Security in the USA

ALL AIRCRAFT WITHIN 60 MILES of DC SHOULD BE SQUAWKING AND
TRACKED, surface to 50,000 feet

The fact that a 150 (Student pilot and Instructor)

Could have been... (2 Arabs looking for 72 virgins with
plastic explosives and Uranium isotope) is scary

TSA (Thousands Standing Around) is a joke

FAA (Still worrying more about promoting unqualified black
females and Gay pride month than air safety) is a joke

Homeland Security is nothing but a bloated "Guvment" empire

Militarize the airspace around sensitive areas (DC New York
and others) and get the FAA out of the business of social
engineering (Promoting woman and blacks) and put them back
on their primary job of Air safety

The chaos in DC with thousands of Government employees
rushing on to the streets and looking up with the
possibility of a F16 blasting a 150 or 172 out of the air
full of radioactive debris was just F&^% Stupid. Imagine if
the F16 did shoot down the 150?? Where is it going to land??
What if it was full of a dirty bomb???? Shooting it down
would be worse than letting it crash.

STUPID STUPID STUPID way of handling the situation

This time we got lucky. I am sure the ragheads are laughing
at our total buffoon handling of the situation last week

What a joke


Cockpit Colin wrote:
I'm curious ...

What do you folks in the USA think the answer to the big "question" is, when
it comes to things like security of the whitehouse?

What's best ...

(a) Increase the radius of the no-fly zones to give greater protection
against faster aircraft?

(b) Leave things the way thay are now and "hope for the best"?

(c) Something else?

Seriously, we've all read many compelling arguments as to how and why the
existing procedures don't work, and tend to "drag down" GA - what I'm
interested in hearing though is not what DOESN'T work, but what DOES.

Any ideas?

Cheers,

CC

I would vote for (a), modified, as follows:

Even though as a pilot in the DC area, I am as inconvenienced and
frustrated by the ADIZ as everyone else, I can understand its
rationale--a buffer zone to qualify/charcterize traffic around the DC
area. But the last incursion brought to light 2 flaws:

(1) It barely worked for a C-150 doing 95 mph-- I mean, they were at 3
miles from the White House before the shooters were in place with
launch authorization--many previous posts to this newsgroup have
highlighted the fact that a faster platform could have been on target
well before a response could have been brought to bear

(2) it responds best to platforms that pose the least threat--lost
light singles with crappy navigation/comms--kind of like the all the
news stories of the TSA beating up on old ladies with tweezers and
sewing pins and letting the guns through

If the ADIZ is going to really protect us then it has to expanded for
faster aircraft, in other words a "time on target" envelope rather than
a fixed radius for all aircraft. Light planes would have an ADIZ at
the current radius; faster ones at an expanded envelope.

In order to implement this, some means of characterization needs to be
in place to enforce it. I think current sensor technology allows this.
As a submarine driver during the cold war, I used a combination of
electromagnetic, infrared, and acoustic sensors that (I think) could
accomplish this--ID the target at point of incursion. To get an idea:

The acoustic sensors could tell you not only that the plane was a
C-150, but that the #3 cylinder was not going to make it to TBO

The infrared sensors would allow you to see the structural girders of
the aircraft internally, because they are at a slightly different
temperature than the skin

The EM sensors were truly magic, without going into a lot of detail
they would provide you with every possible bit of information about an
emitter, down to its place of manufacture

As it stands now the ADIZ is like a lot of the "feel good, look good,
not really do anything" meausures post-911. Like the non-Title 10
National Guardsmen standing around airports immediately
afterwards--pure eye candy.

Hank Rausch

Hank Rausch wrote:

As it stands now the ADIZ is like a lot of the "feel good, look good,
not really do anything" meausures post-911. Like the non-Title 10
National Guardsmen standing around airports immediately
afterwards--pure eye candy.

Hank Rausch


Even if you expanded the ADIZ to 500 miles from DC it would still be
"eye candy". What is to prevent Mr. Bad Guy from filing an ADIZ flight
plan or even an IFR flight plan? That would put Mr. Bad Guy 15 miles
from any target in DC. Now in a 150 that might still take some time,
but in something fast, it wouldn't take any time at all.

Margy

Hank Rausch wrote:
I would vote for (a), modified, as follows:
snip
... Light planes would have an ADIZ at
the current radius; faster ones at an expanded envelope.

In order to implement this, some means of characterization needs to be
in place to enforce it. I think current sensor technology allows this.
snip

What if, instead of just 4096 squawk codes, there was
a way to allow each airplane to have it's own unique code?
If that code were registered at the FAA along with the N number,
then a radar return would allow automated lookup of aircraft type.

I know TWO mode C transponders per aircraft wouldn't exactly work,
but something along those lines?
--wade

In article , Wade
wrote:

What if, instead of just 4096 squawk codes, there was
a way to allow each airplane to have it's own unique code?
If that code were registered at the FAA along with the N number,
then a radar return would allow automated lookup of aircraft type.

It's called Mode S, and it's been around for 25 years. It's in every
TCAS-equipped airplane out there, at a minimum.

But they're 5 times the price of the Mode C transponder, meaning it's
unlikely folks are going to install them unless the FARs mandate it.

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Clifton Park, NY =USA=

Wade wrote:

What if, instead of just 4096 squawk codes, there was
a way to allow each airplane to have it's own unique code?

You mean like a Mode-S transponder?

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

("john smith" wrote)
I am simply amazed that we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to
protect people we vote out of office every four to six years because of
their incompetence.


In one of the last elections (1998) the re-election number for members of
Congress was something like 98%.

(Found it)
http://www.thisnation.com/question/016.html


Montblack

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("john smith" wrote)
I am simply amazed that we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars
to
protect people we vote out of office every four to six years because of
their incompetence.


In one of the last elections (1998) the re-election number for members of
Congress was something like 98%.

(Found it)
http://www.thisnation.com/question/016.html


It's been that way since the 1940's.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("john smith" wrote)
I am simply amazed that we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars
to
protect people we vote out of office every four to six years because of
their incompetence.


In one of the last elections (1998) the re-election number for members of
Congress was something like 98%.

(Found it)
http://www.thisnation.com/question/016.html


It's been that way since the 1940's.




Everybody thinks Congress is doing a lousy job. The same everybody thinks
that there congress criters hung the moon.

In one of the last elections (1998) the re-election number for members of
Congress was something like 98%.

It's been that way since the 1940's.

Most people are sheep.



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