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

GA headed for regulatory trouble



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 30th 05, 01:40 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default GA headed for regulatory trouble

The recent spate of private pilots violating restricted airspace over
Washington raises the thought that some lawmaker is going to decide
that general aviation is a threat to national security. It's only a
matter of time.

Just something else for our lobbyists to be prepared for.

AJ Harris

Ads
  #2  
Old June 30th 05, 02:06 PM
NW_PILOT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
ups.com...
The recent spate of private pilots violating restricted airspace over
Washington raises the thought that some lawmaker is going to decide
that general aviation is a threat to national security. It's only a
matter of time.

Just something else for our lobbyists to be prepared for.

AJ Harris


Then Its a matter of time that some lawmaker will be losing their jobs!!!


  #3  
Old June 30th 05, 04:10 PM
PittsS1C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Obviously shooting these a couple of these planes down is impractical. (but
I firmly believe you wouldn't have to kill many before no one would wander
there again)
Are there any other reasonable consequences that would major deterrent? Part
of the problem is that it is not a big enough inconvenience for violators.
I would rather that the aviation community help find a solution before an
irrational governmental body imposes useless painful legislation upon all
the rest of us. We need to "take care of our own".
Is "Federal pound me in the ass" prison enough? (with huge bail, so they
would be massively inconvenienced)

We as pilots would have to support it. Less incursions is safer for us
(the aviation community)


wrote in message
ups.com...
The recent spate of private pilots violating restricted airspace over
Washington raises the thought that some lawmaker is going to decide
that general aviation is a threat to national security. It's only a
matter of time.

Just something else for our lobbyists to be prepared for.

AJ Harris



  #4  
Old June 30th 05, 04:34 PM
Jay Honeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

We as pilots would have to support it. Less incursions is safer for us
(the aviation community)


Why do I find it hard to believe that a King Air 300 "accidentally"
penetrated the ADIZ? I just flew in that ADIZ a couple of weeks ago, and
it's hard to imagine "accidentally" entering this incredibly well-marked,
highly defended piece of territory.

Personally, I'll bet when all the evidence is examined we will find that the
pilot diverted for weather (as stated), that the local controller knew this,
and that somehow that information didn't get passed around to the
appropriate controllers.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


  #5  
Old June 30th 05, 04:44 PM
Skylune
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yeah, I agree that its only a matter of time. That huge AOPA staff that
you guys pay for can only protect you for so long. There have been a
number of close calls for innocents on the ground (the trailer park homes
that were destroyed, highway crashes in Calif, the home that was destroyed
in texas, etc.), but eventually some GA pilot is going to cause alot of
innocents to die (Of course people will post the usual drivel he
"condolences to the pilot -- he was really good -- we'll miss him, yada
yada yada). When that happens, there will really generate alot of
headlines.

But, the truth is coming out. About the total disregard many of you have
for noise, safety, etc. as well as the huge taxpayer subsidies that GA
airports receive.

There is a nationwide meeting of anti aviation activists coming up next
weekend. With all the news you guys are generating (high profile crashes
all over the country, kids stealing planes, constant intrusions into the
DC ADIZ, the truth about who pays to subsidize your fun (taxpayers), etc.
we have plenty of ammunition to put some sanity into this business.

SKYLUNE is always watching.



  #6  
Old June 30th 05, 04:47 PM
Marco Leon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Acording to the news reports, he cancelled IFR and/or squawked VFR before
this happened. If it was for weather, it would seem kind of odd for him to
do that. Usually an aircraft with weather issues is left in the IFR system.
However, I suppose an unavoidable separation conflict could have required an
IFR cancellation to avoid a violation of the separation kind. Anyone out
there ever experience a similar situation (non-ADIZ, T-storm, traffic
problem)?

Marco Leon

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news[email protected]_s71...
We as pilots would have to support it. Less incursions is safer for

us
(the aviation community)


Why do I find it hard to believe that a King Air 300 "accidentally"
penetrated the ADIZ? I just flew in that ADIZ a couple of weeks ago,

and
it's hard to imagine "accidentally" entering this incredibly well-marked,
highly defended piece of territory.

Personally, I'll bet when all the evidence is examined we will find that

the
pilot diverted for weather (as stated), that the local controller knew

this,
and that somehow that information didn't get passed around to the
appropriate controllers.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"





Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
  #8  
Old June 30th 05, 05:06 PM
kontiki
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Of course, the reality that far more people are exposed to death
and dismemberment in automobile crashes every single day won't
cross anyone's mind.

  #9  
Old June 30th 05, 05:15 PM
Skylune
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Phil Boyer will need to get a new bumper sticker. Instead of "I fly a
Cessna 150 , 26 gallons of gas, 90 knots of screaming terror, etc." he'll
have to upgrade it to include the other GA planes, like turboprops like the
King Air.

That guy isn't doing your cause any good. Check out the smirking picture
in Letters section of the USA today that appeared about a week ago. Of
course, right after his most recent appearance, there has been another
intrusion, kids stealing planes, highway landings, etc.

What an arrogant jerk. That's who represents you.

  #10  
Old June 30th 05, 05:24 PM
Icebound
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"PittsS1C" wrote in message
...
Obviously shooting these a couple of these planes down is impractical.
(but I firmly believe you wouldn't have to kill many before no one would
wander there again)
Are there any other reasonable consequences that would major deterrent?
Part of the problem is that it is not a big enough inconvenience for
violators.
I would rather that the aviation community help find a solution before an
irrational governmental body imposes useless painful legislation upon all
the rest of us. We need to "take care of our own".
Is "Federal pound me in the ass" prison enough? (with huge bail, so they
would be massively inconvenienced)

We as pilots would have to support it. Less incursions is safer for us
(the aviation community)


In democracies, legislators should be defending themselves from aviator's
questions, rather than aviators cowering before the legislator's
impositions.

Before we go shooting these guys down, or incarcerating them for life,
consider their intent and the relative consequence of their actions.
Restrictions in any walk of life should be constantly questioned as to
purpose and effectiveness. Where imposed by the law of the land they must
be followed, of course, but they should continue to be questioned.


"Taking care of our own" should mean aggressively defending pilots whose
technical violation of a rule, has resulted in no significant consequence.


Why do we think there will be no violations, no matter what the penalty? In
all walks of life there are laws (prohibitions), and they all have
violations. The law says it is dangerous to drive too fast, some of us do
and get caught. Don't steal, burglaries do happen; don't cheat, Enron
happens; don't kill, murders do happen, etc. The law says don't fly here,
some do.

So the *regulations* hold *violations* down to a manageable level, that's
all.

If someone violates the don't-kill rule, somebody dies. When Enron happens,
ten of thousands of individual investors suffer for a very long time.

When an ADIZ violation happens, the usual consequence of the perpetrator's
action is.... uh... ???




 




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
Four States and the Grand Canyon Mary Daniel or David Grah Soaring 6 December 6th 04 11:36 AM
Avionic trouble Henning DE Home Built 1 September 10th 04 10:23 PM
The Trouble With E-Ballots WalterM140 Military Aviation 0 June 26th 04 09:46 PM
A little engine trouble Peter Duniho Piloting 29 June 17th 04 07:29 PM
is anyone else having trouble getting messages downloaded? Gilan Home Built 1 August 22nd 03 01:49 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.