Washington DC airspace closing for good?

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 15:13:34 -0700, "Terry Briggs"
wrote in ::

I am still lost on who is going to listen to your presentation, agree with
it, and take action that you will like.

The "presentation" will be posted during the NPRM comment period. If
you had read the NPRM you'd know that.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote

Ha good luck with that request.

The best thing to do is to open up the kill file, and make room for yet
another loony tunes.
--
Jim in NC

In article ,
"John T" wrote:

Terry Briggs wrote:

Excuse me for being pessimistic, but I think I saw a note on another
thread here that there are about 600,000 pilots in the USA.

Forgive my math, but isn't that less than 1% of the population?

600k / 290M = ~0.2%

If that is the case, and politicians are great at figuring out who
matters, why should anyone in Washington listen to us?

They may not, but that's not a reason to keep quiet.

Actually, politicians work on the assumption that most people are lazy,
and that one person speaking up represents the views of 100 or so others
who feel the same way but were just to complacent or busy to make their
views known. If even half of the 600,000 pilots in the country were to
weigh in against the NPRM it would be major news, and the politicians
would notice.

For myself, I am on the West coast and so not directly affected by the
ADIZ. But I am offended by it. The way this country is going we're
going to have to change the last line of the national anthem to read
"the land of the protected and the home of the fearful." Personally,
I'd rather be free than safe.

Give me liberty or give me death.

Ron Garret

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 18:38:01 -0700, Ron Garret
wrote in ::

The way this country is going we're
going to have to change the last line of the national anthem to read
"the land of the protected and the home of the fearful." Personally,
I'd rather be free than safe.

Larry Dighera wrote:

We need to provide astute arguments that will dissuade
the FAA from adopting the permanent closure of 2,000 square miles of
airspace first.

I agree with this, as far as it goes, but I still think from reading that
proposal that the FAA is a *very* reluctant partner in this effort. If so, our
efforts should also be spent on pressuring Congress.

I'd bet this whole thing is the brainchild of some of those Congresscritters
who're POed about the recent evacuations. They just discovered that they can't
put anyone in jail over those, and they want to "fix" that.

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.

bravocharlie wrote:

Another thing I'd like to mention is the sometimes effective strategy
of calling one's congressman. The FAA does have to answer to congress,
and at times, if a group puts enough pressure on enough represenatives,
change can occur.

And I believe that this entire effort originated there. I wholeheartedly agree
with you that Congress should be contacted.

My personal take is that we will get the best effect by placing special emphasis
on the cost of this proposal, but I could be wrong there.

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.

Larry Dighera wrote:

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

Right. If adopted, permanent closure of 2,000 square miles of
airspace will set a precedent for additional closures in the future.

You don't even have to look that far ahead -- just plan a flight from 3N6 to TYS
and see what you have to deal with.

There are a lot of pilots outside the ADIZ who are affected by it frequently.

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.

Terry Briggs wrote:

It appears to me that the AOPA (no matter how many of us join) is toothless
and can't even win the minor skirmishes like Meigs.

If you view AOPA as an organization that wins battles by conflict, then you are
correct. AOPA wins battles purely by negotiation and exposure of backroom deals.
When faced by an unscrupulous individual like Daley, AOPA will lose (as will we
all).

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.

Bob Noel wrote:

two words: user fees.

Why on Earth would you mention them?

*I* was discussing tactics to defeat this proposal. You want to give the other
side arguments to use in favor of it? Maybe your friends and relatives would
automatically think - Hey, make the pilots pay for it." Fortunately, mine won't.

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.

In article OGVIe.71$Yf7.52@trndny06, George Patterson
wrote:

two words: user fees.

Why on Earth would you mention them? *I* was discussing tactics to defeat this proposal.

And *I* was pointing out a problem with those tactics. Trying to defeat
the stupid ADIZ rule based on increased costs to the FAA puts the issue of
costs front and center. This will naturally lead to looking at user fees to
pay for this.

Note that "it costs too much" is a losing argument against a
"security" measure, especially if there is some way to make someone
else pay for the increased costs.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule