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
  #121  
Old August 8th 05, 04:48 PM
Jose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Given the same
circumstances and the politicians of 30 years ago, would we have put in
to place such restrictions. I say no.


Change it to 50 years ago and I say yes. The Japanese internment camps
were an even more blatant disregard for basic freedoms.

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.
  #122  
Old August 8th 05, 04:56 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 17:17:48 -0400, "Happy Dog"
wrote in ::

I'm saying you're wrong.


As you haven't provided an alternate plausible explanation for the
existence of the DC ADIZ nor any evidence to support your view, I am
not able to argue it.

If you don't like the way I say it,


Your rudeness speaks volumes about you.

killfile me.


I prefer not to stick my head in the sand, thanks. Who knows, you
might post something about which you actually have some knowledge
sometime.


  #123  
Old August 8th 05, 05:21 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 05:02:15 GMT, Jose
wrote in ::

Here's a first draft.


You didn't ask, but I'll offer a little constructive criticism you may
find useful in arriving at a final draft. These comments are
respectfully offered in a spirit of cooperation.

I oppose the proposed rules codifying current flight restrictions for
certain aircraft operations in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area.


Including the docket number here might be useful.

I believe that the nation is much better served by preserving the values
that made America great in the first place, by rescinding the current
FRZ and ADIZ completely. Neither the current airspace restrictions, nor
the proposed ones, are an effective security measure, but their
implementation has greatly curtailed the freedom of law-abiding citizens
to effectively utilize over ten thousand cubic miles of airspace around
one of the most popular destinations in America.


These restrictions permit low altitude commercial air carrier operations
within only a few miles of the Capitol and the Pentagon. The only known
terrorist attacks on the United States that utilized aircraft used
commercial air carriers. At the same time, these restrictions would
prohibit or severely restrict small aircraft such as four seat, single
engine, piston powered airplanes. This kind of aircraft has never been
used in an attack in the United States, and its utility in such an
attack is primarily in the imagination.

Although small aircraft could be used in a terrorist attack, the limited
load that these small airplanes can carry


My Cherokee 235 had a useful load of 1,400 lbs, and could probably
become airborne carrying substantially more weight.

makes them less effective than
other methods of delivering a payload (such as ground vehicles), so
protecting the capitol against small aircraft does not increase security
by any appreciable amount, although at the same time it imposes an
inappropriate burden on law abiding citizens.


I might reword that as: ... does not increase security by an amount
commensurate with the financial and bourdons it imposes on Fixed Based
Operators in the area, and the loss of liberty of law abiding
citizens.

Although it may increase
the appearance of security, it is very important not to confuse illusion
with reality. This is especially true where terrorism is concerned,
because if we are not careful we will do the terrorist's work for them,
destroying our own country and all it stands for, little by little.

The current and proposed restrictions do not protect the capitol.
Terrorists are law-abiding when it suits their purposes, and
law-breaking when that suits their purposes. They are not going to be
stopped by laws, nor will the threat of punishment such as certificate
action or large fines deter a terrorist from pursuing his goal. Only
the good folk are going to be victimized by flight restrictions and the
threat of punishment. A terrorist who, for whatever reason, chooses to
fly an airplane into the DC area to commit mayhem will almost certainly
do it under cover of complete compliance with the law, until the very
last minute. The only way this is not "too late" is for a huge amount
of airspace around the presumed target to be completely sterile - no
flights, no aircraft, no airports, no populated areas underneath that
would be affected by the wreckage when an errant aircraft is shot down.


First, I would rethink suggesting "a huge amount of airspace ...
completely sterile - no flights no aircraft ..." to an agency capable
of enacting that.

Second, our government may consider collateral damage associated with
any shoot-down acceptable, and certainly preferable to having the
aircraft impact their offices.

I respectively suggest wording along these lines:

Under the present and proposed regulations it would require a
huge sterile zone surrounding the presumed target. Such a zone
would have to be devoid of _all_ aircraft, as well as populated
surface area that would be affected by the wreckage in the event
an aircraft were shot down.


The present proposal to codify existing regulations does not
accomplish this, therefore it is ineffective. The adverse impact of a
truly effective restriction would be to virtually shut down air travel
to and from Washington DC and Baltimore. The impact is far too great
for this to be implemented,

The current and proposed restrictions put our citizens at risk.


of being shot down or have the wreckage of the shot down aircraft land
on them or their property.

Based
on the number of


DC ADIZ

airspace incursions already recorded, and the number of
ATC errors which have led to airspace incursions or the erroneous belief
that an airspace incursion has occurred, and the number of times
fighters have been scrambled to face down with lethal force what turned
out not to be an evildoer, it will only be a matter of time before we
shoot our own people out of the sky. Considering where they are flying,
it is not beyond reason that the victims could be our own congressmen,
lobbyists, or business leaders - the very people the flight restrictions
are supposed to be protecting. And considering where they would likely
be when they are shot down, the debris alone would cause considerable
damage and loss of life.

Since the restrictions do not effectively protect the capitol, and they
do put our own citizens in danger, they should be eliminated, and the
airspace should revert to the way it was in the year 2000.


The adverse effects of the flight restrictions do not accrue just to the
local airports that are directly affected. They radiate out to all the
airports from which flights into the FRZ and ADIZ might have originated,
but don't because the burden


and danger of being shot down

is too great. Flying to National Airport
in a Piper Cherokee from my home base in Danbury would take a little
under two hours. My home is ten minutes from Danbury, and National is
right in the center of Washington DC. This is an attractive
proposition, and I have done this in the past, for example to see a show
at the Kennedy Center. With the flight restrictions in place, National
is out of the question as a destination, as are the airports known as
the DC3. Dulles is possible, but it's not a very convenient airport and
it's another hour or more by ground transportation into the DC area, not
including the time it takes to arrange to rent a car or wait for a taxi.
Gaithersburg is another option, it's a little more convenient to land
at, but though there is a Metro within taxi distance, it is still a good
hour away from the action. Freeway airport is a hair closer but getting
transportation at Freeway is a bit of a problem. Manassas has rail
transportation, but it too takes over an hour, not counting the wait for
the train, after which I am still not where I want to be, and I am
dependent on the vagaries of a lot more ground transportation. In
addition, Manassas is further away from my home airport so the flight
would take longer. By the time all the overhead time has been figured
into getting where I want to go, my trip length has nearly doubled, each
way. Faced with this, I have elected many times to simply not make the
trip. My home base at Danbury airport loses my business, the intended
destination airport in the Capitol loses my business, Washington DC
itself loses my business and my tax dollars, the cultural events I would
have attended play to a slightly emptier house, and all the money that I
would have spent in any of these places is not available to be spent
again by those businesses. Further, the money that my friends in DC
would have spent along with me does not circulate either.

The Washington/Baltimore area becomes incrementally less vibrant.

Further, the existence of this illusory "special security airspace"
invites other areas to attempt to justify and implement their own
security airspace. There are plenty of cities that have attractive
terrorist targets and leaders that will not stand by while other towns
get "protection". Flight restrictions are an attractive "feel good"
measure that politicians can implement to make their citizens feel like
something is being done, yet in fact what is being done is that we are
slowly paralyzing ourselves. Small aircraft are eminently useful not
only for transportation and commerce, but also for sightseeing,
photography, training, search and rescue, construction surveys, they
support recreational activities such as parachuting and tourism, and
like boats of all sizes, they serve as a recreational activity in their
own right. But since the public does not have much contact with general
aviation, they are easily misled to believe that restrictions on our
basic freedoms such as the freedom to sightsee from the air around the
Capitol of our own country will serve them. It does not. It makes it
easier to choke out other freedoms.


Politicians


prospects for reelection

benefit by having citizens remain scared, if they can offer
something that will calm their anxieties. The proposed codification of
the existing temporary flight restrictions covering over ten thousand
cubic miles does exactly that. It reinforces the idea that small
airplanes are dangerous, that a significant terrorist attack is likely
to come from these "uncontrolled" airplanes, and that the government has
a ready solution at hand. Evacuating the buildings in the DC area when
a small plane flies overhead is an example of such posturing.
Ironically, for the one possible threat that a small airplane could
conceivably carry out (though far less effectively than a rented car),
which is the spread of chemical or biological agents, evacuating the
buildings is exactly the wrong thing to do. But it was done anyway.


There are certain things that simply must be accepted. Just as it is
not possible to protect oneself from gunfire when walking down the
street without giving up a significant quality of life, it is also not
possible to protect the nation from terrorist attacks by restricting our
airspace, unless we actually close down so much airspace that air travel
stops being practical. Like finding a number that is greater than six
but less than four, it cannot be done. Many people would pick five as a
solution. It may feel good, but it is in fact neither less than four,
nor greater than six.

The proposed rules codifying current flight restrictions for certain
aircraft operations in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area are like
using five as a solution. It neither provides real security, nor does
it preserve the freedoms that make this country great. We, as a nation,
and the FAA as an agency, need to choose between security and freedom.
We cannot have both, not even a little bit. Freedom gets eroded away
long before the illusion of security turns into real security.

I do not believe that rescinding the TSA’s 49 CFR part 1562, FAA’s NOTAM
3/0853, and the DC ADIZ/FRZ would increase the vulnerability or decrease
the level of protection now in place. I believe that the protection
that these rules provide is illusory, and illusions are very dangerous.

I am in favor of the freedoms that thousands upon thousands of people
have given their lives to obtain and preserve for this country. I am
opposed to the erosion of these freedoms to provide us the illusion of
security in the guise of a permanent and huge flight restricted area
around the greater Washington DC area.

Therefore, I recommend that your Alternative 1 - to rescind the TSA’s 49
CFR part 1562, FAA’s NOTAM 3/0853, and the DC ADIZ/FRZ, be enacted
immediately.

Jose



Bravo! Very well stated indeed.
  #124  
Old August 8th 05, 05:21 PM
Matt Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"bravocharlie" wrote in message
oups.com...
This generation
of
politicians is the generation of deferments and special privileges that
got the out of military service and harms way (obviously notable
exceptions
i.e. Powell, McCain, Kerry).


Kerry tried to get deferments (three times) and failed, then volunteered for
what he though was safe duty (Navy), then tried again to get safe duty (SB's
at the time were coastal).

At least find out what you're talking about and don't just rely on the MSM.


  #125  
Old August 8th 05, 05:27 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

That is a sentiment worthy of being included in the comments to NPRM.
Can you draft it as such?

  #126  
Old August 8th 05, 05:31 PM
Jose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It may be true that a compromise is better than losing the battle
completely, but we are not negotiating here. We don't get to say "yes"
or "no".

Rather, we are making a point - that point being that restrictions in
the DC area do nothing to enhance security and do a lot to adversely
affect pilots and those they deal with. This point needs to be made
clearly and convincingly.

I assure you as a military man who has watched very carefully how these "critters" operate, it's a very real threat.


Is it a threat that can actually be defended against? I think not.

...A small plane in itself may not carry enough to do alot of damage, but in that area it would not take alot of damage to do what the bad guys want...to show they can hit wherever they want when they want.


I can think up a hundred scenarios of this nature, and I'm not even a
terrorist. For example, dropping a stick of dynamite down a gas
station's storage tank, coordinated over a hundred gas stations, would
make the same point. How easy is it for a terrorist to get a job
pumping gas? There isn't a good way of defending against this either
without virtually erasing the constitution first (after which it no
longer matters).

They ALL care about a vote, not your freedom. We must bend...


but not bend over.

Bending comes into play when we get to choose among alternatives - not
when we show (or show up) justification for alternatives.

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.
  #127  
Old August 8th 05, 05:49 PM
George Patterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

W P Dixon wrote:
Jose,
I think you most definitely are missing something, a simple fact that
something will exist in the DC area if we like it or not. So why not
make it something we could be alittle bit happier with.


But your proposal for a super-B doesn't produce anything I would be happier
with. I used to be able to cut a good deal of time off trips south by cutting
under the class-B floor or (rarely) going over the top. I can't do that with the
ADIZ and wouldn't be able to do that with your proposal.

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.
  #128  
Old August 8th 05, 06:01 PM
Happy Dog
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 17:17:48 -0400, "Happy Dog"
wrote in ::

I'm saying you're wrong.


As you haven't provided an alternate plausible explanation for the
existence of the DC ADIZ nor any evidence to support your view, I am
not able to argue it.


It doesn't work that way. You made two claims. Then you engaged in warious
forms of diversion when pressed for evidence. The ADIZ is a politically
motivated action. There is *plenty* of evidence of this and I pointed you
to an article in AOPA. There is little evidence that it's to reduce radar
clutter or prevent us silly pilots from getting our stupid asses shot out of
the air. These are your claims. Government as nanny. It's crap.

Note the alternate suggestions here.

If you don't like the way I say it,


Your rudeness speaks volumes about you.


It's Usenet, darling.

killfile me.


I prefer not to stick my head in the sand, thanks. Who knows, you
might post something about which you actually have some knowledge
sometime.


In this thread, my knowledge isn't the issue as much as you try to make it
so. But, hope away.

moo


  #129  
Old August 8th 05, 06:21 PM
W P Dixon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jose I do agree with a whole lot of what you say, but you have to understand
you are getting to choose. You can choose to haggle , or you can choose to
say we don't need it and you will get nowhere.
As for the won't meet the standards of the world ICAO for Class
B,....SO! We don't need anyones approval for something we consider to be in
our nations defense. Sometimes we have to make a rule for us, this would be
one of those cases.
It would take alot more than just a no fly or ADIZ to make it effective,
it would include closing our borders to illegals, and kicking the ones here
out. That is this nations greatest threat. If no "bad guys" are here, then I
am sure we could all agree none of this other would be necessary at all. But
we can't get either party to do what is basically there job...defend the
borders.
And yes Larry I realize what you are saying about the FAA and all with
the final say, and not Congress. That is the way they HOPE it goes. If
enough pressure from the right people,VOTERS, and in the right manner is
applied then Congress will in fact make the ruling change themselves.
My ClassBplus plan may not be perfect, but it is the only logical idea I
have heard. I would love to hear more! But any idea that you can tell the
American people that there is no threat and you are in a dreamworld and will
get nowhere very quickly. Acknowledge a small threat, and bend a hair! I can
come up with about 100 things to do in a C-150 that would shut this nation
down. I will not post nor discuss them , but you can be assured I am not the
only one that has thought of them. But in case some nut hasn't I am not
going to give him any ideas.
YEP I said him, and a islamic him at that...not the 85 year old grandma
getting strip searched at the airport!!!!Jose you made a good statement
about what happened to the Japanese here during WWII. But I am afraid we are
so worried about doing THAT again that we are not doing what we should be
doing. We should be watching them like Hawks, as the Brits can attest to. If
we are to PC to do that to defend ourselves it shows how soft we have
become. Soft equals vunerable....and our citizens are wayyyyyyy to soft.
So like I have said, my idea is a compromise and the only one I have
seen here. It's alot more complicated than just flying around DC, there are
lots and lots of factors that all add up. Seems some of us are to focused on
looking straight ahead at this problem and not the 360 degree view that is
required to really comprehend it. We must bend, we must understand, and we
must realize that some old sets of "how things are" will have to be changed,
and yep that may include some orginizations rule of airspace definition.
But if someone can come up with any idea without putting the "don't
think it's needed" on it, hey let's hear it. Any letter with the phrase
"don't think it's needed" will be immediately put in File 6..the trashcan.

Patrick



  #130  
Old August 8th 05, 06:30 PM
bravocharlie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Geez...I certainly didn't want to open that up again.
I'll capitulate this. The right-wing establishment has succeeded in
making it conventional
wisdom that Kerry was a coward. No need to rub it in.

-BC

 




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 13th 03 12:01 AM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.