GA headed for regulatory trouble

In article E6wye.124300$x96.124125@attbi_s72,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

In fact, be careful what you wish for. If you guys keep clamoring about how
"ineffective" this ADIZ is, the Feds just might clamp down a "No-Fly Zone"
over Washington once again.

THAT would be far more effective against terrorist attack from the air,
don't you think?

Nope.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Jay Honeck wrote:
But what has this example got to do with an ADIZ that has been thrown up
around our seat of government which -- as you may recall -- WAS attacked
successfully from the air using suicide-piloted aircraft?

As Jose pointed out, our country was attacked by airliners and Ryder
trucks (in OK City), yet both can transit DC with little or no
restrictions. GA aircraft, although "supposedly" the obsession of Al
Quada, has NOT been used as a terrorist weapon. Seemingly every day, a
car bomb goes off somewhere in the middle east, yet no one is talking
about banning cars from DC.

I mean, really. At some level you must concede that the White House,
Capitol, and Pentagon are proven targets of terrorists who *have already
used* aircraft to try to attack them. The ADIZ -- which only requires that
you have a squawk code and a flight plan -- is a pretty loose defense, IMHO,
considering everything that has occurred in D.C.

The terrorist used airliners, not GA aircraft. Also, the price of living
in a free society is accepting some level of danger. It's nausiating to
see how easily the American people are willing to give up their rights and
freedoms just to be "protected". Our founding fathers are rolling over in
their graves. I've literally lived under the airspace now known as the
ADIZ (and FRZ) for my entire life. Although, when everything works OK (as
it did for you), flying in and out is no big deal. However, things often
DO go wrong (from simple mistakes to equipment failures), and having to
live with it on a regular basis is bull s**t.

In fact, be careful what you wish for. If you guys keep clamoring about how
"ineffective" this ADIZ is, the Feds just might clamp down a "No-Fly Zone"
over Washington once again.

How about returning things to normal, and NOT allowing the relatively
small number of terrorists in this world dictate how we live our lives?

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 06:16:12 GMT, "JP5" wrote in
et::

I wonder what a King Air fully loaded with explosives and fuel would do
to the White House?

If said King Air were traveling at 292 knots*, it would be within the
DC No Fly Zone in ~3 minutes. I wonder how F-16s could be scrambled
to intercept it before it arrives at the White House?

The ADIZ and No Fly Zone do nothing to enhance security.

*
http://www.executivebeechcraft.com/i..._Perf_2003.pdf

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 13:41:56 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote in
E6wye.124300$x96.124125@attbi_s72::


But what has this example got to do with an ADIZ that has been thrown up
around our seat of government which -- as you may recall -- WAS attacked
successfully from the air using suicide-piloted [airline] aircraft?

The current ADIZ will not protect the White House from similar
AIRLINER attacks. It only restricts law abiding flights.

I mean, really. At some level you must concede that the White House,
Capitol, and Pentagon are proven targets of terrorists who *have already
used* aircraft to try to attack them.

I concede that those proven targets were attacked with AIRLINERS.

The ADIZ is a pretty loose defense, IMHO, considering everything that has occurred in D.C.

I would characterize the DC ADIZ as ineffective in any measure of
defense.

In fact, be careful what you wish for. If you guys keep clamoring about how
"ineffective" this ADIZ is, the Feds just might clamp down a "No-Fly Zone"
over Washington once again.

The airlines and the airline traveling public would not permit a
No-Fly Zone to exist in the DC area.

THAT would be far more effective against terrorist attack from the air,
don't you think?

Perhaps. But the public and corporate outrage over such a No-Fly
Zone would prevent it from being implemented.

On 05 Jul 2005 15:45:52 GMT, (Jay Masino)
wrote in ::

How about returning things to normal, and NOT allowing the relatively
small number of terrorists in this world dictate how we live our lives?

Someone wrote, "I wonder what a King Air fully loaded with explosives and
fuel would do to the White House?"

Larry Dighera replied, "If said King Air were traveling at 292 knots*, it
would be within the DC No Fly Zone in ~3 minutes. I wonder how F-16s could
be scrambled to intercept it before it arrives at the White House?"

I don't think F-16 are necessary. The Phalanx guns I imagine to be
strategically placed around the White House and Pentagon should be quite
effective against a King Air.

Jon

I have to disagree. I don't think American people are willing to give up
their own, individual rights and freedoms. We just have no problem giving up
rights and freedoms that don't affect us, and only affects others.

"Jay Masino" wrote in message
...
in a free society is accepting some level of danger. It's nausiating to
see how easily the American people are willing to give up their rights and
freedoms just to be "protected".

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 11:11:40 -0600, "Jon Woellhaf"
wrote in
::

Someone wrote, "I wonder what a King Air fully loaded with explosives and
fuel would do to the White House?"

Larry Dighera replied, "If said King Air were traveling at 292 knots*, it
would be within the DC No Fly Zone in ~3 minutes. I wonder how F-16s could
be scrambled to intercept it before it arrives at the White House?"

I don't think F-16 are necessary. The Phalanx guns I imagine to be
strategically placed around the White House and Pentagon should be quite
effective against a King Air.


Right. So the military shoot down authorization is unnecessary;
eliminate it.

Only "evidence" that I can sight (because I don't know the details of
most of the incursions) is the big one with the student and older guy in
the 150.

Jose wrote:
This attitude of "I don't need no stinking whiz bang GPS", followed by
busting restricted space, followed by, "I am going to fight you to the
death on trying to violate me": I think cases like this hurt the
survival of free flight that I love.

Do you have any evidence that the people who do the first are the same
ones that do the second and third?

Jose

"Matt Barrow" wrote in news:lDqye.121$8h6.17630
@news.uswest.net:

Snipola
What...don't you trust government? You better be more respectful of your
masters! And they say I have weird political views :~)

As the saying goes, "Respect is earned, not granted." As yet, very
few politicians have earned my respect. Unfortunately, most of
them are long dead.

If yours and my political views are considered 'weird' it is only
in the context of what has become considered 'normal' today.

And in a lame attempt to stay on topic, I wish I had my PPL so I
could go flying!!!

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?