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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
That is a sentiment worthy of being included in the comments to NPRM.
Can you draft it as such? |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 12th 03 11:01 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |