would be in order.

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.
  #63  
Old August 5th 05, 07:45 PM
Jose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

They would be fired within ten minutes of refusing to fly there.

This is bad if other pilots fill in for them. But if NOBODY flies
there, then there is leverage.

I'm not holding my breath though.

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.
  #64  
Old August 5th 05, 08:31 PM
Happy Dog
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message \"Larry Dighera"
wrote in

I disagree. The DC ADIZ provides an opportunity for the military to
intercept flights that violate it before they might enter the FRZ
within which lethal force may be exercised. If the DC ADIZ (or
something similar) did not exist, there would be no opportunity to
determine how much of a threat those flights might be, and the
military would have no other option but to shoot them down.


Bull****. Do you still live with your mother?

At the risk of having misinterpreted another of your outbursts, please
let me request that you compose a cognate rebuttal worthy of rational
discussion.


It should be obvious. You continually suggest that the ADIZ is a necessary
government as nanny action to protect us from ourselves. It isn't.

m


  #65  
Old August 5th 05, 08:39 PM
Happy Dog
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Larry Dighera"
I'm talking about radar screen clutter. Yes. I see no other rational
reason for the DC ADIZ.

Why do you think it was implemented?


Political pressure. Absolute irrelevant bull****.


Are you able to provide any supporting evidence for that assumption?


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


As for clutter, have you visited a radar facility?


Does the SoCal TRACON count?

It's a computer game.


No. It's real time tracking of aircraft in the NAS.

There is a huge amount of filtering that goes on specifically
to reduce clutter.


Are you referring to the clutter caused by ground based targets? I'm
referring to making it easier to spot primary targets in congested
airspace.


Why? ATC was not consulted when the ADIZ was created. I have seen no
evidence that ATC has asked for relief from the problem you claim exists.
The burden of proof rests with you.

moo


  #66  
Old August 5th 05, 09:14 PM
Bob Noel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article [email protected], George Patterson
wrote:

Not only that, but pull out the sections on how much this is going to cost
the
FAA and hand that out to your aquaintances outside the aviation community.
Perhaps something along the lines of "their taxes" going to pay for
Congresscritters' cowardice and "feel-good" efforts would be in order.


two words: user fees.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

  #67  
Old August 5th 05, 09:27 PM
bravocharlie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The folks that live there feel safe surrounded by millions of people living
elbow to elbow and most probably haven't and never will fly in a small plane
and experience the joy that we do.


Ah, no, we don't live elbow to elbow. In fact, much of the western
part of the ADIZ, between Leesburg and 30 nm west of IAD is fairly
sparcely populated.

And, yes, there are GA pilots inside the ADIZ.

For some reason, I had assumed (wrongly, I guess), that most of the
people involved in this discussion where also in ADIZ and were thus
annoyed by this proposal.

  #68  
Old August 5th 05, 09:30 PM
Jose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

For some reason, I had assumed (wrongly, I guess), that most of the
people involved in this discussion where also in ADIZ and were thus
annoyed by this proposal.


You don't have to be under the ADIZ to be affected by it.

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.
  #69  
Old August 5th 05, 09:55 PM
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jose wrote:

You don't have to be under the ADIZ to be affected by it.


You don't have to be affected by it to be offended by it either.

- Andrew

  #70  
Old August 5th 05, 10:04 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 10:35:07 -0700, "Terry Briggs"
wrote in ::

Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that it is hopeless to fight battles
like the Washington area ADIZ.


With such an attitude, you can be _assured_ that your view will not
prevail.

Given the fact that the FAA must address the points raised during the
NPRM comment period, each idea submitted in opposition to the NOPR
must be rationally explained away or adopted. This issue isn't really
about the number of pilots at this point in the process.
 




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 07:49 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.